The energetic awakening of the G7

The late chemist Richard Smalley was once asked to rank the world’s challenges in order of urgency. Although he cited the usual concerns about poverty, hunger, conflict and access to resources, he placed energy security at the top of his list. Smalley argued that all other challenges have the potential to be solved if we can ensure a reliable energy supply.

Today, when even the G7 countries are experiencing the cascading effects of energy insecurity on their economies and democratic institutions, the world is learning the hard way that Smalley was right. We have limited means of international governance or science-based decision-making on energy security. Let us therefore hope that the rude awakening fueled by the current global economic crisis and the war in Ukraine will lead to more constructive international action and more sensible domestic energy policies.

An indication that this will be the case came on July 6, when the European Parliament voted in favor of continuing to classify nuclear power and natural gas as “environmentally sustainable economic activities” under the “taxonomy” of the European Union. The measure passed by a narrow margin of 328 votes in favour, 278 against and 33 abstentions, but the fact that such a vote has been called and, what is better, that common sense has prevailed, represents a tectonic shift in Europe’s environmental agenda.

The EU’s energy policy exemplifies what geographers call “social amplification of risk”. Perhaps most notable is Germany’s decision to phase out domestic nuclear power following the Fukushima accident in Japan in 2011, which ran contrary to the conclusions of a United Nations expert group, which has found no causal relationship. relationship between cancer cases and the incident, even after ten years of data records. Japan itself has acted more sensibly, keeping nuclear power for baseload power generation.

“EU energy policy exemplifies what geographers call ‘social amplification of risk'”

In the G7 and elsewhere, the misapplication of the “precautionary principle” by forces at both ends of the political spectrum too often outweighs the judicious use of science in decision-making. Even right-wing European politicians are gravitating toward environmental populism, as the cancellation of a lithium mining project in Serbia earlier this year demonstrated.

The Serbian government’s decision will negatively affect the outlook for renewable energy, as lithium-ion batteries are essential for battery storage in smart grids and related green infrastructure. In the United States, meanwhile, despite a litany of executive orders on critical minerals, many projects remain beset by environmental conflicts. Even the recently passed Inflation Reduction Law will face obstacles to implementation, as environmental groups are already poised to oppose its mining provisions.

Much of the current battle over climate change reflects a serious problem in people’s understanding of the relationship between nature and the social and political order. Although scientists have rightly criticized the “merchants of doubt” from the fossil fuel industry, a utopian vision of easy solutions in energy supply has also contributed to our current stagnation. Well-meaning activists like Greta Thunberg They have done a great job of raising environmental awareness, but not so much when it comes to promoting literacy in the subject.

Consider the need for baseload power for power supply. Many critics of fossil fuel subsidies pay little attention to the fact that only nuclear power and fossil fuels have the capacity to provide significant power in the absence of large solar and wind battery parks or storage infrastructure. of pumped hydropower.

«Well-intentioned activists like Greta Thunberg have done a great job of raising environmental awareness, but not so much when it comes to promoting environmental literacy»

Environmentalists will have to make concessions to allow the extraction of critical metals for this infrastructure. Recycling itself carries a demand for energy, and the move to a circular economy requires that we initially have a large enough stock of material to recycle. This, in turn, implies the challenge of making products that are easier to recycle. We have to calculate the balance between durability, recyclability and the innovation of new technologies to find out the optimal moment of what economists call “planned obsolescence”.

Given the wide variety of technical issues and ongoing tensions with China and Russia, the G7 countries will need to emphasize energy policy coordination. First, the G7 should create a scientific panel focused on energy security to guide investments across a diversified range of sources. The panel’s results should be based solely on scientific and engineering constraints and not on internal political considerations. National legislation, including regulations on expropriation (eminent domain), may also be required to apply the panel’s recommendations.

There is less than a year to go before the 2023 G7 summit in Japan, a country that has shown remarkable pragmatism in securing and diversifying its energy. A working group to develop such a panel should get down to business immediately.

Solutions to climate change mitigation and energy security must now be framed within long-term contingency planning for a diversified energy mix that is consistent with the fundamental laws of nature, not political expediency. The cliché “no one gives hard to four pesetas” is very true when it comes to meeting energy demand.

Existing mechanisms, such as the Energy Charter Treaty, the International Energy Agency or the International Renewable Energy Agency, lack the necessary mandate and have many members who benefit from the status quo. The G7, by contrast, has the potential to set standards that not only ensure the energy security of the world’s leading advanced economies, but also create a feasible science-based model for other countries to emulate.

© Project Syndicate, 2022. www.project-syndicate.org