This is an excellent column that explains the exact reason there is an energy crisis and so much of Europe is now dependent on Vladimir Putin.
Apparently, the climate warriors who have campaigned to eliminate fossil fuels didn't put much thought into how they would replace the energy that comes from fossil fuels.
The final paragraph says it all: "The climate movement’s hard work was aimed at putting Big Oil out of business. Instead their tactics have oil companies gobbling up profits on elevated prices caused by the shortages the eco-warriors did so much to bring about. Maybe it’s time to admit the climate plan needs a rethink, even though the mere suggestion will have the movement chanting new slogans and hollering about heresy."
--
The West's clean energy push empowered Russia and China
By Kelly McParland
National Post
The gospel on climate change has been that, first and foremost, fossil fuels must go.
Coal, oil, gas (liquefied or otherwise)… out, out out. Close the oilsands, cancel the pipelines, end the fracking, get rid of the nuclear plants while you’re at it. The imperative is all about ridding the world of supply, getting us off our existing addictions, whether or not there was an alternative available to take its place. It was taken for granted … or on blind faith … that the alternatives would be there. Technology would advance, innovation would flourish. Just get rid of the bad stuff and we’ll worry about supplying the good stuff later. It’ll work, I promise you. We can do this! No more coal! No more coal!
It made for great demonstrations. Excellent chants. And the politicians listened. So here we are in a world desperate for more energy, and it’s not available. Whoops. The crises crowding us on several fronts have much to do with policies that put popularity ahead of pragmatism.
The greatest weapon Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wields in his confrontation over Ukraine is his ability to shut the valves on much of the continent’s energy supply. Germany, the strongest of the European Union economies, decided a decade ago to mothball its nuclear plants. Nuclear once supplied almost 30 per cent of its power needs; this year the last plant will close, taking its share to zero. It has yet to find a reliable replacement: It’s never built a terminal for importing liquified natural gas . It’s been working to cut its use of coal. Instead it bet the farm on obtaining a safe, secure, reliable supple of natural gas from Russia. Now half its gas imports are dependent on Putin’s good will. The figure is 40 per cent for Europe as a whole.
Imagine the pressure Ottawa would be under if Canada got 40 per cent of its energy supplies from a hostile, anti-democratic country run by one man with the power to shut the spigot. Imagine how little regard we’d have for a government foolish enough to put us in that position. But climate change topped political agendas and world leaders wanted to be seen waving the green flag. So convinced was Berlin that Moscow could be trusted that it let LNG plans slide in favour of a second pipeline from Russia, which would double its dependency. Think that was a good idea? Think Ukraine thinks so?
So compromised is Germany on the energy front that the U.S. is hustling to organize emergency supplies to replace Russia’s gas should Putin shut the taps. Energy prices across Europe are through the roof. Reuters reports benchmark European gas prices were up 330 per cent last year. Analysts estimate western Europeans will face a 54 per cent hike in bills this year. A bit late, politicians have spotted the flaw in the climate change orthodoxy. A new EU guide on “sustainable” energy sectors favoured for investment is to include gas and nuclear projects, even as green leaders, activists and climate celebrities continue to complain. Confronted with a backlash, EU president Ursula von der Leyen replied that while everyone is keen on renewables, “we also need a stable source, nuclear, and during the transition, gas.”
The surge in energy costs has helped push food prices to record levels. Natural gas is essential to the production of fertilizer, and price increases are crushing small farmers in struggling countries. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that fertilizer costs are behind production cuts and shuttered farms across South America and Asia, boosting hunger in many of the world’s least-prosperous countries. Sub-saharan Africa alone could see a drop of 30 million metric tons in food production, enough to feed 100 million people.
After years of resistance, the auto industry has seen the light under immense pressure from “progressive” governments and is racing to churn out electric vehicles in place of gas guzzlers. But once again it was deemed necessary to run before we could walk. The batteries needed to power the e-cars and trucks depend on minerals that are in limited supply, have to be scraped from the earth in a process that is no cleaner or emission-friendly than the one that produces the world’s oil supply, and has increasingly been bought up by China’s communist rulers in a transparent effort to increase its ability to dictate terms to western countries.
Cobalt is among minerals critical to batteries for electric vehicles. The Democratic Republic of Congo, considered one of the world’s most corrupt countries, is home to two-thirds of the world’s cobalt production. After buying two of the biggest deposits from U.S. companies, Chinese firms now control a reported 15 of the 19 producing mines, a handy position to be in with the world facing a potential shortage as early as 2015. Automakers are rushing to find other sources or develop alternative inputs, but remain a long way off. Meanwhile, governments continue to blithely ignore the corner they’re backing themselves into: Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government expressed no concern when a Chinese company recently bought a Canadian lithium miner, despite warnings to a parliamentary committee that control of lithium is part of Beijing’s aim to become “dominant in global high-tech manufacturing.”
Perhaps if the world was gaining on its goal of reducing emissions to levels set at international summits rich with western leaders, activists, eco warriors and their army of supporters, some of the risks being taken could be viewed less nervously. But we’re nowhere close to those levels and the odds of success are getting worse. Meanwhile we have an increasingly aggressive government in China, a dangerous autocrat on war footing in Moscow, an energy crisis in Europe, fears of hunger in much of the world, and a race to electrify based on mining operations that are no better than oil at reducing emissions.
The climate movement’s hard work was aimed at putting Big Oil out of business. Instead their tactics have oil companies gobbling up profits on elevated prices caused by the shortages the eco-warriors did so much to bring about. Maybe it’s time to admit the climate plan needs a rethink, even though the mere suggestion will have the movement chanting new slogans and hollering about heresy.
nationalpost.com
Apparently, the climate warriors who have campaigned to eliminate fossil fuels didn't put much thought into how they would replace the energy that comes from fossil fuels.
