Solar power is becoming so cheap so fast that in Abu Dhabi it’s now less costly to produce a unit of energy from the sun than from oil, leading energy experts said this week.

But that doesn’t mean a global switch to renewable energy will be inevitable or speedy, they told a London conference.

Difficult and sometimes unexpected problems still stand in the way, including pension funds heavily invested in fossil fuels, upfront costs for clean power, political flip-flops in key nations, and the lobbying prowess of old energy companies.

“Fossil fuels won’t just go away by themselves,” warned Patrick Graichen, executive director of Agora Energiewende, a German energy policy group.

In Germany, renewable sources account for about a third of electricity production but backing for coal persists, he told the discussion organised by think tank Chatham House.

“It’s not just about phasing in the new technologies,” he said. “You need a phase-out plan for the cheap incumbent fuels.”

That could include tax breaks and credit to stop fossil fuel companies defaulting on debt if they fail or plants close early.

In Europe, the 16 largest power companies had net negative income for the first time last year, as old fossil fuel plants lost ground to renewables, said Tomas Kåberger, executive chair of Japan’s Renewable Energy Institute and a professor of industrial energy policy in Sweden.

CORPORATE RESISTANCE

Such losses might be expected to drive a faster switch to renewable energy and quicken the demise of old plants, the experts said. But instead, traditional energy companies have lobbied hard for governments to remove support for renewables or even to tax them, and have blocked proposed fossil fuel levies.

“In Europe, the incumbent power companies are fighting for survival using the political influence they have,” Kåberger said. “What we have seen in the last 18 months or so in most developed countries is a priority shift from supporting renewable (energy) to protecting incumbent power companies.”

That’s not the case in countries like China, which is rushing into solar and other renewables, driven by a desire to produce more power without worsening smog, and to make money by becoming a leader in a growing industry.

But Japan will struggle to make the same rapid shift, in part because both its banks and pension funds have major investments in traditional power companies, Kåberger said.

“For Japan it isn’t a technical problem but a financial problem,” he said. “The country doesn’t want big power companies with big debts (owed) to pension funds to go down.”

UPFRONT COSTS

Another problem hampering renewable energy expansion is the high initial cost of solar and other renewable energy sources. With fossil fuel plants, costs are more evenly spread between construction of facilities at the outset and buying fuel over time. With solar energy, 90 percent of the cost comes upfront, which can be hard for countries, companies and people to manage.

That makes the cost of borrowing crucial to whether clean power takes off in a country, Graichen said. Germany can produce solar power more cheaply than sunny Spain “because we have lower interest rates, not because we have more sun”.

Countries that struggle to access finance are more likely to invest in fossil fuel capacity. Pakistan, for instance, desperately needs to generate more electricity to meet growing demand but is planning to get much of that from coal plants – still its cheapest option.

“Poor countries are going to electrify and they don’t want to slow down. If they can do it cleanly, that’s great, but if not they’re still going ahead,” said Laszlo Varro, chief economist for the International Energy Agency.

Telling them not to build coal plants “is not going to be a very fruitful conversation” unless alternatives are available, he said.

Still, there is plenty of good news on clean energy, the experts said. The sums invested in renewables have stagnated in recent years – but that is largely because solar power costs have fallen 90 percent since 2009, requiring much less money to buy the same amount of equipment.

Energy efficiency efforts also are ramping up around the world, Varro said. A move to more efficient appliances, for instance, means more people can buy fridges or air conditioning without driving a steep rise in planet-warming emissions.

Increased efficiency is one reason demand for new energy in many places is now small, even as GDP grows more quickly, Varro said, which is helping the transition to clean power.

One area where that shift is not working so well is in transportation, where cheap oil is encouraging people to buy bigger cars and drive more, he added.

Electric cars are growing in popularity but their success so far is “fragile”, he emphasised.

By Laurie Goering; editing by Megan Rowling. c the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters.

 

A new global agreement to tackle climate change will take effect on November 4 after the accord crossed an important threshold for support late on Wednesday.

European nations, Canada, Bolivia and Nepal boosted official backing for the 2015 Paris Agreement to countries representing more than 55 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, as needed for implementation.

By Thursday, 74 countries or parties to the U.N. climate change convention had formally joined the Paris Agreement, adding up to nearly 60 percent of global emissions, a U.N. website showed.

U.S. President Barack Obama called Wednesday “a historic day in the fight to protect our planet for future generations”.

“If we follow through on the commitments that this Paris agreement embodies, history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet,” he said.

Work will start at U.N. climate talks in Morocco next month to hammer out the rules for putting the accord into practice.

Here is a selection of comments on the agreement’s entry into force from top officials and climate change experts:

John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State:

“Today it is crystal clear that we have finally woken up. We have learned from the false starts of the past, and we are now – finally – on the path to protecting the future for our children, our grandchildren and generations to come.”

Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary-General:

“Now we must move from words to deeds and put Paris into action. We need all hands on deck – every part of society must be mobilised to reduce emissions and help communities adapt to inevitable climate impacts.”

Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

“Entry into force bodes well for the urgent, accelerated implementation of climate action that is now needed to realise a better, more secure world and to support also the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Mohamed Adow, senior climate advisor, Christian Aid:

“The speed at which the Paris Agreement has come into force has been remarkable. But we now need to see tangible actions to follow just as quickly. As Hurricane Matthew leaves destruction across the Caribbean, we’re reminded that our climate continues to undergo rapid change and we are continuing to pollute it.”

Wolfgang Jamann, CEO and secretary general, CARE International:

To see the benefits of the Paris Agreement, “we need to keep the momentum, and quickly step up actions to cut emissions by shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Governments need to rapidly improve the climate resilience of their most vulnerable and marginalised populations especially women and girls. Otherwise the agreement will be an empty shell, and the consequences will continue to be devastating for millions around the world.”

Heather Coleman, climate change manager, Oxfam America:

“While countries have all pledged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, the collective commitments made are still not enough to prevent dangerous climate change. Countries need to implement and scale up efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a clean, resilient economy.

Oxfam estimates that the communities most vulnerable to feeling the effects of climate change are only receiving a fraction of the money that rich countries pledged to adaptation.”

Jennifer Morgan, executive director, Greenpeace International:

“Now that a truly global binding climate agreement is in place, governments should have the confidence to not only meet but also beat their national targets and provide support to the poorest countries.”

Andrew Steer, president and CEO, World Resources Institute:

“With the agreement in full force, countries can shift their focus from commitment to action.

We must create more liveable, low-carbon cities and expand the supply of land and forests for carbon storage. We must slash food loss and waste, a major source of emissions and a travesty for people who lack enough food. And, we must continue to work at all levels – global, national, cities and communities – to build the political will for this transformation.”

May Boeve, executive director, 350.org:

“The entry (into force) of the Paris climate agreement represents a turning point in the fight against climate change: the era of fossil fuels is finally coming to an end. Now the real work begins. The only way to meet the 1.5 or 2°C target (for global temperature rise) is to keep fossil fuels in the ground. The fossil fuel industry’s current ‘drill and burn’ business plan is completely incompatible with this agreement.”

Steve Howard, chief sustainability officer, IKEA Group:

“The Paris agreement represents a turning point for business. The certainty of ever-stronger policies to reduce emissions creates clarity and unlocks opportunities for developing products, services and operations for a low-carbon economy. We are only at the beginning, but the pace at which countries have been ratifying the agreement shows that the policy leadership is there to achieve real change. Now we need to work together for a rapid transition to a future built on clean, renewable energy.”

By Megan Rowling @meganrowling; editing by Katie Nguyen. c Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women’s rights, trafficking, property rights and climate change. 

 

When George Porto joined Brazil’s environment agency 13 years ago, the country didn’t have access to satellite data on illegal logging – let alone heat maps tracking deforestation patterns or gun-toting agents dedicated to stopping ecological crimes.

How times have changed.

Today, IBAMA, as the agency is known, has access to four satellite feeds monitoring illegal activities in the Amazon, the world’s biggest rainforest. It also boasts a network of indigenous watchmen in remote regions and a 1,000-strong commando force.

Environmentalists say the agency’s control centre in Brasilia, a collection of low-slung concrete buildings from the 1970s, is one of the world’s most important hubs for protecting rainforests and the land rights of people who depend on them.

“When I joined there was no GPS or satellite images, it wasn’t a strategic way to tackle deforestation,” said Porto, IBAMA’s environmental monitoring coordinator, as he examined maps showing changes in forest cover at the agency’s headquarters.

“Today, the rate (of deforestation) is coming down because of our technology and intelligence gathering,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

For years, Brazil has sought to balance a desire to lift millions out of poverty by making use of the country’s greatest natural resource — the Amazon’s trees, land and minerals — and the need to protect one of the world’s most biodiverse regions.

Mounting pressure to save the Amazon, known as the “lungs of the planet” for its role sucking climate-changing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, prompted former president Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva to unveil plans to halt the Amazon’s destruction.

And in the decade following the start of his first term in office in 2003, Brazil reduced its deforestation rate by more than 70 percent, some of the fastest improvement anywhere.

But the rate increased again last year by 24 percent compared to 2013, Brazil’s National Space Research Institute (INPE) said in September, citing the latest satellite images.

Brazil is still losing the equivalent of two football fields of rainforest every minute as illegal loggers and ranchers exploit the Amazon’s unspoiled reaches, according to the National Forest Commission’s former director, Tasso Azevedo.

