Climate change is multiplying existing threats to much of the natural world, and more species face an unparalleled extinction risk.
Africa's lions number only 10% of those the continent could sustain. Image: Luca Galuzzi via Wikimedia Commons
Biologists have once again confirmed that
the wild things face a growing extinction risk, and that the biggest
losers could be humankind itself.
They point out that at a conservative
estimate the economic benefits of biodiversity – the collective word for
all the richness of the planet's species – are at least 10 times the
cost of conservation of that biodiversity.
And yet, they report, human actions
already threaten a quarter of all mammal species and 13% of all birds.
An estimated 21,000 plants and other kinds of animal are known to be at
risk.
In one of the world's richest habitats of
all – the terrain where south-east Asia, India and China meet – people
in the last 50 years have put at risk two thirds of all mammals that
weigh more than 10kg.
This summary of waste and despoliation is in a series of papers in the journal Nature, one of which looks again at the threats to biodiversity, while another concentrates on the ways people influence and depend on the fruits of three billion years of natural evolution.
Human pressure
It is a given that human economies depend
entirely on what grows on the planet, and what can be excavated from
its soils. The clearing of the forests and the settlement of the
grasslands, pollution from the cities, overhunting and overgrazing, all
driven by the swelling of human numbers, have now taken rates of species
extinction to alarming levels.
Climate change, too, has now become a factor: it has been linked to the potential extinction of species, and to the obliteration of species in particular regions.
It has also been identified as a danger to the diversity of plant life as
temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change with rising ratios of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas emitted from internal
combustion engines and coal-fired power stations.
No one yet claims that climate change itself is the principal hazard, but it exacerbates the impact of all the other pressures on wildlife.
Tropical targets
So a team led by David Tilman of the University of Minnesota
has delivered a paper looking at the next 50 years, as human impact on
habitat poses, they say "unprecedented levels of extinction risk on many
more species worldwide" – especially the large mammals of tropical
Africa, Asia and South America.
The world had lost half of its
terrestrial mammalian megafauna – mammals heavier than 44kg – by 1,000
BC, and 15% of all bird species. In the last 3,000 years human numbers
have multiplied 25-fold and another 4bn of us will join the human race
by the century's end. So, the scientists argue, unless steps are taken,
extinction rates will accelerate.
But, they point out, some steps are being
taken: 31 bird species have been saved by conservation programmes from
total extinction, and the same efforts have halted the decline of one
threatened vertebrate in five. Captive breeding programmes have
reintroduced species that were once all but lost.
But there is much more to be done: lion numbers in Africa, for instance, have fallen to one-tenth of their potential.
And in a second paper, a team led by Forest Isbell of the University of Minnesota and backed by co-authors from eight nations on four continents, instances the benefits of conservation.
"Human activities are driving the sixth mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that diversity of life enhances many benefits people reap from nature"
Biodiversity in the form of trees and scrubland saves humans up to US$3 trillion just as carbon storage: that is, it keeps dangerous levels of carbon out of the atmosphere.
At a practical finance level, the
calculated value of biodiversity to commercial forest productivity is
set at between $166bn a year and $490bn.
Right now, the world spends about $25bn a
year on conservation. It would cost $76bn annually to meet all the
world's conservation targets. And, the authors point out, a cash value
simply cannot be set on many of biodiversity's blessings. Some things
are priceless.
"Human activities are driving the sixth
mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that
diversity of life enhances many benefits people reap from nature, such
as wood from forests, livestock forage from grasslands, and fish from
oceans and streams," said Dr Isbell. "It would be wise to invest much
more in conserving biodiversity."
*Tim Radford, a founding editor of Climate News Network, worked for The Guardian for 32 years, for most of that time as science editor. He has been covering climate change since 1988. Links
Plastic pollution and overfishing may currently be in the headlines. But
rising CO2 emissions are also a key threat to the ocean that covers 71
percent of the planet, and a major challenge for future life on Earth.
Frank Bainimarama knows all about the need to protect the ocean. As
the prime minister of Fiji, he runs a country made up of more than 300
islands in the South Pacific. This week, he's been co-hosting the first
ever UN conference on the ocean in New York, along with Sweden's Climate
Minister Isabella Lovin, focusing on sustainable development and
conservation of the world's oceans, seas and marine resources.
Speaking
to the assembled leaders from government, science, business and civil
society, Bainimarama - also the incoming president of this year's UN
Climate Conference in November - made it clear that ocean protection and
climate change are inextricably linked.
"Climate change poses
the biggest threat the world has ever known," he said. "And the quality
of our oceans and seas is also deteriorating at an alarming rate. They
are interlinked, because rising sea levels, as well as ocean acidity and
warmer waters, have a direct effect on our reefs and fish stocks and
the prosperity of our coastal communities."
