Groucho Marxism

The term ‘climate change’ refers to  both global warming – the ongoing increase in global average temperature – and its wider effects on Earth’s climate system. It is generally accepted now that climate change is happening and that it is already having an impact on the environment. Many such impacts have been observed in the first decades of the 21st century, with 2024 the warmest year on record since records began back in 1850. The future impacts are likely to be devastating and will include increased flooding, extreme heat, increased food and water scarcity, more disease (including pandemics), and economic loss. It is not surprising therefore there is widespread public support for policies to mitigate climate change.

Why, then, have governments been so slow to implement such policies? It certainly isn’t for lack of options. There are several renewable energy sources available: solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, and geothermal. Furthermore, these have rapidly become more efficient and cheaper over the past 30 years. The International Energy Agency estimates that to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, 90% of global electricity will need to be generated by renewables. Renewables also cause much less air pollution than fossil fuels, improving public health, and are less noisy. The main argument used against moving to renewables, particularly solar and wind, is that they are not available constantly. But how much of a problem is this really?

There are in fact several solutions to the so-called intermittency problem. These include storage, improved interconnection between different variable sources to smooth out supply, and introducing overcapacity so that sufficient energy is produced even when weather is less favourable. Whilst it might not be possible to rely on solar and wind energy entirely, these sources can still be used to make up the bulk of energy production. Denmark, for example, generates over two thirds of its energy supply using solar and wind. And Denmark is hardly the sunniest country in the world (although it may be one of the windiest). Any shortfall from these variable sources can be made up with renewable energy from other renewable sources: hydropower, bioenergy, and geothermal energy.

Indeed, we know it is possible for a country to use renewables for 100% of its energy needs, because there are countries that already do this. Albania, Bhutan, the Central African Republic, Costa Rica, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Iceland, Lesotho, Nepal, and Paraguay all rely entirely on renewable energy sources. Hydropower makes up the majority of the energy supply in all of these countries. The major advantage of hydropower systems is their ability to store potential power for later production on demand, obviating the intermittency problem. They have disadvantages too, including dislocation of people and adverse impacts on the local environment; but these can be mitigated by using bioenergy and geothermal energy, which also don’t suffer from intermittency.

The precise ratios of energy produced by each of the five main renewable sources will be different in each country, and will depend on local geographical, economic and social factors. The key point is that renewable sources are clearly sufficient to meet our energy needs. Unfortunately some countries don’t seem to have got the memo. Less than half of the UK’s energy is currently provided by renewable sources, and the figure is less than a third in China and less than a quarter in the US. This is reflected in CO2 emissions per capita figures: according to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, the UK produced 4.4 tons of CO2 per person in 2023, China 9.2 tons, and the US 13.8 tons (!). Albania, by comparison, produced just 1.6 tons of CO2 per person, and Paraguay 1.1 ton.

A critic might counter that moving to renewable energy does not guarantee lower per capita carbon emissions. Iceland uses renewables for 100% of its energy needs, yet had per capita emissions of 8.8 tons of CO2 per person in 2023, twice that of the UK (although lower than China and the US). Our critic might also argue that it isn’t fair to compare countries like the US and UK with countries like Albania and Paraguay, as the former are much richer than the latter. And of course that is true. Indeed, all the data shows that there is a massive positive correlation between economic activity and CO2 emissions. This suggests that although moving to renewable energy sources is a necessary step to reduce emissions, it is not sufficient.

It is possible to weaken the connection between economic activity and CO2 emissions to a certain extent. The UK, for example, has reduced its annual CO2 emissions by around 50% since the year 2000, whilst at the same time experiencing economic growth (albeit weak). But I am not convinced that it is possible to sever the connection entirely. Realistically, to reduce carbon emissions to a level that will not result in runaway climate change (assuming we haven’t passed that point already), I think we need to drastically curtail our economic activity. That will never happen under capitalism, which relies on continuous growth of such activity. The only way we can hope to stop climate change is to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a system that does not rely on endless growth – namely, socialism.