The emissions from burning coal, oil and gas are heating up the planet at such a rapid rate that increasingly volatile and dangerous climate conditions seem almost inevitable. Clearly, the global community has to reduce emissions fast, while developing alternative energy sources that allows it to leave fossil fuels in the ground.
This imperative is almost shockingly straightforward.
However, climate change has been subject to so much political inertia, false information and wishful thinking for the past few decades that the world continues to see ineffective or impossible solutions, rather than an effort to address root causes. Often these “solutions” are based on non-existent or risky new technologies.
This approach is highly expedient, for it threatens neither business as usual nor socioeconomic orthodoxy. Climate models that depend on elusive technologies weaken the imperative to enact the deep structural changes that are needed to avoid climate catastrophe.
The latest such “solution” to emerge is “net-zero emissions,” which depends on so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Although the technology still faces more than a few shortcomings, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendar Pachauri issued a deeply problematic statement last month, saying that: “With CCS it is entirely possible for fossil fuels to continue to be used on a large scale.”
To be fair, the IPCC’s latest assessment report highlights the imperative of cutting carbon dioxide emissions drastically to avoid exceeding the world’s small — and still risky — carbon budget.
However, to shift from clear-cut goals like “zero emissions,” “full decarbonization” and “100 percent renewable energy” to the far hazier objective of net-zero emissions is to adopt a dangerous stance.
Indeed, the net-zero idea implies that the world can continue to produce emissions, as long as there is a way to “offset” them.
So, instead of embarking immediately on a radical emissions-reduction trajectory, people can continue to emit massive amounts of carbon dioxide — and even establish new coal plants — while claiming to be taking climate action by “supporting” the development of CCS technology.
It is apparently irrelevant that such technology might not work, is riddled with practical challenges and carries the risk of future leakage, which would have major social and environmental consequences.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is the poster child for the new “overshoot approach” of net-zero emissions.
BECCS entails planting a huge amount of grass and trees, burning the biomass to generate electricity, capturing the carbon dioxide that is emitted and pumping it into geological reservoirs underground.
BECCS would have enormous development implications, provoking large-scale land grabs, most likely from relatively poor people. This is not some farfetched scenario; rising demand for biofuels has spurred devastating land grabs in developing nations for many years.
It would take a lot more land to offset a substantial share of carbon emissions. Indeed, an estimated 218 to 990 million hectares would have to be converted to switchgrass to sequester one billion tonnes of carbon using BECCS. That is 14 to 65 times the amount of land the US uses to grow corn for ethanol.
Nitrous-oxide emissions from the vast amount of fertilizer that would be required to grow the switchgrass could be enough to exacerbate climate change. Then there are the carbon emissions from producing synthetic fertilizers; clearing trees, shrubs and grass from hundreds of millions of hectares of land; destroying large reservoirs of soil carbon; and transporting and processing the switchgrass.
Even more problematic is the revelation that CCS and BECCS would most likely be used for “enhanced oil recovery,” with compressed carbon diosxide pumped into old oil wells for storage, thereby creating a financial incentive to recover more oil. The US Department of Energy estimates that such methods could make 67 billion barrels of oil — three times the volume of proven US oil reserves — economically recoverable. Indeed, given the money at stake, enhanced oil recovery could actually be one of the motives behind the push for CCS.
In any case, no form of CCS advances the goal of a structural shift toward full decarbonization, which is what social movements, academics, ordinary citizens and even some politicians are increasingly demanding.
They are prepared to accept the inconveniences and sacrifices that would arise during the transition; indeed, they view the challenge of creating a zero-carbon economy as an opportunity to renew and improve their societies and communities. Dangerous, elusive, and pie-in-the-sky technologies have no place in such an effort.
A clear understanding of the climate crisis expands the range of potential solutions considerably. For example, by banning new coal plants and shifting fossil-fuel subsidies toward the financing of renewable energy through feed-in tariffs, sustainable energy could be brought to billions of people worldwide, while reducing fossil-fuel dependency.
While such innovative and practical solutions are prevented from being scaled up, billions of US dollars are pumped into subsidies that reinforce the status quo.
The only way to reform the system and make real progress toward mitigating climate change is to work to eliminate fossil fuels completely. Vague goals based on nebulous technologies simply will not work.
Lili Fuhr is head of the department of ecology and sustainable development at the Heinrich Boll Foundation in Berlin. Niclas Hallstrom is director of the What Next Forum in Uppsala, Sweden.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.