Tomgram: Michael Klare, Fossil Fuels Forever
By Michael Klare
Posted on July 14, 2016, Printed on July 14, 2016
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176164/ ;
Think of them as omens of our age. While global temperatures have been
soaring lately -- May was the 13th month in a row to break all-time heat
records -- the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just
reported, more parochially, that this was the hottest June on record for the
lower 48 states. (USA! USA!) No state came in below the norm and in the
West and Southwest, it was hot as hell. Record hot.
Then consider this: Arctic summer sea ice is heading for oblivion at a
remarkable pace (which, since ice reflects sunlight, means that those waters
will now be absorbing yet more heat). In June, that ice was disappearing at
a rate 70% faster than the norm. Looked at over the longer term, as Suzanne
Goldenberg of the Guardian explained, "a vast expanse of ice -- an area
about twice the size of Texas -- has vanished over the past 30 years, and
the rate of that retreat has accelerated."
By the way, if you want to keep your eye on the horizon for future such
omens, a possible 2016 record is already looming when it comes to
billion-dollar-plus weather disasters with eight of them so far this year.
The average had once been five annually, but in recent years has been around
11.
If you'll excuse a mixed (but appropriate) metaphor, given the subject
TomDispatch regular Michael Klare takes up today, there seem to be an awful
lot of canaries in the coal mines at the moment, and wherever you turn,
they're expiring. Klare's latest report on our fossil-fueled planet suggests
that the use of coal, oil, and natural gas will not fall, but actually
continue to rise in the next decades and so, of omens, there will be plenty
to come. Tom
Hooked!
The Unyielding Grip of Fossil Fuels on Global Life
By Michael T. Klare
Here's the good news: wind power, solar power, and other renewable forms of
energy are expanding far more quickly than anyone expected, ensuring that
these systems will provide an ever-increasing share of our future energy
supply. According to the most recent projections from the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, global
consumption of wind, solar, hydropower, and other renewables will double
between now and 2040, jumping from 64 to 131 quadrillion British thermal
units (BTUs).
And here's the bad news: the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas is
also growing, making it likely that, whatever the advances of renewable
energy, fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global landscape for
decades to come, accelerating the pace of global warming and ensuring the
intensification of climate-change catastrophes.
The rapid growth of renewable energy has given us much to cheer about. Not
so long ago, energy analysts were reporting that wind and solar systems were
too costly to compete with oil, coal, and natural gas in the global
marketplace. Renewables would, it was then assumed, require pricey
subsidies that might not always be available. That was then and this is
now. Today, remarkably enough, wind and solar are already competitive with
fossil fuels for many uses and in many markets.
If that wasn't predicted, however, neither was this: despite such advances,
the allure of fossil fuels hasn't dissipated. Individuals, governments,
whole societies continue to opt for such fuels even when they gain no
significant economic advantage from that choice and risk causing severe
planetary harm. Clearly, something irrational is at play. Think of it as
the fossil-fuel equivalent of an addictive inclination writ large.
The contradictory and troubling nature of the energy landscape is on clear
display in the 2016 edition of the International Energy Outlook, the annual
assessment of global trends released by the EIA this May. The good news
about renewables gets prominent attention in the report, which includes
projections of global energy use through 2040. "Renewables are the world's
fastest-growing energy source over the projection period," it concludes.
Wind and solar are expected to demonstrate particular vigor in the years to
come, their growth outpacing every other form of energy. But because
renewables start from such a small base -- representing just 12% of all
energy used in 2012 -- they will continue to be overshadowed in the decades
ahead, explosive growth or not. In 2040, according to the report's
projections, fossil fuels will still have a grip on a staggering 78% of the
world energy market, and -- if you don't mind getting thoroughly depressed
-- oil, coal, and natural gas will each still command larger shares of the
market than all renewables combined.
