Some wins at COP26 but finance vital to reverse climate change
ONE of the most iconic images of the just-ended COP26 in Glasgow would perhaps be of Tuvalu's foreign minister, Simon Kofe, addressing the UN climate summit standing knee-deep in the ocean, to drive home how his low-lying Pacific island nation has been struggling against rising sea levels.
The 2-week meeting has hogged the headlines as it was probably the final chance for a collective global resolve to reverse climate change before it is too late. An analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) of the COP26 commitments, including the pledge by India to boost renewables and reach net zero (of carbon emissions) by 2070, found that this would hold warming to 1.8 degrees Celsius, better than the catastrophic 2.7 deg C that had been projected by the United Nations early October, prior to the Glasgow summit. COP26 builds on the 2015 Paris Climate Summit which resulted in a global agreement to limit global warming to well below 2 deg C, preferably to 1.5 deg C compared to pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.
As expected there were mixed reactions about the commitments made at COP26. John Kerry, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, said he had never counted as many initiatives and as much money being put on the table as during the conference, while climate activist Greta Thunberg branded COP26 a failure.
It remains to be seen how much of the net-zero carbon emission commitments are transformed into real outcomes over the coming decades. The good news is that, from a technological point of view, the tools finally exist to make it economically viable for countries - particularly rapidly developing large economies like India - to move away from fossil-fuel-based power generation, while ensuring growth is not stymied.
According to IEA, new large scale solar power generations projects now cost US$30-60 per MWh (megawatt hour) in Europe and the US, and just US$20-40 per MWh in China and India, and presumably thereabouts also in other developing countries. This is lower than the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for new coal-fired power plants. LCOE is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a power generation plant over its lifetime.
Cost is not the only factor to consider in the case of renewables like solar power generation. National electricity grids need to have reliable power supply round the clock - something which fossil fuel and nuclear power generation plants provide. Solar panels, on the other hand, do not produce electricity at night while wind farms work only when the breeze is blowing.
Large scale electricity storage is vital for a national electricity power grid to function smoothly, if it is to depend only on green energy power generation. There have been significant advances in power storage technology with lots of innovation happening. The problem is, as with all new technologies, the solutions cost a lot of money and this skews the economics for renewable power generation for poorer countries.
Ultimately, money matters, and that is why the longstanding commitment of US$100 billion yearly financial help from rich nations to less wealthy ones, which was supposed to start last year but has yet to, is vital in the fight against climate change. Money is required to wean poorer nations away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately firm monetary commitment was far less forthcoming at the Glasgow summit than pledges on zero carbon emissions.
