Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

Postal Subscription Code 80-972

2018 Impact Factor: 1.701

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Energy    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (3) : 344-352    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-017-0498-y
REVIEW ARTICLE
How diplomacy saved the COP21 Paris Climate Conference, but now, can we save ourselves?
D. Nathaniel MULCAHY1(), David L. MULCAHY2
1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
2. Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01002, USA
 Download: PDF(192 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

To solve a problem, three things are necessary: awareness, means, and will. The 2015 COP21 Paris accord was a masterful, perhaps even world-saving, diplomatic advance toward making the world aware of climate change. Some of that success may have been because publications from the IPCC and the National Academy of Science were made available, on line, as prepublication offerings, in order to be widely viewed before the Paris Climate Conference. This provided diplomats and negotiators with the latest information about climate change, its nearness in time, its consequences, and how well current mitigation technologies can succeed. Whatever the reasons, the Paris Climate Conference, was a success. Leaders of 195 nations agreed that climate change is a real and present danger to life as is known to all. This important understanding was accomplished despite the presentation of well established scientific facts which, without very diplomatic handling, could easily have evoked overwhelming political opposition to an agreement and thus another COP failure. In this paper, the fact that how some scientific truths, written specifically to be overlooked, were presented in order to prepare COP21 participants for the conference is explained. Besides, the effectiveness and efficiency of currently favored mitigation policies, the extent of ongoing progress to better ones, and finally, how a new appreciation of climate change consequences can strengthen the will of nation states and industries to work toward solutions are evaluated.
Keywords COP21      Paris      climate      agreement      offsets      mitigation      IPCC     
Corresponding Author(s): D. Nathaniel MULCAHY   
Just Accepted Date: 26 July 2017   Online First Date: 14 September 2017    Issue Date: 05 September 2018
 Cite this article:   
D. Nathaniel MULCAHY,David L. MULCAHY. How diplomacy saved the COP21 Paris Climate Conference, but now, can we save ourselves?[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 344-352.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-017-0498-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/Y2018/V12/I3/344
Fig.1  Global average surface temperature changes resulting from Representative Concentration Pathways RCP8.5 (continued heavy emissions) and RCP2.6 (stringently restricted emissions), relative to 1986?2005 (Fig. SPM6.1 of IPCC, 2014, reprinted with permission)
Fig.2  Mechanism of the humidity swing system for carbon capture
Cost of electricity
($2013US/MWh)(-86)		 Change in cost of electricity relative to cost with both electricity& sequestration from biomass and fossil fuel
Yes fossil fuel, No biomass, No CCS $220 63% increase
Yes fossil fuel, No biomass, Yes CCS $187 37% increase
Yes fossil fuel, Yes biomass, No CCS $187 37% increase
Yes fossil fuel, Yes biomass and CCS for sequestration but only on biomass $145 6% increase
Yes fossil fuel, Yes biomass Yes CCS on biomass and fossil fuel. Electricity &sequestration from biomass &fossil fuel $135 This is the base by which other treatments are compared.
Tab.1  Cost of electricity, ($2013US/MWh) +/− Biomass and+/− CCS*
Probability of minimum loss to Climate VaR/%
99 95 Mean 5 1
Emissions scenario ¯
BAU RCP8.5 (expected warming of 2.5°C in 2100)/% 0.46 0.54 1.77 4.76 16.86
Climate VaR/US$ trillion 0.66 0.77 2.54 6.83 24.18
Mitigation to limit warming to 2°C with 2/3 probability/% 0.35 0.41 1.18 2.92 9.17
Climate VaR/US$ trillion 0.50 0.59 1.69 4.19 13.15
Tab.2  Values at risk of global financial assets from climate change between 2015 and 2100
1 IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R K and Meyer, L (eds.)] IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014
2 National Academy of Sciences. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. Pittsburgh: National Academies Press (2015).
