Blog
17.November 2007 - 05:18
Politics, pleasure, repentance
The EU’s Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs is said to have forbidden, in early summer, his Directorate General (DG) for Energy from finishing the Renewable Energy Directive – in order to prolong the pleasure. At that time Piebalgs was touring the Member States on a lap of honour Al Gore-style to celebrate the decisions concerning combating climate change made during the spring EU summit: the decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, the decision to make energy savings of 20% and the decision to increase the share of renewable energy sources to 20%, and all this by 2020.
“Please let me enjoy this moment! When we get to the actual directive and the burden-sharing between Member States, the festive mood will fall flat and the quarrelling will start,” Piebalgs had admitted. According to an employee in the DG, the Commission is living a farcical drama: renewables are almost a religion. Doubting Thomases have been shunted to other tasks, and only studies that strengthen the faith in the miraculous power of renewable energy sources are accepted. “At the same time, the Commission wants to preserve the Doha Development Agenda and agricultural subsidies,” speculates a female civil servant.
This spring I was also wondering myself about the Commission’s triple decision, which showed a peculiar interest in alliteration: 20/20 for reductions, 20/20 for savings, 20/20 for renewables. I was thinking about whose brain had been picked for this alliteration had come from. A poet’s? Hardly an engineer’s, anyway.
Reductions and savings are necessary but I very much doubted the rapid increase in the share of renewables from the current seven per cent. It is only the decision-makers’ lack of knowledge that made the big promises possible – therefore I regard the newly-converted in climate policy as the most dangerous. Hydroelectric power is virtually being utilised to its capacity, wind power has its limits, and with solar energy it is simply not possible to keep up with the speed. So the only option left is logging.
My doubts grew stronger when I participated in a seminar in October, in which the joint study of the management consulting firms McKinsey and Pöyry Consulting, concerning the EU’s possibilities of reaching its targets, was published. The outcome of the study was, to be frank, depressing. We do not have technologically available means to reach a binding target, at least not with such a schedule. What is depressing about the situation is that we can nevertheless accept a binding target but through unsustainable means: by excessively logging forests.
Rapidly increasing the share of renewables sounds, no doubt, good to the man in the street, who is worried about the progress of climate change. However, it is essential how the decision will be implemented. The most depressing paradox would be one in which the projected means for combating climate change actually end up accelerating the greenhouse effect. That can happen if the target for renewables is realised primarily by using wood. The European forest industry estimates that it would mean increasing logging threefold – which would be the end of sustainable forestry.
I wonder why the environmental organisations have not taken up battle for forests. Why do they strain out the gnat and swallow the camel? Is it because they do not see the threat because there is the pious environmental mantra, the renewables, in the background?
All the same, the figures were approved this spring, and there will hardly be political humility to admit the dangerous nature of the decision. Certainly, the target of 10% for biofuels should also be cancelled, as the life-cycle study has already proved the serious risks involved in the project. Raimo Sailas, Permanent Secretary of State, quite correctly stated recently that if the negative environmental impact of biofuels were taken into account, they should be taxed more heavily than petrol and diesel.
What is needed now is a wise strategy to avoid the destruction of our forests. The status of peat must be reconsidered, fallow land must be harnessed for production, investment subsidies must be applied to strengthen the status of wind power and solar energy, energy efficiency must be increased not only in consumption but also in its production. The party is over – let the harsh reality of everyday life save what can be saved.
(Column published in the Etelä-Suomen Sanomat newspaper on 17 November 2007)
Published: November 17, 2007
http://www.korhola.com/2007/11/politiikkaa-nautintoja-katumustaetela-suomen-sanomat/
The EU’s Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs is said to have forbidden, in early summer, his Directorate General (DG) for Energy from finishing the Renewable Energy Directive – in order to prolong the pleasure. At that time Piebalgs was touring the Member States on a lap of honour Al Gore-style to celebrate the decisions concerning combating climate change made during the spring EU summit: the decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, the decision to make energy savings of 20% and the decision to increase the share of renewable energy sources to 20%, and all this by 2020.
“Please let me enjoy this moment! When we get to the actual directive and the burden-sharing between Member States, the festive mood will fall flat and the quarrelling will start,” Piebalgs had admitted. According to an employee in the DG, the Commission is living a farcical drama: renewables are almost a religion. Doubting Thomases have been shunted to other tasks, and only studies that strengthen the faith in the miraculous power of renewable energy sources are accepted. “At the same time, the Commission wants to preserve the Doha Development Agenda and agricultural subsidies,” speculates a female civil servant.
This spring I was also wondering myself about the Commission’s triple decision, which showed a peculiar interest in alliteration: 20/20 for reductions, 20/20 for savings, 20/20 for renewables. I was thinking about whose brain had been picked for this alliteration had come from. A poet’s? Hardly an engineer’s, anyway.
Reductions and savings are necessary but I very much doubted the rapid increase in the share of renewables from the current seven per cent. It is only the decision-makers’ lack of knowledge that made the big promises possible – therefore I regard the newly-converted in climate policy as the most dangerous. Hydroelectric power is virtually being utilised to its capacity, wind power has its limits, and with solar energy it is simply not possible to keep up with the speed. So the only option left is logging.
My doubts grew stronger when I participated in a seminar in October, in which the joint study of the management consulting firms McKinsey and Pöyry Consulting, concerning the EU’s possibilities of reaching its targets, was published. The outcome of the study was, to be frank, depressing. We do not have technologically available means to reach a binding target, at least not with such a schedule. What is depressing about the situation is that we can nevertheless accept a binding target but through unsustainable means: by excessively logging forests.
Rapidly increasing the share of renewables sounds, no doubt, good to the man in the street, who is worried about the progress of climate change. However, it is essential how the decision will be implemented. The most depressing paradox would be one in which the projected means for combating climate change actually end up accelerating the greenhouse effect. That can happen if the target for renewables is realised primarily by using wood. The European forest industry estimates that it would mean increasing logging threefold – which would be the end of sustainable forestry.
I wonder why the environmental organisations have not taken up battle for forests. Why do they strain out the gnat and swallow the camel? Is it because they do not see the threat because there is the pious environmental mantra, the renewables, in the background?
All the same, the figures were approved this spring, and there will hardly be political humility to admit the dangerous nature of the decision. Certainly, the target of 10% for biofuels should also be cancelled, as the life-cycle study has already proved the serious risks involved in the project. Raimo Sailas, Permanent Secretary of State, quite correctly stated recently that if the negative environmental impact of biofuels were taken into account, they should be taxed more heavily than petrol and diesel.
What is needed now is a wise strategy to avoid the destruction of our forests. The status of peat must be reconsidered, fallow land must be harnessed for production, investment subsidies must be applied to strengthen the status of wind power and solar energy, energy efficiency must be increased not only in consumption but also in its production. The party is over – let the harsh reality of everyday life save what can be saved.
(Column published in the Etelä-Suomen Sanomat newspaper on 17 November 2007)
Published: November 17, 2007
http://www.korhola.com/2007/11/politiikkaa-nautintoja-katumustaetela-suomen-sanomat/