Implications for Cleantech of the Global Agreement in Paris
The following Blog is reproduced from my personal website at www.dougcrawfordbrown.co.uk. All of my blogs relate to the topic of collective action problems. Other blogs in the series are in the archives of my personal website.
The Paris Conference of the Parties (COP21) meeting is over. Or perhaps it is better to say that the formal meeting has ended and the long work to translate an ambitious statement into on-the-ground change has begun. Just south of 200 nations have agreed the wording of the proposal for the next step forward now that the Kyoto Protocol has expired.
The key accomplishment is that this wording has been approved by all of the major emitters including the US and China; the UK and EU are no surprise because they were already leading globally on the Kyoto Protocol. However a significant hurdle remains, best shown in the case of the US: moving this agreement past Congress, which has become increasingly dysfunctional as the Republicans have swelled their ranks with climate change deniers (a step beyond a ‘skeptic’). We were here before with the Kyoto Protocol, only to have Congress refuse to sign on. Still, there is much stronger global political and scientific consensus this time. No nation’s politicians will find it easy to deny this consensus.
To what actions are we now committed globally and here in the UK? Keep in mind that this is more a framework for moving forward rather than a concrete strategy. There is much to be done in completing that wording and turning it into actionable items. The target of limiting the global temperature increase to 2 degree C is more firmly set. And for the first time, there is a stated aspiration to remain below a 1.5 degree C increase. However, it is almost irrelevant which target is adopted. Both require striking reductions in the carbon emissions of developed nations almost immediately, and significant reductions in the rate of growth of emissions from developing economies.
The result? A significant decline in global emissions beginning by 2030. Both spell the impending end of the fossil fuel era, unless carbon capture and storage moves forward quickly. From this point forward, fossil fuels are likely to lose their immense subsidies that have made them cheap for so long, and will begin to pay for their use of the global atmosphere as a dumping ground. With such a change, low carbon energy will reach ‘grid parity’ with coal, where their costs of producing energy are the same as those of high carbon fuels. The market for new energy investment should shift accordingly. Fifty percent of new energy generation capacity in the past few years has been in renewables globally. Watch as that percentage grows in response to Paris.
What specifically has been agreed?
1. Each nation will produce 'intended nationally determined contributions' or INDCs to this reduction in carbon, publishing these every five years from this point forward. These are accompanied by a specification of greater transparency and checking of claims. Nations will be held to account if they fail to deliver on these promises, although what exactly is meant by 'held to account' is not yet clear. Naming and shaming?
2. These nationally determined contributions are intended to decarbonise the economies of the world with energy that has significantly lower emissions of greenhouse gases. To meet a 2 degree target, developed economies will need to reduce by 80% on average between today and 2050, with a steady decline. Developing economies have until 2030 to begin considering their decrease
3. The need for this transformation of energy production is to be met by an equally ambitious improvement in energy efficiency of economies, buildings, transport and industrial processes. How ironic and unfortunate that it comes just as the national government has rung the death knell for the Green Deal. It is time to revisit that decision.
4. A global fund (100bn dollars per year) has been written into the agreement, to increase after 2025. It will provide finance to developing and vulnerable nations both to assist them in moving onto a low carbon pathway of development, and to help them adapt to whatever effects climate change brings.
5. The role of forests has been brought to the fore, with the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programme now an integral part of the global strategy. REDD+ will keep the carbon of vegetation locked into ecosystems rather than burned and sent into atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
6. There is now formal recognition that there will be climate impacts requiring adaptation of cities, economies and infrastructure. The language used in the agreement is “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change”. Nations are to produce communications on their efforts periodically.
7. Finally (at least for this thought piece), there is a role for ‘international transferred mitigation outcomes’. These are similar to cap and trade (at least the ‘trade’ bit). If a nation finds it more desirable and perhaps cost effective to help another nation create mitigation projects, this will count towards to mitigation goals of the donor nation. The caveat: no double counting of emissions reductions allowed!
Much work is ahead, but the scientific and engineering consensus is that achieving these goals will require an almost balanced effort to increase energy efficiency, reduce the carbon intensity of economies, maintain forests, and assist developing and vulnerable economies to mitigate and adapt.
What innovations are needed? Low cost, thin insulation for homes. Solar panels with lower embodied carbon, perhaps from self-assembling organic molecules. High efficiency vehicles and the logistics system to make them work together. ICT advances to turn cities into smart ones. The list is endless, but then so is the innovation capacity of the research and business community. Watch this space for details as these innovations move from the shed to the lab to field.
