Main image
Main image

Using our fossil fuels could take us back 50 million years

We are not going to run out of fossil fuels any time soon, Sir David King, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, has assured business leaders.

What does he mean by this? In an online debate with Martin Chilcott, Chief Executive of the sustainable business website, 2degrees, Sir David says that below-ground fossil fuels are still plentiful but that their use could raise the earth’s temperatures far beyond dangerous levels.

Sir David warns: “50 million years ago temperatures were on average 10°C higher than they are today. There was no ice on land and Antarctica was a sub-tropical forest with large animals roaming around and much of the rest of the earth desertified and uninhabitable for mammals.

“If we keep burning fossil fuels can we get back to that state of 50m years ago in a much shorter space of time? The answer is probably yes. There are probably enough fossil fuels beneath the earth’s surface for us to manage to repeat that.”

A 1°C temperature rise has already been caused by burning fossil fuels and we have already seen dangerous impacts, such as the long hot summer of 2005 when 35 thousand people died, Sir David adds. “It was the largest, single natural disaster on record in central Europe as measured by human fatalities,” he says.

Sir David warns that our increasing population, together with rapid deforestation is behind the rise in CO2 levels. “Forests pump CO2 out of the atmosphere and all of human activities are basically putting it back into the atmosphere and putting it back in much faster than it’s being removed.”

Kyoto treaty failing the world’s poor

Initiatives aimed at cutting emissions while encouraging economic development are failing the world’s poorest countries, leading scientists are warning.

They say that payments from rich countries to fund development schemes in poor nations are unequally distributed because investors choose stronger, more stable states like China, India and Brazil instead of much poorer nations such as Chad, Nigeria and Sudan.

Dr Chuks Okereke of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, and Dr Heike Schroeder, of the Environmental Change Institute, both at Oxford University, say the most needy nations are losing out and are urging negotiators at December’s climate talks to re-think rules governing funding for low-carbon development in poor countries.

They are calling for a ‘climate justice development’ fund to be established to pay for climate change adaptation and low carbon development in poor countries, and provide insurance for investors. The scientists add that the post-Kyoto climate change agreement should be more closely tied to world trade and other international treaties.

Dr Okereke said: “The current system isn’t working because it lumps too many countries together and ignores the socio-economic gulfs between them. Measures that were intended for all developing countries have ended up helping only a few.

“Investors only invest where they know they’ll get a return and in many cases, rich governments and private investors have been put off by political turbulence in the countries that most need help.

“This new fund would help solve that problem. It would target the poorest and most vulnerable nations and provide insurance against political turbulence and misuse. The post-Kyoto treaty must emphasise low carbon development without neglecting adaptation. At the moment, the reverse is the case.

The new paper by Dr Okereke and Dr Schroeder is published in the first issue of the journal Climate and Development. It analyses the links between carbon cuts, economic development and justice for developing countries. It also assesses the existing initiatives for greenhouse gas reductions, such as the ‘Clean Development Mechanism’, which is part of the Kyoto climate change treaty.

“There is an extreme imbalance in both the distribution and the ability of countries to cope with the negative effects of climate change,” the authors say. “If the stalemate [in climate change talks] lingers, the poor would still be the ones to suffer the most as they would be hardest hit by the consequences of delayed global responses to climate change.”

Many poor nations are already suffering the effects of climate change, such as smaller harvests, coastal erosion and new health problems. Yet those countries are contributing little or nothing to rising global emissions.

Dr Okereke says: “To raise developing countries out of poverty, we have to address the question of who pays for that development without increasing emissions. A solution for China will not help Chad. Justice for poor nations is the fundamental issue in achieving a stable and working climate change agreement.”

Dr Schroeder added: “Developed countries have failed the developing world on climate change. We are now looking to key developing countries like China, Mexico and Brazil to demonstrate leadership on this important issue. And they are.”

Ends

Contact:

Michael Evans at Madano Partnership, 020 7593 4000

Notes to editors:

  • How can justice, development and climate change mitigation be reconciled for developing countries in a post-Kyoto settlement? Okereke, C and Schroeder, H; Climate and Development 1 (2009)
  • The Clean Development Mechanism was established under the Kyoto climate change treaty to help cut global emissions in developing countries. Projects are awarded credits, which can be sold to industrialised countries to meet their own targets for emissions reductions. In practice, the CDM has benefited a few developing countries but not some of the poorest states in sub-Saharan Africa.
  • The Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment is a unique interdisciplinary hub where international academics from a range of disciplines are working with the private sector and government to find solutions to the major environmental challenges of the 21st century. The School was founded in 2008 by a benefaction from the Smith Family Educational Foundation and will be the foremost institution of its kind in the world. The School’s work covers environmental economics, finance, international development, law, politics, and all areas relevant to the response of the private and public sectors to environmental problems. Units from across the University of Oxford are involved in the creation and ongoing work of the School. Professor Sir David King is the Smith School’s first director. Sir David was the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000 to 2007.

