Introduction You should watch Al Gore’s ‘An
Inconvenient Truth’ for the background to Climate Change. If you are too mean
to buy it you can watch extracts on Youtube or borrow my copy. Or you can watch
him on TED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUO8bdrXghs
and then you could go to
the Climate Project on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_mr9EqJg18
Climate
Change and Global Warming - key points and an update
good article:
Fossil Fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
extract: The Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2007 the primary sources of
energy consisted of petroleum 36.0%, coal 27.4%, natural gas 23.0%, amounting
to an 86.4% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.
Non-fossil sources in 2006 included hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 8.5%, and others (geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, wood, waste) amounting to 0.9%. World energy consumption
was growing at about 2.3% per year.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/fossil-fuels-dominate-global-primary-energy-consumption/
see #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
Shale oil and gas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas
http://www.what-is-fracking.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578114492856065064.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/shale-gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry
Nuclear Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
Environmental
Degradation and loss of Biodiversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_degradation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_India
http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/page/3566.aspx
http://saferenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/population-growth-and-environmental-degradation/
http://www.eniscuola.net/en/life/contenuti/biodiversity/left/loss-of-biodiversity/causes-of-the-loss-of-biodiversity/
http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/threatsto_biodiversity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_protection
Pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#Forms_of_pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_prevention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_minimisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_energy_use
Renewable
(sustainable) energy (resources)
Renewable
energy comes from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat, which
are renewable (naturally replenished). As of 2010, about 16.2% of global final
energy consumption comes from renewables, with 10% coming from traditional
biomass (e.g. wood), which is mainly used for heating, and 3.4% from
hydroelectricity. New renewables (small
hydro, modern biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels) accounted for only 2.8% but have been growing
very rapidly. The share of renewables in electricity generation is around 19%
(with 16% of global electricity coming from hydroelectricity but only 3% from new renewables).
Based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Renewable_energy
Go there to read the full
text. Also:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/06/energy-statistics
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/359607/investment_in_renewables_falls_by_20_per_cent_in_2009.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization
http://247wallst.com/2011/04/15/alternative-energy-watch-investment-in-clean-energy-fall-france-cancels-permits-for-shale-gas-drilling-memc-meets-canadian-rule-for-feed-in-tariff-tot-dvn-memc-csiq/
General global energy
consumption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/24/energy-resources-consumption/
According to D. G. Victor
and K. Yanosek in ‘The Crisis in Clean Energy’, Foreign Affairs July/August
2011 :
after years of very rapid
growth (25% a year) the clean energy industry is facing crisis. With the
economic crisis public subsidies are no longer sustainable politically. At a
global level in 2011 the number of new start-up projects for wind turbines fell
for the first time (by 50% in the US). Solar energy and ethanol in the US
depend on federal and state subsidies. Private investment in clean energy has
fallen. In the EU there have been cut-backs in clean energy subsidies and
investment. Germany cut solar energy subsidies in 2010, Italy has capped
subsidies and Spain and the Czech Republic are making cuts. China, now the
biggest carbon emitter, is maintaining support for the industry but needs to
improve the electrical power grid to link installations (e.g. wind farms) to
consumers. On the stock markets share values for clean energy companies are
falling. So far investment in off-shore wind farms in Northern Europe has
continued and roof-top solar energy technology in the US remains popular in
California and Florida and New Jersey. However, the general outlook is gloomy.
Nuclear power, contested by some as not truly clean, feared by many among the
public as dangerous, but supported by others as cheap and reliable, is unlikely
to receive significant investment in the near future after the events following
the tsunami in Japan.
So Western countries, in particular, face a tough choice – trying to invest to
prevent global warming and ensure future energy security while faced with the
ongoing economic crisis, rising public debt and, for most, a trade deficit. So
far there has been investment in, and purchase of, established clean energy
technologies rather than investment in innovative future technologies that
could be much more competitive with traditional fossil fuel energy sources. Solutions
are necessary that do not depend on government subsidies that the US and the EU
may no longer be able to afford. Scarce public funds should therefore go to
innovation and to supporting research and promising projects (e.g. organisms
that can create bio-fuels) and commercial-scale testing of such new
technologies. Most existing technologies are not economically viable without
subsidies, so the current crisis should be seen as an opportunity to reconsider
strategy in favour of innovation and commercialization to lower costs and
achieve competitiveness. This could be fostered by cross-border partnerships to
engage in emerging markets, e.g. between EU companies and China.
For full text go to:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67903/david-g-victor-and-kassia-yanosek/the-crisis-in-clean-energy
also ‘Tough Love for
Renewable Energy’:
The EU Emissions
Trading System
https://www.foeeurope.org/carbon-trading
An critical article on the EU Emissions Trading System: failing to deliver
http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/FoEE_ETS_failing_to_deliver_1010.pdf
What Friends of the Earth Europe calls for:
A short extract:
End the reliance on the EU-ETS. Priority should be given to other policy
options, such as regulation, taxation and subsidies which are able to deliver
the scale and speed of emissions reductions that are necessary to avoid
catastrophic climate change.
•
The most dangerous loopholes in the EU-ETS must be removed by ending
overseas offsets, stopping free permits to polluters, introducing a much
tighter cap, and preventing the use of banked permits from earlier phases of
the EU-ETS scheme. Auctioning money must not be used to subsidize fossil fuels,
such as state aid for new coal power plants, or false solutions such as nuclear
power or CCS.
•
The EU-ETS must not be expanded by either linking with schemes outside of
the EU or instituting sectoral trading with developing countries. Carbon
markets cannot be a replacement for mandatory targets under a binding
international climate agreement, and adequate and appropriate public funding
for climate finance in developing countries.
