Author: Neville

  • Wind power surge predicted

    Wind power surge predicted

    Date December 20, 2012 29 reading now
    Read later

    Peter Hannam

    Carbon economy editor

    View more articles from Peter Hannam

    Follow Peter on TwitterEmail Peter

    inShare.
    Pin It
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    Wind farm development is likely to grow rapidly in NSW. Photo: Jay Cronan

    THE battle over large-scale wind farms may now switch from the national level to the states, particularly New South Wales, after a federal authority recommended leaving the overall industry target unchanged.

    The Climate Change Authority on Wednesday called for the mandatory renewable energy target to be left at 41,000 gigawatt-hours per year by 2020, prompting advocates to predict a surge in clean energy investments.

    Victoria earlier this year prompted the wind industry to all but stall in the state after it barred wind turbines from being built within two kilometres of a house without written consent. Now that the authority has given approval for the settings, as much as $18 billion of investment is up for grabs between now and the end of the decade, the Clean Energy Council predicts.

    “Victoria has tightened up very greatly the opportunities for wind farm development,” the managing director of Infigen Energy, Miles George, said.

    Advertisement

    To meet the renewable energy target, the industry will need to build 1000 megawatts of wind capacity each year until 2020, or about half of the current installed capacity.

    ROAM Consulting data suggests the combination of proximity to markets and promising wind resources could see NSW’s wind generating capacity soar 15-fold by 2020, leap-frogging South Australia and Victoria to be easily the biggest supplier.

    The O’Farrell government is due to finalise guidelines on wind farms early next year, which may determine how much of the investment heads to NSW. It is understood the government has been considering rule changes in combination with the results of independent noise audits on two Infigen wind farms – Woodlawn and Capital – and one owned by Origin Energy that gave the suppliers a tick of approval.

    “To have the audits done and have them confirm that we comply was obviously pleasing, and completely as expected,” Mr George said.

    While the wind energy industry celebrated the authority’s recommendations, the solar sector was disappointed by the recommendations.

    The authority has called for the size of solar photovoltaic panels deemed to be “small-scale” cut from 100-kilowatt capacity to as low as 10 kilowatts to prevent a blow-out in costs for the scheme.

    Small-scale generators are paid their renewable certificates up-front while large-scale generators are paid over five years.

    Roy Grant, chief executive of solar panel installer Mark Group, said the industry would lobby to have the government reject the change, which hammers the cash-flow benefit for the owners of small buildings and other potential installers.

    ”This effectively strikes out more than 90 per cent of the available commercial market,” Mr Grant said. “The sweet spot for commercial installations is 50-70 kilowatts.”

    Mark Group had planned to triple its staff of 150 in 2013 based on the potential demand spurt from commercial users. “If this [revision] happens, there’s very little chance we’ll expand.”

    The shift is the result of fierce lobbying by fossil-fuel generators and the coal industry, he said.

    ”They know [the commercial sector] is the next significant growth area for solar,” he said. ”It’s also some of their most prized customers because they use large amounts of power.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/wind-power-surge-predicted-20121219-2bn87.html#ixzz2FXewmjuq

  • Victoria leads nation’s population growth

    Victoria leads nation’s population growth

    •by: John Masanauskas
    •From: Herald Sun
    •December 19, 201212:01AM

     

    Victoria’s population grew by almost 90,000 in 2011-12. Source: Supplied

    Source: Herald Sun

    VICTORIA had the largest population growth of any state in the past year, outstripping the mining boom states, a report says.

    Our state’s population grew by almost 90,000 in 2011-12, compared to 86,000 for Queensland, NSW (79,000) and WA (78,000), according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

    Driven mainly by an increasing migrant intake, the nation added 360,000 people over the year for a population of 22.7 million as of June 30.

    Victoria’s population was 5.6 million at the same time.

    Although Victoria had the biggest annual increase in terms of numbers, its 1.6 per cent growth rate was lower than WA’s (3.3) and Queensland’s (1.9).

