Monbiot vs Delingpole
March 5, 2010
As is my want in these cases, no comment on content as Monbiot and Delingpole have a quick tussle on BBC’s The Daily Politics (unusually a distinctly right-leaning BBC show)
Energy Security = Energy Interdependence Addendum
January 20, 2010
Interesting presentation by Jeff Rubin at the Business of Climate Change conference in Toronto in Sept 2009
Its 45 mins long, but well worth it to see how an experienced (and charismatic) financier sees the issues connecting energy, trade and globalisation. I think his timings are wrong, but otherwise its a reasonable reading of a potential future.
You’ll note that he never once mentions energy independence, only alludes to energy security but never uses the phrase, and speaks about the development of regional economies as oil costs erode labour price advantages currently experienced by emerging economies. Don’t misunderstand, its all about energy security, but he doesn’t fall into the rhetorical trap of invoking overtly nationalistic tendencies. He uses protectionist measures (carbon tariffs) to get to his view, coupled with internal carbon pricing, but everything is in believable economic terms.
If we consider Canada, and specifically British Columbia (BC), as a thought experiment in this context its interesting to see the North American western seaboard as an emerging power in Rubin’s new re-jigged, less global economy. Yes, there is a focus on resources for export in BC, but with the amount of hydropower and BC’s commitment to zero carbon electricity there may well be a competitive advantage to base a regionalised economy along that seaboard, with population and industrial centres served by natural resource flows north and south of the 49th Parallel.
Apart from BC, the combined regional energy policies are supportive of a low-carbon transition with gubernatorial and state-level initiatives favouring low carbon energy sources in California, Oregon and Washington State. A cursory reading of their respective policy positions shows that energy independence is not a rhetorical standpoint that is used strongly, except by the Governor of Oregon. There are good (and reasonably obvious) reasons for this. BC and Washington State have excellent hydro power resources, and both have potential to raise the electricity production from small and medium-sized hydro. This reduces their dependence on energy imported from outside the region. California is known for its innovative technology and progressive policies in the energy field, so has much to gain by driving a new industrial sector.
But lets take a step back to Jeff Rubin’s point about localising production of goods. That implies localising non-energy natural resource production as well as energy. The western seaboard is in an enviable position to do this. Pretty much every kind of natural resource can be found in this part of the world; timber, fish, metallic ores, agriculturally productive land. As a region it’s got it all. But !
But on its own BC doesn’t have a large enough consumer-base to support a fully vertically integrated economy. Apart from the 3 million folks in the Vancouver area, its mostly forests and mountains. Likewise it doesn’t have the full range of agricultural products that most of us have come to expect in the last few decades, due to its climate. It has an excess of low-carbon power and raw materials (and no shortage of ingenuity). It could be energy independent, but it would end up paying over the odds for the food and manufactured goods that it seems likely would be produced in California in this new regional emergent economy. The binding cross-border factors could be water and electricity, but BC should also look at processing of those raw materials to add value to them prior to export.
So an internal drive to a progressive energy policy fits with a regional strategic economic vision. Energy security is allied with food and water security and internal economic coherence.
I think I’ve just convinced myself to move to Vancouver
Ending with a fizzle ?
December 18, 2009
Well, that was disappointing to say the least. Obama the damp squib.
Obama and Jintao are digging in, effectively setting the stage for a trans-Pacific economic war. Nothing new from the States, very little from China. In fact the only statesman coming out of this looking at all good right now is Lula who as good as said ‘Sod the lot of you. We’ll do it on our own’ by committing himself and his country unilaterally to cut emissions and increase energy efficiency.
There was an strange counterpoint in the webcasts earlier with the delegation of Republican senators holding a press conference at the same time as Bolivia & Venezeula. Opposite ends of the spectrum in so many way, but speaking in rooms next to each other.
The Republicans said bluntly ‘We don’t believe the science’. The South American compadres said bluntly ‘We don’t believe the Americans’. The problem is that the Republicans will prevent the US taking any concrete action that doesn’t materially benefit the US economy. All of the US delegation’s rhetoric so far has been 100% focussed on addressing the USA, its population and current economic problems. Nothing of substance has been put on the table to address anyone else’s concerns, and no signals to indicate that possibility either.
One of the scariest things was one of the Republican senators saying that they would agree to nothing remotely like a deal on emissions without a comprehensive agreement on Intellectual Property (IP) involved with technology transfer. That’s not something that is going to happen overnight. Or even in a year. That’s a 5-year kind of a job and the sort of thing that the WTO does, not the UN.
This leaves everyone in a very difficult situation. Europe has committed to substantial and binding changes to the energy system, but only makes up something like 25% of total emissions. China has energy efficiency as a core economic aim and has for several years (it is part of their 5-year plans), so no-one else wants to fund their growth because additionality (doing stuff over and above that already planned) is not guaranteed without transparency. SE Asia has to compete directly with China or be swamped by its growth. India wants (justifiably) to drag itself out of poverty. Everyone seems to have tied their own national hands right now.
