Climate Debate Heats Up - Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

PETER BUNYARD LOOKS AT AN IMPORTANT NEW REPORT ON RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE UK.

ACCORDING TO A new report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the UK's energy use is inefficient and set to massively increase -- with serious implications for greenhouse gas emissions. But there are solutions if we are prepared to be radical.

WHAT A DILEMMA we are in. Here we are, bitterly complaining that the government is stifling our basic rights to transport ourselves wherever we want, whenever we want, by taxing us 83 pence for every pound spent on fuel, and the next minute we are pitying those in Bangladesh, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Honduras who have lost all in torrential rains and mudslides. Yes, we should know the connection: every drop of petrol we burn, every flick of the switch, every visit to the supermarket -- all contribute to climate change and the catastrophe it could engender.

Maybe in 10 years' time, as a result of John Prescott's [pound]180 billion 'Transport 2010' package, more of us will be able to whizz comfortably and speedily around the country, whether in our cars or on rail -- but just where will that leave our emissions of greenhouse gases? Can we continue to run our gas-guzzling '4x4 sports-utility vehicles', consume what takes our fancy even if it has taken 4,000 miles to get to us, switch on all the appliances we care to, take off for the farthest reaches of the world on holiday and yet avoid the consequences of global warming? In short, can our modern way of life be made compatible with the necessity to prevent runaway climate change?

MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR QUESTION

For Britain, at least, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has tried to answer that multi-billion-dollar question in its recently published 22nd Report. Under the European Union's response to the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is committed, in the years leading up to 2010, to reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 per cent compared with the baseline year of 1990. With some bravado, the government is proposing we should aim for a 20 per cent cut. A laudable target, no doubt, but the Commission is concerned that on current performance, not only will the UK have difficulty reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 8 per cent a decade hence, but that even the 20 per cent target falls far short of what will be required if the UK is to play its part on the global stage. Indeed, the Commission regards an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 550 parts per million (ppmv) -- a doubling of pre-industrial levels, 'as an upper limit that should not be exceeded'.

We are now at 370 ppmv, more than 30 per cent up on pre-industrial levels, and adding some 1.5 ppmv a year to the total accumulating in the atmosphere. In fact, had the world stayed at the emission levels of 1990, a century from now the atmospheric concentrations of [CO.sub.2] would exceed 500 ppmv and still be rising. But, as we pointed out in the climate-change issue of The Ecologist (Vol 29 No 2, March/April 1999, p 75), current emission rates are far higher than those of 1990 and, were current trends to continue, would take [CO.sub.2] concentrations to 1,300 ppmv a century hence. The consequences could be mean global temperature rises of as much as 10[degrees]C.

Were the world to carry on business-as-usual and burn off total fossil fuel resources over the next couple of centuries, the result would be a concentration of [CO.sub.2] in the atmosphere three times pre-industrial levels a century hence, and six times pre-industrial levels two centuries on. Even that horrendous prospect takes no account of climatically driven feedbacks, such as the venting of carbon dioxide from warmer oceans, or the dieoff of tropical forests and ocean plankton.

PLAYING OUR PART

Nothing else will do, if we take the Commission's concerns seriously, but to restrict ourselves to a scenario in which the UK plays its part in keeping final [CO.sub.2] levels in the atmosphere below 550 ppmv. And this, perhaps, is where the Global Commons Institute (GCI) comes in. For years, GCI has been plugging away at the notion of global equity and intrinsic rights to a quota of emissions. GCI has elaborated a timescale for a programme of 'contraction and convergence', in which the 'over-emitters' -- the highly industrialised nations -- cut right back, whilst the 'under-emitters' catch up to an intermediate point. The consequences for the UK, were it to adhere rigorously to the idea of contraction and convergence 'could imply,' says the Commission, 'a reduction of 60 per cent from current annual carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and perhaps of 80 per cent by 2100'. As the Commission concedes, such changes would have massive implications for energy use in the UK, and the 22nd Report is all about marshalling such changes.

At present, average emissions in the UK are currently some 2.5 tonnes of carbon per person, compared with 5.5 tonnes in North America and just over 1 tonne per person globally. The current world total, some 6 billion tonnes of carbon, needs to be reduced by two-thirds if [CO.sub.2] concentrations are to be kept below 500 ppmv. On that basis we in the UK would need to achieve a sevenfold cut in our greenhouse gas emissions.

In Britain, we consume some 300 gigawatts (GW) of primary energy, which is approximately one-fortieth of world consumption. Because of inefficiencies in the system, including the loss of low-grade heat from power stations, our final consumption is nearly one-third lower, at 210 GW. Not shown in that 'wastage' is the considerable energy we expend in our motor vehicles, especially when we add up the number of frivolous or unnecessary journeys. Transport has become the most significant end-user of energy, demanding 34 per cent of primary energy, followed by households with a 30 per cent demand, manufacturing industry with 22 per cent and commercial and public services with 14 per cent.

Almost 90 per cent of our energy comes from fossil fuels, with oil providing us with about one-third of our primary energy and natural gas, a relative latecomer, now providing 37 per cent. In 1960, coal's share of primary energy was 74 per cent; today its share is 18 per cent. The decline in coal-burning and its substitution by natural gas has been a fundamental reason why Britain's overall greenhouse-gas emissions have declined since 1990, making us one of the few nations to be complying with the Kyoto Protocol. One-third of primary energy use in the UK is for electricity generation, which has increased its share of final user consumption from 7 per cent in 1960 to 17 per cent in 1998, indicating the rapid increase in electrical appliances as well as convenience of use.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

An important measure of the efficiency of the economy is energy intensity, which is defined as the ratio of primary energy consumed in the UK to gross domestic product (GDP). In 1998 energy intensity was 0.4 W/[pound] GDP compared with 0.72 W/[pound]. GDP in 1960, indicating both improved efficiency in the use of energy for generating GDP and some structural changes in the economy, such as the decline in energy-intensive industries like the steel industry. However, in comparison with its European neighbours, the UK is less energy efficient and, moreover, has a higher carbon intensity in that it emits more carbon dioxide to GDP than the other member states of the European Union.

Cheap and falling fuel prices, certainly in terms of fuelling power stations, have led to unnecessary inefficiencies of energy use and to fewer wind machines and other renewables getting off the ground than anticipated 10 years ago. The fossil fuel levy and the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO), instituted by the Thatcher government, intent on shoring up nuclear power in preparation for privatisation, certainly helped get the first wind farms up and running. But most of the NFFO subsidised contracts have gone to plants burning municipal and agricultural wastes or siphoning off landfill gas. In the last round of bidding, the fifth since the NFFO was initiated, municipal and industrial waste projects account for 41 per cent of the electrical capacity contracted for; wind farms for 29 per cent and landfill gas for 27 per cent.

Households in the UK consume nearly 30 per cent of the nation's primary energy, with a 25 per cent overall increase in the 25 years between 1973 and 1998. The construction of new housing to high energy efficiency standards and using CHP (combined heat and power) fuelled by biomass will achieve, in the Commission's opinion, the best results in reducing household energy demands, both in terms of needing less energy and in the use of fuels that have negligible net [CO.sub.2] emissions. The Peabody Trust has begun construction on just such a housing scheme in Sutton, south London. The 80 town houses, maisonettes and apartments, plus offices in the Beddington Zero Energy Development, will require no more than 10 per cent of the heat used in a conventional home. The fuel for the CHP will come from the prunings and cuttings taken from the parks in nearby Croydon.

Between 1973 and 1998 the energy consumed in the transport sector in the UK rose by two-thirds, with its share of the total growing from 21 per cent to 34 per cent. The increases are largely because of the rising volume of traffic on the roads. Unless measures are taken, according to the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), energy used by transport will rise by 28 per cent between 1996 and 2010, with carbon dioxide emissions from road transport increasing by 18 per cent. The technical potential exists to reduce energy consumption by 28 per cent compared to 1996, in part through more fuel-efficient cars and in part through an improved public transport system.

REDUCING CONSUMPTION

When the Commission combines the potential for saving energy in the four sectors -- domestic, manufacturing, transport and services -- on the basis that such measures will save money without affecting output, it finds that UK final energy consumption in 2010 could be 2 to 15 per cent lower than the 207.4 GW (gigawatts) used in 1998.