Keep in mind that total energy consumption is expected to be much greater in
2040 than at present. At that time, humanity will be using an estimated 815
quadrillion BTUs (compared to approximately 600 quadrillion today). In
other words, though fossil fuels will lose some of their market share to
renewables, they will still experience striking growth in absolute terms.
Oil consumption, for example, is expected to increase by 34% from 90 million
to 121 million barrels per day by 2040. Despite all the negative publicity
it's been getting lately, coal, too, should experience substantial growth,
rising from 153 to 180 quadrillion BTUs in "delivered energy" over this
period. And natural gas will be the fossil-fuel champ, with global demand
for it jumping by 70%. Put it all together and the consumption of fossil
fuels is projected to increase by 177 quadrillion BTUs, or 38%, over the
period the report surveys.
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of climate science has to
shudder at such projections. After all, emissions from the combustion of
fossil fuels account for approximately three-quarters of the greenhouse
gases humans are putting into the atmosphere. An increase in their
consumption of such magnitude will have a corresponding impact on the
greenhouse effect that is accelerating the rise in global temperatures.
At the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris last December, delegates from
more than 190 countries adopted a plan aimed at preventing global warming
from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the
pre-industrial level. This target was chosen because most scientists
believe that any warming beyond that will result in catastrophic and
irreversible climate effects, including the melting of the Greenland and
Antarctic ice caps (and a resulting sea-level rise of 10-20 feet). Under
the Paris Agreement, the participating nations signed onto a plan to take
immediate steps to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and then move
to actual reductions. Although the agreement doesn't specify what measures
should be taken to satisfy this requirement -- each country is obliged to
devise its own "intended nationally determined contributions" to the overall
goal -- the only practical approach for most countries would be to reduce
fossil fuel consumption.
As the 2016 EIA report makes eye-poppingly clear, however, the endorsers of
the Paris Agreement aren't on track to reduce their consumption of oil,
coal, and natural gas. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to
rise by an estimated 34% between 2012 and 2040 (from 32.3 billion to 43.2
billion metric tons). That net increase of 10.9 billion metric tons is
equal to the total carbon emissions of the United States, Canada, and Europe
in 2012. If such projections prove accurate, global temperatures will rise,
possibly significantly above that 2 degree mark, with the destructive
effects of climate change we are already witnessing today -- the fires, heat
waves, floods, droughts, storms, and sea level rise -- only intensifying.
Exploring the Roots of Addiction
How to explain the world's tenacious reliance on fossil fuels, despite all
that we know about their role in global warming and those lofty promises
made in Paris?
To some degree, it is undoubtedly the product of built-in momentum: our
existing urban, industrial, and transportation infrastructure was largely
constructed around fossil fuel-powered energy systems, and it will take a
long time to replace or reconfigure them for a post-carbon future. Most of
our electricity, for example, is provided by coal- and gas-fired power
plants that will continue to operate for years to come. Even with the rapid
growth of renewables, coal and natural gas are projected to supply 56% of
the fuel for the world's electrical power generation in 2040 (a drop of only
5% from today). Likewise, the overwhelming majority of cars and trucks on
the road are now fueled by gasoline and diesel. Even if the number of new
ones running on electricity were to spike, it would still be many years
before oil-powered vehicles lost their commanding position. As history
tells us, transitions from one form of energy to another take time.
Then there's the problem -- and what a problem it is! -- of vested
interests. Energy is the largest and most lucrative business in the world,
and the giant fossil fuel companies have long enjoyed a privileged and
highly profitable status. Oil corporations like Chevron and ExxonMobil,
along with their state-owned counterparts like Gazprom of Russia and Saudi
Aramco, are consistently ranked among the world's most valuable enterprises.
These companies -- and the governments they're associated with -- are not
inclined to surrender the massive profits they generate year after year for
the future wellbeing of the planet.
As a result, it's a guarantee that they will employ any means at their
disposal (including well-established, well-funded ties to friendly
politicians and political parties) to slow the transition to renewables. In
the United States, for example, the politicians of coal-producing states are
now at work on plans to block the Obama administration's "clean power"
drive, which might indeed lead to a sharp reduction in coal consumption.
