Connect with us

Green Planet

Why Europe must back a technology-neutral energy policy

Published

on

Some observers believe the Europe 2020 package, coupled with the economic showdown, is bringing the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions under control. Bryony Worthington disagrees and looks to the EU’s 2030 package for the necessary measures.

The growing risk of climate change means that energy systems that have served us well for so long now have to change. Climate science indicates that to stay within the agreed limit of no more than a 2ºC average global increase in temperature, greenhouse gas emissions need to drop to zero, and that in the second half of this century we will probably need to remove those gases from the atmosphere to make up for today’s high emissions levels.

The profound implications for our energy markets mean that the question is how best to manage this transition while maintaining security of supply, and without massive increases in energy bills. There’s no straightforward answer because in theory the most cost-efficient way is to apply a price to emissions that allows market forces to establish least-cost solutions. In practice, though, this has already proved difficult. The EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) introduced in 2005 a carbon price affecting half of the European economy, and it hasn’t fixed the problem. It wasn’t then, and still isn’t, the only EU policy for reducing emissions. The EU’s 2020 energy and climate package included policies to boost renewables and increase energy efficiency. The renewables policy was as much an industrial innovation and energy security policy as a carbon policy, and it resulted in significant investments across the EU. Energy efficiency policies have helped to overcome non-price barriers to carbon abatement, and demand for energy is falling further as these policies are supplemented by warmer than average temperatures.

Technology neutral subsidies need not exist forever since their purpose is to stimulate innovation and bring down costs of commercial solutions

The 2020 package, combined with slower economic growth following the 2008 banking crisis, has meant that Europe’s emissions are falling and the carbon price under the ETS is low. Some therefore see little need to do more to manage the transition to a low carbon economy, but I disagree. We need to increase our efforts, but use a different approach.

Europe’s growth of renewables has not displaced the most carbon intensive forms of energy; high gas prices and low coal prices have meant higher coal burn. This has kept the carbon intensity of the economy higher than it would otherwise have been. Large subsidies have been available in the power sector for renewables, but in industrial sectors there have been few incentives for investment in decarbonisation beyond incremental increases in efficiency. The focus of any industry facing a low but rising carbon price has been on securing compensations and exemptions. Few have argued in favour of support for investment in decarbonisation technologies, with the result that there is no support mechanism for CCS, CHP, gas or nuclear in industry beyond a weak carbon price. And the carbon price mechanism is designed in such a way as to penalise investment and sometimes reward the offshoring of production, so further exacerbating industries’ investment woes. This has to change.

Fortunately, there are signs that the EU’s 2030 climate and energy package will introduce changes. But it is far from clear that the new approach needed will actually be adopted. If Europe is serious about achieving deep long term emissions cuts here’s what it will need to do.

The place to start is with the Emissions Trading Scheme, which instead of being the EU’s flagship climate policy has run aground, weighed down by a massive surplus of emissions allowances. Permanently removing excess allowances and introducing an on-going mechanism to adjust for over and under supply has to be Europe’s priority and it is greatly to be hoped that legislation can be passed next year to achieve this.

It is high time we started to take decarbonisation in industry seriously and adopt a carrot and stick approach in which the carrot is sufficiently well designed to change investment behaviour

Sorting out the surplus is only part of the solution. The ETS also needs to properly reward investment, and not to create windfalls for companies that reduce production within the EU. This can be done through allocation methodologies that take production levels into account.

With a functioning carbon pricing policy in place once more, the need for additional policies to deliver emissions reductions is reduced, so the cost of abatement per tonne saved can also be reduced. But it would be wrong to assume that a higher carbon price is all that is needed. For one thing, at the moment the carbon price covers only half of the economy, and for another there are plenty of non-price barriers to saving emissions and money that policy-makers should address. Subsidies for specific technologies like renewables should be reformed and already the EU has decided to drop legally-binding elements of the renewables targets. The risk remains that non-carbon elements of these subsidies like industrial innovation and energy security will be lost, thus slowing the speed of the EU’s transition.

