It has been fascinating to see how commentators have discussed the encyclical on the environment that the Roman Catholic Church released this week. EiD was particularly interested in two. The first is from Fareed Zakaria, an opinion writer for the Washington Post. The second is by Nick Butler, energy blogger for the Financial Times.
Fareed Zakaria: A welcome warning on climate from the Vatican
I am an optimist, both by temperament and observation. But I maintain my hopeful outlook partly because I know that we can confront challenges, ones that people — perhaps less optimistic than I — will sound the alarms on. Pope Francis has issued just such a warning with his encyclical on the environment.
The document is eloquent and intelligent, especially in its handling of science. “Most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity,” it says. “Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space.” That is as lucid a two-sentence description of the mechanism of global warming as I have read.
The encyclical is gloomy. But in fact, remarkable changes are taking place that could put the planet on a much more sustainable path. You get a sense of them if you read another important report that was issued this week, to much less fanfare than the pope’s missive — the International Energy Agency’s special report on energy and climate change.
The report points out that last year the global economy grew at 3 percent but that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stayed flat, the first time this has happened in 40 years. Renewables accounted for nearly half of all new power generation last year, and the energy intensity of the global economy dropped by twice as much as it has on average annually over the past decade. With concerted action, we could actually push global emissions downward in the next few years.
How? Well, an ongoing revolution is taking place in energy technology. Natural gas has replaced coal in many places. The cost of solar cells has plummeted, leading to their widespread use. Cars, buildings and machines are becoming much more energy efficient. And over the horizon, one can see progress in batteries, nuclear power and biofuels, which could collectively produce a new energy ecosystem.
But innovation alone isn’t what is spurring progress, and it won’t be enough. We need a revolution in public policy as well. Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund, points out that most of the improvements that have been made in technology and efficiency would not have happened without rules and laws. And a series of smart policies — which are not very costly or disruptive — could dramatically accelerate the shift to a cleaner economy.
First, stop doing harm. Even Bjorn Lomborg, a skeptic about many efforts to tackle global warming, argues for a reduction in the massive, market-distorting subsidies for fossil fuels. The IEA estimates that last year these subsidies globally amounted to $510 billion, about four times those provided to renewable energy.
“We still have a long way to go on energy efficiency,” Krupp notes. “Buildings waste 30 percent of their energy. And a dollar spent in this area usually yields two to three dollars in energy savings in return.” He argues that solar power could become far more widespread if governments were not as beholden to utility companies and their phalanx of lobbyists. “There are lots of nonmarket barriers to renewables, placed at the behest of the established players,” he said.
Natural gas is better than coal, but its production, transport and use release significant amounts of methane, which has much worse effects on the climate than carbon dioxide. The good news is that serious studies have found that these emissions could be reduced relatively cheaply with new regulations. President Obama has called for nearly halving oil and gas methane emissions from 2012 levels by 2025. Krupp points out that if the same is done globally, that would have the same impact on the climate over the next 20 years as would shutting down 1,000 coal-fired power plants.
The smartest new policy would be the simplest, and one supported by many diehard free marketeers, such as Reaganite Republican and former treasury secretary George Shultz: a carbon tax — effectively putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions to encourage companies to adopt cleaner technologies. This seems impossible to imagine — yet this month, several major oil companies in Europe came out in favor of a price on carbon, whether through a tax or an emissions trading system like those used in California and Europe.
Technology and policy innovations are happening, just not on the scale that they need to be. That’s why the pope’s warnings are so useful and important — even to an optimist like me.
Nick Butler: The Pope’s message misses the point
The shocking thing about the papal encyclical Laudate Si is not that it was leaked in advance nor even that it embraces the idea that most emissions of greenhouse gases are the result of human activity. The thing that should shock readers is its attack on science and technology — the very tools, indeed the only tools, which offer a solution to climate change.
I am not a student of theology and therefore do not claim to understand the subtleties of the Catholic Church’s teaching on science. But since the Pope has moved outside his own natural territory and into energy policy, some response seems appropriate.
From a distance, Pope Francis seems to embody decency. He is modest, frugal, concerned for the poor and hostile to the creepier side of the church hierarchy in Rome and beyond. That makes him stand out in a world of shallow and cynical “leaders”. He commands millions of followers and his words deserve to be taken seriously whether one is a Catholic or not.
But if you read the encyclical there is a flaw in the argument that undermines the credibility of the whole text. It is perhaps best summed up by paragraph 110 of the document, which deserves to be quoted in full
“It can be said that many problems of today’s world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.
This is one among many examples of a critique of science that runs through the whole document. This must be disspiriting, to put it mildly, to the many Catholics who have been involved in research on climate change over the last 20 years and more. The very problem of climate change was identified by scientific analysis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is composed of scientists whose conclusion about the causation of climate change and the associated risks if it continues unchecked have brought the issue to public attention across the world. Those scientists did not rely on prayer but on hard work, often extending the limits of what was previously known. Their work is what separates them from the deniers of climate change whose belief is based on faith rather than facts.
Having identified the problem, what are the solutions? There is no single answer. Pope Francis repeatedly calls for a change in behaviour. That is all well and good but for many people, especially the world’s poorest, such a behavioural change can only happen if they are offered a viable alternative to burning coal or other fossil fuels. Every possible alternative I can think of comes back to science — either in the form of existing technology or scientific advances that have yet to be made. That includes electric vehicles which would reduce oil consumption, smart meters which would control and limit energy use, carbon capture and storage, clean coal technology, advanced batteries and other storage technologies, photovoltaics and advanced materials. The list could go on — and indeed fills up hundreds of pages of the latest review of Energy Technology Perspectives from the International Energy Agency.
Scientists are advancing these technologies across the world — in companies and in universities by individuals who believe they are doing something good for the world. The encyclical undermines their efforts.
If these efforts ceased today I do not know what could take their place. The encyclical implies that climate change is a problem of the rich world consuming too much. One can see why the US. Republicans led by Jeb Bush do not like it. But in reality, the challenge of climate change now is not focused on the US or Europe, where energy demand has stopped growing and where the carbon intensity of GDP declines year by year. The problem comes from the growing populations of south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa — areas that between them will have some 1.5bn to 2bn more citizens in 20 years’ time than they do today. Every citizen needs energy and, although many will subsist on less than they need, tens of millions will become consumers of commercial supplies of coal and oil which will generate more and more emissions. Unless, that is, science can offer a lower-cost alternative.
The Pope calls for a change in behaviour. He is right. But the change should not just come from those who consume too much and who give no care to the environmental impact of their actions. Real change should start with a shift in the mindset of those who remain trapped in the belief that the products of science and technology must always be bad. Knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge to meet human needs can be positive in every sense.
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 