by Alex Evans | Aug 1, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Europe and Central Asia, Global system, Influence and networks
Oh dear. First the collapse of Doha, and now this:
Russia plans to form a state grain trading company to control up to half of the country’s cereal exports, intensifying fears that Moscow wants to use food exports as a diplomatic weapon in the same way as Gazprom has manipulated natural gas sales.
The move by Moscow, the world’s fifth-biggest exporter of cereals, has been sharply criticised by US agriculture diplomats as a “giant step back” to the Soviet era.
Morevoer, in the future Russia’s strategic importance as a grain producer is likely to grow as a result of climate change: higher average temperatures are likely to benefit Russia’s agricultural productivity, at least in the short term, as temperate latitudes are projected by the IPCC to see some carbon fertilisation effects between one and three degrees C of warming. (This said, Russia’s yields could still fall in absolute terms if extreme weather events, droughts and changes in water availability impact heavily – but it’s still likely that Russia’s importance as a producer would grow in relative terms.)
Russia (like Canada) looks set to be one of the big winners of the 21st century world of scarcity. Massive investment in new oil production even as the price soars; the prospect of even more resource finds as the Arctic melts; relatively lower exposure to climate impacts; and Russia’s role as a breadbasket of the world (with all the influence that this entails) set to grow and grow.
by Alex Evans | Jul 29, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY__KBYJjMM]
Freed from the nice-guy constraints of being Josh on the West Wing, Bradley Whitford was clearly having a grand old time as a Machieavellian oil industry lobbyist in Burn Up on BBC2 last week; Neve Campbell and Rupert Penry-Jones (from Spooks) completed the ensemble cast for a production that cost the BBC $15 million to make. Watch it if you haven’t already – if you live in the UK, you’ve got until 10.29pm on Wednesday 30th July to stream or download both episodes via the BBC’s Iplayer (if you download, you then have 30 days to watch them).
It was a riot – above all because, notwithstanding that this was a political thriller, the scriptwriter (Simon Beaufoy of The Full Monty fame) had really done his homework on climate change and energy policy (a task in which he was helped by Joe Smith from Open University, who co-edited Do Good Lives Have to Cost the Earth? with Andrew Simms).
So we were treated to climate summits with delegates negotiating square bracketed text through the night as the US and OPEC countries raise flags to object to use of the word ‘mandatory’; China playing it both ways, cutting a deal with the EU for carbon sequestration before dropping them like a stone when the US offers free nuclear power instead (agonised British head of delegation: “the Chinese have stitched us up!”); and even – ta da! – the sight of climate negotiators agreeing a climate framework based on per capita convergence, with proper terminology and everything.
However (spoiler alert: stop reading now if you plan to watch it), all of this then falls apart when ‘moderates’ in the US delegation (“Withdraw that proposal, Tuvalu, or kiss your AIDS funding goodbye”) are replaced by even nastier military-industrial-spook types, who – it later transpires – have a Secret Plan, the gist of which is that the US is deliberately allowing climate change to happen on the basis that if it will damage the US, it will really screw China.
As prospects for a global deal recede, oil company CEO Rupert Penry-Jones (who has had a Damascene conversion to the path of climate righteousness after watching an Eskimo set herself on fire in protest at global warming, and then seeing methane hydrate plumes catching fire in holes in the Arctic pack ice as positive feedbacks start to kick in) decides to start playing real hardball: so he leaks secret geological data from Saudi Arabia to environmentalists (and thence the media), which shows that – ta da ! – Peak Oil is upon us. The film closes with snippets of media reporting of the massive economic crash that follows, and the prospect of something called the ‘third energy age’.
Only thing is, it’s not entirely clear why Penry-Jones has abandoned his earlier view that to tell the world that the oil peak is already passed would be a Very Bad Idea on the basis that it would (a) cause economic Armageddon, (b) kill thousands if not millions and (c) cause World War Three. I was sort of with Bradley Whitford’s evil lobbyist when he suggested that allowing the news to leak out ve-e-ery gradually might be a better approach. Leaking the news of Peak Oil being already behind us also looks to me like as much of a recipe for tar sands, liquids from coal and all US corn going to biofuels as it does a recipe for solar, wind and the ‘third energy age’.
