WHAT’S HAPPENING IN EUROPE? - CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY
By Gerrit Jan Bouwhuis
Five previous articles addressed subsequently: the post-war changes in Europe (immigration and the development of European cooperation), the difficult discussion about immigration, the culture battle around “woke” and the war in Ukraine. In the present article, climate and energy in Europe take centre stage. Facts, policies, and discussions are addressed. It is not possible, however, to consider this domain as an isolated European business. Therefore, it will be presented in a broader world picture.
Explaining the article
The core of this article consists of five tables and two graphical presentations. Save the data presented in table 4, the data-materials are derived from the Oxford database “Our world in data” (https://ourworldindata.org). The two graphic presentations are from this database as well. The information concerning the policies of the EU is taken from EU websites. The five tables include a selection of regions and countries. The selection for the countries within the EU-27 is as follows: the five largest in terms of population; Hungary, which occupies a special position politically; The Netherlands, country of the author; Belgium, a neighbouring country, but very different, and Sweden, which differs substantially in the domains of climate and energy.
As for the Oxford database, it is interesting: a large amount of information, well-structured and explained. A pleasure to study, almost as much of a pleasure as reading the Bible, Shakespeare, or the most beautiful South African literature. All percentages in the tables have been rounded to whole numbers. As far as percentages don’t add up to 100, that has to do with technicalities in the structure of data.
Table 1 displays the shares of seven sources in primary energy consumption (transport, heating, electricity generation), the so-called energy mix. We see that fossils are still dominant worldwide. This also applies to the EU-27, with the exception of Sweden. We see that France and Ukraine use a lot of nuclear energy and that in the EU as a whole and in a number of European countries the share of solar and wind amounts to 10 to 16%: UK, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden.
Globally, renewable energy is only 12%, of which more than half is hydropower. Hydropower does not play a major role in the EU, except in Sweden, which is a major exception in this regard (but the mountainous country Austria is not in the table and the equally mountainous Switzerland is not EU). The variation in energy sources used is large both globally and in the EU.
Table 2 displays the shares of five sources used for electricity production, the so-called electricity mix. We see that almost 28% of electricity worldwide is now generated with “renewables”. More than half of that is hydropower. For the EU-27 this percentage is slightly higher: 33%. In Europe, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands stand out. France, Hungary, Belgium and Sweden lead the way in nuclear energy in Europe. Poland, Italy and now also Germany do not use nuclear energy at all.
Table 3 is about what it is all about: reducing CO2 emissions to combat global warming. 1990 is the reference year. We see that worldwide annual emissions are still increasing, albeit at a slower pace since 2010. The slowing pace was possible because emissions in developed countries fell or stabilized. This partly offset the continued strong increase in China (and in other emerging countries, such as India, not in the table). It is also clear from this table that achieving zero emissions by 2050 (EU target), i.e. in 28 years, is a colossal task in the light of what happened 32 years before. It is also clear that this has only a limited effect globally: Actually, EU emissions are only 7% of global emissions.
We also see in the table that France's emissions are much lower than those of Germany (also considering the population size). This has everything to do with the use of nuclear energy: extensive in France, absent in Germany. What is striking is the large decline in Ukraine since 1990. The cause of this is the sharp decline in national production and thus prosperity in Ukraine since that year, much stronger than in Russia: becoming an independent country was economically disadvantageous for Ukraine.
Tables 1 and 2 provide information on relative shares of energy sources used (percentages). Tables 4 above and 5 below provide information about absolute quantities for respectively nuclear energy (number of nuclear power plants) and wind (Terawatt hours produced) (numbers of wind turbines not available). They are included because they provide interesting and sometimes surprising information. At the moment there are 436 nuclear power plants in the world, situated in 32 countries. The largest concentrations of nuclear power plants are in the USA, France, China, Russia and Ukraine: As far as wind is concerned, it is striking that China and the USA also produce a lot of energy with wind. In the EU, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden have important energy producing capacities with wind. The same applies for the UK. Russia, Ukraine, and Hungary are no “wind countries”.
Graphic Presentation 1: Primary energy consumption
In this graphic presentation we see the development in the ratio between fossil, nuclear and renewable over the period from 1965 to 2022 (57 years) for the World as a whole and for the EU-27. In 1965, the share of fossil fuels was 93% for the world as a whole as well as for the EU-27. In 2022, this share will have fallen to 82% for the world as a whole and to 71% for the EU-27.
Graphic Presentation 2: Safe and clean sources of energy
This graph tells us that both from the aspect of safety as from the aspect of CO2 reduction, the three renewables and nuclear are very much more favourable than fossil with almost no difference between them, and that within fossil, gas is relatively favourable.
The European Policy regarding Climate and Energy: The Green Deal
The EU has the power to act in all areas of environmental policy, including climate policy. It shares these powers with the national states.
The EU laid down its policy for the environment, climate, and energy in December 2019 in the so-called “Green Deal”. The Green Deal includes measures in climate change, energy, environment, public health, and biodiversity and therefore covers a very broad area. The arrangement addresses flora and fauna, food production (‘’from farm to table”) and a “toxic-free environment”. The Green Deal was the Policy Plan of the new Commission installed in the year 2019 with Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen as the President and the Netherlands’ Frans Timmermans as the first Vice-president and Commissioner for Climate and Energy. Timmermans left Brussels during August 2023 to become the leader of the combined political parties of Greens and Social-Democrats in the Netherlands.
Climate is the most important part of the Green Deal. The EU aims to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent in the world, meaning: zero CO2 emission rate. Climate neutrality must be achieved by 2050. The Interim goals are: reduction of CO2 emissions (compared to 1990) by 55% in 2030 and by 90% in 2040 (added later). The climate part of the Green Deal is laid down in the Climate Act. This law sets out the climate goals as a legal obligation. However, the countries themselves are responsible for the composition of the energy mix. The EU cannot prescribe anything there, but the countries must comply with the framework. The so-called emissions trading system has been in existence for a long time in connection with CO2. Limits for CO2 emissions are imposed on sectors. Sectors and companies must buy emission rights (the right to emit). Those rights are priced. The management of this system is a joint responsibility of the EU and the Member States.
For the biodiversity component, the so-called Nature Restoration Act is being prepared. The first draft of this Act was formulated in a very ambitious way, stipulating that nature was not allowed to "deteriorate" anywhere in Europe. This could have far-reaching consequences for agriculture and industry, in fact meaning a complete halt in developments. A lot of opposition against this proposal brought about significant amendments: many obligations have been converted into best effort obligations.
The overall policy mix also includes the pursuit of a fully integrated energy market (without technical or regulatory barriers), many specific regulations (e.g. regarding land use, forestry, CO2 emissions from cars, etc.) and a lot of research and innovation plans (e.g. on clean technologies).
Specific elements
In addition to the content of the presented tables three specific elements are helpful for a complete picture.
Russian gas. Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, 40% of the pipeline gas the EU imported came from Russia. As part of the sanctions package, this import was reduced as much as possible, the proportion now being 8%. The pipeline gas comes via Ukraine and Turkey. The two North Stream pipelines are down, allegedly destroyed by the USA (a suspicion which I consider highly probable). The EU has replaced the lost imports with imports of gas from Norway and the USA (LNG). The gas crisis led to a very a strong price increase in 2022. The crisis is now over, but prices are permanently higher, with consequences for competitivity of European industries.
Nuclear energy. For a long time, this energy source was regarded as “unsustainable” in the EU. Within the EU-27, very different views on nuclear energy exist. After hot debates the formal label has now slightly been changed: “sustainable under certain conditions”.
Biomass. For a long time, biomass was regarded as “sustainable” within the EU. Also this issue is the subject of hot debates. And here too the label has been changed into “only sustainable under strict conditions”.
Discussion
To wrap up, some considerations and comments are addressed. They include both climate and energy policy in general and European policy.
Global warming: mitigation or adaptation. Mitigation is reducing warming; adaptation is adaptation to warming. A key question is to what extent it makes sense to try to combat warming. In 2015, an agreement has been made in Paris about 1.5/2% as a maximum. We now are at 1.2%. It is certain that 1.5% is no longer feasible, and possibly 2% is not feasible either. Then, the following questions arise: how bad is that? And what is wise to do? There are more reasons than global warming to back away from fossil fuels “in the long run”. But: at what pace and in what mix (gas is a lot “cleaner” than coal)? In any case, the discussion about these issues has become very ideological in Europe: “alarmists” and “skeptics” take opposite positions, but do not listen to each other. This is unsatisfactory.
Feasibility of EU objectives. Are the EU targets regarding CO2 emissions feasible? Let's look at table 3. In 1990 emissions were 3720 million tons. In 2022 it was 2640 million tons, a decrease of 29% in 32 years, not bad! Between 2016 and 2022 the decrease was 290 million tons. The targets for 2030/2040/2050 mean: 1675/370/0 mln. tons. This means a necessary decrease of 975 million tons in the eight years from 2022 to 2030. In the decade following 2030, a decrease of 1305 million tons has to be realized. It should be borne in mind that in all likelihood further mitigations will become increasingly difficult. At some point, the “low-hanging fruit” will have been picked. Are these goals achievable? To ask the question is to answer it.
The return on mitigation expenditure. The EU Green Deal means that the EU is investing very heavily in mitigation and is willing to spend an enormous amount of money on this goal. The question is if that is a wise course. One can spend each Euro only once. It is wise to spend that Euro on what yields the highest return! The Danish economist Lomborg has been fighting “climate hysteria” for 20 years. His main argument is that an Euro spent on mitigation is an Euro poorly spent: it yields almost nothing, namely only 11 cents. Alternative uses of the one Euro with far higher yields of return are: fewer trade barriers: 221 euros; universal access to contraception: 120 euros; vaccines: 60 euros. Lomborg sees economic growth as the most important factor for solving climate problems. And these solutions will often consist of adaptations.
The EU's share in emissions and the consequences for the EU. The EU is responsible for only 7% of worldwide CO2 emissions. The EU wants to be at the forefront. This means two things. The EU's efforts hardly help overall, so how useful is that? And: the EU spends a lot of money on this project, depriving its inhabitants of cheap energy. In turn, these consequences damage the EU's competitive position in the world. And some economists, for example from Germany, say that this is what is happening. Germany is said to be “deindustrializing”, industries moving elsewhere because the energy price in Germany is too high.
Nuclear energy. Europe is very divided about nuclear energy. Germany renounced nuclear energy after Fukushima. The second graph shows that nuclear energy is just as beneficial as renewable resources in terms of both safety and CO2 emissions. In any case, compared to wind, there is also the advantage (not included in the graph) of 1000 times less space taken up and no damage to birds. The German exit could well be a big mistake. The nuclear energy debate is turning in Europe, but in Germany it is certainly not over yet. The Greens there, now in the government, remain fierce opponents of nuclear energy. They want “natural”. Well.
Russian gas. The conflict with Russia is harmful to the EU, not the least because of the obligation to provide its inhabitants and industries with energy. Since Russia is able to export a lot of gas, switching to Russian gas as much as possible was a very good option for the EU countries. After all, gas is by far the best of the three fossil fuels. But politics works differently. Sensible? Well ...
Conclusion
With great missionary zeal, Europe has declared itself the guiding continent for climate policy. That’s unnecessary because the climate problems are being exaggerated. It is also unwise because Europe is harming itself by being a pioneer. However, Europe also harms itself by focusing on mitigation instead of adaptation, by focusing mainly on renewables instead of nuclear and by blocking the option of gas from Russia. This unwise panic policy is sold with bombshell language about the “green future”. Rousseau rules in Europe.
The next article will be about the run-up to the European Elections on June 9.
About the author: Gerrit Jan Bouwhuis (1948) was advisor to the Minister of Finance in the Netherlands. After his retirement, he made study trips to Africa and Eastern Europe. Since 2018, he has worked as an international election observer in Ukraine, Iraq, and Turkey.
Commentaires