The UN is meeting in Peru to sort out climate change before it's too late – although many (which includes me on my more gloomy days) think it was already too some time ago. Still, you have to meet to show willing, even though it piles more GHGs into the upper atmosphere.
The first day "tackled" (that is, discussed) oil prices. As Climate Action reported:
"In the presence of 190 nations at the first UN Climate conference of the season on Monday, Christiana Figueres argues that falling oil prices show the “high risk” of fossil fuel investments compared with renewable energies."
Ms Figueres would, of course, have said that if the oil price had been rising lately: such a win-win argument. She went on:
"The fact that oil prices are so unpredictable is precisely one of the reasons we need to move to fuels which has a completed predictable cost of zero for fuel."
I read this nonsense at the same time as a report on Bloomberg about the cost of electricity from renewables in Germany. This noted that:
"German consumers have paid a total of 106 billion euros ($132 billion) through the surcharge on their power bills to finance the clean-energy expansion. The annual cost may peak this year and drop slightly to €22 billion in 2015 as the government begins reducing subsidies for the industry."
Thus is "zero" redefined.
For reference, here's another Bloomberg piece on the real costs of free electricity in Germany, and a Reuters article on the economics of oil investment, exploration and pricing. The Economist also weighed in this weekend with three "Sheikhs v shale" comments. This is the most interesting. It's about the economics of shale exploration – coming soonish (but only if the price is right) to somewhere near you. It seems clear that the Saudis are trying to keep the price of oil down to make shale exploitation a very risky business. With the own extraction costs at ~$6/barrel, they can afford to. Meanwhile, Mark Carney was at the World Bank last week arguing that the black stuff will have to be left in the ground for the sake of the climate. We shall see ...
Respond