http://www.ck12.org Chapter 3. Making A Difference
Figure 27.9 shows all five plans.
How these plans relate to carbon-sucking and air travel
In a future world where carbon pollution is priced appropriately to prevent catastrophic climate change, we will
be interested in any power scheme that can at low cost put extra carbon down a hole in the ground. Such carbon-
neutralization schemes might permit us to continue flying at 2004 levels (while oil lasts). In 2004, average UK
emissions ofCO 2 from flying were about 0.5 tCO 2 per year per person. Accounting for the full green-house impact
of flying, perhaps the effective emissions were about 1 tCO 2 eper year per person. Now, in all five of these plans I
assumed that one eighth of the UK was devoted to the production of energy crops which were then used for heating
or for combined heat and power. If instead we directed all these crops to power stations with carbon capture and
storage – the “clean-coal” plants that featured in three of the plans – then the amount of extraCO 2 captured would be
about 1 t ofCO 2 per year per person. If the municipal and agricultural waste incinerators were located at clean-coal
plants too so that they could share the same chimney, perhaps the total captured could be increased to 2 tCO 2 per
year per person. This arrangement would have additional costs: the biomass and waste might have to be transported
further; the carbon-capture process would require a significant fraction of the energy from the crops; and the lost
building-heating would have to be replaced by more air-source heat pumps. But, if carbon-neutrality is our aim, it
would be worth planning ahead by seeking to locate new clean-coal plants with waste incinerators in regions close
to potential biomass plantations.
1 tCO 2 emeans greenhouse-gas emissions equivalent to one ton ofCO 2.
Figure 27.9:All five plans.
“All these plans are absurd!”
If you don’t like these plans, I’m not surprised. I agree that there is something unpalatable about every one of them.
Feel free to make another plan that is more to your liking. But make sure it adds up!
Perhaps you will conclude that a viable plan has to involve less power consumption per capita. I might agree with
that, but it’s a difficult policy to sell – recall Tony Blair’s response when someone suggested he should fly overseas
for holidays less frequently!
Alternatively, you may conclude that we have too high a population density, and that a viable plan requires fewer
people. Again, a difficult policy to sell.