Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

The 7 most important truths about our energy future

Published

17 minute read

From EnergyTalkingPoints.com

By Alex Epstein

At Jordan Peterson’s ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) conference I was asked to share the most important truths about our energy future.

I boiled it down to 7. Understand these and you’ll be a better thinker than 97% of energy or climate “experts.”

GIM 7 most important truths

Energy Truth 1

To decide what to do about fossil fuels and other forms of energy, we must carefully weigh their benefits and side-effects.

  • When evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., a prescription drug—we need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of our alternatives.

    But most “experts” just focus on fossil fuels’ negative climate side-effects.

  • It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.

    E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, building, etc.

  • Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: drought.

    Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.1 drought deaths

Energy Truth 2

Fossil fuels for the foreseeable future will remain a uniquely cost-effective (affordable, reliable, versatile) and scalable source of energy.

  • Myth: There are no real benefits of continuing fossil fuel use because it can be rapidly replaced by mostly solar and wind.

    Truth: Fossil fuels are and for decades will remain uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.

  • Myth: Fossil fuels are being rapidly replaced in an “energy transition” to solar and wind.

    Truth: Fossil fuel use is 80% of the world’s energy and still growing despite 100+ years of aggressive competition and 20+ years of political hostility and massive solar and wind favoritism.2 primary energy consumption by fuel

  • Myth: Fossil fuel use will soon rapidly decline because countries know “green” energy will be cheaper.

    Truth: Countries that care most about cheap energy are pro-fossil fuels.

    E.g., China, which uses mostly coal to produce “green” tech, has over 300 planned new coal plants designed to last over 40 years.3

  • Myth: Solar and wind are growing fast by outcompeting fossil fuels with superior economics.

    Truth: Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability—along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.

  • Myth: Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.

    Truth: For the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs, solar and wind either can’t do what fossil fuel can—e.g., non-electricity energy uses such as airplanes or cargo ships—or are far more expensive.4

  • Myth: Solar and wind electricity is getting so cheap that it will lead to rapid electrification of the 4/5ths of today’s energy that is not electricity.

    Truth: When you factor in full cost of the 24/7 life support that unreliable solar and wind electricity need, they are far more expensive.5 TX freeze 2021

  • Fossil fuels are uniquely able to provide energy that’s low-cost, reliable, and versatile on a scale of billions of people. This is due to fossil fuels’ combination of remarkable attributes—fossil fuels are naturally stored, concentrated, and abundant energy—and generations of innovation by industry.
  • There is currently only one energy technology that can match (actually exceed) fossil fuels’ combination of naturally stored, concentrated, abundant energy: nuclear. Nuclear may one day outcompete all uses of fossil fuels, but this will take radical policy reform and generations of innovation and work.

Energy Truth 3

The more cost-effective and scalable energy is, the more human beings can flourish on this naturally deficient and dangerous planet.

  • Myth: The Earth will be a highly livable place—stable, sufficient in resources, and safe—as long as we don’t impact it too much.

    Truth: Earth is very inhospitable—dynamic, deficient, dangerous—unless we have the productive ability to transform and impact it to be abundant and safe.

  • The more energy is cost-effective—affordable, reliable, versatile—and scalable to billions of people in thousands of places, the more people can use machines to produce the values they need to flourish on this naturally deficient and dangerous planet.
  • Thanks to today’s unprecedented availability of cost-effective energy (mostly fossil fuel) the world has never been a better place for human life. Life expectancy and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to <10% today.6 Poverty headcount

Energy Truth 4

Given that the vast majority of the world is energy-poor, the world needs far more energy as quickly as possible.

  • The world needs much more energy.

    Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood or dung for heating and cooking. Much more energy is needed.7 primitive biofuel use

  • Myth: Poor countries will “leapfrog” fossil fuels and go right to solar and wind.

    Truth: No rich country has been able to abandon fossil fuels even at huge cost, while every dramatic increase in wealth has involved fossil fuels: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, etc.

    Poor countries are not guinea pigs.

  • The desperate lack of life-giving, cost-effective energy means that any replacement for fossil fuels must not only provide energy to the 2 billion who use significant amounts of energy today but to the 6 billion who use far less. Rapidly eliminating fossil fuels would be mass murder.
  • Summary: Fossil fuels are a near-term irreplaceable source of the scalable energy humans need to flourish.

    With fossil fuels billions more people can have the opportunity to flourish. Without them, billions of energy-starved people plunge into poverty and early death.