Fiji's prime minister (left) was in Berlin for climate talks in May.
In hot water 2016 was not only the warmest year on
record, as far as our planet's atmospheric temperature is concerned. In
its "Statement on the State of the Global Climate 2016," published
earlier this year, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed
that globally averaged sea-surface temperatures had also hit record
levels.
Scientists were surprised at the speed at which sea
temperatures have risen. In the last century, the 15 years with the
highest ocean heat anomalies have all been within the last two decades,
according to data from the United States' National Centers for
Environmental Information (NCEI). And the WMO report predicts that the
trend will continue.
"The extra carbon dioxide that gets released
into the atmosphere through our fossil fuels and deforestation is
associated with extra heat," explained Susan Avery, an atmospheric
physicist and president emerita of the renowned Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, in an interview with DW last October. "And 93 percent of the extra warming is actually in the ocean."
Earlier this year, Avery became the first climate scientist to join the board of ExxonMobil. Migrants and aliens
Warming
seas play havoc with the organisms that live there, completely changing
their living conditions to the extent where some are no longer able to
survive in their traditional habitat. Mojib Latif, head of research on
ocean circulation and climate dynamics at the Geomar Helmholtz Centre
for Ocean Research in Kiel, told DW that the ocean isn't just warming on
the surface, but down to a depth of 2,000 meters (around 6,500 feet),
"a giant volume."
That heat will still be present - and will
slowly escape from the ocean - for centuries to come. "This is basically
why global warming will continue even if we don't really emit any
greenhouse gases any longer," he said.
Atlantic cod are moving further north into Arctic waters.
Fish species are moving toward the poles in search of cooler water, and alien species are moving in to replace the traditional residents in warming waters.
Coral
reefs are perhaps the best-known victims of ocean warming. They are
frequently in the headlines, most notably Australia's famous Great
Barrier Reef, which has been devastated by bleaching.
"Corals
don't have very great temperature tolerance. So if the oceans warm by
more then 1.5 degrees [Celsius] or so, they would probably die," said
Latif. "And it's well possible that without climate protection, all
tropical corals will be gone by the middle of the century."
Extreme weather
Warming
seas are also influencing the world's weather patterns, and scientists
are expecting increases in extreme weather events.
The El Nino weather event, a natural cycle, illustrates what happens when the ocean warms.
Some have attributed the extreme rainfall and flooding in Peru earlier this year to warming seas.
"El Ninos are events that are characterized by enormously high sea
surface temperatures," said Latif. He attributed the extreme rainfall
and flooding in Peru earlier this year to extremely warm water off the
coast. "Sea temperatures off Peru are slowly warming."
The question is whether global change is having an influence on the climate of South America.
"What
we can say is that El Ninos have become more frequent during the recent
decades and they have somehow became stronger during the last 20
years," said Latif.
"Whether this is already a trend or not is
hard to say, but some climate models actually project that this is
exactly what's going to happen in response to climate change."
Warmer water, rising seas
Recent
research shows sea levels are rising almost three times as fast as they
were 25 years ago. Experts say ocean warming has been responsible for
about half the sea level rise that we have observed during the last
century, as warmer water expands.
The other key factor is melting
ice, as the world warms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) is working on a special report on the ocean and climate change,
to be finalized in September 2019. It will include information on ice
melt in Greenland and in the Antarctic, including the East Antarctic,
long thought to be immune to global warming.
Greenland's massive ice sheet is melting faster than ever.
Hans Pörtner, of Germany's polar and marine research center the
Alfred Wegener Institute, is co-chair of an IPCC working group which
focuses on impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation possibilities for
humans under climate change. He views this area as one of most
challenging.
"We have increased awareness that previous estimates
of sea level rise have been too conservative," he told DW. Looking back
at the Earth's history, he said, "we know that during the last
interglacial period, with 0.7 to 2 degrees global warming above
pre-Industrial levels - these are the comparable numbers to where we are
today - we had a sea level of around 7 meters [about 23 feet] higher.
And if we compare and look back at the last period in Earth's history
where we had 400 parts per million CO2 - and that's also where we are
now - we had a similar degree of higher sea level."
So far, however, countries have based their adaptation and coastal protection measures on earlier, more conservative estimates.
"They
will have to increase their ambition in coastal protection. And in
several examples, we will have to give land back to the oceans. We may
not be able to protect the land because sea level may actually reach
2 meters or even more by the end of the century," Pörtner said.
Upsetting the conveyor belt
The influx of melting ice doesn't just lead to rising sea levels, as atmospheric physicist Susan Avery explained.
"When
the land-based ice comes into the ocean, you get a freshening of
certain parts of the ocean, so particularly the sub-polar North
Atlantic. So you have a potential for interfacing with our normal
thermohaline circulation systems, which could dramatically change that,"
she said. "The changes in salinity are beginning to be noticed, and
changes in salinity are a signal that the water cycle is becoming more
vigorous."
