Experts warn of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and a warmer 2009
Mark Rice-Oxley, Straits Times 4 Jan 09;
Last year, oil prices spiked, then collapsed, climate change talks stuttered and nuclear power re-emerged. Europe banned incandescent lightbulbs, Britain made cutting emissions legally binding and United States President-elect Barack Obama appointed the greenest US Cabinet ever.
But how does this confluence of factors augur for 2009?
Where is science heading on climate change - how bad is it?
One thing's for sure: 2009 will be warmer than 2008. Last year was the coolest of the current millennium. But don't be too reassured. It was also the 10th hottest on record. The only years in the last century that were hotter were 1997 and 1998.
'It will be a warmer year this year,' says Mr Phil Jones, a climatologist at the University of East Anglia in England. He says annual ups and downs are negligible: the longer-term trend is sobering.
'We are on an upward trajectory of 0.2 degrees per decade,' he says. 'The trouble is greenhouse gas emissions are going up faster than that, the ocean is picking up a significant amount of CO2 and cannot go on doing that. More will stay in the atmosphere and as you get more warmth in polar regions, you'll get more greenhouse gases released.'
Greenhouse gas emissions have jumped 70 per cent since 1970. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently around 380 parts per million. Scientific consensus wants this benchmark figure stabilised at or below 450 to keep temperatures from rising more than two degrees this century.
Will the recession defeat efforts to combat climate change, or can greenery push-pull us out of economic decline?
The signals are mixed. On the one hand, leaders like Mr Obama are promising a 'green new deal' through formidable investment in the green economy.
Environmentalists argue that green technology is far more labour-intensive than traditional energy sources such as oil and nuclear. There will also be plenty of jobs in the energy efficiency segment, according to Mr Lester Brown, founder of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.
'If you compare wind and solar technologies versus coal, it's much more labour-intensive by a factor of two or three. So if you're interested in creating jobs, you have to look at efficiency and renewables,' he says.
Mr Andrew Simms, policy director at the London-based New Economics Foundation, says substantial investment in an 'environmental transformation programme' could create 'countless green-collar jobs'.
The slowdown will also help the emissions-cutting cause by reducing energy usage. A Deutsche Bank report last month said that European Union (EU) emissions could fall 10 per cent this year from 2007 levels.
But on the other hand, recession is the last thing that expensive new technologies need. Investment has already tapered off and will continue to do so while credit is tight in 2009, and hard-pressed consumers are likely to be deflected from their newfound interest in (costly) green living.
'It will have some negative influence in terms of raising capital for new investments,' warns Mr Brown.
Then there are the other more oblique effects of recession, like the impact on recycling or deforestation. The global slowdown has already emasculated the market for recycled materials like paper, plastic and glass.
The upshot may be that the authorities have to revert to burning or landfilling, both of which generate greenhouse gases. As for forests, in a world where cash is a necessity today and a tree is an insurance policy for tomorrow, it is not hard to see where the axe could fall.
Cheap oil won't last. Will we plan ahead this time?
Oil prices have collapsed 70 per cent from peaks just shy of US$150 a barrel mid-year. Demand for crude fell in 2008 for the first time in 25 years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
But few expect it to stay that way. Experts believe that current prices of below US$40 a barrel will persist only as long as the downturn. The IEA has, for the first time, hinted that the era of 'peak oil' may be upon us - the highwater mark of production, after which output will start to taper off. As soon as economic growth resumes, it will open up a costly gap between supply and demand, unless the world undertakes a radical transformation of the energy model.
'The minute you get recovery, you'll get a sharp rise in oil which will stall the recovery,' says Prof Tom Burke, an environmental scientist. 'So you have to use the stimulus to get yourself off oil dependency, and that will reduce the climate curve and you'll start to drive carbon the way you want it to go.
'It's a one-time opportunity. The financial crisis couldn't have come at a better time because it's forcing us to act.'
So what technologies will make this happen?
