Global greenhouse gas emissions have reached a record high, meaning the world is still on track for catastrophic climate change. That’s the conclusion of the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
See also:
IEA report on climate: Five key charts
The Paris-based energy think-tank said emissions rose 1.4% in 2012, putting the world on a path to global temperature rises of between 3.6 and 5.3 degrees. But the agency said that tackling climate change didn’t need to come at economic cost.
Here are five things we learnt about how the world may, or may not, tackle climate change.
1. The situation isn’t very good
Global emissions rose last year by 1.4% to reach a record high. Emissions rose in China, Japan, the Middle East and India, while falling in only two regions; the US – where a boom in wind power and cheap shale gas helped to displace coal – and the EU, where policies designed to reduce emissions and economic stagnation are having an impact.
What this means is that the world remains on track for warming of up to 5.3 degrees Celsius, enough to either submerge, or make uninhabitable, significant parts of the planet.
2. Money is not the problem (at least in the near term)
The IEA argues that there are four steps that could be taken to return the world to a less catastrophic pathway.
All of them are already being successfully deployed around the world and, taken together, they would have no economic cost.
These include cutting methane emissions from oil and gas extraction (presumably including shale gas), energy efficiency, building more wind turbines, stopping the construction of the dirtiest coal plants and phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels.
“The question is not whether we can afford the necessary investments given the current economic climate,” says chief economist Fatih Birol. “The fact is we simply cannot afford to delay.”
3. Lots of oil and gas will have to be left in the ground
Mr Birol was clear that if we want to limit climate change some oil and gas will have to be left in the ground even if – as the IEA certainly hopes – we develop technology allowing us to bury carbon dioxide emissions in the ground.
In fact, the report shows almost half of currently proven oil and gas reserves would have to be left unexploited.
That kind of statistic is bound to raise questions for anyone investing in new reserves we haven’t even found yet – such as shale.
“In the case of oil and gas fields that have yet to start production or have yet to be found, the lower level of demand means that fewer of them justify the investment," warns the agency.
It went on to warn that the risk of investment in oil and gas proving to be futile (and costly for investors) increases if fields are expensive or not yet close to production.
“Our analysis suggests that companies' or countries' vulnerability to this specific risk may be greater if their asset base is more heavily weighted towards those that are not yet developed and those that have the highest marginal costs.”
In short, if you believe that we are going to take action to tackle climate change, investing in un-developed or expensive new oil and gas fields is likely to prove economically costly.
4. Our energy supply is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change
The IEA warns that droughts, hurricanes and rising sea levels could threaten oil and gas supplies and close power stations, causing power outages and price spikes. It argues the more climate change develops, the more expensive and dramatic these impacts will be.