Energy Truth 5

Any negative climate side-effects of our massive fossil fuel use so far have been completely overwhelmed by their climate mastery benefits—as evidenced by the 98% decline in climate disaster deaths over the last 100 years.

  • Myth: We are more endangered than ever by climate because of fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions.

    Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating and cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.8 climate disaster deaths

  • Myth: Even if climate-related disaster deaths are down, climate-related damages are way up, pointing to a bankrupting climate future.

    Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—preferences for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.9 weather losses

Energy Truth 6

Mainstream climate science predicts levels of warming and associated climate changes that human beings can continue to master and flourish with.

  • Myth: Even if we’re safe from climate now, we can expect future emissions to lead to disaster.

    Truth: Since today’s unprecedented safety exists after 100+ years of rising CO2, and with 1° C warming, we should be skeptical that further CO2 rises will somehow overwhelm us.

  • Climate mastery is so powerful that for CO2 emissions to be apocalyptic enough to justify rapid fossil fuel restriction, let alone elimination, they’d need to have unprecedented impacts like:
    • Seas rising feet per decade
    • Storms becoming 2 times more powerful

    Science shows nothing like this.

  • Myth: Future warming is ominous because heat-related death is already such a catastrophic problem.

    Truth: Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer, far more people still die from cold than heat (even in India)! Near-term warming is expected to decrease temperature-related mortality.10 fewer cold deaths

  • Myth: Future warming is ominous because it will be worst in hot areas.

    Truth: The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). Good news.11 warming pattern

  • Myth: Future warming will accelerate as CO2 levels rise.

    Truth: Mainstream science is unanimous that the “greenhouse effect” is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warning.

    Even IPCC’s most extreme, far-fetched scenarios show warming leveling off.12

  • Myth: We face catastrophically rapid sea level rises, which will destroy and submerge coastal cities.

    Truth: Extreme UN sea level rise projections are just 3 feet in 100 years. Future generations can master that. (We already have 100 million people living below high tide sea level.)13 sea level projections

  • Myth: Hurricane intensity is expected to get catastrophically higher as temperatures rise.

    Truth: Mainstream estimates say hurricanes will be less frequent and between 1-10% more intense at 2° C warming. This is not at all catastrophic if we continue our fossil-fueled climate mastery.14 hurricane projections

  • Myth: We face catastrophic increases in dangerous wildfires, an “Earth on fire.”

    While the media increasingly reports on fires and draws connections to warming, the world burns less than 20 years ago and far less than 100 years ago. Fire danger primarily depends on human mastery.15

  • Summary: Continuing fossil fuel use will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.

    Policy implications

    • Energy freedom —> CO2 levels rise, life continues to get better and better
    • Net zero —> CO2 levels rise more slowly, billions of lives ruined

Energy Truth 7

A policy of energy freedom, including but not limited to fossil fuel freedom, is the fastest path both to more plentiful energy and to more cost-effective alternatives.

  • What are “energy freedom policies”?

    Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don’t engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.

  • Energy freedom policies include:
    • Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
    • Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., “decriminalizing nuclear.”
  • Energy freedom policies are more likely to lead to long-term emissions reductions.

    Because they accelerate the rate at which nuclear and other alternatives become globally cost-competitive. (The only moral and practical way to reduce global emissions.)16 China and India increasing emissions

  • Fact: The 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
    • Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the “green” movement virtually criminalized it.
    • Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
  • “Net zero by 2050,” by failing to recognize the unique benefits of fossil fuels, is catastrophic when barely implemented and would be apocalyptic if fully implemented.

    Energy freedom gives billions more people the energy they need to flourish and unleashes truly cost-effective alternatives.

References


  1. UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

    For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.

    Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

    Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, the population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

    Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

  2. Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy

  3. As of July 2023, China has over 300 new coal-fired power stations in various planning and construction phases. Global Energy Monitor – Coal Plant Tracker, Coal Plants by Country (Power Stations)

  4. Alex Epstein – The ultimate debunking of “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels.”

  5. U.S. Energy Information Administration – Hourly Electric Grid Monitor

  6. World Bank Data – Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population)

  7. IEA – Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

    Robert Bryce – A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations

  8. UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

    For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.

    Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

    Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, the population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

    Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

  9. Roger Pielke Jr. – Weather and Climate Disaster Losses So Far in 2022, Still Not Getting Worse

  10. Zhao et al. (2021)

    Bjorn Lomborg – Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think

  11. NOAA – Climate change rule of thumb: cold “things” warming faster than warm things

  12. IPCC AR6, WG1, chapter 4

  13. IPCC AR6, WG1

  14. NOAA – Global Warming and Hurricanes

  15. Roger Pielke Jr. – What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires

  16. Reuters – Analysis: China no closer to peak coal despite record renewable capacity additions

    Reuters – India rejects net zero carbon emissions target, says pathway more important

    Alex Epstein – A pro-human, pro-freedom policy for CO2 emissions

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Canada’s Most Impactful Energy Issues in 2024

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By Deidra Garyk

It feels like we are in the beginning of a cultural, social, and political disruption. The fear of saying the wrong thing and being cancelled is subsiding, resulting in robust debate about important topics. Public pushback against climate alarmism and energy misinformation is getting louder as more and more people join in the discussion.

I have enjoyed watching the increased skepticism and distrust towards “the settled Science” and the agreed upon narratives in favour of open, genuine, inquisitive conversations with a focus on practicable solutions. People are fed up with niche topics taking up a disproportionate amount of airtime in place of issues that are relevant to the majority of the country.

These are a few of the energy topics that I feel were most impactful for the year, with many having a lasting impact into 2025 and beyond.

SHIFTING POLITICAL WINDS

As Canada implements more and more regulatory hurdles for the oil and gas industry, the US re-elected pro-business, pro-oil, political outsider Donald Trump in a ‘uge win, with the majority of counties shifting from blue (Democrat) to red (Republican).

He isn’t even sworn in, and Trump is lighting things up via social media decrees. Using Truth Social, he announced that a 25 percent tariff will be placed on all goods coming from Canada and Mexico unless their respective borders are addressed to his satisfaction.

This will affect all Canadian businesses, not the least being those in the oil patch since 4 million barrels of oil per day go to the US, along with 7.9 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. 77 percent of Canadian exports enter the US market; therefore, a 25 percent tariff is another obstacle affecting Canadian businesses’ competitiveness, which are already faced with various regulatory and taxation hurdles from Canadian governments, such as the carbon tax that increases each year.

Expect to see a shake-up in the Department of Energy and the narrative around climate and energy with the nomination of Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy, for US Secretary of Energy. Chris has been a bold, unapologetic, pragmatic energy realist who cares about balancing environmental responsibility with resource development to help supply the world with reliable, affordable energy. His principled leadership has elevated him to one of the highest offices in the US.

Chris Wright is not afraid to go against the crowd. Liberty successfully challenged the SEC’s climate reporting rules and were instrumental in getting them halted. You can listen to his clarity of thought as he testifies on the rules before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee (Chris’ testimony starts at 53:58).

As the first energy secretary to come from the energy sector, I anticipate that the government’s energy messaging and policy is going to shift away from climate alarmism to one of balance and open-mindedness. I hope he staffs the Department with people who understand energy and are not focused on misguided ideology. The ripple effects will be felt around the globe, and now is the time to embrace people’s scepticism and exhaustion with the constant drumbeat of fear about the use of hydrocarbons.

Much like the massive political shift voted in by the Americans, Canadians are also ready for a change. Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberal party continue to lag in the polls, indicating voters’ displeasure with their policies. Poll aggregator 338Canada predicts a resounding majority for the federal Conservatives. Will we begin to see better energy policy after the next election?

RENEWABLES’ REALITY AND COOLING CLIMATE CLUBS

As a further demonstration of the shifting social and political winds, the net zero climate movement has seen major companies quell their public support for associated initiatives. The appetite for costly net zero commitments from voters who are struggling to pay their bills is waning, and politicians are hearing about it.

Many Republican-led states have pushed back on anti-hydrocarbon, net zero financing, and that has influenced how companies behave, starting with an exodus from Mark Carney’s net zero allianceGFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero). The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA), a subset of GFANZ, has lost about half of its members since March 2023. Climate initiatives, like Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) are also losing members who are concerned about the consequences of their affiliation with anti-hydrocarbon groups who attempt to influence how businesses conduct their operations, sometimes through coercive involuntary membership and social shaming.

The energy transition continues to face opposition. In summer 2023, the Alberta government placed a temporary, six-month moratorium on renewable energy – wind and solar – projects in an attempt to balance development with agricultural and social concerns. The condemnation from environmental groups and the Alberta NDP was swift and loud, but not always truthful. On the other side were landowners who were concerned about the consequences of the projects on their communities. A documentary, Generation Green, by filmmaker Heidi McKillop, documents the push-pull of renewable project development in Alberta.

