We might have been underwhelmed by COP27, but was it really disappointing or just another important step on the progress achieved by this annual event? Our CEO, Paul Dowman-Tucker, shares a few thoughts.
Was it the location that was the cause for lacklustre coverage of COP27 in the UK press, too much other news or the fact that not a great deal of importance happened? It’s difficult to tell, but certainly the Glasgow hosted COP26 felt like it was hitting the headlines a good deal more than COP27, which was held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, earlier this month.
Looking at various summary reports on the outcomes of COP27, it’s clear that there was a lot more disappointment than fanfare and this in itself is a great shame. Most commentators agree that there was a lot of lost opportunity and little in way of improved commitments to important climate change mitigation measures.
The one thing that does stand out is the formal introduction of the Loss and Damage principle which is intended, in due course, to define mechanisms for wealthy developed countries, regarded to be most responsible for climate change, to pay reparations to climate vulnerable countries. What form these payments will take, and how they will be deployed is unclear. Similarly, how it will be worked out who should pay how much, when and why is also yet to be determined. This will no doubt be a highly political matter – just cause for me to avoid remarking any further on this. Whatever the case, climate change mitigation will cost money in the near term, and it the burden will be carried by those able to bear it. However, this is not all bad, there is sound economics behind the argument that there will be substantial return on emissions reduction investment in the longer term. Not least when you consider the avoided cost of displacement of populations as certain parts of the world become increasingly hostile to human habitation.
One controversial commitment in the final agreement was for the increased use of low-emissions energy. It is fair to say that this commits to continued use of fossil fuels, but I think this is, in any case inevitable. The important energy transition is just that – a transition – and fossil fuels can only be phased out, not simply switched off. During the phasing out, it is important that the cleanest possible fuel(s) (i.e. natural gas) is used so far as possible, in order to reduce the use of less clean fuels such as coal or medium to heavy distillate fuel oils. A good example of this is gas peaking in support of intermittent renewables. Another example is the blending of renewable fuels with fossil fuels, which will require fuel flexible power systems.
Whatever happens, and I made this point after COP26, perhaps the most important thing of all, is the fact that there is high profile discussion amongst nations at leadership level, and that this is regular, annual forum. We will continue to be disappointed at missed opportunities, and there will always be a range of views about the value and merit of the outcomes. But if anything is to happen to reduce the risk of the potentially catastrophic results of man-made climate change, people will need to talk about it and agree what will be done, amongst all the competing priorities extant in each country.
I read one article looking back over the history of the COPs, since Rio 1992, and specifically in recent years. We were on track for a 4°C rise less than 10 years ago, and we’re at less than half that now. It is important that the target of holding global temperature increase to no more than 1.5° C was held, although predictions are currently in the range 1.7-2°C based on current plans for emissions reduction. Renewable energy can already undercut the cost of fossil energy in many circumstances and the US Energy Department is targeting green hydrogen at $1 per kilo before 2030.
Whilst the COPs continue, we can be confident at least that there will be progress – confidence based on an emerging track record.
Image: #ShowYourStripes
We might have been underwhelmed by COP27, but was it really disappointing or just another important step on the progress achieved by this annual event? Our CEO, Paul Dowman-Tucker, shares a few thoughts.
Was it the location that was the cause for lacklustre coverage of COP27 in the UK press, too much other news or the fact that not a great deal of importance happened? It’s difficult to tell, but certainly the Glasgow hosted COP26 felt like it was hitting the headlines a good deal more than COP27, which was held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, earlier this month.
Looking at various summary reports on the outcomes of COP27, it’s clear that there was a lot more disappointment than fanfare and this in itself is a great shame. Most commentators agree that there was a lot of lost opportunity and little in way of improved commitments to important climate change mitigation measures.
The one thing that does stand out is the formal introduction of the Loss and Damage principle which is intended, in due course, to define mechanisms for wealthy developed countries, regarded to be most responsible for climate change, to pay reparations to climate vulnerable countries. What form these payments will take, and how they will be deployed is unclear. Similarly, how it will be worked out who should pay how much, when and why is also yet to be determined. This will no doubt be a highly political matter – just cause for me to avoid remarking any further on this. Whatever the case, climate change mitigation will cost money in the near term, and it the burden will be carried by those able to bear it. However, this is not all bad, there is sound economics behind the argument that there will be substantial return on emissions reduction investment in the longer term. Not least when you consider the avoided cost of displacement of populations as certain parts of the world become increasingly hostile to human habitation.
