Get on the escalator
15th January 2005
We are all, it seems, now converted to the idea that climate change is real, is taking place and represents a threat to our society which is, in the words of Sir David King 'greater than the threat of terrorism'. The question that is now beginning to occupy political parties is what should be done when, at what cost and with what result. Recent Conservative pronouncements, for example are long on rhetoric but shorter on proposed actions, and it is actions over the next few years that will make serious inroads into CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Mechanisms such as the Climate Change levy and the renewables obligation are in place and will begin to shift energy use, but the results will be slow and long term. Much of the change necessary will need long term and sustained application and recent energy white paper significantly committed the Government to pursue policies which will, by the year 2050 reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by 60% - the cut recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as the minimum necessary to stabilise the atmosphere over the long term.
But any close examination of the projections contained in the White Paper demonstrates just how enormous the task is - and the high probability that, unless further and reasonably early methods of producing a step change in emissions are adopted there will be a 'progress gap'. The most notable gap of course arises from the inevitable run down of nuclear generation over the next fifteen years, from its present 22% of electricity generation to about 1.5%. A 20% increase in renewable electricity generation would be needed just to plug the gap, before further progress on reducing emissions could be made, unless a new very expensive, inevitably publicly funded nuclear programme is embarked upon, with its attendant legacy of undisposable residues.
So we are going to need some early radical changes in the way we use our energy, over and above whatever is achieved by the advent of renewable power generation, and what gains we might make from more efficient vehicles or changing patterns of transport. Policy consideration seems to have shifted away from expecting the transport sector to produce substantial new contributions towards emission abatement, even though vehicles driving on the road contribute over 20% of all carbon emitted from energy use. The rather despairing conclusion currently seems to be that even if we continue to innovate in gaining more from less in the internal combustion engine, the sheer growth of vehicle use and ownership means that this figure is set to rise. Short of simply driving people out of their motor vehicles, the limit to the contribution vehicular traffic might make is stalled at the emission savings arising from the now abandoned fuel duty escalator, and the individually modest but collectively reasonably significant savings from the implementation of EU directives on car design and emission standards
So are we really stalled on transport? We will, of course need to use our cars more sparingly. We will need to invest in, and use public transport But we are overwhelmingly likely to remain attached to our cars, and eventually, if predictions are to be believed, will be driving around in hydrogen fuelled vehicles, emitting (depending on the way the hydrogen is produced) virtually no carbon. But how will we get there? Will we simply continue to burn fossil fuel in cars until then? The route towards hydrogen is in any event problematic, as the 'hydrogen highway' proposals in California illustrate. A complete infrastructure of fuel delivery and supply, in addition to the introduction of new and unconvertible cars is required, not to mention the need to get round the temptation simply to displace the CO2 emission cycle by sourcing hydrogen from the burning of mineral fuel.
A number of intermediate technologies have been suggested. Some, such as Liquefied Petroleum Gas, cleaner in pollutants generally but only marginally better on carbon emissions are already fairly widely available, but have not been taken up to a serious extent. Other proposed interim alternatives, it is suggested, would require new vehicles, and an attendant national infrastructure to supply them just as the hydrogen economy does. This is the main obstacle to the adoption of biofuels such as bioethanol, a petrol substitute that can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including, wheat, straw, forest trimmings and sugar beet. The advantages to the agricultural economy of growing energy crops are clear, and of course land presently laid up for 'set-aside' could easily be reused for such purposes. But it is objected, if we were seriously to move to biofuels, we would need to cover the countryside in oilseed rape to produce biodiesel, and use most of the wheat otherwise grown for human and animal consumption to make bioethanol. This won't happen of course, since the prospect of a new generation of ethanol engines and fuel pumps is a long way off. Because there is little or no market for biofuels farmers don't grow energy crops, and because there are not many energy crops around manufacturers do not invest in ethanol or biodiesel production. And because there isn't much of either produced, cars don't run on it. The Government will from January 2005 introduce a 20p tax reduction for biofuels, but without a market for them, it is unlikely to have a significant effect.
The solution is, in reality, ambitious but not very difficult. The Government could introduce a 'renewable fuel obligation' and require the providers of petrol and diesel to mix in a small amount of biofuel with the fuel they provide at the pumps. No need for new infrastructure, no need for new cars: we just start to make the savings on carbon emissions in vehicles as we drive away from the petrol station. All cars presently running can burn up to about 8% of biofuel in their regular fuel mix without adverse effect. In order to overcome the problem of the supply of biofuel to blend and enable a biofuel industry to take up the market, we might introduce an 'ethanol (and biodiesel) escalator', which requires suppliers to source and blend an additional 1% of biofuel into petrol or diesel per year until 6% or so of fuel is bio-derived.
This all sounds fairly modest, but the savings in carbon could be substantial. It is also more than feasible, if a market is built through the escalator device, for the ethanol and biodiesel to be sourced from within the UK. This would have the additional, happy spin off effect of securing a number of sustainable jobs, and would reinvigorate domestic fuel production just at the point where the UK as a country is about to become a net importer of mineral fuel for the first time since North Sea Oil was first developed. Even if widespread production of ethanol from woody mass is seen as a medium term option (in fact, production of ethanol from this source could start almost immediately) only about 6% of the UK's arable land would be needed to supply 6-7% of fuel currently consumed.
Of course ethanol and biodiesel do not arrive, fully formed just by planting energy crops. In this respect, they are not strictly speaking CO2 neutral fuels, since energy is consumed and CO2 produced in their manufacture. Nevertheless, recent estimates suggest that the commercial production of ethanol and biodiesel could save up to 70% of the CO2 produced by an equivalent measure of petrol or diesel: but even if we take this input of emissions into account, the real and early savings of CO2 remain remarkable by any measure.
Under the UK's climate change programme of 2000, transport is supposed to contribute a saving of some four megatons of carbon by 2012 from EU directives, and 1.5 megatons from the ten year transport plan. Because of modifications to the plan since 2000, this latter saving is unlikely to be achieved. But an 'ethanol escalator' starting in -say- 2005 would within six years, and as a matter of certainty rather than speculation, contribute ONE AND A HALF megatons of carbon savings, or more than the original ten year transport plan in total.
So there is our 'quick win' on emissions. It will not solve the wider and longer term issues of vehicle use and congestion, which are equally pressing environmental considerations, but if we want to make progress on transport emissions rapidly without requiring people to hand the keys of their motor vehicles into the nearest town hall, it works. Significantly, a small and little noticed clause has been inserted into the recent Energy Bill, enabling the Government, if it wishes, to introduce a 'renewable fuel obligation'. It is the first step on the possibility of a new and this time, almost certainly successful, escalator. Do we have the will to climb it?
Alan Whitehead