Book Review: Heat

The problem with the climate change policies of most political parties is not their lack of ambition nor their impact on the economy and jobs. The problems lie with the incompleteness of those policies.

No other discussion of climate change policies of which I am aware does what George Monbiot does in Heat.3 Professor Monbiot sets out his basic assumptions as to what is a permissible level to which the world’s carbon emissions must be reduced by 2030. He then calculates the United Kingdom’s share of that level of emissions. He then examines with painstaking research and analysis the way in which that level of emissions may be reached by the due date.

The lesson of a process like that undertaken by Professor Monbiot is a lesson that goes to the heart of the way in which our governments operate. Most government policies appear to be public relations exercises flirting with one interest group or another but avoiding commitment to anyone but the government’s own re-election. If a government really commits to avoiding dangerous climate change, it must act like the mythical bride groom of scripture and “put away all others”. In terms of Realpolitik, this would mean having all of government working to achieve the necessary reduction in emissions. It would mean something other than one department talking about carbon trading schemes; another department actively working on the expansion of coal production and coal exports; another department working on the expansion of airport capacity around the country and so on.

Heat was first published by the Penguin imprint, Allan Lane, in 2006. I purchased the 2007 Penguin edition and read it in the latter half of 2008. Its content appears to become more relevant with each passing day.

Professor Monbiot’s exercise starts with the proposition that any increase of temperature beyond 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels involves an unacceptable risk of uncontrolled climate change and resultant destruction of the environmental factors on which human life depends. This meant, at the time that Professor Monbiot was writing, a further increase of 1.4 degrees represented the limits of what was permissible.

The exercise carried out in Heat also assumes that the ability of the environment to absorb new emissions of greenhouse inducing gases will fall from its present level of 4 billion tonnes to 2.7 billion tonnes in 2030. The implication of this is that carbon emissions will need to fall from their present level of 7 billion tonnes annually to 2.7 billion tonnes.

The next part of Professor Monbiot’s calculation deals with international (and generational) equity. This is a topic that seems not to be discussed by any of our politicians or opinion leaders. On what basis can the emerging economies be convinced to jump off the road to self-destruction for all? Equity has a maxim that provides a clue: “Equality is equity”.

Professor Monbiot’s answer is that, by 2030, every human being on the planet should have the same carbon ration, equivalent to the dividend produced by dividing the permitted emissions of 2.7 billion tonnes per year by the number of people in the world in 2030, estimated at 8.2 million people. The dividend calculated by Professor Monbiot is 0.33 tonnes per person of CO2 equivalent emissions per year. To calculate the share of emissions for a particular country, one simply calculates the per person entitlement by the population of the country on 2030. This required Professor Monbiot to find cuts of 90% in carbon emissions for the United Kingdom. It would require Australia to cut its emissions by 94% by the same date.

But it’s not all bad news for everybody. Ethiopians, even allowing for a significant increase in population, would be entitled to increase their emissions five fold.

Professor Monbiot then set out to find ways in which the 90% cuts could be obtained. He set himself some limits. He avoided technology that was not readily available (although obviously a lot of technology to be used is not currently widely deployed.) He also excluded the use of technology that would require significantly large increases in price for consumers and industry.

The results of the exercise are fascinating. Professor Monbiot works his way through the different aspects of the economy which involve large usage of fossil fuels. In the United Kingdom, of course, it is home lighting and heating (as opposed to air conditioning in Queensland) which uses large amounts of electricity. Professor Monbiot found that much more efficient homes could be constructed cheaply using available technology. However, the problem was complicated by the fact that that replacing existing housing stock would involve a massive use of fossil fuels. Retro-fitting of efficiency devices was obviously more complicated but he found various ways of making considerable savings.