To counter this, a technology-neutral approach to creating markets for zero carbon technologies across all sectors should be adopted. For power generation, this could be achieved by setting performance standards relating to the carbon intensity of supplied electricity – similar to the standards applied to vehicles industry. For industry, a system for spurring investment in innovation can be designed which rewards zero carbon heat production, as opposed to electricity. This could be funded out of ETS receipts and delivered via long-term contracts or tradable certificates. So far though, if no renewable technology to decarbonise industrial processes is available, industrial players have been frozen out of market-based incentives, with the carbon price unable alone to provide the level of incentive that’s needed.

It is high time we started to take decarbonisation in industry seriously and adopt a carrot and stick approach in which the carrot is sufficiently well designed to change investment behaviour. Technology neutral subsidies need not exist forever since their purpose is to stimulate innovation and bring down costs of commercial solutions. But just as renewable subsidies had a role to play, industrial decarbonisation will need targeted temporary support.

There is the need for a much more dynamic approach to energy R&D focussed on high risk, high reward breakthroughs in the way that the successful DARP-E model in the U.S. does. Of course, full decarbonisation needs to be achieved, but it must be done at least cost and securely. For this we will need to deploy a whole host of technologies, some of which we know about and have already made progress in, but many others are still only ideas in labs. Europe has a proud history of invention and innovation but we are less good at commercialising new technologies. Market-led innovation already occurs where there are sufficient deployment incentives to justify investment, but these are likely to deliver only incremental improvements and not step changes – across the EU, the state still has an important role to play here.

I hope that Europe will enter the Paris climate negotiations in December with an ambitious overall goal for reducing emissions along with a realistic plan for delivering a long-term transition of our energy systems. We cannot focus all our attention on the power sector to the detriment of heavy industries, and we cannot pretend that only one or two technologies will deliver the cuts we need. We Europeans must secure investment in innovation and show that it really is possible to run an industrialised economy and to reduce greenhouse gases. If we want China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea to commit to reducing their emissions, they will want to know how they can do so in the context of their own industrialisation. We must have answers when they ask us how to decarbonise refining along with the production of metals, chemicals, cement and ceramics.

It is not too late – we still have five years before the 2030 energy and climate package starts. There is much detail still to be developed and negotiated, but we can yet arrive at a policy package that secures Europe’s place at the forefront of zero carbon innovation and investment. 

 

This article first appeared in the Spring 2015 issue of Europe’s World.

Continue Reading
Comments

Green Planet

Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

MD Staff

Published

on

Air pollution can have a “huge” negative effect on cognitive intelligence – especially amongst older men – according to a study released this past August.

The research is one of the first of its kind to focus on the links between air pollution and cognition in older people. It was undertaken by scientists at Peking University in Beijing, China and Yale University in the U.S. and was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. In particular, it found that long-term exposure to air pollution may impede overall cognitive performance.

The researchers’ sample set included a panel of over 25,000 people across 162 randomly chosen counties in China. The study was also based on daily readings for three atmospheric pollutants, namely sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (PM10) where the participants lived.

The research found that that accumulative exposure to air pollution impedes cognitive performance in verbal and math tests. It found that as people age, the negative effect becomes particularly pronounced on verbal scores, especially for men while, “the gender gap is particularly large for the less educated.” One of the reasons why the researchers suggest that older men with less education were worst affected by chronic exposure to air pollution is because those subjects often work in outdoor, manual jobs.

The scientists concluded that, “The damage on the aging brain by air pollution likely imposes substantial health and economic costs, considering that cognitive functioning is critical for the elderly for both running daily errands and making high-stake decisions.” Given this damaging effect of air pollution on cognition, particularly on the aging brain, “the study implies that the indirect effect on social welfare could be much larger than previously thought.”

