by Larry Smith
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and Environment Minister Earl Deveaux fly to Denmark next week for a landmark world conference aimed at tackling what some have called "the most complex collective challenge humanity has ever confronted."It's not about the war on terror or the global recession. The challenge is to prevent catastrophic climate change by "de-carbonising" economic growth. In other words, cutting our almost total reliance on the burning of fossil fuels (oil gas and coal), which is pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.
There are significant - yet manageable - costs involved in this effort. But the good thing about action to address climate change is that it presents unprecedented opportunities for the world in terms of energy security, pollution control, technology innovation and sustainable development.
Ingraham and Deveaux will join more than 100 government leaders (including US President Barack Obama) and more than 15,000 other attendees from around the world at the United Nations summit in Copenhagen, which got underway this past weekend and closes on December18. Their goal is to strike a major political deal that will control the world's carbon emissions for the next decade.
Bahamian interests are being pursued through CARICOM, which strongly backs a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen; and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a group of 39 countries that are especially vulnerable to sea level rise. All but three CARICOM countries are small island states and can be expected to benefit from significant international funding aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change.
A technical team from the Bahamas, led by BEST Commission chief Philip Weech, is already in Copenhagen. He is joined by Tiska Francis of the Bahamas Mission to the UN; Arthur Rolle of the Met Office in Nassau; and Frank Davis of the Bahamas High Commission in London. Teresa Butler, a senior policy advisor to the government, will accompany the prime minister and environment minister to the high-level talks on December 15.The aim is to have the new land planning bill - which addresses coastal protection issues - passed by the House of Assembly before the prime minister leaves for Copenhagen, where he will press the case relating to the effects of global warming on the Bahamas. These impacts include more destructive weather patterns, coral bleaching, and rising sea levels, which threaten the survival of low-lying island nations throughout the Caribbean and Pacific regions.
"I will share with the international community in Copenhagen the efforts The Bahamas has already taken at home, as well as the broader environmental strategy the administrations I have been privileged to lead have vigorously pursued over three non-consecutive terms," the prime minister told me earlier this week.
"While Copenhagen is a significant event, the considerable efforts needed to address climate change must, and will, continue beyond that summit," he said. "The media here at home can play an important role in informing and educating the Bahamian people on this issue of extraordinary global and national challenges. My government proposes to do the same over the course of the months and years ahead."
A little background is in order here. Experts say that without immediate action the world may lose its ability to contain atmospheric warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. Anything beyond that, scientists say, will present a severe danger to human society. Droughts, floods, stronger storms and sea level rise would impact millions of people, damage ecosystems and spur massive migrations, with all the conflicts that would imply.
The Bahamas and CARICOM are calling for even stronger action - to keep the average global temperature rise to under 1.5 degrees Celsius and set a more aggressive emissions reduction timeline. For example, AOSIS has proposed that the global deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 should close in 2017, enabling a post-2017 agreement to respond directly to the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - due in early 2014.
In 2005, world emissions from fuel combustion were 27.1 Gigatons and are projected to rise by almost 60 per cent to 42 Gigatons in 2030 if policies don’t change. To prevent greenhouse gases from rising to levels that pass the point of no return, we need to cut emissions by at least 17 Gigatons below projections within a decade. Recent research by McKinsey & Co concludes that this is achievable through energy efficiency measures, low-carbon energy technologies, and forest preservation - but the window of opportunity is closing fast.
There is no scientific debate any more about the key facts of climate change. But critics argue that the effects are overstated and the cost to achieve carbon reductions is too high. Others think there should be no limits to economic growth and reject the notion that an expanding carbon economy has negative consequences. And then there are the extremists who believe that the whole issue has been cooked up by scientists and politicians seeking to establish an oppressive world government.
But the weight of evidence makes it clear that the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to. The International Energy Agency - a monitoring body set up by 28 industrial countries following the 1973 Arab oil embargo - has identified the prospect of rising oil demand and higher prices from a business as usual approach as a serious threat to the world economy, just as it is beginning to recover. Unless we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, that is just one of the risks we face.
