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.