Report lays out options
and puts onus on governments to act - 04
May 2007 - Bangkok, Thailand — Renewable
energy and energy efficiency are vital.
The next two decades are crucial. Changing
our energy use is less costly than changing
our climate. These are findings from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report "Mitigating Climate Change",
released today.
Earlier this year, the IPCC issued their
strongest warning yet on climate change
and detailed the possible consequences if
we fail to act. The latest IPCC report reviews
what we can do to reduce our global warming
emissions, keeping global warming from becoming
catastrophic.
"With the final piece of the jigsaw
in place the picture of our options for
the future is now in sharp focus,"
said Stephanie Tunmore, Greenpeace International
climate and energy campaigner in Bangkok.
"It is quite clear that immediate action
to cut greenhouse gas emissions is required.
The longer the delay, the higher the temperature
increase and the greater the impacts; further
procrastination could have a devastating
effect on the lives of billions of people
across the world".
Nuclear problem
According to the IPCC, nuclear power accounted
for 16 percent of the electricity supply
in 2005 and could have an 18 percent share
of the total electricity supply in 2030,
but "...safety, weapons proliferation
and waste remain as constraints."
What's more, other research shows we can
reduce carbon emissions much more cheaply
and effectively using renewable energy and
energy efficiency measures. Dollar for dollar,
investing in energy efficiency is seven
times more cost effective at reducing CO2
emissions then investing in nuclear power.
Even if it were safe or economical, it's
also clear that nuclear power capacity cannot
be built rapidly enough to be much help.
The average construction time for nuclear
plant completions 1995 - 2000 was 116 months
(nearly 10 years). As a contrasting example,
the first offshore wind farm in the UK took
only eight months to build.
All this makes the dangers of nuclear power
a moot point.
Costs of climate change vs. costs of an
energy [r]evolution
The projected costs of climate protection
measures are far outweighed by the costs
of escalating climate impacts under business-as-usual.
According to the report stabilization between
450 and 550 ppm would cost from 0.2 percent
to less than 3 percent of global gross domestic
product (GDP) in 2030, or less than 0.1
percent per year.
Figures for the cost of business-as-usual
with no action are not given by the IPCC,
but according to the UK Government's Stern
report (October 2006) it could be 5-10 percent
of global GDP and under the worst case scenario
it could rise to as much as 20 percent.
According to Sven Teske, Greenpeace International
climate and energy campaigner, “Our own
global energy concept means that the investment
volume for new power plants until 2030 will
be in a range of 300-350 billion dollars
per year - almost equal to the amount of
money currently spent on subsidies for fossil
fuels. To shift this money, and invest in
renewable energy and cogeneration could
cut CO2 emission of the global power sector
by half by 2030, which is a win-win situation
for utilities around the world".
But will governments and politicians listen?
At the start of the Bangkok meeting IPCC
chair Rajendra Pachauri was asked how the
organization would make governments listen
to the report findings. In reply he pointed
out, "The IPCC doesn't have any muscle,
it has grey matter. The muscle will have
to come from somewhere else."
That's why millions around the world are
already mobilizing. They're lobbying politicians,
changing what they buy and making smart
energy choices.
