Jim Skea is Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, he discusses key elements of the energy transition needed to combat global warming.
Q. What are the most important changes in energy use and supply we now need in order to keep to the Paris Agreement’s goals?
A. Certain key things were identified in the last IPCC Report — the first point was moving towards low-carbon energy supply, especially in the electricity sector by adopting renewable energy and, for countries that choose it, nuclear power. There are also advantages in moving from coal to gas because natural gas is less carbon-intensive. The second is energy efficiency in transport, building and industry — some Indian companies in sectors like steel and cement are actually leading the field in reducing emissions. The third is, if electricity becomes less carbon-intensive, greater electrification makes sense — electric vehicles (EVs) become key, including electric three-wheelers in India.
Q. What is sustainable transport?
A. There are several elements to this — I mentioned moving to EVs but there is also ensuring greater public trans-port, so people don’t necessarily have to use private vehicles. This also includes the use of active travel, like cycling and walking, which may be harder in hot climates. On EVs, there is a big public sector role for ensuring a charging infrastructure and manufacturers having the right kinds of vehicles avail-able for consumers at reasonable prices.
Q. Which countries are promoting innovation for the energy transition?
A. The IPCC doesn’t single out individual countries but key elements here include the need to make progress in renewable energy processes and their efficiency. Also, a lot of work is needed on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and cross-cutting innovations across digital technologies, artificial intelligence, etc.
Q. What is the importance of strong innovation metrics here?
A. We must be able to accurately measure the progress we’re making — this means measuring the inputs to innovation, research and development, the expenditure and number of people engaged, the outputs, patents, publications and finally, the outcomes and take-up of technologies in the marketplace — for example, the amount of photovoltaic electricity produced is an outcome. Understanding the relationships between these inputs, outputs and outcomes is critical.
Q. Alongside strides in renewables, we’re also seeing ever-increasing exploration and supply of fossil fuels. How do you analyse this paradox?
A. In IPCC, we’ve never gone as far as the International Energy Agency, saying there should be no more exploration — but we have pointed out that the emissions associated even with the existing fossil fuel infrastructure will exceed the carbon budgets available to limit warming upto 1.5 to two degrees. If we want to achieve this, we cannot use all the fossil fuels we have already, never mind adding new reserves.
Q. Should fossil fuel subsidies stop?
A. It’s one of the most beneficial ways — subsidies for fossil fuels still exceed, for instance, the public expenditure in renewable energy innovation. Withdrawing them could be one of the most cost-effective ways forward.
Q. Will fossil fuels eventually become a declining sector — and can their workers transfer to renewables?
A. We can already see the prospect of oil demand peaking and plateauing — this could be associated with the growing use of electricity for transport. Peak oil might happen quite soon, not because of supply but demand. The ability of workers to transition to renewables is very con-text-specific — I’m from Scotland where there is a strong possibility of transfer-ring people from oil and gas into offshore renewables. It may be harder to do this in coal mining which has very specific skills. This will need examination case by case — for many regions worldwide, the importance of economic diversification is very great now.
Q. This week, the UN climate chief has asked the World Bank to take a ‘quantum leap’ in climate financing — would you comment on this?
A. In our last Report, we identified huge gaps in finance flows between where we are and where we need to be to align ourselves with the Paris Agreement’s goals. We need to scale up the financial flows for reducing emissions from current levels by a factor of three to six. That’s just one area — the gaps are even larger on adaptation to the kind of climate change we inevitably face. This is where the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and similar multilateral organisations have a much bigger role to play. There needs to be more emphasis on adaptation there because it’s harder to raise funds from the private sector for this as compared to reducing emissions where there is a price on carbon and climate investors have something they can take to the bank.
Q. Should such financing be loans or aid?
A. We don’t take policy-prescriptive approaches — but we have found grants, as opposed to loans, can be particularly cost-effective in initiating action.
Views expressed are personal