Electric cars

Electric Cars

Sunday Times, 15 April 2009

Helen Brooks rightly says that emissions linked to electric car production are being shifted from exhaust pipe to power plant without actually reducing greenhouse gases.

Fuel from rubbish could power aircraft

Fuel from rubbish could power aircraft

Sunday Times, 12 April 2009

IT is not just electricity that could be made from rubbish.

Cutting transport emissions: We must change the way we move around

Better town planning will do most to cut transport emissions in the long-term, world leaders will be told at climate talks this December.

Experts will say that measures to deter vehicle use in new towns and cities should accompany efforts to improve fuel and vehicle efficiency.

The Transport Research Foundation, formed of the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory and European public transport and development agencies, is working with the Smith School’s Dr Bettina Wittneben to include transport emissions in the climate change treaty to replace Kyoto in 2012.

Dr Wittneben advised the Foundation last week, before preliminary climate talks in Bonn, when the group lobbied negotiators.

“Of course we need vehicle and fuel efficiency measures and you just need legislation for that,” Dr Wittneben said. “But there’s a limit on how efficient vehicles can become. Research by the Smith School has shown that we can produce sustainable biofuels using rubbish and the leftovers of food crops, but if we really want to change the way we move around we have to change our urban infrastructure.

“That means including a metro for example when a new city is built, or a tram system in a new town. This is how we should include transport in the post-Kyoto treaty. Incredibly, there’s no mention of transport in the Kyoto treaty now even though transport creates 25 per cent of the world’s emissions.”

Climate talks in December will include decisions on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) – templates for emissions cuts that countries can tailor to their individual needs.

Experts are hoping that models for transport infrastructure can be included in NAMAs – a suit-to-fit measure that developing countries can use, funded by rich nations.

Dr Wittneben said: “Poorer states would submit their proposals within the NAMAs model and industrial countries would select the ones they were prepared to pay for. This would be much more effective in reducing transport emissions because CO2 cuts are too expensive to be competitive in the carbon market.

“It would be great for developing countries to have this assistance and would finally get transport into climate policy.”

Obama on course

Sir David King, the Smith School’s Director, is confident US President Barack Obama is serious about tackling climate change.

Sir David met the President’s team last Monday and came away convinced that the new administration will do all it can to get the US on board in climate talks in December.

“I got a very clear message that the President means to deliver on climate change and deliver in substance,” Sir David said after returning from Washington.

“I am more confident than I was before I went, although Obama will have a real battle with the Senate and Congress.”

In his pre-election speeches, Obama pledged to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the same target set by the UK in legislation last year. He has repeated that goal since then and has announced an interim aim of greenhouse gases reductions to 1990 levels by 2020.

But he is facing strong opposition from both Republican and Democrat senators to his stimulus package, which includes new funds for environmental measures. And he is reported to have warned that he must sell climate change targets domestically before he can sign a new international deal.

The UK set its own 80 per cent target late last year to give industry the confidence that investment in renewables and other green business opportunities would pay off.

Sir David, the government’s chief scientist from 2000 to 2007, strongly supported the new law and believes it will give businesses the confidence to invest. “We need to manage the process of cutting emissions without disrupting wealth creation or economic growth,” he said.

Sir David is also convinced that Brazil, a country frequently lambasted for the rate of Amazon deforestation, will contribute significantly to global emissions cuts.

“Anyone who says deforestation must stop now doesn’t understand the problems Brazil faces. A major proportion of Brazil’s economic growth is dependent on farming products and they must manage the process of stopping deforestation while maintaining and increasing GDP.

“That will take time yet last year, President Lula pledged to stop deforestation by 2025. If he comes to the negotiating table at climate talks in December with that position that will be a major step forward.”

Sir David is hopeful of progress in Copenhagen. “We are beginning to see the green shoots of resolve as we approach the talks. But what we really need to see is Obama and the Chinese President Hu Jintao standing together making a unilateral statement on tackling climate change. That would unlock all of the negotiations leading up to the meeting.”

  • Publications


    Smith School Reports


  • Latest News


  • Follow us on: