Blog
20.September 2010 - 22:40
I told you so
“I told you so” is one of the most unpleasant sentences in the world, I do know that. Hearing it from the mouth of a politician makes you want to reach out for a sick bag.
But these days when papers are filled with news of the catastrophic failures of emissions trading, biofuels, renewable energies, climate law and the entire EU climate policy, I would be stark raving mad if I didn’t remind you of having told you so for years and years.
If I did not say that, blog commenters would make the criticism that it is easy to be wise in hindsight. Why didn’t you say it in time?
Well, I did tell you so. Let’s start with biofuels. In 2006, the party leader of the Greens, Tarja Cronberg, raised biofuels as the theme of the elections of 2007 and wanted the Greens to get governmental responsibility in the area of energy policy. There were many more who fell for the same lure; after all, the political agenda is always in need of something new.
Cronberg (Kauppalehti 21.02.06) blamed the Finnish Government for naivety because it has allocated small sums to the development of biofuel applications while governments elsewhere have invested heavily in them: “In Germany, the annual production of turnip rape-based biodiesel is over one million tonnes, in Austria over one hundred thousand tonnes, in Finland tens of tonnes. In Sweden, the State supports households switching over to pellet heating with 5,000 euro, whereas in Finland support for pellets has only been talked about. Denmark has estimated that if 16% of fields would produce energy plants, the petrol consumed in the country could be replaced by ethanol,” Cronberg wrote in the belief that ethanol would be a good thing.
I responded to the writing in question in the same newspaper and stated that the enthusiasm is a typical environmental trend without content: “Unfortunately, within the EU area, the CO2 efficiency of biofuels, especially the Nordic field-based energy, is poor for the time being. According to some estimates it is even negative, in particular for ethanol, in which case the production of biofuel requires more energy than is acquired by producing it. For example, if Denmark replaces the petrol used in the country with ethanol, it will only transfer fossil energy use elsewhere.” I also referred to the problems caused by the intensive cultivation of energy plants to the quality of water and soil. (The whole story can be read via the link http://www.korhola.com/2006/02/bioenergia-vaatii-elinkaaritarkastelun/).
I find it odd that the Greens have wiped that whole chapter from their historiography. Anybody can find Cronberg’s pathos and ethos by googling, and yet, Satu Hassi claimed in an election debate on the morning TV programme of 28.05.09 that the Greens have not demanded the use of biofuels in traffic but instead, have demanded that the raw material base must be ascertained carefully.
In fact, I was the one who demanded that, and was therefore heavily chided.
You may and even must change your mind. Thus I do not blame but thank the Greens for updating their view. Nevertheless, it would be fair to sometime honestly admit that you have been wrong. The facts can be checked with the desk of the TV programme MOT. In the same programme in which Cronberg called for biofuel stations in every place imaginable, I got the role of an obstructionist
This past week, the EU’s new research report published sad information about the false step, also called the EU’s biofuel policy. Owing to it, as much as 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, or an amount equalling approximately India’s emissions in one year, could be released into the atmosphere. An excellent summary (in Finnish) of the research report is available on the website of CO2-raportti: http://www.co2-raportti.fi/index.php?page=ilmastouutisia&news_id=2637.
According to the report, biofuels can cause more emissions than oil over a review period of 20 years.
The EU’s biopolicy can lead, within 20 years, to an increase in emissions by 21 per cent compared with using petrol. Now, activists have instituted legal proceedings against the EU. It is a good thing. However, this bio-craze did not come about by accident within the EU. At the beginning, it had strong support and pressure from the environmental movement.
It is also a pity that going after a craze will backfire. At present, the environmental movement’s criticism is directed the hardest at those few that really invest in efficient and sustainably produced future-generation fuels. An example is Neste, which Greenpeace is grilling unreasonably.
Nevertheless, this is not the end of the story. Once I also warned of the uncritical increase of renewable energy, for abundant burning of wood will cause an explosion of carbon dioxide emissions and threaten the carbon sinks of forests. Lately, we have already seen turning of coats among the environmentalists, and soon we will probably hear that they never supported it at all. To be continued…
“I told you so” is one of the most unpleasant sentences in the world, I do know that. Hearing it from the mouth of a politician makes you want to reach out for a sick bag.
