Main Menu

US promotes coal at Bonn COP23 climate conference

The US side event here in Bonn promoted "cleaner fossil fuel" as the way to go

BONN, Germany – November 14: 12.28pm (Deutsche Welle): America’s sole official side event at COP23 has attempted to present fossil fuels as a solution to climate change.

This was largely ridiculed but could cleaner fossil fuels be a realistic prospect?

The official US delegation has been conspicuous by its absence at COP23. At their sole side event, US delegates promoted “clean” fossil fuels as a solution to reduce emissions.

First announced under the title “Action on Spurring Innovation and Deploying Advanced Technologies,” the event was finally presented as “The Role of Cleaner and More Efficient Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation.”

The Governor of California Jerry Brown ridiculed his country’s attempt at caring for the planet, while dozens of environmental activists chanted “Keep it in the ground” over the speech of Barry Worthington, executive director of the United States Energy Association.

They argue that promoting cleaner fossil fuels is merely an excuse to keep profiting from fossil fuel industries while slowing down the transition towards renewable energies.

“Events inside the climate talks which promote fossil fuels deserve to get disrupted, “asserted Jogada Munic, Friends of the Earth (FoE) director for Europe. “The US has been deliberately provocative by organising this. There is no space for fossil fuels in these talks or in a climate safe future.”

However, there is a point to all this discussion. Since we might be dependent on fossil fuels for much longer than we hoped, wouldn’t it be better, at least, to make them cleaner? But are “clean fossil fuels” an oxymoron.


Coal promoters in a climate conference

Protesters do not want coal to be used

Protesters do not want coal to be used

“This panel is only controversial if we choose to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the realities of the global energy system,” David Barks, special assistant for the White House, said in his opening speech.

Universal access to energy is required to help eradicate poverty and reach development goals – and this is only possible with fossil fuels, he argued.

“The idea that the world can meet ambitious mitigation goals, support development in poor countries the way we should and ensure energy access by only deploying solar and wind is naive,” Barks said.

But for California’s Jerry Brown, this US move is simply ridiculous.

“I think the federal government is treading water. They’ve kind of become like Saturday Night Live, or a comedy program,” Brown said.

“They’re bringing in a coal company to teach the Europeans how to clean up the environment.”

For environmental activists, the idea is a clear response to US President Donald Trump’s support for the fossil fuels industry.


Cleaner fossil fuels?

Representatives from giant energy companies such as Peabody Energy Corporation – the largest private–sector coal company in the world – were presenting ways to realize the ideal of cleaner fossil fuels.

“There are technologies available today that can dramatically reduce emissions from coal and other fossil fuels,” Holly Krutka, vice president of coal generation and emissions technologies with Peabody, said.

The main steps to make fossil fuels “greener” are to install high–efficiency, low emissions systems in power plants and upgrade the carbon capture and storage (CCS) process – capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large emitters such as coal power plants and storing it in a deposit to avoid it entering the atmosphere.

However, for Naomi Ages, Climate Liability Project Lead at Greenpeace USA, “there is no such thing as cleaner fossil fuels.” This is simply a strategy developed by the fossil fuel industry to slow the transition from coal, she said.

CCS and similar technological processes do not ensure the reduction of emissions at the required level – and are a waste of resources that would be best invested to scale up renewable energies and replace fossil fuels as fast as possible, Ages argued.

Foreseeing the future

A team of international researchers at Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) in Finland showed at COP23 that a full decarbonization of the electricity system by 2050 is perfectly possible.

By using renewables for the electricity system alone, emissions could drop 80 percent by 2030 and although about vast numbers of people could lose their jobs, renewable ernergies would create twice as many new jobs.

“Energy transition is no longer a question of technical feasibility or economic viability, but of political will,” Christian Breyer, head of the team, said.

Although industries like shipping, iron or cement still represent a great challenge to move to a 100 percent renewable energy system, Ages believes it could be easily overcome with further investment and more ambitious policies – again, political will.

Christoph Weber, professor of management science and energy economics at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, maintains renewable energies have a determining role to play in the upcoming decades – but leaving fossil fuels behind will not be easy nor fast.

“Fossil fuels will surely not help us solve our climate problems, but for now we should consider all the available options – including CCS – if we want to keep global warming below two degrees,” Weber said.

Just a hoax? Why mitigate?

For protesters gathering inside and outside the event, there was clearly no place for fossil fuels in their future and they were not willing to allow fossil fuel lobbyists to overshadow climate negotiations. Some of them joked – why would any US official delegate want to mitigate climate change if it was just a hoax?

“The Trump Administration should be held criminally accountable for what they are doing in the US and around the world,” said Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth’s US-American economic policy director, adding that President Trump had just “traipsed” through Asia “peddling climate pollution.”

“Trump’s actions demonstrate callous disregard – and possibly even genuine malevolence – toward people in poor countries whose lives and livelihoods have been threatened, diminished, and in some cases destroyed by the devastating effects of climate change,” asserted Orenstein.

Comments are Closed