The new rules include development limits on certain agricultural lands, protection of viewscapes using buffer zones, and a requirement for an upfront bond to pay for future reclamation costs. Landowners and associations have praised the changes for addressing concerns and being balanced.

January’s polar vortex reconfirmed people’s willingness to rethink some large-scale industrial wind and solar installations. The extreme cold resulted in alerts warning of potential rotating blackouts, reminding Albertans about the need for reliable, affordable, on-demand energy.

At the same time that Canadians are questioning the reliability of our grids, the government went all in on their bet on the adoption of electric vehicles, generously giving EV battery makers billions of taxpayer-funded subsidies to set up shop in Canada. However, plans have hit speed bumps (pun intended).

Sweden’s Northvolt, the recipient of $7.3 billion in loans, equity stakes, and subsidies from Canada, recently filed for bankruptcy protection in the US. The company says this will not affect its Canadian plant, which is being used as collateral to secure bailout financing in the US.  Meanwhile, other plants have been delayed. It seems like this may not have been a good “investment” for taxpayers.

Not that the Liberal government has been cautious with our money. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, colloquially referred to as the green slush fund, violated government funding rules and breached conflict-of-interest and ethics laws by improperly giving away millions of dollars. The scandal is so bad that the RCMP are investigating whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing; however, the government has been at a standstill for weeks because the Liberals refuse to hand over documents to help with the investigation.

COP29, THE FINANCE COP(S)

The COP conflab in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November didn’t skip a beat, seemingly ignorant of the shifting support for costly environmental action predicated on alarmism. Its 65,000 delegates waxed lyrical about the need to transfer funds from developed nations who are allegedly responsible for climate change to developing nations who are disproportionately victimized by changing weather conditions. What was dubbed “the New Collective Quantified Goal” (NCQG) on climate finance, governments tripled their handouts to US$300 billion annually by 2035, and got commits from public and private entities to increase that funding to US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

No one likes spending other people’s money quite like Minister Steven Guilbeault. You can find a daily outline of Canada’s COP commitments here.

We should have a new environment minister in time for COP30 in Brazil. And thankfully so, my wallet can’t take much more!

REGULATORY RAT’S NEST

In June, with the passage of Bill C-59, the Canadian Competition Act was amended with expanded provisions to address greenwashing complaints, including excessively punitive charges for breaking the new rules. The gag order has silenced oil and gas companies. Many, such as the Pathways Alliance of the six biggest oilsands producers, took down their websites immediately after the changes were announced. Others took down their ESG reports and environmental statements.

Even though oil and gas is likely to be disproportionately targeted and penalized, this Bill is agnostic; complaints can be made against all industries, and the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy will decide who will and will not be investigated.

The fines are material.  $750,000 for an individual’s first offence and $10 million per misrepresentation for a company’s first offense, up to 3% of annual worldwide gross revenues. Analysis from one of the Big Four consulting firms uncovered approximately one potential misrepresentation per page of an ESG report; some reports run close to 100 pages, so the consequences of a fine are impactful, hence the swift reaction from companies.

While business leaders navigate the landmines created by C-59, mandatory sustainability (i.e. ESG) reporting standards are expected to be rolled out next year, with the latest draft issued in the next week or two. The Canadian securities regulator has said they are focused on climate as the first reporting topic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect the Canadian standards will be expanded as the international standards broaden to include biodiversity and human capital, and possibly “just transition”.

In addition to the requirements for publicly traded companies, the feds’ announced mandatory climate reporting for all large, Canadian incorporated companies, including private. Corporations will be forced to publicly disclose their environmental performance while also being hamstrung by the greenwashing changes.

If you feel like an Olympian high jumper, it may be because companies have to be to meet ever higher regulatory requirements set by our federal government. Just when companies think they’ve cleared the bar by voluntarily cutting emissions from production, the feds raise it one foot higher.

November 4 brought the long-awaited draft emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, targeting a 35 percent emissions reduction below 2019 levels by 2030. To say the industry is annoyed is an understatement, and rightfully so.

You can’t keep a good industry down, though! The Canadian Association of Energy Contractors (CAOEC) is forecasting drilling growth in 2025, meaning the industry and its jobs are maintaining a positive trajectory. There’s continued optimism in the patch thanks to increased egress capacity following the start-up of TMX and the near completion of LNG Canada. The CAOEC 2025 forecast anticipates a total of 6,604 wells drilled, a 5.2% increase in rig operating hours, and total jobs (direct and indirect) of 41,800 – all up from 2024. This is good for workers, families, communities, and the economy.