Satellites used by IBAMA recorded about 100,000 incursions into the forest last year.

In a renewed push against the problem, Brazil has pledged to reduce net new deforestation to zero by 2030, down from more than 6,200 square kilometers (2,394 sq miles) today.

Meeting this goal will require enforcement agencies leveraging new technologies to detect problems, and a sustained push for formal land rights, analysts said.

IBAMA officials are also using a “carrot and stick” strategy to reduce illegal land clearing by both large agribusiness operators and small farmers.

‘IT’S A WAR’

About 90 percent of Brazil’s deforestation is illegal, much of it carried out by organized groups clearing land for agriculture, IBAMA officials said.

Reducing the problem hinges on law enforcement targeting large operators who destroy the forest while providing peasant farmers with alternative livelihoods and title deeds to land, environmental experts say.

To tackle the lucrative criminal enterprise, environment officials are fighting deforestation based on the logic of counter-insurgency.

“It’s a war,” said Luciano Evaristo, IBAMA’s enforcement director, slamming a fist into his office desk.

When satellites detect large-scale forest clearing, Evaristo’s agents, armed with automatic weapons, are deployed to hard-to-reach sites via helicopters.

Before 2002, IBAMA didn’t have its own field operatives. The agency monitored the situation and turned information over to other branches of the security services to conduct raids.

“We decided we needed autonomy from the police, as they have corruption problems,” Evaristo told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “With the rise of pressure around deforestation, the government put us on the frontline.”

But in an area as vast and remote as the Amazon, it’s logistically impossible for the state to be all-seeing, he said.

Instead of long-term boots on the ground, officials rely on field intelligence from the people who know the region best: indigenous Brazilians.

“The indigenous people are the eyes and ears of IBAMA,” Evaristo said.

Across the Amazon, networks of indigenous people gather information about illegal loggers that satellites can’t access.

They coordinate intelligence gathering in Quyapo or other local languages on radios provided by IBAMA. When unlawful activity is detected, they send GPS coordinates of the location back to Brasilia.

Evaristo can then deploy a team to destroy illicit logging camps and torch their machinery.

In the last year, Evaristo said his team has made more than 4,000 arrests, seizing 91 trucks, 115 chainsaws and the equivalent of 2,000 truckloads of wood.

UNCOLLECTED FINES

It is not only in intelligence gathering that indigenous groups have proven valuable.

Lands formally recognised as belonging to indigenous people have far better forest protection rates than state or private lands. One study by U.S. and Brazilian environmentalists in 2015 showed that more than 98 percent of forests on indigenous lands were intact.

These lands, however, are regularly threatened by “grileros” – a Brazilian term for businessmen fraudulently obtaining or selling properties by bribing local land registry workers, doctoring ownership certificates and other dubious practices.

“In this war, it’s the indigenous people versus the grileros,” said Evaristo, who keeps a loaded pistol in his briefcase beside policy papers prepared for lawmakers.

To combat land theft by powerful agricultural interests, IBAMA began naming and shaming businessmen involved in deforestation in 2008. The publicly available blacklist now has 50,000 names, including 2,000 added last year.

Blacklisted individuals face financial penalties, lose access to bank credit and rural land registries so they cannot buy new territory, making it harder for them to do business, officials said.

IBAMA levied millions of dollars in fines for environmental crimes last year, but expects to collect less than 10 percent of the money due to Brazil’s cumbersome legal system, Evaristo said.

SMALL BUT DANGEROUS

IBAMA officials say enforcement or “the stick” has worked well in reducing illegal cutting down of trees by large agriculture operations that are behind 70 percent of the Brazil’s deforestation.

But small farmers still account for about 30 percent of the deforestation and their share has been growing, said Avecita Chicchon of the San Francisco-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to protect the Amazon.

“Poor people are moving into the Amazon for economic reasons and cutting the forest for agriculture,” Chicchon said.

Across Brazil, about five million families have no access to land, according to a 2016 study from Canada’s University of Windsor. Landless farmers have few options to feed themselves other than clearing territory.

Cutting by small farmers is harder to detect on satellite maps, according to IBAMA officials who hope “carrots” including formal land title deeds and access to credit for growers who do not cut down trees will help.

The government has provided formal land title deeds to 20,000 farmers since 2009.

For small farmers who own land, it’s more profitable to work within the law and not deforest new areas in order to access credit and other government supports, officials said.

By distributing land to small farmers while cracking down on large-scale illegal cutting, Brazilian officials say they can reduce net deforestation to zero by 2030.

“Every act of deforestation has an economic purpose behind it,” IBAMA official Jair Schmitt told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “If you motivate people to follow the law, you can kill the business model.”

By Chris Arsenault. Editing by Katie Nguyen. c Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women’s rights, trafficking and climate change.