The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December is likely to feature all the tightly choreographed production values of a Hollywood blockbuster.
The cast will be huge: presidents and prime ministers on center stage, supported by thousands of extras, including protesters, riot police and busloads of media. The script might still be under wraps, but the plot has already leaked: This time, in sharp contrast to the failed negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, the planet is going to win.
It is a seductive plot, but one that does not quite hold together. Goodwill and hard bargaining, the world is to be told, paid off. Governments have agreed to voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are to prevent the planet from heating more than 2°C. Then, in a stunning deus ex machina, it will be revealed that the world’s largest fossil-fuel companies — the so-called supermajors — have agreed to bring net emissions to zero by 2100, by capturing carbon at the source, sucking it out of the atmosphere and storing it underground. The planet will have been saved and the economy is to be free to flourish. Cue the music and roll the credits.
The trouble is that the script is fiction, not documentary. The technology required has yet to be invented and bringing net emissions to zero simply is not possible. And, like a Hollywood production, the Paris conference’s message is likely heavily influenced by those who have the most money.
The math is not difficult to follow. The world’s energy infrastructure — finely tooled for the use of fossil fuels — is worth US$55 trillion. The paper value of the fossil-fuel reserves — most of them owned by the supermajors — is about US$28 trillion.
The fossil-fuel industry’s influence is evident in the fact that governments worldwide are expected to spend some US$5.3 trillion this year subsidizing it, including the massive outlays necessary to counteract its adverse health and environmental effects.
In other words, the governments meeting in Paris spend more subsidizing the causes of climate change than they do on global healthcare or, for that matter, on climate change mitigation and adaptation.
However, that is not part of the story in Paris. There, the global public is to be presented with a narrative premised on two unproven forms of geoengineering, whose proponents seek to manipulate the planetary system. The effort that is likely to receive the greatest amount of attention is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECSS).
In May, the US Department of Energy convened a private meeting to discuss this technology, which might be the fig leaf used by the supermajors to protect their assets.
However, deploying BECSS would require the world to maintain an area 1.5 times the size of India full of fields or forests capable of absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, while still providing enough food for a global population that is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050.
By then, the technology’s advocates promise, biological sequestration can be joined by programs that capture emissions as they are released or pull them out of the air to be pumped into deep subterranean shafts — out of sight and out of mind.
Fossil-fuel producers promote carbon capture to allow them to keep their mines open and pumps flowing. Unfortunately for the planet, many scientists consider it technically impossible and financially backbreaking — especially if such technology is to be deployed in time to avert chaotic climate change.
Preventing temperatures from rising out of control requires a second geoengineering fix, known as solar radiation management. The idea is to mimic the natural cooling action of a volcanic eruption by using techniques like the deployment of hoses to pump sulfates 30km into the stratosphere to block sunlight.
The UK’s Royal Society believes that the need for such technology might be unavoidable and it has been working with counterparts in other countries to explore ways in which its use should be governed.
Earlier this year, the US’ National Academies of Science gave the technique a tepid endorsement and the Chinese government announced a major investment in weather modification, which could include solar radiation management. Russia is already at work developing the technology.
Unlike carbon capture, obstructing sunlight actually has the potential to lower global temperatures. In theory, the technology is simple, cheap and capable of being deployed by a single country or a small group of collaborators; no UN consensus is required.
However, solar radiation management does not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It only masks their effects. If the hoses shut down, the planet’s temperature is likely to soar.
The technology could buy time, but it surrenders control of the planetary thermostat to those who hold the hoses. Even the technology’s advocates concede that their computer models predict that it could have a strong negative impact on tropical and subtropical regions.
Climate change is bad, but geoengineering has the potential to make it worse.
The story that the Paris conference’s producers ask viewers to believe relies on technologies that are no more effective than smoke and mirrors. It is important that the public learns to see past them.
The curtain rises on a set of false promises and it closes with policies that can lead only to mayhem — unless the audience gets into the act.
Neth Dano is Asia director at the ETC Group. Pat Mooney is executive director at the ETC Group.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
Taiwan last week finally reached a trade agreement with the US, reducing tariffs on Taiwanese goods to 15 percent, without stacking them on existing levies, from the 20 percent rate announced by US President Donald Trump’s administration in August last year. Taiwan also became the first country to secure most-favored-nation treatment for semiconductor and related suppliers under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act. In return, Taiwanese chipmakers, electronics manufacturing service providers and other technology companies would invest US$250 billion in the US, while the government would provide credit guarantees of up to US$250 billion to support Taiwanese firms
RSS