Challenges in tackling climate change
In order to limit global warming
by reducing carbon emissions,
Lord Browne argues that
the biggest barriers to a
low-carbon economy in the UK
are not scientific or technological
but political
When it comes to climate change, the gap
between the vision of both scientists and
engineers and the will of politicians is sometimes very stark. The problems caused by the
changing climate are now better understood
than ever, yet there is a frustrating sense of
inertia when it comes to taking action.
The Fourth Assessment Report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) suggests that we must halve global
greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 in order
to stand a good chance of limiting global
warming from pre-industrial times to 2 °C.
The UK’s independent Committee on Climate Change has recommended an 80% domestic reduction in the same period – a target
now enshrined in the pioneering Climate
Change Act passed in 2008.
Meeting these challenging targets will
require nothing less than a revolution in the
three areas of the UK’s energy mix: electricity, transport and heating. There are no
silver bullets when it comes to low-carbon
energy and governments should refrain from
picking winners at this stage.
Tony McConnell/Science Photo Library
The heat is on Politicians in Westminster may be hampering the UK’s battle against climate change.
Energy barriers
So what might the future energy mix look
like? In power generation, the UK could
deploy a whole suite of renewable technologies currently at different stages of development: from mature technologies such as
onshore wind plants and biomass energy
plants to emerging technologies such as offshore wind facilities and photovoltaic solar
cells to experimental technologies in wave
and tidal power.
Integrating large amounts of renewable
energy while also keeping costs down will
require the development of a more flexible,
“smarter” grid network that is able to intelligently manage consumer demand by communicating with meters installed in our
homes. Energy from nuclear plants and fossil-fuel plants fitted with carbon capture and
storage facilities could then provide clean,
low-cost base-load generation from secure
sources of nuclear fuel and indigenous coal.
In transport – which is currently 95% reliant on oil – first-generation biofuels from
food crops are already in use, while second-generation “ligno-cellulosic” biofuels from
energy crops are nearing the commercial
development stage. Even in aviation, a sector that attracts its fair share of criticism,
tests have shown that biofuels can be blended with kerosene in jet-engine fuel. There is
also growing momentum behind electric
cars, run on either renewable electricity or
hydrogen fuel cells.
In heating, which is often forgotten in
debates on energy policy, the UK could
learn from other countries’ experiments
with combined heat and power co-genera-tion plants and district heating networks –
using waste heat from small- and mid-scale
power plants productively, close to where it
is generated. Ground-source heat pumps
that make use of natural geothermal energy
might also prove to be a viable alternative to
natural-gas boilers.
With so many technologies to choose
from, it is clear that the greatest barriers to
the low-carbon revolution are not scientific
or technological. Nor, indeed, are they related to macroeconomic cost – various independent analyses put the figure at just a few
percentage points of gross domestic product
lost over the coming decades. The biggest
barriers are in fact political.
Politicians must
demonstrate that
environmental
integrity is a tangible
part of other
social priorities
Combating climate change
I would suggest four imperatives for politicians constructing energy policy in response
to climate change. The first is not to compartmentalize climate change as an issue. Its
effects will be extensive – affecting everything from weather patterns to defence policy – and our response to it must be equally
broad. Politicians must lead from the front,
demonstrating to their citizens that environmental integrity is a tangible part of other
social priorities such as economic prosperity
and national security.
Of course, there will be trade-offs between
climate change and other social priorities.
A potent example is the question of whether
to build new coal-fired power plants, which
would enhance energy security but at the
expense of “locking in” harmful emissions
for decades to come. We should not be uncharitable – decisions such as these repre-