    Net overseas migration to Australia is estimated to have reached 218,000 this month and is expected to climb above 240,000 within three years, a separate Immigration Department report says.

    Higher student and humanitarian arrivals will account for most of the increase, The Outlook for Net Overseas Migration report says.

    If net migration continues at such levels, the so-called Big Australia population of 36 million by 2050 will be easily reached.

    This year was a milestone for the the baby boomers, with the first of them turning 65.

    There were 250,000 people aged 65 as of June 30 this year – up 38,000 on the same day in 2011.

    Victoria leads nation’s population growth

     

  • Dear Amazing Avaaz community,

    Dear Amazing Avaaz community,

    With 2012 almost over, I wanted to take a second to stop and reflect on this crazy, beautiful community of hope that we’ve all created together. The numbers are mind-boggling —

    Avaaz growth curve

    17.2 million of us are getting this email today, and that number is skyrocketing — almost doubling in the last several months!
    We’ve come together from all 194 nations, 1.7 million of us in Brazil, 1.6M in France, 773,000 in India. Here’s the map
    We’ve taken more than 100 million actions, online and offline, and told over 250 million friends about important campaigns
    Our voices have brought awareness to critical issues, with coverage in at least 15,000 news reports this year alone
    400,000 of us have donated, giving almost $7 million through Avaaz to other humanitarian and democracy organisations
    20,000 of us have already started, and started winning, campaigns using our new community petition tool

    The Pakistani President signs our petition that helped 3 million children go to school

    Our massive Palestine action right outside the EU commission as foreign ministers met

    But behind the numbers is so much more — thousands of stories of people coming together with a hope that is powerful enough to overcome cynicism and achieve change. Not just in small ways, but in some really, really big ways.

    Remember Malala, the incredibly brave young girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for campaigning for girls education? In a week, the Avaaz team worked with partners in Pakistan to identify an ambitious plan to get all kids into school, and after 886,000 of us signed the petition for this plan, the UN education envoy Gordon Brown presented it directly to President Zardari who himself signed the petition! Malala was “thrilled” to be greeted in hospital with the news that Zardari had approved funds to get 3 million more children into school! Brown called our mobilisation “crucial”.

    This was just before 1.8 million of us played a major role in winning a Palestinian state. After Israel and the US started bullying countries to vote against it at the UN, we unleashed opinion polls in 4 countries, thousands of phone calls, lobbied leaders and erected giant 4 storey flags outside official meetings. In the final vote only 9 countries out of 193 voted against! The EU Palestinian Ambassador said “Avaaz played a critical role in persuading governments to support the Palestinian people’s bid…their solidarity and support will be remembered and cherished across Palestine”.

    And earlier this year, a whopping 2.8 million of us joined a powerhouse campaign to stop the ACTA treaty — a critical win against global corporations trying to censor the Internet. The treaty died in Europe, and the Parliament’s president said he was “very impressed by Avaaz’s massive petition which was taken seriously by the European Parliament”. Other leading members of Parliament publicly cited our voices as critical to getting them to scrutinize and oppose ACTA.

    That’s 3 of literally hundreds of stories to tell about this year alone! (Check out our updates page for more.) I can’t wait to see what our community is capable of in 2013, from protecting rainforests and wildlife to standing with the Syrian people and the Arab Spring to dismantling Rupert Murdoch’s corrupt media empire, and so much more.

    This is an amazing thing we’ve built together, an engine of hope and change in the world. And every one of us has contributed to make it happen. Next time you’re out at dinner with friends or at a party, try asking if anyone else is part of Avaaz. Chances are someone will be, and maybe you’ll have a conversation that builds your hope. Because we can achieve a lot on our own, but if we come together and stick together, anything is possible.

