Last year the International Energy Agency (IEA) found itself unwittingly reinforcing David Bowie’s prediction from 1972, stating in effect, “We’ve got five years, that’s all we’ve got.” The IEA is warning of the imperative need to change the way we consume hydrocarbons if we wish to avoid a climate blowout. Bowie’s intention was to convey a general sense of urgency, for even back then, look-ahead people were fearful that maybe ‘Earth was really dying’. We recognize the artist’s use of metaphor and literary licence; ‘five years’ implies ‘not long’ – and 45 years is not that long, in fact I distinctly remember purchasing Bowie’s album ‘The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust & the Spiders From Mars’. ‘Earth really dying’ was certainly a bit of a stretch, but a state of poor global health is a virtual certainty, already noticeable to Arctic practitioners. Then again, 45 years is a long time to wait, and to waste, when the need to address the emissions causing our climate problem was clearly foreseen.
The IEA is nothing if not conservative and reputable, so the progression in its thinking over 7 years is worthy of serious note. In 2005, looking ahead to the fuel needs of 2030, the message was that the Middle East and North Africa have vast oil and gas resources, “but these resources must be further developed. Investment should not be delayed.” In 2007 it warned the next ten years would be critical if the huge energy challenges facing China and India are to be met - but acknowledged climate concerns in noting that “measures to improve energy efficiency are the cheapest and fastest way to curb demand and emissions growth in the near term.” By 2009 it warned “the time has come to make the hard choices needed to combat climate change” or else a 6 degree warming was in the offing. In 2011 its World Energy Outlook warned that the world will be headed for irreversible climate change in five years if the planned construction of fossil fuel driven infrastructure is not rapidly changed. As things stand the world is committed to the construction of sufficient fossil-fuel powered electrical generation, energy-intensive factories and conventional buildings by 2017 to put forever out of reach the chance to avoid a warming of less than 2 degree by 2100.
Indeed the IEA considers this ‘lock-in’ effect as “the single most important factor increasing the danger of runaway climate change.” Such infrastructure clearly includes oil and gas pipelines. Only successfully implemented global policy to change the fossil fuel infrastructure will avoid this singular disaster. There was a moment of hope that Durban would provide this agreement, and there was a result, sort of. A decision was made to formulate a new legal instrument governing emissions by 2015, to come into effect after 2020. But as chief IEA economist Fatih Birol commented, “I hope this road map wouldn't lead some of the countries not to act for the next 10 years or to act inefficiently which would be … closing the door.'' There is plenty of irony in the fact that the Kyoto Protocol had (in fact has, it’s not technically dead yet) exactly the same goals – meeting an earlier time scale.
This topic is, and will remain, the most difficult of conversations. For instance, what do we do, individually and collectively, if in five years no massive effort to rein in our hydrocarbon use is underway? What indeed do we do in the meantime, especially if no signs of progress materialize? For the many who track this issue it is incomprehensible that developed countries do not, for example, take to heart Germany’s assessment that 100% renewable power is feasible by 2050 and try to beat it. In Ziggy’s words – “my brain hurts a lot.” After all, the results of the strategy thus far appear highly favourable to the German economy. Pipelines bringing tar sand derivatives to the market are being opposed in Canada and, for the moment successfully, in the United States. But fracked gas is flourishing. Oil exploration continues. All our carbon making ways are regarded as fundamental to the economy. Issue by issue opposition might break through the policy armour of government on occasions – but it might not change overall policy directions unless that opposition grows massively in intensity. The stakes have never been higher, the livability of the planet is on the table.
Our present situation is laid out clearly by the IEA analysis of three different scenarios. Cautious implementation of recent commitments by governments, the so-called ‘New Policies Scenario’, ensures emission levels sufficient to warm the world more than 3.5oC, which is only better than the 6oC or more promised from the business as usual ‘Current Policies Scenario’ if a smaller catastrophe is more palatable than a larger one. Clearly policy and science are massively disconnected, and only the ‘450 Scenario’ which accepts a 50% probability that 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere will allow temperature increase not to exceed 2oC holds useful, but high risk hope. Commitment based on best science would transcend hope and implant some certainty. Time to move. In BC we can show how to change the way we utilize hydrocarbons by not piping and shipping tar sands oil across our territory.