Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom in Comparison with Sustainable Development in Nigeria: The Energy Perspective

Transcription

1 ISSN (Online) Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom in Comparison with Sustainable Development in : The Energy Perspective Otitooluwa Dosumu Ph.D. Student, Department of Economics, Business Research Unit, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal Abstract: This is a comparative study between sustainable development in the United Kingdom and sustainable development in from the energy perspective. The study attempts to identify gaps that may exist between both Economies. The research assumes the United Kingdom might be on the right path towards sustainable development and uses it as a template to measure sustainable development in. The main objective of this study is to find out the contribution or response of, to climate change, environmental degradation and energy resource depletion and present possible recommendations. Another objective of the study is to understand the progress of sustainable development in the UK. The study relied on primary data therefore a survey was administered to obtain information from both countries to determine their level of sustainable development. The study also relied on descriptive analysis to give insight on the differences between both countries. Statistical techniques such as t test and correlation analysis was also used to identify differences and possible relationships that may exist between some sustainable development variables, such as the level of energy development in both countries. The results showed that had no significant contribution to sustainable development. Also the United Kingdom was observed to have steady progress in sustainable development, however with room for improvement. The study concludes that the UK has a higher level of sustainable development than, and gaps for the improvement of sustainable development in were identified. Keywords: Sustainable development, Energy Management, Climate change, Environmental degradation 1. Introduction The 21st century has documented some of the world s worst natural disasters such as the Indonesian tsunami in 2004 where over 250,000 people were reported dead [1], the Australian black Saturday bush fire in 2009 that claimed the lives of 173 people [2] and the 2011 floods in Thailand that led to damages worth over 4 billion dollars and killed about 800 individuals [3], just to mention a few. Most of these disasters are as a result of degradable changes to the environment such as global warming, depletion of ice glaciers in the arctic regions and the interruption of major ecosystems among several others, which often is referred to as climate change. The occurrence of these phenomena can irrationally be explained by the lay man as the hand of God, when in reality they are a function of the ever increasing and unregulated economic activity of human beings. Human economic activity involves industrialization and transportation, which often lead to the release of harmful substances to the environment. Examples of such substances released into the environment are Greenhouse gasses (GHG) as well as Chlorofluorocarbon s (CFC), which are directly responsible for the depletion of the earth s ozone layer, exposing it to all sorts of radiation from beyond the earth s exosphere. Furthermore, this century is also experiencing other challenges such as the increase in population with consequences on economic activity and natural resources. As of March 2012 world population was above 7 billion and is estimated to rise to about 10 billion by 2050 and over 24 billion by the year [4] This increase in population indicates there would be an increase in consumption and hence, the increase in the demand and supply of goods and services produced from the existing pool of natural resources. In other words, the increase in demand and supply implies an increase in economic activity, which involves increases in industrialization and transportation which can possibly have negative impacts on the environment, by either degrading it via pollution or the depletion of its resources.the combination of these issues poses a serious threat to the world s survival, which has forced leaders and scientist to focus more on the concept of sustainable development. The term sustainable development has evolved over the years to incorporate several dimensions which include economic, political, cultural and ecological, which are often referred to as the circles of sustainability. [5] The concept of sustainable development can therefore be defined as the development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. [6] In other words, this concepts describes a phenomena whereby societies make use of their resources efficiently (i.e. little input leading to maximum output), in such a way that it does not pollute or cause damage to the environment to enable present and future needs to be met. Achieving this concept optimally may require improvement in technology, using renewable INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 272

