By Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
Do we care more about keeping CO2 lower emissions only in the western world, or do we want to reduce emissions worldwide?
Currently most of the western world are looking for common ways to reduce global CO2 emissions and achieve “net zero”. The fatal flaw is the success of an approach that hinges on two premises:
- The Western world will be able to significantly reduce their CO22 output through the use of wind, solar and other renewable resources.
- The Western world will be able to inspire, persuade, coax or command other nations to do the same.
How will the West prevent other countries from obtaining “affordable” power to improve their living standards? What carrots and sticks can be used? The World Bank tries to control through what types of development can be financed or not. The The US Secretary of Energy recently said“”(W)e wants to go to net zero [emissions] to 2050. We’re really pushing other countries to do the same… countries are vulnerable to peer pressure because no country wants to be the “exception”.
In the long term, the effectiveness of these tools and approaches seems weak compared with the great pressures associated with third world countries’ health, safety and economic development. . It is tragically naive at best to expect that China and the third world nations will peacefully agree to long-term CO retention.2 the goals and schemes of the Western world.
|
Countries will likely rely on coal and move away from Western approaches with very large populations. There are more than 1.4 billion people in China as well as in India. Will China support energy development in Africa? China is currently assisting various African countries in their modernization efforts. Each of these three regions itself has as many populations as the United States and Europe combined. While emissions from the US and Western Europe are falling, emissions from Asia are skyrocketing. India and Africa may be just beginning a steep upward slope.
From the chart above, a few things are obvious. If trends continue, increased emissions from Asia and Africa will reduce the impact of emissions reductions in North America, Oceania and Europe. This will be the case even if North America, Oceania, and Europe all somehow manage to hit net zero.
Consider that the Western world is moving towards more expensive electricity prices. If you understand that it also has the potential to lead to more unreliability, you will find emerging concerns greatly exaggerated. More costly (and more unreliable) energy in the west will lead to a larger migration of manufacturing, manufacturing, industry and emissions to developing countries. Today, this seems very likely because of green technology deployment efforts that rely on resources and technologies produced in China and third world countries with energy resources. not as clean as what is being replaced.
Is it reasonable to continue with a scheme that not only entails technological leaps, higher costs, and reduced reliability for participants, but also virtually guarantees that the developing world will going in a different direction? Or would it make more sense to consider plans that could be more effective globally, considering the most likely scenarios worldwide?
A better scenario?
The numbers provided below were developed unofficially for illustrative purposes. But rest assured that with a sophisticated sophisticated computer model based on many inputs, we can adjust the parameters to achieve essentially the same result as shown below.
Scenario A represents the future fork that could emerge if current strategies are continued. In Scenario B, the U.S. strategy is to develop and improve “cleaner” technology that is affordable for use at home and around the world. The effect of this focus will be to raise C02 emissions in the US, but lower net emissions in China, India and Africa. Furthermore, with a lower cost differential, less energy consumption will be exported to foreign manufacturers with higher emissions. U.S. efforts to make small improvements to moderate cleaner technology are likely to have far-reaching effects than the 100 percent reduction targets ignored by the third world. Below are sample illustrative numbers.
Under these hypothetical alternative scenarios, one can see the possibility that the United States could be more effective with less stringent centralization goals. Our greatest strength may be as a leader in developing technology that works for us and the third world, instead of excelling on a path that others can’t. and/or will not follow. To the extent other developed countries are also involved in the development of cost-effective approaches, the potential outcomes described above could be even more significant.
Conclusion
Is it reasonable to expect that a single coordinated global approach requiring high-cost zero-emission technologies could operate without enforcement from central governments around the world? Sure is not. Self-interest works on both sides of world trade. Consider that today the cheap, dirty resources of the third world support the production of much of our “clean” technology. These trends are likely to persist and possibly get worse. The growing development in China, Africa and India will likely have the effect of protecting them from Western pressure. A world with diverse and independent power supply approaches would not be optimal.
Finally, do we care more about keeping CO2 lower emissions only in the western world, or do we want to reduce emissions worldwide? The “green solutions” being developed in the US, Oceania and Europe are proving to be increasingly expensive, cumbersome, complex and unfeasible. Due to cost, complexity and challenges, they cannot transform Africa or support major innovations in India and China. The best possible strategy is to look for technologies that can support the balance between economy, reliability and social responsibility on a global basis.