The little guys (politically) are sitting on the side lines hanging their heads and searching their address books for friends and family who live on higher ground.
Its time for the US EPA to play the joker and do something drastic and politically rash, or for China to accept that it has dodgy accounting procedures and allow someone else to keep the books. Neither look likely.
The people with most at stake right now, apart from the small island states and LDCs who get screwed every which way, are the UN and EU. The UN’s credibility as a power-broker is taking a serious hit. The EU’s commitment to change and aim means it (we) take an economic hit, compared with the US, China, etc.
As I said at the beginning of the post, this is the recipe for the protectionism and economic separatism that I have previously warned against with respect to energy. The American delegations, whether it be the veterans groups or the official delegations, keep using the phrase ‘threat multiplier’ with respect to climate change. I agree, but the quickest route to that multiplication is trade war, a threat that only politicians are responsible for.
Update on the post press conference: The EU Commission Pres Barroso was fuming and pointed at ‘partner countries’ that consistently worked against ambitious emissions targets. It sounded like the 30% cut was put on the table and swept off by all other developed nations and major developing nations, but that interpretation should become clearer when tempers have cooled. The Australian PM Rudd appears to be reading a different text and be right up the US’s arse. The Ozzies won’t say what they will do until everyone else has deilvered.
I’m waiting to see if the thing gets thrown away by the Plenary.
Updated update; The COP is heavy going at 3am but the Central/S American compadres have just read something into the record and the tired looking Danish PM is taking advice on whether the chair can accept the statement. It sounded like it committed the COP to continuous siting until all issues were resolved in full session rather than informal sub-groups behind closed doors. Smart move if it can be done. It means the meeting cannot be closed and the ‘accord’ does not come into effect.
20 mins on and discussions on the high table continue. Have the Bolivarian brotherhood pulled a fast one ?
An hour or so later (04:05):
Yep. They’ve been to the lawyers and are trying to force the COP to suspend rather than close, so consigning the accord to be an appendix or misc doc.
Back into a huddle the top table goes after Nicaragua makes it clear that this is the groups aim.
Back under discussion and the Sudanese Ambassador has likened the document to the Holocaust. Not surprisingly this hasn’t gone down well and there are calls for the remark to be retracted. The Bolivarian brotherhood have blocked the document, but most others want it adopted as some mark of tangible progress. One delegation has suggested that they attach an opt out on the bottom of the doc instead of it being abandonded.
Nearly there. Delegates are asking the chair to rearrange flights for them.
And Venezuela brings it back to process.
The Solomons delegation walks as its now late for its flight.
Other delegates start to walk while V is still talking.
Sudan chips back in with waffle. They are just padding now.
That’s it ‘The Accord’ has been shot down unless Ed can do something in the next 5 mins
Apparently if the Accord is uptaken by the COP money can start to flow straight away. If it is relegated to a ‘misc’ document no money can or will flow
Ed’s last minute adjournment goes on. Almost an hour now. I can see a gathering near Nicaragua’s desk. But there’s no sound.
Whatever Ed’s said its got them talking. There are delegates on phones and some really earnest groups. There is also a little stage front flirting going on.
Looks like they’ve woken up Ban Ki Moon. He seems to be on the stage now.
Ed is striding back and forth between two delegations, both off camera, with a couple of PAs in tow. Earlier one of the Bolivarian brotherhood’s complaints was exclusion from the group of heads of state that drafted the accord. I wonder if Ed’s just democratised that process to include Venez, Boli, Cuba, Nicaragua & Sudan
Looks like things are drawing to a conclusion. Delegates are watching the stage expectantly.
Spoke too soon. The officials look like they have something to do. They are reading something.
Just seen Yvo de Boer
Looks like they are discussing procedure of how to swap to a new text ! Yes, thats what it looks like.
Yes. Ed got the accord through. The Maldives are extatic. Its still a weak piece of paper but at least the money can flow right now.
Spoke too soon. Sudan, Egypt and China have raised concerns and asked for clarifications, but they are discussing words not documents.
And so it goes on, and on and on. Enough already !
Psychic ?
December 2, 2009
I’m getting some serious vibes here. That’s three announcements from DECC in the last month or so immediately following three posts here.
First CCS, next biomass and now smart meters. Check the dates if you don’t believe me.
CCS
Engagingenergy.com - Carbon Capture & Snorage 15th Nov
DECC – Queen’s speech & Energy Bill 18th Nov
Biomass
Engagingenergy.com – ‘Got Wood ?’ 23rd Nov in the morning
DECC – Press release 23rd Nov in the afternoon
Smart meters
Engagingenergy.com – ‘Smart, sassy and just a little bit too forward electricity and water meters’ I should have said gas of course, but it was my understanding that the safety implications of installing smart gas meters made it a bit too difficult at this point. That seems to be reflected by the consultation response published today – 20th November
DECC – Press release 2nd Dec
Ed. If you want to chat just give me ring