3 K Feng, S Davis, L Sun, K Hubacek. Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 1997–2013. Nature Communications, 2015, 6: 7714
4 M J Kotchen, E T Mansur. Correspondence: reassessing the contribution of natural gas to US CO2 emission reductions since 2007. Nature Communications, 2016, 7: 10648
5 C McGlade, P Ekins. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature, 2015, 517(7533): 187–190
6 F Van der Ploeg. Fossil fuel producers under threat. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2016, 32(2): 206–222
7 J A Lowe, C Huntingford, S C B Raper, C D Jones, S K Liddicoat, L K Gohar. How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? Environmental Research Letters, 2009, 4(1), 014012
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014012
8 M Meinshausen, S J Smith, K Calvin, J S Daniel, M L T Kainuma, J-F Lamarque, K Matsumoto, S A Montzka, S C B Raper, K Riahi, A Thomson, G J M Velders, D P P van Vuuren . The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 213–241,
9 S Solomon, G K Plattner, R Knutti, P Friedlingstein. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009, 28: pnas-0812721106
10 G A Meehl, A Hu, C Tebaldi, J M Arblaster, W W Washington, H Teng, B M Sanderson, T Ault, W G Strand, J B White . Relative outcomes of climate change mitigation related to global temperature versus sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change, 2012, 2(8): 576– 580
11 D M Ruthven. CO2 capture: value functions, separative work and process economics. Chemical Engineering Science, 2014, 114: 128–133
12 E S Sanz-Pérez, C R Murdock, S A Didas, C W Jones. Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Chemical Reviews, 2016, 116(19): 11840–11876
13 S D Supekar, S J Skerlos. Reassessing the efficiency penalty from carbon capture in coal-fired power plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(20): 12576–12584
14 H J Herzog, E S Rubin, G. Rochelle Plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00169
15 S D Supekar, S J Skerlos. Response to comment on “Reassessing the Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants”. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50: 6114–6115
16 S Vasudevan, S Farooq, I A Karimi, M Saeys, M C Quah, R Agrawal. Energy penalty estimates for CO2 capture: comparison between fuel types and capture-combustion modes. Energy, 2016, 103: 709–714
17 M E Boot-Handford, J C Abanades, E J Anthony, M J Blunt, S Brandani, N M Dowell, J R Fernández, M C Ferrari, R Gross, J P Hallett, R S Haszeldine, P Heptonstall, A Lyngfelt, Z Makuch, E Mangano, R T J Porter, M Pourkashanian, G T Rochelle, N Shah, J G Yao, P S Fennell. Carbon capture and storage update. Energy & Environmental Science, 2014, 7(1): 130–189
18 U. S. Department of Energy. Initial CCS technologies estimated to increase wholesale electricity costs up to “70 to 80 percent”. 2015
19 R S Haszeldine. Can CCS and NET enable the continued use of fossil carbon fuels after COP21? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2016, 32(2): 304–322
20 MIT Carbon capture and sequestration technologies. 2016–06–14
21 D M Reiner. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nature Energy, 2016, 1: 15011
22 D Allen, J F Brennecke, A M Scurto, P J Stang, D H Fairbrother. ACS virtual issue on carbon capture and sequestration. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2015, 60(8): 2187–2187
23 S I Sandler. Chemical, Biochemical, and Engineering Thermodynamics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2006
24 J C Abanades, G Grasa, M Alonso, N Rodriguez, E J Anthony, L M Romeo. Cost structure of a post combustion CO2 capture system using CaO. Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41(15): 5523–5527
25 Z H Liang, W Rongwong, H Liu, P Tontiwachwuthikul. Recent progress and new developments in post-combustion carbon-capture technology with amine based solvents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, (40): 26–54
26 H Shi, A Naami, R Idem, P Tontiwachwuthikul. Catalytic and non catalytic solvent regeneration during absorption-based CO2 capture with single and blended reactive amine solvents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014, 6: 39–50
27 J Pohlmann, M Bram, K Wilkner, T Brinkmann. Pilot scale separation of CO2 from power plant flue gases by membrane technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 53: 56–64
28 B Adderley, J Carey, J Gibbins, M Lucquiaud, R Smith. Post-combustion carbon dioxide capture cost reduction to 2030 and beyond. Faraday Discussions, 2016, 192: 27–35
29 Energy Institute of America. 2016. Frequently asked questions. What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?
30 N von der Assen, J J Johannes, A Bardow. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy & Environmental Science, 2013, 6:2721–2734
31 D Klein, G Luderer, E Kriegler, J Strefler, N Bauer, M Leimbach, A Popp. The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Climatic Change, 2014, 123: 705
32 D L Sanchez, J H Nelson, J Johnston, A Mileva, D M Kammen. Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(3): 230–234
33 N Bauer, I Mouratiadou, G Luderer, L Baumstark, R J Brecha, O Edenhofer, E Kriegler. Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation–an analysis with REMIND. Climatic Change, 2016, 136(1): 69–82
34 J Kemper. Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 40: 401–430
35 S Fuss, J G Canadell, G P Peters, M Tavoni, R M Andrew, P C R B Jackson, C D Jones, F Kraxner, N Nakicenovic, C Le Quéré, M R Raupach, A Sharifi, P Smith, Y Yamagata. Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4: 850–853
36 J W M van der Meer, H Huppert, J Holmes. Carbon: no silver bullet. Science, 2014, 345: 1130
37 D L Sanchez, D S Callaway. Optimal scale of carbon-negative energy facilities. Applied Energy, 2016, 170: 437–444
