Climate change

Finding grounds for optimism in the global warming debate isn’t easy. But Angus McCrone points out that investment in clean renewable energy sources is rising much more quickly than human CO2 emissions. And game theory suggests that nations will eventually take unilateral steps to curb their carbon emissions.

Put a panda in a room with a bald eagle, a bear, a kangaroo, a tiger, a Dachshund, a bulldog, a cockerel and a green pheasant and what do you get? The answer is a lot of noise, violence, feathers and fur − and very little harmony. Much the same can be said of international talks on climate change. Put the representatives of the countries symbolised by these animals in the same room and the results tend to be noise, division and recrimination.

The issue of how the world will curb its carbon emissions has, over recent years, certainly caused a huge amount of bickering. Everyone has insisted that others need to make much more painful sacrifices than they themselves have committed to. Meanwhile, human CO2 emissions have gone on climbing − according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) world emissions are likely to rise from 26.6bn tonnes in 2005 to 41.9bn tonnes in 2030, unless current policies are changing.

Against this backdrop, a mood of pessimism over climate change has become entrenched; no wonder, with Asian giants, the US and western Europe all calling each other names while failing to stem the construction of coal-fired power stations, the logging of rain forests or the spread of low cost airlines.

But it can be dangerous to bank too heavily on the pessimistic view simply because it is so widespread. Arguing the more optimistic side of the climate change debate can be lonely past time, but there are two good reasons for doing just that.

The first concerns the dynamics of how international negotiations are likely to play out over the long-term − and not just at international summits or high-profile conferences. Applying a branch of economics called game theory raises a number of unexpectedly optimistic possibilities. The second reason reflects the fact that the one with an upward sloping line. There is another chart, concerning carbon emissions chart is not the only investment growth in renewable energy, that's much steeper. More about that later.

Supply and demand issues should also aid several of the key renewable technologies, and hit that key fossil fuel − oil. The cost of wind and solar power is at the moment being held up by shortages of hardware like turbines and such materials as silicon. Once production rises to meet these shortages, their cost competitiveness will improve. Meanwhile, global oil demand is growing, while supply from existing and new fields is likely by 2015 to be under pressure. The IEA admits that “a supply crunch” by then cannot be ruled out, boosting demand for sources of alternative energy.

So, against the backdrop of pessimistic media reports on climate change, there is a case for optimism. Although it's important to remain realistic − there is a high likelihood that, despite growing global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the next few years, there will still be substantial damage to the environment. It now looks almost certain that there will be a loss of plant and wildlife species, the degradation of many natural habitats and changing weather patterns that could hit vulnerable human communities hard. But there are also grounds for tempering today’s almost universal mood of pessimism.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14