Written by Mike Wootton Published on 28 November 2012
Well, they are having another go at it, it started on Monday (November 26) in Doha where representatives from 190 countries are meeting in an attempt to extend the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement focused on climate change made in 1997 under the auspices of the United Nations.
The protocol was designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions of developed countries to 5 percent less than 1990 levels by the end of 2012 and to spur investment in low-carbon development in developing economies.
But the gathering nations are nowhere near these desired outcomes.
The developed nations who have the main task of reduction of emissions cannot seem to get their acts together, even though they can trade carbon emission certificates obtained by less developed countries which make reductions in their own emissions. In other words emissions saved in the Philippines can be used to offset emissions produced in say Germany, and German buyers will pay for the value of the emissions saved in the Philippines.
There are very strong lobbies for both coal and oil, and the two biggest sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are vehicles and power generation. Vehicles mostly run on refined oil products, such as gasoline or diesel, and power is increasingly produced by the use of coal, particularly here in the Philippines, where coal has recently been the greatly favored fuel for power. Of the world’s total primary energy supply, coal accounts for 28 percent and oil 35 percent.
Compared to oil, coal is relatively cheap—the World Coal Association states as follows, “Coal prices have historically been lower and more stable than oil and gas prices. Coal is likely to remain the most affordable fuel for power generation in many developing and industrialized countries for decades.”
But it’s cost like that of oil is volatile as are the costs of transportation and as more is demanded, so its price as well the costs of its transportation will rise further. Burning coal is a dirty business, albeit very expensive sophisticated technology is now available to reduce some of the emissions, there is little which will reduce the CO2 emissions, the main contributors to atmospheric upset. When people fully understand the economics of coal quality, transportation, storage and importation, and the issues in particulate and sulfur removal as well as the social cost of the substantial harmful and damaging CO2 emissions, then they may pay more attention to other sources of fuel.
Environmental and social consciousness and coal just do not go well together.
The planned utilization of low-quality coal-fired power in Palawan is currently causing a lot of fuss. Palawan being the environmental jewel of the Philippines does not appear to want coal fired power and indeed it does seem to be a major contradiction. Hydroelectric power resources exist in Palawan at cheaper cost, not only to government but also to individual consumers than the planned coal fired power, but the local cooperative doesn’t want to use this, despite there being a law which says that they must. Strange isn’t it?
There is clearly more to using coal for power than is contained in the statement by the World Coal Association above. There are far bigger resources of coal worldwide than there are of oil for example, mining coal is an important economic sector, it creates jobs, it provides export earnings and 91 percent of its use is in electric power generation. It can only be expected that there would be strong government supported lobbies to sell it and to utilize it. There is really not a lot else you can do with it on a grand scale other than make electricity.
So it has to be concluded that the strength of the coal lobbies will not significantly dissipate in the near future, that those economies which have a heavy reliance on coal utilization such as the USA, China and Australia may less than wholeheartedly support extension of the Kyoto Protocol and the associated carbon emission reduction targets. They depend too much on coal. But this is the “big picture” and it need not, in fact specifically should not be confused with attempts to introduce small, dirty coal-fired power into environmentally protected areas containing UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Heritage Sites such as Palawan, when other cheaper and more environmentally compatible types of energy are known to be readily available. The Kyoto Protocol, also a United Nations agreement, was created to “ . . . spur investment in low-carbon development in developing economies . . .”
Mike can be contacted at mike wootton@gmail.com source
But the gathering nations are nowhere near these desired outcomes.
The developed nations who have the main task of reduction of emissions cannot seem to get their acts together, even though they can trade carbon emission certificates obtained by less developed countries which make reductions in their own emissions. In other words emissions saved in the Philippines can be used to offset emissions produced in say Germany, and German buyers will pay for the value of the emissions saved in the Philippines.
There are very strong lobbies for both coal and oil, and the two biggest sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are vehicles and power generation. Vehicles mostly run on refined oil products, such as gasoline or diesel, and power is increasingly produced by the use of coal, particularly here in the Philippines, where coal has recently been the greatly favored fuel for power. Of the world’s total primary energy supply, coal accounts for 28 percent and oil 35 percent.
Compared to oil, coal is relatively cheap—the World Coal Association states as follows, “Coal prices have historically been lower and more stable than oil and gas prices. Coal is likely to remain the most affordable fuel for power generation in many developing and industrialized countries for decades.”
But it’s cost like that of oil is volatile as are the costs of transportation and as more is demanded, so its price as well the costs of its transportation will rise further. Burning coal is a dirty business, albeit very expensive sophisticated technology is now available to reduce some of the emissions, there is little which will reduce the CO2 emissions, the main contributors to atmospheric upset. When people fully understand the economics of coal quality, transportation, storage and importation, and the issues in particulate and sulfur removal as well as the social cost of the substantial harmful and damaging CO2 emissions, then they may pay more attention to other sources of fuel.
Environmental and social consciousness and coal just do not go well together.
The planned utilization of low-quality coal-fired power in Palawan is currently causing a lot of fuss. Palawan being the environmental jewel of the Philippines does not appear to want coal fired power and indeed it does seem to be a major contradiction. Hydroelectric power resources exist in Palawan at cheaper cost, not only to government but also to individual consumers than the planned coal fired power, but the local cooperative doesn’t want to use this, despite there being a law which says that they must. Strange isn’t it?
There is clearly more to using coal for power than is contained in the statement by the World Coal Association above. There are far bigger resources of coal worldwide than there are of oil for example, mining coal is an important economic sector, it creates jobs, it provides export earnings and 91 percent of its use is in electric power generation. It can only be expected that there would be strong government supported lobbies to sell it and to utilize it. There is really not a lot else you can do with it on a grand scale other than make electricity.
So it has to be concluded that the strength of the coal lobbies will not significantly dissipate in the near future, that those economies which have a heavy reliance on coal utilization such as the USA, China and Australia may less than wholeheartedly support extension of the Kyoto Protocol and the associated carbon emission reduction targets. They depend too much on coal. But this is the “big picture” and it need not, in fact specifically should not be confused with attempts to introduce small, dirty coal-fired power into environmentally protected areas containing UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Heritage Sites such as Palawan, when other cheaper and more environmentally compatible types of energy are known to be readily available. The Kyoto Protocol, also a United Nations agreement, was created to “ . . . spur investment in low-carbon development in developing economies . . .”
Mike can be contacted at mike wootton@gmail.com source
No comments:
Post a Comment