Transport is a large user of fossil fuels, so much so, that many discussions of carbon saving technology talk about the effectiveness in terms of an equivalence to removing vehicles from the road. Professor Monbiot discusses reasons why inter-city coaches are unpopular and used with used only by those who have no alternative. It is because they are so slow. So, he borrows an idea of turning coaches into desirable transport options by avoiding their slow entry and exit into all the towns along the route, a practice that is a leftover from when coaches were pulled by horses and the inns were only in the centre of the city.  

Suddenly, the concept emerges of coach stations on the highways that link the big cities. The time of travel becomes dramatically reduced. As business travellers jump on board coaches require more comfortable seating and opportunities to use lap tops; black berries; and the internet. As the idea catches on, highway lanes can become dedicated to the armada of coaches linking the big cities of the UK with particular coaches only having to stop every fourth or fifth stop reducing travel times even more.

This example gives an insight into the way in which climate change policies need to be developed. It is a simple idea but its impact on carbon use for travel is potentially dramatic. But it requires active policy development. It requires government transport departments that are dedicated to stopping climate change and not dedicated to promote greater use of the car and the aeroplane by constructing more expensive and counter-productive infra-structure.

(Interestingly, the technology of the much lower emission car has always been available even since the model T Ford graced our streets. Cars have such high emissions because people insist on having high performance, high acceleration vehicles whose qualities many drivers may not use and may not miss. The problem with vehicle emissions is not one of technology. It is one of politics and marketing.)

In the area of electricity generation, Professor Monbiot deals with the base power load question. He uses the historical example of the great jump in power use resulting from the conclusion of a World Cup penalty shoot out in which England was one of the participants. After the last kick, power usage surged as every patriotic Briton turned the kettle on for a cup of tea. (Water usage probably went up at the same time as toilets round the nation were flushed.) The solution involves a mix between retaining some nuclear reactors; continued use of some coal powered generation (especially those power stations located conveniently close to geological formations which allow underground storage of emissions); and a large contribution by wind powered generation, especially, from off-shore turbines.

Other transformations in the way that our lives are lived emerge from Professor Monbiot’s analysis. All those bright lights and open freezers in our supermarkets use astonishing amounts of power. Everyone driving to our large central supermarkets uses plenty of fossil based fuel. Home delivery after ordering through the internet would save large amounts of power and contribute to the 90% reduction in carbon emissions required.

The one aspect of life that fails the Monbiot analysis is overseas airline travel. He sees no way in which British people can continue to run their business and personal lives through regular and extensive air travel. This is something that existing technology cannot deliver and still remain consistent with carbon emissions that provide an acceptably low risk of runaway climate change.

Richard Branson graces our television screens and radio sets with his dreams of the third generation bio-fuel: oil produced from pools of algae. (Current generation bio-fuels do nothing to prevent climate change but simply cause higher food prices for the poor nations and increased clearing of rainforests to grow palm trees for oil.) Perhaps, the airline industry will really dedicate the investment necessary to develop such new technology if they really believe that, otherwise, the carbon ration will keep their would-be customers out of the air.

Heat is the single most important book I have read on climate change. It sets an agenda. If any Australian policy maker or opinion leader thinks that Professor Monbiot’s approach is wrong, let them point a different way. Let them suggest a different equitable basis for a Universal Agreement on Climate Change Reduction. Let them point to a different set of assumptions for what is acceptable risk. And let them point to a mix of policies and technologies that would achieve the necessary reductions in Australia and across the planet. It is a challenge that every responsible policy maker should seize with gusto.   

Heat is good value at $24.95 recommended retail price. However, it is a much more valuable book than its price would suggest.

Stephen Keim SC

Footnotes

1. George Monbiot, journalist, activist; and academic, has a fascinating life story which is outlined here. His regular iconoclastic columns, which challenge conservationists as often as they challenge the coal industry may be found here.
2. The creation of Penguin by Allan Lane who could not buy a decent cheap book while waiting for a train remains a fascinating story. Penguin Australia may be found here.
3. The writings of Professor James Hansen show similar responsibility. His regular postings may be found here.