Does the IPCC report bring too much comfort for our leaders?

       

Further reading

• Financial Incentives for Dispersed Investment in Sustainable Energy (3856)
• Technology Procurement for celebrities (1785)
• It is the deployment - Stupid! (1873)

The long-awaited report from IPCC on measures for mitigating the GHG and reducing the problems of the climate change is here, and it has been well received by policy makers all over the world. Message received, but understood? Yes and maybe!

We have heard several of them repeat the theme that the technology exists and the measures have been proven. Good that the penny has dropped! They are not focused on R&D and a distant magic technology to pop up for salvation. Nonetheless, is it also understood that there must be a widespread DEPLOYMENT of this exiting technology and a SHARPENING of the polices to make it happen? It will not come out of a BAU market application like magic!

The Financial Incentives to release the potential for improvement exist largely in the "net negative costs" (IPCC summary report, Page 19 footnote15), which represent some 7-10% of the reductions needed even with the higher ambitions set by IPCC. Much more will be cost-effectively released by the application of known policies and measures that also targets technologies that are expected to be commercialised (IPCC SR, p.24, #19), and that can be fostered by, for example, technology procurements.

One assumes there will also be some discussion about whether the report can be trusted, and to that end, it is interesting to see how the experts have classified their statements based on amount of agreement and amount of evidence available.

The report bears some resemblance to the Stern Review in its estimation of costs, but it is not quite obvious from the summary report if they really have calculated the learning effects fully. If not, it can only be said that they are overestimating the costs. It is, however, clear that they have not calculated the costs of what would happen in the absence of measures. So, the calculation does not have a relevant benefit side. Nevertheless, the cost figures are not frightening at all (see IPCC SR, p15, table).

It is also remarkable that the report mentions, though does not stress, the need for lifestyle changes (IPCC SR, p16), and that some of the investments are also positively related to energy security, air pollution abatements, balance of trade and services to rural areas (IPCC SR, p17, #10).  Energy Efficiency and sustainability have multiple dividends!  The days when it was only a burden are gone.

Still, we should not take this as comfort, but rather simply a nicer tone of the alarm clock!