According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Cimate Change, a 60% reduction in greenhouse gases is necessary if we are to prevent climate change. If this is to be shared out amongst the countries of the world in an equitable way, then the reductions for industrialised countries will need to be more like 80-90%.It appears that drastic action is required, but action of what sort?
An often heard argument is that technological advances could have a major part to play in effecting these reductions. There are signs that many industrial processes and fuel-using appliances can become more energy efficient than they are now. Together with a shift towards non-fossil fuel based energy sources and greater use of telecommunications reducing the need to travel, the potential exists for a sizable reduction in emissions.
Industry in particular favours the technological approach. Efficient technology usually means advanced technology and that is most easily developed by corporations with large research and development budgets. Multinationals who have built their profits by destroying the environment are now offering to make more profits out of trying to save it. In addition they claim that such technological innovations are most efficiently generated by free market capitalism, providing them with another excuse to lobby for market deregulation and economic globalisation.
We at Rising Tide feel that new technology cannot provide the whole of the answer. We believe that too much confidence in possible future technological innovations distracts attention from the more pressing need to change lifestyles. If the consumerist ethos is not challenged, then it matters little if the particular product is more efficient; consumption is still increased because more people are using them. So much of Western lifestyles, from industrialised agriculture to electric dishwashers to air travel can never be sustainable, no matter what technological improvements are made.
In addition there are more specific concerns about particular environmentally and socially unacceptable technologies that might be encouraged if CO2 emissions are controlled. Nuclear power is an obvious example of this - others, such as large hydroelectric dams and certain methods of carbon sequestration will be dealt with below.
Technology Transfer
One of the issues which has been discussed at length in the UNFCCC is 'technology transfer'. There is a concern that new technology should be available for all of the world's countries, instead of the more typical situation that developing countries tend to end up using cheaper and older, and therefore more polluting technology. Study groups have been set up to investigate mechanisms whereby developing countries can get the advantage of clean technology, with the necessary training and knowhow to use it.
One method by which this might be achieved is through national or international 'Clean Technology Centres'. This would provide a centre which is publicly available with advice and information on companies providing climate-friendly technologies. It has been suggested that this could be an extension of the existing GREENTIE initiative, which is a project of the OECD, and its subsidiary, the International Energy Agengy. While the content of the GREENTIE database seems relatively innocuous, the organisations behind it are less so. While the OECD is merely a co-operative organisation between the most economicly developed countries, it has recently been involved in developing the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) - a frightening piece of global legislation which would transfer large amounts of power to multinational corporations.
That GREENTIE is being pioneered in the OECD demonstrates a realisation that technology transfer will be highly advantageous for large multinationals, which are nearly all based in the OECD area. The transfer of technology from country to country almost by definition necessitates the involvement of multinational corporations.
In contrast to the transfer of high technology is the concept of appropriate technology. This means technology which can be implemented by third world communities with minimal dependancy on skills and resources that are not possessed in the local community. An example is the bio-gas digester, which is a brick-lined reservoir which converts manure and vegetable waste into compost and methane for cooking. For a village community it is sustainable, because the materials and skills are available in the village, and it does not cause a net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are countless other examples of sustainable community based self-help schemes, and it would perhaps be more helpful if the West were to learn from them, instead of importing its high-tech solutions to a world which doesn't need them.
The latest report of the working groups on technology transfer to the Conference of the Parties advocates substantial co-operation with the private sector. This isn't entirely surprising since so many of the private sector sat on the round table that drew up the report.
This 'round table' meeting took place to discuss the future direction of Technology Transfer. Present were representatives of governments and multinational corporations. No environmentalists were invited.
Global Warming or Nuclear Meltdown: the choice is yours
There is an obvious danger if greenhouse gas emissions are curtailed by an international agreement, with continued pressure for economic growth, and that is that governments will be forced into generating power in a way that is damaging in other ways than greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power, most environmentalists would agree, is at least as socially and environmentally unacceptable as fossil fuel generation. Safety, weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, the problems of uranium mining and decommisioning are in many ways as serious as those of climate change. And although nuclear power is becoming more and more unacceptable in Europe, it is expanding rapidly across East Asia. The nuclear lobby is always prominent at UN climate change meetings, and when CO2 emissions are curtailed, it will be an increasingly attractive option.
Large hydroelectric dams are another popular way of generating electricity which are also beset with problems. Many times when these dams have been built, local or indigenous people have had to be relocated from there land, and more often than not inadequate accomodation has been provided. In addition valuable ecosystems are often drowned by the water, and regions downstream of the dam suffer from lower water levels and the lack of fertilizing silt. But, as with nuclear power, these dams will become more popular when the fossil fuel option becomes limited - unless consumption is reduced.
Climate Engineering
Another application of technology which we should be aware of is the active reduction of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has been dubbed 'carbon sequestration technology' or 'climate engineering'. This typically consists of large scale interventions with biological, geological or chemical processes to remove CO2, reflect light from the Earth and so on. Several methods of climate engineering are currently being researched, funded by industry which has a vested interest in continuing emissions, and readily accepted with little understanding of the background science. Most of the current projects give cause for concern, because despite their differences, they all mean very large scale interferences with the biosphere, atmosphere or oceans. Also, the possibility that life on Earth might be dependant on artificial control systems is frightening, to say the least.
One example of climate engineering is known as 'iron fertilisation' of the oceans. If powdered iron is sprinkled over a large expanse of ocean, it can stimulate algal growth. The algae, as they photosynthesise, remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Genetically modified algae could perform this task even more efficiently, and this possibility is being researched at the Japanese Research Institute for Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE). There are two main worries about this process. Firstly, the introduction of chemical or genetic pollution, and the consequent proliferation of certain kinds of algae could irretrievably damage the ocean ecosystem. Secondly, there are worries about the effect on the climate system. Climate models cannot cope with biogeochemical feedback mechanisms, the ways that changes in one aspect of the climate system influence all the others, which in the worst case could result in a 'runaway greenhouse effect' or another ice age.
Other examples of climate engineering include the introduction of dust into the stratosphere to reflect radiation, and the pumped storage of CO2 in the bottom layers of the ocean. A critical review of the various options can be found here. At the moment all the work is just at the research stage, with no imminent plans for large scale implementation. A case can be made for this research to go ahead; climate engineering could fill a valuable role as a last resort if all other efforts to protect the climate fail. However, it is imperitive that the major drawbacks of these schemes are realised, and that climate engineering is not seen as another easy way to absolve the consciences of consumerist societies.
The Kyoto protocol already contains provisions for climate engineering to be included in each country's carbon budget, if an agreement is made on how alter sinks are to be included. Article 2 commits parties to "promotion of research and development of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies"
Solar Power and Positive Technology
Undoubtedly, alternative energy such as solar and wind power have a definate role to play in the transition from fossil fuels. However, visions of a solar future should be treated with some degree of caution. While the conversion of fossil fuel power plants to renewables is both desirable and necessary, even solar and wind power are not without their drawbacks. For example, a large amount of resources are consumed in the production of either solar panels or wind turbines, and a large areal extent is needed to generate electricity on the scale we do so today.
It is not our intention to appear technophobic in this article - there is definately a role for clean, efficient technology in the battle to prevent climate change. However, we firmly believe that if technology, and in particular market driven high technology is regarded as a panacea for for the climate, then we will have made a grave mistake which we may never be able to rectify
Technology which reduces emissions is welcome in industrialised countries while we tackle the more difficult task of reducing the environmental impact of our lifestyles. However, technology which depends on increasing infrastructure, increasing consumerism or increasing dependance on a global economy is almost certainly the wrong path to be taking.
