Author: Amanda Ullman

I discussed in my last blog post the concepts of good and bad energy. In this post, I (and the presentations I discuss) determine the basis for good energy based off of greenhouse gas emissions. In my eyes, the good energies that we should be promoting are those with little to no greenhouse gas emissions, as these are the sources most likely to enable us to maintain a 1.5 ° C max increase in mean global temperatures. What became clear to me at COP24, though, is that today’s market is giving undue support to high emitting energy sources. The support to which I am referring is fossil fuel subsidization. One of the most common calls to action that I heard mentioned during my time at COP24 was the need for governments to undertake fossil fuel subsidy reform.

My attention may not have been brought to the topic, had it not been for one of my clients, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (who graciously took me under their wing after the incredibly unfortunate dissolution of the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development). IISD has created an entire body, called the Global Subsidies Initiative, that is dedicated to working with governments and assisting them in the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Over the course of COP24, GSI partnered with many organizations and government officials to spread the word of the potential benefits to fossil fuel subsidy reform. In a presentation on my final day at the negotiations, GSI brought together representatives from Argentinian NGO, FARN, and India-based think tank, CEEW, to discuss how redirection of money going towards fossil fuel subsidies could lead to increased funding of community services, like improved healthcare and access to clean water.

One of the clearest non-GSI calls to remove fossil fuel subsidies was in a presentation at the European Union Pavilion called  “From the skies or the sea: How can regulation align international transport with the Paris goals.” This event featured a group of panelists, each discussing various policy analyses and recommendations related to fuel sources that make up the EU’s transportation industry. One presenter from EU’s Transport and Environment, Faig Abbasov, focused his presentation on recommendations for the shipping industry. Abbasov explained to the audience that the sipping industry accounts for 1 GtCO2 per year and that the annual sulfur emissions of just one ferry equate to that of 400,000 cars. In his eyes, it is clear that our shipping needs to be electrified- we need to drastically increase the number of battery-operated vessels and we need to do so quickly. The problem he sees, though, is that our markets have been propping up liquified natural gas as a fuel option.

Many have considered natural gas to be a transition fuel, as it emits far less greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels. In the grand scheme, though, Abbasov estimates that substitution of natural gas as a fuel source for our shipping vessels amounts to only around a 5-10% reduction in emissions, which is far, far less than the amount we need to reduce to limit our global temperature increase to 1.5° C. Still, natural gas is subsidized and promoted amongst markets. Abbasov explained that without natural gas subsidies, battery-operated ferries are already cost competitive with traditional fuel-powered ferries. Instead of turning to the socially efficient option of zero-emission battery-powered ferries, though, fossil fuel subsidies support a fuel source that keeps us far from reaching our emission reduction goals. While this is a case specific to the shipping industry, similar effects arise every day from subsidization of coal and oil. I leave COP24 with a desire to explore further the effects that reform of fossil fuel subsidies could have on our climate action and how countries could promote these reforms in a way that promotes benefits across communities.

Ferry Image Sourced from:

World’s First All-Electric Battery-Powered Ferry

My time at COP 24 has over and over beget the question, “What is good energy?” The conference is based in Katowice, Poland, a city in the Upper Silesian region of Poland that has historically based much of its economy in coal production. Poland’s energy portfolio itself is heavily dependent on coal as a fuel source. An incredible 80% of Poland’s energy production comes from coal.  Seeing as coal is one of the most carbon intensive fuel-sources, it seems strange, backwards even, that a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change would be hosted in a country so entrenched in the use of the GHG emitting fuel. In terms of its contribution to climate change, it would not be out of the question to label coal as a “bad” source of energy.

Poland is not alone in its coal usage. China and India are both extremely large coal consumers and United States’ President Trump has made it clear that divestment from coal is in no way a part of the country’s agenda. Today, the United States will join Poland in what one might consider a celebration of the fuel source. While Poland has expressed its support for its continued coal consumption through decoration of its country pavilion with coal- filled pillars and coal jewelry displays, the United States will use its voice. Reports have it that the United States, in its only official COP24 side event, will present to attendees its view on how “clean coal” can fit into our global energy portfolio.

While coal is the high profile “bad” energy source at COP24, it’s not the only one to receive criticism. I have heard presenters dissuade audience members from liquified natural gas, large-scale hydroelectric, and biogas power. Unfortunately, our emissions trajectories have placed our global energy sectors in a bind. We have a wide variety of energy sources available to us, but they all present tradeoffs. Ideally, we’d be powering the entirety of our energy needs with renewable, emissions-free energy sources, but right now, how we would do so isn’t entirely clear.

