E3G

Is Nuclear Inevitable? Policy and Politics in a Carbon Constrained World

By Tom Burke

Where there should be a pulling together in the face of a common threat, there has been a pulling apart. Blame, denial and finger pointing have occupied the space that should be filled by concern, collaboration and imagination.

We will not get far in meeting this challenge successfully for ourselves and our children until we recognise that what we face is a shared dilemma. All of us need to secure reliable access to energy for our economies in order to maintain the growth necessary for social cohesion and, ultimately, political stability. For China, India, Europe and the United States, as well as the rest of the world, that is going to mean the continued use of fossil fuels.

Energy security considerations mean that this will include continuing to expand the use of coal in our economies for the foreseeable future. If we continue to use fossil fuels, including coal, with present technologies, there is now no doubt that the climate will change rapidly and soon. If that happens, then the very social cohesion and political stability we are burning the fossil fuels to maintain will be put at risk.

The point of a dilemma is that neither of the choices is acceptable. We do not want to give up either the use of fossil fuels or a stable climate. The problem with a dilemma is that you risk being gored by both of its horns if you take too long to decide what to do. Then you have the worst of both worlds.

The trick is to resolve the dilemma not to make false choices. We now urgently need to become much better at sharing the effort, both between and within nations, that will be needed to resolve our shared climate dilemma.

The shape of the climate horn of this dilemma is now clear. Let me illustrate this with some key numbers.

There is a growing body of both political and scientific opinion that recognises a 2°C rise in global average temperature as the threshold of the dangerous climate change. The EU leaders reaffirmed their desire to stay below this threshold at the spring council earlier this month.

However we have already observed a 0.7°C rise since the beginning of the 20th Century. Such is the nature of the climate system that even if we were to halt all further emissions of greenhouse gases today, there would still be another 0.7°C before temperatures stabilised. You do not need to be a better mathematician than I am to agree that 1.4°C is awfully close to 2°C.

The best estimates we currently have suggest that to be confident of staying below this threshold we need to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases below 400 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent. That is the measured carbon dioxide plus the effect of all the other gases we are adding to the atmosphere expressed as their carbon dioxide equivalent.

The hard carbon dioxide concentration is today 380 ppm, up from the pre-industrial 280ppm. But the carbon dioxide equivalent number is already 425ppm. Each year adds another 2ppm carbon dioxide and about 3ppm overall. And that rate is increasing. The odds of being able to stay below the 2°C threshold may now be worse than 3 to 1 against.

My intention in reiterating these, by now well known numbers, has been simply to underscore how little time there is before we are impaled on climate horn of the dilemma.

The other horn of the dilemma is the world’s growing demand for energy. The most recent projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) envisage world primary energy demand growing by more than 50% between now and 2030. Fossil fuels will account for more than 80% of that increase and, as a result, carbon dioxide emissions from energy use alone will be more than 50% greater than they are today.

Last year, Nick Stern produced a groundbreaking report on the economics of climate change. He set out very clearly where we must get to if we are to resolve our shared dilemma. And just how big the risks of failure might be. His report has been vigorously criticised by some of his fellow economists.

I have not been impressed by the contribution the economics profession has so far made to the debate on climate change. I am not just being rude. Let me give you just one example. A major focus of the professional criticism of Stern was that he had chosen the wrong discount rate. By setting it too low, they argued, he had artificially, and some said, deliberately, understated the real costs of dealing with climate change.

Imagine what might have happened had the same economists been arguing with Churchill in 1938 about the right discount rate to apply to the cost of building Spitfires. This would have been a part, of course, of arguing about the costs-benefit analysis of appeasing Hitler. Had those economists had their way I might now be speaking to you in German.