Why are green NGOs afraid of peak oil? 13 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, Global Warming, Peak oil, Population growth, demographics policy, ecological economics, energy security.4 comments
I was moderating a debate on road transport in Brussels this week and mentioned in my conclusions that future transport policies should take into consideration potential higher oil prices because of the oil demand/supply crunch to be expected in the future (see also the recent IEA report on which I wrote a blog post earlier in the week).
I immediately got a harsh critical reaction from a well-known Brussels NGO representative criticising me for bringing up the “peak oil” issue. Higher oil prices will only lead to more exploration of tar sands and development of coal-to-liquids, things that would be even more damaging for climate change, the NGO man said.
I can understand this point of view but it is not good enough to just sweep the peak oil issue under the carpet. It confirmed my analysis that green NGOs are as afraid of the new energy scarcity as the political elites but maybe for other reasons. I had had discussions before with other NGO friends that “peak oil” was just a scare story made up by the big oil companies to get support for their dirty oil plans.
I really do not understand this. As long as “peak oil” remains a taboo, the NGOs will be unable to formulate adequate responses to the climate change/energy scarcity conundrum as both issues are two sides of the same problem: the lack of recognition that our economic system has a physical, ecological dimension whose restraints will have to be respected when transforming our current economic growth religion into the new ecological economy paradigm.
Maybe the real problem that NGOs have is that they will have to admit that neither energy efficiency nor renewables alone will solve the climate change/energy scarcity issue but that they will have to address difficult issues such as consumerism and population growth, battles which might split their constituencies and their leaders.
Are there any other views on why NGOs fear the peak oil debate? I would like to hear your views.
News Alerts: Two energy crises; Vattenfall loses green credentials 10 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Business and climate change, Climate change, Global Warming, Nuclear, energy security.add a comment
- The FT’s Gideon Rachmann recognises that the world is facing “two energy crises” in an excellent column in the British newspaper today. One of them is climate change, the other the struggle for declining energy resources. “Politicians find themselves pulled in two directions”, writes Rachmann.
- Swedish energy giant Vattenfall has quickly lost the “green leadership” image that had been built up by its executive directorLars Josefsson. Lobbying politicians openly for a global climate cap and trade system, Josefsson set up the 3C Initiative, which brings together more than 40 big businesses to fight global warming. But in the last two weeks, the company lost a lot of its “green shine” when it tried to cover up problems at two of its nuclear power plants in Northern Germany. More on this in Swedish online newspaper The Local and Financial Times Germany.
Net Alerts: Friedman on carbon offsets; renewables save money 8 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, Global Warming, carbon offsets, renewable energy.add a comment
- Thomas Friedman makes fun of carbon offsets in the New York Times of 8 July and proves that the “Green revolution” is still a long way off. What if we could buy offsets for all our sins, asks the author of “The World is Flat“. “Carbon offsets are symptomatic of the larger problem we face in confronting climate change: everyone wants it to happen, but without pain or sacrifice”, concludes the American author.
- Investing in a renewable electricity future will save 10 times the fuel costs of a “business as usual” fossil-fuelled scenario, saving $180 billion USD annually and cut CO2 emissions in half by 2030, according to a joint report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) released on 6 July. The report is the financial follow-up to the Energy Revolution Outlook presented by both organisations last year.
Why Live Earth concerts will make no difference! 6 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, European Union, Global Warming, Gore, Live Earth.1 comment so far
Tomorrow, millions of TV sets all over the world will be on – creating a huge amount of carbon emissions – showing a giant multi-city event which itself will contribute substantially to the environmental pressures we load on our planet every day (in terms of greenhouse gases, pollution and waste).
Of course, the Live Earth concerts’ organisers are aware of the sceptics ‘ potential criticism and have therefore done all they could to give the events a “green” and “climate-neutral” image, but in the end there is no denying that the hugeness of Live Earth will have its ecological price.
That would not be such a big problem if the awareness-raising of such events would also make a huge political impact, but historical examples (Live Aid and others) show that the pressure on politicians lasts not much longer than – in the best case – a few weeks.
So, what other arguments can we use to defend the “Gore concerts”? Maybe the participants and viewers will change their consumption behaviour, buy energy-saving light-bulbs, go a bit more with the bike instead of taking their new climate-friendly Toyota Prius or have one exotic holiday less per year.
