The tail wagging the dog

If the reader had enough patience to read the whole story, it would become obvious that, in reality, I’d supported emissions cuts and energy saving, as both of these are necessary in any case. I only considered the target set for the renewables to be harmful in regard to its timetable. My questions and answers are provided here below.

As anyone can see, the government has prepared its energy and climate strategy which is supposed to be a response to the EU’s climate change package. The project is simply ahead of its time, as the climate change package has not yet been confirmed through the co-decision procedure. It is really very likely that the Commission will not get the proposal through in its current form. And even if it went through for the part of renewable energies, I am sure that the targets for renewables will be checked and adjusted later, simply because the set target is just impossible to reach.

We now have idealism and reality against each other. On which one of these options would it be worthwhile to build the state’s strategy? Especially as in this case, the idealism is not just unrealistic, but may also lead to harmful solutions, as far as the environment is concerned.

In my opinion the most essential problem in Finland’s strategy is that it has been prepared in reverse order, from the end to the beginning. The tail wagging the dog – what do I mean by this?

I mean, the whole strategy is only prepared to keep the focus on renewable energy goals. First, it has been decided that Finland will reach the target set by the Commission. After that, it has been decided how much electricity can be used so that the target would appear to be realistic, at least to some extent. And after that, the share of the different renewable energy forms has been determined. The total amount of renewable energies should be 38% of end use of energy in Finland in 2020. By this logic, the conclusion is, among other things, that the share of wind energy must be increased from its present level to an amount that is 17 times higher.

When it is put down on paper like that, it sounds all very well but the reality is miserable, also from the point of view of the environment and sustainable development. Wind energy, which could be the ideal solution somewhere else, is pretty useless in Finland, where the wind conditions are quite weak. It means economic unprofitability. Something like this, very simply: a fisherman specialised in tuna fishing could not get a start-up allowance from the employment office or a loan from the bank: the harsh conclusion would naturally be that his business idea is unprofitable.

Europe needs wind energy and it is also worthwhile utilising it in our country whenever possible, but the planned amount would be economically seen an unwise solution, and, from the point view of the environment, a faulty decision. The bill would have to be paid by households and industrial quarters through their electricity invoices. Would this extra financial burden make people any happier, as they would not get their money’s worth in terms of any efficient climate measures but only inefficient ones? I can easily foresee pretty angry demonstrations, when the reality hits home. This is one of the faults of this strategy.

The second one concerns bioenergy. An excessive goal for renewable energies might plunge Finland into a vicious circle where it will move further away from its target merely because it turns down its best performer. We should not be driven into such circumstances where wood would be directly burnt. The energy value of wood will remain, even though it would be further processed and recycled a couple of times. Burning wood would only pay off in so far as there were no other use for the wood.

The third blunder: I would not restrict electricity consumption, but only the emissions. We can cut down emissions by means of electricity very efficiently, for instance emissions generated by traffic. Jukka Leskelä from the Finnish Energy Industries (ET) said yesterday in my seminar on the climate change package that the energy demand of all passenger cars in Finland could be covered by just one nuclear power plant. Emissions would be reduced quite substantially. Of course, electricity must be produced emission-free, but there are effective means for this purpose available. And, if it were possible to prolong the reference year of the objective to 2030 for renewable energies, we would be able to gain better technological solutions compared to what we have now in order to reach the target of 20% or even more.

PS. I now know what Lehtomäki’s criticism was about: apparently, I am against energy saving and also gave the impression that I would merely try to solve the problem through nuclear power. Oh dear, Lehtomäki quite clearly fumbled in her statement. I have never ever been against energy saving, nor have I considered nuclear power to be the only solution.

Here below are the answers that I gave to Suomen Kuvalehti.

How does the strategy stand in relation to the EU targets; what is good in it and what is bad in it? (In short)

– This a difficult question to answer, in so far as one has doubts about the meaningfulness of some EU targets like I do. I support the goal set for energy saving and emissions cuts, but the 20/20 target set for renewable energies is downright dangerous in my opinion, since the given timetable may lead to a setback, both from the point of view of the environment and economics. Scientists warn us that this would lead to overlogging of forests. Naturally, it would not make anybody happy, if we destroy our unique coastal nature with noisy wind power, which is also ineffective under Finnish circumstances.

At what stage are the other EU countries now with their own respective environmental strategies?

– Finland is the first one, a real forerunner clown. We’ll declare ourselves ready to comply with the EU targets even before these have been confirmed. I don’t consider this to be that premeditated – especially as the goal for renewable energies is already suspected to be quite unrealistic.

Can Finland be “placed” somewhere among the other EU Member States? Can Finland meet the energy and environmental requirements of the EU with this strategy?

– Finland only reflects the basic proposal of the Commission and has now accepted it just as it is. Now Finland is not anymore a model pupil of the EU but already a model student of the Commission.

Is Finland the most eager supporter of nuclear power, for instance, as one so often hears?

– This should be put in more exact terms: In no way does the Finnish government favour just nuclear power: it only says that permit applications will be handled pertinently when these are submitted. Only my own party has taken a clearly positive stance towards this issue. The Italian government could also be regarded as having a positive attitude towards nuclear power, as it has backtracked from its former negative line and has clearly stated its wish to construct new nuclear power plants.

Instead, the zeal of the Finnish operators is rather exceptional, but it is not due to the government’s acts. Nuclear power is not even supported financially, but it is economically viable as such.

Is the strategy of Finland clear enough? Is it realistic? Has it become distorted somehow? Is something missing there or is there something too much?

– Finland’s strategy is just as distorted as the proposal of the Commission. The Commission had to use a somewhat slapdash decision of the summit as a basis and this is exactly why Finland is now stuck in the Commission’s version when the Member States are just about awaking to a post-hype hangover. The 17-fold increase in wind power, which is one of the issues striven by the Greens of Finland, is a great mistake and it will unfortunately place a big burden on the present government when people really start to realise how much it will cost. The money for it will come from households and industrial quarters. And when the environmental problems ensuing from wind power become more concrete, high prices that are involved may also add to the anger of the citizens.

The economic consequences of bionenergy are even more serious than those ensuing from wind power, in the event that the lack of raw materials drives out our forestry industry.

How or how much does it affect the environment in reality?

– Finland’s strategy mostly concentrates on the issue of how to reach the targets set for renewable energies. This is what I consider to be the most dangerous part of the climate change package. The science journal Nature Geoscience warned the EU last summer that the target set for bioenergy will lead to overlogging of forests and destroy their carbon sink. How tragicomic it would be, if we accelerate the greenhouse effect whilst trying to curb it.

• Electricity consumption is now some 90 terawatt-hours and, according to the so-called baseline, it may increase to 103 terawatt-hours in a decade. Is it possible to halt the consumption increase at 98 terawatt-hours as the government is now proposing, and which means should be applied: these proposed means, or would we need something else?

– Yes, the strategy is somewhat ambitious, if we compare it to the trends of past years. Let’s hope that the electricity consumption will remain at this estimated level, otherwise this one nuclear power plant will not be enough. One good thing about this strategy is that it does not propose any absolute emissions ceilings. Perhaps more caps could be set for households, as their energy saving levels seem to have plenty of room for improvement. But in any case, the ceilings are only verbal.

Luckily, the next government can draw up a new strategy. As in reality – this is only for the next two years, and not for a longer period of time.