One controversial commitment in the final agreement was for the increased use of low-emissions energy. It is fair to say that this commits to continued use of fossil fuels, but I think this is, in any case inevitable. The important energy transition is just that – a transition – and fossil fuels can only be phased out, not simply switched off. During the phasing out, it is important that the cleanest possible fuel(s) (i.e. natural gas) is used so far as possible, in order to reduce the use of less clean fuels such as coal or medium to heavy distillate fuel oils. A good example of this is gas peaking in support of intermittent renewables. Another example is the blending of renewable fuels with fossil fuels, which will require fuel flexible power systems.
Whatever happens, and I made this point after COP26, perhaps the most important thing of all, is the fact that there is high profile discussion amongst nations at leadership level, and that this is regular, annual forum. We will continue to be disappointed at missed opportunities, and there will always be a range of views about the value and merit of the outcomes. But if anything is to happen to reduce the risk of the potentially catastrophic results of man-made climate change, people will need to talk about it and agree what will be done, amongst all the competing priorities extant in each country.
I read one article looking back over the history of the COPs, since Rio 1992, and specifically in recent years. We were on track for a 4°C rise less than 10 years ago, and we’re at less than half that now. It is important that the target of holding global temperature increase to no more than 1.5° C was held, although predictions are currently in the range 1.7-2°C based on current plans for emissions reduction. Renewable energy can already undercut the cost of fossil energy in many circumstances and the US Energy Department is targeting green hydrogen at $1 per kilo before 2030.
Whilst the COPs continue, we can be confident at least that there will be progress – confidence based on an emerging track record.
Image: #ShowYourStripes
We might have been underwhelmed by COP27, but was it really disappointing or just another important step on the progress achieved by this annual event? Our CEO, Paul Dowman-Tucker, shares a few thoughts.
Was it the location that was the cause for lacklustre coverage of COP27 in the UK press, too much other news or the fact that not a great deal of importance happened? It’s difficult to tell, but certainly the Glasgow hosted COP26 felt like it was hitting the headlines a good deal more than COP27, which was held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, earlier this month.
Looking at various summary reports on the outcomes of COP27, it’s clear that there was a lot more disappointment than fanfare and this in itself is a great shame. Most commentators agree that there was a lot of lost opportunity and little in way of improved commitments to important climate change mitigation measures.
The one thing that does stand out is the formal introduction of the Loss and Damage principle which is intended, in due course, to define mechanisms for wealthy developed countries, regarded to be most responsible for climate change, to pay reparations to climate vulnerable countries. What form these payments will take, and how they will be deployed is unclear. Similarly, how it will be worked out who should pay how much, when and why is also yet to be determined. This will no doubt be a highly political matter – just cause for me to avoid remarking any further on this. Whatever the case, climate change mitigation will cost money in the near term, and it the burden will be carried by those able to bear it. However, this is not all bad, there is sound economics behind the argument that there will be substantial return on emissions reduction investment in the longer term. Not least when you consider the avoided cost of displacement of populations as certain parts of the world become increasingly hostile to human habitation.
One controversial commitment in the final agreement was for the increased use of low-emissions energy. It is fair to say that this commits to continued use of fossil fuels, but I think this is, in any case inevitable. The important energy transition is just that – a transition – and fossil fuels can only be phased out, not simply switched off. During the phasing out, it is important that the cleanest possible fuel(s) (i.e. natural gas) is used so far as possible, in order to reduce the use of less clean fuels such as coal or medium to heavy distillate fuel oils. A good example of this is gas peaking in support of intermittent renewables. Another example is the blending of renewable fuels with fossil fuels, which will require fuel flexible power systems.
Whatever happens, and I made this point after COP26, perhaps the most important thing of all, is the fact that there is high profile discussion amongst nations at leadership level, and that this is regular, annual forum. We will continue to be disappointed at missed opportunities, and there will always be a range of views about the value and merit of the outcomes. But if anything is to happen to reduce the risk of the potentially catastrophic results of man-made climate change, people will need to talk about it and agree what will be done, amongst all the competing priorities extant in each country.
I read one article looking back over the history of the COPs, since Rio 1992, and specifically in recent years. We were on track for a 4°C rise less than 10 years ago, and we’re at less than half that now. It is important that the target of holding global temperature increase to no more than 1.5° C was held, although predictions are currently in the range 1.7-2°C based on current plans for emissions reduction. Renewable energy can already undercut the cost of fossil energy in many circumstances and the US Energy Department is targeting green hydrogen at $1 per kilo before 2030.
Whilst the COPs continue, we can be confident at least that there will be progress – confidence based on an emerging track record.
Image: #ShowYourStripes