    With enormous appreciation for every lovely and committed person in this unique community,

    Ricken and the whole Avaaz team

    Support the Avaaz Community!
    We’re entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way. Donate to Avaaz

    Avaaz.org is a 17-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 19 countries on 6 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

    You are getting this message because you signed “Join Avaaz!” on 2012-06-22 using the email address ngarthurslea@yahoo.com.au.
    To ensure that Avaaz messages reach your inbox, please add avaaz@avaaz.org to your address book. To change your email address, language settings, or other personal information, https://secure.avaaz.org/act/index.php?r=profile&user=8cf8652c11a852bcc536a7c1ddc00e27&lang=en, or simply go here to unsubscribe.

    To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US).

  • Too big to flood? Megacities face a future of major storm risks

    Too big to flood? Megacities face a future of major storm risks

    As coastal urban areas expand, particularly in Asia, hundreds of trillions of dollars of infrastructure, industrial and office buildings, and homes are increasingly at risk from intensifying storms and rising sea levels
    •Share136

    •inShare0
    •Email


    Bruce Stutz for Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network

    •guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 December 2012 17.20 GMT

    A flooded street in Bangkok, Thailand in 2011. Photograph: Aaron Favila/AP

    By the middle of the century, the scores of billions it cost to compensate the greater New York City area for being unprepared for superstorm Sandy may seem like a bargain. Without major adaptation measures to increase the level of storm protection beyond a 1-in-100-year event, the value of the city’s buildings, transportation, and utilities utility infrastructures currently at risk from storm surges and flooding — an estimated $320 billion — will be worth $2 trillion by 2070, according to continuing studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

    By then, the OECD says, the metropolitan area will rank behind only Miami and Guangzhou, China, at the head of a list of the world’s megacities with the most flood-vulnerable assets. In all these cities, sea level rise will meet a tide of urbanization in the coming decades and set the scene for storms with ever-more catastrophic consequences.

    Some of those cities with the most at-risk assets now — Tokyo, New Orleans, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Nagoya — will, over the next 50 years, be surpassed by Calcutta, Shanghai, Mumbai, Tianjin, Bangkok, Ningbo, and Ho Chi Minh City, booming Asian coastal metropolitan areas where trillions of dollars in economic assets will be vulnerable. So will many millions of these cities’ residents, most of them poor and living in low-lying areas.

    Just as banks grew “too big to fail,” over the next half-century these coastal megacities may grow “too big to flood.” But flood they will unless they dramatically revise their growth strategies and undertake major infrastructure projects designed to protect them from the dual threat of rising sea levels and intensifying storms, experts say.

    Based on the conservative assumption that sea levels will rise by only 18 inches by 2070, the OECD finds that total assets vulnerable to flooding and storm surges of just 10 of these cities could account for some 9 percent of the world’s GDP. But many climate scientists and coastal experts note that sea level rise forecasts by groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not factor in the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. When they are taken into account, these experts say that global sea levels could well rise 3 to 6 feet this century, leaving scores of cities and massive amounts of economic infrastructure dangerously exposed.

    “Even assuming that protection levels will be high in the future,” the study states, “the large exposure in terms of population and assets is likely to translate into regular city-scale disasters at a global scale.”

    Guangzhou, for instance, now with at-risk assets of only $84 billion will, by 2070, have more than $3 trillion worth of exposure, only slightly less than that of an increasingly at-risk Miami, the study predicts. As these cities’ rapidly growing economies attract more migrants, many people will be forced to settle in surrounding low-lying lands at or even below sea level. Over the next 60 years, the flood-vulnerable population of Calcutta will grow from 1.9 to 14 million, of Guangzhou from 2.7 to 10.3 million, according to the OECD. Ho Chi Minh City’s storm-vulnerable population is projected to grow from 1.9 to 9.2 million, Miami’s from 2 to 4.8 million, and New York/Newark’s from 1.5 to 2.9 million.

    Robert Nicholls, the coastal expert who was lead author of the 2007 OECD report and a recent update, says that while he was impressed with New York’s ability to recover from the recent superstorm, he believes the city still faces the same question as these other coastal megacities: With sea level steadily rising, how much longer can they leave their growing populations and increasingly valuable infrastructures with so little protection. He points out that New York City, protected to only a 1-in-100-year flood event, has a larger GDP than London, Shanghai, or Amsterdam, all of which are protected to a greater than 1-in-1,000 year flood. Flood gates and levees protect Shanghai, while a storm surge barrier in the Thames protects London. Huge tidal barriers are designed to protect Amsterdam and Rotterdam from 1-in-10,000-year floods.

