Elizabeth Robinson And the Esen Sirin Consider how much we must rely on technology fixes in the mission to get to net zero.
It is already clear that significant progress can be made in mitigating climate change by moving to carbon-neutral energy, reducing deforestation and modifying how food is grown and what we eat. Renewable energy is increasingly cheaper to produce than fossil fuels – a recent Oxford University study suggests that replacing fossil fuels with clean energy could generate global savings of up to $12 trillion by 2050. The International Energy Agency has found that there are now more jobs In “clean energy” – including renewables, electric vehicles, energy efficiency and nuclear power – compared to the fossil fuel industry, the economic argument alone should provide enough incentive to rapidly decarbonize the power system.
We also know that moving away from fossil fuels will bring significant benefits to health and well-being through reduced air pollution and a shift towards more active lifestyles and balanced diets. Committing to net zero can also reduce social inequality, especially in already very unequal societies, if investment is made, for example, in affordable and reliable low-carbon public transportation, urban green spaces, and homes with more cooling and warming. efficiency.
However, the reality is that global emissions are still increasing, and countries seem to be resistant to implementing the pricing and regulatory policies needed to accelerate the energy transition that is key to reaching net zero. This is partly due to vested interests, and partly due to insufficient attention being paid to equitable transition, for example in relation to workers whose livelihoods are closely linked to fossil fuels.
At this point, it will be hard to avoid the need for more technological solutions if the world has any hope of meeting the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. In fact, by 2050, nearly half of the emissions reductions required to reach global net zero may need to come from technologies currently in the demo or prototype stage, according to the International Energy Agency.
What more can technologies achieve?
Certainly, we need to continue to develop technologies that increase energy efficiency and reduce demand, expand low-carbon methods of power generation to replace fossil fuels, and remove existing carbon from the atmosphere. on the last front, carbon capture – Used to either tackle industrial emissions that are more difficult to reduce or remove directly from the atmosphere – often seen as a key component of pathways to net zero. Currently the world’s largest facility to capture carbon directly from the atmosphere, in Iceland, can permanently remove only 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, but several million tons projects are set to go online by 2030. Costs are currently high, though There is currently no market for removals for operators to easily recover these costs. For example, a feasibility study for an Icelandic project may require a carbon offset purchase price per tonne of CO2 $200-$300 by 2030 and $100-$200 by 2035, which is a significant increase in current carbon prices under the European emissions trading scheme of about $70-80 per ton.
hydrogen Another area where there is great innovative potential is to move towards clean energy. This versatile fuel is low carbon only to the extent that it is produced in a low carbon manner. The most common way to produce low-carbon hydrogen requires an ample supply of renewable energy and water. To tackle the latter, some scientists are working to pull this fuel “out of the blue.” These methods come at a high cost, with estimates that green hydrogen may not be competitive even if carbon prices are around €200 ($237) per ton.
nuclear fusion, which can provide an unlimited efficient source of low-carbon energy, has been considered “a few decades away” for many decades already. The cost of ITER – the giant international project aimed at reviving the merger – could now reach 22 billion euros, up from the initial estimate of 6 billion euros. But confidence that the merger will eventually be commercialized is perhaps stronger now than ever, with private sector investment growing rapidly in recent years, shattering a historic record of sustained merger energy earlier this year.
At the most controversial end of the spectrum are geoengineering Techniques such as solar geoengineering, which reflects sunlight away from the Earth’s surface, or “seeding” clouds and oceans to modify rainfall and increase carbon uptake from seas. (Some scientists have even proposed a plan to refreeze the north and south poles.) These techniques offer the potential to lower global temperatures while they are applied but do not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which means they do not treat the rootstock. The cause of climate change and the risk of immediate warming if it is stopped. It also does not reduce ocean acidification, while reducing or removing carbon dioxide can achieve it. There is also considerable uncertainty about the effects that these technologies may have across space and time: if they alter tropical monsoon rains, for example, the negative effects on food security could be significant, particularly in low-income countries.
Whatever the promises, we must not over-rely on technological reform
Even if it is empowering the new Technology is the world’s best (and perhaps only) chance of reducing global emissions to net zero, we must not delay including solutions readily available today in the hope that some future technological solution will save us. If we do, we will be in great danger of exceeding the Paris temperature targets and threatening intergenerational justice while endangering the future of the younger generations and those who are not yet born. By the time new technologies are effectively and affordably available, it may be too late. Experience with some CCS projects so far shows that technology may not work perfectly initially and that learning by doing (which takes time) is an essential part of the innovation process.
The rapid decline in the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy may indicate that the same can happen to newer technologies. However, an over-allocation of public resources to new innovations (with potential social regressive consequences, depending on how costs are recovered) can undermine the public legitimacy of the transition as a whole. This threat may be even greater in relation to investment in more controversial technologies, which currently enjoy low levels of public support, such as solar geoengineering.
Today’s many early-stage technologies may increasingly become part of a more comprehensive (or desperate?) plan to address climate change, particularly with the world missing many of the goals and aspirations of the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Charter, if current trends continue. But we already have a very good idea of the immediate steps that could provide urgent emission reductions, zero-compatible net growth, and health and well-being co-benefits. This leaves no reason to delay reasonable climate mitigation actions that can and should happen now.
Please read our feedback policy before commenting
NB: the post gives the opinions of its authors, Not Location USAPP – American Politics and Politics, neither the London School of Economics nor the International Monetary Fund, or its Executive Board, or its management
Short URL for this post: https://bit.ly/3R6L4Oa
About the authors
Elizabeth Robinson – LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Elizabeth Robinson is Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Research at the London School of Economics.
Esen Sirin – LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Essien Sirin is a policy analyst at the London School of Digital Economy’s Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment.
from San Jose News Bulletin https://sjnewsbulletin.com/can-new-technology-solve-the-problem-of-climate-change/
No comments:
Post a Comment