Sleep Walking into Catastrophe(s)

the Plug #28 | On Conflict & Climate Change Myopia

"An increase of two or three degrees wouldn't be so bad for a northern country like Russia. We could spend less on fur coats, and the grain harvest would go up!"

– Vladimir Putin

---

Climate change is a huge problem. Let me make that abundantly clear from the outset.

In the past, through my newsletter, I have touched on the complexity of anthropogenic climate change (see archive). For readers who know me personally, you have likely been subjected to a long explanation of my extensively researched stance on this overtly politicized topic. My perspective is certainly not mainstream, but it is one that I believe is grounded in facts, logic, and reason.

However, for most of you on my subscription list, we do not know each other. This is why I'll reiterate my stance once more: climate change is a huge problem.

But it's not the only problem.

Today, there are several humanitarian challenges that stubbornly persist. To name only a few of the most notable examples: adult illiteracy, rampant poverty, preventable child mortality, and lack of energy access.

Sadly, a new humanitarian crisis has now emerged. Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine’s democracy and national sovereignty has rightfully captured the world's attention.

In the last few days, I have been saddened and frustrated by the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin's Russia. This week has reminded me not to take for granted the freedom and liberty which I have enjoyed unabated throughout my life here in North America.

There are many reasons why the invasion of Ukraine disheartens me. But, most of all, I am saddened because this catastrophe was predictable and preventable.

Not the invasion of Ukraine itself. That much was largely unforeseen.

But it has long been glaringly evident that Vladimir Putin has been consolidating Russian influence through his energy policy. Europe's dependency on Russian gas was short-sighted and foolhardy. So too has been its ideological experimentation with renewable energy dependence.

Now, Ukrainian citizens are bearing the consequences of those short-sighted decisions.

The circumstances which culminated in this conflict have been building for years. Undoubtedly, as Western countries have boasted arrogantly about rapid decarbonization objectives, Putin has been licking his chops. Love him or hate him, it's hard to dispute that Putin is a masterful tactician.

We played right into his trap. It's as simple as that.

Ironically, through our energy consumption here in North America, you and I have also been the indirect financiers of Putin's military. Much of the cash plowed into the Ukrainian invasion was raised by selling Russian commodities abroad, including to Canada, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S., to name but a few of the many countries on Russia's export lists. (Here's the export data on oil, and here it is on natural gas.)

While Ukraine remains under siege, it seems indisputable that the most pressing challenge the world faces right now is to support Ukraine in defending its independence by all means possible. For that reason, I've included several links below through which you can directly show your support for Ukraine, and continue to follow along with what’s happening.

• Links to donate in support of Ukraine:

  • International Rescue Committee

  • Human Rights Watch

  • Amnesty International

• Consolidated News Coverage of Russia-Ukraine Conflict (Reddit)

.

My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine. I can't imagine what they are going through right now.

#StandWithUkraine.

---

⏸️ Taking A Brief Pause

With that said, it is also critically important to take a step back to understand the overarching global energy policy that facilitated this catastrophe.

Without taking the time to understand the broader context of what is currently transpiring, we are destined to continue repeating the mistakes which led Ukraine head-first into conflict.

Energy policy runs deep within Putin's foreign policy strategy. It is no coincidence that Europe is currently running low on natural gas supplies, which has forced energy and utility prices across Europe to new all-time highs.

The reckless prioritization of decarbonization at the expense of other challenges is a peace-time luxury that we presently can't afford.

It's well past the time to prioritize science and logic over hubris and naiveté in our energy policies.

This past Saturday afternoon, my mum asked me: "Why is now the right time to write this piece?"

Honestly, at the time, I wasn't totally sure that the time was right. But, as the weekend progressed, my rationale for voicing this perspective has become crystal clear.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are seizing this opportunity to advance their respective political agendas.

On Sunday,  White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Senator Bernie Sanders both capitalized on the opportunity to disavow fossil fuels in favour of advancing American renewable energy dependence.

I strongly disagree with their statements and their perspectives. That progressive policy sentiment is what got the world into this mess in the first place. Fossil fuels aren’t the villain here! But, of course, that is one of the narratives that progressives across the Western world are continuing to try and advance.

My goal is to shed light on the absurdity of the ass-backward energy policy to which our politicians are providing lip service. From where I'm sitting, the grownups in our situation rooms appear to be too self-absorbed by public perception, approval ratings, and re-election concerns to do so themselves. That is why I've written this piece.

If we fail to take stock of the circumstances, and energy policies, which brought us here, I believe it's inevitable that another conflict will soon follow.

Before exploring this further, I'd highlight two related pieces I've written in the past, which may serve as helpful background reading for new subscribers.

1. The role that Russian gas plays in Europe.

2. The importance of domestic fossil fuel production.

---

🐎 Ass-Backward Energy Policy

As a lifetime citizen of North America, I have never had to worry about any of the pressing humanitarian issues I laid out above. By any standard, my life has been near-perfect.

I am part of the small minority of the world's citizens who can claim to be so fortunate.

And so, with all of my basic human needs satisfied, I have the privilege of complaining instead about the weather. The same is true for many of my friends and colleagues.

Therein lies the challenge.

I believe that here in North America, our society's unipolar focus on climate change has stolen the limelight from all of the other humanitarian crises that persist in the world. Our myopia has also spilled over into one of our most essential industries: our global energy industry.

As I will attempt to explain today, and in the weeks to come, if we choose to continue along this same dire path, the ongoing loss of human life in Ukraine is a precursor for more conflict to come. That is because the crux of the catastrophe in Ukraine lies within our energy policy.

Historically, there were three core pillars on which global energy policy was built:

1. Affordability

2. Accessibility

3. Reliability

.

In the past two decades, we necessarily added emission intensity as a fourth criterion to that list.

The addition of that fourth criteria has catalyzed a significant transition in our energy system. The end goal of this so-called energy transition is to decarbonize our energy system.

As is the case in any large-scale system change, disruption to the status quo creates opportunities to exploit poor decision-making. Enter Putin, stage left.

Somewhere along the line, we forgot about the importance of the first three factors. Even though those three factors facilitated tremendous improvement in global human living standards over the past century.

The security, reliability, and affordability of our energy supply are as fundamental to the stability of our daily lives as is the role of oxygen in keeping us alive. These three factors are also critical to maintaining energy security.

What's energy security, you ask? In short, it's the proactive mitigation of reliance on the resource supply of foreign autocrats.

Daniel Yergin, one of the world's greatest energy commentators, expands on this point in the interview below, conducted late last week.

Power Lunch @PowerLunch

"This collective amnesia that has existed about energy security has now been ended by the electric shock of this invasion of Ukraine." @DanielYergin of @IHSMarkit explains the impact Russia's invasion of Ukraine will have on energy markets around the globe. #OOTT

Again, let me take a moment to clarify my stance: I wholeheartedly support the energy transition. And I believe that mitigating the worst impacts of climate change is critically important. As I write this today, I stand firmly behind all of the statements I've made previously in this newsletter.

But, a concern for climate change does not necessitate a headlong sprint towards renewable energy dependence. Nor does it require the immediate disregard and villainization of the fossil fuel and nuclear-based power generation tools our civilizations worked tirelessly to develop.

Notably, fossil fuels and nuclear energy most effectively satisfy the three initial criteria I laid out above. I firmly believe that nuclear fusion technology is the best energy-related tool we have today for maintaining national energy security and mitigating reliance on commodity imports. Plus, no carbon emissions!

Ukraine knew this.

The Ukrainian electrical grid is stabilized by several large nuclear generators, which produce over 50% of the country's electricity. Germany seemingly did not know this, which is why it has shut down its nuclear power fleet while maintaining its reliance on Russian natural gas. Europe's addiction to Russian gas also explains why the West's initial response to the Ukrainian invasion has been feeble and delayed.

This transition will need to be undertaken prudently and thoughtfully to minimize the human consequence of decarbonizing our energy system.

Patience will be critical. Robust and thoughtful leadership focused on building bridges and consensus will be essential. And humility and hubris must be at the forefront of our collaborative approach to climate change mitigation.

Without those factors, large-scale decarbonization won't happen.

None of that will be easy. But, if the world cares as much about climate change as it says it does, then those elements are critical to achieving the long-run decarbonization for which we are all endeavoring. In fact, without proper management of this transition, the conflict in Ukraine and those to follow will only set us back on our path to net zero.

Unfortunately, right now, I'm not seeing any of those traits on display from the political leaders who craft our energy policy. That is true for most countries that make up the Western world. Notably, Ukraine is an exception.

Continuing to push forward aggressively with policies that rely first and foremost on unproven, intermittent renewable energy sources is foolish. So too is looking exclusively at the potential future planetary impacts of our decisions, without considering the implications of those decisions on today's global citizens.

Our planet is important. But so too is the wellbeing of the people living on it today.

I know that the laws of physics support my claims about the shortcomings of wind, solar and other renewable energy resources. I will expand on this point in the future. In the meantime, this piece by research firm Goehring & Rozencwajg beautifully lays out the laws of energy physics and thermodynamics via its explanation of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).

My frustration is not with our focus on decarbonization. Nor is it with pursuing carbon-lean energy sources to replace our existing fossil-fuel-based infrastructure. Instead, it is pointed directly at how we are going about it.

