In the process of uncompromising struggle against global warming and its own coal-fired power Australia is not only ranked first in the world for the cost of electricity, but also received the first in the history of the world energy system accident on a continental scale.
Famous Filipino politician and environmentalistLoren Legarda(Lorna Regina Bautista Legarda), one of the ideologistsUNISDR- United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction - March 14 intends to seek the unanimous approval of Senate ratification of the Paris climate agreement at the third reading.
Loren Legarda is the author of several Philippine laws on the protection of the environment and climate, including the Law on Climate Change 2009 years. Legarda claims that the delay in the fight against global climate change pose to the nation's increasing number of natural disasters that frequently afflict the Philippines:
"Apathy and the delay in the fight against climate change can lead to climate vulnerability and increasing the number of natural disasters and, consequently, to social injustice."
Philippines is really vulnerable to storms, typhoons, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, droughts and other natural disasters. At least 60% of the total area of the country, with a population of 74% of the population is exposed to many dangers. However, the transition to renewable sources of energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can result in a disaster for the Philippines, but this time technical.
Ratification of the Paris agreement has a negative impact on Australia, which has about the same climatic conditions as the Philippines.
Recall that after a strong storm in the autumn of 2016 years due to breakage of power lines South Australia was plunged into darkness, and power failure in December of the same year, several large industrial enterprises have demanded from the government a multimillion damages. Note that all the wind power plants in the storm in the country shut off for safety reasons. One of Australia's largest energy market operators AEMO came to the conclusion that the country is too dependent on its renewable energy sources.
As a result, former Australian Prime Minister said that the share of renewable energy sources can be reduced through the construction of coal-fired power plants, which are characterized by high efficiency and low emissions, and thus can solve the problem of energy security of the country.
This statement provoked a strong negative reaction from the opposition. Opponents of the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the results of an independent study commissioned by the Australian Government, the conclusion of which is that Australia will not be able to fulfill their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the framework of the Paris Agreement without transition to renewable energy sources.
Thus, Australia fell into the trap, which is very well currently and place: on the one hand, the climate of the continent require the reduction of the share of renewable (solar and wind) energy to ensure the safety and security of energy supply, and on the other - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be increasing the share of renewable energy. Save as coal plants due to reserve double costs. The same argument is used by the Russian Ministry of Energy, opposing initiatives in Eastern Siberia and the Far East carbonless areas: to ensure reliability in the Far North will still have to have the traditional backup capacity.
Recall that Australia has not only signed the Paris Agreement, but also set a national goal - to translate 23% of its energy to renewable energy sources. In South Australia, the share of renewable energy should reach 50 2025% by the year, which exceeds the federal rate is more than doubled. After Minister of Australia, the aforementioned power outages on environment criticized the government's energy policy, saying:
"Australia has the highest prices for electricity in the domestic market, beingthe only country with a nation-wide power outages».
Renewable energy sources are not able to meet the growing energy needs, which means that coal is still a very long time will remain an integral part of the global energy balance. Therefore today, for most countries is extremely urgent problem, and coal use at the same time comply with the obligations under the Paris Agreement.
The main hope in solving this contradiction fighters against global warming associated withtechnology sequestration (CCS) of carbon dioxideFormed by combustion of hydrocarbons. sequestration technology to reduce the capture, transportation and subsequent disposal of carbon dioxide. However, these technologies are too many minuses.
From the viewpoint of energyCCS lead to an additional use of energy and resources for its own needs of the enterprise, thus reducing production efficiency.
From the viewpoint of climatologyCCS did not have time to reach maturity in time to solve the problem of global warming
In terms of technology:
1. evaluation of geological potential are dumping huge spread - for the captured carbon dioxide can not be a place under the earth;
2. CCS on an industrial scale have not been used;
3. carbon capture process is fraught with the formation of chemical waste.
From a security point of view:
1. technology security does not prove the pilot projects, as their duration, at best, no more than 15-17 years;
2. carbon leakage can lead to contamination of the atmosphere and water, as well as mass poisoning.
From the point of view of economy:
1. the cost of electricity will increase dramatically in the case of CCS implementation;
2. society must commit themselves to pay for monitoring carbon dioxide storage;
3. CCS demonstration projects shall be paid by the state, ie by taxpayers.
However, despite the above arguments, according to the International Energy Agency, after the Paris Agreement is CCS technology will be crucial to limit future temperature increase to 2ºS. So countries that will actively implement CCS technology, have all chances to oust Avsraliyu the first place by the cost of electricity. But the feeling that Green continent without a fight, not surrender.