38 R Socolow, M Desmond, R Aines. Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS panel on public affairs (No. EPFL-BOOK-200555). American Physical Society. 2011
39 P Smith, S J Davis, F Creutzig, S Fuss , J Minx , B Gabrielle , E Kato, R B Jackson , A Cowie , E Kriegler , D P van Vuuren , J Rogelj , P Ciais , J Milne , J G Canadell, D McCollum, G Peters , R Andrew , V Krey , G Shrestha , P Friedlingstein , T Gasser , A Grübler , W K Heidug, M Jonas, C D Jones , F Kraxner , E Littleton , J Lowe , J Roberto Moreira, N Nakicenovic , M Obersteiner, A Patwardhan , M Rogner, E Rubin , A Sharifi , A Torvanger , Y Yamagata , J Edmonds , Y Cho . Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(1): 42–50
40 K S Lackner, H J Ziock, P Grimes. Carbon dioxide extraction from air: is it an option? In: 24th Annual Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems. Clearwater, USA, 1999
41 T Wang, K S Lackner, A Wright. Moisture swing sorbent for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(15): 6670–6675
42 K S Lackner. The thermodynamics of direct air capture of carbon dioxide. Energy, 2013, 50: 38–46
43 M C Romano. Modeling the carbonator of a Ca-looping process for CO2 capture from power plant flue gas. Chemical Engineering Science, 2012, 69(1): 257–269
44 S Shackley, M Thompson. Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables? Climatic Change, 2012, 110(1–2): 101–121
45 D L Sanchez, D M Kammen. A commercialization strategy for carbon-negative energy. Nature Energy, 2016, 1: 15002
46 D L Sanchez, D S Callaway. Optimal scale of carbon-negative energy facilities. Applied Energy, 2016, 170: 437–444
47 T Wang, J Liu, K S Lackner, X Shi, M Fang, Z Luo. Characterization of kinetic limitations to atmospheric CO2 capture by solid sorbent. Greenhouse Gases. Science and Technology, 2016, 6(1): 138–149
48 P Smith. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Global Change Biology, 2016, 22(3): 1315–1324
49 S Pacala, R Socolow. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 2004, 305(5686): 968–972
50 M Jakob, J Hilaire. Climate science: unburnable fossil-fuel reserves. Nature, 2015, 517(7533): 150–152
51 C McGlade, P Ekins. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 2015, 517(7533): 187–190
52 R D Hardy, B L Nuse. Global sea-level rise: weighing country responsibility and risk. Climatic Change, 2016, 137(3): 1–13
53 S Dietz, A Bowen, C Dixon, P Gradwell. Climate value at risk of global financial assets. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(7)
54 S Fuss. Climate economics: substantial risk for financial assets. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(7)
55 World Bank. State and trends of carbon pricing 2015. 2015
56 International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2015. 2015
57 A E MacDonald, C T Clack, A Alexander, A Dunbar, J Wilczak, Y Xie. Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2016
58 M Fay, S Hallegatte, A Vogt-Schilb, J Rozenberg, U Narloch, T Kerr. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-carbon Future. Washington: World Bank Publications
59 W Treadgold. The persistence of byzantium. Wilson Quarterly, 1998, 22(4): 66–91
[1] Yanfeng XU, Yong GENG, Ziyan GAO, Shijiang XIAO, Chenyi ZHANG, Mufan ZHUANG. Accounting greenhouse gas emissions of food consumption between urban and rural residents in China: a whole production perspective[J]. Front. Energy, 2022, 16(2): 357-374.
[2] Sanjeev GUPTA, Martin FREITAG, Gerhard POSS. THAI experimental research on hydrogen risk and source term related safety systems[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(4): 887-915.
[3] Liying SONG, Jun JING, Kerui DU, Zheming YAN. Drivers of the development of global climate-change- mitigation technology: a patent-based decomposition analysis[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(2): 487-498.
[4] Xiangwan DU. Tackling climate change and promoting the energy revolution[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 338-343.
[5] Remi CHANDRAN, Tsuyoshi FUJITA, Minoru FUJII, Shuichi ASHINA, Kei GOMI, Rizaldi BOER, Muhammad ARDIANSYAH, Seiya MAKI. Expert networks as science-policy interlocutors in the implementation of a monitoring reporting and verification (MRV) system[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 376-388.
[6] Jiankun HE. Situation and measures of China’s CO2 emission mitigation after the Paris Agreement[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 353-361.
[7] J. JAYACHANDRAN, R. MURALI SACHITHANANDAM. Performance investigation of artificial intelligence based controller for three phase four leg shunt active filter[J]. Front. Energy, 2015, 9(4): 446-460.
[8] Salim CHENNAI,M-T BENCHOUIA. Unified power quality conditioner based on a three-level NPC inverter using fuzzy control techniques for all voltage disturbances compensation[J]. Front. Energy, 2014, 8(2): 221-239.
[9] Ke ZHANG, Neng ZHU. Comparison and analysis of energy consumption of energy-efficient office buildings in different climate regions in China: case studies[J]. Front Energ, 2013, 7(3): 399-405.
[10] Siyu ZHOU, Neng ZHU. Multiple regression models for energy consumption of office buildings in different climates in China[J]. Front Energ, 2013, 7(1): 103-110.
[11] Shi SU, Xinxiang YU. Progress in developing an innovative lean burn catalytic turbine technology for fugitive methane mitigation and utilization[J]. Front Energ, 2011, 5(2): 229-235.
[12] Feng FU, Zheng LI, Linwei MA, . Modeling China’s energy dilemma: conflicts among energy saving, energy security, and CO 2 mitigation[J]. Front. Energy, 2010, 4(3): 295-300.
[13] Dan GAO , Zheng LI , Feng FU , Linwei MA . Multi-objective dynamic optimization model for China’s road transport energy technology switching[J]. Front. Energy, 2009, 3(3): 247-253.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed