Final thoughts

Having gained what small insights I have over the course of running this page, I remain fundamentally optimistic about the ability of human innovation, coupled with political impetus, to succeed in the challenge of ditching fossil fuels. Even as planet Earth nears a dangerous climate tipping-point, and with the now-tangible effects of anthropogenic climate change increasing in magnitude, encouraging news irrepressibly flows in from expected and unexpected places. It would appear that, despite recent high-profile setbacks, that the governments of the world, continually nudged by broad international consensus and successful international agreements, are getting a grip on the problem.

Recent high-profile setbacks...

I also remain, however, torn. On the one hand it would appear that a perfectly viable, practicable, established solution to the competing demands of reducing GHG emissions and increasing energy consumption has been there all along in the form of nuclear power. Eric Jeffs' compelling analysis emphasises the undeniable fact that nuclear power is the only established means of providing fossil-fuel-comparable generating capacity with zero GHG emissions. Yet on the other hand renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, seem to offer the potential for local zero-emissions energy production to meet local demand, satisfying the requirements of isolated populations in less developed jurisdictions and providing vitally-needed development opportunities (while also avoiding the perennially-tricky issue of nuclear waste management). In reality a combination approach is probably required. It would be foolish to disavow the golden opportunity presented by nuclear power, and just as nonsensical to arrest further development of new, innovative renewable energy sources, which can provide power where nuclear cannot yet reach.

Trump's energy plans: a brief update

Back in November, just after the U.S. presidential election delivered its surprise result, this page examined the likely consequences of Donald Trump’s plans for energy and climate change in the United States and around the world. With Mr. Trump's inauguration just over a fortnight away, this post will briefly examine what has happened since then in this regard.

A Trump campaign infographic with some colourful claims about Democrats' energy 'restrictions' (Source: Trump campaign)

One conclusion of the post was that most or all action on GHG emissions and climate change at the federal level could be expected to be cancelled or reversed. This prediction appears to have been borne out, not least by Mr. Trump’s cabinet appointments. His choice of Energy Secretary, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, is a firm advocate of continued oil drilling and has expressed sceptical views regarding anthropogenic climate change. The incoming head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is an even stronger climate sceptic, and is currently involved in a lawsuit against his new department which aims to scupper the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. One possible exception to the rule is Trump’s choice for Secretary of State – ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson has repeatedly asserted that climate change is real and man-made, and endorsed action to combat it.

The original post also forecast that a lack of U.S. financial contributions could derail the Paris Agreement, reached at the 21^st Conference of Parties at Paris in 2015. This may ultimately depend upon the extent to which the new administration is able to extricate the U.S. from the commitments which its predecessor made at COP21, which it is of course too early to know. Assuming an absence of ongoing U.S. support, the success of the Paris and future agreements will depend on the remaining signatory countries. Within a day of Trump’s victory, countries restated their commitment to the Paris Agreement and to COP22, which was underway that same month in Marrakech. At the same conference, the then-Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, expressed his view that global climate action had become ‘unstoppable’ despite Mr. Trump’s pledges to the contrary.

A final prediction made in the post back in November was that, with the disappearance of federal direction, including the Clean Power Plan, states may take up the slack and introduce new action to reduce GHG emissions. In California, ambitious legislative targets mean that the state is on track to return to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, with a further 40% reduction by 2030. In the north-eastern U.S., several states have devised the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a unified cap-and-trade programme aiming to reduce emissions. However, other states continue to have no emissions-reduction strategy and have indeed been campaigning for the Supreme Court to throw out the CPP. With the election of Mr. Trump, they can likely abandon any and all efforts to reduce GHG emissions or invest in alternative energy sources, which may lead to significant increases in GHG emissions.