Scientists describe these systems as the "global
conveyor belt" that links the oceans of the world and in turn influences
climate. One example is the Gulf Stream system, which is to a large extent responsible for the temperate climate of Europe and parts of North America.
A study released this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in
the US suggests that if the ice influx increases far enough, the
disruption of the ocean current system could also have devastating
consequences in Africa, with a disruption in rainfall patterns playing
havoc with agriculture.
Atlantis 2.0: What happens when ocean temperatures rise? As global warming speeds up, so does the rise in sea levels. While 2004 to 2010 saw oceans rise by about 15 millimeters in total, this value doubled for 2010 to 2016. Tropical regions in the western Pacific are especially affected, threatening many of the coastal areas and low-lying islands with submersion by the end of the century.
An acid bath?
Alongside the extra heat, the CO2 we have indirectly been dumping into the ocean has another devastating impact.
"The
extra carbon dioxide, when it gets dissolved into the ocean, through
various simple chemical equations, will increase the PH or acidification
in the ocean," Avery explained. Seawater is already at least 26 percent
more acidic than it was before the onset of the Industrial Revolution
in the 19th century, according to the "State of the Ocean" report
published by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean back
in 2013. The report found the ocean could be 170 percent more acidic by
the end of the century.
Mesocosms, closed environments, are used for ocean acidification experiments in nature.
Over the last 20 years, scientists around the world have been
conducting laboratory experiments to find out what that would mean for
the flora and fauna of the ocean. Ulf Riebesell, a professor of
biological oceanography at Geomar, conducted the world's first
experiments in nature off the coast of the Norwegian archipelago of
Svalbard in 2010.
The on-site experiments showed that increasing
acidification decreases the amount of calcium carbonate in seawater,
making life very difficult for sea creatures that use it to form their
skeletons or shells. This change will affect coral, mussels, snails, sea
urchins and starfish, as well as fish and other organisms, Riebesell
told DW.
"Some of these species will simply not be able to compete with others in the ocean of the future," he said.
That
could have severe economic and social consequences, as acidification
ultimately affects the food chain. Riebesell pointed out that coral
reefs, for instance, are home to numerous species, serve as nurseries
for fish, attract tourists and protect coastlines against waves and
storms.
Riebesell has headed the German projectBIOACID (Biological
Impacts of Ocean Acidification) for the last eight years. It's expected
to publish a summary of its results ahead of the UN climate conference
in Bonn in November.
Hot problem for cold water
Polar areas are
most affected by ocean acidification, as cold water is able to more
quickly absorb CO2. Experiments in the Arctic, which is already warming
around twice as fast as the global average, indicate that the seawater
there could become corrosive within a few decades, Riebesell said. "That
means the shells and skeletons of some sea creatures would simply
dissolve."
At a working meeting of the BIOACID group in Kiel last
week, IPCC co-chair Hans Pörtner told DW that ocean acidification, a
relatively young research field, had already made its way into the
policy arena.
"It's being considered as one of the climate
challenges for the ocean, and it's also considered in the context of
sustainable food supply, especially for developing countries," he said.
But
even countries like the United States are already feeling the effect,
said Pörtner. On the country's west coast, ocean acidification is
already threatening oyster cultures, and he said this economic impact
has increased awareness of the problem.
Scientists are also
concerned that the increasing amount of CO2 being stored in the ocean
could, in turn, create a feedback effect that could further exacerbate
global warming.
In the long run, the ocean will become the biggest sink for human-produced CO2, but it will absorb it at a slower rate.
"Its buffer capacity will decrease, the more acidic the ocean becomes," said Riebesell.
Science and policy
Pörtner
told DW that the writing is on the wall. "We really have to go into
ambitious mitigation, if we want to have a chance to keep this under
control."
Carol Turley, senior scientist at the Plymouth Marine
Laboratory in the UK, is highlighting the issue of ocean acidification
at the UN conference in New York this week. She told DW that a
combination of local management measures and global action were
necessary to protect the ocean and implement the UN's sustainable
development goals.
"Although acidification, warming, sea level
rise and oxygen loss represent global challenges requiring international
agreements, there are varied options for reducing other stressors while
efforts continue to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere," she said.
Turley said it was "inspiring" that
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the co-chairs of the ocean
conference, Fiji and Sweden, had recognized the key role of
climate-related ocean stressors, including ocean acidification, and
that the combined impact of these may threaten the implementation of the
UN's Sustainable Development Goal 14 (SDG 14), which focuses on the
ocean and life below water.
She said it was also heartening to
hear their messages of hope. "It's not too late to fix the ocean. This
shows how the evidence from science has been taken up by policy makers,"
she said.
Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory has been highlighting the issue of ocean acidification in New York this week.
'Stay optimistic'
Martina Stiasny, a young
climate scientist from the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in
Kiel, Germany, told conference participants in New York about her
research on how climate change-induced ocean acidification is affecting
fisheries.
"We are already starting to see the first effects in
the oceans," she told DW. "It's imperative that we start to act now.
Otherwise it poses a serious threat to the health of the marine
ecosystems and food security. It's not only important for the SDG 14,
but also links to most other SDGs in terms of human health, fighting
hunger and poverty and most other goals."
The landmark ocean
conference has been taking place against the background of US President
Donald Trump's decision to take the US out of the 2015 Paris climate
agreement, a move Stiasny describes as a "major disappointment."
But she takes heart from the widespread movement to press ahead with emissions reductions and a transition to renewable energy.
"The
statement that America made by pulling out is of course the wrong
message to send to the world," she said. "But fighting climate change is
done every day by everyone on this planet and I believe we have no
choice but to stay optimistic."
Chief scientist’s report flies in the face of previous recommendations on reducing electricity emissions
The report by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has modelled a clean
energy target that would reduce electricity emissions by 28% on 2005
levels.
Photograph: David Crosling/AAP
Less than two weeks ago, Alan Finkel told the Senate his landmark
report would help Australia meet the commitments it made in Paris to
reduce its economy-wide emissions by 28% below 2005 levels by 2030.
But his recommendations on the future of the National Electricity Market, released today, appear to fly in the face of those very commitments.
Before Senate estimates Finkel said: “We are very cognisant of the
commitment that the nation has made through the Paris accords.
“We absolutely need to deal with the issue of ensuring that the
electricity sector can do its fair share in helping the nation to meet
its obligations under the Paris accord – the COP21 accord.”
Now today, his landmark review of the National Electricity Market has
modelled cuts to emissions of the electricity sector that are the same
as what the entire economy needs to do: 28% below 2005 levels by 2050.
He said anything deeper, which had been suggested in other reports,
would cause problems.
Finkel suggested those cuts should be achieved with a “clean energy target” – which is equivalent to what has been called a Low Emissions Target. The result by 2030 will be one where renewables are responsible for just 42% of electricity generation.
But what is the electricity sector’s fair share?
Well it’s a lot more than that recommended by Finkel’s report.
How do we know it needs to be higher? We can look at a report from the Climate Change Authority, that Finkel himself co-wrote, that examined how much the electricity sector needed to do.
After examining several scenarios for meeting Australia’s emissions
reduction targets, it concluded: “The common finding is that the
electricity sector can contribute deep, cost-effective emissions
reductions as part of national action to meet global temperature goals.”
The electricity sector has to do much of the heavy lifting for several reasons.
it’s the biggest source of carbon emissions – producing more than a third of the country’s total.
many other industries can’t easily reduce emissions – it’s very hard
to reduce the emissions from the agriculture sector, for example.
decarbonising the electricity sector will help other sectors
decarbonise – for example, if cars stop using petrol and shift to
electricity, we will need the electricity system to be low-emissions in
order to see an actual reduction in emissions.
That last point was made by the Climate Change Authority report.
“Substantial decarbonisation of electricity supply can facilitate
emissions reductions in other sectors, as electricity can displace their
direct use of fossil fuels,” it said.
But in his report today, Finkel said any deeper cuts could be
problematic. “The adoption of a more ambitious target would have larger
consequences for energy security as such a target would likely see a
higher level of [variable renewable energy] incentivised,” Finkel wrote.
Bill Hare, the a leading climate scientist and CEO at Climate Analytics has spent a lot of time modelling precisely this issue
“From a scientific perspective this is quite shocking because the
almost universal consensus from the modelling exercises for how to
achieve the Paris agreement has the power sector doing a lot more than
the rest of the economy everywhere in the world,” Hare said.
This conclusion appears to have been crafted to fit with the politics of the present government. Bill Hare, climate scientist
“I think this conclusion appears to have been crafted to fit with the
politics of the present government rather than the science and
understanding of these systems,” he said.
Hare said he doesn’t know of any work globally that supports Finkel’s
claim that deeper cuts to emissions will put the system’s reliability
or security at risk.
Dylan McConnell from Melbourne University said an additional problem
with having shallow cuts in emissions in the electricity sector, was
that it was the cheapest place to make the cuts – so the overall cost to
the economy of meeting our Paris commitments will be more expensive.
How deep do emissions cuts need to be in the electricity sector?
Finkel’s report for the Climate Change Authority can help us answer that. The report found
the electricity sector’s emissions intensity should drop by about 69%
between 2015 and 2030. (From 0.81 tonnes per megawatt hour in 2015 to
0.25 tonnes by 2030.)
