Decades after scientists sounded the warning about climate change, humanity has failed to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. The goal of Net Zero, emphasising that future generations will have to pay to capture and store whatever we currently produce, has certainly focused minds. However, it is a daunting task.
Energy is an essential input into all that we consume and so energy policy has become a hot topic in recent years. Burning wood and peat, then adding coal, oil and gas has historically been the way for humans to generate energy for domestic, transport and industrial uses. Concerns about peak oil and air pollution, but particularly greenhouse gas emissions, require us to switch away from burning to alternative sources of energy.
The need to decarbonise has become more and more urgent, but the progress has been slow. Over 80% of primary energy worldwide is still provided by fossil fuels. However, low carbon energy sources have their downsides.
How should we go about assessing the different energy options? The most obvious answer is to use the tools of energy economics. After all, we want our energy to be cheap and available as well as being environmentally friendly.
Scientists and engineers are working hard to develop alternative technologies. Some are already available, like wind and solar generation, heat pumps and electric vehicles. However, there are costs to switch to a renewable electricity energy system. Everyone would like to continue to pollute while others pay for the transition. This makes climate change a particularly difficult issue—there are international and generational conflicts as well as conflicts within each state as to who should pay more.
On this short course we will consider the question of how to pay for the transition away from a fossil fuel economy. What is the cheapest and fairest way to achieve this aim?