At some point, someone needs to step up and ask, what the actual fuck are we doing here, guys?

If this conflict isn't the wake-up call we need to undertake a serious autopsy of our go-forward energy policy; frankly, I don't know what is.

---

🤡 The American Political Circus

Let me quote the brilliance of Doomberg, who recently shared a perfect summary of the political insanity taking place at the intersection of Energy Street and Climate Change Avenue. (emphasis mine)

"In the pantheon of unserious statements by a leading U.S. official on the literal eve of war, it will be tough to top the one quoted above [below] from former Secretary of State and current Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry."

...

"Kerry's sober concern for the emissions that will result from Putin's aggression is only topped by his worry that kinetic war will distract attention away from the climate crisis."

The quote itself by the U.S. Secretary of Planet is a doozy.

"And so, I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate." – John Kerry (February 23, 2022)

Let me be abundantly clear – Putin doesn't care about climate change.

What planet must John Kerry be living on to believe otherwise?

As soldiers stand actively in the line of fire, laying down their lives for Ukrainian independence, I would argue that our focus should not be on the emission consequences of the war. You may counter-argue that those emissions will drastically alter the earth's livability for our children's children's children. To which I'd retort that we've got enough problems here, right now, today on which to focus instead of speculating about what the future may hold.

I find it flabbergasting that while Ukrainian soldiers are preoccupied with defending Kyiv from impending invasion, certain U.S. politicians remain laser-focused on net-zero 2050.

Most shocking, John Kerry himself has a distinguished military record. Given his own combat experience, he undoubtedly has some empathy for the Ukrainian soldiers who are locked in battle right now. So, to make sense of Kerry's statement, I am led to believe that one of two mutually exclusive conclusions can be drawn:

1. Either climate change is the biggest threat ever faced by humanity, and if it's not addressed immediately and at all cost, we will all die soon.

2. Or, John Kerry lives in an echo chamber, wherein everybody he surrounds himself with believes to their very core that the statement I laid out above is undeniably accurate. Within his echo chamber, anyone who voices an opposing perspective is villainized and so, Kerry’s perspective is one-directional.

.

Can you guess which of these two scenarios I believe is more likely?

In Kerry's defense, he briefly mentions his concern for the Ukrainian people. But he then proceeds to mutter the words "massive emissions consequences to the war," "lose focus," and "now it's thawing" in the same exasperated breath.

Where energy and climate change meet, extremism and polarity run rampant. It seems that the debate has boiled down to what we care about most: humanity or our planet. And, we're presented with an ultimatum: it's either one or the other!

That is a false dichotomy.

That stance may serve as a suitable media soundbite. But it doesn't work in the real world of energy policy. I believe that there is a middle ground by which the world can decarbonize its energy system while also minimizing the implications for the human population.

But that path sure as hell doesn't look like anything I'm seeing proposed right now by our political leadership.

---

💭 Let’s Flip the Script

I deliver this soliloquy knowing full well that I may alienate some of you.

But instead of shying away from your disagreement, I welcome it. I believe that the only way to build a rationale go-forward energy policy is for people to share perspectives that are not necessarily in the current mainstream.

If you’ve made it this far, I’d strongly encourage you to share your perspective in the comments section below. By sharing your own views, whether in agreement or disagreement, you will help me to continue developing my own understanding of this incredibly complicated issue.

If you choose instead to label me as anti-climate, as anti-renewables, or as anti-[insert buzzword here], so be it. I can't stop that.

The truth is that, in descending order of importance, my priorities are as follows: 1) pro-logic, 2) pro-human, 3) pro-planet. Those priorities inform the perspective I've shared in this article.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this incredibly complex, nuanced topic. But I do hope to continue learning, in order to better understand any nuance that I may still be missing.

Please consider helping me to do that.

---

✊ Real Leadership

Armed conflict will derail our decarbonization objectives.

And yet, I believe that it is our decarbonization objectives that facilitated the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Those decarbonization objectives are currently the bread and butter of our energy policy.

To maintain or worse, double-down, on those same policies going forward, without reflecting on the circumstances that bore this catastrophe lacks any semblance of logic.

History shows us that energy transitions happen slowly. It takes decades, not days, to develop and implement new energy technologies. If we continue to try and force the hand of time, we will not achieve the decarbonization goals that are critical to inhibit climate change. And, in doing so, we will also facilitate a continued and unnecessary loss of human life.

I typically conclude these pieces with a cartoon. But amidst this ongoing geopolitical catastrophe, now is not the time for humour.

Instead, I want to re-share the impassioned speech given by the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this past Saturday night.

Make no mistake. This is the face of real political leadership.

#StandWithUkraine