According to their modelling
of a Clean Energy Target making this cut, they found it would reduce
total emissions from the electricity sector by more than 60% from 2015
levels.
(While Paris commitments are made with reference to 2005 levels, when
total national emissions were much higher, emissions from the
electricity sector, were roughly similar in 2005 and 2015.)
So, far from Finkel’s recommendation actually getting the electricity
sector to do it’s fair share, if implemented, it would guarantee
Australia does not meet its targets made in Paris, since it is about
half as demanding on the electricity sector as it needs to be.
McConnell said there is no evidence that deeper cuts will cause problems for the security or reliability of the system – and modelling from the Australian Energy Market Operator has demonstrated that.
A way forward
It
seems likely that the weak recommendations made by Finkel were intended
to give something palatable to a Coalition government containing a conservative rump that wants state-subsidised fossil fuel generation, seemingly just for the sake of it.
But as things stand, Australia doesn’t have an emissions reduction
policy. In fact, Australia has emission growth policies, with the
government’s own projections demonstrating current policies will cause carbon emissions to grow for decades.
A mechanism like the one Finkel proposed will at least cut emissions,
even if by an amount that will still lead to catastrophic climate
change.
But more hopefully, if it is implemented in the right way, it could be “ratcheted up” by future governments
For example, if the 28% target is not legislated, but rather left as a
regulatory leaver, it is something that could be increased later. To
maintain confidence among investors looking to build energy
infrastructure, it would help if the legislation required the target to
move in only one direction (up).
Others have lined up to criticise Finkel’s recommendations on
how to deal with the variability of some renewable sources, as their
penetration increases.
Finkel has proposed a “generator reliability obligation” which would
set a minimum level of dispatchable generation in a region, and when
that threshold is crossed, all new generators would be required to be
paired with some dispatchable power – batteries, other storage, or gas
that can be switched on quickly.
Hugh Saddler from the Australian National University says that’s a badly designed mechanism.
“If implemented, this recommendation would seem certain to greatly
complicate, slow-down and add to the administrative overhead cost of
building new renewable generation. It would involve putting together a
consortium of multiple parties with potential differing objectives and
who would otherwise be competing with each other in the wholesale
electricity market,” Saddler said.
He
said that instead, a separate market mechanism should be created to
incentivise dispatchable generation. “The would be far more economically
efficient, and thus less costly to electricity consumers, than the
messy processes required under the Report’s obligation approach.”
Consumer advocates at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (Piac) also
criticised Finkel’s approach. “Requiring new renewable energy operators
to invest in energy storage technologies or come up with other ways of
addressing their variable output is expensive and unnecessary,” Craig
Memery, team leader at Piac’s energy and water consumers’ advocacy
program, said.
“Requiring new renewable energy operators to invest in energy storage
technologies or come up with other ways of addressing their variable
output is expensive and unnecessary,” Memery said.
This particular recommendation was endorsed by the coal industry, though.
The chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia, Brendan
Pearson, said: “The minerals sector also welcomes the concept of
Generator Reliability Obligations and Energy
Security Obligations. These could provide an important means of
ensuring that new generation can provide reliable and secure power.”
Poor air quality kills 1.2 million people in India every year. To help battle that staggering statistic the Indian government is instituting a plan to help get fossil fuel powered vehicles off the road. The plan calls for the end of gas powered vehicle sales by 2030.
In India, almost as many people die from air pollution as cigarette smoke. Image: REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri
Every car sold in India from 2030 will be electric, under new
government plans that have delighted environmentalists and dismayed the
oil industry.
It’s hoped that by ridding India’s roads of petrol and diesel cars
in the years ahead, the country will be able to reduce the harmful
levels of air pollution that contribute to a staggering 1.2 million deaths per year.
India’s Energy Minister Piyush Goyal says the government will financially support the initiative
for the first two or three years, but the production of electric
vehicles will be “driven by demand and not subsidy” after that.
Image: Shutterstock
Air pollution a big problem in India
More than a million people die in India every year as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, with an investigation by Greenpeace finding that the number of deaths caused by air pollution is only a fraction less than the number of smoking-related deaths.
The investigation also found that 3% of the country's gross domestic product was lost due to the levels of toxic smog.
In 2014, the World Health Organization determined that out of the 20 global cities with the most air pollution, 13 are in India.
Efforts have been made by the country’s leaders to to improve air
quality, with one example coming in January 2016 when New Delhi’s
government mandated
that men could only drive their cars on alternate days depending on
whether their registration plate ended with an odd or even number
(single women were permitted to drive every day).
While such interventions have enjoyed modest success, switching to a
fleet of purely electric cars would have a much greater environmental
impact.
As India’s ambitious electric vehicle plans begin to take shape,
oil exporters will be frantically revising their calculations for oil
demand in the region.
