Whether at UN climate-change summits or one of the many “green growth” forums, sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency are consistently regarded as the solution to global warming.
Even the coal industry adopted the efficiency line in its Warsaw Communique, released ahead of the UN’s COP19 summit in November last year.
However, a closer look at the global energy system, together with a more refined understanding of the emissions challenge, reveals that fossil fuels are likely to remain dominant throughout this century — meaning that carbon capture and storage (CCS) may well be the critical technology for mitigating climate change.
The widespread focus on efficiency and renewable energy sources stems from the dissemination of the Kaya Identity, which the Japanese economist Yoichi Kaya developed in 1993.
Kaya calculated carbon dioxide emissions by multiplying total population by per capita GDP, energy efficiency (energy use per unit of GDP) and carbon intensity (carbon dioxide per unit of energy).
Given the impracticality of winning support for proposals based on population management or limits on individual wealth, analyses using the Kaya Identity tend to bypass the first two terms, leaving energy efficiency and carbon intensity as the most important determinants of total emissions.
However, this convenient interpretation does not correspond to reality.
The rate at which carbon dioxide is being released into the ocean and atmosphere is several orders of magnitude greater than the rate at which it is returning to geological storage through processes like weathering and ocean sedimentation.
In this context, what really matters is the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide being released over time — a fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognized in its recently released Fifth Assessment Report.
Since the industrial age began about 250 years ago, about 575 billion tonnes of fossil-fuel and land-fixed carbon — more than 2 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide — have been released into the atmosphere, leading to a shift in the global heat balance and a likely 1oC increase in surface temperature (the median of a distribution of outcomes). At the current rate, a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about 2oC of warming, could be reached as early as 2040.
This view does not align with the prevailing mechanisms for measuring progress on emissions reduction, which target specific annual outcomes. While reducing the annual flow of emissions by, say, 2050 would be a positive step, it does not necessarily guarantee success in limiting the eventual rise in global temperature.
From a climate perspective, the temperature rise over time is arguably more a function of the size of the fossil-fuel resource base and the efficiency of extraction at a given energy price.
As supply-chain efficiency increases, so does the eventual extraction and use of resources and, ultimately, the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This means that efficiency may drive, not limit, the increase in emissions.
Since the Industrial Revolution, efficiency through innovation has revolutionized just a handful of core energy-conversion inventions: the internal combustion engine, the electric motor, the light bulb, the gas turbine, the steam engine and, more recently, the electronic circuit.
In all of these cases, the result of greater efficiency has been an increase in energy use and emissions — not least because it improved access to the fossil-resource base.
Nations’ efforts to rely on renewable energy supplies are similarly ineffective, given that the displaced fossil-fuel-based energy remains economically attractive, which means that it is used elsewhere or kept for use at a later time.
And, in the case of rapidly developing economies, like China, renewable-energy deployment is not replacing fossil fuels at all; instead, renewable energy sources are supplementing a constrained fuel supply to facilitate faster economic growth. In short, placing all bets on renewable-energy uptake outpacing efficiency-driven growth, and assuming that enhanced efficiency will drive down demand, may be a foolish gamble.
Instead, policymakers should adopt a new climate paradigm that focuses on limiting cumulative emissions. This requires, first and foremost, recognizing that, while new energy technologies will eventually outperform fossil fuels practically and economically, demand for fossil fuels to meet growing energy needs will underpin their extraction and use for decades to come.
Most importantly, it highlights the need for climate policy that focuses on the deployment of CCS systems, which use various industrial processes to capture carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel use and then store it in underground geological formations, where it cannot accumulate in the biosphere. Consuming a tonne of fossil fuel, but capturing and storing the emissions, is very different from shifting or delaying its consumption.
Unfortunately, a policy framework built on this thinking remains elusive. The EU’s recently released 2030 framework for climate and energy policies maintains the focus on domestic policies aimed at boosting efficiency and deployment of renewable energy. While the framework mentions CCS, whether the EU commits to its deployment remains to be seen.
Rallying support and political will for CCS — rather than for derivative approaches that misconstrue the nature of the problem — will be the real challenge for 2030 and beyond.
David Hone is chief climate change adviser at Royal Dutch Shell.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Since COVID-19 broke out in Taiwan, there has been a fair amount of news regarding discrimination and “witch hunts” against medical personnel, people under self-quarantine and other targets, such as the students of a school where an infection was discovered. Quarantine breakers are almost certainly on the loose and it is only natural for people to be vigilant. One in Chiayi was found by accident at a traffic stop because his helmet was not fastened. However, those who follow the rules by quarantining themselves should be encouraged to keep up the good work in a difficult situation, instead of being
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator-at-large Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) has said that there is a huge difference between Chinese military aircraft circling Taiwan along the edges of its airspace and invading Taiwan’s airspace. He also said that whether it is US or Chinese aircraft flying along or encircling Taiwan’s airspace, there is no legal basis to say that such actions imply a clear provocation of Taiwan, and asked the Ministry of National Defense not to mislead the public. People who hear this might think that it is not a very Taiwanese thing to say. US military activity in the vicinity of Taiwan
As the nation welcomes home Taiwanese who had been stranded in China’s Hubei Province — arguably one of the most dangerous places on Earth since the novel coronavirus outbreak began in its capital, Wuhan, late last year — problems surrounding the “quasi-charter flights” that brought them back have been largely overlooked. The media used the term to describe the two flights dispatched by Taiwan’s state-run China Airlines because they do not count as charter flights. Taiwanese wanting to board those flights had to travel — most likely by train — more than 1,000km from Hubei to Shanghai Pudong International Airport
As the COVID-19 pandemic spins out of control, many parts of the world are experiencing shortages of medical masks and other protective equipment. I am studying in Washington state, which at the time of writing is the US state that has suffered the largest number of deaths from the novel coronavirus. The week before last, UW Medicine — an organization that includes the University of Washington School of Medicine and associated medical centers and clinics — sent its volunteers an e-mail asking the public to make masks and donate them to hospitals. Attached to the message was a mask donation