We saw war in Warsaw (now say that 5 times fast)

Continuing along my theme of topical issues to address, this post concerns certain issues addressed and due to be addressed in Warsaw, at the COP19 talks. On the final day of these talks, there has been much controversy over the lack of productive debate over the past couple of weeks. There was also controversy over the allocation of two days of the conference, solely dedicated to the coal industry, which is still and set to continue to be the dominant energy source in Poland (Harvey, 2013). The aim of the previous week of talks with the higher echelons of governments, was to forge an agreement to be signed in Paris in 2015 and to come into force in 2020. There was the intention of having a focus and inclusion of developing countries into the agreements in this round of discussions, and they wanted clearer commitments to access to enabling funding, to the tune of $100 bn by 2020. This has been broadly agreed upon thus far, but no details confirmed, as the developed countries are keeping things vague; not overly surprising.

This follows the interesting narrative which was addressed in Warsaw; the notion of ‘loss and damage’, which was pushed by the states which are predicted to be more affected by the effects of climate change than others. This is pushed by these states because they are seen to contribute the least to the cause of climate change yet will be worst affected, therefore they want compensation or action to mitigate for climate change. Loss or damage is incurred when costs of adaptation are not recuperated, or when attempts to adapt are ineffective. Loss and damage will still occur now regardless of adaptive action or mitigating change (Huq et al., 2013). This idea was first proposed in 1991 by the small island state of Vanuatu, estimated to be eventually overtaken by sea level rise. The progress which was made in the dying hours of the conference, achieved an agreement from the ‘developed’ countries to create a compensation scheme, but no figures or mechanisms were set out. The idea of an independent body to monitor this process was unsuccessful, as the developed economies felt there shouldn’t be an automated compensation system following a crisis. (http://rt.com/news/climate-change-walkout-warsaw-050/). 

I agree with this, there shouldn’t be an automated system, and I’m not sure I even agree with the ‘loss and damage’ system as a whole. I think a far more sustainable way to prevent loss and damage is to mitigate, not adapt. Although adaptation is a key factor of living with and protecting against climate change, and help should be given to those states who are less economically able to provide sufficient adaptive measures or in worst case scenario; emergency aid. I believe that the developed countries should be helping where they can, but a far more constructive method would be instead of giving lump sums of money, to subsidize renewable energy technology for them or promote community renewables, while working to reduce domestic energy use and greenhouse emissions. This two tier approach would allow economic growth in the developing regions, enabling them to help themselves through climate change mitigation and adaptation. Also, the developed countries, who are (historically, at least) far more guilty in the trial of who emitted the most CO₂, would be working towards a lower carbon economy, no longer with the excuse of waiting for the developing economies.

The role of renewables in the shift to a lower carbon economy is widely accepted as critical. Although, the exact relationship between the expansion of RE and climate change trends are very hard to determine due to the vast numbers of variables, and the varying role of the carbon cycle (Krey and Clarke, 2011). Two key problems which arise when trying to create RE targets (especially in an international setting) are:

1. Strategic planning takes place under high uncertainty
2. Decision makers should be planning for large increases in RE – and this is difficult to plan on a large scale.

The expansion rate of RE is indicative of the support provided to the technology (both public and private support). It is thought that some renewables are more influenced by public support (through policy) than others; for instance, solar and geothermal are seen to be more influenced, as those technologies are less developed than wind or hydropower (Kray andClarke, 2011).

Looking to the future, as the talks in Warsaw attempted to do, indicates that much higher investment costs will be required to extract and transport conventional fuels, therefore creating a natural economic shift to alternatives. However, by this point, the emissions could be too high and stabilisation might not occur till 650ppm. Therefore CO₂ can be reduced through increased conversion efficiencies of heat and electricity plants, increased efficiencies of end of pipe solutions, improved energy management systems and carbon sequestration (Sims, 2001). Therefore RE may well not be the silver bullet we were all hoping for, but it may come to be the trusty broad sword.

Questionable Politics

Thursday’s Question Time concerned me greatly, not only due to the notion of the debate over the EXISTENCE of climate change, but the apparent lack of understanding shown by some of the people who are incredibly influential in political spheres. Nigel Lawson (NL) (previous Chancellor in Thatcher government), was predictably dismissive of climate change, especially in relation to the relationship between climate change and the effect on tropical storms in light of the terrible Typhoon Haiyan. Ed Davey (Minister for Energy and Climate Change in the current government) agreed with NL about the lack of evidence from the IPCC regarding the effects of climate change on the frequency of tropical storms, but he stressed the increased intensity and therefore increased vulnerability of people.

However, according the recently released 5^th assessment report (summary for policymakers); “extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century” (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf). This seems contradictory to the analysis that tropical cyclone activity cannot be attributed as easily to climate change as the IPCC state that it is “more likely than not” to increase intensity in tropical cyclone activity (more than 50% chance). Although there is no reference to frequency of specifically tropical storms, therefore it cannot be either refuted or claimed that climate change affects them.

On another note; NL’s claim that ‘global warming’ has happened ‘very little’, over the last 10-15 years. Where to begin? This displays an odd understanding of scientific consensus, especially over the nature of what climate change entails, regarding the time period referenced of 15 years. Considering, the idea of the ‘Anthropocene’ which claims that due to human influence on the environment, we now live in a new geological epoch (Crutzen, 2002). Geological epochs are timescales of tens of millions of years, and ‘climate’ of an area is generally established over the course of 30-35 years, therefore, to use the argument that little has changed over 15 years is misleading. More to the point, considering the frequency of extreme events, such as droughts and floods, and the intensity of them, the rate of change over the last 15 years is actually astonishing.

