World Bank Says: “Turn Down the Heat?”

Keith Helmuth

A line of demarcation is falling across our society that has on one side those who believe it is a good thing for Canada to allow and encourage the production and consumption of fossil fuels for as long as we can, and those on the other side who think the extraction and burning of all fossil fuels should be scaled back as rapidly as possibly.

Two recent reports from mainstream international sources have now put a big stick in the wheel of fossil fuel production and consumption. They both come down on the side of those who see the future of sustainable economic development and prosperity in the rapid shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

On November 12 the International Energy Agency released its annual flagship publication, World Energy Outlook, in which it writes, “No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 20 C goal.” Two degrees centigrade is the scientifically based, internationally recognized limit for average global warming in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

On November 19th the World Bank released a new report, Turn Down the Heat: Why a 40 Degree Warmer World Must Be Avoided, in which it writes, “Humankind’s emissions of greenhouse gases are breaking new records every year. Hence we’re on a path towards 4-degree global warming probably as soon as by the end of this century. This would mean a world of risks beyond the experience of our civilization – including heat waves, especially in the tropics, a sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people, and regional yield failures impacting global food security.”

“If we venture far beyond the 2 degree guardrail, towards 4 degrees, we risk crossing tipping points in the Earth system. ….  The only way to avoid this is to break with the fossil-fuel-age patterns of production and consumption. …. Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today….. we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations….”

Take note: This is the World Bank speaking, not a so-called “radical environmentalist organization.” Where does this leave our Provincial enthusiasm for the oil sands pipeline project?

We could say, “Well, this oil is going to be produced and consumed anyway, so why shouldn’t NB get a piece of the action and benefit financially by helping route it to the world market? Why shouldn’t Alberta maximize the production of its oil sands resource and create as much wealth for itself as it can? Why shouldn’t Canada create a national energy policy for ramping up its fossil fuel resources to serve the world market?”

These questions appear quite rational, until you begin to plot them against the scientific risk assessment that informs the IEA and the World Bank reports, and until you begin to factor in moral responsibility.

Admittedly, the thought of leaving two thirds of known fossil fuel deposits in the ground is, perhaps, the most difficult thought we can imagine. How can this calculation possibly be taken into account? Yet, if we don’t take it into account how can we possibly run the risk that the IEA and the World Bank now lay before us?

This is a huge question that goes to the heart of both business and political leadership. How it is answered will determine whether global warming will rise to a level that renders a large a part the earth humanly uninhabitable.

At the moment, it seem unlikely that either business or political leadership in Canada will do anything except maximize the wealth that can be created from the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. The enthusiasm of NB political, business and labour leaders for the oil sands pipeline to Saint John is perfectly in sync with this wealth maximizing strategy.

Unfortunately, this strategy can be employed only by radically discounting the long-term wellbeing of our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren both at home and around the world. Is this acceptable? If not, what is the option?

A good start would be a scaling up of renewable energy development comparable to the industrial strategy and social cooperation that enabled the winning of World War Two. In the light of the IEA and World Bank reports, responding rationally to the global climate crisis requires something like this historic effort. In addition to helping mitigate long-term global warming, a national and provincial energy policy that goes full tilt for solar energy would create significant employment opportunities and long lasting economic benefit.

The window is closing on fossil fuels, one way or the other. Burning them out to the end of available supplies, according the IEA and the World Bank, will be a disastrous closing that will, for example, turn a large part of the planet’s best farmland into desert.

Winding down the fossil fuel era by shifting rapidly to solar energy is the rational alternative. Those who doubt this can be done in our climate should check out what is happening in Germany – a place that has less solar energy potential than NB, but is bounding ahead in making this shift.

Why the difference? Leadership, smart policy, incentives, investment. Put “Germany solar energy 2050” into Google for an eye opening look at what is possible.

Keith Helmuth is a member of the Woodstock Sustainable Energy Group (SEG). SEG has just published From Oil Dependency to Renewable Energy: An Energy Transition Guidebook for the Woodstock Region; Assessment, Planning, Resources. Complimentary copies may be obtained by contacting ekhelmuth@mindspring.com">ekhelmuth@mindspring.com

January 2, 2012

 © 2018 NBEN / RENB