Coal leads the way as fossil fuels burn up the planet

The rapid expansion of fossil fuel burning which is frying the planet’s atmosphere faster than ever is entirely unnecessary and economically unjustifiable. And that’s official.

According to the International Energy Authority’s 2012 annual assessment, simple, economically-useful, energy efficiency measures could cut the growth in global energy demand by half and as a result, the demand for oil would peak before 2020.

The reduction in demand would be equivalent to the current combined production of Russian and Norway.

There would be greater energy security for countries worried about having to import their fuel and there would be huge economic growth as buildings and infrastructure were made more energy efficient. Hundreds of thousands could be employed and fuel bills cut by 20% on average.

But the direction of travel of global capitalism is the exact opposite. Subsidies are instead being poured into fossil fuel production – six times more than those available to renewables, amounting to $523 billion in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010.

As a result emissions of greenhouse gases reached their highest-ever level in 2011. Current energy plans of governments across the world will lock in a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 °C, not the 2.0°C governments claim they are committed to.

Renewables are the fastest growing form of energy, but that is starting from a very low level. Coal, which is responsible for 40% of greenhouse gas emissions from fuel, is going through a massive global expansion. Production is up 6% on 2010.

The rejection of nuclear by some governments in the wake of the Fukushima disaster did not lead to an expansion of renewables but to an expansion in coal burning. For example, Germany announced it would get out of nuclear within a decade, but this year it increased the amount of electricity generated from coal by 12% over 2011.

China is investing hugely in renewables, but coal-fired output grew as much there in the last decade as nuclear, wind and hydro combined.

In the US rapid expansion of “fracking”, plus new offshore finds have fuelled a dash for gas. But coal production is on the increase, licensed by the Obama administration and so the US is now exporting cheap coal all over the world.

The IEA says  that “the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path” and despite an increase in low-carbon sources of energy “fossil fuels remain dominant in the global energy mix”.

The big question is why? Why are we pouring tax subsidies into fossil fuels, instead of renewables or energy efficiency? Why is a country like South Africa, an ideal test bed for solar power, pouring government funding into coal? In its post-crash-printing-money phase, the Obama administration funded excellent solar projects, which have brought major advances. Why is that not the US’s new export, instead of dirty old coal?

The “whys” are endless and exhausting but the answer is quite straightforward – it’s the bottom line that counts. Corporations use their power over governments to keep their priorities sweet. Six of the richest 100 mining billionaires are Chinese, five are Indian. The richest of them all is Brazilian Eike Batista whose personal net worth is $32 billion.

And at number 42 is Patrice Motsepe, South Africa’s first black billionaire, who bought up failing mineral businesses and made them profitable by cutting costs and increasing exploitation. You can be sure he is not pressing his friends in the ANC government to shift funding into renewables.

There’s a lot of money to be made from destroying the planet’s climate and eco-system. Only a transfer of political power to popular democracies acting in the interests of the majority and not the oligarchs and corporations, can halt the process.

Penny Cole

Environment editor

Triple whammy of warming planet, high prices and energy insecurity

In the most comprehensive study yet of the global energy market, the International Energy Authority (IEA) has warned that within five years the planet will be on course to breach the limit of 2ºC of global warming which is said to be a “safe” level.

Of course, it is just the only level that supine corporate-serving politicians would agree at the UN's climate talks. Millions of people are already feeling the effects of global warming - ferocious rainfall causing floods in Thailand, Sindh province in Pakistan, the United States, Spain and Italy – and at the same time widespread drought. With 2ºC higher temperatures, such extreme weather will be commonplace, along with rising sea levels.

Over the last decade most of the world's growing energy needs have been met by burning coal; now not only China but also the United States is committed to building new coal power stations. The IEA projection shows that keeping to this course, the use of coal will increase by 65% by 2035.

Four-fifths of the CO2 emissions that would keep to the 2ºC limit are already locked in. Even if governments deliver on their weak, non-binding, greenwash targets, the cumulative CO2 emissions over the next 25 years will likely create a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5°C. And if, as seems likely, they fail to meet their targets, we are looking at a catastrophic 6ºC rise.

"As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the ‘lock-in’ of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals," said Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist.

This week's BBC Panorama programme, made a crude attempt to blame soaring energy bills on the government's modest (to put it politely) efforts to promote alternative energy from wind, tide and solar.

The programme was a complete fraud. According to Ofgem, recent fuel price increases, which have left hundreds of thousands in fuel poverty, are due to the energy companies passing wholesale market price increases on to consumers, whilst never reducing them when the market falls.

Panorama tried to argue that because renewables require investment, and because the government is making some of that investment, consumers are being hit by subsidies.

But why are subsidies needed? Surely it is in the nature of an industry that if changes to new technology are required, these are paid for by investment by the companies that will profit in the long term.

Not on your life! In reality, the big six energy companies in Britain, and others throughout the world, are on an investment strike. They will go on dragging profits out of old-style power stations as long as they can, adapting them to dirtier and dirtier fossil fuels and they will never put a penny into developing the alternatives.

Their goal is NOT a clean, secure energy supply - it is profit, and that's a fact!

And where there is an increase in world market prices for gas and oil - and these will be ever-steeper as fossil fuels become scarcer and harder to extract - the consumer must pay.

We are left with a triple whammy of a warming planet, high energy prices and growing energy insecurity.

"Without a bold change of policy direction, the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system," said Birol, adding that there is still time to act but the window of opportunity is closing.

The only action open to us is to achieve such a transformation is to take energy generation and supply out of private ownership and place it into a not-for-profit social trust, with raw materials becoming part of a new global commons.

A democratic network of People's Assemblies could then agree, with the help of experts and the collectively-owned power generating firms, a transitional plan to reduce, and then replace, fossil fuels. That is the only way to cut emissions, end fuel poverty and ensure that the lights stay on.

Penny Cole

Environment editor