In its report into the impact of electric cars on oil demand,
oil and gas giant BP forecast that the global fleet of petrol and
diesel cars would almost double from about 900 million in 2015 to 1.7
billion by 2035.
Image: BP
Image: EVvolumes.com
Almost 90% of that growth was estimated to come from countries that
are not members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development), such as India and China.
China is also gearing up for a move away from gas-guzzling cars.
Oil bosses claim it’s too early to tell what the implications of a
move away from petrol and diesel cars will be. However, Asia has long
been the main driver of future oil demand and so developments in India
and China will be watched extremely closely.
French President Emmanuel Macron, left, welcomes Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, before their meeting at the Elysee Palace in
Paris, France, Saturday, June 3, 2017.
AP Photo/Kamil Zihnioglu
On June 3, two days after President Trump announced that the United
States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi exchanged a hug with French President Emmanuel
Macron during an official visit to Paris. Modi and Macron pledged to
achieve emissions reductions beyond their nations' commitments under the
Paris Agreement, and Macron announced he will visit India later this year for a summit on solar power.
For observers who equate India's energy production with a reliance on
coal, this exchange came as a surprise. Modi's internationally visible
pledge would put India three years ahead of schedule to achieve its
"Intended Nationally Determined Contribution" to the Paris climate
agreement. Instead of shifting to 40 percent renewables by 2030, India
now expects to surpass this goal by 2027.
As the United States retreats from international action on climate with a bewildering lurch toward coal,
other countries are assuming leadership in the most far-reaching energy
transformation since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. China
is cementing its role
as a dominant producer of solar panels and wind turbines, and a number
of European countries are continuing their slow move away from fossil
fuels.
India, meanwhile, is emerging as a major market for renewable energy, laying out aggressive plans
for investments in solar and wind. This shift is not about a
starry-eyed prime minister seeking to garner international goodwill. It
is the result of a fundamental energy and economic transition already
underway, which India's leadership has recognized.
Prices this low for utility-scale renewable power in emerging
economies are unprecedented but also exciting. Only last year, when the
Indian state of Rajasthan held an electricity solar power auction,
energy analysts deemed one company's bid to supply solar power for 4.34
rupees per kilowatt-hour too low, and possibly leading to project failure.
But solar energy prices are still falling as a result of fierce
competition, lower costs all along the supply chain and favorable
interest rates.
Large, credible international companies such as SoftBank Group of
Japan, Taiwan's Foxconn Technology, and India's Tata Power are jumping into this highly competitive market. And the shift is not just happening in India. Solar prices in Chile and the United Arab Emirates fell below 3 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2016.
Indeed, where emerging economies are installing new power generation
capacity, the economic argument in favor of renewables is strong and
getting stronger.
Additional drivers of this revolution include the local and global
pollution costs of extracting, transporting, refining and consuming
fossil fuels. In opting for renewables, India and China
are responding to widespread local protests against air and water
pollution and the human health impacts of continued reliance on fossil
fuels.
For poor countries, domestic solar power generation has another side
benefit. It saves them foreign exchange by substituting solar energy for
imports of oil, gas and coal.
Three key conditions
Three conditions are critical for this structural shift to continue
in India and globally: growth in energy demand, innovation to make
electricity grids more reliable and adequate land for installing solar
modules.
Per capita electricity use in India is among the lowest of the
emerging economies. Therefore, it is likely that demand will continue to
rise to meet increasing availability of electricity.
India's national grid came into existence relatively recently in 2013
with the connection of its different regional grids. The grid must
become more robust to cope with the range and intermittency of some
forms of renewables-based power. One silver lining, however, is that
high electricity demand periods in India for commercial activities and
air conditioning occur during the day, when solar production is at its
peak.
India's high population density means that freeing up land for solar
installations will require careful zoning and land use planning.
National policy should require greater emphasis on land areas that are
less critical for other productive uses or for biodiversity conservation
and ecosystem management.
Smog obscures the Taj Mahal on Jan.
26, 2017. Air pollution, mainly from fossil fuel combustion, is
discoloring the building's white marble.Kathleen/Flickr, CC BY
Solar diplomacy
Renewable power offers a relatively low-cost solution to energy
security challenges, conserves scarce foreign exchange and reduces
fossil-fuel-based pollution. These benefits led India and France to
propose an International Solar Alliance for "sunshine" countries in the tropics at the Marrakech climate change conference in November 2016. These countries receive strong solar radiation that fluctuates very little throughout the year, thereby providing favorable conditions for low-cost solar power generation.
ISA is a treaty-based intergovernmental organization that already
counts 123 countries as members. It is committed to increasing adoption
of solar power production by sharing technological knowledge and by
mobilizing $US1 trillion in financing from international development banks and the private sector by 2030. The Modi-Macron embrace extends far beyond France and India.
