Prospects for progress

The required ramping up of low-carbon energy and energy efficiency seems daunting, but there are some grounds for hope. When the right policies are place, things can change fast.

The growth of wind power in the US, for example, has blown away earlier forecasts.  In 1998, the US Government’s Energy Information Administration projected there would be 4,000MW of wind capacity in the US by 2020.  In fact, by December 2007, there was already 16,818MW of wind capacity – four times the forecast, 12 years early.[1]

The higher than expected growth can be attributed to increased concern over climate change and energy security, driving concern among citizens and prompting US States to introduce quotas for renewables (‘renewable portfolio standards’), plus technological progress and easing of costs as the wind industry gains economies of scale.   And that has happened in the country often blamed for holding up progress on climate change.

Of course, as yet this is all just talk. There is no globally agreed goal for stabilisation or emissions peaking. The US government has refused to agree to global targets without assurance of greater contributions from developing countries. It has preferred to act by investing in research to probe technological breakthroughs that will make low-carbon and energy-saving technologies competitive in the market with traditional hydrocarbons. 

At Bali, the best that could be agreed was a ‘road-map’ for future talks and all eyes are now on Copenhagen – where a new US President will sit at the table, possibly more disposed to sign up to an agreement.

So given the shift in the term of debate, what might be the outcome at Copenhagen?

Momentum may well gather for a 2015 peak and the pressure will be on the politicians to agree to it. The new US President is surely unlikely to block any target knowing that if she or he does they will face international outrage before a year of their term has passed – as well as the verdict of future generations. But it’s plausible that resistance from the US, China or others might push the target back to 440ppm C02 with a 2020 peak and a 30%+ cut by 2050, albeit that this carries the risk of coming perilously close to 3C.  

One big issue will be whether to have the new agreement come into force in 2012, as has been assumed, because that is the date on which the Kyoto Treaty officially runs  out – but by when emissions are likely to be accelerating even more steeply - or whether to implement it immediately. If the goal is a peak in 2015, the extra two years would make a lot of difference.

Whichever way you look at it, the challenge is a vast one – essentially, global society changing the habits of a lifetime in six or seven years.

And the sense of urgency is now being driven as much by what we don’t know as what we do. Much of what has been debated and analysed is now water under the bridge, based on scenarios that are now seen as inadequate. For example, there is a mass of literature based on projections and costs in line with the Stern scenario of peaking emissions 10-20 years hence. But there is little to tell us about the impacts of a 2015 peak. There are uncertainties in the science – about the impacts of feedbacks, albedo effects, ocean currents and so on. There are uncertainties over political responses, whether leaders will take action and what kind of action they will take. There are uncertainties over costs – what it will take to make the necessary transition.

Given the risks posed by the uncertainties, it is arguable that policy should be dictated as much by the discipline of risk management, designed to avert catastrophic possibilities, rather than being based on projections and extrapolations based on what science can tell us about the probabilities.

In the next 18 months there will be new, tougher, scenarios and plans. The true scale of what is required to prevent temperatures rising more than 2°C  over pre-industrial levels will become clearer.

Whatever the forecasters say, the outcome depends on two things – the physical capability and the political will.

Many believe the physical capability is there in terms of the capacity to save energy and to draw it from non GHG emitting sources. The issue is whether the political will is present. That in turn depends a lot on the political atmosphere. Does it feel like a crisis on the scale of a war?  Does it feel like a time at which politicians can ask people to make sacrifices? That in turn depends on the level of public concern – are enough voices being raised? Is there a clamour for action? And critical for business – are significant lobbies such as large corporations supporting such a tough target?

The dilemma for businesses is this – support a 2015 peak and face unpredictable, sharp, short term costs and disruption, or remain silent and risk the condemnation of history.

The forces of progress have dealt with crises in such a timescale before – the mobilisation to defeat fascism in World War two being the most obvious example. Business played a leading role then, particularly in the US where after Pearl Harbour plants whirred into action, and automobile factories stopped production of cars and began manufacturing vehicles and planes.

If the calls for action are strong enough, one can envisage the world’s leaders deciding to embark on a massive five year effort to meet both the 2015 climate change target and the Millennium Development Goals – fixing things once and for all. There would be echoes of the US’s New Deal or the Marshall Plan and of Churchill, demanding, if not “blood, tears and sweat”, at least solar, wind, carbon capture, energy saving and a massive transfer of funds and capability from the industrialised countries to the developing world.  

Arguments for more gradual change, looked back on in 2030 or 2050, may appear as pathetic as those advanced in previous eras by those who resisted the abolition of the slave trade or the movement for civil rights. The argument for advocating change however is strong. Businesses are experts at facing, taking and managing risk. Businesses can benefit from investing in energy efficiency or low-carbon fuel and power. Businesses can adapt quickly when the need arises.  Above all, businesses may recognise that by taking a lead in a five year global campaign to solve the world’s greatest ever challenges  – and persuading their shareholders and customers to go along with them - they will go down in history as those who showed what ‘corporate responsibility’ really meant when it came to the crunch.