The Conservatives are inviting views on their Energy Review Interim Findings. This speaks of the need to fulfil a target of 60% CO2 cuts by 2050 on 1990 levels (pp 3,7 of PDF document). This however does not factor in: - (I) The need to keep average global warming below 2°C, and the need for developed nations to adopt an emissions pathway which sees their share of world emissions progressively falling. This is recognized in the Contraction and Convergence model. The EU endorses all these principles. C&C is said to determine that, in order to keep warming below 2°C, developed nations need to make cuts of 80-90% by 2030. (Even the Climate Change Bill (The Big Ask) co-authored by John Gummer required emissions cuts of 75% by 2050.) - (II) That emissions cuts need to be relatively deeper in the electricity supply sector, where they are easier to make, than in most other sectors. p3 states: "The energy [electricity] supply sector currently accounts for around 35% of carbon emissions; transport for 24%; industry 22%; services 4% and the residential sector 15%." - (III) In the transport sector, a key way of reducing emissions is for electric-powering of more trains, trams, buses and cars, provided that the additional electricity needed is mostly from low emission sources. All things considered, you should devise policies to ensure MORE low emission electricity is produced than the retail market demands. UK has after all some of the best wind and wave resources in Europe. For CHP to be low emission, it should have high heat utilisation and be powered by gas, biomass and/or hazard-free waste. Although it is often said that 20-25% of our electricity could come from wind/wave, such analysis is unimaginative and doesn't take into account (i) the scope to use surplus wind/wave energy (esp. in summer) to power more trains, trams and electric or fuel cell vehicles; (ii) the scope for electricity suppliers to price higher during winter peak load hours, thereby reducing the peak; (iii) the scope to use back-up power e.g. from biomass firing in existing solid fuel plant, for occasional annual shortfalls including winter anticyclones. Such back-up plant would gain a subsidy under the Conservatives (p8). The challenge is to devise a system of fiscal instruments that (a) has consequences along the above lines, yet (b) ensures that industries that compete internationally are not disadvantaged by electricity being more expensive than in continental Europe, and (c) conforms to any requirements of the European emissions trading system. |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
Corroboration from Realclimate and DEFRA
The need for the UK to make much steeper cuts than 60% by 2050 is amply demonstrated by the world emissions pathways illustrated by Realclimate and DEFRA - n.b. the DEFRA report itself is 16.3 MB.
The Realclimate graph for example shows that the whole world needs to make cuts in the region of 60% by 2050. Do the Conservatives suppose that if we aim for this, the rest of the world will miraculously follow instantaneously in all sectors, including developing nations?
Alternatively we can show leadership by phasing out emissive coal-fired electricity as a matter of urgency. Up the new flying pickets!
Monbiot: UK needs 87% cut by 2030
In George Monbiot's latest offering he clarifies:
"Some groups, such as Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation and the Sustainable Development Commission, have produced reports showing that we can meet the government’s target – of a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 – without recourse to atomic power. They are right, but the target is now irrelevant. In the book I am publishing in September, I will show that when you take into account both human population growth and the anticipated reduction in the biosphere’s ability to absorb carbon, we require a worldwide cut of roughly 60% per capita by 2030. If emissions are to be distributed evenly, this means that the UK’s need to be cut by 87% in 24 years."
Monbiot salutes Conservative candour
From Giving Up On Two Degrees, George Monbiot, The Guardian 1/5/07:
"Embarrassingly for the government and for left-wingers like me, the only large political entity which seems able to confront this [more recent science over keeping within 2°C warming] is the British Conservative Party. In a paper published a fortnight ago, it called for an atmospheric stabilisation target of 400-450ppm carbon dioxide equivalent(14). Will this become policy? Does Cameron have the guts to do what his advisers say he should?"