The 6th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says ‘there is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.’ The urgent need for effective response is very clear from IPCC’s synthesis report headline statements. Crucially, they say that ‘all global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot, and those that limit warming to 2°C (>67%), involve rapid and deep and, in most cases, immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in all sectors this decade’.
With that in mind, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres said that all countries should bring forward their net zero plans by a decade: ‘Leaders of developed countries must commit to reaching net zero as close as possible to 2040, the limit they should all aim to respect’. He also called on the likes of India and China, who have net zero plans for beyond 2050, to try to bring them forward by a decade as well.
In terms of the energy and technology mix that we should all aim for, the AR6 impact report says that: ‘Within energy system transitions, the most feasible adaptation options support infrastructure resilience, reliable power systems and efficient water use for existing and new energy generation systems (very high confidence). Energy generation diversification, including with renewable energy resources and generation that can be decentralised depending on context (e.g., wind, solar, small scale hydroelectric) and demand side management (e.g., storage, and energy efficiency improvements) can reduce vulnerabilities to climate change, especially in rural populations (high confidence). Adaptations for hydropower and thermo-electric power generation are effective in most regions up to 1.5°C to 2°C, with decreasing effectiveness at higher levels of warming (medium confidence)’.
In addition there were benefits to be gained from ‘climate responsive energy markets, updated design standards on energy assets according to current and projected climate change, smart-grid technologies, robust transmission systems and improved capacity to respond to supply deficits have high feasibility in the medium- to long-term, with mitigation co-benefits (very high confidence)’.
Although the report says that, in addition to moving to zero emission technologies as soon as possible, large scale use of carbon dioxide removal technology will also be needed, some say that may not be realistic in the time available. Same for the rapid, large scale, expansion new nuclear. Certainly there’s nothing much in the report on nuclear, apart from concerns about of the impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding risks) on it. Energy saving and renewables are evidently seen as better bets. Certainly, in the summary chart of mitigation options for 2030, nuclear is seen as offering a small contribution (only avoiding under 1 Giga tonne of CO2 equivalent) at mostly high cost. By comparison solar is put at above 4.5GT and wind around 3.8GT, mostly all at very low cost. Fossil CCS is put at around 0.5GT at very high cost.
However, the actual likely energy and strategy mix remains uncertain in the years ahead, since there are many variable and sometime conflicting factors and possible trade-offs e.g. between adaptation and mitigation, depending on location. IPCC note ‘adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development interventions are likely to be implemented in portfolio packages rather than as individual discrete options in isolation’, but say that that opportunities for adaptation will reduce. Cost is of course a key issue, although as IPCC makes clear, there are also costs of inaction or delay. And some say we need even more, better and faster action, since the situation is even worse than the IPCC scientists admit- and since, allegedly, some of the proposals that have emerged are dubious socially and environmentally.
Certainly the situation can seem a bit grim at times, although there is still hope for sensible change. Simon Stiell, the UN’s top climate official, was very positive: ‘It’s not too late. The IPCC clearly demonstrates that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5C with rapid and deep emissions reductions across all sectors of the global economy. It has given us many feasible, effective and low-cost mitigation and adaptation options to scale up across sectors and countries.’ And IPCCs chair, Hoesung Lee, said that ‘tackling climate change is a hard, complex and enduring challenge for generations. We, the scientific community, spell out the facts of disheartening reality, but we also point to the prospects of hope through concerted, genuine and global transformational change.’
There has been pressure from the EU to revamp the COP28 agenda to accelerate progress, but given the state of international politics, with amongst other things, China and Russia emerging as a new Block, it will probably have to be up to individual countries to make moves.
So what will the UK do? There was no immediate direct response from the government, although, following up on its Spring Budget, with £20bn earmarked for nuclear and CCS, it did announce £1.8bn of support for local councils for energy saving. That was welcome, but very small compared with what had been called for. By contrast, Labour went on the offensive. Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change, told the Guardian: ‘António Guterres is right to say that we need to rapidly increase the pace and urgency of the fight against the climate crisis. In Britain, we have a Conservative government whose net zero strategy is so bad that it has been declared unlawful. The tragedy is that the Conservatives are holding us back from reaping the benefits of the green transition – lower energy bills, millions of good jobs, and a livable future for our children and grandchildren. Labour will make Britain world leader in tackling the climate crisis, with our plan to make Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030, and by leading a clean power alliance across the world to create cleaner, greener energy.’
The ‘unlawful’ jibe related to the High Court ruling last year’s that the UK governments much trumpeted Net Zero plan was inadequate. A new version, ‘Powering up Britain,’ has now just emerged, at a launch initially branded as a ‘Green Day’ event, but it offered little new, apart from the already announced £20bn commitment to Carbon Capture. It seems that the hope is that this, along with the already planned renewables, a bit more energy saving and some eventual nuclear expansion, will be enough to keep emissions down while the UK continues to use oil and gas. It met with some criticism. Labour's Ed Miliband said: ‘The government's 'green day' turns out to be a weak and feeble groundhog day of re-announcements, reheated policy, and no new investment.’ And Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said: ‘The greenest thing about this is the recycling of already announced ideas.’ More reactions and discussion in my next post.
Comments
Post a Comment