by Herve Kempf
Le Monde (October 31 2009)
Capitalist ideology – according to which the market can resolve all
problems – has, in these last few days, reached the apex of the
absurd. We have learned, thanks to Green Euro-deputy Claude Turmes,
that European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has been
blocking a proposed energy-efficiency action plan. This text is
supposed to compel member states to reduce their energy consumption
by twenty percent and to propose specific measures to attain that
objective. Reducing energy consumption is the best way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The reason for this obstruction by the Commission? The
implementation of energy efficiency would bear on carbon market
prices. Consequently, there would be fewer “emission rights” on the
market. Consequently, their price would drop. Now the European
Commission – with Member State approval – has based its fights
against climate change on the emissions market.
So they have just rejected the most efficient solution in favor
of … a method that has not yet really proven itself. Implemented
since 2005, it moves painfully forward, given the drop in prices
evading VAT. At this time, the price for a ton of carbon dioxide is
fifteen Euros – below the energy tax French consumers are going to
pay. In fact, the rules of the emissions market’s operation, the
result of a compromise with the industries it affects, are too lax:
in consequence, the price that develops remains too low to
stimulate a rapid reduction in emissions.
Moreover, by means of another type of market, the so-called
“mechanism for clean development”, the European Union means to
avoid realizing a big part of its reduction commitment. Indeed, I
would need to write ten articles like this one to comprehensively
explain how this whole system works. The carbon market is
fractionally simpler than the derivatives market, if you see what I
mean.
The basic problem is that it amounts to confiding management of the
fight against climate change to the financial industry. The latter
has, as we know, caused the current crisis and demonstrated its
ability to escape all government control. Do you trust Goldman
Sachs to act in the interests of humanity in the carbon market? In
reality, as long as government – which in principle represents the
public interest – has not resumed control over the financial
system, we cannot hand over responsibility for the fight against
climate change to the market.
In the short term, one thing is clear: the European Union must
settle on true energy conservation objectives. If it gives that up,
it will lose all credibility with respect to climate change, and,
above all, the principal means to confront it.
_____
In Spite of Strong Growth, the Country at Present Remains a Model of
Energy Sobriety
by Herve Kempf
Le Monde (November 02 2009)
And what if India were a model of energy efficiency? Received
wisdom has it that developing countries waste their energy in the
absence of adequate technologies, while developed countries
supposedly use energy more efficiently. A study by the Indian firm
Prayas, presented during the conference of the International
Federation of Environmental Journalists (FIJE) in Delhi on October
28, shows that’s not the case at all.
Entitled, “An Overview of Indian Energy Trends”, it reveals that
between 1990 and 2005 the country’s GDP increased 2.3 times, but
its energy consumption rose 1.9 times. Moreover, energy intensity
(energy consumption related to production) is much less than
China’s, but also less than the United States’ and comes close to
the European level.
A good part of this performance may be explained by the price of
electricity to industry – among the highest in the world. In
transportation also, India demonstrates great efficiency: India’s
total consumption of gas and diesel in 2005 was less than the
simple increase in consumption in China and the United States
between 1990 and 2005. The high price of fuel plays a significant
role, but so does the density of Indian cities, which limits the
length of trips.
Vegetarian Diet
For domestic energy uses, there is better energy intensity by
income level than in the United States. That may be explained by
the significant use of biomass, but also by the very widespread
vegetarian diet, which limits cooking needs: on average, an Indian
consumes one twenty-fifth as much meat as an American.
However, India has not succeeded in eliminating poverty. Economic
growth has benefited the upper and middle classes primarily, and
forty percent of the population does not have access to electricity.
Solar energy and natural gas seem to be the way of the future, but
also adoption of supercritical coal-combustion technology (which
improves yield and reduces polluting emissions), as well as
reduction of energy losses in the grids.
Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.
http://www.truthout.org/1104094