Stella Creasy (Shadow Business Minister) used an intriguing phrase: “we are not immune to our own responsibility”… and this was in response to a commonly made point to the tone of ‘what can we do when China and India are polluting so much more’. It is true that the industrial heartland of the world now lies to the east, however, the does not dissolve us of responsibility, both to the environment, but to other countries to lead the paradigm shift in attitudes, behaviours and practices required to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In my view, it is a very negative and defeatist stance to take, to say that there is no point changing our way of life when others aren’t doing the same. It is also an inaccurate one as a great deal is being done in China especially, to clean up and make a renewables shift, at least in policy circles.

It was refreshing to see general consensus from the speakers (except NL) regarding the actions required, and the urgency needed, especially considering the upcoming climate talks in Warsaw over the next couple of weeks. I hope that this means the UK will maintain its previous apparent strong attitude (however superficial) to climate change and its recognition of the need and benefits that renewable energy can generate if structured correctly. I say this in the light of the news that the Japanese have drastically reduced they’re carbon targets for 2020, down from a 25% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels to a 3.8% reductions on 2005 levels; which actually amounts to a 3% increase in net emissions (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reduction-in-japanese-carbon-emissions-target-for-2020-statement-by-edward-davey). Although Japan have already done a great deal in regards to energy efficiency and conservation, this seems an untimely and unwelcome alteration to a positive policy. And considering that it has reaffirmed its aim to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, I find this medium term target change an odd re-evaluation, and there are no qualifications or reasoning for it published yet. I consider that it could be related to post-Fukushima energy policy change, combined with the simple fact that due to improvements and high standards already existing, the government can afford to reduce the medium term targets while still achieving the longer term goal, and getting its energy system and network restored and revitalised following the still ongoing upheaval caused by the Fukushima disaster.

In regards to the UK, the discussion on Question Time was infuriating to listen to, due the fact that climate change is still being ‘debated’ and the fact that a 95% confidence in anthropogenic climate change is still insufficient to convince sceptics. However, this genuine frustration did seem to be mirrored in the faces and voices of the politicians and other influential business figures. This is what I will cling to when following the Warsaw discussions.

(lack of) Food for Thought

Recently, the EU has capped the first generation biofuel requirement from 10% of transportation fuel by 2020 to 6%, in light of concerns surrounding land use change and related price increases. First generation biofuels are those produced from rapeseed, palm oil, soya and other food crops (Bellona Europe) but there are moves now to transfer from these forms of biofuel to second generation fuels such as agricultural waste and algae (Besant, 2013).

Biofuels are divided into bioethanol and biodiesel, and the use of biodiesel does not require any alteration to a diesel engine (Muir, 2013), which is one of the advantages of using biofuels, which has lead to the increasing prominence of biofuels in transport (Mattison and Norris, 2007). They were also claimed to be carbon neutral as the crops ‘extract’ CO₂ for respiration and therefore this negated the CO₂ released when burnt for fuel, and that the use of biofuels slightly reduced dependence on conventional sources. However this has been progressively criticized as being too simplistic. Therefore after the Gallagher Review (independent EU report) which concluded that biofuels could actually increase GHG emissions due to land use change, the EU came under increasing pressure to alter the EU Biofuels Directive. This came into fruition in September when the requirement for biofuel use in transportation fuel was reduced to 6%.

(source: quarterbridge.wordpress.com,2013)

Other criticisms of biofuels concern the effect on food security, as Oxfam claims that the land which is currently being used for biofuels could be used to feed 127 million people. This seems incredibly high, although whether this land would realistically produce high yield crops for food, is still under debate. The land used for growing biofuels would be ideally located on land unsuitable for agriculture (Kanellos, 2008), however this seems unrealistic in countries less able to irrigate sufficiently, or in areas unable to access to fertilizers, as otherwise the area would have been likely been used for agriculture already. This is linked to the viability of growing biofuels, dependent on the area’s characteristics such as climate, water availability, if the crop is native to the area and fertilizer availability/affordability, and existing land use.

Biodiversity must also be considered, as the large areas of land given over to biofuels would only consist of one crop, and in turn this can lead to insects and pests becoming more effective at destroying that one type of crop, leading to ecological system degradation. Growing biofuels generally causes a change in species populations, leading to a changing community structure and the disappearance and colonisation of different species (JNCC report no. 456, 2011). Biodiversity change goes hand in hand with land use change.

Indirect land use change occurs when land which would otherwise have been used for agriculture is used for biofuel cultivation for instance (Earnst and Young, 2013), and therefore agriculture is pushed on to more marginal lands such as peat bogs which could release even more CO₂, require more intensive farming or have a reduced food output. These problems can be avoided through changing the type of fuel used for biofuels, for instance moving towards cultivating and using algae which is higher yielding and more space efficient (Biofuel.org).

Large scale algae cultivation (source: alibaba.com, 2013)

 

I think biofuels have their place in the future of the global energy mix, however despite the reduction in GHGs produced when combusted due to the cleaner burning fuel, I contest the idea of biofuels being ‘renewable’. Although they can be continuously grown on demand, they are not naturally occurring in the same way that heat or wind is, and to me, the negative direct and indirect effects outweigh the benefits, as there are other alternatives to reduce reliance on petrol or diesel for transport fuel. I support the capped limit on biofuels place in EU transportation fuel, however I feel this should have a caveat of finding an alternative to first generation biofuels, or a promise of investment in R&D for the use of algae for instance. Otherwise there is a danger of momentum being moved in the opposite direction to encouraging a shift to renewables and continuing to undo the positive policies applied under the Renewables Directive.