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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations