So COP15 was an abject failure. We arrived in Copenhagen to witness the conclusion of the Bali Roadmap, i.e. to get a Post-2012 Climate Deal that would kick in when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires. Instead, we watched aghast while the UNFCCC process spectacularly unravelled amid chaotic scenes, as more than one hundred heads of state and government (commonly abbreviated to “HOGS”…) descended on the Danish capital for the concluding hours of the conference. All we ended up with was the so-called Copenhagen Accord, a non-legally binding political agreement cooked up by a privileged inner-circle of HOGS that included President Obama and his Chinese, Indian, South African, and Brazilian counterparts.

But was it really that bad? A closer look at the text of the Accord reveals something that had never before been articulated at a Conference of the Parties. It effectively interprets for the first time the UNFCCC’s ultimate objective, specifically that preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” means holding the rise in global temperatures to below 2°C [note: the European Union already adopted the 2°C threshold as its official policy target back in 1996]. Further, the Accord embraces the basic principle that emissions targets should be informed by the best available science – currently represented by the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) – not by what is deemed politically feasible.

We need only examine the AR4 to find out what all of this means in practical terms. Avoiding a temperature rise of 2°C compared to the long-term pre-industrial average requires that global greenhouse gas emissions peak and begin to decline within the next decade, before falling to extremely low levels by 2050. According to the AR4, the oft-repeated mantra of “50-85% reduction by 2050” will most likely result in a temperature rise of between 2-2.4°C, which is manifestly not below 2°C. The implication here is that cutting emissions by 85% by 2050 may not be sufficient to achieve the ambition declared by the leaders of the world’s major emitting nations.

But let’s not split hairs: staying below 2°C will most likely require a complete decarbonisation of the energy system by 2050. When Kennedy aimed for the moon, he didn’t set a target to get 85% of the way there. Zero carbon means we can only burn fossil fuels if we capture and store the combustion emissions.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is currently under development and nearing large-scale deployment, possibly in the nick of time for operators of coal- and gas-fired power plants, but unlikely to save that other great emitter: the automotive tailpipe. It’s hard to envisage a scenario in which CCS can be economically deployed to capture vehicular CO2 emissions, certainly not in the next forty years.

Does this mean the Copenhagen Accord spells the end of the automobile within our lifetime? Certainly not! But we do need to embark upon a monumental programme to transform the sector. The most effective way to eliminate tailpipe emissions is to eliminate tailpipes. In our vision for a decarbonised economy, that leaves just two alternatives: carbon-free electricity, or carbon-free hydrogen. And if life-cycle energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness are primary among our considerations, then based on what we know today the energy carriers of 2050 will be electrons rather than hydrogen molecules.

###

Dr. Gary Kendall is Executive Director at SustainAbility, a hybrid consultancy and think tank with offices in the US, UK and India. He is also author of Plugged In: The End of the Oil Age.