2023 has started and two events in the news stuck out for me.
- In a 25-year deal, China and Afghanistan agree to commence exploitation of Afghanistan’s oil reserves in the north of the country (www.bbc.com ).
- German town Lützerath cleared for mining coal. www.bbc.com.
Curiously, we see protests at Lützerath, but barely a ripple over China’s move to further “develop” Afghan resources beyond their existing (and ever increasing) presence. The oil extraction agreement would see Xinjiang Central Asia Petroleum and Gas Company (CAPEIC) drilling for oil in the Amu Darya basin (Reference: Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid). One wonders what safety and environmental standards will be applied to these Afghan projects? Same argument for the impending re-instatement of Mes Aynak copper mine in the East of Afghanistan (Mes Aynak Copper Mining, Afghanistan | EJAtlas)! I would be curious as to Greta Thunberg’s decision to protest at the German coal mine near the town of Lützerath, rather than focusing her efforts upon these recent Afghan developments. Given the exploitation and mass pollution around Chinese supported mining operations in Mongolia (www.bbc.com), are we to expect similar for Afghanistan?
Whilst Lützerath seems the current focus of the media and environmental activists, it may be worth drawing such people’s attention as to where Germany sits with respect to its annual use of Coal. It is somewhat ironic that Green political forces drove the early shut-down of Germany’s own nuclear power generation, and thus increased dependency upon Russian hydrocarbons (as this nuclear energy was replaced with (Russian) gas derived electricity). By way of comparison to Lützerath, take the ongoing mass mining of coal at Mongolia’s Tavan Tolgoi and Khushuut sites. In 2011 there were 17 operational coal mines in Mongolia, producing circa 25 million tons of coal per year – much of which is exported to China. China’s use of coal for electricity generation dwarfs Germany’s – as does the use of Coal across the other members of this “big three” – USA and India. Of these big three coal users, let us not forget that it was the Asian members of this “trio” that drove the change of the COP26 wording with respect to coal use to the rather meaningless “Phasing Down”, as opposed to “Phasing Out”. So why aren’t these Lützerath climate change protesters active in these countries? German’s use of coal (even with Lützerath) for electricity is still a single figure percentage of the combined coal used by the three largest coal users.
www.weforum.org
According to estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Germany has been seeking to reduce coal dependency. The exit from coal and nuclear power that formed part of predecessor Angela Merkel’s Energiewende policies is seen by many as the precursor to German reliance on Russian gas. Prior to, and at the start of the invasion of Ukraine, a significant amount of Germany’s gas imports came from Russian sources. As a response to political pressure (I would question the science/logic behind replacing nuclear generated power with gas generated power), Electricity generation from nuclear energy halved after three of the six nuclear power plants that were still in operation at the end of 2021 were closed during the first half of 2022. In recent times, Germany (and energy companies in general) have been increasing and investing in renewables – as see by the wind turbine behind Greta Thunberg as she made her latest speech at Lützerath. It does not take much effort to research that alternatives to mining at Lützerath were extensively considered/evaluated by the German authorities and energy industry before deciding to mine additional coal from Lützerath. Should anyone choose to read such, RWE (one of many sources) has released extensive information as to the reasons (Lützerath (rwe.com)) for this mining operation (as well as their significant, and ongoing investment in renewables by RWE). It is of course somewhat difficult to ask of people to “listen to the science” (and have a reasonable, informed debate upon such) if they do not have the desire to listen and/or understand it. Same issue for global economics – which is the flip side of this climate change challenge. There are however some sensible and informed voices opposing the mining expansion at Lützerath (for example: www.climatalk.org – A great shame that such voices (for the most part) don’t seem to get as high a profile in this debate as they should.
To quote Robert Shriver (former American Diplomat) “The natural idealism of youth is an idealism, alas, for which we do not always provide as many outlets as we should”.
Globally, Lützerath coal is not insignificant – but it is not significant either. Given the European communities decision to reduce dependency upon Russian oil and gas; this coal is somewhat necessary, else Germany has an energy deficit and people go cold and/or potentially lose their jobs as German industry partially shuts-down. Loss of German productivity would cascade to the global supply chain at a time where such is still in recovery from the double hit of Covid and navigating the war in Ukraine. Building renewable infrastructure is not free, so this development must be either underpinned by solid economics, or massive financial aid packages. One point that often seems lost on such “climate change” protesters is that even with aid packages, this money must come from somewhere. It is easy to criticise the energy industry, however the investment such companies put into Renewables is freely available (for example – RWE targeting up to €1.5 billion investment by 2030 –RWE targets up to 1.5 billion Euros gross investments by 2030 to help deliver Ireland’s net zero ambitions). Of course, there are always counter arguments as to the validity of these claims, or in “Greenwashing” – as reported in the recent Guardian article in relation to Shell’s renewables investment claims (Shell’s actual spending on renewables is a fraction of what it claims, group alleges | Shell | The Guardian). I believe that it would be folly to expect that any public company would not seek to maximise financial return to their shareholders. A (one or many) counter to this is that companies are answerable to their shareholders; if such companies do not drive the change to renewables, then who will/can? As an engineer actively working in industry, I see many projects and activities focused upon net-zero 2030 – some of which I am directly involved in. To me, this work is far more productive than standing in front of a wind turbine at Lützerath making speeches that have no tangible, executable actions; nor offer any viable alternatives/solutions. People are of course free to have whatever opinions they wish – I would however quote former US senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” I would encourage those driven to protest at Lützerath to contemplate educating themselves in science and/or engineering and have something useful to contribute – rather than being disruptive. Being “able to” (alas) assess the facts doesn’t necessarily mean people are “willing to” consider those same facts and engage in a sensible and proactive debate.
We are seeing protestors shouting “Just stop oil!”, “Just stop coal!”, “just stop XYZ!”, etc. I am yet to see “Just stop breeding” or “just stop consuming”. To me, the “just stop” sheeple remind me of the 12th Century story by Henry of Huntingdon of King Canute demanding the incoming tide to turn back. The difference being that King Canute was (apparently) making a point as to “rebuke the flattery of his courtiers”, rather than expecting the tide to turn by simply yelling for it to happen. Perhaps protesters at Lützerath might wish to give this story consideration and/or undertake a little research before heading off to protest and disrupt the work of others? Ultimately, we as taxpayers and/or consumers pay for the cost of such disruptive actions. I would like to see the counter arguments as to what positive environmental outcome are precipitated by such protests.
An ever-increasing population is a significant factor driving climate change – and one of the tides that we must turn back. Unchecked population growth is made worse by most modern economies being based upon consumerism and the need to fund our aging, longer living populations with ever-increasing numbers of younger people. Such population growth is unsustainable. Unless we find a way to address population growth, and the underlying economic models that drive it, then “Going Green” is unlikely to reverse climate change (if in fact we can reverse climate change). It is pure maths: Halving our “climate change output” per person whilst doubling population leaves us in (exactly) the same place. I am all for the drive for renewable energy, however such infrastructure is not “climate change free” and relies upon rare-earth mining that is environmentally damaging. Whilst not a fan of China’s Geopolitical policies, one should however credit China’s drive towards utilising renewable energy and seeking to stem population growth. It should be noted that much of what drives Chinese climate change activities is in producing the very consumables we desire at the low cost we demand. If China applied the same environmental impact controls as we do in Europe, then many of these consumables wouldn’t be so “low cost”. Climate change protesters might want to consider where their smart phones are made and what they are made of (plastic/tin/rare-earth metals/etc – www.friendsoftheearth.eu); as well of the vast amount of energy it takes to power the data centres that host social media platforms and other web/cloud services. If such people wish to make a meaningful contribution to climate change, then perhaps ceasing to use smart phones and social media (www.irishtimes.com) is one small step (of many) they can each make as individuals?
Unfortunately, global economic models do not currently support actively reducing population growth – and they really need to start doing so. Countries like China and Japan that have reduced population growth (China's population falls for first time since 1961 – BBC News), have done so at a great cost to their social structure. Japan’s prime minister, Fumio Kishida recently issued a stark warning that Japan is on the brink of ceasing to be functional. “Japan is standing on the verge of whether we can continue to function as a society,” Mr Kishida told lawmakers. “Focusing attention on policies regarding children and child-rearing is an issue that cannot wait and cannot be postponed.” Japan PM says country on the brink over falling birth rate – BBC News
Without population control, the environmental measures we are seeking to employ will be mostly futile. Whilst 10 billion humans may well be able to survive on planet earth (UN projection – World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100 | United Nations), it would not be a planet any of us alive today would recognise. It is indisputable that we need to address climate change. We can only hope that as much effort goes into population control – else the drive to “green energy” for an ever-growing population is self-defeating. Screaming “Stop” or criticising what is without offering an alternative simply does not address these issues. Neither does using “empty words” as a 16-year-old Greta Thunberg put it in her address to the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019. Can we hope that one day Greta Thunberg takes her own advice?
