In the wake of the recent UN report that unambiguously warned to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avert catastrophic climate effects, the debate on how to decouple GDP growth from CO2 emissions has only intensified. But while many see the report as the official death sentence of fossil fuels, particularly coal, Australia is taking a different approach. Rather than engaging in “coal wars”, the country’s chief scientist has urged all parties to focus on the baseline: how do we reduce CO2 emissions to cap global warming at the upper limit of 1.5°C?
The scientist, Dr. Alan Finkel, argued that the focus should be on outcomes (reduced atmospheric emissions) and that governments should “use whatever underlying technology are suitable for that”. The reason behind this is simple: stopping coal use within the next 15 years, as pressed by the UN report, is an unrealistic target for too many developing countries that rely on the fuel, and will continue doing so for the foreseeable future. And now, the IPCC may have provided the final trigger to spur the rise of carbon-reducing technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CSS), as a viable option to reduce harmful emissions.
Conventional thinking argues that in order to slash emissions in line with IPCC findings, there needs to be rapid progress in the decommissioning of coal-fired power plants, followed by their swift replacement with renewables. But for many countries, especially developing nations, sticking to the UN’s phase-out schedule is a tall order. The low-key response to date reflects the challenges facing governments having to balance the social, economic and political implications of going green.
Australia has been among the most vocal critics of the report’s ambitious timeline and a proponent for advancing CCS. The country’s environment minister, Melissa Price, reiterated that Canberra’s primary commitment was lowering domestic electricity prices, for which coal is indispensable. But more importantly, Australia’s reluctance to abandon coal, which generates two-thirds of its electricity and is a significant export, highlights that abolishing coal is economically difficult even for rich countries – and barely affordable for developing ones in need of meeting their growing energy needs.