Green and pleasant UK - setting a target

Kyoto was inevitably a triumph for the agility of politicians and the power of commerce over the uncertainty of scientists. So here we are, in the next millennium, gambling on the chance that global warming is a false prophesy, continuing with our current patterns of energy consumption and, as they manifest themselves, living with the consequences of sea level rise, extreme weather and climate change, mitigating them as best we can. We place ourselves at hostage to drought, flood, famine, mass migrations and all the social instabilities that these bring.

But I wonder what would be the consequences of taking deliberate steps towards stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at its present level, i.e. aiming for a reduction of about 60% in current global emissions? Is such a reduction technically and economically feasible? How long would it take? And what would our world look like?

Consider firstly the UK since, although it makes only a small contribution to global emissions, it epitomizes the challenge to nations with high per capita energy consumption. What if we were to reduce our annual per capita energy consumption from 3.7 tons of oil equivalent (toe) to 1.5 toe, comparable to that in Argentina and Iran? This would still be 50% more than China and nearly five times greater than India but such a reduction would most likely be associated with a significant drop in the material quality of our lives. Such a move would be unlikely to be popular and would almost certainly be politically unacceptable to most Governments.

So is it possible for the UK to maintain its current per capita energy consumption whilst reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60%? Annual emissions (NETCEN; expressed as million tons of carbon - MtC) by sector in the UK for 1990 and 2000 are shown in the following figure, along with an indicative target total for 60% reduction from 1990 values:



How might we achieve this target?

Standard of living

The 1989 study considered countries of the North ('haves') and South ('have-nots'), corresponding closely to the 'more developed' and 'less developed' regions defined by UN Population Division. The latter terminology will be used in the current study.

There continues to be a great discrepancy in wealth between more developed and less developed countries. In 2004 the world average per capita GDP (based on purchasing power parity) is US$8,200. At the top of the table is Luxembourg with US$55,000; at the bottom East Timor with US$500. The USA weighs in at US$37,800, Japan US$28,200, EU countries US$20,000 to 30,000, China US$5,000 and India US$2,900.

World population

The principal driver for world energy consumption, as for all scarce resources, is the world population.



World population reached 6 billion in 1999. The UN predicts 9 ± 1.5 billion by 2050, with the majority of the growth occurring in the less-developed countries.

Atmospheric CO2

This is what all the fuss is about.



The facts are:

• The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen steadily since the Industrial Revolution at a rate related to the burning of fossil fuels.
• Carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas' that has an influence on the Earth's heat balance. All other things being equal, the higher its concentration becomes, the higher will be the Earth's temperature.

The big debate is about whether this simple relationship holds or is counter-balanced by other factors influencing the heat balance. And, if it does hold, what will be the impact of future CO2 emissions on global climate?

Setting the scene

In 1989 I helped Dr J.K. Wright prepare a lecture on The Global Impact of Nuclear Power for the European postgraduate summer school at the University of Gent. The content was subsequently published in the December 1989 edition of Atom.

The analysis examined the socio-economic and technical factors that would influence energy supply and demand out to 2025 and specifically the contribution that nuclear power might make to the limitation of carbon dioxide emissions. The conclusions in 1989 were as follows:
"The world population is increasing more rapidly than ever before. Moreover we are more conscious of the need to help raise the standard of living of the developing world than ever before. This requires a massive effort from many quarters, but the provision of an adequate supply of energy is an essential ingredient. We have seen that, with plausible conservation measures, the world is likely to need over double the existing annual supply of energy by 2025 if the standard of living of the developing world is to continue to expand at even its present rate. If we were to burn fossil fuel at the present rate and ignore the greenhouse effect consequences and if we were to develop all the practicable hydro schemes in the world, we would still only meet half the energy needs. It will be difficult enough to supply adequate energy if nuclear power is able to make a significant contribution. To abandon the nuclear option now could make the task impossible."

Fifteen years have elapsed since those conclusions were drawn. In that time nuclear power has entered the doldrums, gas has been king and evidence has grown steadily for the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration on global warming and climate change.

The time has come to revisit the analysis to determine whether our original conclusions still hold good. The analysis is based on a very simple model in which likely future needs for energy are projected from three factors:
world energy demand=
world population x GDP/person x energy/GDP
Impacts on the environment follow directly from the sources that are used to satisfy the demand. The following authoritative sources have been used. Links to these sources vary from year to year; an up to date set may be found at Thornbury 2050 - Resources:

• The World Factbook - CIA overview
• BP Statistical Reviews - historical energy data
• UN Population Division - projections to 2050
• World Bank - background to GDP