Saturday, November 24th 2012 - 21:59 UTC

Why the Qatar Summit could bring new direction for action on climate change

By Lord Hunt & Terry Townshend - We have learnt to expect surprises at UN climate change summits. At Durban, a year ago, there was the unexpected, but welcome, agreement to begin negotiations on a new legally binding instrument involving all major emitters of greenhouse gases, to be finalised by 2015, and to take effect in 2020.

Lord Hunt is Visiting Professor at Delft University, and former Director-General of the UK Met office.

Terry Townshend is Director of Policy at GLOBE

At Copenhagen and Cancun, in 2009 and 2010 respectively, negotiators, to the surprise of many, abandoned ‘Plan A’ for an international emission control agreement in favour of ‘Plan B’ (of the Danish Prime Minister) including 2020 ‘pledges’ and an information exchange agreement between countries about emissions.

The unanticipated may also be in store this year with Qatar, as host, probably looking for a big initiative to underline its credentials on the world stage.

The summit, which begins on November 26, represents an unparalleled opportunity to engage Gulf States. With their fossil fuel-wealth and growing technological and research strengths, Gulf States could transform the international climate change strategy. Yet, as a group, they have been largely ignored.

So what might a ‘game changing’ contribution from Gulf States to the climate negotiations look like?

They could lead development and funding of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology to capture and store the greenhouse gas exhausts from the combustion of fossil fuels and prevent their emission into the atmosphere.

CCS is important. There is no credible scenario, without this technology, under which emissions can be sufficiently reduced over the next 30 years to limit global average temperature rise to within about 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, well above the agreed UN goal of 2 degrees Celsius.

Storage of carbon dioxide in rock where oil and water have been extracted is well established. Although plans are being discussed in many countries, only a few, including China and Norway, have experience of industrial level pilots for extracting carbon dioxide from exhaust gases from power plants.

The overall costs of CCS have been estimated as comparable to the extra costs of renewable energy. However, CCS has the advantage of not being dependent on weather, and is particularly applicable in countries that rely on coal like China and India.

In the long-term, CCS will only be viable in market economies if sufficient costs are imposed on installations that emit carbon.

Estimates suggest that, once CCS technology is mature, a carbon price of between $44 and $103 will be sufficient to make CCS viable. The current price of carbon in the EU (the world’s major carbon market) is much lower.

However, a tightening of the cap on emissions from 2013 means that the EU carbon price is on an upward trajectory and, conceivably, could reach this critical price band. Moreover, recent laws and proposals to create carbon markets in Australia, China, Mexico, South Korea and California indicate a global trend towards pricing carbon as a policy tool.

Achieving CCS in the short-to-medium-term requires big capital investments to build the commercial scale demonstration projects that will help to bring down costs. With uncertainty about regulations and the future price of carbon, plus fiscal constraints on most governments and businesses, investments have not yet been forthcoming.

However, this could soon change dramatically.

First, the regulatory outlook is more certain. The Kyoto Protocol has been extended and it is more likely that there will be stricter carbon constraints on all major countries after 2020, reducing the regulatory risk of investment in CCS.

Second, Gulf States have a growing incentive to commercialise CCS, possibly using their massive Sovereign Wealth Funds. Because CCS eliminates emissions of greenhouse gases, it potentially makes fossil fuel markets environmentally sustainable, even in a highly carbon constrained post-2020 world. Once commercialised, CCS technology will be exportable, creating new jobs.

Third, in China, the world’s second largest economy, planning is underway for a timetable for emissions reductions under a post-2020 climate change deal. It is in fossil-fuel dependent China's interest to commercialise CCS and other advanced technologies. With rapid economic growth leading to construction of many fossil-fuel power stations, that are mostly coal-fired, large demand for CCS should soon bring down costs.

As well as China and Gulf States, the EU, the world’s largest carbon market, would also support progress on the CCS agenda. Driving down costs of CCS would help those countries, like Poland and the Czech Republic, that rely on coal and, as a result, act as a brake on Europe’s overall ambition on tackling climate change.

Taken overall, the opportunity is crystal clear. And, if Qatar is looking for something big to showcase its credentials on the world stage, this may be it.
 

By Julian Hunt, CB, MA, PhD, FIMA, FRS and Terry Townshend is Director of Policy at GLOBE

 

6 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 reality check (#) Nov 25th, 2012 - 02:39 am Report abuse
Lets see, we have climate change, probably caused all the pollution from our industrial plants. What? like those same industrial plants caused the last ice age!!!!!!!!!!

So. you clever scientists, if pollution did not cause the last ice age, what did?

Is it reasonable to assume that another one, pollution or not, will come along soon? relatively speaking.

You have to laugh. what was then the UK was under a miles of ice and not a fucking coal fire anywhere in sight.

Last time it was the Northerm Hemisphere and we fled South, not so many of us then.

Who is to say nextt time it might be reversed, doubt it though!
2 British_Kirchnerist (#) Nov 25th, 2012 - 08:20 am Report abuse
A hopeful article, and I hope for all our sakes its right, but I'm not optimistic, given the long history of failure, about the chances of the big capitalist countries getting their act together on climate change, at least without mass pressure
3 Room101 (#) Nov 25th, 2012 - 01:27 pm Report abuse
(1) realitycheck
Anyway, it isn't so much as what caused it, but what we can do about it now.
It's up to those, who want to do something about it, to look to their lifestyle and make changes for the betterment of climate and uses of personal energies. Having submitted that as a workable proposition, we're still left with the fact that a lot of people on low incomes and little to eat and so on and so forth, can't afford to be involved so much as the better off.
4 Trunce (#) Nov 25th, 2012 - 03:15 pm Report abuse
Carbon causing climate change or not. Some things are not defensible, simply because a finite resource is being wasted.

We should eat local grown and in season more.

www.britishmonomarks.co.uk/blog/reducing-our-carbon-footprint-1kg-of-asparagus-200-cups-of-tea/
5 Room101 (#) Nov 25th, 2012 - 10:48 pm Report abuse
Advertising products irresponsibly can have an adverse effect too.
6 Ayayay (#) Nov 26th, 2012 - 02:02 am Report abuse
I usually, only eat local grown for fresh food. We have year round perf weather on the coast though, and 6 climates up the mountain within 140ish miles. :)

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!