Technologies & climate change[fr][de] 

Europe's main instrument to fight global warming is the Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), a system already envisaged in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The EU-ETS encourages the uptake of climate-friendly technologies by rewarding businesses investing in green technologies, thus turning their investments into quick, short term profits (see EurActiv LinksDossier). 

But the biggest challenge lies outside Europe. Energy-related CO2 emissions alone are expected to surge by 52% by 2030, largely due to emerging economies such as China and India (IEA World Energy Outlook 2005 ). In this context, transferring climate-friendly technologies to the developing world appears both as an environmental challenge and an opportunity for businesses wishing to access these booming markets.

A number of technologies have already been identified to mitigate the effects of global warming. Some are already being encouraged by EU policies (e.g. renewables) while others are still subject to further research (e.g. hydrogen, CO2 sequestration): 

• energy efficiency (see LinksDossier)
• renewable energies (see LinksDossier)
• alternative fuels for transport (see LinksDossier)
• cleaner cars (see LinksDossier)
• carbon capture and storage (CCS) (see LinksDossier)
• hydrogen and fuel cells (see LinksDossier)
• nuclear (LinksDossier in planning)

For the consequences of climate change that cannot be avoided (floods, heatwaves, drought, rising sea levels etc.), other so-called 'adaptation' technologies are envisaged:

• infrastructure design (of cities, rural areas)
• early warning and monitoring systems (e.g. earth observation systems such as the EU's Global Monitoring for Environment and Security - GMES)

Issues related to technology deployment

A major challenge in the fight against global warming is to speed up the roll-out of these technologies. But politicians face a number of difficult choices when selecting and deploying the technologies. These mainly relate to:

• the timeframe necessary to roll out a given technology (e.g. it will take decades before hydrogen can reach mass-market status while energy-efficiency technologies are available right away)
• the related short and long term choices in R&D priorities (including budgets)
• introducing fundamental changes to critical infrastructure when the viability of a given technology is still uncertain (e.g. fuelling stations for hydrogen cars; shift of land use away from agriculture for large-scale biomass)
• hesitation from financial markets in supporting heavy, long-term investments in new infrastructure in a fast-moving political and technological environment (e.g. third generation EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) nuclear power stations)
• how far and for how long to provide financial and regulatory support to the most promising technologies before they are commercially competitive (e.g. renewables)
• conveying the technologies to booming economies in the developing world without giving away strategic industrial intelligence (e.g. nuclear to China)
• public acceptance of/hostility to some energy sources (e.g. nuclear in Germany)
• resistance from industries and countries against the introduction of new energy production and consumption patterns that carry a potential to trigger regional political instability (e.g. oil, Saudi Arabia and the US)

'Market pull' versus 'technology push'

With the CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), the EU resolutely opted for a strategy that provides strong incentives for businesses to switch to climate-friendly technologies in the short run (see EurActiv LinksDossier).

But decision-makers now recognise that this 'market pull' approach is not enough and should be complemented with a 'technology push' approach based on large-scale research and technology deployment programmes (EurActiv, 24 Oct. 2005). 

EU and national R&D programmes lacking coordination

However, there is a general recognition that more radical technological breakthroughs in the energy sector are also needed in order to achieve deeper CO2 emissions cuts in the long run. Research and deployment programmes (or drastic improvements of existing ones) are therefore crucial in this respect.

At the moment, research programmes and budgets are still concentrated at the national level. According to the Commission, the budget of the 6th community framework research programme (FP6) represents only about 5% of all public, non-military research spending in the EU. 

Funds earmarked under FP6 for research in climate-friendly technologies amount to only €2.2 billion spread over the period 2002-2006. They include:

• €900 million for renewables, energy efficiency, clean burning of fossil fuels, alternative fuels, CO2 capture and storage, hydrogen and fuel cell technology
• €700 million for climate change forecasting and modelling, impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, etc.
• €600 million for the development and introduction of environment-friendly, efficient and safe transport by road, rail and sea
• in addition to this, an Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) was launched in January 2004 to help bring clean technologies onto markets, including those in developing countries (see EurActiv LinksDossier).

The Commission points out that the 2.2 billion euro figure is in fact higher since the EU budget covers only part of the funding with the other part being provided by the member states. It has proposed tripling R&D funding for climate technologies under FP7 for the period 2007-2013 (see EurActiv LinksDossier on FP7).

But the lack of co-ordination between national and EU research programmes means that there are no statistics specifying how much public money is invested overall (not to mention that national programmes can sometimes compete against each other). By comparison, the United States has embarked on an impressive $3 billion a year (around €2.4 billion) programme to push climate-friendly technologies onto US and international markets (EurActiv, 28 Nov. 2005).

International co-operation

On the international scene, the EU is fostering bilateral technology partnerships with major emerging countries:

• the EU-China clean energy partnership, which aims mainly at building a demonstration coal power plant in China using 'zero-emissions' CO2 capture and storage technology (EurActiv, 5 Sept. 2005)
• the India-EU Initiative  on Clean Development and Climate Change, which includes stepping up co-operation under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

However, these international partnerships sometimes compete with others developed outside the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, such as the US-led Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development (EurActiv, 12 Jan. 2006). With these countries, the EU is seeking further co-operation via:

• the G8 and its 2005 action plan adopted at Gleneagles (EurActiv, 8 July 2005);
• negotiations launched in December 2005 in Montreal under the framework of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (EurActiv, 12 Dec. 2005);
• international co-operation projects such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum and the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy .

Ambitious international R&D projects have also been launched for the very long term, such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) developed by the EU China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. The EU will take on 40% of the project's total cost (€4.57bn) while the host country, France, will pay 10%. The remaining five partners will invest 10% each. However, the project has attracted fierce criticism as no commercially viable result is expected before the end of the century (EurActiv, 29 June 2005). 

Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

The UN Kyoto Protocol envisages market-based instruments that facilitate technology transfers to developing nations. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is designed to help rich nations meet their Kyoto targets by promoting emissions-saving projects in the developing world, thereby stimulating the deployment of cleaner technologies and foreign direct investment. But the large amount of red tape associated with the system means little use has been made of it so far. Besides, CDMs have been criticised for providing rich nations with an excuse to ignore their domestic emissions reduction targets.

The European Commission believes energy technologies will play a cental role in achieving climate change objectives and put Europe on course to a low-carbon economy. However, in its energy and climate change package of 10 January 2007, the Commission also warned that "business as usual" on energy research was simply "not an option" for Europe.

"All Member States have their own research programmes on energy, mostly with similar objectives and targeting the same technologies. In addition, public and private research centres, universities and dedicated agencies complete a picture of scattered, fragmented and sub-critical capacities," the Commission said, calling on the the EU to "act jointly and urgently."

The Commission therefore proposes to put forward a European Strategic Energy Technology Plan to better integrate capacities at member state and EU levels as well as with the scientific community.

European employers organisation Business Europe  says technological improvements will be essential in achieving GHG reductions "without compromising on better living standards in both developing and developed countries". Business Europe called on government incentives to promote research but warns that expectations regarding the pace of technological innovation and deployment should be realistic.

New technologies, it argues, "will often call for adapting or renewing basic infrastructures of society, requiring substantial investments, which will only be undertaken in a context of sustained economic growth."

Business Europe says that market-based instruments such as CDMs should be made more efficient, transparent and less bureaucratic. "Artificial ceilings on the use of credits from JI/CDM (Joint Implementation/Clean Development Mechanism) must not be introduced as these would reduce the effectiveness of the mechanisms and potentially limit the development of projects," UNICE argues.

US oil major ExxonMobil says advanced oil exploration and drilling techniques are already giving access to previously untapped oil and gas resources. It believes that such technologies can today guarantee sufficient fossil fuels supplies to meet the world's growing energy demand in the foreseeable future.

"We are not saying that there isn't anything that you can do right now," said Sherri Stuewer, vice-president for safety, health and environment at ExxonMobil in a recent interview with EurActiv. "Energy efficiency has a lot to offer in the near term but what we are trying to say is that efficiency and today's technology will not solve this problem [climate change] for the long-term". 

And this is where Exxon believes it can make a difference with an R&D programme it recently launched in partnership with Stanford University. Stuewer says the programme focuses efforts on "high-risk, high-reward breakthrough technologies that could really make a difference" in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. "We need more, we need new technologies," she said.

Environmental NGOs have always favoured an approach to greenhouse gas emissions reductions that focuses on renewable energy and demand reduction, using combinations of incentives for clean technology, legislative requirements and fiscal instruments. "The environmental community has been skeptical of technological panaceas, end-of-pipe solutions," says Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe) because they can have "unintended consequences". CAN Europe nevertheless points to "the possibility of an electric/hydrogen future based on renewable energy."

Christian Egenhofer, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels, believes that it is well worth developing 'breakthrough' technologies for the longer term. "If you look at the targets that need to be achieved under the UNFCCC, then you will need breakthrough technologies by 2050. And you don't get these without putting money into research and collaboration projects," Egenhofer told EurActiv. However, he says it would be wrong to assume that one or a few 'killer technologies', such as hydrogen, can do the job. "Rather we will need a broad range of technologies: clean coal technologies, various renewables, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, to name but a few."

The Pew Center on global climate change, a Washington-based think tank, says that reducing greenhouse gas emissions "will require a broad portfolio of policies to foster technology development". But it says that "R&D alone is not enough." "Because the benefits of technological innovation come only with widespread adoption […] the policy portfolio should support diffusion of knowledge and deployment of new technologies as well as research and discovery," the Pew Center said in a 2003 study. "Well-crafted policies can help nourish an energy technology revolution over the next half century as astonishing as the information technology revolution of the last half century," the Pew Center believes.

Others believe that technologies are only a pipe dream and that real progress can only be brought about if we make radical changes to our lifestyles. Prof. Wolfgang Sachs, from the Wuppertal Institute in Germany, points to the volume effects of rising global consumption, which leads to demand growing faster than eco-efficiency gains. He cited the car industry as an example, saying that the considerable energy savings made on cars' oil consumption were being eaten up by volume effects: "You can forget about eco-efficiency [of cars] if China's demand continues to grow," he points out. Instead, Sachs supported the concept of eco-sufficiency, which advocates an overall reduction in the consumption of non-renewable resources.