LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Autumn 2009

by Jason Anderson

Sir,

Fatih Birol’s call for a world energy revolution underestimates the scale of the task. The actions required to keep global warming below 2°C are nothing like the technological transformations of the past. When we switched from whale oil to petroleum or from ‘snail mail’ to email, these decisions were driven by the self-evident benefits they brought. In the case of climate change, we are talking about something entirely different. The energy revolution will require a break with the past rarely seen in human history. And the main driving force is not obvious self-interest but public policy.

An apt analogy might be the social revolutions of yester-year, when living and working conditions for ordinary people were improved, often in conjunction with great advances in technology. Climate policy today is not just rooted in science, but also in the social concept of public equity. So is the world enlightened enough to organise such an energy revolution? The latest greenhouse gas data are not encouraging. We are already topping the upper end of the emissions pathways predicted nine years ago by scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, despite having a UN climate convention in force since 1994.

The technological challenge is also more pressing than Birol outlined. He states that the International Energy Agency’s scenario to stabilise greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent equates to around 2°C of warming. In fact, this scenario offers only a 50/50 chance of keeping global warming below 2°C. These are miserable odds when the stakes are so high. We must aim for even lower concentrations.

For all the gloom, however, this 2°C limit is both necessary and achievable, thanks largely to the confluence of three public priorities: energy security, cost savings and climate protection. Clean alternative energy would address all three. For instance, the world’s reliance on fossil fuels creates unsustainable patterns of geopolitical power. We therefore have a common interest in rebalancing international relations by diversifying our sources of energy. Alternative energy supplies would also protect economies from price shocks as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce. And the world would avoid the massive costs of runaway climate change.

In addition, alternative energy would open new business and employment opportunities. Democracy would also be served as developing countries would be the biggest winners. At the moment, their economies risk becoming hostages to fossil fuel markets at a time when reserves are running down.

Yet as Birol makes plain, there is a huge gap between doing ‘something’ and doing enough to keep global warming below 2°C. The IEA’s reference scenarios predict future energy use based on current commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But even climate pessimists would be hard pressed to argue that governments will do nothing more. Global negotiations on actions after 2012 are still underway and may yield significant results. And the G8 stated in July that they intended to negotiate an agreement at Copenhagen designed to keep warming below 2°C. Perhaps it truly is darkest before dawn and we are at last seeing a glimmer of sunlight over the horizon.