Current pledges to phase out coal power won’t slow down climate change

Pledges to phase out ‘unabated’ coal-fired power to slow down climate change aren’t enough to reduce emissions, experts have warned.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) is a coalition of 30 countries that aims to phase out coal power for cleaner air.

Global energy experts have found that members of the PPCA mainly promised to close older plants near the end of their lifetimes.

Closing plants that were going to close anyway would result in limited emissions reductions, the team said.

By analysing a worldwide database of coal power plants, they have shown that only wealthy countries, which don’t use much coal, have joined the PPCA.

The research also shows that expansion of the PPCA to major coal consuming countries would face economic and political difficulties.

Pledges to phase out ‘unabated’ coal-fired power to slow down climate change aren’t enough to keep the temperature increase to to 1.5°C (2.7°F). Global energy experts have found that members of the PPCA mainly promised to close older plants near the end of their lifetimes

They found that pledges from PPCA members will result in a reduction of about 1.6 gigatonnes of C02 from now until 2050.  

This represents only around 1/150th of projected C02 emissions over the same time period from all coal power plants which are already operating globally.

‘To keep global warming below 1.5°C, as aimed for in the Paris climate agreement, we need to phase-out unabated coal power – that is, when the carbon emissions are not captured – by the middle of this century,’ said Jessica Jewell.

Ms Jewell, an assistant professor at the Department of Space, Earth and the Environment at Chalmers University of Technology said: ‘The Powering Past Coal Alliance is a good start but so far, only wealthy countries which don’t use much coal, and some countries which don’t use any coal power, have joined.’ 

To investigate the likelihood of expanding the PPCA, Professor Jewell, who led the study, compared its current members with countries whic aren’t in the Alliance. 

They found that PPCA members are wealthy nations with small electricity demand growth, older power plants and low coal extraction and use. 

These countries invariably rank higher in terms of government openness and transparency.

This is because of the abundance of democratically elected politicians, independence from private interests and strong safeguards against corruption.

Closing plants that were going to close anyway would result in limited emissions reductions, the team said. By analysing a worldwide database of coal power plants, they have shown that only wealthy countries which don't use much coal have joined the PPCA

Closing plants that were going to close anyway would result in limited emissions reductions, the team said. By analysing a worldwide database of coal power plants, they have shown that only wealthy countries which don’t use much coal have joined the PPCA

WHAT IS THE PARIS AGREEMENT? 

The Paris Agreement, which was first signed in 2015, is an international agreement to control and limit climate change.

It hopes to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C (3.6ºF) ‘and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C (2.7°F)’.

It seems the more ambitious goal of restricting global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) may be more important than ever, according to previous research which claims 25 per cent of the world could see a significant increase in drier conditions.

In June 2017, President Trump announced his intention for the US, the second largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, to withdraw from the agreement.  

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change has four main goals with regards to reducing emissions:

1)  A long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels

2) To aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change

3) Goverments agreed on the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible, recognising that this will take longer for developing countries

4) To undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with the best available science

Source: European Commission 

These characteristics are dramatically different from major coal users such as China, where electricity demand is rapidly growing.

Coal power plants in China are young and responsible for a large share of electricity production, and which ranks lower on government transparency and independence.

The researchers predict therefore, that while countries like Spain, Japan, Germany, may sign up in the near future, countries like China and India are unlikely to join the PPCA any time soon.

China alone accounts for about half of all coal power usage worldwide – and India, has ever-expanding electricity sectors and domestic coal mining.

Germany recently announced plans to phase out coal power, which could lead to a further reduction of 1.6 gigatonnes of C02 – a doubling of the PPCA’s reductions. 

On the other hand, the US and Australia illustrate the difficulties of managing the coal sector in countries with persistent and powerful mining interests. 

The recent election in Australia resulted in the victory of a pro-coal candidate, supportive of expanding coal mining and upgrading coal power plants.

More generally, the research suggests that coal phase-out is feasible when it does not incur large-scale losses, such as closing down newly constructed power plants or coal mines. 

Moreover, countries need the economic and political capacity to withstand these losses. Germany, for instance, has earmarked 40 billion Euros for compensating affected regions.

‘Not all countries have the resources to make such commitments. It is important to evaluate the costs of and capacities for climate action, to understand the political feasibility of climate targets,’ explains Jessica Jewell.

The findings have been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

IN DECLINE BUT STILL KEEPING (SOME) LIGHTS ON: THE U.S. COAL INDUSTRY

Coal has become a distressed industry in recent years – and Donald Trump’s election has not stopped the decline.

But most of its problems are not about a green attack on the fossil fuel industry; they are because natural gas prices have plunged, largely thanks to fracking, making it a far more economic option for electricity generators.

Coal production held steady at around 1,000 million tons a year from 2000 to 2012, but since then it has fallen by about a quarter. In 2018 it was 755 million tons. And since 2010, more than 240 mines have closed or announced they will close.

In many cases the power plants they were supplying went first, closed by a combination of cheaper natural gas, and pollution regulations putting up their operating costs.

Coal is now responsible for a quarter of electricity generation, compared to 35% by natural gas. In 2008, almost 45% of electricity came from coal. 

Efforts by the Trump administration to reverse pollution regulations have had little net effect, because of the continuing low cost of natural gas. 

As a result three out of the four largest mining firms went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2015 and 2016; the remaining one, Cloud Peak Energy declared it this year. 

In terms of jobs, the decline has been less pronounced, but in 2016 the number of miners hit the lowest level since records began, at 50,500. It is now 52,900. According to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 28,000 people are employed in coal-fired power stations.

Railroads, which carry almost all the coal in the country, are also significant employers, although they have diversified revenues thanks to the shale oil and fracking boom.

The coal industry’s concentration in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wyoming and Alabama has given it huge political muscle in those states and in Republican politics,with Pennsylvania’s miners seen as one of the forces behind Trump’s 2016 victory. His campaign took advantage of Hillary Clinton saying she wanted to put miners out of jobs to make inroads into what were traditionally Democratic heartlands.

The majority of coal jobs are east of the Mississippi but the majority of production is now west of it. 

The industry’s attempt to survive in recent years has seen it step up exports, largely to Europe, but it has been hit by west coast states preventing the movement of export coal through their railroads and ports. 

 

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk