THE CARBON WAR

286
The Winning of The Carbon War
across their vast supply chain will no doubt be wondering when they will be
required to do the same.
As for the list of those offering potential for discouragement, going into
the summit, India is near the top. The Indian government is saying it will
oppose a deal in Paris to phase out fossil fuels by 2100. That would frustrate
the G7, who – if they remain true to the commitment they made at their own
summit in Germany this June – will be working hard to write a phase-out into
the agreement. Not to agree with this would entail India telling the world that
a global-warming ceiling of 2°C is unattainable. An Indian official justifies
continuing their effort to protect coal with this thought: “The entire prosperity
of the world has been built on cheap energy.”
So why is China coming to such a different view? The air is as unbreathable
in Delhi as it is in Beijing. And why assume the cheapest energy is going to
coal, even in India? KPMG is forecasting Indian solar prices up to 10% lower
than coal power prices these days. By 2025, they say, renewable energy could
make up 20% of India’s primary power, and be broadly in-line with the national
share needed for a global 2°C target.
Climate scientists have announcements of their own, on the eve of the
summit. We enter 2016 on the back of the hottest year ever in 2015, they say,
with 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, and
one degree Celsius of global warming already in large measure the consequence.
We will be in uncharted territory from now on, the UK Meteorological office
warns. Two degrees looms just a few decades hence, unless we get on the road
to deep cuts in global greenhouse-gas emissions soon.
On the eve of the summit, it looks to me as though there are three possible
outcome scenarios, only one of them involving potential deep cuts in emissions.
The worst would be “No Signal”: a message telling the greenhouse-gas
profligate organisations and institutions of the world that they can essentially
maintain course with the ruinous status quo. This scenario would severely set
back the rising tide of efforts by sub-national groups in the long run-up to
Paris – states, cities, companies, communities, faith groups, and many others –
to persuade the world to turn away from fossil fuels.
A “Contested Signal” scenario would not be so bad, but would hand
plenty of opportunity to opponents of change to continue their current stalling.
The outcome that the world needs is “Clear Signal”. This, not to be confused
with the “Problem Solved” scenario that has never been on the table, will
be most strongly felt in the energy sector, from where most of the emissions
that threaten a liveable climate derive. Top of a long list of implications, “Clear