Won’t this make a difference and therefore make the concerts a good thing? Well, of course not. This trend of making individual citizens responsible for solving the climate change/energy crisis through greener consumption behaviour is probably one of the biggest menaces to a really effective climate change policy, because it “de-responsabilises” the global political class and keeps them out of the firing line when things ultimately will end in climate catastrophe. Once beyond the “point of no return”, our world leaders will be able to point to their citizens’ failure of changing behaviour and as a result start their “green Leviathan world government” which will abolish most of our democratic freedoms and will re-educate us in the best of authoritarian regimes’ tradition.
Changing our individual behaviour is of course not wrong. I also try to fly less and have my climate-friendly car with which I drive less than 4000 km per year. But, in the end, this might soothe my conscience but will do absolutely nothing to save our planet.
As Alex Steffen of WorldChanging.com wrote in an excellent recent article: “the reality is that the changes we must make are systemic changes. They involve large-scale transformations in the ways we plan our cities, manufacture goods, grow food, transport ourselves, and generate energy. They involve new international regulatory regimes, corporate strategies, industrial standards, tax systems and trading markets. If we want to change the world, we need to forge ourselves into the kinds of citizens who can effectively demand such things.
Dire practicality demands that we reject the privatization of responsibility. None of us can make this great transformation happen alone, and it removes pressure from our leaders to take needed steps when some suggest that the changes that need to be made in the world start with our personal choices. They don’t.”
So, should we ban this kind of big megalomaniac media event? Should we refuse to watch it? Hell no, if you like the music, enjoy. If you watch or do not watch will not make any difference anyway, but while watching please make sure you remember you are NOT saving the world. The only winner from these concerts will be Al Gore, whose reputation as the climate change “hero” will continue to grow. I wonder how many influential business men, pop or film stars will urge him after and during the concert to run for President again. It is a pity he was not elected the last time. We would have known by now what HE would really have done to fight climate change.
So, in the end, who profits from Live Earth? The politicians who lack the leadership, the courage and the vision to redefine and re-distribute our prosperity by accepting the ecological limits of our Spaceship Earth economy.
Good night and good luck!
EU climate adaptation strategy lacks sustainability vision 4 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, European Union.add a comment
After the presentation of its Green Paper on 29 June, the European Commission organised a stakeholder conference on the issue of climate change adaptation on 3 July. The conference highlighted the input of different directorate-generals into the Green paper but lacked a horizontal view of the subject in terms of sustainable development. It says something about the EU’s technocratic take on the issue that speakers from DG environment, regio, research and development could give their view but that there was no speaker from the sustainable development team in the General Secretariat to put the different views in a broader policy context.
The Adaptation Green Paper tries to give a false sense of security. What it is basically saying is that the EU and its member states can put in place the “adaptive mechanisms” to deal with the negative effects of climate change. I wonder what crisis management the EU or the UK can come up with in case of London being totally flooded. The only solution there is what James Lovelock recently recommended to new Prime Minister Gordon Brown: move the city. What I get from the Green Paper, is that the EU still does not fully grasp the coming realities of climate change.
Having said that, two presentations stood out for me in the conference. First of all, a scientific summary of the latest IPCC report by Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who painted a darker picture than usually attributed to the IPCC. According to van Ypersele, the likely range of temperature increases is between 1.8 and 7.3 degrees Celsius, much higher than the generally reported 1.2 to 4° increase.
The other remarkable presentation came from Jacqueline McGlade, the director of the European Environment Agency. She was the only one who connected the climate change adaptation issue to the sustainability agenda underlining the need to develop a “circular economy” where products are developed “from cradle to cradle” instead of from “cradle to grave”.
The price for the worst metaphor of the conference goes to agriculture commissioner Fischer Boel. The Danish commissioner refered to the rainy weather in Brussels and how she “adapted” by bringing her umbrella. “Time to put up the umbrella” to deal with climate change, said Fischer Boel. If it were just that easy, dear commissioner 
More bad news for carbon capture and storage 3 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Carbon capture and storage, Climate change, Shell, Statoil, energy security.1 comment so far
The highly praised Shell-Statoil CCS (carbon capture and storage) project in the Norwegian Sea (Draugen) is not financially viable. That is the result of a joint feasibility study undertaken by both energy groups. The two energy companies have therefore decided to bury the project.
This is the second setback in a few months for one of the so-called “miracle” solutions to tackle climate change. In May, BP also decided to abandon one of its planned carbon capture plants in Scotland.
Further reading:
- Energy business review online: Statoil and Shell decide against carbon capture project
- Statoil: Press release “Halten CO2 value chain: Technically feasible, but not commercially viable”
- EurActiv’s LinksDossier on Carbon Capture and Storage
Is political climate fever nearly over? 3 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Barroso, Climate change, Global Warming.1 comment so far
Hot political issues come in cycles. One year, politicians think people worry most about jobs and therefore launch big jobs and growth programmes, one year later the media and surveys tell them to concentrate on climate change.