According to the IEA the world needs to spend an extra $500 billion on clean energy every year from now until 2030 to keep atmospheric greenhouse gases within safe limits and avoid an oil supply crunch. But this cost can be largely offset by economic, health and energy-security benefits. Efficiency measures can play the biggest role, followed by renewable energy technologies - including nuclear power.
What do they mean by efficiency? Chiefly low-energy buildings, mandatory energy use standards for appliances and equipment, and fuel standards for vehicles, and other simple things like changing light bulbs. These measures are considered the low-hanging fruit of carbon reduction efforts. For example, if incandescent light bulbs were phased out globally, by 2012 the electricity savings would equal the output of 80 nuclear power plants.
Deveaux's Environment Ministry is already pursuing projects that will move us closer to a low-carbon world. They are part of a $3.8 million sustainable energy programme for the Bahamas financed by the UN's Global Environment Facility and the Inter-American Development Bank. The pilot projects will show how electricity bills can be cut by installing compact fluorescent lightbulbs, solar water heaters and solar power panels in public housing. Equipment is being procured this month to begin some two dozen trial installations.
Meanwhile, consultants are completing detailed energy audits of some 50 homes, hotels and public buildings (including the homes of the prime minister and environment minister). This information will be used to design incentive policies and recommend changes to the building code to promote energy efficiency in the construction sector.
What will a low-carbon world look like? The IEA says we will have to generate about 60 per cent of global electricity from renewables (37%), nuclear (18%) and plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (5%) by 2030. It also projects a dramatic shift in car sales, with hybrids and pure electric vehicles accounting for almost 60 per cent of sales in 2030, from around 1per cent today.
While this is a tall order, it is expected to have a negligible impact on economic growth. According to IEA Deputy Executive Director Richard Jones, "It requires only about 1.5 per cent of world GDP in additional investment over more than 20 years. We are trying to break the connection between economic growth and fossil fuel demand by investment in new technology."
The key, most experts say, is to use a combination of cap-and-trade systems, taxes and regulation to curb demand for fossil fuels and reward the development of clean energy technologies. A recent report from Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, says we should do much more to encourage innovation and investment in green research and development - by setting a price on carbon and using the receipts to subsidise clean tech development.
Electricity and transportation are the two core sectors of the economy, accounting for 40 per cent and 25 per cent respectively of global energy-related emissions. The IEA says the issue of power-related emissions is especially pressing in developing countries like the Bahamas, where demand growth is high (about 3 per cent growth a year in our case). That's because investments in new conventional generating capacity will lock in carbon production as plants are used over several decades.
A clear example of this problem is our recent decision to spend $100 million on a new conventional power plant in Abaco that will burn the lowest grade of fossil fuel available and will supply the island's electricity needs for the next 30 years. BEC is also contemplating a $300 million expansion of the fuel oil power plant at Clifton on New Providence, which has been a pollution nightmare over its 50-year lifespan.
"Any global strategy to fight climate change must make the electricity sector a priority for action, with developed countries taking a strategic role in helping developing countries establish new, more effective approaches to emission mitigation," the IEA says.
The good news is that there are IDB-funded projects underway that could lead to a transformation of our energy sector if the necessary political backing is available. A report on BEC's operations and finances will be submitted to government later this month by German consultants. And a legislative/regulatory review of what is needed to promote the widespread adoption of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies begins in January.
Meanwhile, a decision on a 30-megawatt, private sector, waste-to-energy project for the Harrold Road landfill will be made early in the new year, and could be on stream within two years. This will help tackle our mounting garbage problem, while producing electricity for BEC at a cost-effective rate.
The other critical sector for carbon reduction is transport. Car ownership worldwide is set to triple to over two billion by 2050, trucking activity will double and air travel could increase four-fold. These trends will lead to a doubling of transport energy use, with an even higher growth rate in carbon emissions, according to experts.
"The introduction and widespread adoption of new vehicle technologies and fuels, along with some shifting in passenger and freight transport to more efficient modes, can result in a 40 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions below 2005 levels," the IEA says.
