While the latest global climate predictions say we still are likely to miss emissions targets – there still may be economy-positive remedies
The world is likely to miss its goal of limiting rises in global temperatures to 2C. Frightening, yes, but real news? Not exactly – at least for those who have been following climate change emissions over the past several years.
It was an odd thing, then, to read media coverage of the latest findings by the International Energy Agency so heavily focused on the near-certain passing of the 2C threshold. Going back a few years, the IEA (and everyone else) has been regularly making these predictions.
If we continue with business-as-usual, the rise could be as high as 5.3C, said IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven at a news conference in June when launching the annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) report: Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map.
Central to the WEO assessment, however, is a readily obtainable climate change remedy, a so-called “4-for-2 degree C Scenario” which, if quickly implemented, could lead to an 8% reduction in greenhouse gases from projected 2020 levels.
The four policies in question include investments in energy efficiency in the construction, power generation and transport sectors; restrictions on the construction of conventional coal plants; targeted reductions in methane releases; and a partial phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuel consumption.
“We identify a set of proven measures that could stop the growth in global energy-related emissions by the end of this decade at no economic cost,” says IEA chief economist Fatih Birol, the report’s lead author.
None of these policy proposals is new. Retrofitting buildings and constructing better ones could reduce emissions. Phasing out the dirtiest coal-burning power plants would cut greenhouse emissions and other pollutants. So, too, would inexpensively reducing emissions of methane during oil and natural gas production. And, of course, countries should stop encouraging fossil fuel use by keeping prices artificially low.
Cost-free solution
Rather, the report’s novelty lies in highlighting that their widespread adoption imposes no harm on economic growth. To date, international climate negotiations on a plan of action have failed primarily because of concerns over the economic impact.
“Net revenues for existing renewables-based and nuclear power plants increase by $1.8tn (in 2011 dollars) collectively through to 2035, offsetting a similar decline from coal plants,” says the report. “No oil or gas field currently in production would need to shut down prematurely. Some fields yet to start production [will not be] developed before 2035, meaning that around 5% to 6% of proven oil and gas reserves do not start to recover their exploration costs.”
In other words, costs will be offset by other gains – with some areas of the energy economy standing to benefit more from pursuing climate policy targets.
Overall, it’s a pretty broad spread of recommendations directed at upstream investors and government policymakers, as well as downstream users such as utilities and individual companies, says Samantha Smith, leader of WWF's global climate and energy initiative.
“We see an interest from business community in adaptation as a response to climate change,” adds Smith. “But while adaptation is super-important, it’s not going to be enough. The very best form of adaptation now is to cut your energy emissions.”
This focus on the energy sector – as opposed to other drivers such as deforestation – reflects a change over the past five years during which an explosion in emissions has overwhelmingly come from energy use and production.
Where Smith finds fault in the report is in the authors’ emphasis in things such as carbon capture and storage, and nuclear energy, expensive investments that would take a long time to deliver lower emissions.
“We are saying if you want emissions reductions after 2020, you have to invest now in renewables,” Smith says.