“Polluted air can cause everyone to reduce their level of education by one year, which is huge,” Yale School of Public Health’s Professor Xi Chen, one of the report’s authors, said in an interview published in The Guardian.

The study also suggests that air pollution increases the risk of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

“Air pollution is a significant threat to public health and this study highlights the negative effect that such pollution may have on the ageing brain,” said Soraya Smaoun, Air Quality Coordinator at UN Environment. “A better understanding of the critical links between air pollution and health for policies and investments supporting cleaner transport and power generation, as well as energy-efficient housing and municipal waste management can reduce key sources of outdoor air pollution.”

According to the World Health Organization, seven million people die each year from exposure to polluted air, both indoor and outdoor. The three biggest killers which are associated to air pollution are stroke (2.2 million deaths), heart disease (2.0 million) and lung disease and cancer (1.7 million deaths).

The World Health Organization’s air quality database shows that that 97 per cent of cities in low- and middle-income countries with more than 100,000 inhabitants do not meet air quality guidelines presently. However, the percentage is much lower in higher income countries – 40 per cent.

What is being done about air pollution?

A worldwide movement to address air pollution is gradually taking shape and growing. Breathe Life – a global campaign headed by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the World Health Organization and UN Environment – is supporting a range of cleaner air initiatives that cover 39 cities, regions and countries, reaching over 80 million people.

Most major cities are still struggling to keep air pollution within acceptable levels as set out by the World Health Organization guidelines. However, by instituting policies and programmes to reduce transport and energy emissions, and by encouraging the use of clean energy, cities are leading change and improving the lives of a large number of people.

In 2018, the World Health Organization found that more than 57 per cent of cities in the Americas and more than 61 per cent of cities in Europe had seen a fall in both PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter between 2010 and 2016.

The rise of renewable energy is also ideally positioned to make a big difference, with investment in new renewable sources outstripping fossil fuel investments every year.

UN Environment

Continue Reading

Green Planet

IPCC Report: On Our global Jihad against Cognitive mind

Anis H. Bajrektarevic

Published

on

A major new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was just released in Korea on October 8 (2018). Although it is nearly 800 pages long and includes more than 6,000 scientific references, it can be summarized in few sentences:

The average global temperature is now 1.0°C above its pre-industrial levels.That increase is already causing more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, and is damaging untold number of land and sea ecosystems.

A 1.5°C increase, likely by 2040, will make things worse. A 2.0°C increase will be far worse than that. Only radical socio-economic and politico-diplomatic change can stop catastrophe. The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years left for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C. Beyond that an irreversibility effect would be set in motion: even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. To avoid the most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of a fantastic $54 trillion. This transformation goes – of course – beyond what we usually label as ‘economy’. It requires a change of entire human dynamics; moods and preference of how we extract, manufacture, distribute, consume, spend, live, travel, power all that, think of and teach about it.

Reactions are folding: “Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels would be a herculean task, involving rapid, dramatic changes in the way that governments, industries and societies function” – says the Nature magazine. Science Daily predicts: “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society … With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society”.

Ecological Footprint of ‘Here-Us-Now’ civilisation

However, for the informed and willing ones all was clear already with the Rio summit. Back then, I was quick to react: it was me being one of the very first to concept and introduce (and set as obligatory) the subject of SD (along with Environment Ethics) in the universities of Europe. Thus, for the past two decades I’ve been teaching my students that: “Currently, the amount of crops, animals and other bio matter we all extract from the earth each year exceeds what such a small planet can replace by an estimated 20% – meaning it takes almost 14,4 months to replenish what we use perannum – in consecutive 12 months – deficit spending of the worst kind.”

Lecture after lecture, generation after generation, I educated my students that: “Through pollution and global warming are legacies of products, processes and systems designed without thought to the environmental consequences, cohesion of international community along with rapid introduction of new international policies and strategies in a form of clean practices and technologies holds the solutions (e.g. promoting greater coherence between energy, research and environmental policies). Since the environmental degradation (incl. the accelerated speed of extinction of living species – loss of biodiversity) knows no borders – the SD (Sustainable Development) is a matrix of truly global dimensions.”

