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
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and