Whatever we do to reduce our final energy consumption, we still need primary energy. The challenge is to obtain it from sources that have low or no greenhouse-gas emissions. ETSU, the Energy Technology Support Unit, has assessed the quantity of electricity from renewable sources that could be made available by 2025 at a cost of less than 7 p/kwh, assuming a discount rate of 8 per cent. The total would include contributions from windpower, both on- and off-shore, photovoltaic and mini-hydro; from energy crops, agricultural and forestry waste, municipal solid waste and landfill gas; and finally from technologies under development such as wave and tidal power. At best, such renewable energies could give an annual average rate of electricity of 30 GW, which comes close to the average amount currently used. But peak demands, in winter for example, can practically double the total generating capacity required.

We should certainly be concerned at the Commission's call for farmers to turn to energy crops, which, in its opinion, 'should be regarded as a primary use for agricultural land'. It suggests that as much as 5.5 million hectares, representing 30 per cent of the present total of agricultural land in the UK, could be devoted to energy crops, yielding a 21.5 GW average output, equivalent to about two-thirds of UK electricity consumption. According to the Commission, 'the managed use of energy crops provides a more effective and reliable way of countering climate change than planting trees to offset continuing use of fossil fuels. A sustained programme of afforestation of 30,000 hectares per year (combined with planting of harvested areas) would sequester less than 2 per cent of UK fossil fuel emissions'.

The government target is for electricity from renewable sources to expand from its current 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent by 2003 and to 10 per cent by 2010. At that rate of deployment, the renewable electricity will fail to keep pace even with the decommissioning of nuclear power, which currently provides the UK with 28 per cent of its electricity. By 2020 the nuclear capacity will have shrunk to 2.5 GW, one-fifth its current generating capacity. Never one to give up, the nuclear industry is putting pressure on the government to build another PWR (pressurised water reactor) at Sizewell in Suffolk and, the claim is, the cost of electricity generated will be cheaper than from renewables such as windpower.

On the basis of an impending shortfall in electricity generated from sources that emit little to no carbon, the Commission recommends that the government should set longer-term targets 'for expanding the contribution from renewable sources well beyond 10 per cent of electricity supplies to cover a much larger share of primary energy demand'.

The Commission concludes its report with four scenarios for meeting energy demand in 2050 while reducing [CO.sub.2] levels by about 60 per cent from their level in 1997. In scenario 1 final energy demand is stabilised at 1998 levels. The other three scenarios all entail reductions in final energy demand. In scenarios 1 and 3 nuclear power or fossil-fuel-fired stations provide base-load electricity, but with the proviso that any [CO.sub.2] emitted from such electricity generation is recovered and injected into porous bedrock. Norway currently carries out such a process of [CO.sub.2] recovery at its Sleipner natural gas field.

All scenarios entail an aggressive programme for expanding renewable energy sources as well as CHP plants, but scenario 1 is by far the most ambitious, with 53 GW derived from such sources. And all four scenarios assume that fossil fuels will continue to be used in transportation, albeit considerably more efficiently compared with today.

But it's only scenario 4 which would come near to satisfying the demands of environmentalists. Final energy demand is down by 47 per cent compared with 1998, nor does it require any nuclear power or fossil-fuel-generated electricity, except for some 2 GW used as back-up in case of emergency demands. The total energy supplied from renewable sources is 19.5 GW which is two and a half times less than that required in scenario 1. And for those concerned at agricultural land being used for energy crops rather than for food, the area dedicated to energy crops is less than one-fifth compared with the first two scenarios. Windpower is half that required in scenario 1.

The conclusion is glaringly obvious. If we in the UK are serious about climate change and our responsibilities in reducing our impact to acceptable levels, we will have to reduce substantially our energy demands. Perhaps, we should think twice before jumping into our cars for that journey around the corner? Maybe that walk or cycle ride will do the world good as well as us.

Peter Bunyard is the co-founder and science editor of The Ecologist.

COPYRIGHT 2000 MIT Press Journals
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group