In the meantime, the Climate Change nihilists and paid lobbyists dominated media by accusing this sort of constructivism and predictive education as an environmental alarmism and scientific sensationalism. This is how we lost almost three decades from Rio over Johannesburg, Copenhagen, Kyoto and Paris to come to our current draw: an abyss of “only 12 years left” diagnosis.

How shall we now tackle our past optimism about the possibilities and the current pessimism about the probabilities? How to register our future claims rapidly and effectively on preservation of overall human vertical when we systematically ridiculed and dismissed every science short of quick profit (or defensive modernization), when we pauperized and disfranchised so many people of this planet  in past few decades like never before in history?

Hence, the rapid, far-reaching changes to almost every facet of society are needed to avoid catastrophic climate change, reforms far beyond anything governments are currently either doing or planning to do. Additionally, it requires complete reversion of our life styles and socio-economic fashions, passions and drives – e.g. elimination of “here-us-now” over-consumerism of everything tangible and non-tangible.

Social fractured Planet devastated by anti-intellectualism

Are we are able to mobilise our socially fractured, and anti-intellectualised globe that fast and that solid?

The world must invest $2.4 trillion in clean energy every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change, according to scientists convened by the United Nations. That of course includes an elimination of oil and gas from our Primary Energy Mix (PEM) as well as total eradication of the ICE-powered cars (of both diesel and petrol/ benzin). All that is required within the following decade.

What changes this new “Cambrian explosion” will cause on adaptive and non-adaptive inorganic clusters and systems of our biota, and its group dynamics? Notably, what impact it will have on the traditionally automotive-industry leaning regions, and what on aviation industry – which, at least when comes to continental Europe, could have been grounded decades ago – since even at our current technological level, the rail transportation would be cheaper faster safer than using planes? What implication does it bring to the extremely crude-exporting dependent Middle East, which is situated in a center of our planet but at the periphery of human progress? This is to name but few of numerous implications and unanswered dilemmas yet even unasked question[1].

No doubt, our crisis is real, but neither sudden nor recent. Our environmental, financial and politico-economic policies and practices have created the global stress for us and untold number of other species. Simply, our much-celebrated globalisation deprived from environmental and social concerns, as well as from a mutual and fair cooperation(instead of induced confrontation and perpetuated exclusion) caged us into the ecological globalistan and political terroristan. (Acidifying of oceans and brutalization of our human interactions are just two sides of a same coin. What is the social sphere for society that is the biosphere for the very life on earth, since what what we euphemistically call anthropogenic Climate Change is actually a brutal war against nature.)

The world based on agreed principles that – besides businesses and governments – involves all other societal stakeholders, re-captured global cohesion and commonly willing actions is not a better place. It is the only way for the human race to survive.

Deep and structural, this must be a crisis of our cognitivity. Therefore, the latest Climate Change (CC) Report is only seemingly on Climate; it is actually a behavioristic study on (the dead end of) our other ‘CC’ – competition and confrontation, instead of cooperation and (all-included) consensus. Simply, it is the Report on our continued global Jihad against cognitive mind.

  • [1] Still today, sustainability is lacking an operational definition: There is a controversy whether to consider a human-made capital combined with a natural capital (weak sustainability) or separately (strong sustainability). The central to this question is to which extend a human capital or rather technology can substitute the loss of natural resources.
Continue Reading

Green Planet

Accelerating Renewables Is Our Most Effective Climate Solution

MD Staff

Published

on

With the UN Climate Conference in Katowice (COP24) only weeks away, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the much-awaited Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. In its assessment of 1.5 °C pathway scenarios, the IPCC highlights the need for a rapid energy transition based on a significant increase of renewables particularly in end-use sectors. Commenting on this, Adnan Z. Amin, Director-General of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) today welcomed the report’s focus on the critical role of renewable energy in tackling climate change and urged the global community to accelerate its deployment.

