Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Getting rid of fossil fuels is really hard and we’re not making much progress

Published

on

Getting rid of fossil fuels is really hard – and we’re not making much progress

Jason Edwards/Getty

Martin Brueckner, Murdoch University; Charles Roche, Murdoch University, and Tauel Harper, Murdoch University

If miners, the media, policymakers and renewable energy companies are to be believed, Australia is in the midst of a green energy transition aimed at preventing the worst effects of climate change.

This appealing narrative suggests we are progressively reducing greenhouse emissions by replacing fossil fuels with clean alternatives such as wind and solar power, batteries and electric vehicles.

But there’s a real problem in accepting this idea without question. To date, the green energy transition has largely added more energy to the mix, rather than actually replacing fossil fuels. In other words, our decarbonisation is yet to begin in earnest.

For countries with a laser focus on economic growth such as Australia, this means shifting away from fossil fuels is particularly challenging. Growth and fossil fuel use have long been linked.

As one of the world’s top three liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporters, Australia exports much of the problem. Tackling climate change would mean picking a fight with powerful industries that have dominated Australia’s economy and politics for decades.

Confronting the true scale of the decarbonisation challenge is daunting. We need to challenge fossil fuel interests in politics and consider whether continual economic growth can ever be compatible with climate stability.

Is the transition a mirage?

For at least two decades in Australia, much effort has gone towards making the green energy transition a reality. Solar panels are now on a third of Australian houses, while wind farms and large-scale solar funnel ever more energy into power grids, reaching new heights of 43% in the main grid this year. Electric vehicles are becoming more common on Australian roads, and the production of green steel is nascent but promising.

Australia’s direct emissions are slowly beginning to fall, due mainly to changes in land uses and, more recently, to renewables replacing coal plants. The latest figures show a 1.4% drop over the past year. But if the emissions of Australian gas and coal burned overseas are considered, Australia’s emissions would still be rising.

Positive trends foster assumptions that less and less fossil fuels will need to be burned.

This, however, isn’t guaranteed. Energy historians have pointed out new forms of energy don’t necessarily replace the older ones. Instead, they are getting added to the mix.

The world economy now uses more wood, coal, oil and gas than ever before. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising as fossil fuels continue to be used alongside renewables.

Hungry for energy

Energy use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth have long gone hand in hand. While some richer countries are managing to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions, these countries often effectively export emissions to poorer nations. It’s proving far harder to make absolute emissions cuts while still growing the economy.

In economics, it’s long been believed that energy consumption is determined by how fast an economy is growing.

Energy economists have since learned the opposite may be true: that only when energy is available, economic growth follows. When new energy sources emerge, they will be used to build more, drive technological change and other economic activities.

While green growth advocates hope new technology will make it possible to keep expanding the economy at minimal environmental cost, these hopes are misplaced.

In theory, renewable energy resources are near-infinite. If the world ran on 100% renewables, continual economic growth might be possible. But adding renewable energy to the mix while we exploit all available carbon-based energy won’t be enough to stop climate change or save species from extinction.

The way we think about the economy has to change from a focus on infinite growth to a restorative approach.

Fossil fuels won’t go without a fight

China’s recent success in stabilising emissions through very rapid renewable energy deployment suggests low-carbon development is still possible. But even this historic effort may not be enough to make the rapid, deep emission cuts needed to stave off the worst of climate change. China’s decades-long focus on economic growth has come at huge cost to its environment more broadly.

China’s massive renewables expansion was possible only because its government has actively pursued decarbonisation as a national priority, alongside building clean energy industries.

It’s a different story in Australia. While the nation has taken up solar at world-beating speed, successive governments have also worked to rapidly expand the LNG industry and keep coal alive.

From the Howard era onward, fossil fuel lobbyists have fought against the adoption of strong emissions targets, downplayed the urgency of climate action, and worked to stop measures such as the short-lived carbon price.

It seems unthinkable for an Australian government to deny a fossil fuel producer anything. Federal approval for Woodside’s giant North West Shelf project to continue is only the latest example of a political system unable to make the changes necessary to meaningfully cut emissions.

It doesn’t have to be this way, of course. Australia is rich in sun, wind, metals and critical minerals. Prominent figures from Rod Sims to Ross Garnaut to Alan Finkel have laid out how Australia could create large new green industries as the sun sets on fossil fuels. Big Australian companies say rapid emission cuts would spur huge new industries. But our attitude towards exploiting existing energy resources needs to change.

Grasping the true difficulty of keeping Australia’s fossil fuels safely in the ground is an essential first step before we can begin a more honest discussion about how to achieve a prosperous and safe future. Cutting emissions fast enough to avoid the very worst of climate change will require far greater ambition and far-reaching structural change to the economy.The Conversation

Martin Brueckner, Pro Vice Chancellor, Sustainability, Murdoch University; Charles Roche, Lecturer in Sustainability and Development, Murdoch University, and Tauel Harper, Associate Professor in Communications and Media, Murdoch University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now