‘COP’-a-load of this – Chance would be a fine thing!
As COP28 fades into the past, and Labour Leader Sir Kier Starmer is now safely back in the UK following his private jet visit to Qatar (from the very same COP28 conference – Keir Starmer defends accepting Qatari private jet for talks with leader (breakingnews.ie)), we are left wondering what actual, tangible benefits this latest (and the 27 before it) UN Climate Change Conference will bring.
For the most, other than a trade and networking event, COP28 seems to provide us with a wealth of irony and hypocrisy. It says much about the overall “success” of this conference (and the UN generally) that “wordology” and “phraseology” seems to take more of a central stage than actual, binding commitments.
Some, such as the Guardian in their December article, seem to carry a dimmer view than I do in noting the delegates and representatives at COP28. Revealed: more than 160 representatives with climate-denying track records got Cop28 access | Cop28 | The Guardian. The paragraphs I find most sobering in this Guardian article are:
“Corporate Accountability, a transparency watchdog, has found that UN organizers greenlighted access to groups that have obstructed fossil fuel regulations and other climate action, giving them the same or greater access to the international negotiations as Indigenous communities, human rights groups and climate justice organizations.
Organizations and individuals invited by country-delegations also have access to closed-room negotiations from which civil society and grassroots groups are locked out.”
I would encourage people to refer to the “highlights” of COP28 and determine for themselves how much of an impact the UN is likely to make on climate change (Reference: COP 28: What Was Achieved and What Happens Next? | UNFCCC).
The statement of “Some 85,000 participants” travelling to the conference (and all the flights, air-conditioning and resources that goes along with such) further highlights the irony and hypocrisy of such events.
Could not the UN make better use of MS Teams or Zoom, as do most of us working with projects remote from where we live? Post COVID and working from home (WFH), I no longer consume circa 40-50 litres of diesel every week driving to and from an office, where for the most part I would respond to the same emails and speak to the same people that I now do now working from home.
On it’s own, 40-50 litres of diesel every week is not significant, however the carbon footprint of 85,000 choosing to travel to work (in this case, Qatar) is significant. If these very same 85,000 people had the same commute that I formally made, then this represents 3,400,000 to 4,250,000 litres of diesel each and every week. That is significant!
At least many of the delegates at COP28 were (apparently) transported about the event in electric vehicles (EVs): Electric Cars, SUVs, Buses Whisk COP28 Delegates Around Dubai (movinonconnect.com). Whether or not they needed to be there in the first place is a reasonable question to ask… as is the motivations of the many EV manufactures taking such an active part in COP28.
The other side of that coin is how the electricity powering these EVs was/is generated. Currently in the UAE, electricity is predominantly from burning hydrocarbons, so I would challenge that such use of EVs at COP28 is not as “emissions free” as promoters of EVs (or COP28) would have you believe.
It is worth noting that UAE is making great progress towards the transition across (by 2050) to zero emissions. Dubai Is Making Its Green Energy Dreams Come True – The Media Line. Having an economy underpinned by circa 100 billion barrels of oil reserves allows UAE to fund such a transition (irony?).
Whilst there are those who promote that we should buy EVs, I do not currently see it (personally) as a viable option. Whilst EVs work for some, and I would not discourage people from exploring this option; my personal view is to stick with my 2015 Diesel for the time being. I would also encourage those with an interest in EVs to read the recent Guardian article by Rowan Atkinson (I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped | Rowan Atkinson | The Guardian).
Curiously, the British House of Lords subsequently “blamed” (him by name) Rowan Atkinson for slowing EV uptake, whom they referred to as “Actor and Comedian”, rather than “Honours Degree Engineering Graduate with Oxford University Masters in Electrical Engineering”.
Think-tank group “The Green Alliance” further went on to claim that Mr Atkinson’s Guardian article “had been roundly debunked” (by whom I wonder??), with Simon Evans (PhD in Biochemistry and Editor-in -Chief of website Carbon Brief) quoted by The Telegraph as saying that: “Mr Atkinson's biggest mistake is his failure to recognise that electric vehicles already offer significant global environmental benefits, compared with combustion-engine cars.”
For me, Rowan Atkinson (Graduate Engineer and Comedian) proves the point (that Simon Evans seemingly reinforces with further irony) in that for the most part, wider society sees Engineering as a joke; so, you might as well be funny and go where the smart money is (as Rowan Atkinson has done so successfully in his character as Mr. Bean (more irony))!
