The old curse “May you in interesting times” certainly applies to energy analysts these days, as not only is the news on the subject overwhelming, but more and more people feel obliged to weigh in. On the right, we have House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy mistakenly claiming that the Biden Administration banned oil and gas drilling while on the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren blames the big oil companies, whose profits are way up this year. for high gasoline prices. Proving once again that there are more knee-jerks in Washington than knees. (Cue Claude Rains: “Round up the usual suspects.”)
Quite a few have remarked on President Biden at Glasgow calling on OPEC+ to raise oil production, with a backdrop of pressure on fossil fuel companies to disinvest. (Cue Alanis Morissette’s “Isn’t it Ironic?”) But a different story is just as telling: India has pledged to achieve net zero emissions by 2070, but right now, India is suffering from severe local pollution yet has chosen to increase coal burning for power while taking a number of palliative measures such as anti-smog guns that create mists. The government has been blasted for its inaction to an ongoing health crisis, the Supreme Court referring to it as a “’don’t take any step’ position.” Needless to say, prospects for long-term reductions in GHG emissions are not bolstered by this.
India's Toxic Air Pollution Prompts Supreme Court to Act - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Around the world, there is enormous pressure on governments to try to reduce energy prices, even at the expense of raising emissions. Given growing coal use in China and India, which are expected to represent much of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades, this stance does not instill confidence in their adherence to their announced goals. Which means they’re not much different from many other countries, of course.
But adding in the possibility that next year’s election in the U.S. is likely to see control of the House and/or Senate switch to the Republican Party given historical norms, efforts by the Biden Administration to cut U.S. GHG more aggressively are likely to stall. Needless to say, actual emissions will depend on factors such as the strength of the economy, the weather, the price of natural gas, and whether or not oil prices depress gasoline consumption. Nothing else will make much difference before the 2024 presidential election.
Countries outside the OECD are justified in complaining about being expected to forego economic growth based on fossil fuel use after the OECD countries such as the U.S. have more than a century of pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Should the U.S. (and other countries) backslide on climate change programs, it can hardly be expected that developing countries will adhere to theirs. Net Zero 2050 would thus appear extremely vulnerable to political pressure for cheaper energy, which, despite claims to the contrary, most renewable sources do not provide.
Things could change. A surge in temperatures might make politicians take climate change more seriously, and should the global economy boom, more financial resources would be available for expensive solutions. Potentially, advances in battery technologies would support more reliance on renewable power and/or the successful deployment of new nuclear designs could bolster their widespread development—which might provide cheap power for carbon capture plants, among other things. Perhaps my technical optimism compared to my political pessimism reflects a personal bias rather than years of experience, but the history of energy policy being largely one of panic reactions and missteps, the weight of history seems to be on the skepticism.
"current" - Google News
November 24, 2021 at 08:09PM
https://ift.tt/3nO8dcN
Reactions To The Current Energy Crisis Bode Ill For GHG Reductions - Forbes
"current" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3b2HZto
https://ift.tt/3c3RoCk
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Reactions To The Current Energy Crisis Bode Ill For GHG Reductions - Forbes"
Post a Comment