•
The EU-ETS should not be used as an argument to prevent other policies such
as setting binding energy efficiency targets or to prevent any other measures
at national level such as national climate laws to tackle industry or industry
sector emissions.
Launched in 2005, the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) is
the largest
carbon trading market in the world. It is the EU’s principal policy
mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the power generation and
industrial sectors. But the EU-ETS is
not delivering the CO cuts required by science, historical responsibility
and sound financial
practices.
The first carbon trading trial phase in 2005-2007 was an abject failure. At
2298 million tons of
CO, the 2007 cap was actually 8.3% higher than verified 2005 greenhouse gas
emissions.
Businesses were therefore free to increase emissions – or set emission
permits aside for the
next EU-ETS phases. Anxious to avoid having to make short-term investments
in emissions
reductions, industry lobbying against higher, effective targets has been extremely
effective.
In the current 2008-2012 phase, the average CO cap is 2% lower than 2005
emissions. But
in seventeen out of twenty-member states – including France, Poland and the
UK, 2012
caps are still higher than measured emissions in 2005. Overall, twenty-one
out of twenty
seven member states sought 2012 emissions caps that were higher than 2005
emissions (with the richest EU member state, Luxembourg, pushing for a 52%
increase).
There are now so many unused permits that most industries covered by the
Emissions
Trading System (responsible for almost 50% of EU emissions) can legally
avoid making any
cuts before at least 2016. What’s more, there is no obligation to reduce
emissions in Europe.
Through the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism, EU-ETS sector
businesses
may invest in projects outside Europe. Known as offsetting, this avoids
domestic cuts,
frequently even fails to reduce emissions in developing countries, and may
also cause
significant social and environmental problems.
Adding up paltry CO emissions caps and offsetting loopholes reveals a
dangerous gap
between science and political reality. The International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has
made it plain that 25-40% emissions cuts will only offer a 50% chance of
keeping global
temperature increases below 2°C. Within the EU, the Netherlands has already
budgeted for
€100 billion to cope with sea level rises of 1 metre. Yet reports are now
warning that a 2°C
increase could lead to the tipping point beyond which the Greenland ice cap
cannot survive.
This could result in catastrophic 7 metre sea level rises.
In this context, ongoing reliance on the Emissions Trading System is a risk
that cannot be
taken. The EU must urgently increase its emissions target to at least 40% -
the upper ‘safe’
level set by the IPCC – and ensure that these cuts are domestic. This calls
for strong political
will. Rather than depend on the uncertain, ineffective, and unfair
Emissions Trading System,
the EU must privilege other forms of action. This includes tougher laws to
develop
renewables and increase energy efficiency, as well as carbon taxation and
incentives for
public and private investment to pay for emissions cuts.
Significant
price differences between regional natural gas markets have driven many European
countries to increase coal consumption while decreasing use of natural gas
(Source: BP).
Coal, natural gas, and oil
accounted for 87 percent of global primary energy consumption in 2012 as the
growth of worldwide energy use continued to slow due to the economic downturn.
The relative weight of these energy sources keeps shifting, although the change
was ever so slight. Natural gas increased its share of global primary energy
consumption from 23.8 to 23.9 percent during 2012, coal rose from 29.7 to 29.9
percent, and oil fell from 33.4 to 33.1 percent. The International Energy
Agency predicts that by 2017 coal will replace oil as the dominant primary
energy source worldwide.
The shale revolution in the
United States is reshaping global oil and gas markets. The United States
produced oil at record levels in 2012 and is expected to overtake Russia as the
world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas combined in 2013. Consequently,
the country is importing decreasing amounts of these two fossil fuels, while
using rising levels of its natural gas for power generation. This has led to
price discrepancies between the American and European natural gas markets that
in turn have prompted Europeans to increase their use of coal for power
generation. Coal consumption, however, was dominated by China, which in 2012
for the first time accounted for more than half of the world’s coal use.
Global natural gas
production grew by 1.9 percent in 2012; the United States (with 20.4 percent of
the total) and Russia (17.6 percent) are the dominant producers. Other
countries accounted for less than 5 percent each of global output.
In 2012, coal remained the
fastest-growing fossil fuel globally,even though at 2.5 percent the increase in
consumption was weak relative to the 4.4 percent average of the last decade.
China increased its coal use by 6.1 percent. India also saw significant
increases in its coal consumption—9.9 percent in 2012. Coal use by members of
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) declined by
4.2 percent, as an 11.9 percent decline in U.S. consumption outweighed
increases of 3.4 percent in the EU and 5.4 percent in Japan.
Oil remains the most widely
consumed fuel worldwide, but at a growth rate of 0.9 percent it is being
outpaced by gas and coal for the third consecutive year. The OECD’s share
declined to 50.2 percent of global consumption—the smallest share on record and
the sixth decrease in seven years. This reflects declines of 2.3 percent in
U.S. consumption and of 4.6 percent in EU consumption. By contrast, usage in
China and Japan rose by 5.0 and 6.3 percent respectively.
Conversely, global oil
production grew by more than twice as much as consumption—2.2 percent or 100.1
million tons in 2012. This was mainly due to a rise in U.S. output of 13.9
percent—the highest rate ever. In comparison, Canada, China, and the former
Soviet Union saw relatively small increases of 6.8, 2.0, and 0.4 percent
respectively.
Consumption of all fossil
fuels will likely grow in the future. With increasing shale gas fracking and
many countries’ interest in displacing coal generation with natural gas due to
the lower greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas use seems well poised to grow.
Although some countries are trying to move away from coal use, the incredible
coal consumption growth rates in China and India will likely make this the main
energy resource in the next few years. Last, even if oil is eventually not the
world’s dominant energy resource, its use is expected to grow unless there is a
fundamental change in the way the world fuels the transportation sector.