2 resources, improving habits such as recycling and curtailing negative consumption habits. Despite the fact that this concept has several perspectives, this study focuses more on the economic dimension with the spotlight on sustainable development in the energy sector. This is because energy influences virtually every area of human life and can be seen as the driving force or the backbone behind the development of modern human activity. Every human activity ranging from feeding to transportation requires some form of energy, however the use of energy brings along with it negative consequences such as those described in the previous paragraph. Energy generation for industrialization and transportation contribute a great deal to the release of GHG, because it is mostly derived from fossil fuel resources such as crude oil and coal, which are in themselves non-renewable and are therefore prone to depletion. The generation of energy therefore has a challenge of meeting the ever increasing demand for energy in an efficient and affordable manner without impacting negatively on the environment. [7] These challenges thus gives rise to the concept of an energy trilemma which describes three goals that society should obtain in the bid to achieve sustainable development from the energy perspective, and these three goals are energy security, social equity and environmental impact mitigation. [7] The Energy security goal is concerned with how energy is supplied ensuring that energy is always available and that it s supply is consistent. [8] It can be defined as the Effective management of primary energy supply from domestic and external sources, reliability of energy infrastructure, ability of participating energy companies to meet current and future demand. [7] On the other hand, the Social equity goal is focused on ensuring that users of energy have easy access to it, in such a way that they can afford it. The key words under this goal are accessibility and affordability. [8] Finally, the Environmental impact mitigation goal is influenced by the supply and demand of energy, because the generation and the use of energy can affect the environment either positively or negatively. [8] It can also be defined as the achievement of supply and demand-side of energy efficiencies and development of energy supply from renewable and other low-carbon sources. [7] If all three goals are satisfied then sustainability, as it is synonymously used with sustainable development can be said to have been achieved from the energy perspective. [8] This state of balance is illustrated below in fig.1. Figure 1: The three pillars of sustainability, Green economy, Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia In Fig.1. it can be seen that this state of balance or equilibrium among these three goals might not always be achieved, and that it is sometimes possible for at least two of the goals to be achieved with a third being neglected. There are different combinations in which such phenomena may occur alongside their implications to the society and they are discussed as follows; An Equitable scenario represents the achievement of both the energy security and social equity goals only. [9] The implication of this scenario is that the environment isn t taken into consideration, and this could be hazardous to the society. This is because a neglect of the environmental component implies that political, technological and even economical mechanisms are absent or insufficient to protect the environment giving rise to an increase in pollution, which is detrimental to the health of individuals in the society and at the same time deplete the available resources. A Viable scenario on the other hand represents the achievement of both the energy security and environmental impact mitigation goals only, and neglects the social equity goal. [9] The implication of such a scenario is that mechanisms are put in place just to ensure that energy is available, in such a way that it doesn t damage the environment, however this might lead to very costly investments that regular individuals cannot help in offsetting. The whole idea of sustainable development is to help present and future generations have access to energy resources, but how can they have access to energy when it is unaffordable and inefficiently distributed? This option would put a strain on the finances of individuals and this may lead to political and economic crisis, which sometimes might turn out to be violent. [9] The last scenario which is referred to as the bearable scenario represents the achievement of the environmental impact mitigation and social equity goals only, and the neglect of the energy security goal. [9] The implication of this scenario is that measures to ensure the availability of energy are absent and this might mean fewer power stations or distribution networks that would lead to shortages in energy supply. [9] The problem with this is that shortages in the supply of energy would lead to increases in the price of energy, which regular individuals may not be able to afford. [9] In addition, these shortages may affect a societies ability to produce goods and services needed to grow the economy. An example would be underdeveloped countries, which have insufficient energy to drive industrialization and thus economic growth. [9] Although at a particular moment in time of any society these scenarios may appear attractive and easy to accomplish, the consequences of neglecting a third goal could be very detrimental to the society as described in the above paragraphs, and this is why there has to be a balance or equilibrium in achieving these goals. Equilibrium between these goals indicates a state of sustainable development. [9] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 273