    Many of the fastest-growing coastal cities have little or no protection. And in many of these cities higher sea levels will be exacerbated by sinking coastlines — a geological process accelerated by pumping of groundwater from coastal aquifers.

    “If you’re going to live in these places you’re going to spend significant resources protecting your people and your assets,” says Nicholls, co-leader of the Cities and Coasts Research Program at the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. “How long can you depend upon having the capacity to bounce back?”

    Going beyond Nicholls’s projections, a 2011 report by the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, and the Japan International Cooperation Agency focused on the growing Asian coastal megacities and found that by mid-century, sea level rise, subsidence, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events will pose “enormous adaptation challenges” to these already flood-prone cities.

    A case in point: Ho Chi Minh City, a city of 8 million that now accounts for 23 percent of Vietnam’s GDP, will continue to attract industry and migrants. By 2050 its population could reach 20 million. As the city grows, its surrounding agricultural and forest land will decline, while its industrial zones expand. At the same time “warmer temperatures in the South China Sea are expected to increase the frequency of tropical storms and typhoons,” which will bring heavy rains and high storm surges, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) report.

    By 2050, Ho Chi Minh City will see floods “increase in both depth and duration,” the ADB report stated, with 67 percent of the city’s industrial areas underwater during these extreme events, as well as much of the city’s transportation network. A flood that would today affect some 26 percent of the city’s population will, by 2050, affect 62 percent, the ADB report said.

    “The landscape of vulnerability has changed spectacularly,” Vinod Thomas, director general of the Asian Development Bank, said in an interview. In the last 30 years, he said, the number of major floods in the region has nearly quadrupled. Over this time, the ADB says, the Asia-Pacific region generated almost about 25 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, but also accounted for 38 percent of global economic losses due to natural disasters. Most of the large cities in the world classified as having extreme risks of climate vulnerability are in Asia, and by midcentury the region will face annual disaster losses in excess of $19 billion, the ADB says.

    “The population exposure in urban centers will be breathtaking,” says Thomas.

    Last year’s severe monsoon flooding in Bangkok was a stark demonstration of the economic assets that are increasingly at risk across the globe, and especially in Asia. In recent years, major industrial complexes have sprung up around Bangkok, producing everything from automobile parts to electronics; Thailand, for example, produces roughly a quarter of the world’s computer hard drives. Those industrial parks stand on what used to be rice paddies and wetlands, where floods, while they may have ruined a season’s crop, also fertilized the land.

    Last year’s flooding, the heaviest in 50 years, put many of those industrial parks underwater, as fearful city Bangkok officials redirected floodwaters through canals around the capital and inundated populations and industrial zones surrounding the city. Chemicals, oil, and waste polluted the land and water. The flood, which cost the city some $4.65 billion and Thailand $45 billion, disrupted the global computer and automotive industries, especially the Japanese car sector, which had moved some of its operations to Japan following the Tohoku earthquake. Toyota, for instance, was forced to cancel overtime at its Japanese plants. The floods affected factories in Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

    Experts say the global ripples of the Thailand destruction are a sign of things to come if cities and nations do not begin planning for sea level rise and more powerful storm surges.

    For example, in Manila, where 2009 floodwaters from tropical storm Ketsana rose up to 21 feet and inundated more than 80 percent of the city, the seasonal precipitation may increase as much as 4 percent by 2050. The result in economic terms? In Manila, the ADB report says, “the additional costs of sea level rise from a 1-in-30-year flood would be approximately… 6 percent of GDP” the ADB report says.

    This, says Thomas, is the “great revelation” of worsening natural disasters: In these growing megacities, “storms are no longer an interruption to business as usual that you get over and move on from, but are a systemic risk to economic development.”

