WFES 2010 Day 2: What Next After Copenhagen?

Continuing our coverage of the World Future Energy Summit, IfandP is pleased to provide the edited highlights of what proved to be one of the most interesting and well-attended plenary sessions of the day.

The session entitled: “What Next After Copenhagen?” began with a keynote speech from Dr Rashid Ahmed Bin Fahad, Minister of Environment and Water, UAE. Interestingly, he started by admitting that the outcome of the summit was disappointing and failed to meet the high ceiling of demands and expectations it began with. He elaborated by saying that during the course of negotiations, the extent of demands dropped rapidly as people struggled to reach any agreement. Furthermore, Dr Fahad commented that politicians conducted the debate largely on political and economic grounds, not on a scientific basis. He then outlined the nature of the current agreement, highlighting its recognition that strong action must be taken to limit global warming to 2°C and that countries must proceed on the basis of common but differentiated responsibilities. He was quite scathing about its limitations, listing the lack of new obligations, monitoring mechanisms and the fact that the summit’s single biggest achievement, the announcement of new funding for developing nations to adapt and mitigate against climate change, did not include any mention as to where the funding would come from.

Dr Fahad went on to comment that the refusal for countries such as the US and China to commit to a realistic timeframe for cuts in emissions and independent monitoring “raises questions.” He also said that we can’t talk about limiting global warming to two degrees while the rates of CO₂ emissions rise year after year and that “wasting time does not serve the interests of anyone.”

The second speaker was Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Director General of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). He began by immediately praising Dr Fahad for his enlightened view, which he considered all the more significant, coming from a minister of an oil-exporting nation. Dr Pachuari then made the point that regardless of what we do, climate change will continue over the next two to three decades, forcing some of the poorest countries in the world to adapt, some of which “are already living in a state of fear.” He went on to warn that 75m-250m people will be affected by water scarcity and that agricultural output will be reduced by 50 per cent in some regions. As far as North America was concerned, Dr Pachuari warned of the impact to the continent’s Arctic regions and the risk of heat waves and reduced water supply in the South.

Dr Pauchuari also gave the audience some interesting figures to digest. In his view, “if climate change is to be limited to 2-2.4°C, then it is absolutely imperative that CO₂ emissions peak in 2025…” and that “2050 targets are hollow, as we aren’t going to be there!” He then made the case that the nation state will not be able to do much without a surge in grassroots support and that bringing industry and business onboard is essential.

Up next was Norway’s minister for foreign affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre. After briefly describing his country’s dual role as a major exporter of fossil fuels and a pioneer in terms of renewables, he explained that Norway has a front row seat when it comes to climate change, situated as it is near the Arctic. He illustrated his point by showing two contrasting photos of a glacier taken in 1928 and 2008 and followed by announcing that Norway has recently published an updated copy of a report entitled “Melting Snow and Ice”. Regarding the negotiations that took place at Copenhagen, he explained that there was a need for a change of mindset, particularly as the world is becoming increasingly multipolar, making such talks more complex. Mr Støre then pointed to the agreement between Norway and Brazil to reduce deforestation in the Amazon, made possible only by mutual trust. He argued that the pledges made by most countries are not enough and that they must be verifiable. He also highlighted the fact that the deadline for such pledges was the end of January. Mr Støre then said that Norway has unilaterally increased its commitment to reducing its CO₂ emissions by 39 per cent by 2020, rising to 40 per cent if other major countries increase their commitment and pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050, or 2030 in the later scenario.

Senator Timothy Worth, President of the UN Foundation, said that in his opinion, Copenhagen was the first time the discussion was based on an agreed set of climate data. He argued that huge discoveries of shale gas in the US and China had the potential “to change the equation”, in terms of permitting more low carbon electricity generation. Senator Worth then explained that at the summit, President Obama had made clear his personal commitment to the struggle against climate change and that it had been shabbily reported by both the US and global media. He then made the point that the President has enormous power over CO₂ emissions in the US by virtue of the Clear Air Act and that he faces an uphill struggle in terms of legislation. This in the senator’s view is due to a large alliance of “climate change deniers, energy and transport companies” and a tough political system that can be hard for members of parliamentary democracies to grasp. He then hammered his point home by saying that “A real battle is going on with naysayers attempting to purchase politicians.” However, Senator Worth then reassured the audience by explaining that President Obama has significant tools for the job and support on this issue from most state and local governments.

Bianca Jagger, Founder and Chair of the Bianca Jagger Foundation, in addition to echoing other comments made by the previous speakers regarding Copenhagen’s disappointments, argued that its failure was due to “a year of attempted bribery and bullying by developed nations to get developing countries to sign a deal that was not in their interests,” and that negotiations took place in an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. She also made the point that the lackluster emissions reductions target tabled by the US had thrown off negotiations and that more should be done to make negotiations more open to civil society. Ms Jagger also warned that without further negotiations, the promised funding for developing nations was potentially “vapour money”, but also that if China meets its goal of reducing the carbon intensity of its economy by 40-45 per cent, we would be on the way to success.

The first purely private sector speaker of the session, Ditlev Engel, CEO of Vestas, made two clear points. His first was that much can be done with technology that has already been developed and that too often people assume that action can’t be taken because in their mind the technology isn’t ready yet. His second point was that given the impact climate change will have on water supplies, any low carbon solution must also be a low water use solution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he was then quick to point out that wind power uses only around five litres of water per MWh, compared to 10,000l for coal or 12,500l for nuclear.

Kirsty Hamilton, Associate Fellow of the RE Finance Project was up next and made a pertinent observation that the next 10-15 years of infrastructure and energy investment will start to lock in emissions for 2050, making the issue of climate change much more near term that some might think. She also highlighted the importance of a meeting between the BASIC countries taking place this month.

The final speaker was Richard Jones, Deputy Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA). He commented that although the IEA often to its discomfort is described as the developed countries’ energy watchdog, “watchdogs bark and we’re barking.” He then pointed to the IEA’s reference case scenario, which predicts a huge rise in energy consumption, CO₂ concentrations of 1000ppm and 6°C of global warming. He then highlighted the importance of energy efficiency, which could be responsible for around half of the action required to reduce energy consumption and CO₂ concentrations to 450ppm (2°C). Mr Jones then made the point that although reaching this point would require US$10.5trn in investment, it would produce fuel savings of around US$8.3trn. After explaining that around 2030, 1.3bn people are expected to be living in energy poverty (slightly down from today’s 1.5bn), due to population growth among other factors, he indicated that if current pledges were upheld, CO₂ concentrations would rise to 550pm, resulting in a 3°C increase in global temperatures. Worryingly he then said that this 1°C difference could be the tipping point, due to the potential release of methane hydrates locked under the ice.