The Paris climate agreement is a hugely important step forward, but delivering on its promise will be this century’s greatest engineering challenge
The recent Paris climate talks achieved what many thought was impossible: a meaningful global agreement on curbing emissions and limiting global warming to below 2°C.
Now the really hard work of translating the optimism of the deal into decisive and effective action must begin in earnest.And with no legally enforceable penalties for failing to deliver on the pledges made in Paris the deal’s long-term success is entirely dependent on that rarest of phenomena: governments sticking to their words.
So far, the international response has been positive. US president Barack Obama hailed the agreement as “an enduring framework” that he said will help “solve the climate crisis”; the Chinese government has described it as “an historic march forwards”; whilst here in the UK, energy secretary Amber Rudd said the government is “absolutely committed” to the deal, and pledged to “deliver on it”.
Delivering on the Paris agreement is going to require rapid, unprecedented and fundamental changes to the ways in which we generate and use our energy.
But talk is cheap. And across the world, delivering on the Paris agreement is going to require rapid, unprecedented and fundamental changes to the ways in which we generate and use our energy.
This is particularly true for the UK, where despite David Cameron’s post-Paris claim that the UK leads the world in emissions reduction energy policy appears to be heading in completely the wrong direction.
Funding for renewables has been scaled back; investment in Carbon Capture and Storage – still regarded by many as an essential stopgap if we’re to continue burning fossils fuels – has been abandoned; and the appetite to kick-start the UK’s shale gas industry is greater than ever. Indeed, just days after the Paris deal was signed, the Task Force for Shale Gas, provided a tactless reminder of the durability of fossil fuels by calling on the government to “get fracking”.
Now is the time for Rudd, who reportedly played an important role at the Paris talks, to back up her government’s post Paris pledges with a serious rethink on the UK’s energy strategy.
The imminent decision on the future of the feed in tariffs for solar and other renewables – which the government was proposing to cut by 87% – will provide the first clear indication of whether she intends to do this.
The moment countries begin nibbling away at their obligations is the moment it begins to unravel
It’s true that UK emissions are a drop in the ocean. But the actions of this small island still – just about – carry some weight on the world stage. And a swift and ambitious reaction to the Paris agreement that positions the UK at the forefront of global change would strengthen the deal and strengthen the economy.
Each of the 196 signatories to the agreement has a responsibility to solidify the spirit of the Paris agreement and build on the current wave of optimism. The moment countries begin nibbling away at their obligations is the moment it begins to unravel.
Thorium MSR has to be recognised as the 21st Century Energy & Climate Solution to get around our 20th Century Paradox where we have elementary issues surrounding current Nuclear Energy technology. We should question the intransigence to move towards a more beneficial nuclear technology based on Thorium MSR, the obvious solution to rid us of the existing pollution paradox, where the lack of a more civil minded and effective nuclear technology results in a default reliance on fossil fuel – ironically allowing it to prevail and cause pollution due to inept nuclear strategies.
There is growing evidence that a step change is needed towards a more effective nuclear technology, away from legacy processes steeped in nuclear proliferation issues that prevent it’s more open use to benefit humanity on a global scale. This is especially poignant where it’s crucial to put the brakes on climate change in an effective way as possible and most effective by far, from an energy density perspective, is nuclear. But it’s suffered public scrutiny too often for those decision makers to continue ignoring the outcry and opinion backlash towards overly complex systems. It is enough that nuclear technology suffers from a fear of the ‘unknown’ – exacerbated in the technology’s complex implementation that necessitates layers of regulatory bureaucracy. This paradoxical situation clearly does not help the industry – as witnessed from the continuous headline news coverage for Fukushima – where the imprint on the public physique may tend towards the nuclear incident rather than the tragic loss of life from the tsunami.
In an interconnected world where we can share a common awareness at any moment through the internet’s world-wide-web capable of linking every individual on the planet in a more relevant and informative way than at any other time it’s evident there’s a ground swell movement in support of a shift towards this alternative Thorium MSR nuclear technology and not remain shackled to a steam driven past. The advance of technology since the industrial revolution has been remarkable in its speed with the advent of a step change in energy use borne by fossil fuels – preceded by an age of enlightenment that had its roots in an information revolution from Gutenberg’s fundamental innovation revolutionising the printed word – becoming available to the masses. Now in this age of instant-information, Silicon chips and computers heralding a new age of enlightenment, we causally talk about the internet of things, cloud computing and AI where everyone has a personal communicator to hand and autonomous vehicles are no longer science fiction.
In contrast nuclear is entrenched in a past technology and a conundrum exists where the appeal of far-fetched future technologies sits more comfortably than those within easier reach. It would seem the moon-shot for Fusion Reactors and the sun-shot for Solar grab the headlines (and the funding) where a blind spot exists for the more practical step of a ‘walk-away’ safe, more efficient, proliferation resistant, waste burning, Thorium MSR requiring no huge input power to initiate & control it – just real commitment to invest as this is far too important an issue to depend on good intentions alone. The time for a down-to-earth-shot is long overdue.
There are new decisions to be made for COP 21 and its successors to make progress. This time there can be no procrastination, the time for action is now. The most effective solution awaits those with vision that can influence the direction towards Thorium MSR with all the benefits it brings either to put the brakes on climate change and turn it around as quickly and effectively as possible or, if the climate continues to take a turn for the worst, would be a robust option for the more severe conditions that renewable alternatives (due to their exposure to the elements) would require to cope by constant iterative upgrade to maintain reliability.
I hope it’s seen as simply logical rationale that Thorium MSR be considered as the most fundamental energy solution to secure a base-load energy technology in the interests of everyone on the planet – and not cost the earth.