Farewell, for now

It’s come to the end of the assignment, and so this will be my last post for the time being (but I will certainly be back!)

The blog has ended up being based on “mainstreaming” renewable energies and zero emission transport, about exploring a feasible and convenient carbon-free world.

I began this blog rather pessimistic of the “green initiative”. I still think there’s plenty of wishful thinking, but I’ve (and hopefully you guys as well) discovered just how much genuine potential there actually is in renewable energy.

This blog has reignited my drive to "change the world", something that two years of essays, coursework and lectures had almost bludgeoned out of me. It was that drive that really got me interested in geography in the first place, and I'm glad I can finish my degree with that spark back. As geography students studying global environmental change, I think enacting change is part and parcel of the process. Balancing two blogs for two modules was certainly a challenge, but genuinely worth it.

Throughout my blog I have emphasised the importance of pragmatism and dealing with the reality at hand. We still have a long way to go in securing an emissions-free world. There have been some great developments but they require a lot more work. Just remember the words of Genghis Khan

There is no good in anything until it is finished.

(source: Kublai Khan, Marco Polo S01E08 – strongly recommend the show!)

Green Innovation... Green Success?

We've looked at the current situation for the global energy mix as well as the future outlook on energy change. To round that all off this post will discuss research on industry and investment’s role in a "greener" future. Economic management is an important issue for people, in the previous election it was the number one deciding issue for voters. Jobs, salaries, pensions, these all must be taken into account as we push for a zero emission future. Thus, recognising the opportunities and problems being encountered in the markets, and guiding our rhetoric with that awareness, would help greatly in working with businesses as opposed to against them.

Weick and Jain (2014) examined the common traits behind innovative companies (like Google and Tesla) solving the biggest problems of our time. They pointed to the central role of research and scientists in guiding the companies’ spending. Partnerships are established between ‘scientists, engineers and business functions’, as well as strong links with universities. Weick and Jain highlight the importance of consistently funding basic research alongside development in order to achieve the innovative (and lucrative) breakthroughs. Sarkar’s (2013) work on eco-innovations further stresses the importance of aligning enterprise with environment.

Oxford University’s Sustainable Finance Programme has worked on the issue of stranded assets and provide a compelling argument for divesting from carbon-linked investments. In a recent report they noted the global population of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals was worth US$29.7 trillion in 2014, compared to OECD pension funds with assets of US$24.7 trillion. They have therefore been identified as key targets to attract investment from and could be swayed by the argument to divest.

Of course this isn’t all to suggest that there will be no losses moving into a renewable energy-led world, and we should not be overly-apologetic about them. Indeed, Lucas (2016) presents a compelling argument for the acceptable contraction to come in Australia’s coal industry. What is important is that the risk of losses can be leveraged by the renewable energy industry to attract investment from people, pension funds, corporations etc.

Renewable energy ultimately requires investment in the trillions (USD 44 trillion by 2050) and significant technological development in order to hit our global emissions targets. These trillions require both governments (which have shown lacklustre resolve in maintaining funding levels) and industry. Whilst Weick and Jain’s hopes for the restructuring of most companies towards these “innovator setups” are unlikely to come true, the fact that such setups work and can be learnt from are key insights for the businesses of now and the future.

The "Global warming hiatus" rejected, again

There's been talk of a "global warming hiatus" for a while now: an apparent slowdown in the rate of global surface temperature increases since 1998. This "hiatus" has helped fuel climate change sceptics.

Two years ago the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released an article which found no detectable slowdown in temperature increases. Modern buoys, which are now primarily used for measuring sea surface temperature, were partly to blame as they tend to record cooler temperatures than ship-based methods, which were used before buoys. When correcting for this bias, amongst other things like changing ship routes, global temperature increases were found to be in line with previous decades.

Today I read a BBC article that reported a new study on this "buoy cold bias", confirming the findings of the NOAA using independent data. 

Now considering the focus of my blog has been on energy, you may be wondering why I chose to write this post. The first reason being that our understanding of the environment and our use of new technologies is ever-evolving. We should always be prepared to challenge findings and we shouldn't be shortsighted about how far advances may go in the future. But I'd imagine that most people are already aware of that.

The other reason is to do with the reaction to the original NOAA article; a US House of Representatives committee tried to subpoena the emails and other communications between the scientists involved in the study. There is, and will likely remain, intense scepticism surrounding anthropogenic climate change and beliefs of some sort of grand climate change conspiracy. None of this is helped by President-elect Trump and his recent cabinet appointments, and so these beliefs now appear to run all the way up to the highest echelons of US government.

This is the reality within which renewable energy and climate change research exists. Even if the number of ardent sceptics is relatively low, it still helps the large numbers of people and organisations who prefer climate change to be a lower-priority matter. This is partly why I believe that renewable energy and zero-emission transport solutions cannot just rely on goodwill and people interested in "saving the environment". There has to be a serious value proposition which combines factors such as cost, convenience and features alongside zero emissions. That is part of how a low/zero carbon future can be achieved in a world where carbon-linked companies continue to have considerable power and support.