Create a global clean coal alliance
A decade or two from now, the world should be able to look back at the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris, with the melancholy of former lovers in "Casablanca" saying: "We will always have Paris."
But will we have Paris? India and other poorer countries that rely heavily on coal are really worried that the position of developed countries may hinder the world from winning the battle of climate change in an important way.
On the eve of the United Nations Climate Conference, there are increasing calls for the phasing out of fossil fuels-originally made clear at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in 2015. While multilateral development banks voted on fossil fuel energy projects in developing countries, the United States and other countries also vowed to vote against it. At the same time, coal production in the United States is at least 35% higher than that in India.
For India, this is a bit like "carbon imperialism." According to conservative estimates, it is difficult for India to provide basic electricity supply to about 25% of its population. Such imperialist actions in developed countries may bring disasters to India and other developing countries.
In fact, the only way India and other poorer countries can meet demand while minimizing environmental damage may be to find effective technologies to make coal “clean and green” rather than replacing it.
In any reasonable scenario, coal will provide about 40%-60% of India's energy by 2030. It will and should remain India’s main source of energy because it is the cheapest fuel available in India.
But India has neither neglected the social cost of coal, nor has it slackened in the promotion of renewable energy. India has begun to levy carbon taxes, whether through direct or indirect means. Since 2014, the carbon tax has been tripled to 200 rupees ($3) per ton.
This has led to a hidden carbon tax of US$2 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted by domestic coal. Of course, this may still not be enough to cover all the social costs of carbon use.
India also imposes high indirect taxes on carbon. In view of the drop in oil prices, the Indian government abolished subsidies for gasoline and diesel and increased taxes. The price of carbon emissions in India has therefore changed from a negative number (that is, providing subsidies) to a positive number. In contrast, the governments of most developed countries simply pass on the benefits of falling oil prices to consumers, hindering the cause of curbing climate change.
At the same time, it is exciting that the pollution problem is becoming part of the domestic political discussion in India. New Delhi requires the establishment of pollution monitoring mechanisms in many cities. It is almost certain that the pressure to require other local governments in India to consider the domestic social costs (medical care, accidents and traffic congestion) brought about by rising carbon pollution will increase.
India is working on an ambitious renewable energy plan to increase its renewable energy production capacity from the current 35 GW to 175 GW by 2022. But as Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates pointed out, the price of affordable renewable energy is now not competitive with coal, and it is unlikely to be available soon. Competitiveness. It is only wishful thinking to imagine that renewable energy can replace coal in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, although New Delhi is committed to curbing climate change and promoting renewable energy, making coal clean is critical to India’s development. However, India or other countries cannot do this alone.
Facts have proved that existing technologies such as carbon capture and storage are extremely expensive. In order to discover truly effective technology, the world needs to collectively implement a project similar to the Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb.
This will require investment from the public and private sectors in developed and developing countries, as well as a series of policy tools. But the affluent world’s obsession with phasing out fossil fuels poses the following risks: The private sector, which is already unenthusiastic about investing in clean coal projects, will see these signs and abandon the project altogether.
The time is ripe to create a global alliance for green and clean coal. This undertaking to combat climate change is most helpful, rather than unreasonably calling for the elimination of India’s cheapest form of energy.
Expert Dialogue: How can climate negotiations promote emissions reduction?
As the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference came to an end, the share price of Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately-listed coal company, fell 13.15% on the New York Stock Exchange on December 14, 2015, the lowest value since 2003; at the same time, in Europe In the field, stocks of renewable energy-related companies including Vestas Wind Power rose across the board.
When the "Paris Agreement" was reached, Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and Dean of the British Academy of Social Sciences, a conservative and typical British gentleman, rarely cheered outside the court. Stern said that the "Paris Agreement" is a turning point that will create huge opportunities for countries to accelerate the development and growth of long-term low-carbon economies.
The “gradual and evaluation” mechanism has become a key part of the Paris Agreement. If it is not too strong, the mechanism is expected to lead the world on a path of 2 degrees Celsius. However, what kind of gradual progress can achieve this goal?
Joseph Aldi, Associate Professor, Department of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, Massachusetts, USA
In order to ensure that the proposal of the “Nationally Determined Contribution Plan” can promote effective long-term emission reductions, it is necessary to establish and improve a transparent system and review mechanism.
The transparency and openness of the country’s commitments signifies the country’s serious attitude and can also strengthen the credibility of its commitments. A review of past achievements can prove whether a country has fulfilled its promises and whether it has established trust among the member states that signed the agreement. The framework aims to collect, analyze, and disseminate information related to national commitments, which is conducive to the realization of positive and mutually beneficial commitments in subsequent negotiations. The transparent system will benefit those political leaders who are pursuing policies aimed at reducing climate change risks in their own countries, but due to domestic political pressure and peer pressure, if they fail to fulfill their promises, these leaders will pay a greater price.
The transparency mechanisms of other multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), will also provide guidance for building a thorough climate transparency system. Through expert review, information will be more reliable and independent, which is conducive to the evaluation of countries. Establishing domestic data collection and analysis standards and ensuring the provision of sufficient resources will help increase production capacity and increase transparency among countries. These assessments can also promote policy learning and encourage relevant parties to introduce more effective emission reduction policies.