The final paragraph says it all: "The climate movement’s hard work was aimed at putting Big Oil out of business. Instead their tactics have oil companies gobbling up profits on elevated prices caused by the shortages the eco-warriors did so much to bring about. Maybe it’s time to admit the climate plan needs a rethink, even though the mere suggestion will have the movement chanting new slogans and hollering about heresy."
--
The West's clean energy push empowered Russia and China
By Kelly McParland
National Post
The gospel on climate change has been that, first and foremost, fossil fuels must go.
Coal, oil, gas (liquefied or otherwise)… out, out out. Close the oilsands, cancel the pipelines, end the fracking, get rid of the nuclear plants while you’re at it. The imperative is all about ridding the world of supply, getting us off our existing addictions, whether or not there was an alternative available to take its place. It was taken for granted … or on blind faith … that the alternatives would be there. Technology would advance, innovation would flourish. Just get rid of the bad stuff and we’ll worry about supplying the good stuff later. It’ll work, I promise you. We can do this! No more coal! No more coal!
It made for great demonstrations. Excellent chants. And the politicians listened. So here we are in a world desperate for more energy, and it’s not available. Whoops. The crises crowding us on several fronts have much to do with policies that put popularity ahead of pragmatism.
The greatest weapon Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wields in his confrontation over Ukraine is his ability to shut the valves on much of the continent’s energy supply. Germany, the strongest of the European Union economies, decided a decade ago to mothball its nuclear plants. Nuclear once supplied almost 30 per cent of its power needs; this year the last plant will close, taking its share to zero. It has yet to find a reliable replacement: It’s never built a terminal for importing liquified natural gas . It’s been working to cut its use of coal. Instead it bet the farm on obtaining a safe, secure, reliable supple of natural gas from Russia. Now half its gas imports are dependent on Putin’s good will. The figure is 40 per cent for Europe as a whole.
Imagine the pressure Ottawa would be under if Canada got 40 per cent of its energy supplies from a hostile, anti-democratic country run by one man with the power to shut the spigot. Imagine how little regard we’d have for a government foolish enough to put us in that position. But climate change topped political agendas and world leaders wanted to be seen waving the green flag. So convinced was Berlin that Moscow could be trusted that it let LNG plans slide in favour of a second pipeline from Russia, which would double its dependency. Think that was a good idea? Think Ukraine thinks so?
So compromised is Germany on the energy front that the U.S. is hustling to organize emergency supplies to replace Russia’s gas should Putin shut the taps. Energy prices across Europe are through the roof. Reuters reports benchmark European gas prices were up 330 per cent last year. Analysts estimate western Europeans will face a 54 per cent hike in bills this year. A bit late, politicians have spotted the flaw in the climate change orthodoxy. A new EU guide on “sustainable” energy sectors favoured for investment is to include gas and nuclear projects, even as green leaders, activists and climate celebrities continue to complain. Confronted with a backlash, EU president Ursula von der Leyen replied that while everyone is keen on renewables, “we also need a stable source, nuclear, and during the transition, gas.”
The surge in energy costs has helped push food prices to record levels. Natural gas is essential to the production of fertilizer, and price increases are crushing small farmers in struggling countries. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that fertilizer costs are behind production cuts and shuttered farms across South America and Asia, boosting hunger in many of the world’s least-prosperous countries. Sub-saharan Africa alone could see a drop of 30 million metric tons in food production, enough to feed 100 million people.
After years of resistance, the auto industry has seen the light under immense pressure from “progressive” governments and is racing to churn out electric vehicles in place of gas guzzlers. But once again it was deemed necessary to run before we could walk. The batteries needed to power the e-cars and trucks depend on minerals that are in limited supply, have to be scraped from the earth in a process that is no cleaner or emission-friendly than the one that produces the world’s oil supply, and has increasingly been bought up by China’s communist rulers in a transparent effort to increase its ability to dictate terms to western countries.
Cobalt is among minerals critical to batteries for electric vehicles. The Democratic Republic of Congo, considered one of the world’s most corrupt countries, is home to two-thirds of the world’s cobalt production. After buying two of the biggest deposits from U.S. companies, Chinese firms now control a reported 15 of the 19 producing mines, a handy position to be in with the world facing a potential shortage as early as 2015. Automakers are rushing to find other sources or develop alternative inputs, but remain a long way off. Meanwhile, governments continue to blithely ignore the corner they’re backing themselves into: Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government expressed no concern when a Chinese company recently bought a Canadian lithium miner, despite warnings to a parliamentary committee that control of lithium is part of Beijing’s aim to become “dominant in global high-tech manufacturing.”
Perhaps if the world was gaining on its goal of reducing emissions to levels set at international summits rich with western leaders, activists, eco warriors and their army of supporters, some of the risks being taken could be viewed less nervously. But we’re nowhere close to those levels and the odds of success are getting worse. Meanwhile we have an increasingly aggressive government in China, a dangerous autocrat on war footing in Moscow, an energy crisis in Europe, fears of hunger in much of the world, and a race to electrify based on mining operations that are no better than oil at reducing emissions.
The climate movement’s hard work was aimed at putting Big Oil out of business. Instead their tactics have oil companies gobbling up profits on elevated prices caused by the shortages the eco-warriors did so much to bring about. Maybe it’s time to admit the climate plan needs a rethink, even though the mere suggestion will have the movement chanting new slogans and hollering about heresy.
Kelly McParland: The West's clean energy push empowered Russia and China
The gospel on climate change has been that, first and foremost, fossil fuels must go.
nationalpost.com
