At some stage, human use of fossil fuels will peak and decline. The rate of decline may be quite rapid or relatively slow, depending on what becomes our main energy source, but at some stage – maybe before the end of this century – oil will be primarily used as a source of transport fuel and as a feedstock for the chemical industry. In the longer term, it will be displaced from these sectors as well.
All this is inevitable. Whether it be nuclear fission (possibly with thorium as the primary fuel), efficient solar panels coupled to an as-yet-developed energy storage system, or even the prospect of viable nuclear fusion, something other than coal, oil or gas will power future societies. This will happen because of innovative technology and market forces, but we don’t know when or how. The question facing today’s societies is whether concerted international policy can hasten the inevitable, via policies designed to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thereby perhaps reduce the projected degree of global warming.
If so, the first step is to achieve political agreement. Angela Merkel has, by all accounts, had a rather successful time hosting the recent G7 meeting. Unseemly squabbles and rifts seem to have been avoided, and the summit has been dominated neither by the long-running Greek financial crisis nor the problems posed by the resurgence of Russian nationalism. In particular, the German Chancellor seems to have had something of a personal triumph by getting agreement on her climate change agenda.
The Guardian, for example, reports that G7 leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by end of century, while the BBC puts things a little less definitely: G7: End of fossil fuel era? In either case, though, the impression is that a major step has been taken, which will help to secure the hoped-for binding international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reduction in Paris in December.
But these sorts of pronouncements are not new. Another way of looking at this is as a confirmation that the world’s major industrial economies are holding firm in their intention to reduce use of fossil fuels. Anything less would have been a disaster, considering that both the G7 meeting and the end-of-year climate summit are being held in Europe.
The G7, of course, is a global grouping, comprising the USA, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Canada and Japan. Agendas vary and, while there has been little doubt about European leaders’ commitment to ‘decarbonisation’, the USA never ratified the Kyoto protocol, while Canada withdrew from it in 2011. Reports are that considerable persuasion was needed to bring Canada and Japan on board for the current declaration.
That doubters still signed up to the communique says more about international diplomacy than the likelihood of action being taken. Cynics could argue that waverers had more to lose than to gain in the short term by raining on Frau Merkel’s parade. Look at what they have signed up to on climate change:
“…we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century. Accordingly, as a common vision for a global goal of greenhouse gas emissions reductions we support sharing with all parties to the UNFCCC the upper end of the latest IPCC recommendation of 40 to 70 % reductions by 2050 compared to 2010 recognizing that this challenge can only be met by a global response.”
Perhaps most important in this is the recognition of the global nature of the issue. Although the G7 nations talk elsewhere about making national commitments, they are also trying hard to pull other large countries along with them. Any agreement signed in Paris which does not have some meaningful commitment from China and India would be effectively worthless.
In this regard, it is interesting to see that China, still by far the world’s largest coal consumer, is no longer expected to see continued growth in coal burning (China’s coal use falling faster than expected). However, although this is probably due in part to a natural desire to reduce the horrendous air pollution in Beijing and other cities, the recent slowing of economic growth has its part to play. According to the Reuters’ report, the utilisation of thermal (ie, coal, gas and nuclear) power plant in the country is only just over 50%.
But this does not necessarily mean that global emissions will peak earlier than expected. India is now at last enjoying faster growth and may grow faster than China in years to come. Its population is also set to become the world’s largest, and neither Mr Modi nor future governments will compromise future growth for the sake of a global climate deal. Expect the focus of attention to shift to India over the coming five years.
Agreement in Paris or some future venue will be hard enough, but delivering on the promises will be much harder still. Even for the committed, there is a difficulty in translating words into action. For example, see the report that Five G7 nations increased their coal use over a five-year period, research shows. Of the G7, only the USA and Canada reduced coal use between 2009 and 2013, largely as a result of the boom in shale gas. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Energiewende has provided perverse incentives for gas to be replaced by lignite and hard coal while the country’s grid struggles with the intermittency of solar and wind energy.
The problems being experienced in Germany and elsewhere today will only get worse as more renewable energy generation comes on stream, requiring ever more thermal backup. Enthusiasts point towards ways to make solar energy cheaper than coal by 2025 via initiatives such as the Global Apollo Programme (How renewable energy can become competitive). But, critically, this ignores the elephant in the room; the fact that renewable energy alone cannot provide energy security and so the real system costs are much higher.
This strongly suggests that the inevitable move away from fossil fuels cannot realistically be hastened. No amount of public subsidy will secure a transformation using technology which is not up to the job. On the other hand, refocusing the Global Apollo Programme to develop viable, secure energy systems might accelerate progress. The real issue is whether policy changes are necessary to achieve this or whether organisations with the capacity and an understanding of the potential would come up with the goods in any case. Time will tell.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________________________