Just days before the Copenhagen climate negotiations kicked off, three leaders from the International Energy Agency (IEA) – Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka, Deputy Executive Directive Richard Jones, and Chief Economist Fatih Birol – repeated their call for an effective international agreement at a December 2 briefing in Washington, D.C.
Even the IEA, which until last year neglected climate change in its World Energy Outlook scenarios, is now warning that without a change in policy the world is on a path for a global temperature rise of up to 6 degrees Celsius, with catastrophic consequences for Earth’s climate. For the second time, the agency is presenting a scenario to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon-dioxide equivalent – a level that is hoped will avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change (see 2007 IPCC assessment).
However, the IEA’s projections on how such a scenario would look are cause for concern. While it is clear that energy efficiency and renewable energy will play the biggest role in reducing emissions, the IEA projections for these remain well below prognoses made by the renewable energy industry (e.g., the wind industry) and in clean energy scenarios like the Greenpeace/EREC Energy [R]evolution Scenario and the soon-to-be released Worldwatch Report Renewable Revolution: Low Carbon Energy by 2030. On the other hand, the 450-ppm scenario for 2030 counts on a full 5,470 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of nuclear power production and over 1,600 TWh from fossil fuel power stations that are fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.
Environmental organizations have rejected these projections as being risky and unsustainable (see the Greenpeace reaction). The IEA scenarios also do not compare with actual recent developments. According to the REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2009 Update, global power capacity from renewable energy sources (excluding large hydro) in 2008 rose by 16 percent compared with 2007. Nearly three times more renewables capacity was added in one year than the entire capacity of the U.S. nuclear sector. At the same time, global power production from nuclear power has gone down in recent years – not least because of the enormous costs and unsolved risks of nuclear power, and CCS is not even commercially available and proven.
Asked about the basis for these assumptions, the IEA leaders did not give an explanation at the briefing in Washington. Instead, Tanaka conceded that a higher share of renewable energy may indeed be possible, in which case other capacity could be replaced.
The pathways are not fixed, and much will depend on political choices. The conditions that the Copenhagen conference will set for technology development, including the way that national appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), are financed and accounted for, will play a significant role in deciding whether investments will focus on unlocking clean and abundant renewable energy potentials and energy efficiency, or whether investments will flow into risky attempts to revive nuclear and fossil technologies.
Loading ...