No climate solution without renewables

“The IPCC report sends a clear signal and calls for a large-scale transformation of the global energy system. A decarbonised energy system, increasingly fueled by renewable sources, is vital to the global response to the threat of climate change”, Adnan Z. Amin said. “IRENA’s analysis shows that renewable energy and energy efficiency represent the most cost-effective pathway for achieving 90 per cent of the energy-related CO2 emission reductions needed to meet the ‘well below 2 degrees objective’ of the Paris Agreement”.

“The world of energy is witnessing rapid and disruptive changes. Renewables already account for around a quarter of global electricity generation. In the last six years, renewable power capacity additions outpaced additions from fossil fuels and nuclear power combined. However, if we are to meet our climate goals, renewables deployment must accelerate six times faster than today.”

Countries leave potential of renewables untapped

“Renewable energy allows governments to opt for significantly higher ambition levels in their climate plans, including their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement”, Adnan Z. Amin added. “Thanks to dramatic cost reductions and technology improvements, renewables are technically feasible and economically attractive. This is for instance also increasingly manifested in the energy choices of private actors. IRENA estimates that, through corporate sourcing of renewables alone, companies have already created demand the size of the electricity market of France.”

“A sustainable energy transformation will not only contribute to climate objectives. IRENA’s Roadmap to 2050 shows it will support positive social and economic outcomes, lifting millions out of energy poverty, increasing energy independence and stimulating sustainable economic growth and job creation. To fully reap the benefits of the energy transformation, we have to make sure that its welfare gains and costs are fairly distributed. We have opportunities at hand that we must rally behind by adopting strong policies, mobilising capital and driving innovation across the energy system.”, concluded Adnan Z. Amin.

IRENA’s Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 finds that the shift to renewable energy and energy efficiency could generate global gains of up to USD 6 trillion annually by 2050. The global economy would grow by one per cent – leading to a cumulative gain of up to USD 52 trillion by 2050. Global welfare such as health benefits from reduced air pollution and reduced climate impacts would improve by 15 per cent. This massive transformation would generate a net gain of over 11 million additional jobs in the energy sector by 2050. However, this shift requires new approaches to planning, system and market operations, regulation and public policy. As countries are working towards transitioning to a sustainable energy future, IRENA is actively supporting their efforts by providing policy, technology, and financial knowledge on renewable energy and strengthening international cooperation through the exchange of experiences and best practices.

IRENA

Continue Reading

Latest

Russia2 hours ago

Russia and Multilateral Diplomacy in East Asia

When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in August 2018 it was revealed that President...

Intelligence15 hours ago

US Conducting Biological Experiments Near Russia’s Borders

Two statements, almost simultaneously released by the Russia’s Foreign and Defense Ministries, once again raised the issue which, although rarely...

Americas16 hours ago

Trump: The Symbol of America’s Isolation in the World

The president of the United States, who came to power in 2016 with the slogan of “Reviving Washington’s Power”, has...

Russia18 hours ago

Putin Welcomes New Ambassadors in Moscow

Russian President Vladimir Putin has strongly reminded newly arrived foreign ambassadors of their important mission of promoting relations between their individual countries...

Intelligence20 hours ago

Why China will win the Artificial Intelligence Race

Two Artificial Intelligence-driven Internet paradigms may emerge in the near future. One will be based on logic, smart enterprises and...

Energy21 hours ago

Italy’s and EU’s natural gas imports from the United States

Currently natural gas is one of the most important US assets in its relations with the European Union. In fact,...

Newsdesk22 hours ago

Eurasian Research on Modern China-Eurasia Conference

October 26-27, 2018,National Academy of Sciences, Armenia. Address: Marshal Bagramyan 24, Yerevan, Armenia. Organizers:“China-Eurasia” Council for Political and Strategic Research,...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy