{"id":23621,"date":"2015-01-12T20:44:43","date_gmt":"2015-01-12T19:44:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.w-t-w.org\/en\/?p=23621"},"modified":"2015-01-13T07:55:47","modified_gmt":"2015-01-13T06:55:47","slug":"23621","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.w-t-w.org\/en\/23621\/","title":{"rendered":"No. 1 End Dependence on Coal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary of climate change mitigtion study by the University of London.<\/p>\n

Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2\u00a0\u00b0C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times1<\/a><\/sup>. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2\u00a0\u00b0C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100\u00a0gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2<\/sub>)2<\/a>, 3<\/a><\/sup>. However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this2<\/a>, 4<\/a><\/sup>, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2\u00a0\u00b0C. Here we use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations and nature of the world\u2019s oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different assumptions5<\/a><\/sup>, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions. Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2\u00a0\u00b0C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2\u00a0\u00b0C. Our results show that policy makers\u2019 instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.<\/p>\n

When scientists and policymakers talk about limiting climate change, what they’re mainly talking about is keeping more fossil fuels in the ground. The fact is, there’s no way to prevent global warming from reaching catastrophic levels if we burn up our remaining reserves of oil, gas, and coal.<\/p>\n

Climate negotiators have agreed that warming should be limited to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial level. That means that humans can release about 1.1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and we’ve gone through about half of that already.\u00a0 The remaining emissions are known as our “carbon budget”; if we “spend” emissions beyond our budget, we’re much more likely to push the planet to dangerous levels of warming. If we burned through all of our current reserves of fossil fuels, we would overspend the budget by about threefold.<\/p>\n

In other words, there are a lot of fossil fuels that are “unburnable” if we’re going to stay within the prescribed warming limit. But how much, exactly? And where exactly are those unburnable fuels? That’s the question asked in a study<\/a> released today in the journal Nature<\/em> by a team of energy analysts at University College London. The answer matters because mapping the geographical spread of unburnable fuels is a key step in understanding the roles specific regions need to play in the fight against climate change.<\/p>\n

The model developed by Christophe McGlade and his team takes into account known estimates of fossil fuel reserves in a number of different countries and regions, as well as the global warming potential of those reserves and the market forces that determine which reserves are the most cost-effective to exploit. The results, shown below, are what the model finds to be the most cost-effective distribution that stays within the 3.6-degree limit.<\/p>\n

The researchers ran the model twice: Once assuming widespread use of carbon capture and storage (an emerging technology for catching carbon emissions as they escape from power plants that is gaining steam but has yet to be proven on the global stage), and once assuming no CCS at all. The two scenarios ultimately aren’t that much different\u2014using CCS won’t allow us to burn vastly more coal, oil, and gas. The results shown below are from the “with-CCS” scenario.<\/p>\n

\n

A couple interesting things pop out. As you might expect, the vast majority of the world’s coal would need to stay buried. The United States is able to use most of its oil and gas in this scenario, because those resources are relatively cost-efficient to extract and bring to market compared to, for example, gas in China and India. In other words, according to this study, the US fracking boom can go forward full steam as long as the gas it produces aggressively replaces our coal consumption. But Canada can’t touch most of its oil, because the oil there\u2014the kind that would be carried in the Keystone XL Pipeline\u2014is exceptionally carbon-heavy tar sands crude.<\/p>\n

What isn’t shown in the graphic above is that the model prohibits developing any of the vast oil and gas reserves in the Arctic. Melting sea ice has made those reserves increasingly attractive to energy companies like Shell.<\/p>\n

Of course, the model has to make assumptions about future oil and gas prices that are basically impossible to be certain about. Unexpected changes to the price of oil, for example, could upset the cost equation for drilling in the US and re-shuffle the entire regional breakdown. But even as an estimate, the study really illuminates the vital need for policies all over the world that dramatically cut our dependence on coal.<\/p>\n

\"End<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Summary of climate change mitigtion study by the University of London. Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2\u00a0\u00b0C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times1. It … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-finance"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t