So, the question is: will the current interest of politics in the global warming issue be a passing fad or will other topics rule again in the near future.
There might be some signs indeed that the mood might be shifting again, as an interesting Ipso/Mori survey picked up by the BBC today shows that nearly 60% of citizens still think scientists are unsure about climate change. Moreover, the survey suggests that “terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change”.
With the renewed fear of terrorist attacks after the events in the UK, I would not be surprised if the climate change issue will disappear slowly but surely from the politicians’ radar screen. Watch out Commission President Barroso. He seems to have a good nose for the newest trends “Public ‘in denial’ about climate change”
See also The Telegraph: “Public ‘in denial’ about climate change”
Climate change: EU starts debate on how to adapt 1 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, European Commission, European Union.add a comment
On Friday 29 June, the Commission published it long-waited Green Paper “Adapting to climate change in Europe“. The Green Paper starts a consultation phase with civil society on how to deal best with the effects of the climate change that is already unpreventable. On Tuesday 3 July, the Green Paper will be the main topic of debate in a special conference organised in Brussels with all interested stakeholders and citizens.
I will come back to this Green Paper and the debate later this week, but in advance I would already like to raise two questions which I will hopefully be able to bring up in the conference:
- It is clear that some forms of crisis management can be foreseen but is it really feasible to establish a transnational adaptation policy which will be able to foresee and manage all crisis situations?
- Where is the adaptation policy for the other side of the climate/energy predicament: the upcoming battle over declining energy resources and its effects? As long as the “peak energy” issue remains a taboo, the EU’s adaptation policy will be one-dimensional and therefore not very effective.
Population: the Cinderella of the great sustainability debate 1 July, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, Global Warming, Population growth, sustainability.4 comments
UK Scientist Chris Rapley has had the courage to ask to right question in an editorial for The Independent a few days ago: “Behind the climate crisis lies a global issue that no one wants to tackle: do we need radical plans to reduce the world’s population?“
Taking the publication of the UN’s State of the World Population 2007 as his starting point, Rapley correctly sees the interconnection between climate change and the world’s growing population: “Whether it’s the burning of fossil fuels versus the rate at which plants absorb carbon, or the heat absorbed from sunshine versus the heat reflected back into space, or global birth rates versus death rates – each is governed by the difference between an inflow and an outflow, and even small imbalances can have large effects. At present, all of these three are out of balance as a result of human actions. And each of these imbalances is creating a major problem“.
But whereas climate change is now high on politician’s agenda, the issue of population management remains a serious taboo. “In practice, of course, it is a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability. So controversial is the subject, that it has become the Cinderella of the great sustainability debate – rarely visible in public, or even in private“.
Read also an earlier post I did on the same subject.
Biggest victim of climate change will be our democracy 28 June, 2007
Posted by Willy De Backer in Climate change, Global Warming, Peak oil, global governance.add a comment
Our climate change/energy security predicament will need a global solution. There is no country in the world (not even the US) which will be able to win the climate/energy war on its own. But do we have the global governance structures in place that reflect this global interconnectedness? How do we achieve the “one planet governance” which is also being advocated in the recent Accountability/Consumers International report on consumers and climate change?
It is clear that our current global governance structures are too slow, too bureaucratic and too far removed from normal citizens to play any effective role in finding the urgent solutions needed. Do we really think that in the “era of new scarcity” (with countries increasingly competing for declining energy resources, precious metals and minerals), governments will be willing to transfer more power to transnational organisations? The current trends go in the opposite direction. Look at the growth of “energy nationalism” (not only from Russia and Venezuela BTW).
So will this “one planet governance” ever come about? Yes but only after several “shockwaves” (Katrina was in a way the first “9/11″ of the climate/energy war, but much more is to come, and not just freak weather and storms) and the danger is that, like the West reaction to global terrorism, democracy and human freedoms will be the main victims.
An excellent analysis on this “creeping Green Junta” was just published by Peter Wells of Cardiff University. His article “The Green Junta: or, is democracy sustainable?” (in the International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development) was well summarised in innovations-report.com. Here is an extract:
However, Wells warns that such a solution might be hijacked by the political right who would seize the opportunity to enforce a more authoritarian approach. “A modern Green Junta is unlikely to arrive with tanks on the streets and the overnight capturing of control,” he explains, “Rather, it creeps upon us through multiple small steps – each one justified by ‘necessity’.”