3 1.1. Statement of the Problem The debate on climate change and energy management is such a global issue, such that it has been the focus of several forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change in 1992, the Earth Summit in 1994 as well as the 1997 Kyoto protocol. [10] The European Union has targets of reducing GHG emissions by 20% in 2020 and in order for the UK to oblige to this directive it also has to reduce its own individual GHG emissions by about 50% around the same period and about 80% by 2050.[18] The UK has put in place several policies and institutions to help it achieve its targets such as the implementation of the Green deal, renewable obligation certificate scheme, Feed in tariffs (FIT), 2008 climate change act, the energy act 2010 and 2011 as well as the energy bill of [11] Though there is so much activity going on in Europe and especially in countries such as the UK to tackle the global crisis of climate change through sustainable development, there is little information known about the activities and the efforts being employed by African states to tackle the same problem. If climate change and environmental degradation is a global issue that would ultimately affect all individuals around the world it seems rather unfair for most of the responsibility of sustainable development to be placed on the shoulders of the western community. It often appears from observation and even from personal experience that several African countries are not on the road to sustainable development as there are high levels of poverty such that energy isn t affordable, shortages in energy supply evident by low levels of industrialization and frequent power outages as well as the excessive amount of pollution without significant regulations to curtail environmental degradation. These observations thus pose the notion of the probability that the efforts being implemented by the western region to promote sustainability development are being mitigated or reduced by the inefficiencies of African states such as to achieve sustainable development, hence this research Aims and Objectives The main objective of this study is to find out the contribution or response of, to climate change, environmental degradation and energy resource depletion and present possible recommendations. Also study attempts to identify gaps that may exist between Sustainable development in both countries. Finally, another objective of the study is to understand the progress of sustainable development in the UK Scope and Methodology The research focuses only on data retrieved from the UK and, because the UK is one of the leading advocates of sustainable development while is a major exporter of energy resources. The research assumes the UK to be on the right path to sustainable development and assumes is not. The research involves a case study of the energy management strategy or policy of both countries and thus information would be retrieved from relevant institutions involved in energy activities. The study relied on primary data therefore a survey was administered to obtain information from both countries to determine their level of sustainable development. The study also relied on descriptive analysis to give insight on the differences between both countries. Statistical techniques such as t test and correlation analysis was also used to identify differences and possible relationships that may exist between some sustainable development variables, such as the level of energy development in both countries Comparing Sustainable Development in and the UK To test if there are significant differences between both countries a t test analysis was carried out on the following hypothesis. Hypothesis one (null hypothesis): There is no significant comparative difference between sustainable development in the United Kingdom and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries. United Kingdom > Table 1: The mean, standard deviation and t-test analysis of the difference between sustainable development in UK and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries Table 1 above shows that there exist a significant difference between the level of sustainable development in the United Kingdom and, as the calculated t value of is greater when compared to the critical t value of 0.096, at the level of significance of In addition, a look at the mean of the two countries shows that mean for the UK ( ) is greater than that of ( ). This indicates that the level of sustainable development in the UK is better when compared to that of. Consequently, the null hypothesis was discarded and in conclusion, there is a significant difference between the level of sustainable development in the UK and. In order to get a better understanding of these results a graphical illustration is depicted in Fig 1.2 below. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 274

4 Figure 2: Level of sustainable development between and the UK Fig 2 above gives a pictorial figure on the comparison between the level of sustainable development in UK and, as perceived by the respondents from the two countries. At glance, it can be seen that the level of sustainable development in the UK is higher than the level of sustainable development in. While the overall level of sustainable development for United Kingdom is 69.69%, the overall sustainable development for is 67.18%. It was assumed at the beginning of this research that the UK was on the right path to sustainability and would be used as a template to measure the level of sustainability in. The results therefore show that there is a gap in sustainability development that needs to be addressed by the n government. Hypothesis Two (null hypothesis): There is no significant comparative difference between energy development in the United Kingdom and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries. United Kingdom > Table 2: The mean, standard deviation and t-test analysis of the comparative difference between energy development in the UK and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries Table1.2 above shows the comparative difference in energy development in the UK and. The result of the analysis reveal that there is a significant difference in the levels of energy development in the two countries, as the t calculated value of is higher when compared to the t critical value of 0.169, at 0.05 levels of significance. The UK has higher mean of , when compared to s mean of This implies that the UK has a higher level of energy development, when compared to s level of energy development. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of energy development between the UK and. This is evident by the level of renewable energy infrastructure investment being made in both countries. The n government shows lesser commitment towards renewable energy development than the UK government. Hypothesis three (null hypothesis): There is no significant comparative difference between income received in the United Kingdom and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries. United Kingdom > Table 3: Table Showing mean, standard deviation, and t-test analysis of the comparative difference between incomes received in the UK and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries Table 3 above shows that the t calculated value of 1.214, is greater than the t critical of 0.228, at a level of significance of This implies that there exists significant difference between the levels of income received between the two countries, as expressed by the respondents and thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a significant comparative difference in the income level between the UK and, as perceived by the respondents from the two countries. Income received is regarded as an important indicator for sustainable development, and the results show that incomes received in the UK is higher than that of. These result emphasize the fact that majority of ns are living in poverty especially as regards to their energy expenditure. Hypothesis four (null hypothesis): There is no significant comparative difference between accommodation and housing facilities in United Kingdom and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries. United Kingdom > Table 4: Table Showing mean, standard deviation, and t-test analysis of the comparative difference between accommodation and housing facilities in United Kingdom and, as perceived by respondents from the two countries INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 275