Concentrated solar energy plants, electric cars, wave power, second-generation biofuels ... the list of new technologies that could start to make a difference in 2009 is as long as it is exotic. Yet most promise only incremental change. For the massive transformative shift towards a lower-carbon world, experts are looking at three more familiar areas.
# Wind power. Mr Brown is looking to this, particularly offshore, to help deliver the kind of emission cuts that will stop the world overheating. He reckons that the world could be generating 40 per cent of its electricity from wind by 2030. This would require 1.5m turbines producing 2MW each. Sounds formidable? Yes, he says, but given that we already have 100,000 in operation and deployment is increasing exponentially, it may not be so far-fetched.
'The state of Texas,' Mr Brown notes, 'has become our leading generator of electricity from wind, with 6,000MW installed and several thousand more under construction and in the planning stage. When these are completed, they will supply more electricity than the 24m people in Texas can consume.'
But he adds that because of the relative cost of wind power, it is essential that tax incentives like the Wind Production Tax credit are rolled over next year through to 2015.
# Carbon capture and storage. Others fret that even with a massive take-up of renewable energy, the world will still burn coal. Nuclear energy will continue its comeback in 2009, but even the Chinese, with the most ambitious nuclear power programme in the world, will still have to rely heavily on coal.
Efforts will thus have to be redoubled to develop and test systems that can sequester the carbon produced by burning coal and pump it back into the ground, an as yet unproven technology called carbon capture and storage. It is still years away from implementation and hundreds of millions of dollars more costly than standard power stations, but crucially, the EU agreed at its summit last month to a mechanism to help fund 12 pilot projects.
'If we don't deploy it very fast, then we cannot keep the climate within the bounds of a manageable problem,' says Prof Burke.
# Energy efficiency. Pessimists argue that renewables and clean coal together will still not be able to reduce emissions by the 80 per cent target by 2050.
'Under a business-as-usual scenario,' argues Mr Antony Froggatt, a climate change expert at London's Chatham House think tank, 'there will be a 50 per cent increase in energy demand by 2030 and 85 per cent will be fossil-fuel based and that will mean a 6-degree increase in temperatures.'
This is the doomsday scenario climate scientists are desperately urging people to try and avoid.
The IEA reckons energy efficiency can cut usage by 2050 by half of today's consumption. 'We can change lightbulbs, get rid of standbys on equipment, ratchet up efficiency on appliances,' says Mr Froggatt.
What hopes remain for a global deal at Copenhagen?
The major institutional event of 2009 will be the Copenhagen climate talks, designed to agree to a successor treaty to the Kyoto protocol, which is due to expire in 2012. World leaders may assemble in New York in September to assess how the land lies. Yet from precursor talks at Poznan last month, hopes are not high.
Analysts are sceptical that a global deal with a number in it will emerge - that is, how deeply the world intends to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a certain date. There are also disagreements on how much money the rich world should be stumping up to help developing nations adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.
'The funds are nowhere near the scale that will be required,' says Mr Froggatt.
The new US administration will be crucial in framing the debate running up to Copenhagen. Although Mr Obama has promised a far greener approach, 'nobody really thinks the US will be in a position by the end of this year to sign up to a comprehensive deal,' warns Prof Burke.
He says Mr Obama will not get into the same situation as with Kyoto, where the US negotiated a treaty but couldn't get it through Congress. The new president will likely approach things the other way around.
'You'll see legislation start in Congress this year and it will be ambitious, but nobody thinks it will be completed this year. The US will be a much more constructive and positive player, but will still find it difficult to sign up to emissions targets,' he says.
Mr Obama's powerful environmental team may instead use existing clean-air acts to drive a reduction in emissions.
Mr Brown says, in any case, Copenhagen is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg. 'Internationally negotiated climate agreements are largely obsolete,' he says. 'It takes years to negotiate these agreements and years to get them ratified.'
He says countries, businesses and the local authorities are acting unilaterally because, increasingly, it makes commercial and social sense to do so.
'It has nothing to do with climate negotiations - the people who are investing in wind farms are doing so because they expect to make money.
Read more!
Posts
visitors since Nov 07