'Clean coal' and other greenhouse myths

Research Paper No. 49

August 2007

George Wilkenfeld, Clive Hamilton and Hugh Saddler

There is no longer any doubt that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases are leading to dangerous change in the global climate. In Australia, public and political opinion finally shifted in late 2006, with record droughts and an early start to the bushfire season. The Stern Review in October 2006 and the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February 2007 reinforced fears about global warming.

The debate has now shifted to the best means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to the need for adapting to the level of climate change that now appears inevitable. Not surprisingly, the confusion and deliberate misinformation which formerly surrounded the debate on climate change has now shifted to the debate on how to tackle it. If there is to be an effective response (and the odds do not look good at present) very large changes are required in the global economy, and especially the global energy system. There will be both winners and losers among industries and companies. The potential losers are fighting to retain their advantages and privileges. Others are positioning themselves to profit, in some cases from ineffective or even counterproductive ‘solutions’.

Part of the strategy of potential losers and winners is to influence the public debate through myths and half-truths. Governments and oppositions are also attracted to convenient half-truths to mask inaction or lack of effective policy. Even among the many who sincerely support a reduction in emissions, there is much confusion.

The scope for misinformation is especially high in 2007, with climate change already a major issue for the federal election later in the year. This paper addresses some of the most widely repeated myths about reducing emissions, which are sure to get a thorough workout in the coming months.

The 16 most common myths are as follows.

1. Coal can be part of the solution. In reality, coal is the main problem, and curtailing its use is essential. There is no such thing as ‘clean coal’ at present, and there is a chance there will never be.

2. Carbon sequestration can be the centrepiece of policy. This technology is unproven and expensive.

3. Nuclear power can be the centrepiece of policy. This technology is expensive and risky and, if pursued, is unlikely to have any significant impact for 15-20 years.

4. Renewable energy is always benign. All forms of energy have advantages and disadvantages, and not all renewables are completely ‘clean’.

5. Renewable energy can support our current level of energy use. In reality, we cannot make the transition to a renewable energy system without first relying on natural gas and greatly increasing the efficiency of energy use.

6. Renewable energy cannot provide baseload power. An electricity system that uses a mix of geographically dispersed renewable technologies, with some gasfired power and energy storage, will have just as much ability to supply reliable baseload power as the current coal-based generation system.

7. Voluntary ‘greenpower’ schemes can make a difference. Experience shows that they have had little effect.

8. Buying carbon offsets is the same as actually reducing emissions. In fact, buying offsets is too often just a smokescreen for large emitters who intend to operate on a ‘business as usual’ basis. A reduction in emissions requires a reduction in emissions, plain and simple.

9. We can plant enough trees to get us out of trouble. We can’t.

10. We need to wait for new technology. In reality, if the technology is not already available, it will come too late.

11. The hydrogen economy will save the day. Energy is required to produce hydrogen, so the hydrogen economy would be only as greenhouse friendly as the energy system which supports it.

12. Expanding public transport is the answer. Cars are here to stay and reducing emissions from them must be the primary focus of policy.

13. It won’t cost anything. Tackling climate change will mean the end of the era of cheap energy.

14. Higher energy prices mean lower living standards. In fact, with good policies energy bills could come down while energy prices go up.

15. Australia will meet its Kyoto target. We won’t.

16. There is no point ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Australia’s interests would be best served by having a seat at the table. The G8 summit endorsed the Kyoto process under the UNFCCC.

This paper exposes these greenhouse myths, and reiterates the basic principles of an effective greenhouse policy:

· no new coal-fired generation until it meets the criteria for at least half-clean use;

· encouragement of renewable and gas-fired generation;

· an increasingly stringent cap on emissions supported by a tradeable permit system; and

· stringent minimum energy efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings and appliances.

In the meantime, Australia’s emissions continue to rise inexorably, despite the outlay of considerable amounts of private and public money, most of which has been wasted.

What is needed above all is a near-term policy that causes emissions to peak in the next few years then fall over the next decade. If we succeed in that, the future will take care of itself.

Read the full text of 'Clean coal' and other greenhouse myths (PDF file)