    That these cities are becoming an increasingly important part of Asia’s and the world’s economies will only compound the effects of major floods. “What would happen if you had three Bangkoks in the same year?” Thomas asks. “How would it affect the supply chain, and how would it be dealt with?”

    Flooded roads and infrastructure such as ports and airports, says Thomas, will have greater impacts as the economic links among these coastal cities become more complex. Thomas says a major paradox of this century is that we are concentrating more of the world’s wealth and population in vulnerable coastal areas, just as sea level rise and more powerful storms put them at greater risk.

    Thomas points out that Asian Development Bank investments of some $10 billion over the last 15 years have produced important early storm warning systems in Bangladesh and extensive flood control projects in Pakistan and Indonesia that have saved thousands of lives. At the same time, the ADB recommends that Asian cities emphasize ecosystem solutions, such as preserving urban wetlands and mangroves.

    Thomas hopes that as a result of its recent studies of sea level risks, the Asian Development Bank will invest more in structural and environmental mitigation so that Asia’s future storm response and rehabilitation costs will decline. ADB estimates, for instance, that $1 billion in proposed adaptation measures for Bangkok, including improving waterways and pumping capacity, could reduce the extent of flooded areas by some 50 percent.

    “The UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction estimates every dollar spent for disaster prevention saves $4 in recovery costs,” says Thomas, noting that Japan now spends roughly 5 percent of its annual budget on disaster and risk management.

    The OECD projects that some $35 trillion of the world’s assets will be at stake in these coastal cities by 2070, and the ADB warns that natural disasters that can derail economic growth and development are “becoming increasingly endemic.” And yet, says Nicholls, he’s found “a surprising resistance to looking at what can be done,” even among those most familiar with the problems.

    “Society reacts to events,” he says. “Studies don’t trigger action. Floods trigger action.”

  • Tim Yeo: Energy strategy is ‘short-sighted’ and ‘costly’

    Tim Yeo: Energy strategy is ‘short-sighted’ and ‘costly’

    The MP’s attack on the chancellor paves the way for a potential backbench rebellion against the government
    Share26

    inShare.0
    Email

    By Jessica Shankleman for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network

    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 December 2012 11.52 GMT

    Jump to comments (52)

    Tim Yeo has launched an attack on the chancellor and his pro-gas allies. Photograph: Lynn Hilton/Rex Features

    Tim Yeo has this morning launched a blistering attack on the chancellor and his pro-gas allies, accusing them of embracing a “short-sighted”, “extremely risky” and potentially “costly” energy strategy.

    Speaking at an event at Bloomberg’s HQ in London, the Conservative MP and Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee confirmed he would table an amendment to the energy bill that would deliver a decarbonisation target for the electricity sector.

    “I will not stand by and watch the wrong decisions being made on energy policy,” he said, confirming he would propose a target range for the electricity sector in 2030 that would require “power plants to produce less than 100 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity”.

    The amendment echoes proposals from the independent Committee on Climate Change, which were rejected by Chancellor George Osborne over fears such a target would block investment in new gas infrastructure.

    A compromise agreement with the Lib Dems means the proposed Bill commits to revisit the issue of a decarbonisation target in 2016, but green groups and investors argued the absence of a target will undermine investment in new low carbon projects.

    Yeo’s intervention paves the way for a potential backbench rebellion against the government.

    Labour has said it would support a decarbonisation target and Lib Dem MPs will be under intense pressure to vote in favour of the amendment after their party conference backed the proposal. A number of green Tories are also likely to side with Yeo in supporting the plan.

    Yeo said he would seek to introduce the amendment after the Bill’s report stage, which would be towards the end February.

    He added that there was a “realistic chance” the amendment would be passed, given that it is already supported by the logic of the CCC, green groups, a range of businesses, and some members of his committee.

    Outlining his plan, Yeo argued a decarbonisation target represented the most effective means of providing the energy sector with the investor certainty, which would help to reduce the cost of capital for green energy projects.

    He also rejected arguments put forward by the Chancellor and his supporters that an increased reliance on gas would automatically lead to lower energy prices.

    “Lumbering the UK economy with a centralized power system largely reliant on gas, would be like running an office using a fax machine in the age of the iPad,” he said.

    “Gas does have a significant role to play as we make the transition to a low carbon economy, but it would be rash to bet the future on one fuel or energy source. It is time to upgrade our electricity system to 2.0.”

    He accused “both the last UK government and the present one have been dithering and indecisive on energy and climate change policy” and argued that the attempt to end this uncertainty through the publication of the Energy Bill was being hampered by the actions of the Chancellor.

    “Worryingly… the Chancellor’s new gas strategy is being interpreted by some as being at odds with this aim,” he warned. “If this interpretation gains credence it could undermine the confidence of clean energy investors and make the Government’s commitments on climate change hard to fulfil.”

    He added that the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee had repeatedly expressed its support for shale gas developments in the UK, which some of the Chancellor’s allies argue will enable decades of cheap gas supplies.

    But he warned that while the scale of shale gas reserves remain unknown and the viability of carbon capture and storage technologies uncertain it would be “extremely risky” to stake the UK’s energy future on gas.

    “Shale gas seems to have seduced some in government into premature confidence that it is an energy panacea,” he argued. “A golden calf that can meet all of our energy needs cheaply and even revive lost manufacturing industries.

    “But we must remember: the scale of recoverable reserves is not yet known and gas power stations are considerably more polluting than the cleanest forms of renewable energy currently available.

    “The price of most fossil fuels, including gas, may continue rising as global energy demand increases and other countries like Japan and Germany turn their back on nuclear power. Gambling on gas could be costly.

    “History will not look kindly on those who would have us fossilize our energy system by relying too heavily on gas.”

    He argued that the UK now faces a “clear choice” between a high and low-carbon future for its energy sector.

    “We can embrace the technology of the future, set a target to reduce our present heavy dependence on fossil fuels and upgrade our electricity system,” he said. “Or we can cling to the combustion-based technologies of the past, gamble the future on assumptions about the availability of abundant cheap gas and slow down the process of decarbonising our economy.

    “Britain must look forward, or risk getting left behind.”

    Responding to questions from BusinessGreen, Yeo maintained he was “proud” to be part of the growing group of parliamentary climate change campaigners that have been dubbed by Osborne as the “Environmental Taliban”.

    “If that’s what he thinks, then although I obviously don’t hold any defensive brief for the actual Taliban, I’m quite proud to be part of the Environmental Taliban at Westminster.”

    Yeo’s intervention was immediately welcomed by green groups. Greenpeace energy campaigner Leila Deen said: “George Osborne has tried to side-line a decarbonisation target in the Bill in order to undo UK climate change commitments and clear the way for his dash for gas.

    “But the Chancellor has misjudged the public mood on this – hundreds of businesses, investors and civil society groups support the removal of carbon from our electricity sector because they know it would be good for the economy, good for household bills and good for the climate. Tim Yeo recognises the political risk of pacifying the Tory right rather than cleaning up the UK’s power sector – many other MPs will too.”

    Friends of the Earth’s executive director Andy Atkins said a decarbonisation target was “essential”.

    “It would give businesses the confidence to invest in clean energy, create jobs and end the nation’s crippling dependence on dirty and increasingly costly fossil fuels,” he said.

    “The driving force behind rocketing fuel bills is the mounting cost of wholesale gas, with experts predicting further rises in the years to come.

    “If we want to create a clean, safe and affordable energy system the government must abandon its reckless dash for gas which threatens to send the UK hurtling towards an increasingly expensive future and shatter UK targets for tackling climate change.”

  • Coal to challenge oil’s dominance by 2017, says IEA

    Coal to challenge oil’s dominance by 2017, says IEA

    Agency predicts further rise in coal use due to fall in price and failing EU emissions trading scheme, threatening green targets
    Share57

    inShare.2
    Email

    Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent

    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 December 2012 11.01 GMT

    Jump to comments (103)

    Demand from China and India will drive the rise in coal use in the next five years, says the IEA. Photograph: Mayi Wong/EPA

    Coal is likely to rival oil as the world’s biggest source of energy in the next five years, with potentially disastrous consequences for the climate, according to the world’s leading authority on energy economics.

    One of the biggest factors behind the rise in coal use has been the massive increase in the use of shale gas in the US.

    Coal consumption is increasing all over the world – even in countries and regions with carbon-cutting targets – except the US, where shale gas has displaced coal, shows new research from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The decline of the fuel in the US has helped to cut prices for coal globally, which has made it more attractive, even in Europe where coal use was supposed to be discouraged by the emissions trading scheme.

    Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, said: “Coal’s share of the global energy mix continues to grow each year, and if no changes are made to current policies, coal will catch oil within a decade.”

    Coal is abundant and found in most regions of the world, unlike conventional oil and gas, and can be cheaply extracted. As a result, coal was used to meet nearly half of the rise in demand for energy globally in the past decade. According to the IEA, demand from China and India will drive world coal use in the coming five years, with India on course to overtake the US as the world’s second biggest consumer. China is the biggest coal importer, and Indonesia the biggest exporter, having temporarily overtaken Australia.

    According to the IEA’s Medium Term Coal Market Report, published on Tuesday morning, the world will burn 1.2bn more tonnes of coal per year by 2017 compared with today – the equivalent of the current coal consumption of Russia and the US combined. Global coal consumption is forecast to reach 4.3bn tonnes of oil equivalent by 2017, while oil consumption is forecast to reach 4.4bn tonnes by the same date.

    With the highest carbon emissions of any major fossil fuel, coal is a huge contributor to climate change, particularly when burned in old-fashioned, inefficient power stations. When these are not equipped with special “scrubbing” equipment to remove chemicals, coal can also produce sulphur emissions – the leading cause of acid rain – and other pollutants such as mercury and soot particles.

    Van der Hoeven said that, without a high carbon price to discourage the growth in coal use and favour cleaner technologies such as renewable power generation, only competition from lower-priced gas could realistically cut demand for coal. This has happened in the US, owing to the extraordinary increase in the production of shale gas in that market in the past five years.

    She said: “The US experience suggests that a more efficient gas market, marked by flexible pricing and fuelled by indigenous unconventional resources that are produced sustainably, can reduce coal use, carbon dioxide emissions and consumers’ electricity bills, without harming energy security. Europe, China and other regions should take note.”

    That would mean producing much more shale gas, as conventional gas resources are running down in their easily accessible locations, and the relatively high resulting prices are making it more economical for companies to seek out unconventional sources such as gas trapped in dense rocks or other geological formations, known as “tight gas”. But these sources are more energy-intensive to exploit, and produce more carbon than conventional gas wells such as those in the North Sea.

    In Europe, the emissions trading scheme was supposed to discourage high-carbon power generation by imposing a price on carbon dioxide emissions. This was done through issuing generators and energy-intensive companies with a set quota of emissions permits, requiring them to buy extra permits if they needed to emit more than their allowance. But an over-allocation, coupled with the effects of the financial crisis and recession, have led to a large surplus of permits on the market, that has in turn led to a plunge in permit prices. At current levels, of a few euros per tonne of carbon, there is little incentive to seek out lower carbon fuels, and coal is enjoying a renaissance in Europe.

    That means one of the world’s only regulatory market mechanisms aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions is failing in its key goals.

    Van der Hoeven pointed to another factor of concern with regards to climate change: the tardy development of technology to capture and store carbon dioxide underground. She said: “CCS technologies are not taking off as once expected, which means CO2 emissions will keep growing substantially. Without progress in CCS, and if other countries cannot replicate the US experience and reduce coal demand, coal faces the risk of a potential climate policy backlash.”

    If there is no policy backlash, the world faces the likelihood of an increased risk of climate change, as a result of this runaway consumption of the highest carbon fossil fuel.