Question

To what extent do you think the UK Government should invest in the development of Greenhouse Gas Removal technologies? Justify your answer with reference to the arguments for and against these technologies, mentioning some examples to support your conclusions.

PLEASE DO IT IN COMPUTER

Answer 1

As far as the situation is concerned, steps has to be taken immediately by the UK Government to invest in the development of Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies at the earliest inorder to meet the Paris Climate Change agreement. The Prime Minister of UK, Theresa May, has pledged to make net zero emissions by the second half of the century, in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. But they aren't sure yet on how much they are willing to invest in implementing this technology.

So what is this Paris Agreement? The uK Government has putforth Paris Agreement on climate change that has set a target of staying within 2°C of warming, which will require investment to cut emissions quickly. As per the review of latest scientific evidence, Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that ensuring greenhouse gas concentrations do not exceed a level that would offer a 66 per cent chance of avoiding global warming of more than 2ºC would mean losses in global consumption of 1–4% in 2030, 2–6% in 2050 and 3–11% in 2100. The loss in global consumption doesn't seem to be huge in number but it entirely depends on the assumptions made about the availability and costs of implementing those technologies.

One has to look into the following four categories inorder to have a brief idea on what the solution might be.

1) Savings from the co-benefits of reducing emissions - A recent report by New Climate Economy has stated that reducing green house gas emissions might decrease the costs of technology in future which helps to improve a country's GDP largely.  Aa per recent survey in China, pollution by fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) could be linked to 1.23 million premature deaths in 2010 and has created damage equivalent to 9.7–13.2% of China’s GDP. The health damages caused by local air pollution alone are larger than the estimated cost of decarbonisation. Hence it is necessary to take the steps immediately rather than to prolong and suffer.

2) Different forms of emissions reductions have different costs - Some countries are better placed to have cost effective cuts when compared to others. For example, rather than wasting money in upgrading technology in developing countries, one can utilise the cheaper technology available in well developed country. Technological models are still highly dependent on assumptions about low-carbon technological progress during this century. Some economists suggest that cost estimates may overstate the true long-term costs of action to cut emissions because they cannot yet capture future advancements in technologies (and thus falling costs), and new innovations developed over time. Market policies to level the playing field between high- and low-carbon technologies include removing subsidies for fossil fuels (estimated at $260 billion globally in 2016), or imposing a carbon price.

3) Modelling, uncertainty and the problem caused by delaying action - It is essential to take action immediately rather than to wait, because as the process is delayed there is a great chance that the cost of technology might increase steeply and also increasing the risks of serious climate impacts.

4) Economic growth with declining emissions - The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate has stated that all countries at all levels of income now have the opportunity to build lasting economic growth at the same time as reducing the immense risks of climate change. In the UK, for example, GDP has grown more than 65% since 1990 while emissions from production declined by 41% to the end of 2016 (although emissions from consumption have continued to rise). Globally, carbon dioxide emissions from energy-related activities have remained stable since 2013 while the economy has grown. By proactively steering the transition towards sustainable, low-carbon economic development, policymakers can increase the chances that the energy technology mix in the future will be both low-cost and low-carbon.