These technologies include electric and fuel cell vehicles, but also advanced designs for trucks, ships and aircraft; next-generation biofuels; and systems to improve the efficiency of transport networks. To put transport on a sustainable pathway, current trends must be changed substantially within the next five to ten years, which means that strong policies are needed now to begin the shift.
Theoretically, the Bahamas could easily control its transport sector because all vehicles are imported, but this overlooks the political difficulties of regulating an industry that contributes a substantial portion of government revenues. Any attempt to reduce car ownership (there are almost 200,000 vehicles licensed in the Bahamas) would meet with stiff resistance, particularly in view of our dysfunctional public transport system.
Perhaps the best we can hope for here is the regulation of emissions and fuel standards, together with the rapid adoption of hybrid and plug-in electric technologies by the world's auto makers. In fact, Renault, Nissan, Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Peugeot, GM, and BMW are all in the process of developing next-generation EV's using new battery technology. Most of these models should be available in reasonable quantities by 2012, so we need to be looking at ways to encourage imports.
In Copenhagen this week, Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen warned that the world was looking to the climate conference to safeguard the generations of tomorrow. The message is clear: we have to get serious about changing our economy and our individual behaviours to save the planet - and ourselves.
Mr. Smith:
It is again heartening to read about these meetings. Your article ably details energy solutions that could address crippling costs for all Bahamians, with health benefit. It also notes possible adverse climate change impacts that could present us with many weighty issues. Suitable energy alternatives clearly seem to be distributed solar energy applications, likely the most sustainable and widely applicable for our geography; and biomass energy (organic waste conversion to fuels/energy technologies/biogas (anaerobic) applications).
You note the need for energy-efficient appliances, vehicles, building construction, public and residential buildings. This is the second side of the coin for reducing current and creeping expenses. The energy combination could provide both a moral and pragmatic basis for our climate change efforts. Other points of your article should also not be lost: UN scientists’ suggestion of relative ‘immediacy’ of possible impacts such as drought, stronger storms, floods, sea level rise, ecosystem damage, and mass migration, in the case of ‘doing nothing,’ and specific impacts such as drier conditions and food production threats.
The current zigzag debate between developed countries will affect us whatever we do, but our situation and geography does not allow the luxury of shutting ears and eyes. The noted land planning bill for coastal protection is timely for addressing coastal erosion and storm effects. Presumably by requiring good analyses it will also protect against removal or quarrying of very old sandbanks, and against coastline dredging that could increase sea intrusion for a raised sea level; or projects that may worsen loss or salt contamination of fresh water.
For the Bahamas and other low-lying Caribbean countries, drier conditions and food production threats, with sea level rise, can be basically be translated to potentially adverse consequences for water supply, the future of food production, agricultural capacity, housing, and sanitation. A Bahamas study (1972) suggested possible drier conditions including longer drought periods and shorter, intense and rainy seasons, particularly in the southern islands. Larger southern islands were and are major agricultural producers. An earlier article noted future housing would (helpfully) increase rainwater harvesting. Short-term ‘flash’ flooding aspects mentioned in the Bahamas study could be a starting guide to how fresh water conservation, capture and storage, and distribution, could be developed to support agricultural capacity and community survival. Many wastewater systems are now necessarily septic systems, but treatment can be impaired by increased salinity at either intake or discharge. Mass migration is a real possibility when food, water, shelter, and income, are very limited. Countries with comparable scenarios have faced rapid damage to forests, ecological resources, and deteriorating sanitation; related to poverty, desperation, limited preparation, economic instability, and limited access to education. Therefore a good solution may be to consider these issues in the whole, in terms of protection of environmental and economic status of average (present and future) Bahamians, and the country itself.
An obvious need that follows is to build trained capacity for energy, housing, sustainable construction, as rapidly as feasible, with benefit to present unemployment and economic need; to spur rapid adaptation to agricultural production under ‘changed’ conditions and less acreage, with suitable crops and practices; to long-term food production and distribution, shelter, and water supply; in parallel to the energy and coastal initiatives noted. Regional cooperation could also address some issues.
We might also do well with many of the issues if every step is based upon best intent and our best understanding of how the issues apply to each of us.
Posted by: Percival Miller | December 09, 2009 at 03:34 PM