Empty promises in the air | Phalanges

Habib Maalouf wrote in the Al-Akhbar newspaper:

With the announcement of the upcoming completion of a vaccine for the “Corona” virus, the world began preparing preparations to return to its original biggest problems, the most important of which is global climate change. The most prominent indicators of interest were the announcement by the president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden, that climate change and a return to the Paris Climate Agreement will be the main issues to which his administration will pay great attention, and his rush to appoint former Secretary of State John Kerry as special presidential envoy for climate affairs.
The significance of this is not only that it is an indication of a new global interest in the greatest dilemma facing humanity, but also that it is an indication of the future direction of energy policies in the world. It is well known that the main determinant of global climate policies and their fate are the internal energy policies adopted by the main countries. How can the new American president be committed to the cause of climate change after his country became the world’s largest oil producer due to his predecessor’s boom in shale oil extraction?
Drastic changes are not expected in this file. Yet power has gone from crude to diplomatic, while fundamental and strategic policies are constant. No diplomacy in the world arises from a non-binding agreement, is not in line with ambitions and does not significantly affect the economic and energy policies of countries. Washington was able to declare its commitment to the relevant international agreements and paralyze diplomatic negotiations, as it always does. Therefore, there is no explanation for the rude decisions to withdraw from the agreements unless they reflect an exceptional president in his behavior … Therefore, the policies will soon return to their diplomatic character, false of course. It is an indication that does not imply any positivity in the commitment to seriously combat the issue of climate change.
Likewise, it should be noted that energy policies are directly related to political conflicts and sanctions against countries with oil influence in markets such as Venezuela and Iran. Will the new president continue the sanctions approach and withdraw from shale oil production at the same time? With climate policies driven by the prices of traditional and renewable energy sources, will the sanctions policy and production cut keep the price high enough to support ambitious climate plans to replace fossil fuels with clean technologies? How will producing and non-producing countries or those still drilling for oil and gas be affected? And what will your strategies and plans be?
Taking this and other data into account, Biden’s commitment to reduce US net emissions to zero by 2050 and electricity sector net emissions can be assessed at zero by 2035. And if we believe that, how can we, Without a Democratic majority in Congress, secure alternative technology at record speed to meet these relatively short-term commitments? Especially since the Trump administration had worked to lower the standards imposed on car emissions and canceled the clean electricity plan adopted by its predecessor, Barack Obama (which required a significant reduction in emissions from the electrical industry). Furthermore, this administration “spoiled” the oil and gas companies that made no effort or investment to convert to alternative energy, as well as the European companies that developed this type of strategy. So what should it do, especially after Biden pledged, to combat climate change, to ban the issuance of new drilling licenses on land and in federal waters? How will government revenue from oil and gas production, which amounted to about $ 12 billion in 2019, be offset?
According to Foreign Policy, Biden pledged to invest $ 1.7 trillion in projects aimed at removing carbon from the US economy and with massive investments in solar and wind to improve energy sector efficiency and increase adoption. of clean electricity generation. He promised a “second revolution” in the rail sector by investing in express trains and making them an alternative to trucks for transporting goods. He also called for a global ban on fossil fuel subsidies, support for the export of clean energy media, and climate investment initiatives around the world … However, he also vowed not to allow countries like China to “convert. a preferred destination for environmentally damaging businesses. ” This is a clear indication that it will not deviate much from what its predecessor adopted. For a long time it has been said: to know the true directions of the serious fight against the climate change issue, we must know the directions of cooperation or competition between the United States and China, the two largest and most polluting economies in the world.
In a virtual session of the United Nations General Assembly last September, Chinese President Xi Jinping promised that his country would achieve “carbon neutrality” by 2060 and that it would begin to reduce its gas emissions in the next ten years. According to researchers in this regard, China is betting on two techniques that have long been the subject of controversy and their suitability, cost and implications, which are the technology of sequestration and storage of carbon in the soil, and the increase of afforestation for absorb gases. In addition, of course, to the dependence on clean energy sources (zero emissions) to generate most of its electricity needs and to expand the use of this energy whenever possible, such as electric cars that replace traditional cars . According to Zhang Ziliang, an expert in climate models at Tsinghua University in Beijing, as published in the newspaper “Nature”, for China to meet this goal, it is necessary to increase electricity production to more than double current rates, to reach 15,034 terawatt hours in 2060. That the production of most of them depends on clean sources. This increase depends on the huge increase in the productivity of electricity generation operations from renewable sources over the next four decades, so that the productivity of electricity generation from solar energy is multiplied by 16 and that of the Wind by 9. To offset the energy generated from coal, China must increase the volume of its nuclear energy by 6 times, as well as double the volume of hydroelectric energy! This seems impossible, given that the countries of the world withdraw from the construction of any new nuclear reactor after the Fukushima accident in 2011, noting that the energy generated by coal plants represents about 65% of China’s electricity production. , and there are more than 200 coal-fired power plants in operation. Established now or in the near future. Not to mention that the option of forgoing the world’s cheapest fuel (coal) that helps in cheap and competitive production will meet with massive opposition from, of course, industries that rely on fossil fuels. And the abandonment of cheap fuel can only happen if there is a fundamental amendment in global trade agreements and a rollback of the rules of the market economy … This requirement is not one of the ambitions of the United States or of the programs of the Republicans or Democrats, of course.
If this is the case with developed countries influencing global politics and climate change, how can small countries set their strategies and priorities? Aren’t demands for free clean technology transfer a priority over aid and loan applications? Doesn’t spending on strategies to adapt to climate change become a priority, especially in small countries like Lebanon, whose land is expected to warm up and witness extreme weather events that can lead to floods or droughts? What will energy and water strategies and policies be like, away from naive dreams of exploration and wealth?