Last week’s publication of the first small – but important – part of the IPCC’s vast Fifth Assessment Report has received a lot of media coverage but it really changes nothing. Those who already lean to the view that burning fossil fuels will lead to dangerous increases in average temperatures will find nothing to persuade them otherwise. After all, the panel concludes that it is 95% certain that human activity is the primary cause of climate change. Equally, those who are sceptical of the claims will point to the lowering of the range of predicted temperature rises and the approximately 15 year hiatus in the warming trend which started in the mid-70s.
But this report is not designed to be read by the layman. When finally published, the huge volumes of discussion and analysis of published scientific work will be for a relatively small circle of experts. The key publications, which receive all the attention, are the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). The first has been the 32-page summary of the (yet to be published) report from Working Group I on the physical science basis of climate change. This will be followed by similar reports from Working Groups II and III, covering Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Mitigation respectively.
In all cases, the SPMs are published first. This may seem like putting the cart before the horse, as a summary is usually written after completion of the full text. But the IPCC’s summaries are in fact political documents, agreed line by line by representatives of the participating governments and tweaked to fulfil specific agendas. In this regard, they are more akin to international treaties or agreements than a conventional précis of a longer document.
The message is clear: the IPCC was set up by the world’s governments with the express intent of finding out more about how humans are altering the climate (manmade global warming was already accepted as a reality) and is now being used as a key influencer of vital policy issues. The importance given to the Summaries for Policymakers, the fact that they are agreed politically and released first, all focuses on this primary role of the IPCC. The vast tomes of the Assessment Reports themselves simply provide backup for the case being presented in the summaries.
The question is, are these messages having a real effect on policy? In the same way as people towards either end of the spectrum of acceptance of the central hypothesis (the enhanced greenhouse effect) merely have their preconceptions reinforced by whatever is published, so politicians generally carry on along the course already set, only quoting whatever published evidence they need to in support.
In effect, global climate policy has reached a stalemate. The EU continues to express enthusiasm for radical cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, while actual emissions are driven very largely by economic circumstances. China, now the world’s biggest emitter by some margin, pays lip-service to decarbonisation by setting long-term goals, while continuing to build large numbers of coal-fired power stations (some of which provide the energy to produce solar panels to be exported to the EU and paid for in higher electricity bills). The USA is ideologically opposed to signing up to a global emissions deal in its present form, but continues to see declining emissions as cheap domestic gas replaces coal. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol at the time of the Durban summit, in recognition of its ineffectiveness, and the new Australian government is struggling to reverse an emissions reduction policy which is disadvantaging its industry. Meanwhile, many developing country citizens would simply like to have electricity available and be able to stop cooking with unhealthy, inefficient wood stoves.
A key factor in European enthusiasm for emissions reduction is the belief that, by taking a lead, the rest of the world would follow. This touching faith in humanity looks increasingly misplaced. Meanwhile, the flagship Emissions Trading Scheme has been a disaster. The price per tonne of carbon now stands at around €5 and moves by the European Parliament to reduce the oversupply of credits will do nothing to change the inherent inflexibility of the scheme and volatility of the price signal. One of the recent consequences of going with such a flawed cap and trade system is that the most cost-effective way for Germany to replace its nuclear fleet is by building more power stations burning lignite, the highest-carbon option available.
The ineffectiveness of the policy package has been further guaranteed by the doctrinal insistence on targets for renewable energy rather than simply letting the market find the most effective way to reduce emissions. Despite the never-ending need for subsidies paid via utility bills, and despite the increasing recognition that wind and solar farms can make only a modest contribution to emissions reductions while vastly inflating the cost and complexity of electricity grids, governments are locked in to building more of them, often in the face of fierce opposition.
Fortunately, there are some signs of change. The Spanish government, saddled with vast subsidy payments to solar energy generators at a time of economic crisis, has acted to cut over-generous payments (The cost del sol). This has hit many small investors badly, but largely because the correction was made too late and was consequently large. Germany is in a similar situation, though currently better able to absorb the cost (not necessarily a view shared by consumers).
Of potentially broader significance is the view of MEP Konrad Szymanksi, co-rapporteur on EU climate and energy policy to 2030: Europe must ‘fundamentally reform’ its climate policy. Mr Szymanksi is still a supporter of urgent emissions reduction, but recognises that this has to be done in the most economic way and as part of a wider global commitment. Europe otherwise is burdened with unnecessary costs without there being any benefit. Coming from Brussels, this represents a welcome breath of fresh air.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
_____________________________________________