Renewable Energy

Climate change: the elephant in the room?

There aren’t many people who deny the human race needs to cut its carbon footprint and do it fast. However, the proportion that thinks renewable energy is the answer - be it wind, solar, tidal or otherwise – is considerably lower. We are constantly reminded that the wind does not blow all the time, nor does the sun come out as often as we would like. Some say turbines make an awful noise, ruin the view and scare the sheep. Then there is the cost, of which the public is deeply sceptical. Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, has estimated the UK consumer subsidy for wind farms and other renewable energy sources will total at least £100bn by the time the Government meets its carbon reduction targets in 2030.

A recent report by engineering consultancy Arup added planning regulation, the availability of land, skilled labour and equipment, materials or fuel, and the costs of connection to the National Grid into this heady mix of disincentives. But there is little question whether climate change is set to have a big impact on our lives.
The opening line of the 2006 Stern Review into climate change – probably the leading report on what the climate threats we face are- was about as blunt as it could be.

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response,” it boomed ominously. With doom-laden certainty the Review continued to set out the disaster that awaits us, including a 75% chance of global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over the next 50 years if no action is taken on carbon emissions. Environmental nightmares that would ensue include melting glaciers increasing flood risks, declining crop yields, and rising sea levels that could leave 200 million people permanently displaced.

 Failure to act will mean economic consequences that are just as bleak, Stern said. If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10% of global output could be lost, with the poorest countries hit hardest. This would play havoc with worldfood prices, as shown in August 2010 when Russia’s wheat crop was decimated, leading to an export ban and a 40% jump in prices. Stories showing how climate change increasingly impinges on the lives of humans and other species appear with ever-greater frequency.

Indigenous people from the Torres Strait islands in northern Australia recently told their government they could become the world's first "climate change refugees” as sea levels rise around their islands. A report in journal Science, released around the same time, found animals and plants are moving from their traditional regions towards the cooler poles at three times the rate scientists previously thought. Yet despite these compelling arguments there is no great shift from fossil fuels to renewables. Indeed, green-house gas emissions increased by a record amount in 2010, largely driven by fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency. Lord Stern calculated this output would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4c by 2100.

"Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict,” he said.“That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."
And yet for all their efforts perhaps the timescales involved mean climate change just isn’t pressing enough for the world’s leaders, many of whom have an electorate to impress. This is the same electorate that often doesn’t want sheep-scaring turbines or to pay the subsidies for implementing renewable technology.

Climate change might be an all-encompassing global problem but it might be far more local concerns that drive the adoption of renewables, rather than futuristic climate scenarios people find so hard to reconcile with their daily lives.
Many predict we will see 'peak oil' around 2020 –if not sooner- when a plateau and then permanent decline in global oil production will begin. That will lead to sharp increases in the cost of travel, food, heating and retail goods if suitable alternatives are not employed.

This will see the race for energy security heat up dramatically as countries vie to ensure they have reliable supplies.
When Libya collapsed into civil war it resulted in 2% of the world’s oil supply being cut off. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans were left without gas when Russia turned off the taps in a dispute with Ukraine in 2009.
As the options to get round such problems shrink it will be natural for countries to limit their reliance on other nations’ resources as much as possible. The fear such scenarios breed are strong drivers for political action.
That will perhaps be when fuels that have no interest in national boundaries, such as solar and wind power, will come into their own, rather than a desire to save the planet.