photo: Creative Commons / Genghiskhanviet

Given the UK’s commitment to carbon dioxide emission reductions and the global agreement to limit warming to 2°C, do we need to spend time, money and energy exploring for more oil and gas to extract from the North Sea? If the limits imposed by the Earth system and our political system’s response establish a total amount of future emissions, isn’t it quite likely that existing, already discovered reserves of fossil fuels are more than sufficient? If in fact it would be very unwise to burn all the current reserves, why bother looking for more? George Monbiot made a similar point as the Government were approving new coal mines: Leave It In The Ground

It strikes me as odd, that neither the press release nor any of the other documentation associated with this new licensing phase even mentions the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production and inevitable combustion of the newly discovered oil and gas they are hoping for. This omission leaves DECC looking schizophrenic, with one hand attempting to meet onerous emission reductions whilst the other simultaneously desperately scratches out the last remaining fossil fuels available.

Today I’ve come across Coalition of the Willing, a fantastic little film about addressing climate change without the illusive unanimous agreement between governments.

Coalition Of The Willing from coalitionfilm on Vimeo.

‘Coalition of the Willing’ is a collaborative animated film and web-based event about an online war against global warming in a ‘post Copenhagen’ world.

‘Coalition of the Willing’ has been Directed and produced by Knife Party, written by Tim Rayner and crafted by a network of 24 artists from around the world using varied and eclectic film making techniques. Collaborators include some of the world’s top moving image talent, such as Decoy, World Leaders and Parasol Island.

The film offers a response to the major problem of our time: how to galvanize and enlist the global publics in the fight against global warming. This optimistic and principled film explores how we could use new Internet technologies to leverage the powers of activists, experts, and ordinary citizens in collaborative ventures to combat climate change. Through analyses of swarm activity and social revolution, ‘Coalition of the Willing’ makes a compelling case for the new online activism and explains how to hand the fight against global warming to the people.

To find out all about the project and to join our Facebook page, follow us on Twitter, or get the iPhone App visit:
http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/

The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published their quarterly Energy Trends document last week. It covers up to the first quarter 2010. The key points:

• Total energy production in Q1 2010 was 6.5% lower than in the first quarter of 2009.
• Oil production fell by 6% compared to the first quarter of 2009.
• Natural gas production was 9% lower compared with the first quarter of 2009. The UK was a net importer of gas in the first quarter of 2010 by 155 TWh compared with 106 TWh in the first quarter of 2009.
• Coal production was 12.5% lower than a year earlier.
• Nuclear’s supply increased by 1% on the first quarter of 2009.
• Wind, hydro and other renewables supplied 6.5% less electricity than in the same period last year, with hydro down 44% as a result of less rainfall.
• Final energy consumption rose by 4% between the first quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, with rises in all sectors except transport which fell mainly due to the adverse weather conditions.
• Gas demand was 13% higher than a year earlier.
• Electricity consumption was 2.5% higher in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the same period last year.

It’s a familiar story: every year the UK’s primary energy production declines significantly. Today, primary energy production is almost half what it was at the peak just a decade ago. Has any other country, let alone major economy experienced such a speed and magnitude shift in its energy system outside wartime?

The rises in the demand data above are largely due to the colder winter and a degree of recovery from the recession. One could argue the decline in indigenous production played a role in the recession. If it did, I suggest it was a small role.

Data from DUKES 1.1-1.3.

The annual energy deficit in 2008 was 57.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). That’s a lot of energy to import. The breakdown of this deficit in 2008 was 42% coal, 36% gas and 19% oil. Let’s just make a quick estimation on how much this is costing:

In 2008 the gap cost the UK approximately £10 bn. Fuel prices were a little lower in 2009 (especially coal and gas at -17% and -15% respectively) and the recession closed the gap from 57.5 to 53 mtoe. A few years ago the energy sector was a net source of income for the UK. No longer. The government deficit and the growing debt is receiving the media attention, this energy deficit, now it its fifth year remains largely ignored.

Following the May election, the UK now has a new Energy Minister:

Chris Huhne MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

On the 24 June 2010, Huhne gave a speech to the Economist UK Energy Summit, it can be watched here: VIDEO

Did he address the chart above, our energy deficit in the same way chancellor George Osborne had addressed the fiscal deficit in his emergency budget earlier in the week? Well no, not directly. Economic recovery, energy security and climate stabilisation were identified as the key challenges. He isn’t a politician to question growth but did address the type of growth. “…dependence on fossil fuel would be folly. It would make us vulnerable to oil price spikes and volatility.” He called for a decarbonised economy stimulating growth and delivering on climate change and energy security. Sounds good but surely it is having one’s cake and eating it?

After stressing the urgency and seriousness of climate change Huhne addressed energy security. “It is vital we make the most of our domestic oil and gas assets…” indicating at least 20 billion barrels oil equivalent remain in UK waters and that we must continue to invest in exploration. His first mutually exclusive objective of delivering growth through decarbonising is now joined by his second of addressing climate change whist continuing to explore for new fossil fuel resources.

£200 bn of energy investment was said to be needed over the next decade, largely to replace existing assets. On new nuclear, Huhne stressed it will go ahead, but only if it can do so with no public subsidy. In my opinion this all but rules out nuclear as there is little precedent for wholly privately funded nuclear, but we shall have to wait and see. Whatever happens, it will be late with respect to the decommissioning schedule of the existing fleet of nuclear power stations.

