A Global Energy Revolution is both Necessary and Inevitable

Print

Over 60 members of the BCCD-BIU attended the lunch event on 25^th September to hear Katherine Richardson speak on the topic of climate change. She explained why a global energy revolution is both necessary and inevitable – backing up her argument with a host of scientific data neatly packaged into what she called ‘a pixie guide’ to Climate Change. This guide, otherwise known as the Synthesis Report (which can be viewed in pdf form) was produced as a summary of the conclusions from the recent conference "Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions". Her talk reflected the purpose of the conference – although on a smaller scale – to inform politicians, businesses and ordinary people about what the scientific community knows now, so that they can respond appropriately. The conference drew on 5-6years of new research and data from 10 key universities and provided an update on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.  It largely confirms the risks we face, and shows that we are in a worse position than expected. The conference was deliberately timed to pre-empt COP15, and give politicians the best chance of making informed decisions.

So, why is a global energy revolution necessary?

For two key reasons:

• The amount of CO₂ currently in the atmosphere is far outside the range seen in the previous 400 000 years, and is causing the climate to change at an unprecedented rate with severe associated risks to the planet
• Fossil fuels are running out and we need an alternative supply

The historic atmospheric levels of CO₂ are known, based on measurements taken from gas bubbles trapped in very old ice, and show variation through time. However, the graph below shows we are now far outside that range. We are in a position that we have not been in before and therefore no-one can know for certain what the effects will be. The graph also shows that the rate of change is very fast, which means that nature (including people) has far less time to adapt than is usually available. It is possible to show that the excessive CO₂ is the result of human activity by looking at its isotopic composition – i.e. the type of carbon atoms in the atmospheric CO₂ are the same type that is found in the fossil fuels we burn.

The ‘burning embers’ diagram gives an illustration of the risks we face as a result. It shows the expected consequences based on average global temperature rise. If we stopped emitting CO₂ today, then the expected temperature rise would be 1.4^oC

It has been suggested that a potential solution to global warming would be to scatter particles in the stratosphere to reflect more of the sun’s light, and that this may be substantially cheaper than the technology changes needed to reduce CO₂ emissions. However Katherine argued that this ignores the fact that the earth is made up of very complex systems that interact with each other, similar to our bodies. You wouldn’t treat someone with Anaemia by giving them extra caffeine to overcome their tiredness; instead you’d treat the cause by giving them iron supplements. In this case, if you only treat the symptom (rising temperature) and ignore the excessive CO₂ that is causing it, then you are left with an increasingly acidic ocean that would contain no living coral reefs by 2065! Similar ‘peripheral’ impacts are likely to more than justify the cost of taking action.

Hearing such a definite case led a couple of members to question why politicians still remain unprepared to stand as individuals and commit to tackling climate change, and why, when an initial prediction had been made as early as 1897 about the effects of CO₂, had it taken so long to sway public opinion?

Katherine explained that it is in the nature of science to question everything and to challenge assumptions, and that without debate there would not be a healthy scientific community. Therefore you can always find a scientist who thinks that smoking won’t harm your health, or climate change isn’t due to excessive human production of CO₂. In fact, a recent survey of scientists in climate related fields (i.e. the ones who should know what they’re talking about) shows that 97% were convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. However, journalists strive to present a balanced' story, which generally translates to including both sides of the argument and allowing the public to choose which side to believe. Also something must be 'news' to receive substantial coverage. Both of these factors lead to the opposing voice being disproportionately represented, and tend to give the impression that the issue is much less clear cut than is actually the case. This is not so surprising when you remember that the purpose of news related media is not to change public opinion, but rather to provide unbiased information. Typically, public opinion generally takes a generation or so to change, while the schoolchildren who have been taught the new view grow up. Unfortunately in this case we don’t have time to wait for that to happen, because by then it will be too late to arrest the changes to our planet. So perhaps we need to find another way to reach people, and perhaps events like this, and publications like the synopsis report will be enough?

So why is a global energy revolution inevitable?

Again, Katherine laid out several reasons to support her claim:

• Companies have realised the potential new markets for green solutions and are working far ahead of legislation
• Fossil fuels will eventually run out – we are currently borrowing at a subprime rate!
• Energy security concerns will also drive the development of alternative energy sources

Denmark has already set a target to become fully independent of fossil fuels, and has set up a ‘Commission on Climate Change’ to assess how soon this can be achieved and set a target date. Katherine is Chairman of this Commission. She is encouraging a mindset change from “reduce, reduce, reduce!” which even those with best intentions struggle to stick to, to “these changes are a prerequisite for future growth”. She believes that the combination of climate and ecological issues, with concerns over energy security and its potential impact on society mean that this revolution truly is inevitable.