Despite controversy, climate change becoming a serious issue
Climate change continues
to grab attention as a number of conferences that will bring together
world leaders grow closer. The more attention that is drawn to the
subject, the more controversy it creates. Those opposing the concept of
climate change are quick to denounce its supporters as “alarmists”
because of their focus on the potential disastrous implications of the
phenomenon. Though the concept is widely disputed, more governments and
organizations are beginning to take it seriously, with many believing
that work must be done quickly to avert catastrophe.
Agency calls for the rapid adoption of alternative energy systems
The International Energy Agency (IEA), a France-based
intergovernmental organization that acts as a policy adviser for its
associated states, suggests that the adoption of alternative energy
systems is too slow. The IEA has issued a call for countries to hasten
their efforts to make use of alternative energy in the hopes of
mitigating the effects of climate change. The agency suggests that
country’s need to increase the money there are pouring into renewable
fuels and their associated infrastructures significantly if they want to
avoid the more calamitous aspects of the climate change phenomenon.
Economics may stand in the way of alternative energy
Alternative energy is often the subject of criticism from some
countries who argue clean technology is not yet at a point where it can
be considered a viable replacement for fossil-fuels. The IEA argues that
viable clean energy systems already exist and that world leaders need
only to learn how to use them effectively in order to sidestep the
supposed financial problems that could be associated with these systems.
Controversy could be pushing climate change down the political agenda
Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, has expressed
concern with the priorities of some countries. She notes that the issue
of climate change has become an unpopular topic. As such, the subject
has diminished in importance for some governments.
International Energy Agency: Double Current Pace of Clean Energy Development
Climate-change skeptics like to call environmentalists “alarmists” because of their call for urgent action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The skeptics say the science is too uncertain, that there’s no rush to act, and those who argue otherwise are sanctimonious lefties out of touch with reality.
For them it’s drill baby, drill.
It’s
a convenient way of dismissing bad news, which is why it’s important
when traditionally conservative organizations like the International
Energy Agency weigh in on the issue with their own call for accelerated
action.
This week, the Paris-based agency with an oil-soaked history said
the world, if it has any hope of keeping the average rise in global
temperatures to below 2 degrees C, needs to double its rate of spending
on clean-energy infrastructure between now and 2020.
It goes on to
say that if controlling carbon emissions is truly a priority, the world
needs to spend $36 trillion (U.S.) between now and 2050 on low-carbon
technologies, on top of the $100 trillion or so needed under a
business-as-usual scenario.
“This is the equivalent of $130 per
person every year,” said the agency, pointing out that the spending
should be considered an investment rather than an expense. “Every
additional dollar invested can generate three dollars in future fuel
savings by 2050.”
The clean energy technologies we require already
exist, the agency’s executive director, Maria van der Hoeven, pointed
out. Offshore wind power, concentrated solar power and carbon capture
and storage were cited by the agency as the technologies with the most
potential but the least traction.
“It’s there and we’re not using
it,” she lamented, at the same time urging governments to wake up to the
“dangers” of complacency. “The evidence of climate change, if anything,
has gotten stronger. At the same time, it has fallen further down the
political agenda.”
The fact investment is nowhere near what’s
needed is reason for concern, she added. On our current investment path,
global carbon dioxide emissions are likely to nearly double by 2050.
“Are
we on track to reach out 2-degree goal? No, we aren’t,” she said
bluntly. “Our ongoing failure to realize the full potential of clean
energy technology and tapping energy efficiency is alarming.”
It
bears emphasizing: these are not the words of Greenpeace or Al Gore or
David Suzuki; these are the words of a 38-year-old international
organization whose original mandate, and the reason for its creation,
was to monitor and manage global oil markets in the wake of the 1973 oil
crisis.
The International Energy Agency has until the past few
years placed energy security and economic development well ahead of
environmental protection, and it has been repeatedly accused of having a
fossil-fuel bias while underestimating the potential of renewable
energy.
But these days it’s singing a different tune. Fatih Birol,
the agency’s chief economist, has been quite frank over the past three
years about what lies ahead. Commenting on global CO2 emissions data
last month, Birol said the trend is “perfectly in line” with a
temperature increase of 6 degrees C by 2050. That, he added, “would have
devastating consequences for the planet.”
Alarmist, granola-munching tree hugger!
Perhaps
this puts into perspective why so many environmental groups and members
of the general public are concerned about projects such as the Keystone
XL and Northern Gateway oil pipeline projects.
The companies
behind them aren’t investing billions of dollars for infrastructure that
will only be needed temporarily. They expect a payback, and that means
keeping the infrastructure flowing with oil at high capacity for at
least the next half century. The same thinking applies to coal-fired
power plants built today.
“Fossil fuels remain dominant and demand
continues to grow, locking in high-carbon infrastructure,” according to
the energy agency. “The investments made today will determine the
energy system that is in place in 2050.”
That’s what many people
are worried about, and not just environmentalists. They know that the
decisions we make today will have a profound impact on the quality of
life of our children and their children tomorrow.
Some, including certain federal cabinet ministers, may deem that radical. Most common sense folk would call it risk management.
By
No comments:
Post a Comment