It is more likely than not, as the lawyers would say, that climate change is approaching a crisis point. In spite of the evidence confronting governments worldwide, combustion of fossil fuels continues to increase. Even the environmentally friendly Scottish Government stakes part of our economic future on our reserves of North Sea oil.
Smoke billows out of thousands of factory chimneys in China, the Americas, and India and vehicle usage increases exponentially in those countries. The world’s population increases, as does its need for energy. Last year saw the greatest annual rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide ever recorded. It may be comforting to be ignorant of the scientific facts, but I’m afraid those who know them are increasingly anxious for our future. We cannot afford to delay any longer in making drastic reductions world-wide in our use of fossil fuel. To do so we must accept that the alternatives are not necessarily as comfortable as we should wish.
I have argued before that we can all do our bit, as individuals and collectively as citizens, but here I argue what governments can do. To start from basics, they need to acknowledge the problem and tell citizens of the likely economic and health consequences. Dampen down fanciful dreams of ever-continuing economic growth. Do we need more or would we rather opt for more equity and a better balanced life?
Authoritative information, backed by the best science, is the way to motivate us to do our little bit. People can accept this, as we have in the past when faced with overwhelming hazard from Nazi Germany and U-boat blockade. Next, produce an energy strategy that aims to eliminate use of oil and coal, the two worst polluters, and reduce use of natural gas. Turn a deaf ear to protest groups, be they oil barons, nimbies or greens. We are talking about major ecological change that will involve mass migration, economic collapse and warfare. Frankly, no special interest group should stand in the way of decarbonisation of our energy supply.
The only way to do this is through using all possible alternative sources; nuclear, wind, tidal, wave, solar, as best can be provided in the individual circumstances of each nation. And, since none of these is likely to provide sufficient energy for our needs in the short term, we need a strategy to get there using the lowest carbon sources available while urging us, the consumers, to cut our own requirements as much and as quickly as possible.
Most people thinking of the effects of climate change think of flooding, drought and chaotic weather. However, it is more likely that the crisis for us will come from a less well appreciated quarter, and this is of particular relevance to Scotland in the light of the ambition of our government to achieve independence. Lord Stern has recently pointed out that there is a classical bubble in oil and coal prices, with the major producers rushing to realise more and more fossil fuels at a time when our actual reserves are already much greater than required. The agreed aim necessary to have a good chance of limiting further global temperature rise to below a critical 3ºC is to restrict future emissions of CO2 to less than 225 gigatonnes (Gt). International agreements already in place limit future use of fossil fuel to this level.
The actual coal, oil and gas reserves of the energy companies listed on the world’s stock exchanges are estimated (if burned) to be equivalent to release of 762 Gt. Thus the companies concerned already have on their books over 500Gt more potential CO2 than they can release if agreements are upheld. Not only can we no longer afford to burn the stuff because of the consequent continuing increase in CO2 levels and global climate disruption, but also there will sooner or later be a crash in coal and oil prices as speculators revalue these assets and as countries decarbonise their economies. Huge amounts of pension money, for example, are invested in oil and coal.
This apparently irrational drive for more is suicidal but, like the recent near collapse of the banking system, is part and parcel of our current pattern of capitalism; it cannot go on. A major part of the reason is competition between companies and countries. The nations with most fossil fuel reserves are those which are most reluctant to agree to limits on exploitation; the companies with the biggest investment in utilisation of fossil fuels are most energetic in finding more.
It is a reasonable bet that over the next 20 years there will be very serious international consequences if we continue on our present path. To a country like Scotland, with an important economic dependence on fossil fuel and a stated intention to avoid nuclear, the first major problem may be economic rather than climatic.
One final point: I know that 3ºC doesn’t sound much. After all, on my recent holiday I was lucky enough to be able to leave Scotland at 3ºC and survive very comfortably at 22ºC. The trouble is that the world’s temperature and associated climate do fluctuate but CO2 has not been as high as it is now for over 500,000 years and global temperature (as it must from physical laws) continues to rise. It is at a point at which feedback from melting ice, death of forests, death of algae in the oceans, and release of methane from permafrost, to name a few, means that further rises accelerate the process and the planet goes into a vicious spiral of increasing temperature until industry ceases and CO2 levels start to fall.
Nobody knows at what level of CO2 this so-called tipping point will occur, but optimistic scientists think it can be avoided by limiting the temperature rise to less than 3ºC. The pessimists know that CO2, temperature and climate have changed on the planet in cyclical manner over roughly 50,000-year periods as part of a natural cycle, but this time we are doing it and can foresee the consequences. If our efforts allow this to continue, the planet will of course survive but its population of animals and plants will be very different and Homo sapiens industrialis will have disappeared to be replaced perhaps by pockets of Homo sapiens ecologicus. I think by then anthropologists will suggest dropping the sapiens.
Professor Anthony Seaton is an emeritus professor in the school
of medicine and dentistry at the University of Aberdeen
