Dossier: Sources of Power for the Future – Alternative Energies

Dr. Edenhofer, why have the costs of climate protection been overestimated so far?

All the forecasts have always made a link between economic growth and energy consumption: more growth has meant more energy – and so many people thought that the only way to cut emissions is to accept lower growth. But they forgot that emissions can be decoupled from economic growth if we make clever use of existing technologies: the emphasis must be on renewable energy. It is technically possible to separate out the carbon and to store it below ground, and in a few years it will also be affordable. There must be higher investment in energy efficiency. We fed all of these effects into our model calculations and came to the conclusion that the necessary restructuring of the global energy system would cost less than one percent of global GNP. This figure stands for the total costs up to 2100, when we want to achieve the 2-degrees-Celsius target. In contrast, the damage could affect up to ten percent of global economic output.

What do you mean by the 2-degree target?

It stipulates that the average global temperature at the end of the century should not increase by more than two degrees Celsius compared with the pre-industrial level. Since 1750, the average global temperature has already risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius. This ambitious climate protection goal reaches beyond Kyoto; the emissions could easily rise to around 7.5 gigatonnes for two decades, but by the end of the century we mustn’t emit more than one gigatonne of CO2.

Why two degrees Celsius in particular?

The consensus amongst most climate researchers is that the extra two degrees are the critical threshold after which things get dangerous: a change in the monsoon pattern, a drying out of the rainforests, the melting of the ice-caps, increasing acidity of the oceans are risks we can reduce if we meet the 2°C target.

How can this climate target specifically be achieved?

By a drastic increase in energy efficiency, the broad use of renewables, the removal and compression of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations. There will have to be a temporary rise in the price of carbon. This high price creates the need for climate-friendly innovations. The use of the atmosphere becomes a scarce good. Anyone wanting to use the atmosphere has to pay: a tonne of CO2 is cheap today – the price will have to rise if there is to be a broad range of climate-friendly innovations.

Is it possible without nuclear power?

I do not believe that nuclear power can really help to protect the climate. It only accounts for 17 percent of global electricity generation. Most of the scenarios do not envisage a growing share for it. However, I would not like to exclude the possibility of new developments in this field, so research is important and necessary. The fusion reactor is unlikely to come before 2050.

Do you see a way of getting China or the United States on board in terms of climate protection and emissions reductions?

China will have to invest USD 1.4 trillion in its electricity supply over the next two decades. The decisions for climate-friendly or conventional power stations will be made in the next 20 years. What will they opt for? If Europe can persuade China – not least with financial incentives – to participate in emissions trading, Europe might find a new export market for climate-friendly innovations. We need global trade in emissions rights involving the key emitters: the USA, Europe, China and India. Governments must give a credible signal that the emissions will fall and the price of carbon will rise. The earlier the governments give this signal, the better industry will be able to adapt to it. And apart from this, I can now also see a growing environmental awareness amongst the Chinese elites.

And the USA?

The USA will discover that emissions trading is a business like any other. What is more: the USA has the technology to cut its emissions at a low cost. And since Hurricane Katrina, the public pressure has been growing.

What do you think of decentralised energy generation and supply?

Not a lot, if it is based on the illusion that people can become self-sufficient on a small scale. My vision is based on a global network of efficient energy generation and distribution.

In your study, you speak of an emission-free world economy – surely that is utopian?

Virtually emission-free: we forecast that CO2 emissions can – if we use every available means – be cut to one gigatonne in 2100. My hope is that CO2 emissions will rise to 7.5 gigatonnes by 2020, but will then fall dramatically, and that by the end of the century we will emit only one gigatonne. This long-term goal presupposes that we globalise our energy sector: with solar power from Africa and energy from biomass from Russia. That creates fresh economic opportunities for these countries in particular. It is just as true for energy as anything else: it should be produced wherever it is most favourable for mankind and the environment.