Clear “good” energy options to most folks include solar and wind. Both are incredibly clean fuel sources with relatively small associated carbon-emissions, which solely come from the energy used to produce modules and turbines. Solar and wind, however, are plagued by intermittency, unpredictability, and less abundant (but quickly increasing) storage options.  Nuclear fission might be able to fill solar and wind’s intermittency holes, but it has its own downfall: radioactive daughter products. Since Fukushima devastated Japan’s greater Okuma area, most of the world (apart from Russia) has backed away from investments in furthering nuclear power, despite the promising advancements in nuclear technology. At this time, we have not achieved large-scale nuclear fusion, which would be incredibly economical and produce daughter products that decayed far more quickly than those of fission. Even hydroelectric power, despite being carbon free, has its own issues with environmental degradation.

I write all this to express the Catch22-esque nature of our situation. At this time, there is no perfect energy solution. For that, the world will need to expedite it’s efforts in nuclear fusion or invest more into research and development of large-scale storage of wind and solar generation. For now, perhaps we can’t be surprised when countries use the energy sources that are cost effective and available to them. It’s clear that using coal as an energy source takes us far from our 1.5 degrees goal- there’s no doubt about its detriment to our earth. So why then do countries like Poland, the US, China, and India use it? Because it’s widely available, low cost, and compatible with our current infrastructure. For some countries, this makes it a “good” energy. Our future in renewables and clean energy sources thus depends on our ability to overcome these benefits through technological and policy-based advances.

References:

1.  https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2016/12/10/how-clean-is-solar-power

Picture Sources:

1. https://grist.org/article/this-years-u-n-climate-talks-brought-to-you-by-coal/
2. www.prosolar.com/photos

It is hard to believe that in less than a week, I will finish my very last final and hop on a plane to head out to Katowice, Poland and attend COP24.  Opportunities like this, where I can work with organizations like my client, the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD),and rub elbows with the diplomats and professionals working to fight against global climate change, are the reason why I chose to attend the Nicholas School of the Environment. Since I entered the renewable energy industry 3 years ago, I have had dreams of assisting in sustainable energy system development. I see myself in the future working around the globe to assist developing countries across Africa and Latin America. To think now that I will be joining the conversation on how parties to the UNFCCC can work together to make sustainable development a reality is beyond belief. I cannot wait to put to use the information on renewable energy, international negotiation, and climate change policy I have gained in my first semester of graduate school during these conversations.

My role with ICTSD is especially in sync with the interests that I have held throughout my experience in Duke’s United Nations Climate Change Negotiations Practicum. With my interests in sustainable energy system development, I have often wondered how the United Nations could coordinate the actions of developed and developing countries and bring them together to benefit from one another in their plans for development. During the COP, I will be able to explore these ideas in detail as I assist ICTSD in their monitoring of the negotiations’ discussion on implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which discusses cooperative approaches and response measures. Cooperative approaches would prospectively allow countries to work together through inter-country development and international trading of mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) to surpass the mitigation achievements planned in current NDCs.¹ Such possibilities for mutually beneficial coordination are what inspire me most about international development work.

This particular COP will be especially influential, as negotiators have set a goal of finishing the Paris Rulebook (the guidelines on how the Paris agreement will be implemented) by the COP’s final day, December 14^th. Plus, with the recent release of the United States’ latest National Climate Assessment² and the IPCC “Global Warming of 1.5°C” special report³ so closely preceding the talks, lawmakers will be under even greater pressure to answer to the stark realities that continuation of our current rate of CO_2e emissions will induce. Much anticipation is arising over how coal as a fuel source will be discussed within negotiations, being that COP24 will be held in Poland, the second-largest coal producing country in Europe, and the United States’ administration’s push for support of the coal industry.⁴  Watching how this dynamic unfolds, along with the progress of Article 6 implementation plans and discussion over increasing worldwide energy access, is going to be fascinating and is something I look forward to exploring in more detail over the course of COP24.

Resources:

1. https://unfccc.int/files/parties_observers/submissions_from_observers/application/pdf/696.pdf
2. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
3. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2018/03/28/explaining-polands-coal-paradox/#24f3ee894867