5 As shown in Table 4 above, the value of t calculated of 3.445, is greater than the t critical value of 0.01, at 0.05 levels of significance. This means that there exist a significant comparative difference between the accommodation and housing facilities between the UK and. A higher mean of is calculated for the UK, when compared to that of (1.7872) reveal that there are more accommodation and housing facilities in United Kingdom, than. This also indicates that level of development and general standard of living in the UK is better when compared to. Availability of conducive housing and accommodation facilities are pointers of positive sustainability development. In addition a correlation analysis was carried out to identify if there is a relationship between the energy and environmental problems perceived in both countries and the results are as follows: Hypothesis five (null hypothesis): There is no significant comparison between environmental and climatic problems in United Kingdom and, based on the perception of the respondents from the two countries. Table 5 below shows that the energy and environmental crisis, when United Kingdom and are compared, have an inverse and insignificant relationship (r = -.141). Furthermore, the results suggest that the UK respondents perceived more energy and environmental, when compared to their n respondents. This is because the UK has a higher mean of , while has Therefore, it is concluded that there is an inverse and insignificant difference in the energy and environmental problems witnessed in the UK and, as perceived by the respondents from the two countries. Variables Mean Standard Deviation Environmental And Climatic Problems IN UK Environmental And Climatic Problems In Environmental And Climatic Problems In UK 35 Environmental And Climatic Problem In Nig Table 5: Table showing correlation analysis to compare energy and environmental crisis between United Kingdom and, based on the perception of the respondents from the two countries This analysis is an indicator that policies used in the UK to tackle sustainable development may not be applicable in Conclusion and Recommendations The summary of the findings are as follows; there is no significant contribution or response by, to combat climate change or environmental degradation, since there is no progressive energy development and major responsiveness to those issues, by the n government and its citizens. Also there are no significant policies or programmes implemented by the n government, to achieve sustainable development especially when compared to the UK. The progress of sustainable development in the UK is positive with only a few setbacks. There is therefore a significant difference between sustainable development in the UK and, with the UK having positive results in sustainable development than. It is very difficult to imagine a progressive world without sustainable development, and there are two major elements that need to be considered for the implementation of sustainable development, and they are technological change and behavioural change. The type of technology used to generate energy is very important, if sustainability is going to be achievable. Efficient technology would ensure that energy resources are being used efficiently, in such a way that the level of pollution is also reduced. On the other hand, if the technology is renewable it would ensure that the input for the generation of energy can be used repeatedly, without causing any damage or depletion to the environment. The major challenge when it comes to technology, is that the cost and the amount of research and development needed to get technology to the level where it is functioning between 90% to 99% efficiency levels, is very high and time consuming. However the cost of technology is expected to fall, as more improvements are made towards its development. Behavioural change refers to the way individuals and organizations act towards energy. This is a very crucial part of sustainable development, and has to be addressed or used in conjunction with technological change for a better implementation of sustainable development. This is because even with the right technology to improve sustainability, the improper use of that technology may render it ineffective. For sustainable behavioural change to be achievable, knowledge and information is very important. This is because individuals cannot change what they do not know. In several instances, technological change and behavioural change intertwine, such that one element can help the other element to be achievable. An example is the use of smart meters, which is a technology that individuals can use to view graphically their energy usage, which may in turn help them to change their behaviour as to how they make use of energy at different points in time. 2. References i Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, (2004), Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: ii. Bushfires in Australia, (2009), Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: iii Thailand floods, (2011), Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: iv. World Population, (2012), Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 276

6 v. Sustainable Development, (2005), Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: vi. United Nations, (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, General Assembly Resolution 42/187, Available: vii. Emily Melton, (2012), Introduction to Energy and Environmental Issues, world energy council, Presented at Introduction to Energy and Environmental Issues module, City University London, unpublished. viii. Otitooluwa Dosumu, (2012), Challenges and possible solutions of energy demand reduction, post module assessment EPM721, School of Engineering and Mathematics, City University London, UK. ix. Adams, W.M. (2006), "The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century." Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, unpublished. x. Climate Change Policy, Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: xi. Greenhouse Gas Emissions By the United Kingdom, Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia, Available: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 277