PIPELINE EGRESS PROGRESS

The long-delayed, over-cost Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) became operational on May 1, 2024, proving that we can still build things in Canada. The pipeline allows for the transportation of up to 890,000 barrels per day of oil to the west coast, which has helped narrow the differential of Western Canada Select crude. Congrats to everyone who worked on the project!

Another project of significant national importance is the 670 kilometre Coastal GasLink (CGL), the first pipeline built to the west coast in 70 years. Although the historical pipeline was completed ahead of schedule in late 2023, its completion affected the drilling and development plans of companies this year as we wait for the start up of the LNG Canada facility in 2025. CGL is another reason for optimism.

PERSONAL HIGHLIGHTS AND MILESTONES

2024 marks 20 years in the patch for me. I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside many astute, industrious, innovative folks who have integrity and heart for their work and co-workers. I thank each of you for shaping my career.

In February, I moderated EnergyNow’s event The Road Ahead: Alberta Energy 2024 with Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean and distinguished energy analyst Dave Yager. We sold out the Petroleum Club ballroom and filled the room with lively discussion and camaraderie.

I then had the honour of moderating the sold-out luncheon panel at the 2024 Lloydminster Heavy Oil Show in September, featuring Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. They graciously answered my questions, including one on the Keystone Pipeline – the new “hot topic”.

Premier Smith predicted that a change in US government could see the project resurrected. The Republicans took control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, so we will see if the Premier gets her wish. You can listen to her full answer here and a shorter clip here.

As we close off another fortunate year, I wish all the best for 2025.


Deidra Garyk is the Founder and President of Equipois:ability Advisory, a consulting firm specializing in sustainability solutions. Over 20 years in the Canadian energy sector, Deidra held key roles, where she focused on a broad range of initiatives, from sustainability reporting to fostering collaboration among industry stakeholders through her work in joint venture contracts.

Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and a recognized thought leader. She is passionate about promoting balanced, fact-based discussions on energy policy, and sustainability. Through her research, writing, and public speaking, Deidra seeks to advance a more informed and pragmatic dialogue on the future of energy.

Continue Reading

Economy

FORCE, FORCE, FORCE! – The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By Irina Slav

The facts behind energy transition are so staggeringly counter to common sense that the only way to achieve them is by force, and the only path ahead is failure.

I was going to wrap this eventful year with a nice little post of gratitude  but, as usual, the news flow has forced me to revise my plans. So much has happened in the last week days failing to report on it would be a real shame. You may want to put down the hot beverage or, then again, not put it down, you’re the master of you.

A few years ago, during some election campaign or other — we’ve had so many it’s hard to keep track — one of the most popular parties in Bulgaria chose as its slogan “Work, work, work!” Naturally, the slogan became the butt of many jokes almost immediately.

More recently, we were graced with the “Fight! Fight! Fight!” adage from the Trump campaign that was nowhere near as amusing. It also worked. Meanwhile, the transition army is moving fast towards a “Force! Force! Force!” stage in its efforts to keep the green ball rolling.

Consider the latest gem from the International Energy Agency, out this week. The press release for the report was headlined Global coal demand is set to plateau through 2027, with the subheader summary stating that “New IEA report finds that strong deployment of renewables is set to curb growth in coal use even as electricity demand surges, with China – the world’s biggest coal consumer – remaining pivotal.”

What the report actually admitted, however, was that coal supply and demand hit an all-time high this year, they are both likely to scale new highs next year and keep going in that direction until at least 2027. The way things are going with the transition, coal will probably continue growing beyond 2027 as well because much as Fatih and the Transitionettes want it to die, they can’t tell China and India what to do — or anyone else, really, when push comes to shove.

Push appears to have come to shove in Canada already, with the federal government suddenly deciding to walk back its plan for a net-zero grid by 2035. Now, it will be aiming for a net-zero grid by 2050, which is what is going to be happening elsewhere as well —except perhaps in the UK, where everyone’s gone truly insane but more on that later.

So, Canada last week released something called Clean Electricity Regulations that originally, I gather, were supposed to outline plans to remove hydrocarbons from its already pretty green grid by 2035. The provinces, however, objected. And they must have objected strongly enough for an ounce of sanity to crawl into the regulations. Resource minister Jonathan Wilkinson of “We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities” fame called it “flexibility”. Whatever works to make one feel good, I guess.