Similarly, Exxon has recruited friendly Republican officials to impede the
efforts of some state attorney generals to investigate that company's past
suppression of information on the links between fossil fuel use and climate
change. And that's just to scratch the surface of corporate efforts to
mislead the public that have included the funding of the Heartland Institute
and other climate-change-denying think tanks.
Of course, nowhere is the determination to sustain fossil fuels fiercer than
in the "petro-states" that rely on their production for government revenues,
provide energy subsidies to their citizens, and sometimes sell their
products at below-market rates to encourage their use. According to the
International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2014 fossil fuel subsidies of various
sorts added up to a staggering $493 billion worldwide -- far more than those
for the development of renewable forms of energy. The G-20 group of leading
industrial powers agreed in 2009 to phase out such subsidies, but a meeting
of G-20 energy ministers in Beijing in June failed to adopt a timeline to
complete the phase-out process, suggesting that little progress will be made
when the heads of state of those countries meet in Hangzhou, China, this
September.
None of this should surprise anyone, given the global economy's
institutionalized dependence on fossil fuels and the amounts of money at
stake. What it doesn't explain, however, is the projected growth in global
fossil fuel consumption. A gradual decline, accelerating over time, would
be consistent with a broad-scale but slow transition from carbon-based fuels
to renewables. That the opposite seems to be happening, that their use is
actually expanding in most parts of the world, suggests that another factor
is in play: addiction.
We all know that smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, or consuming too much
alcohol is bad for us, but many of us persist in doing so anyway, finding
the resulting thrill, the relief, or the dulling of the pain of everyday
life simply too great to resist. In the same way, much of the world now
seems to find it easier to fill up the car with the usual tankful of
gasoline or flip the switch and receive electricity from coal or natural gas
than to begin to shake our addiction to fossil fuels. As in everyday life,
so at a global level, the power of addiction seems regularly to trump the
obvious desirability of embarking on another, far healthier path.
On a Fossil Fuel Bridge to Nowhere
Without acknowledging any of this, the 2016 EIA report indicates just how
widespread and prevalent our fossil-fuel addiction remains. In explaining
the rising demand for oil, for example, it notes that "in the transportation
sector, liquid fuels [predominantly petroleum] continue to provide most of
the energy consumed." Even though "advances in nonliquids-based
[electrical] transportation technologies are anticipated," they will not
prove sufficient "to offset the rising demand for transportation services
worldwide," and so the demand for gasoline and diesel will continue to grow.
Most of the increase in demand for petroleum-based fuels is expected to
occur in the developing world, where hundreds of millions of people are
entering the middle class, buying their first gas-powered cars, and about to
be hooked on an energy way of life that should be, but isn't, dying. Oil
use is expected to grow in China by 57% between 2012 and 2040, and at a
faster rate (131%!) in India. Even in the United States, however, a growing
preference for sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks continues to mean
higher petroleum use. In 2016, according to Edmunds.com, a car shopping and
research site, nearly 75% of the people who traded in a hybrid or electric
car to a dealer replaced it with an all-gas car, typically a larger vehicle
like an SUV or a pickup.
The rising demand for coal follows a depressingly similar pattern. Although
it remains a major source of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate
change, many developing nations, especially in Asia, continue to favor it
when adding electricity capacity because of its low cost and familiar
technology. Although the demand for coal in China -- long the leading
consumer of that fuel -- is slowing, that country is still expected to
increase its usage by 12% by 2035. The big story here, however, is India:
according to the EIA, its coal consumption will grow by 62% in the years
surveyed, eventually making it, not the United States, the world's second
largest consumer. Most of that extra coal will go for electricity
generation, once again to satisfy an "expanding middle class using more
electricity-consuming appliances."
And then there's the mammoth expected increase in the demand for natural
gas. According to the latest EIA projections, its consumption will rise
faster than any fuel except renewables. Given the small base from which
renewables start, however, gas will experience the biggest absolute increase
of any fuel, 87 quadrillion BTUs between 2012 and 2040. (In contrast,
renewables are expected to grow by 68 quadrillion and oil by 62 quadrillion
BTUs during this period.)
At present, natural gas appears to enjoy an enormous advantage in the global
energy marketplace. "In the power sector, natural gas is an attractive
choice for new generating plants given its moderate capital cost and
attractive pricing in many regions as well as the relatively high fuel
efficiency and moderate capital cost of gas-fired plants," the EIA notes.
It is also said to benefit from its "clean" reputation (compared to coal) in
generating electricity. "As more governments begin implementing national or
regional plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas may displace
consumption of the more carbon-intensive coal and liquid fuels."
Unfortunately, despite that reputation, natural gas remains a carbon-based
fossil fuel, and its expanded consumption will result in a significant
increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the EIA claims that
it will generate a larger increase in such emissions over the next
quarter-century than either coal or oil -- a disturbing note for those who
contend that natural gas provides a "bridge" to a green energy future.
Seeking Treatment
If you were to read through the EIA's latest report as I did, you, too,
might end up depressed by humanity's addictive need for its daily fossil
fuel hit. While the EIA's analysts add the usual caveats, including the
possibility that a more sweeping than expected follow-up climate agreement
or strict enforcement of the one adopted last December could alter their
projections, they detect no signs of the beginning of a determined move away
from the reliance on fossil fuels.
If, indeed, addiction is a big part of the problem, any strategies
undertaken to address climate change must incorporate a treatment component.
Simply saying that global warming is bad for the planet, and that prudence
and morality oblige us to prevent the worst climate-related disasters, will
no more suffice than would telling addicts that tobacco and hard drugs are
bad for them. Success in any global drive to avert climate catastrophe will
involve tackling addictive behavior at its roots and promoting lasting
changes in lifestyle. To do that, it will be necessary to learn from the
anti-drug and anti-tobacco communities about best practices, and apply them
to fossil fuels.
Consider, for example, the case of anti-smoking efforts. It was the medical
community that first took up the struggle against tobacco and began by
banning smoking in hospitals and other medical facilities. This effort was
later extended to public facilities -- schools, government buildings,
airports, and so on -- until vast areas of the public sphere became
smoke-free. Anti-smoking activists also campaigned to have warning labels
displayed in tobacco advertising and cigarette packaging.
Such approaches helped reduce tobacco consumption around the world and can
be adapted to the anti-carbon struggle. College campuses and town centers
could, for instance, be declared car-free -- a strategy already embraced by
London's newly elected mayor, Sadiq Khan. Express lanes on major streets
and highways can be reserved for hybrids, electric cars, and other
alternative vehicles. Gas station pumps and oil advertising can be made to
incorporate warning signs saying something like, "Notice: consumption of
this product increases your exposure to asthma, heat waves, sea level rise,
and other threats to public health." Once such an approach began to be
seriously considered, there would undoubtedly be a host of other ideas for
how to begin to put limits on our fossil fuel addiction.
Such measures would have to be complemented by major moves to combat the
excessive influence of the fossil fuel companies and energy states when it
comes to setting both local and global policy. In the U.S., for instance,
severely restricting the scope of private donations in campaign financing,
as Senator Bernie Sanders advocated in his presidential campaign, would be a
way to start down this path. Another would step up legal efforts to hold
giant energy companies like ExxonMobil accountable for malfeasance in
suppressing information about the links between fossil fuel combustion and
global warming, just as, decades ago, anti-smoking activists tried to expose
tobacco company criminality in suppressing information on the links between
smoking and cancer.
Without similar efforts of every sort on a global level, one thing seems
certain: the future projected by the EIA will indeed come to pass and human
suffering of a previously unimaginable sort will be the order of the day.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world
security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The
Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil
is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at
@mklare1.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest
Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead, and
Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars,
and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.