Broader adoption of renewable power production in emerging economies
is not the only solution to climate change challenges. But it is a
central plank in global strategies to manage climate change-related
problems. Countries such as India, China, France and ISA members are
demonstrating that a failure of U.S. leadership need not stand in the
way of a renewables revolution.
Friday marks an important day in Australia's efforts to settle on
climate action but those hoping chief scientist Alan Finkel has puzzled
out a durable and effective solution are likely to be disappointed.
Debate
this week has focused on the means of how to achieve a cut in
pollution, whether by a so-called clean energy target or an alternative
route. But quite where the various rules and new mechanisms will take us
in terms of carbon cuts has largely been sidelined.
Labor moves to end climate change policy wars The federal opposition is indicating it may back a plan for
cleaner energy through a low emissions target, a move which could bring
to an end 10 years of climate policy wars.
The review recommends the electricity sector merely
meets the 28 per cent cut in 2005-level emissions by 2030 pledged to
the Paris climate accord by the Abbott-Turnbull governments.
Given
the electricity sector is widely viewed as the industry best placed to
make substantial - and relatively low cost - pollution cuts, Finkel's
target is underwhelming. Instead, he recommends the government by 2020
prepare a whole-of-economy strategy for 2050 with no specifics other
than "it may be appropriate" for governments to ask the sector do more
than 28 per cent.
The result is a report that is as much a roadmap for politicians to
get out of the energy and climate mire rather than one that serves
Australia's climate goals - and what other nations expect of us.
The
problem with the 28 per cent figure - which the government says Finkel
chose himself - is the electricity sector has always been expected to
lead the reduction event both in Australia and almost every other
nation.
If that's all the power sector delivers, Australia will get nowhere
near the 2030 Paris goal it has promised because other parts of the
economy are much harder to tackle especially without an economy-wide
carbon price.
The electricity sector is no longer expected to punch above its weight. Photo: Joe Armao
Biggest polluterThe power industry is Australia's biggest polluter, emitting 187.5
million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution in 2015, or about
35 per cent of the total.
Its concentrated nature and competitive
renewable energy alternatives make the transition to a low-emissions
future also among the cheapest pathways.
That's why major
international bodies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
to the International Energy Agency model swifter falls in energy sector
emissions than Finkel has used when calculating how to keep global
warming to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels. (See IEA
chart below.)
The revelation that Finkel set such a low mark was met with disbelief
from some climate experts. Responses ranged from "you must have heard
wrong" or "this is absolutely catastrophic - Australia is basically
saying good bye to the Paris target".
Typical was Bob Ward, a
policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and
the Environment, at the London School of Economics and Political
Science.
"Most of the emissions reductions achieved so far by the
UK have been in the power sector...[and] the same is true for emissions
cuts in the United States," Mr Ward said.
"Making cuts in other
sectors will be harder, and in transport, for instance, reducing
emissions through the introduction of electric vehicles will depend on a
supply of low-carbon power," he said. "It is difficult to see how
Australia could follow a radically different path to cutting its
emissions by 2030."
Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel has presented his electricity market report to the COAG leaders meeting in Hobart on Friday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian
National University, put it bluntly: "What are they going to do, cut the
cattle herd by 28 per cent by 2030?".
Proof that Australia may
reduce its climate ambitions will need to await the government's fuller
Review of Climate Policies due later this year. Still, after Donald
Trump's recent decision to pull the US out of the Paris accord,
it's natural global interest will focus on other countries wavering in
their commitment.
Power play
In Finkel's defence, the terms of reference limited his focus "to
develop a national reform blueprint to maintain energy security and
reliability".
Still, he could have picked from the Climate Change
Authority's special review last year of the electricity sector. Relative
to 2015 levels (which were slightly lower than in 2005), that review
modelled falls of 69-74 per cent to 2030.
Those briefed on Thursday suggested Finkel had taken a thoughtful approach with a keen eye on what was politically feasible.
That's
why his report backs a clean energy target rather than an emissions
intensity scheme given a tentative tick in Finkel's preliminary report.
The Turnbull government stamped on that latter concept within days of
its release in December.
Finkel decided on something that had a
fighting chance of bipartisan support, one person said of the final
report. Anything more ambitious would fail because of likely opposition
within the federal coalition.
Another state's delegate was not
overly worried about the 28 per cent target saying it was important to
set up the architecture for the transition out of coal, and have the
option of ramping it higher later.
Whether that plan wins support of a sceptical federal opposition and the Greens remains to be seen.
Another
sought Finkel's suggestions for other sectors, such as transport and
agriculture - where government policy is largely absent. The scientist
is understood to have said that wasn't his instructions.
That broader study could be Finkel's next job, one of those briefed joked to Fairfax.
