The Need for Technology to Fill the Gap
Examining the population reduction issue is contentious and probably unrealistic. It is not even entirely clear whether or not it would be successful, since selecting the 'victims' would be a very difficult choice to make. As history has shown, wars, pandemics, and other social ills would not kill in sufficient numbers to 'solve' the climate crisis. A global war followed by a worldwide pandemic on a scale of the Black Death might approximate, but the randomness of those affected could severely disrupt the functioning of civilisation and might even propel us into a new Dark Age where technologies are abandoned. We cannot afford for this to happen.
A more humane approach to population numbers is to assume that the central UN projections of 0% p.a. for the West and 0.8% p.a. for the ROW remain unassailable, although by 2050 the total population figure could be 1bn less as a result of education and proper family planning measures. We must, therefore, revisit the annual decarbonization (including energy efficiency) needed, given a growing population and average economic real growth rates.
The United Kingdom
In the UK, with a population growth of 0.8% p.a, an annual full decarbonization rate (including energy efficiency) of 5.8% sustained over the period 2020-2050 is required (Table 7.1). There is some optimism here since the increased decommissioning of coal-fired power stations in 2015 partly facilitated this. A move to renewables and nuclear power would further accelerate this, and once solar power reaches parity with coal in terms of cost, decarbonization rates could soar.
Table 7.1 Technology-focused interventions, over the period 2020-2050, to achieve CO2 emission reductions to meet the 1.5 °C target, with a further 60% reduction by 2050 in the UK.
Variable CO2 Population GDP/Capita Energy/GDP CO2/Energy
UK -3% +0.8% +2% -2% -3.8%
The United States of America
In the USA, the decarbonization rates (including energy efficiency) needed are much higher and at 12% are more than double those of the UK. This is because the USA delayed decarbonizing its economy (compared to the 1990 base), and also, its population has grown in the meantime. Further population growth is projected if the Pew Centre's estimates for natural growth and immigration are considered, although Presidential intervention may change this, as we have seen with recent Decrees from President Trump. Population growth has therefore not been factored into Table 7.2, but any growth would increase the required decarbonization totals.
Table 7.2 Technology-focused interventions, over the period 2020-2050, to achieve CO2 emission reductions to meet the 1.5 °C target, with a further 95% reduction by 2050 in the USA.
Variable CO2 Population GDP/Capita Energy/GDP CO2/Energy
USA -10% +0% +2% -2% -10%
The Rest of The World
For the ROW (non-Western countries), decarbonization (including energy efficiency) rates would need to be realized at 7.3% from 2020 onwards, allowing for 0.8% population growth and 2.5% real economic growth (Table 7.3). This would allow living standards to approach those of the West.
Table 7.3 Technology-focused interventions, over the period 2020-2050, to achieve CO2 emission reductions to meet the 1.5 °C target, with a further 70% reduction by 2050 in the ROW.
Variable CO2 Population GDP/Capita Energy/GDP CO2/Energy
UK -4% +0.8% +2.5% -2.5% -4.8%
Can These High Rates Be Achieved?
All these rates are very high indeed and exceed both France's move to nuclear energy and the collapse of heavy industry in the former USSR. To realise them will require nothing less than a new Industrial Revolution over the next 25 years and a total commitment to economic decarbonization. Global co-operation is an imperative, together with technology transfer to obviate isolationism. And, coupled with new technology, we must effect behavioural change - not forgetting that we must also consume less and strive for economic growth of the right kind.
The 2018 IPCC report stated that it is 66% likely that the 1.5 °C target put forward in Paris in 2015 lies beyond our capabilities. However, this should not be interpreted as meaning we should not try! These targets will only get harder the longer we delay. Indeed, the above percentages are based on 2020 start dates and, now, in 2025, are no doubt higher. The time for action is NOW!
Comments
Post a Comment