By now everybody knows climate change is with us. The scientists are saying so. Government departments are saying so. Even big business is saying so. Most nation states are saying so. Even countries like Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter and the US, the world's biggest global warmer, who both refused to be party to the Kyoto Protocol, acknowledge climate change is upon us. Everybody's also acutely aware of the likely scenarios that climate change will bring if it goes unchecked _ more frequent hurricanes, landslides, flooding, drought, glacial retreat, rising sea levels, community displacement, starvation, environmental degradation. So when the 149 signatories to the Kyoto pact sit down in Montreal for the first time on Nov 28 it's to be hoped that they realise the magnitude of the responsibility they have to lead the planet towards some semblance of a solution.

There's no time to be lost _ the fact is greenhouse emissions need to be reduced. The goal of climate policy should be to keep the global mean temperature rise to less than 2 Celsius above pre-industrial levels; above 2C, damage to ecosystems and disruption to the climate system increases dramatically. We have a very short time frame, no more than 20 years, in which to change our energy sources to meet this target.

The world needs an energy policy that begins to crucially change the mindset of government and industry leaders: exploiting fossil fuels like coal and oil is no longer viable in the long term. They are simply going to have to look at new ways of generating power and making money. If they're smart they'll begin switching to renewable alternatives like wind and solar now. Ironically, the twin threat of rocketing prices for coal and oil together with an insurance industry seriously nervous about potential climate change payouts is forcing the energy industry to look at alternatives.

It's already happening _ wind turbines are an established part of the energy sector in countries like Germany and Spain and well on the way to being well entrenched in countries like China and the Philippines. Yet the doubters and enemies of change still pose the question: why change to renewables like wind when it's more expensive than, say, coal?

First of all they're wrong.

It's a fallacious argument for an investor in coal to say that a power source like wind is currently more expensive. He or she knows that coal, or any other energy source for that matter, is always a long-term investment.

These are the facts. Take up rates, technology advances and parallel demand-led fossil fuel price increases mean that in five to seven years wind will be cheaper than coal. In 10 years it will be considerably cheaper. In 20 years it won't be a contest. A coal plant in Asia currently takes at least five years to build and come online. Coal power plants last around 30 years. Over most of its lifetime a coal power plant will produce electricity at a higher price than wind power as a future investment, coal is already more expensive.

And if wind is cheaper as an initial investment, it is vastly cheaper once it's been tapped. Asian coal plants are hugely reliant on exporters like Australia for fuel. In contrast, a wind turbine's fuel is cost free and furthermore, it's local.

Maintenance costs are vastly cheaper. A $US2 million turbine has annual maintenance costs of 2%. A coal power plant not only has maintenance costs, but also needs fuel, cooling water, filters, etc.

Then there are external costs. The Philippine coal industry for instance, is indirectly subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of $2.5 billion to cover all the health and environmental costs it incurs. Wind power doesn't have any such costs.

The choice seems to be fairly simple. Yet it's clear that a new energy mindset is something that needs to be driven. Statistics tells us so. The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook reports are the industry's most influential statistical document. Its recently published 2005 edition says that there will be more than a 50% increase in energy demand by 2030, if current policies remain unchanged. Energy-related CO2 emissions would therefore be 52% higher in 2030 than they are today.

That sobering statistic is a warning. While the planet appears to have a long-term climate policy, it'll remain a dead policy if it's not met with an energy policy that reflects the reality of climate change.

A new energy policy aimed at global utilities planning future investments should contain the twin objectives of making renewable energy both a profitable and safe investment while simultaneously making investments in fossil fuels riskier.

The issue needs to be thrashed out at the upcoming Montreal meeting. A major shift in energy policy needs to happen now. Such a shift takes around 30 years. If leaders show vision in Canada then maybe, just maybe, we'll get around to generating a ``solar generation''.

Sven Teske is a campaigner in the Climate and Energy Unit of Greenpeace International.

By SVEN TESKE

Source Bangkok Post