We have the technology...

Indeed the IEA’s vision for eliminating energy-related emissions by 2050 includes substantial roles for technologies that barely exist today or are considered currently unaffordable  - although it could be argued that really, we can’t afford not to make the investment if we want to stand a change of capping global temperatures increases at 1.5˚C.

The report came in the same week that saw the US’s climate envoy, John Kerry, ridiculed for telling the BBC that 50% of the reductions needed to get to near zero emissions by 2050 are going to come from “technologies we don’t yet have”.

Amongst Kerry’s detractors was professor of engineering and the environment at the University of Cambridge, Julian Allwood, who told the BBC that “it's virtually impossible for new energy infrastructure technologies to have a significant effect on global emissions in the time we have left to act”, asserting that with every new energy-infrastructure technology so far, it's taken 30-100 years from invention to 5% penetration of existing markets.

Dr Jen Baxter from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers also felt that John Kerry’s timescale “seems very optimistic”.

So, one of the main takeaways seems to be that, while start-up technologies will undoubtedly have a pivotal role to play in the future, for now the world needs to focus on existing technologies.

This was echoed by Steve Brambley when he spoke recently at an online media event which looked forward to the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), which is due to take place in Glasgow this November. Addressing the role that industry has to play in combating climate change, Brambley pointed out that around one third of the UK’s energy use is attributable to industry, two thirds of which is consumed by electrical motor applications; historically these have been oversized and not controlled.

Brambley addressed why some UK SMEs have traditionally been slow on the uptake when it comes to implementing energy saving technology, highlighting inertia, not having the knowledge or time to make the assessments necessary to put the solutions in place, and even not having a basic awareness of how much energy is being used within a business. He also discussed the supply chain and how, in such a price sensitive market, machine vendors will often push equipment with the cheapest upfront price, rather than more energy efficient options, which offer lower lifetime costs as well as environmental benefits.

So, how to bridge the gap? Brambley advocates policies including tax incentives, encouraging skills, and incentivising the selling of machines on efficiency, in much the same way that car manufacturers sell on fuel consumption. Instead of buying the cheapest machine, manufacturers need to be encouraged to buy the one that cost less to run in the long term and does less damage to the environment. Saving energy saves costs - a win-win - asserts Brambley and should be seen by industry as an opportunity rather than a burden.