A response to Duncan

Duncan Smith posted the following comment today.

As COP28 UAE draws to a close, am reflecting on an article I wrote for the brilliant. Passive House Plus and Jeff Colley back in 2021 before COP26 - UN Climate Change Conference here in Glasgow.

I think many of us went into that CoP with a sense of optimism. Coming out of the global pandemic, there was a chance to build meaningful and lasting change into our political and economic systems, but I'm not sure I feel as optimistic today, on a cold miserable Glasgow day two years later on. Scott Foster what say you can you give me some hope?

And my reply...

My deepest apologies to Portia and thence the bard :

The quality of hope is not strained;

It drops as a gentle rain from above

Upon the people thus inspired.

It is twice blessed;

It blesses those that give hope

It blesses those who act on hope:

It’s mightier than gloom ; it’s mightier than doom;

It becomes the halo of true leadership with the

Power to mobilize through awe and majesty.

Thank you, Duncan, for this tall order.

Let me start by adding to the gloom and doom. There are many key errors that are made:

1.????? We are massively underestimating the speed of our changing climate, and the consequences for the world we know – water (drought and flood), plummeting biodiversity, weather extremes, unlivable temperatures, flooding of coastal communities, climate refugees. You name it, we got it in spades. As was posted earlier by others, the more facts we get and the more analysis that’s done, the more dire our understanding of the situation.

2.????? It takes 20 years for the weather effects of greenhouse gas emissions to be observed. A lag time between cause and effect. The last twenty years have witnessed the greatest GHG emissions in history, and the weather consequences of those emissions have not been witnessed – there is a train wreck coming, yet we fiddle like madmen while Rome burns.

3.????? We are betting on specific technologies as THE panacea. Electric vehicles, renewables. They face obstacles and they represent their own challenges (e.g., critical raw materials).

But we are asking the wrong question.

The right question is what is the fastest and most cost effective way of reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases while securing quality of life globally. Answering that question in ways that are pragmatic, agnostic and effective would have greater chance of success.

The world points the finger at the fossil industry as evildoers who are responsible for climate change. I cannot defend those who publicly denied a link between emissions and climate change despite knowing better. But…

Around 100 000 people traveled to Dubai to attend COP28. Even if they somehow budgeted and ? delivered ? offsets, the reality is that enormous amounts of greenhouse gases were emitted on the road to COP. It is the demand for energy services – mobility, heating, cooling, and so forth – that are the root cause of emissions. The fossil industry meets the demand that we create. We have met the enemy, and they are us [please note, this time I have perverted Walt Kelly’s statement who in turn intentionally misquoted Oliver Perry]. Business models and supply chains must be sorted to meet demand sustainably.

The COP process is not where real change happens. Clearly important things were achieved at COP28, though not nearly at the scale required. A climate fund to help the developing world. Announcements about expanding the contribution of nuclear power. And so forth. But real change will happen only when transformational investments are made through business models that deliver energy services sustainably and when local actors act to make a tangible difference.

About 2 years ago, when I was Director of the UN’s energy programme in Geneva, I addressed the World Liquid Petroleum Gas Association’s annual conference in Dubai and, the day before my address, spoke privately to their Industry Council. The remarks made this year at COP28 by ADNOC’s CEO raised much consternation. What he said in fact mirrored much of what I had said to the Industry Council, but with some important divergences. My key message to the WLPGA was that the fossil industry has a role to play in a sustainable future. Their challenge is to find a way to offer the same energy services as before, but sustainably -- meaning net zero, much more efficient, and/or derived from a different primary fuel. We need to use their capabilities -- their technology, their capital, and their know-how -- to enable the transformations that are an urgent imperative. Chucking them in the bin would be self-defeating.

Climate change is an existential threat not only for humans but for the rest of life on this planet. Despite that reality, much of the world places higher priority on putting food on the table and a roof over their heads – climate change is a lower priority for those trying to meet their basic human needs (at least for now). The challenge for industry is finding a way to decarbonize while delivering quality of life. Securing integrated solutions is the best way to remove obstacles to serious climate change policy. The energy industry has the technology, the know-how, and the capital to deliver a sustainable future. Let’s get on with it.

There are certain facts of life that we have to recognize. In particular, it is a fact that people, companies, and nations are going to act in what they perceive to be their own self interest. The essential challenge is to get alignment between the perceived self interests and the interests of society as a whole, the planet as a whole.

The finger-pointing at fossil loses sight of the reality that many communities' economic prosperity depends on the development and production of those primary fuels that the world is demanding and consuming. Their social and cultural fabric is founded in and around those primary fuels. Snapping our fingers like Thanos to make fossil disappear would instantly create vast economic ghettos, not only because of the disappearance of the industry developing and producing the primary fuels, but also because of the disappearance of the entire economic ecosystems that have sprung up around the central activity. Shutting down fossil is therefore impossible politically while remaining an urgent imperative for the planet. Climate solutions must recognize and address that reality. Find a future for the industries and communities that are anchored in fossil. In a perfect world that means making them part of the solution.

Where is the hope ? Where is the optimism ?

The fixes are straight forward if not necessarily easy.

Of all the actions that can be taken, improving the performance of buildings and the built environment stands out as it can deliver on climate, development, resilience, health, affordability, mobility, water, waste, resources, social justice, and more, while accommodating politics, and it can do so quickly, at global scale, and with meaningful results. I am working with the Buildings Action Coalition of the Enniscorthy Forum, and I would encourage any and all to join this global movement.

Managing methane is a second area. On an instantaneous basis, methane has 120 times the global warming potential of CO2. Global concentrations are higher today than they have been in over 600 000 years… let’s work on that reality by controlling anthropogenic emissions of methane and, if possible, capturing non-anthropogenic sources of atmospheric methane. The industry along with the Global Methane Challenge/Global Methane Initiative is working to deliver meaningful emissions reductions.

A third area is resource management. Wall Street rewards companies that produce and sell more stuff inexorably. That culture can be and should be shifted so that resources are developed, used, and re-used sustainably. Moving away from a commodity culture to a service culture would still deliver what people need without trashing our planet.

And so forth with energy efficiency, renewables, just transitions, hydrogen, clean electricity (including nuclear and CCS), direct air capture. The solutions are an "all of the above"" set.

It is essential that we ask the right question and that we remain agnostic, pragmatic, and effective.

A real price on greenhouse gas emissions would be a good place to start. [If you are going to tax petrol, make sure you offer alternatives for mobility that are clean, safe, comfortable, reliable, affordable, and that take you to your destination when you want to go.]

So, a real price on carbon.?Add to that the election of governments who are prepared to act seriously on climate issues with some assurance that they will get re-elected.?And add to those two items a set of real, reportable indicators that offer an honest report card on progress.

?

We have the technology.?We have the know-how. We have the capital.?We can meet this challenge.

Yes, we can.?Yes, we have to.?Yes, we will.?

?

I am an optimist and will always light the candle of hope.

Jarad Daniels Jared Banks, PhD James Rockall Mark Radka Jonathan Duwyn Gulnara Roll Ezra Beeman Jim Robb Michal Drabik Pamela M. Franklin, Ph.D. Roberta Boscolo Valérie Masson-Delmotte Jean Rappe

?