Energy and Climate: Leaving the Frenzy
    By Hervé Kempf
    Le Monde

    Tuesday 04 July 2006

    The contradiction between declarative proclamations and the reality of acts has become such a constant of political life that no one is surprised by it in the end. There is, however, a domain in which this contradiction is so fraught with consequences for the future that it must be highlighted: the divergence between pursued energy policy and the probable evolution of global warming.

    The question of climate change has continued to grow in importance the last several years to the point where parliamentarians, whose prose is generally marked by the greatest moderation, do not hesitate to talk about "coming climactic catastrophes," as did Deputies Jean-Yves Le Déaut (PS) and Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (UMP) in a recent report on the greenhouse effect (Le Monde, April 14). In the same vein, Senators Pierre Laffitte (RDSE) and Claude Saunier (PS) assert in a report to be published shortly that "the consequences of climate change are much underestimated." These texts are only the most recent productions from a now most impressive list of cries of alarm released by experts and scientists.

    And, officially, France sets itself the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. That implies a reduction on the order of 3% per year of greenhouse gas emissions starting today.

    So what do we observe with respect to energy production? That France is preparing to put into service over 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity production based on fossil fuel between now and 2012, or the equivalent of close to ten nuclear reactors. Thus, EDF plans to put 3,100 MW into service; Poweo, 2,800 MW; SNET, 2,000 MW; Gaz de France, 1,430 MW; Suez, 840 MW. Not one of these operators gives any indication of having calculated the greenhouse gas emissions produced by these new capacities. And for a reason: even if part - about 2,000 MW - corresponds to the replacement of highly polluting coal-burning power stations with less polluting gas-powered ones, the overall balance will nonetheless inevitably be unfavorable.

    A combined gas cycle 400 MW generator, operating 6,000 hours a year (or 68% of the time) thus throws off about 960,000 tons of carbon gases a year.

    On top of these new capacities, there will be at least one 1,600 MW nuclear reactor added, says EPR, and a wind farm approaching 2,000 MW. Although these energies do not emit greenhouse gases, they have an important ecological impact: nuclear waste and high tension wires linked to the European Pressurized Reactor (as in the English Channel and the Verdun nature preserve), and the break-up and removal of rural landscapes' distinguishing features by the increase in wind farms.

    How can we explain this frenzy of construction of electrical capacities of all kinds, so contrary to the proclaimed necessity of taking climate change and the environment into account? By the intangible dogma that electricity consumption must inevitably increase: according to RTE (Network for Electricity Transport), it must grow 1.7% per year in France until 2010 - or at a rate barely inferior to that of economic growth - then by 1.2% per year. This forecast is based on an extrapolation of present tendencies, the advent of new sources of consumption - such as summer air conditioning - and on a report on electricity for diverse uses, especially industrial uses, of oil. But it is above all an artifact of the absence of any serious policy to cap electricity consumption.

    In Europe, the logic is the same: increase in electricity consumption and production capacity. Given the increase in the price of natural gas - for good or for ill, aligned with oil prices - some analysts even foresee a return to coal, much less costly, but a greater source of carbon gas emissions.

    Ecological Alibi

    In the dominant logic, it won't be until the middle of the next decade, at best, that the electricity sector would be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. In this perspective, the development of renewable energies serves only as an ecological alibi for a fundamentally unchanged policy. It do not transform the overall situation. Thus, Spain, which is one of the global wind power champions with over 10,000 MW of installed wind generators, is nonetheless a very poor student in climate class: its greenhouse gas emissions exceed their 1990 level by over 40%, although according to the Kyoto Protocol, they shouldn't exceed +16 % in 2010.

    Why do governments take an increase in electricity consumption as a given? First of all, because in the same breath with the liberalization promoted in Europe in the 1990s, they deprived themselves of the means to direct energy policy. "Everything is left to the initiative of the market," deems Pierre Radanne, an independent consultant, "while operators essentially target remunerating their share-holders." The criteria dominating public policy has consequently been establishing powerful national actors in the framework of an open market. So producers follow a supply logic. They do what they know how to do: produce more. On the other hand, as Benjamin Dessus from the think tank Global Chance remarks, "There is no energy economizing lobby," even though that is an important source of economic efficiency and employment.

    The reduction in energy consumption is, in fact, the best means to reach the objective of a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. A study that Global Chance has just published shows that even if we were to pursue nuclear and renewable energy programs to the limits of their possibilities in the world, we would only be able to stabilize the emissions of greenhouse gases in 2030, while the growth in electricity consumption continued. On the other hand, "the scenario based on a program of control over energy demand alone would allow the stabilization of emissions much sooner, around 2025."

    It would be useful for the political officials who say they worry about climate change to seriously question the dogma of the inevitable growth in consumption. Perhaps they could use economic analysis, by asking themselves what is better for the community - increasing the profits of gas sellers and electricity producers, or increasing employment and decreasing the country's energy bill by promoting energy efficiency?

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.