Australian households would save about $90 a year, or up to $1000 on
their electricity bills over a decade to 2030 under the Clean Energy
Target proposed by the Finkel review of the electricity sector, compared
to a business-as-usual scenario for it.
The review, released on
Friday at the Council of Australian Governments meeting, argues
Australia has a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity to reshape the
national electricity market; take advantage of technological
change; improve the security and reliability of the system; reward small
and large consumers who reduce electricity demand and meet a 26-28 per
cent emissions reduction target by 2030.
Labor moves to end climate change policy wars The federal opposition is indicating it may back a plan for
cleaner energy through a low emissions target, a move which could bring
to an end 10 years of climate policy wars.
It also highlights a warning from the Australian Energy Market
Operator that next summer, both Victoria and South Australia could face
electricity supply interuptions following the closure of the Hazelwood
coal-fired power station.
Another key recommendation of the report
is that power generators should in future have to give three years'
notice before closing down.
"This will signal investment opportunities for new generation and
give communities time to adjust to the loss of a large employer," Dr
Alan Finkel said.
The Turnbull government should also, in its
current review of climate change policy, which is due to be released at
the end of the year, should look to set a post-2030 emissions reduction
goal through to 2050 to give greater certainty to the sector, and
investors.
The report focuses on four key outcomes: how to deliver energy
security, reliability, affordability for households and business, and
meet Australia's emissions reductions targets.
The call for a new
Clean Energy Target (CET) is, as expected, one of the key
recommendations of the review and its promise of lower power prices for
households will be crucial in Mr Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh
Frydenberg convincing conservative MPs the CET is the policy to adopt.
Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel's review of the electricity market promises lower prices under a Clean Energy Target. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
The report examined the effectiveness of the CET and an emissions
intensity scheme (EIS) and modelled how both, if calibrated to hit a
28 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, and zero emissions by 2070,
would work.
Under the scenarios examined, both a CET and EIS
would deliver cheaper power prices for households and consumers, all the
way through to 2050, compared to the "business-as-usual" scenario, but
a CET would deliver slightly cheaper prices than EIS.
"In the
long-term, the CET scenario saw more electricity produced by brown coal
than the EIS scenario because there is no penalty for high emissions
generators. However, marginally more renewable capacity was built in the
CET policy scenario that led to slightly higher overall resource costs
over the modelling period," the report notes.
"Under both the CET and EIS scenarios, the renewable generation mix in 2030 was 42 per cent of the generation sent out."
The Renewable Energy Target should be abolished after 2020 and replaced by the CET, the review said.
Dr
Finkel's review noted that while energy sector stakeholders had pushed
for an EIS, the federal government had ruled one out. Therefore a CET,
which has similar ability to reduce emissions, was the preferred option.
The
report warns the national electricity market is under stress because
of policy uncertainty and says "action should be taken with the aim of
creating a market environment in which the electricity sector has the
confidence to invest."
"The impact of a high degree of market
uncertainty is ultimately borne by consumers in the form of a more
costly, less reliable system."
The report predicts that, under a
business-as-usual scenario, a CET or an EIS, the use of coal power will
decline in the decades to 2050 as older generators come to the end of
their life and because "investors have signalled that they are unlikely
to invest in new coal-fired generation".
Increasing energy
efficiency, greater use of solar on homes and storage will partially
offset this but, the report states, it is incumbent on state and federal
governments to take "decisive action to ensure the transition to the
future grid . . . is smooth and that the electricity system continues to
serve the interests of all consumers".
Part of Dr Finkel's
blueprint for a more secure electricity sector are measures including
obligations on new generators to provide essential services to maintain
voltage and frequency.
New wind and solar generators, for example,
would have to be able to supply reliable despatchable power - meaning
they would have to build a battery, have pumped hydro storage or
gas-fired power.
New generators will be required to guarantee
supply of electricity when needed at a level determined following
regional assessments by the national market operator in a bid to avoid
blackouts like the one that crippled South Australia earlier in the
year.
Dr Finkel has recommended better system planning, with a
system-wide grid plan to inform network investment decisions and ensure
security is preserved in each region of Australia.
This would also include a list of potential priority projects to enable development of renewable energy zones.
"Security
and reliability have been compromised by poorly integrated variable
renewable electricity generators, including wind and solar. This has
coincided with the unplanned withdrawal of older coal and gas-fired
generators," Dr Finkel said.
The report calls for a new "Energy
Security Board" to drive implementation of the blueprint and deliver an
annual health check on the state of the electricity system.
Reliability
would be further reinforced through a "Generator Reliability
Obligation" implemented by the Australian Energy Market Commission and
the Australian Energy Market Operator following improved regional
reliability assessments.
"The National Electricity Market is 5000
kilometres long, spans five states and one territory and has more than 9
million metered customers. It's essential that we get it right,"
Dr Finkel said.
