THE 26th United Nations conference on climate change, aka COP26, is only two weeks away, but "the stubbornness of the status quo", to use the phrase of the International Energy Agency (IEA), is showing signs of not going away.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, our very carbonised world was too busy painting a picture of a 1.5°C "there", but did little to chart the course on "how" to get "there".
Secondly, transition management to "there" has been appalling. Start with the forgotten "how". We cannot fault the world for targeting net zero carbon emission by 2050, though 2030 would have been better for humanity.
Today, with the global temperature averaging somewhere between 1.1°C and 1.3°C above pre-industrial level, we are already experiencing floods and fires everywhere. No continent has been spared.
Imagine a 2°C world. Some cities will be under water. And so will be a few island states. Yet, why the stubbornness? For one, we can't live without fossil fuels. Or to put it differently, we haven't learned how to live with renewables. There is a double whammy here.
As this Leader goes to press, there is an energy shortage in Europe and China. After promising to give up their addictions to coal, the energy crisis is making them hint at breaking the promise.
Oil traders are warning the energy shortage will head elsewhere, too. Will these countries revert to coal, too? Why the shortage in the seemingly energy-abundant world? If The Economist is right, the oil industry, often blamed for causing the warming of the Earth, has almost halved its investments in new projects — US$750 billion in 2014 to US$350 billion this year.
Instead of investing in renewables, the oil companies are giving back the excess cash to its shareholders. Neither are non-oil investors putting much money into renewables.
According to the IEA, getting the world on track for net zero emissions by 2050 requires clean energy investments of US$4 trillion by 2030. After fighting the pandemic for nearly two years and spending nearly US$11 trillion on Covid-19-related stimulus package, the world may be exhausted. But this is an open invitation to a 2°C world.
Now for the transition management. As the IEA points out, not all energy projects divide themselves into "clean" and "dirty". There is the middle ground that the climate negotiators from around the world have paid little attention to. In the language of the IEA, it is how to "make dirty cleaner". According to IEA's calculation, "make dirty cleaner" delivers the largest share of emissions reductions in getting to net zero.
Obviously, there will be dirty energy projects that don't lend themselves to zero emissions. Coal mines and coal-fired projects will fall under this category. These must be retired early.
The next phase will be to "make dirty cleaner" where coal-fired boilers are replaced with gas-fired ones. Only in this way can low-income and middle-income countries afford to join the race to net zero emission.
COP26 is right to call on these countries to make tougher commitments, but it won't happen if the money promised by the rich countries is not forthcoming. Or worse still, if the rich ones set a bad example by reverting to coal after having promised to give it up as China and Britain are planning to do. Britain, especially, being the chair of COP26, can't cop out like this.