Copyright 2016 Michael T. Klare
C 2016 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176164
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Fossil Fuels Forever
By Michael Klare
Posted on July 14, 2016, Printed on July 14, 2016
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176164/ ;
Think of them as omens of our age. While global temperatures have been
soaring lately -- May was the 13th month in a row to break all-time heat
records -- the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just
reported, more parochially, that this was the hottest June on record for the
lower 48 states. (USA! USA!) No state came in below the norm and in the West
and Southwest, it was hot as hell. Record hot.
Then consider this: Arctic summer sea ice is heading for oblivion at a
remarkable pace (which, since ice reflects sunlight, means that those waters
will now be absorbing yet more heat). In June, that ice was disappearing at
a rate 70% faster than the norm. Looked at over the longer term, as Suzanne
Goldenberg of the Guardian explained, "a vast expanse of ice -- an area
about twice the size of Texas -- has vanished over the past 30 years, and
the rate of that retreat has accelerated."
By the way, if you want to keep your eye on the horizon for future such
omens, a possible 2016 record is already looming when it comes to
billion-dollar-plus weather disasters with eight of them so far this year.
The average had once been five annually, but in recent years has been around
11.
If you'll excuse a mixed (but appropriate) metaphor, given the subject
TomDispatch regular Michael Klare takes up today, there seem to be an awful
lot of canaries in the coal mines at the moment, and wherever you turn,
they're expiring. Klare's latest report on our fossil-fueled planet suggests
that the use of coal, oil, and natural gas will not fall, but actually
continue to rise in the next decades and so, of omens, there will be plenty
to come. Tom
Hooked!
The Unyielding Grip of Fossil Fuels on Global Life
By Michael T. Klare
Here's the good news: wind power, solar power, and other renewable forms of
energy are expanding far more quickly than anyone expected, ensuring that
these systems will provide an ever-increasing share of our future energy
supply. According to the most recent projections from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, global consumption of
wind, solar, hydropower, and other renewables will double between now and
2040, jumping from 64 to 131 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs).
And here's the bad news: the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas is
also growing, making it likely that, whatever the advances of renewable
energy, fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global landscape for
decades to come, accelerating the pace of global warming and ensuring the
intensification of climate-change catastrophes.
The rapid growth of renewable energy has given us much to cheer about. Not
so long ago, energy analysts were reporting that wind and solar systems were
too costly to compete with oil, coal, and natural gas in the global
marketplace. Renewables would, it was then assumed, require pricey subsidies
that might not always be available. That was then and this is now. Today,
remarkably enough, wind and solar are already competitive with fossil fuels
for many uses and in many markets.
If that wasn't predicted, however, neither was this: despite such advances,
the allure of fossil fuels hasn't dissipated. Individuals, governments,
whole societies continue to opt for such fuels even when they gain no
significant economic advantage from that choice and risk causing severe
planetary harm. Clearly, something irrational is at play. Think of it as the
fossil-fuel equivalent of an addictive inclination writ large.
The contradictory and troubling nature of the energy landscape is on clear
display in the 2016 edition of the International Energy Outlook, the annual
assessment of global trends released by the EIA this May. The good news
about renewables gets prominent attention in the report, which includes
projections of global energy use through 2040. "Renewables are the world's
fastest-growing energy source over the projection period," it concludes.
Wind and solar are expected to demonstrate particular vigor in the years to
come, their growth outpacing every other form of energy. But because
renewables start from such a small base -- representing just 12% of all
energy used in 2012 -- they will continue to be overshadowed in the decades
ahead, explosive growth or not. In 2040, according to the report's
projections, fossil fuels will still have a grip on a staggering 78% of the
world energy market, and -- if you don't mind getting thoroughly depressed
-- oil, coal, and natural gas will each still command larger shares of the
market than all renewables combined.
Keep in mind that total energy consumption is expected to be much greater in
2040 than at present. At that time, humanity will be using an estimated 815
quadrillion BTUs (compared to approximately 600 quadrillion today). In other
words, though fossil fuels will lose some of their market share to
renewables, they will still experience striking growth in absolute terms.
Oil consumption, for example, is expected to increase by 34% from 90 million
to 121 million barrels per day by 2040. Despite all the negative publicity
it's been getting lately, coal, too, should experience substantial growth,
rising from 153 to 180 quadrillion BTUs in "delivered energy" over this
period. And natural gas will be the fossil-fuel champ, with global demand
for it jumping by 70%. Put it all together and the consumption of fossil
fuels is projected to increase by 177 quadrillion BTUs, or 38%, over the
period the report surveys.
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of climate science has to
shudder at such projections. After all, emissions from the combustion of
fossil fuels account for approximately three-quarters of the greenhouse
gases humans are putting into the atmosphere. An increase in their
consumption of such magnitude will have a corresponding impact on the
greenhouse effect that is accelerating the rise in global temperatures.
At the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris last December, delegates from
more than 190 countries adopted a plan aimed at preventing global warming
from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the
pre-industrial level. This target was chosen because most scientists believe
that any warming beyond that will result in catastrophic and irreversible
climate effects, including the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice
caps (and a resulting sea-level rise of 10-20 feet). Under the Paris
Agreement, the participating nations signed onto a plan to take immediate
steps to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and then move to actual
reductions. Although the agreement doesn't specify what measures should be
taken to satisfy this requirement -- each country is obliged to devise its
own "intended nationally determined contributions" to the overall goal --
the only practical approach for most countries would be to reduce fossil
fuel consumption.
As the 2016 EIA report makes eye-poppingly clear, however, the endorsers of
the Paris Agreement aren't on track to reduce their consumption of oil,
coal, and natural gas. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to
rise by an estimated 34% between 2012 and 2040 (from 32.3 billion to 43.2
billion metric tons). That net increase of 10.9 billion metric tons is equal
to the total carbon emissions of the United States, Canada, and Europe in
2012. If such projections prove accurate, global temperatures will rise,
possibly significantly above that 2 degree mark, with the destructive
effects of climate change we are already witnessing today -- the fires, heat
waves, floods, droughts, storms, and sea level rise -- only intensifying.
Exploring the Roots of Addiction
How to explain the world's tenacious reliance on fossil fuels, despite all
that we know about their role in global warming and those lofty promises
made in Paris?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250023971/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250023971/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20To some
degree, it is undoubtedly the product of built-in momentum: our existing
urban, industrial, and transportation infrastructure was largely constructed
around fossil fuel-powered energy systems, and it will take a long time to
replace or reconfigure them for a post-carbon future. Most of our
electricity, for example, is provided by coal- and gas-fired power plants
that will continue to operate for years to come. Even with the rapid growth
of renewables, coal and natural gas are projected to supply 56% of the fuel
for the world's electrical power generation in 2040 (a drop of only 5% from
today). Likewise, the overwhelming majority of cars and trucks on the road
are now fueled by gasoline and diesel. Even if the number of new ones
running on electricity were to spike, it would still be many years before
oil-powered vehicles lost their commanding position. As history tells us,
transitions from one form of energy to another take time.
Then there's the problem -- and what a problem it is! -- of vested
interests. Energy is the largest and most lucrative business in the world,
and the giant fossil fuel companies have long enjoyed a privileged and
highly profitable status. Oil corporations like Chevron and ExxonMobil,
along with their state-owned counterparts like Gazprom of Russia and Saudi
Aramco, are consistently ranked among the world's most valuable enterprises.
These companies -- and the governments they're associated with -- are not
inclined to surrender the massive profits they generate year after year for
the future wellbeing of the planet.
As a result, it's a guarantee that they will employ any means at their
disposal (including well-established, well-funded ties to friendly
politicians and political parties) to slow the transition to renewables. In
the United States, for example, the politicians of coal-producing states are
now at work on plans to block the Obama administration's "clean power"
drive, which might indeed lead to a sharp reduction in coal consumption.
