Factcheck: Three things The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins gets wrong about coal’s supremacy, and one he gets right
Coal continues to reign supreme despite the obvious benefits of switching to nuclear and gas, and boffins at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are at least partly to blame. Or so Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins argues this morning.
In a passionate piece, Jenkins says governments should do away with their renewable energy ambitions and focus on developing nuclear and gas power if they really want to address climate change. His reasoning? Investing in renewables is expensive and futile and has only served to open the door for the most polluting, most dangerous, energy source of all: coal.
We take a look at three places his article is mistaken, as well as an important point it gets right.
Renewables “hysteria”
Jenkins blames the scientists at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for promoting renewable energy over what he sees as more economical and equally effective nuclear and gas power. He says:
“… the “renewables ascendancy”, culminating in the hysteria of the first International Panel on Climate Change [sic] report, was a disaster. It saw any carbon combustion or nuclear reaction as equally evil, and any sun, wind or wave power as equally good – however costly”.
But the IPCC doesn’t equate nuclear power with coal. Far from it.
In its latest report on tackling climate change the IPCC says governments must triple or even quadruple low carbon energy generation by 2050 if warming is going to be curbed to two degrees. Its definition of low carbon includes wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear power.
Likewise, the IPCC doesn’t rule out using gas to bring down emissions in the short term. In fact, the IPCC explicitly says replacing coal plants with highly efficient gas plants could serve as a “bridge technology” to other, lower carbon energy sources.
Giving up on mitigation
Jenkins goes on to argue that the IPCC has effectively given up on cutting emissions, instead encouraging approaches to combating the effects of climate change. He appears to offer this as evidence that the IPCC favours spending on adaptation over investing in nuclear or gas.
However, the IPCC hasn’t given up on cutting emissions. As we pointed out at the time, while the second instalment of the IPCC’s report focused on adaptation, the third instalment was dedicated to outlining policies to reduce emissions. All in all, the IPCC made it clear that it’s not too late to take action to reduce emissions, and that doing so is very important in limiting future climate change.
Likewise, the IPCC is clear that a low carbon future means phasing out unabated fossil fuels – including coal. Preventing temperatures from rising to dangerous levels will mean “the longâ?term substitution of freely emitting (i.e., unabated) fossil fuel conversion technologies by lowâ?carbon alternatives”, it says. So in the longer term coal and gas without carbon capture and storage are a no-go, if we want to limit climate change.
If technology that captures and stores emissions fossil fuelled power plants (CCS) is rapidly developed, we can carry on burning fossil fuels, the IPCC advises. It could happen – it probably has to. But there are currently no commercial-scale coal CCS power plants in operation.
Getting the context wrong
Finally, Jenkins overstates the positive impact switching to gas could have on emissions. He says:
“Gas is a carbon-based source of energy but can be twice or three times less polluting than coal – and does not require hundreds of people to die each year extracting it. The “dash for gas” has made America the only big country to actually reduce emissions since Kyoto”.
Shale gas in the US has almost certainly reduced the country’s emissions. But America is not the only big country to have cut carbon emissions. The UK, Germany and France have all done the same. Meanwhile China and India’s emissions have increased. That may be what Jenkins meant.
In a carbon-constrained future, there may be a limited role for gas power in the UK. But the government’s official advisor the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has warned against a new UK dash-for-gas. Ramping up gas generation instead of building renewables would probably mean abandoning the government’s legally binding climate commitments, the CCC says.
And the one he got right – getting rid of coal
Jenkins’ article is absolutely right about one thing, however. The government does need to find a way to phase out coal power if it’s serious about its climate commitments.
But in pinning the blame for increased coal use on renewables, he’s almost certainly identified the wrong villain.
The US experience shows that a shale gas revolution doesn’t mean the end of coal. Jenkins overlooks the the global impact of the US’s shale gas boom: While cheap domestic gas has reduced US demand for coal, it has also pushed down prices for the black stuff, making it cheaper to burn on the other side of the Atlantic. That’s a big reason for coal use going up in Europe.
If getting rid of coal is the aim, staking all our hopes on any one technology – whether gas, nuclear, or renewables – is unlikely to be a smart strategy. On that point, the UK government, IPCC, and renewables and nuclear industries all seem to agree.