Efficiency was described as the fourth energy resource (relegating nuclear and renewables to 5th and 6th?)–the cheapest way of closing the energy gap between demand and supply – “the Cinderella of the energy ball”. Smart meters and grids received a nod but he focused mainly on the existing aged housing stock. “Most of the homes in use in 2050 have already been built … we used more energy heating our homes than Sweden, where average January temperatures are 7 degrees Celsius lower than ours.” Addressing existing homes will be Huhne’s flagship programme. He’s talking about insulating millions of homes. It seems the improvements will be funded at least in part through the energy savings and recovered directly from household utility bills.

“The era of cheap energy is over. …tomorrow’s energy bills will undoubtedly be higher”

When asked about the lights going out, he ruled out wind and nuclear coming to the rescue due to the timeframe, but he stated gas fired power stations can be built in 18 months and assured us the lights wouldn’t go out on his watch. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) was described as vital to meeting climate objectives whilst keeping the lights on.

So in summary, Huhne didn’t address the fundamental peaking of energy supplies which surely should be the key driver for national energy policy today. The inconsistencies of shooting for growth whilst reducing energy use along with addressing climate change (by which I can only assume he means reducing carbon emissions) while encouraging future exploration for oil and gas are glaring. Meinshausen et. al. showed in their Nature paper last year the world has more than enough proved fossil fuel reserves already from a climate change point of view without having to discover more. His enthusiasm for CCS is also worrisome and I would see as largely incompatible with energy peaking scenarios. His focus on energy efficiency and especially domestic energy use is positive though. However there was no mention of transport at all.

New government, new minister but we still seem little closer to recognising the challenges ahead.

This is a good news story. Climate Change Minister Joan Ruddock is quoted in the press release:

Today’s emissions score card shows that the UK’s climate change policies are working and that we’re on track to meet our carbon targets.

We’re putting in place policies to make the low carbon transition by supporting investment in clean energy, in insulating homes and creating green jobs.

Call me a spoil sport, but I don’t buy it. One has to be careful when thinking about correlation and causation. I put it to you that the 1.9% decline in UK CO2e emissions from 2007 to 2008 was not in fact due to the “UK’s climate change policies” as Ruddock would have us believe but an inevitable result of the recession the country entered that year.

The Quarterly national accounts for 4th quarter 2008 (published 27th March 2009) can shed some light on the matter. The following charts show UK GDP growth, then the separate performance of the manufacturing and service sectors as we entered recession in 2008. Note the vertical scales are different.

Whilst total GDP growth for 2008 was still just positive for 2008 at 0.5% (the declines didn’t really manifest until the 2nd half of the year) this hides the fact that the relatively energy and carbon intense manufacturing sector was disproportionately hit by the recession.

I’m disappointed by the disingenuous (at best) way the Government is presenting the emission data. Claiming responsibility and credit whilst not recognising the surely highly significant role the recession has played in reducing UK emissions.

Looking forward, what can we expect? 2009 is very likely to show a further decline, strongly influenced by the continued decline in the economy. It is as I highlighted in a post a few months ago, economic collapse (as seen by the Soviet Union) is a tremendous way of cutting CO2 emissions.

I don’t think that is the climate change policy Joan Ruddock has in mind!

Further information on HMS Queen Elizabeth is available here: Wikipedia

It’s an interesting coincidence that just as coal was being discussed as a future source of liquid fuel UK production was peaking. The all time peak production rate of UK coal was 1913:

UK Coal Production

UK Coal Production (D. Rutledge)

Just to illustrate how significant the economy is for CO2 emissions consider the collapse of the Soviet Union. This can be thought of as a wholesale economic collapse, not war, famine, plague, natural disaster – economic collapse.

I generated the following chart from here, a rather neat little Google app that compares CO2 emission rates per capita from all the world’s countries. Have a play.

Over the space of around five years, the emission rates fell by at least a third and in many cases a half. In no case has recovery from the minima reached the 1990, pre-collapse peak.

If today’s global economy was to undergo a similar wholesale economic collapse, we could expect similar declines in global greenhouse gas emissions. Without doubt, such an economic collapse would be associated with enormous hardship, but it might just be able to deliver a relatively stable climate for coming generations.

Climate change is a long term problem, the ramifications of dangerous climate change are likely to persist for millennia (impacts won’t stop at 2100 like many of the charts do!). Is the catastrophic collapse of today’s civilisation worth the long term protection of the climate?

It’s easy to answer no to that question, catastrophic collapse would be a catastrophe. However consider what has happened in the past. The loss of Egyptian civilisation, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the Mayan collapse in 900 AD. All reached great heights but collapsed. Looking back now, we don’t even consider these collapses to be tragedies, we don’t remember the deaths, the human suffering, the loss etc. It’s ‘just history’.

If our current civilisation were to undergo complete economic collapse with all the tragedy, suffering and lost that would entail, what would our distant ancestors 2000 years from now remember? Would it just be another chapter in the history text? If the alternative is a climate change triggered sixth mass extinction event, maybe just making sure there is a history text 2000 years from now is worth the loss of today’s civilisation?