King of the Ashes
There is an energy crisis on a global scale. China and India are facing coal supply shortages resulting in nationwide power shortages, Europe has been gripped by a shortage of natural gas, and the British military has been deployed to ease the delivery of gasoline to fuel stations. As Winter looms ever closer in the Northern hemisphere, home to 90% of the global population and much of the developed world and emerging economies, power outages or a spike in energy prices are a concern to households and businesses alike.
In addition, there are concerns in capitals across the world that this might even spark social unrest, and that states should start boosting conventional fossil fuel power plants to ease the crisis. The International Energy Agency has already called for Russia to increase production and delivery of more natural gas to Europe, China has already ordered mining companies to do the same for its coal mines in Inner Mongolia. At the same time, prominent climate activists such as Greta Thunberg have lambasted governments for paying lip service to decarbonise their economies. Beyond the immediate economic debate surrounding the shortages, there is another political and international dimension to this pickle - the fundamental challenges of maintaining climate action.
This crisis, it seems, has shown that states remain hooked on conventional energy sources, and is the result of the undue lobbying influences of certain business groups, or symptomatic of political indifference to long-term goals in favour of short-term gains, or any other shortcoming. Many concerns are warranted, but many fail to address the fundamental flaws (that exist in any policy option) assigned when advocating for it, which is why rationally-minded governments still fizzle out when attempting to maintain green initiatives when confronted with crises.
A Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Tanker arrives in the Port of Rotterdam - Frans Berkelaar/flickr
Diversity in the Mix
In this case, a global rebound in energy demand caused by the gradual rebooting of the global economy has caught policy-makers by surprise. The decision to resort to using conventional power sources is not nefarious, but an unfortunate consequence of the technical limitations of green energy - that it is not flexible enough in a shortage. Beyond the traditional groups that oppose these green policies, such as coal miners and big energy, crises such as these affect the entire populace. Delays in state support or inaction due to green commitments may not only cost governments elections but cause real harm to households and businesses that cannot adapt.
Solar panels and wind turbines are great in the long term - a relatively low carbon footprint and cheap to build. However, they cannot be summoned to ease a crisis quickly, as output in the short to medium term is relatively fixed (as the sun and the wind are beyond our technical expertise). In contrast, the extraction and transport of gas, coal, and oil can be hastened or slowed, and generators shut down or overclocked. The crucial factor of human control makes it pretty much the only option available in such a short period of time, and therefore antagonistic descriptions of political expediency are inaccurate.
The International Dimension
This is exacerbated by certain international arrangements, such as in the EU, where less wealthy states such as Spain have pushed for a bloc-wide purchasing of conventional energy supplies, pressuring traditionally cautious states such as Germany to accept drastic measures. This dynamic further exemplifies the parallels between domestic and international climate dilemmas. Wealthier states in the EU, as well as EU officials, state that this crisis shows how the bloc should press on with its green agenda, as investments in lower carbon emissions and reduced reliance on imported hydrocarbons, with their volatile prices, will pay off in the long term and shield them from such crises. Less wealthy states have voiced concern, however, that bolstering the ‘teeth’ in green policies such as the carbon credit system will acutely affect businesses and households. These policies, based on rectifying the economic costs of energy consumption will harm those who can least afford it the most.
On a global scale, this is reflected by the disparities in emerging economies and developing countries as well. The use of coal and oil is absolutely crucial in economic development, as the infrastructure for its transport and power generation is relatively simple, cheap, and easy to expand. Initiatives by wealthy countries to provide additional funds for green power conversion are simply not adequate, forcing those who have ambitious national plans for economic growth and uplift to continue on the path of conventional energy while making little effort to genuinely greenify their energy mix. As a general rule, people increase their carbon footprint when they get wealthier. Increased power consumption from household appliances, car ownership, the prevalence of meat in diets are hallmarks of economic development. Drastic increases in carbon pricing mean that these ambitions will be hindered, and this raises a debate, where wealthier countries that enjoyed these luxuries and did not pay the full price are now telling poorer countries that aspire to this that they have to pay more and develop more slowly. The introduction of carbon pricing, limiting construction of coal and oil-fired power plants, and other policies not only don’t make political or economic sense in the short to medium term but are also seen as unfair.
List of selected countries on their progress towards the 1.5°C targets compatible with the Paris Agreement October 1, 2021 - Climate Action Tracker
Reactionary Indifference
As of writing, the vast majority of major countries will not meet their own commitments made at the 2015 Paris Agreement. According to climate scientists, current trends indicate that we are heading towards a 3-4°C (5.5-7°F) increase by the end of the century instead of the target 1.5°C, with a menagerie of apocalyptic predictions - storms, droughts, and floods - refugees, famines and extinctions. The problem is that the onset is systemically slow, so the public, governments, and international community feel no urge to act on it now. In many ways, the way states dealt with the pandemic is reflective of climate change. An unprecedented invisible threat, first ignored by the public, then half measures are adopted to prevent it, and by the time they realise the threat, the consequences will engulf them, and the price will be paid.
There are no easy answers. The deadlock and differences in maintaining climate policy are amplified significantly when applied on a global level. COVID-19 has forced a cascade of global and national, economic, and social crises. Governments across the world have their hands full, tempted to postpone or put aside the climate agenda for now to sate public concerns about their immediate wellbeing, keen to put the doom and gloom of the pandemic behind for economic rejuvenation. Trade and Great Power Competition have regained salience in its wake. To place the green agenda first and foremost in national and international attention is almost laughable for most people. Amidst the myriad geopolitical security dilemmas, to the people in the developing world who demand a decent standard of living, or those embroiled in political struggle, how could climate action be anything more than a side project in a world of constant crises and needs? In the end, we might be safe, rich, and free, but humanity will be the king of the ashes.