|
|
It's not often that oil executives and climate change analysts nod in agreement. But at last week's Shell Energy Summit, climate researcher and author Mike Berners-Lee struck a deal with Maarten Wetselaar, Shell's director of integrated gas and new energies, when they were each asked what their favorite What an important step it is in the global fight against climate change. Both men answered “carbon price” without hesitation. But if universal prices for pollution externalities remain sensible in the eyes of classical economists, the practical question of how to design a carbon price is more thorny than ever from a political perspective. Just last month, in Oregon, a Democratic crisis sparked when Republican senators fled the state to avoid votes on a carbon emissions bill they feared Democrats would win. It looked like advocates of carbon pricing were heading for victory, but then Republicans simply jumped into the debate and headed to state lines. Without a quorum of Parliament, the bill - or any bill for that matter - cannot be considered. Worse yet, for proponents of carbon pricing, the strategy appears to be working. It was only after the bill was taken off the ballot that Republicans regained their seats in the state Senate.
The impasse in Oregon is an extreme example, but it's part of a broader trend in which carbon pricing generally faces strong resistance from some quarters. However, many businesses, including a large number of carbon-intensive ones, are reluctant to abandon a policy tool that can provide one of the most effective means of reducing emissions and mobilizing investment in clean infrastructure, especially as global emissions continue to rise Down. Many businesses are reluctant to give up the policy tool because it can provide one of the most effective means of reducing emissions and mobilizing investment in clean infrastructure. Last week, Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester, spoke alongside Berners-Lee and Wesselaar on the challenges of decarbonisationWhatsApp numbers provides a harsh assessment of the scale. “Emissions have now increased by 67% since the first IPCC report in 1990,” he said. “Last year it went up by 1.6%; prices are likely to go up by the same amount this year.” As a result, he warned that at current emissions growth rates, the world only has 18 years left before the remaining carbon budget is considered to be the same. The temperature rise is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Berners-Lee believes the only way to successfully address rising emissions is to do so at a global system level. "We need to be keenly aware of some realities, one of which is that if we want to live well and have a high quality of life, we want our children and the people around us to have a high quality of life in order for the world to have a high quality of life lives, we need to stop the energy growth that has been happening since this year," he said. “For the first time, humans need to learn to live in a world with limited energy.
As if this historic challenge wasn't daunting enough, he quickly added that limiting energy use cannot be achieved by conserving energy alone. He stressed that simply designing more efficient cars, white goods and homes was not enough. "Efficiency is part of the growth dynamic of our economy, our energy system, and by default efficiency itself leads to growth in resource use, not reduction," he said. he explained. "It can also further increase our productivity. So, it’s not that it’s not efficient, but we absolutely have to put our savings in the bank. If we don’t, efficiency will get us nowhere. ” Berners-Lee added that some form of global system was needed to ensure that any savings in emissions reductions were banked. “When we look at the global carbon curve, there is no faint evidence that humans have taken notice of the climate change. Change," he said. "It's on the rise," he reflected. "I choose my words carefully, as if humanity doesn't notice climate change is a problem. I don't mean that to be depressing, but what this tells us is that we need to disrupt the dynamics of emissions growth at a global system level. So we need a global constraint to keep fuel in the ground. "We need a global constraint to keep fuel in the ground. Such global constraints could come in many forms, but Shell, along with some oil majors and most classical economists, agree that global carbon pricing is the key to keeping growth in check. The most efficient means of energy needs.
|
|
發表於 2023-12-19 14:37:11