Comments on

Meeting the Energy Challenge

White Paper, May 2007 (DTI)

The challenges

‘Climate change, as a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions, threatens the

stability of the world’s climate, economy and population. More than two thirds
of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions come from the way we produce and use
energy, so energy policy has to play a major part in meeting this challenge’

Greenhouse phenomena are part of human activities. These kinds of

activities will continue to affect the climate, long after any solution to the
energy crisis has been found. The question here is what kind of ‘Energy
Policy’ should be implemented and what kind of energy, therefore, we
should all use to reduce greenhouse emission? Before it is too late!

‘The causes and consequences of climate change are global, and while national
governments can and should take action, the ultimate solution must be collective
global effort’

Collective global effort should be directed first from the base i.e. from each
country with its own initiative, according to its own ability. From the base,
we can move to a collective group of countries such as the European Union,
the African Union, the Arab league, G8, the Asian Group and so on. Then
this should be followed by a higher umbrella such as the United Nations.
Ultimately, the UN should have a vital and effective role in dealing with
international issues such as global warming.

‘On current trends, global emissions are set to reach double pre-industrial levels
before 2050, with severe impacts on our climate and the global economy’

The climate will continue to change as emissions at the present are

increasing and will continue to do so for sometime to come. The economy
will take a new direction according to the degree/speed of the climate
changes taking place. The economy may hit a low ground following the
above changes but that depend not just on what is happening concerning
global warming, but on how various countries try to adapt themselves and
their economy to the new environmental situation in the future.
‘A key conclusion from the Stern Review2 was that in the long-term the cost of
inaction would be far higher than the cost of tackling climate change now. It
also makes clear that the costs are lowest if nations act together’

The cost can be distributed according to the amount of CO2 being emitted by
each country. Poorer countries, generally speaking, have lower emissions of
CO2 gas than more industrialised countries. Therefore, a fair way of
distributing the above cost would be tabled according to this category.

The cost will be always lower if nations act together dealing with an
international issues such as this one.

‘At the same time energy demand worldwide continues to increase, particularly
in the United States and emerging economies, such as China and India. On the
basis of present policies, global energy demand will be more than 50% higher in
2030 than today, with energy related greenhouse gas emissions around 55%
higher3’

As the world population increase, the demand for energy will increase
respectively. The USA and other so-called ‘emerging economies’, will, due to
their new and expanding development, simply require more use of energy to
achieve their demand and targets. The global demand for energy by 2030,
according to the figures in this statement, means double the rate of fossil
fuel production in order to be able to achieve the above target. From fossil
fuel reserves, as well as from a technical point of view, this may not be
possible to achieve within two decades. If this is the case, what is the
solution? Is renewable energy the answer for this kind of demand? And how
this possibly can be achieved within the above time scale?!

‘Even if we realise more potential for increasing low carbon sources of energy,
it is clear that coal, oil and gas will play a significant part in meeting the
world’s energy needs for the foreseeable future, and we need to find ways to
reduce their emissions’

The cost in finding ways to reduce the emissions of fossil fuels can run into
huge sum of money and it can take long time to find the solution we are
looking for. The best way is to spend this huge sum of money on the
development of other environmentally friendly sources of energy. As all the
statistics and data available at the present time indicate, the reserve of oil
and natural gas will be reduced drastically within the next two decades. On
the other hand, coal reserves may last much longer than these two fossil
fuels. However, we must remember that oil and natural gas are the life-line
of various energy needs across the globe at the present time and in the not
too distant future.

‘Also, with the UK increasingly reliant on imported energy, we need to manage

the risks arising from the concentration of fossil fuel reserves in fewer and
further away places, some of them in less stable parts of the world’
These ‘politically’ less stable parts of the world which may have higher fossil
fuel reserves than the rest of the world should be encouraged constantly, if
not directed and pressurised, to transform their unstable and unfair
political systems into a genuine democracy, where every individual member
of their society, regardless of their ethnic origin, religion, race or gender can
have equal rights, including political rights. In this way, these unstable
regions can form a much reliable and stable source of trade, in particular
where energy trade comes into the picture. In this way, the concentration
of fossil fuel reserves should not be affected by the location or part of the
world in which might be located, as long as there is a fair and reliable
political system in those regions. If the West is sincere in this respect, then
for their own future benefits they should not support under any form,
directly or indirectly, any dictatorship and tyranny, by any means. Sadly,
present and short sighted interests, as we see in daily politics, suggest that
the reverse is the case.

‘Increased competition for resources will see international trade in fossil fuels
double by 2030. This trend and factors such as abuse of market power, poor
energy market information, infrastructure security risks, and regulatory
uncertainty (particularly concerning government actions to tackle climate
change) could add to the risks to energy security and prices’

The competition in itself, whether related to fossil fuels only or included

within other types of environmentally friendly sources of energy, is good for
the market and for the consumers. What this means is that more companies
and/or businesses provide various types of fuels, the more likely the prices
will fall rather than double, as the above report indicate. The increase of
the prices of fossil fuels will only happen if there is nothing else available to
compete with this kind of energy. As development in various parts of the
world moves fast to find other alternative sources of energy, the scenario
predicted then would not happen because of the factors mentioned in the
‘White Paper’ above, but rather because of the dwindling oil reserve and
consequently the scarcity of this type natural resources in the future.

‘The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that $20 trillion of investment
will be needed to meet these challenges by 2030. The investment decisions that
will be taken over the next two decades will be critical in determining the
world’s climate and the security of its energy supplies. At home it is likely that
the UK will need around 30-35GW of new electricity generation capacity over
the next two decades and around two thirds of this capacity by 2020. This is
because many of our coal and most of our existing nuclear power stations are
set to close. And energy demand will grow over time, despite increased energy
efficiency, as the economy expands’

The IEA figure of $20 trillion of investment may or may not result of what
the IEA is forecasting for the next two decades. In fact this kind of
forecasting, even if it is built on solid and accurate data, cannot be relying
on. The reason (or reasons) for this is usually lies within various constantly
changeable factors. These factors can range from the degree in which our
climate is changing, the increasing of the earth’s population, to the changing
of politics worldwide, in particular when each individual country only
concern with its own interests rather than the world as a whole. All these
contribute to a very difficult situation and can produce disunity, rather than
the unity which is very much needed to solve the warming and the energy
crises. Therefore, in the case of internationally vital decisions (where it
concerns all of us on this planet), no country should consider their own
interests alone, but rather how their decisions and laws/regulations may
influence present and future global environment, in the short and long term.

Regarding the UK’s future energy need, certainly there will be an increase in
demand in this sector, and possibly higher than the figure of 30 – 35 GW
mentioned in the ‘White Paper’. The reason for this is simply because the
UK population is increasing at a higher rate than at any other time in the UK
history, according to the latest population survey and home office prediction.
One of the reasons attributed to this is the number of East European
countries which have joined the EU.
The possibility is that (for the next three decades) the UK will import most of
their energy needs at a higher rate than ever before. Of course, this will
depend mostly on the development taking place in the energy field within the
UK.

Najib Altawell

Altawell © 2009