But hey. Top marks to the Beeb for definitely the edgiest (and most politically accurate) climate drama we’ve seen so far. Eat your heart out, The Day After Tomorrow.
by Alex Evans | Jul 28, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
It’s been his campaign’s policy since October last year, but in case you needed reassurance, here’s what Obama’s July 15 speech on foreign policy had to say about energy security (one of five national security priorities – the others being “ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; … and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century”):
One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.
This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.
This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern – this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security – and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump – we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that’s exactly what I’ll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won’t do. I’ll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We’ll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy – solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.
Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We’ll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.
It’s a much more progressive target than the G8 was able to come up with: at Hokkaido, the most leaders could manage was “at least 50%”. It’s more in line with the IPCC, too, which says that to limit temperature increase to between 2.0 and 2.4 degrees C, the 2050 reduction needed is between 50 and 85 per cent: so assuming you want 2.0 rather than 2.4, and adding in the rate of sink failure as well, we should certainly be looking at closer to an 85 than a 50 per cent reduction by 2050 (see page 15 of this).
And lest you wonder, yup, he’s talking about 80 per cent below 1990 levels, rather than the 2000 levels (which would be a lot less demanding). Here’s his campaign’s full energy policy brief.
by Alex Evans | Jul 26, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, East Asia and Pacific, Economics and development, Global system
Herewith an attempt to marshal my thoughts about what’s happening on the oil price (which has fallen sharply over the last few weeks), what’s likely to happen next, and what policymakers need to do to move forward. Brief summary as follows:
– The oil price has fallen sharply over the last couple of weeks, from a peak of $147 to a 7 week low of $123 at close yesterday. So is this the start of a long decline, or just a brief pause to draw breath before a resumption of the relentless upward march of recent years?
– In a nutshell, probably more like the latter – but with the potential for a big drop in the near term for as long as the credit crunch lasts, as emerging economies slow down sharply in line with falling US demand for their exports.
– However, once we’re through the crunch, we may be back to a game of cat and mouse between oil supply and economic growth. Demand falls, oil price falls; demand picks up, oil price goes back up too – but never for long enough to give investors a clear signal to pump cash into new oil supply infrastructure.
– What we need is a game changing intervention that breaks us out of this stop-start cycle. Massive investment in new oil supply would provide it, but can’t be squared with what needs to happen on emissions reductions.
– It looks like the only way through is for policymakers to agree a global climate policy framework that’s both global in scope and sufficiently long term to provide investors with an unequivocal signal of where to put their cash: this is the only way of squaring energy security with climate change.
Full version after the jump.
(more…)
by Alex Evans | Jul 24, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, North America
Last year, while she was still working as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and chair of international security at West Point – and shortly before she went to the State Department as deputy head of policy planning – Kori Schake wrote a pamphlet for the Center for European Reform entitled The US Elections and Europe: The coming crisis of high expectations.
In it, she argued that in order to avoid such a crisis, and to capitalise on the change of leadership in the US,
Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to adjust their sights. Any changes that the new American president introduces on issues that matter to Europe – Iran or climate change – will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Europeans and Americans will need to find a way to talk about Iraq in terms that resonate with both sides and do not belittle the continuing US involvement. The US feels alone in bearing the burden of Iraq, and Americans tend to gloss over the political price their European allies paid for supporting the war.
Europeans will also need to find ways of reminding the US of their comparative value as allies. Americans are likely to enter into one of their periodic fits of searching for better allies than the Europeans.
As Europe waits breathlessly for Obama’s set-piece speech in Berlin, this sounds like sage advice (particularly given the gentle dressing down that the Germans can apparently expect on troop commitments in Afghanistan). But there’s another reason to read Kori’s pamphlet, too: she’s now one of the key foreign policy advisers to John McCain.
