A new government-supported scientific study is bound to change the way institutional investors look at opportunities in the energy, urban services and transport sectors.
The Low Carbon Monitor (LCM) report by a climate science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, was launched by the United Nations Development Programme and the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech (COP22).
The report was called for by the governments of the Philippines and Ethiopia as chairmen of the CVF, and was previewed at the Philippine Senate in July this year.
The LCM report examines the benefits and opportunities of limiting warming to 1.5-degree Celsius as enshrined in the goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Specifically, the report highlights that “limiting warming to 1.5°C requires the rapid phaseout of coal and fossil-fuel power generation in favor of renewable energy in the power and transport sectors, significantly reducing ambient air pollution.”
If developed countries are serious about transitioning to low-carbon economies, the rapid phaseout of coal and fossil-fuel power generation must be internationally internalized. To start, the accounting modalities for climate finance should subtract any and all coal funding. It is important to note that financing coal plants, regardless if they are marketed to be “high-efficiency,” is not climate finance.
Though this may be unpopular or controversial with Japan and Australia, this is a necessary turnaround to stay within the bounds of a 1.5°C warming limit.
For example, between 2007 and 2015, Japan financed $21 billion worth of international coal plant projects along with $10 billion committed for new coal plant projects, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Before COP21 in Paris last year, Japan pledged $10.6 billion per year in climate finance for developing countries from 2020. If coal finance is subtracted from climate finance, Japan may be in a situation where their climate finance contribution is negative or zero.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) and other climate financing instruments would be wise to follow suit and unaccredit or give strict conditional offers and penalties to direct and indirect coal funders utilizing public climate financing. By doing this, we may be closer to reaching peak coal carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.
As the Climate Change Commission, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the National Economic and Development Authority look to translate and put the Philippines’s nationally determined contributions on track to pursuing the 1.5°C limit, the national debate advances considerably.
On the other hand, the Department of Energy (DOE) is insisting on a coal-dependent pathway for the country. This is a dangerous precedent being set which can be devastating for the poorest and most vulnerable of people. Moreover, this precedent can be detrimental to the economy. The LCM report highlights an average annual percentage loss of per capita GDP of minus 0.2 percent in the 2030s and minus 0.4 percent in the 2040s.
The report also shows that ecosystem risks are material as “coal is a significant source of mercury and other toxic metals harming ecosystems…. It significantly reduces crop yields and diminishes food security. In India the annual cost of ozone pollution to agriculture has been estimated at around 3.5 million tons of foregone wheat production and 2.1 million tons of rice, which could have fed over 90 million people.”
Planning agencies need supportive policy and control levers to take into account the imminent economic consequences of breaching the 1.5°C threshold, as well as the benefits of keeping to it. The report highlights that “producing energy from coal or oil creates the least possible jobs, whereas sustainable biomass or renewable hydro energy have among the highest employment contributions. 1.5°C policies could thereby create double the amount of jobs come 2050—the energy plan we would choose”.
Sara Jane Ahmed
1 comment
There is little scientific about Climate Analytics. It is led by former Greenpeace International Political Director Bill Hare, whose doctorate is an honorary one. Climate Analytics is an agenda organisation, responsible for pushing the 2 degree and now 1.5 degree memes, which have no basis in science. Hare was pushing 1.5 degrees in 1997, since when there has been little warming in spite of CO2 continuing to increase.