26
Jan 2009 - Brussels - New figures released
today show that moving to a “green” global
economy could not only protect the planet
from the worst effects of climate change
but is surprisingly affordable.
Pathways to a Low Carbon
Economy- a new study by McKinsey and Co
– shows that global warming can be kept
below the critical 2°C rise and that
it is well within our means to do so. The
study spells out in detail the costs of
cutting damaging carbon emissions, but makes
it clear that only by acting now will we
avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
According to WWF, one of the report's sponsors,
world leaders now have all the information
they need to shape a global climate deal
for both developed and developing countries.
The study – one of the
biggest and most detailed of its kind ever
compiled – lists more than 200 opportunities,
spread across ten sectors and twenty-one
geographical regions, which could cut global
greenhouse gas emissions by about 40% below
11000 levels by 2030.
By 2030, wind, solar
and other sustainable renewable energy could
provide almost a third of all global power
needs; energy efficiency could reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by more than a quarter and
deforestation in developing countries –
one of the biggest drivers of climate change
and a major threat to sustainable development
– could be almost fully halted. And all
at a cost of less than half a percent of
global GDP.
“The McKinsey study
shows once and for all that taking action
on climate change is both urgent and affordable”,
said WWF Director James Leape. “The figures
show clearly that not only can we move to
a low carbon economy, but that the costs
are manageable. Adopting these measures
will be a major step towards avoiding the
worst effects of climate change.”
Speaking at the launch
of the report in Brussels, Mr Leape continued,
“As governments now invest in rebuilding
the global economy, they have a unique opportunity,
and indeed the imperative, to build a low-carbon
economy that will both create jobs and stabilize
the climate. The low-carbon technologies
and production models already exist and
they make economic as well as environmental
sense.”
“When the world's leaders
meet in Copenhagen in December to agree
a global deal on climate change, they will
have no excuse for inaction. The world will
be watching and expecting those leaders
to adopt measures which will lead to a low-carbon
economy, giving a fighting chance of keeping
climate change below the crucial 2°C
level.” said Mr Leape.
The McKinsey study has
been extensively peer-reviewed by scientists,
economists and expert bodies including WWF.
It presents its findings in the form of
an “abatement cost curve” which graphically
illustrates the sectors where the most cost-effective
carbon reductions can be made, including
saving 14 billion tonnes of CO2 by replacing
carbon-based power generation with – amongst
other things - existing and proven clean,
renewable energy; 14 billion tonnes through
more sustainable use of land in the agriculture
and forestry sectors; and 11 billion tonnes
from energy efficiency. McKinsey identify
another 9 billion tonnes of potential emissions
reductions which either are more expensive
or represent behaviour changes that are
difficult to quantify.
In Pathways to a Low
Carbon Economy, McKinsey analyses the potential,
based on emissions and cost, for abatement
across all sectors including nuclear power.
WWF believes the costs for nuclear have
been underestimated. But more importantly,
nuclear power is not a viable option when
the risks from proliferation, highly radioactive
waste and plutonium leaks are taken into
consideration. We believe that further substantial
reductions are possible from combined heat
& power (CHP,) biomass, better energy
efficiency and low-carbon products which
will protect the climate without the need
for nuclear power.
WWF welcomes the study's
principal findings which show that if all
the technology options were put into practice,
it would be possible to achieve a global
reduction of approximately 40% of greenhouse
gas emissions by the year 2030 compared
with 11000 levels – which equates to a 70%
reduction of “business as usual” levels.
That would be enough to put the world on
track to keep global average temperature
rises below the 2°C level which WWF
and others have identified as the maximum
allowable before widespread irreversible
environmental damage kicks in.
+ More
WWF opposes precarious
ocean fertilization project
29 Jan 2009 - Hamburg,
Germany - A recent decision by the German
government to give the go-ahead to a controversial
large-scale ocean fertilization experiment
(LOHAFEX) in international waters of the
Southern Ocean has left WWF doubting Germany’s
commitment to global agreements on the environment.
Last year, the meeting
of the parties to the Convention of Biological
Diversity (CBD) imposed a de facto moratorium
on large-scale ocean fertilization experiments
and commercial uses, only allowing for small-scale
scientific research in coastal waters.
Subsequently, the London
Convention and Protocol (LC/LP), the global
framework addressing ocean fertilization
projects, urged its parties to use utmost
caution with regard to scientific research
proposals until further guidance is available.
“The German government’s
decision is appalling,” said Stephan Lutter,
International Marine Policy Officer of WWF
Germany. “Despite the fact that Germany
is a signatory to the CBD and London Convention,
the government has chosen to forego its
international obligations and instead undermine
and ignore the agreements made last year.”
The CBD and LC have
also urged their parties to carry out extensive
environmental impact assessments (EIA) prior
to giving the green light to such experiments.
Last week a hurriedly
assembled assessment was made after heavy
criticism of the project by WWF and other
environmental NGOs, and as the research
vessel “Polarstern” that would carry out
the experiment was already steaming towards
the Southern Ocean site.
“We know too little about the ecological
effects of iron fertilization for such a
large-scale project to go ahead,” Lutter
said. “The sloppy manner in which EIAs were
produced in this case will have international
repercussions and encourage commercial geo-engineering
all the more.”
Ocean fertilization
with iron or nitrogen compounds such as
urea has been put forward as a means to
slow down climate change. The theory is
that iron, for example, a scarce element
in parts of the oceans and essential to
the growth of algae, is added to seawater,
thus causing large phytoplankton blooms.
The growing algae trap carbon dioxide and
remove it from the atmosphere. So, advocates
say, by “fertilizing” the ocean surface
we could reduce the amount of carbon dioxide
and reduce the rate of global warming.
However, the ecological
effects of dumping large quantities of nutrients
in the ocean are unknown and could turn
large parts of the ocean floor into “dead”,
oxygen-depleted zones as blooming algae
die, sink to the ocean floor and decompose.
Shifts in nutrient balance are known to
alter plankton species composition and food
web structure. Additionally, the economic
cost of ocean fertilization, should it be
successful, are uncertain and could be far
higher than the cost of reducing emissions
in the first place.
WWF encourages the development
of innovative solutions to tackle the huge
threat climate change poses to the planet,
but these solutions need to be carefully
assessed in order to not create more problems
than they solve.
This year is a pivotal
year for climate change, and WWF is working
to ensure a robust agreement is reached
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the
Copenhagen Climate Summit in December.