But these days when papers are filled with news of the catastrophic failures of emissions trading, biofuels, renewable energies, climate law and the entire EU climate policy, I would be stark raving mad if I didn’t remind you of having told you so for years and years.
If I did not say that, blog commenters would make the criticism that it is easy to be wise in hindsight. Why didn’t you say it in time?
Well, I did tell you so. Let’s start with biofuels. In 2006, the party leader of the Greens, Tarja Cronberg, raised biofuels as the theme of the elections of 2007 and wanted the Greens to get governmental responsibility in the area of energy policy. There were many more who fell for the same lure; after all, the political agenda is always in need of something new.
Cronberg (Kauppalehti 21.02.06) blamed the Finnish Government for naivety because it has allocated small sums to the development of biofuel applications while governments elsewhere have invested heavily in them: “In Germany, the annual production of turnip rape-based biodiesel is over one million tonnes, in Austria over one hundred thousand tonnes, in Finland tens of tonnes. In Sweden, the State supports households switching over to pellet heating with 5,000 euro, whereas in Finland support for pellets has only been talked about. Denmark has estimated that if 16% of fields would produce energy plants, the petrol consumed in the country could be replaced by ethanol,” Cronberg wrote in the belief that ethanol would be a good thing.
I responded to the writing in question in the same newspaper and stated that the enthusiasm is a typical environmental trend without content: “Unfortunately, within the EU area, the CO2 efficiency of biofuels, especially the Nordic field-based energy, is poor for the time being. According to some estimates it is even negative, in particular for ethanol, in which case the production of biofuel requires more energy than is acquired by producing it. For example, if Denmark replaces the petrol used in the country with ethanol, it will only transfer fossil energy use elsewhere.” I also referred to the problems caused by the intensive cultivation of energy plants to the quality of water and soil. (The whole story can be read via the link http://www.korhola.com/2006/02/bioenergia-vaatii-elinkaaritarkastelun/).
I find it odd that the Greens have wiped that whole chapter from their historiography. Anybody can find Cronberg’s pathos and ethos by googling, and yet, Satu Hassi claimed in an election debate on the morning TV programme of 28.05.09 that the Greens have not demanded the use of biofuels in traffic but instead, have demanded that the raw material base must be ascertained carefully.
In fact, I was the one who demanded that, and was therefore heavily chided.
You may and even must change your mind. Thus I do not blame but thank the Greens for updating their view. Nevertheless, it would be fair to sometime honestly admit that you have been wrong. The facts can be checked with the desk of the TV programme MOT. In the same programme in which Cronberg called for biofuel stations in every place imaginable, I got the role of an obstructionist
This past week, the EU’s new research report published sad information about the false step, also called the EU’s biofuel policy. Owing to it, as much as 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, or an amount equalling approximately India’s emissions in one year, could be released into the atmosphere. An excellent summary (in Finnish) of the research report is available on the website of CO2-raportti: http://www.co2-raportti.fi/index.php?page=ilmastouutisia&news_id=2637.
According to the report, biofuels can cause more emissions than oil over a review period of 20 years.
The EU’s biopolicy can lead, within 20 years, to an increase in emissions by 21 per cent compared with using petrol. Now, activists have instituted legal proceedings against the EU. It is a good thing. However, this bio-craze did not come about by accident within the EU. At the beginning, it had strong support and pressure from the environmental movement.
It is also a pity that going after a craze will backfire. At present, the environmental movement’s criticism is directed the hardest at those few that really invest in efficient and sustainably produced future-generation fuels. An example is Neste, which Greenpeace is grilling unreasonably.
Nevertheless, this is not the end of the story. Once I also warned of the uncritical increase of renewable energy, for abundant burning of wood will cause an explosion of carbon dioxide emissions and threaten the carbon sinks of forests. Lately, we have already seen turning of coats among the environmentalists, and soon we will probably hear that they never supported it at all. To be continued…