Obama’s clean power plan does not go far enough

US president Barack Obama's clean-energy strategy is setting the tone for a global debate, writes Alan Philps.

Reports of deaths from heatstroke caused by the heatwave from Baghdad to Karachi cite power cuts and a broader lack of energy capacity. Narinder Nanu / AFP

The year 2015 is expected to be the hottest on record. It certainly feels like that in parts of the Middle East, where temperatures have been touching all-time highs for days on end. One hot summer does not, of course, prove that the world is heating up. But there are good reasons for politicians to focus on climate change as they prepare for a summit at the end of the year, which is due to sign a far-reaching agreement on curbing carbon emissions.

President Barack Obama is leading the way by announcing a "clean power plan" to reduce the use of coal in electricity generation throughout the United States. He wants to cut carbon emissions from US power plants by 30 per cent by 2030. This will hit the use of coal, which is responsible for 34 per cent of US electricity production and is the most polluting energy source.

Though this is strictly a US domestic matter, it will have an important effect abroad. It shows the world that America, so often accused of a lack of leadership under Mr Obama, is blazing a trail for other countries to follow. This may serve to bury the memory of the chaotic 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders huddled in side rooms as they tried in vain to reach an agreement.

Not surprisingly, Mr Obama’s plan has united his Republican opponents in determination to fight his emissions cuts amid apocalyptic predictions that he is destroying the US coal industry. Mr Obama expected nothing less: it is an article of faith among many of the Republican base that man-made climate change is a fraud carried out by liberals who want to impose big government.

No one expected peace to break out in the US climate debate. It is clear that on both sides staking out a position on either side of the climate change divide is a badge of identity and even if an angel with a flaming sword swooped down with unimpeachable proof, he would be sent away by the climate deniers.

In this context, Mr Obama’s move could be seen as a kind of provocation. Kentucky, the home state of Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican majority in the Senate, generates 89 per cent of its electricity from coal. Mr McConnell is lining up coal-producing states to present a raft of legal challenges.

So there is clearly a political element to Mr Obama’s plan: to drive the Republicans, as they set about choosing their presidential candidate, into an unbreakable embrace of the coal industry at a time when the centre ground of opinion increasingly sees it as a dirty, dangerous and polluting relic of the 19th century.

Domestic politics aside, Mr Obama has set a tone for the rest of the year and will force other states to reveal their goals for cutting carbon emissions. The UAE’s announcement that it is cutting fuel subsidies may have been prompted by sound financial reasons, but it is likely to be followed by other countries as they seek to curb energy waste.

From the perspective of the developed countries, Mr Obama’s restrictions on coal burning make sense. They can afford to pay for clean, unpolluted air and subsidise alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. Germany, for example, is planning to get 80 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050.

But what of the rest of the world? It is notable that reports of deaths from heatstroke caused by the heatwave from Baghdad to Karachi cite power cuts and a broader lack of energy capacity. From India to Indonesia and the Philippines, people want energy and they need it to develop. Having energy today seems more important than considering what the climate will be like in two generations.

Despite predictions in the US that coal is finished, the need for energy around the world will keep it very much in use. The International Energy Agency forecasts that coal consumption will continue to rise to 2019 and beyond as developing countries meet their energy needs with coal-burning power stations. “New plants are being built, in an arc running from South Africa to Southeast Asia, but too many of these are based on decades-old technology,” according to the IEA’s executive-director, Maria van der Hoeven. They will be burning coal inefficiently for many years to come.

China is racing to diversify energy sources, spurred in part by popular pressure to improve air quality in cities, but even that will not stop China’s coal consumption continuing to grow in the short term. Coal has advantages – it is plentiful, cheap and a new power station does not require costly infrastructure such as a gas pipeline. Mining provides jobs in countries where employment is scarce.

At the same time, there is a great unanswered question about renewables: there will always be a need to keep the lights on when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. To put the issue in economic terms, since energy is priced by the hour, the proportion of electricity generated by solar in any given market cannot be scaled up endlessly. After a certain point, the value of solar energy will fall towards zero at midday. That makes no commercial sense – unless subsidies are built in.

Mr Obama has set down a marker for carbon reduction. No doubt it will help the world agree targets at the Paris summit in December.

This time the heads of state will be unlikely to attend in person, leaving the negotiation to lesser officials, but they can be reasonably certain of an outcome.

One thing has not changed, however. Given the thirst for energy in places such as India, where consumption is one- twentieth of what Americans use, there is a missing piece of the puzzle: a cheap and efficient way of storing electricity. Until that is done, harsh commercial realities will ensure that coal remains on the scene.

Alan Philps is a commentator on global affairs.

On Twitter @aphilps