It appears that this same society is keener to take on-board those opinions from non-Engineers than it is from the many Engineers with counter-opinions and those with direct industry experience. I neither agree, nor disagree with the opinions/views of Rowan Atkinson or Simon Evans, other than to suggest that a challenge to the EVs agenda is warranted – especially considering the cash-cow it has become for EV manufacturers and those who profit from electrification.
Clearly the emissions directly from an EV on the road is overwhelmingly less than a hydrocarbon fuelled car on the road. The point is (and the one I believe Rowan Atkinson seems to be making) is that this limited view of “emissions as on the road” EVs disproportionately excludes how the electricity is generated (for powering the EV), the infrastructure needed to transmit this electricity to the EV battery, and the environmentally costly EV manufacturing process (especially the power cells).
I would also have an ethical concern as to how much of the metals (Lithium, Nickel, and Cobalt) used in electric car batteries is mined, as well as the environmental consequences of mining it. Reports such as that produced by T&E seem to ignore this somewhat (Batteries vs oil: A comparison of raw material needs – Transport & Environment (transportenvironment.org)), as well as to project that much of the required metals needed for Electric Vehicles (EVs) will come from recycling (“In 2035 over a fifth of the lithium and nickel, and 65% of the cobalt, needed to make a new battery could come from recycling.”).
It is true that many things “could” happen in 2035; that is not a guarantee that they will. Other than recycling concerns, I would encourage those considering buying an EV to research how much of the cobalt needed for EV batteries is mined in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, and Russia. To start people on that pathway, I’d offer the recent article from Al-Jazeera: Mining of cobalt, copper in DRC leading to human rights abuses: Report | Human Rights News | Al Jazeera.
We should have concerns that in the rush for “green energy”, that (similar to the nuclear industry) we are leaving ourselves with residual waste from this industry as this infrastructure comes to end of life. Currently there few recycling options for such infrastructure, although some progress is being made.
I do find the ENVA article on such somewhat over optimistic as to the (Enva launches wind turbine blade recycling service | News / PR) financial (and technically) viability of recycling “85-90% of a wind turbines mass (as Enva state – National Grid claim 96% (Can wind turbine blades be recycled? | What happens to old wind turbine blades? | National Grid Group)), especially reprocessing previously poured concrete as gravel and aggregates (“rubblisation”); as can be currently done for roads by companies such as Antigo (Rubblization | Antigo Construction Inc.). Most things could, in theory, be recycled. Often there is a cost and resource requirement in doing so, and that such processes do in themselves use energy and generate waste.
I would also encourage people to consider how their electricity is generated, and gets to their charging points. Here in Ireland, local nuclear generation of electricity for the Irish national grid (Eirgrid) is prohibited in the Republic of Ireland by the Electricity Regulation Act, yet Ireland imports (Editorial: Why choosing to import nuclear power is a typically Irish solution | Independent.ie) a little over 10% of it’s electricity from Nuclear power plants (back to “irony and hypocrisy”.. again) elsewhere.
I do not so much have an issue with nuclear generated electricity (in fact I believe that is should be part of Ireland’s energy strategy), rather the hypocrisy of those greens and misinformed/ill-informed people who drive for “green energy” without nuclear power being considered as part of the overall strategy (as it should).
Reference (Page 17, 2022 SEAI Report): Energy-in-Ireland-2022.pdf (seai.ie).
I am certainly very much in favour of promoting more efficient use of the energy that we do generate, and for a significant reduction in the hydrocarbons we burn for energy. By way of my final Parthian shot as to EVs, I would reference the Australian news report by Channel 7 where they (according to them) drove 2 BMWs from Melbourne to Sydney (900kms) – 1 x electric and 1 petrol.
I cannot independently validate this automotive “test”, nor the conditions under which they performed it. It is curious to note that they claim that the EV was more expensive AND took 2 hours longer than the petrol car given (among things) the need to charge mid-journey.
For me, the choice (in the wordology of COP) to “transition or phase over” to an EV in not yet definite, and I believe that technology and infrastructure has a long way to go before such is a viable and affordable alternative to my current 2015 diesel car.
Sadly, I am less optimistic as to future COP events “transitioning or phasing over” to an event that takes an active, meaningful, and central role in addressing climate change. Perhaps that is the final irony?