Here’s a fun fact: the new Clean Electricity Regulations with the revised target come out literally days after the Trudeau government pumped up its emission cut plan, aiming for cuts of 45-50% from 2005 by 2035. All it took was six days and the start of what might end up being complete government meltdown to reconsider that deadline and delay it by 15 years. But stranger things have happened and some are happening right now, one of them at the U.S. Department of Energy.

The regulator of the department, Inspector General Teri Donaldson said in an interim report that the loan office of the DoE should stop giving out loans to green project developers on suspicion of conflicts of interest, or, as Reuters put it, “contractors who vet them may be serving both the agency and potential borrowers.”

From Donaldson’s report: “The projects funded with this authority, which involve innovations in clean energy, advanced transportation, and tribal energy are inherently risky in part because these projects may have struggled to secure funding from traditional sources such as commercial banks and private equity investors.”

Yet these same projects got DoE funding, which naturally raises the question of whether this funding success was at least in part related to the department’s failure to ensure everyone involved in the process was impartial and driven exclusively by professional motives, and I cannot believe I managed to put this stinky situation so delicately.

Anyway, the DoE has struck back immediately, saying the report was full of errors, and accusing Donaldson of “fundamentally misunderstanding” the “implementation of contracting in the Loan Programs Office.” Yeah, that must be it. That’s why she was appointed Inspector General of the department — but by the Trump administration so it doesn’t count.

All of this, however, is pretty weak beer compared to what’s been happening in Europe. VW is not yet bankrupt and the lights are still on in Germany, for the time being, but in the UK, the government has apparently found a way to grow money on trees because the grid operators of the three constituent parts of the UK’s bigger island are planning to spend 77.4 billion pounds on grid upgrades with a view to accommodating more wind and solar into said grid.

The upgrade is a must if Labour’s 2030 decarbonization plan is to have a fighting chance even though the outcome of that fight is already clear and it rhymes with beet, feet, and meat. The money is to be spent between 2026 and 2031, which means that the money trees take two years to start bearing fruit.

Yet here is my concern: with every other form of plant life susceptible to the devastatingly catastrophic effects of climate change, who is to guarantee that the money trees will be spared the devastating catastrophe? No one, that’s who. The UK may fail to accomplish its task of decarbonizing the country’s grid because of the very climate change it wants to neutralize with that decarbonization, and how cruel of an irony is that? Very, is the answer.

Usually, the UK government is difficult to rival in insanity and anti-intelligence but this week we have a serious contender and it’s not Germany’s government. It’s Big Oil and the heavy industry. That’s right. Europe’s energy and heavy industries have been driven to insanity by the climate crusade army although I’d stop short of painting them as innocent victims.

They could have said something. They should’ve said something. And they should’ve said it loud and clear. But they didn’t, so now Big Oil and Big Heavy Industry are asking the EU to force — that’s right, force — consumers to buy their transition cost-loaded products. Because there is no other way of selling those products.

““We will need to focus on demand creation to achieve new investment prospects,” executives from the two sectors said in a letter to Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, warning of an “industrial exodus” without intervention,” the FT reported this week.

It also reported that “companies trying to invest in production methods that may result in lower carbon emissions are “pricing themselves out of the market” due to high costs, and authorities need to step in to create demand for their products.” I think this is beautiful, in the same way that an orca catching its pray is beautiful, that is, in a rather terminal way.

I don’t normally like to brag about being right about things, not least because it’s invariably bad things I’m right about, so it is with a sigh of frustration and some boredom that I have to note I have been saying this for two years now — and of course I haven’t been the only one, far from it. The only way for the energy transition to work is through force, and a lot of it. The only way for the transition to work is to eliminate all alternatives to the Chosen Tech, and for some reason Big Oil and the heavy industry seem to believe this is a constructive approach to life, the universe and everything.

What I find most interesting in this situation is the fact that it is extremely easy to find evidence the forceful approach tends to result in outcomes that are the exact opposite of the intended ones. History is full of such evidence. Yet it appears the most essential industries for modern civilization have taken the green “It will work this time” pill and are eagerly digesting it. Which means two things we already knew: one, the transition is doomed as it has been from the start; and two, Europe’s going down unless it uses a fast-closing window to come to its senses. We all know it won’t — unless it’s forced to. Work, work, work, force, force, force, fight, fight, fight.

More From Irina Slav

Continue Reading

Trending

X