Continued use of fossil fuels triggers increasingly permanent damage with regards to climate change. Yet, there is growing acknowledgment that fossil fuels remain hard to displace. What, then, can – or should – be done to address this ‘confronting paradox’? This question was at the heart of the talk by Professor Robert H Socolow of Princeton University, US visited the University of Queensland, Australia in February this year. The talk was attended by people with diverse interests – energy and mining industries, management consulting, academia and others.
The ideas of ‘unburnable’ fossil fuels and of ‘stranded assets’ were two particular highlights of the talk. Socolow argued that despite being supremely attractive, several fossil fuels would need to be left in the ground if the world even remotely attempted to reach any significant climate target. Fossil fuels would therefore, essentially remain ‘unburnable’ – an idea that energy planners, climate scientists as well as policy makers at the international level would have to consider when deciding when, where and which fossil fuels should remain unburnable. Currently, resources (including oil, clathrates, gas excluding clathrates and coal) worth approximately 70,000 GtCO2 are located in the ground. A majority of these resources are identified as unburnable if the world aims to contain global warming to under 3 °C.
Stranded assets include investments such as infrastructure and power plants that are built to capitalise on current fossil fuel reserves, with a ‘business as usual’ mandate. External impositions, including mandatory policy changes focused on limiting climate change, technological innovations and changes in societal expectations of what is ‘acceptable’ will reduce the asset value pre-maturely, thus making them irrelevant and ‘stranded’ over the long-term. The latter has particular significance for investors, risk managers and at a broader level, both developed and emerging economies that continue to ride the ‘fossil fuel wave’.
Yet, focusing on ‘solutions’ alone could be counter-productive for every solution may have its own misgivings and a ‘dark side’. Geo-engineering, technological hegemony and nuclear power, for example, have problems of their own. Finally, while carbon pricing is picking up and more efficient systems for carbon usage are developed, there are compelling reasons to remain optimistic about the future of the planet. At the same time, as the talk highlighted, two fundamental issues remain at the core of the fossil fuel-climate change debate: first, further investigations are needed to ascertain the ‘real’ pace of change that is optimal from both social and techno-economic standpoints, and second, long-term mechanisms that help engage policymakers in this conversation more proactively should be identified and operationalised sooner than later.
This summary article is drawn from:
Fossil fuels and climate change – lessening the damage from the collision. Presentation by Professor Robert H Socolow at The Energy Exchange Series, Customs House, Brisbane, 9 February 2016, available here.
Dr Vigya Sharma is part of the Energy and Poverty Research Group, University of Queensland, Australia.
To fight illegal coca plantations and conflict actors’ income sources, Colombia’s president wants to loosen the ban on aerial glyphosate spraying. However, considering the dynamics of organised crime, the use of toxic herbicides will not only fail to achieve its aim, it will have many adverse effects for the environment and human health, fundamentally undermining ways to reach peace in the country. International cooperation and national policy-makers need to account for this peace spoiler.
As India grapples with the worsening impacts of climate change, the need to strengthen its adaptation efforts has become more significant than ever. Climate diplomacy and mainstreaming climate adaptation into the most vulnerable sectors could provide some solutions to overcoming barriers, such as the lack of sustainable funding.
“Climate Security risks will materialise in very different ways and forms, whether we talk about Lake Chad or about the Arctic, Bangladesh and the Small Island Developing States,” said the EU’s Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Joao Vale de Almeida, in his opening remarks. “But for the EU, there is no doubt, as underlined in 2016 in our Global Strategy, and reaffirmed by the 28 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, that climate change is a major threat to the security of the EU and to global peace and security more generally,” he said.
The challenges facing the international community are growing while the willingness to cooperate seems to be waning. Foreign policy must help bridge this gap. One way to accomplish this is by pushing forward a major achievement of multilateralism: the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. At a side event during the 2019 High-Level Political Forum, diplomats and policy experts discussed the role of foreign policy in the global sustainability architecture.