The establishment of a sound and transparent system and review mechanism in the Paris framework is conducive to promoting today's energy conservation and emission reduction, and will also lead to more efforts to reduce emissions worldwide. Therefore, the goals set by Paris may not necessarily determine long-term climate warming, but over time, its institutional basis will build trust among countries and encourage countries to work hard to increase emissions reduction.
Eliza Northrop, Research Analyst, International Climate Action Initiative, Washington
In the 15th Copenhagen climate talks, some common but different parts were mentioned. These parts are called mitigation "cycles." This is not only a review or evaluation, but also an opportunity to strengthen actions. These measures include: taking an inventory of global progress every five years; updating the country’s emission reduction contribution every five years based on the global inventory (similar to the “Nationally Determined Contribution Plan”); Set higher emission reduction targets.
It is essential that all parties make a new mitigation (climate warming) contribution within about 5 years—around 2020, or re-examine and make more contributions to the current mitigation (climate warming). Around 2020, unless Paris decides to designate a collective "moment", it will be more difficult to require all parties to do their best to control the increase in climate warming temperature within 2 degrees Celsius, which will take 10 years.
Waiting will also mean missing economic development opportunities and benefits. Within five years, there will be tremendous changes in technology, science, and policy. It is reasonable to ask countries (before 2020) to set more ambitious goals. After all, five years have passed since the commitments reached in the last round of negotiations at the Cancun Conference in 2010. A whole decade of waiting will also make us miss the opportunity to achieve these ambitious goals.
Ideally, countries should agree that five years can be used as a unified time category. But even if this agreement cannot be reached in Paris, the agreement still requires all parties to update or revise it every five years, and to hold another meeting on mitigation contributions.
The Paris climate summit needs to conduct the following negotiations related to inventory. What impact will this review have? Will this review be based solely on the national report or will it include the expected emission reduction contribution? How will the global inventory assess collective efforts (for example, through a comprehensive report)? Will the review make recommendations on preparations or finalize emissions reduction contributions?
The first global inventory of the Paris Agreement may be held in 2023 or 2024. Similar measures will be implemented before 2020, and ideally in 2018, to prepare for the updated emission reduction contribution before 2020. The global inventory will not only focus on the progress of emission reductions, but will also consider whether to improve through implementation and support.
Nick Mabey, Founding Director and Chief Executive of London E3G
In order to achieve the 2°C target, countries must change the process and make relevant preparations in the next 5-6 years. It is not enough to submit or resubmit Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) every five years. Progressive and censorship systems need to assess the global risks of climate change and how many countries are needed to work together to mitigate climate warming. As part of the global inventory, countries can make a review commitment in 2018 or 2019, and then submit their plans for the next phase in 2021.
A way must be constructed to prevent the retreat of previous commitments and put more pressure on it, but some countries will shirk the wording, which will force these countries to make more efforts on the announced goals. In the Nationally Determined Contribution Plan, by 2030, China has pledged in its statement to substantially reduce emissions by 2030.
This means that China is likely to be in a favorable position in the process of increasing emissions reduction in the next five years, because this will be in line with its five-year economic plan. In addition, this will further require Chinese companies and cities to expand data transparency. Although behind the closed door, China is not supported by a gradual mechanism, it is possible that some compromises may be reached as the talks progress to the last few days.
Bill Haier, CEO of Berlin Climate Analysis
In order to establish a protection mechanism against the catastrophic effects of climate change, the world must control the temperature rise within 1.5°C. This requires joint action. The main purpose of the entire agreement is to make each member move in the same direction and at the same pace.
We need to develop along this path. Governments of all countries rely on the common political purpose to unite together to drive the development of policies and actions of various countries. They can see what other countries are doing, and they have the opportunity to review whether they have taken sufficient action.
Of course you need a goal to measure adverse actions, which is exactly what is important about 1.5°C.
Five years is a kind of motivation-we can't wait another 15 years, wait until 2030 to pay attention to what we do. If we hope to control warming to 1.5°C, we need to take action. We need to regularly measure whether we have taken enough measures to achieve our goals. Therefore, the mechanism should be activated immediately.
Vision is also very important-not just focusing on emissions, but we also need to look for other gaps. How should we deal with climate finance? When the Green Climate Fund and Climate Adaptation Fund provide funding, do governments have sufficient flexibility? How will they adapt? Where are the gaps? Without a common method of reviewing these areas together, and without a way to maintain pressure to improve actions, we risk failure.
All in all, climate change will not wait for anyone.
Mohamed Adu, Senior Climate Advisor of the London Christian Mutual Aid Society
The Independent National Emission Reduction Plan outlines that the implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) by countries is a positive step, indicating that the world is in the middle of a low-carbon transition. However, according to estimates by the United Nations Development Program, these factors combined will also make the global temperature higher than the pre-industrial level of 2.7 to 3.5 degrees Celsius, and we need it to be below 2 degrees Celsius. Almost all countries participating in the Paris conference said they hope to go further and control the average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
However, to put these words into practice, what countries need is a gear mechanism that can evaluate the implementation of current commitments before 2019, and the mechanism should force countries to consolidate the content of their commitments every five years. Otherwise, we could have done more, but it is very likely to be restrained. Great changes can be made in four years. For example, the cost of solar energy is likely to continue to decline.