Similarly, Exxon has recruited friendly Republican officials to impede the
efforts of some state attorney generals to investigate that company's past
suppression of information on the links between fossil fuel use and climate
change. And that's just to scratch the surface of corporate efforts to
mislead the public that have included the funding of the Heartland Institute
and other climate-change-denying think tanks.
Of course, nowhere is the determination to sustain fossil fuels fiercer than
in the "petro-states" that rely on their production for government revenues,
provide energy subsidies to their citizens, and sometimes sell their
products at below-market rates to encourage their use. According to the
International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2014 fossil fuel subsidies of various
sorts added up to a staggering $493 billion worldwide -- far more than those
for the development of renewable forms of energy. The G-20 group of leading
industrial powers agreed in 2009 to phase out such subsidies, but a meeting
of G-20 energy ministers in Beijing in June failed to adopt a timeline to
complete the phase-out process, suggesting that little progress will be made
when the heads of state of those countries meet in Hangzhou, China, this
September.
None of this should surprise anyone, given the global economy's
institutionalized dependence on fossil fuels and the amounts of money at
stake. What it doesn't explain, however, is the projected growth in global
fossil fuel consumption. A gradual decline, accelerating over time, would be
consistent with a broad-scale but slow transition from carbon-based fuels to
renewables. That the opposite seems to be happening, that their use is
actually expanding in most parts of the world, suggests that another factor
is in play: addiction.
We all know that smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, or consuming too much
alcohol is bad for us, but many of us persist in doing so anyway, finding
the resulting thrill, the relief, or the dulling of the pain of everyday
life simply too great to resist. In the same way, much of the world now
seems to find it easier to fill up the car with the usual tankful of
gasoline or flip the switch and receive electricity from coal or natural gas
than to begin to shake our addiction to fossil fuels. As in everyday life,
so at a global level, the power of addiction seems regularly to trump the
obvious desirability of embarking on another, far healthier path.
On a Fossil Fuel Bridge to Nowhere
Without acknowledging any of this, the 2016 EIA report indicates just how
widespread and prevalent our fossil-fuel addiction remains. In explaining
the rising demand for oil, for example, it notes that "in the transportation
sector, liquid fuels [predominantly petroleum] continue to provide most of
the energy consumed." Even though "advances in nonliquids-based [electrical]
transportation technologies are anticipated," they will not prove sufficient
"to offset the rising demand for transportation services worldwide," and so
the demand for gasoline and diesel will continue to grow.
Most of the increase in demand for petroleum-based fuels is expected to
occur in the developing world, where hundreds of millions of people are
entering the middle class, buying their first gas-powered cars, and about to
be hooked on an energy way of life that should be, but isn't, dying. Oil use
is expected to grow in China by 57% between 2012 and 2040, and at a faster
rate (131%!) in India. Even in the United States, however, a growing
preference for sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks continues to mean
higher petroleum use. In 2016, according to Edmunds.com, a car shopping and
research site, nearly 75% of the people who traded in a hybrid or electric
car to a dealer replaced it with an all-gas car, typically a larger vehicle
like an SUV or a pickup.
The rising demand for coal follows a depressingly similar pattern. Although
it remains a major source of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate
change, many developing nations, especially in Asia, continue to favor it
when adding electricity capacity because of its low cost and familiar
technology. Although the demand for coal in China -- long the leading
consumer of that fuel -- is slowing, that country is still expected to
increase its usage by 12% by 2035. The big story here, however, is India:
according to the EIA, its coal consumption will grow by 62% in the years
surveyed, eventually making it, not the United States, the world's second
largest consumer. Most of that extra coal will go for electricity
generation, once again to satisfy an "expanding middle class using more
electricity-consuming appliances."
