Sat, Dec 13, 2014 - Page 9 News List

The misleading mirage of ‘net-zero emissions’ is dangerous

Governments should aim for concrete targets, such as full decarbonization and 100 percent renewable energy, rather than fixating on unrealizable technologies

By Lili Fuhr and Niclas Hallstrom

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.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top