And then there's the mammoth expected increase in the demand for natural
gas. According to the latest EIA projections, its consumption will rise
faster than any fuel except renewables. Given the small base from which
renewables start, however, gas will experience the biggest absolute increase
of any fuel, 87 quadrillion BTUs between 2012 and 2040. (In contrast,
renewables are expected to grow by 68 quadrillion and oil by 62 quadrillion
BTUs during this period.)
At present, natural gas appears to enjoy an enormous advantage in the global
energy marketplace. "In the power sector, natural gas is an attractive
choice for new generating plants given its moderate capital cost and
attractive pricing in many regions as well as the relatively high fuel
efficiency and moderate capital cost of gas-fired plants," the EIA notes. It
is also said to benefit from its "clean" reputation (compared to coal) in
generating electricity. "As more governments begin implementing national or
regional plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas may displace
consumption of the more carbon-intensive coal and liquid fuels."
Unfortunately, despite that reputation, natural gas remains a carbon-based
fossil fuel, and its expanded consumption will result in a significant
increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the EIA claims that it
will generate a larger increase in such emissions over the next
quarter-century than either coal or oil -- a disturbing note for those who
contend that natural gas provides a "bridge" to a green energy future.
Seeking Treatment
If you were to read through the EIA's latest report as I did, you, too,
might end up depressed by humanity's addictive need for its daily fossil
fuel hit. While the EIA's analysts add the usual caveats, including the
possibility that a more sweeping than expected follow-up climate agreement
or strict enforcement of the one adopted last December could alter their
projections, they detect no signs of the beginning of a determined move away
from the reliance on fossil fuels.
If, indeed, addiction is a big part of the problem, any strategies
undertaken to address climate change must incorporate a treatment component.
Simply saying that global warming is bad for the planet, and that prudence
and morality oblige us to prevent the worst climate-related disasters, will
no more suffice than would telling addicts that tobacco and hard drugs are
bad for them. Success in any global drive to avert climate catastrophe will
involve tackling addictive behavior at its roots and promoting lasting
changes in lifestyle. To do that, it will be necessary to learn from the
anti-drug and anti-tobacco communities about best practices, and apply them
to fossil fuels.
Consider, for example, the case of anti-smoking efforts. It was the medical
community that first took up the struggle against tobacco and began by
banning smoking in hospitals and other medical facilities. This effort was
later extended to public facilities -- schools, government buildings,
airports, and so on -- until vast areas of the public sphere became
smoke-free. Anti-smoking activists also campaigned to have warning labels
displayed in tobacco advertising and cigarette packaging.
Such approaches helped reduce tobacco consumption around the world and can
be adapted to the anti-carbon struggle. College campuses and town centers
could, for instance, be declared car-free -- a strategy already embraced by
London's newly elected mayor, Sadiq Khan. Express lanes on major streets and
highways can be reserved for hybrids, electric cars, and other alternative
vehicles. Gas station pumps and oil advertising can be made to incorporate
warning signs saying something like, "Notice: consumption of this product
increases your exposure to asthma, heat waves, sea level rise, and other
threats to public health." Once such an approach began to be seriously
considered, there would undoubtedly be a host of other ideas for how to
begin to put limits on our fossil fuel addiction.
Such measures would have to be complemented by major moves to combat the
excessive influence of the fossil fuel companies and energy states when it
comes to setting both local and global policy. In the U.S., for instance,
severely restricting the scope of private donations in campaign financing,
as Senator Bernie Sanders advocated in his presidential campaign, would be a
way to start down this path. Another would step up legal efforts to hold
giant energy companies like ExxonMobil accountable for malfeasance in
suppressing information about the links between fossil fuel combustion and
global warming, just as, decades ago, anti-smoking activists tried to expose
tobacco company criminality in suppressing information on the links between
smoking and cancer.
Without similar efforts of every sort on a global level, one thing seems
certain: the future projected by the EIA will indeed come to pass and human
suffering of a previously unimaginable sort will be the order of the day.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world
security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The
Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil
is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at
@mklare1.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest
Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead, and
Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars,
and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.
Copyright 2016 Michael T. Klare
C 2016 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176164
