www.blogactionday.org
When experts hold a presentation on, let’s say, “The Economic Challenges of Climate Change” they usually divide their PowerPoint presentation into two parts: one for energy and one for climate change issues. Unfortunately, mostly a third part is missing that puts the picture together!
Energy
In order to satisfy the growing energy demand of a growth-oriented world politicians and economic experts emphasise the growing necessity to extract new energy resources in the face of energy scarcity. The solution is – as everyone agrees – growing investment in and development of renewable energy resources like wind, solar or biomass. But experts emphasise that these innovations, investments and developments take time – they usually calculate in decades – before those alternative energy resources actually pay out and become a sufficient substitute for conventional energy means like oil and gas. In that sense, it is argued that besides the investments in renewable energies money should also be poured into the exploration of new oil and gas resources.
Climate
The latter conclusion contradicts somehow the statements usually made by the same experts that in close connection to the energy problem, climate change issues have to be in the centre of attention, mainly in the form of carbon emission reductions. It is claimed that we have to act now in order to remain within the temperature rise that still prevents a global catastrophe. But the demand to develop new exploration fields for oil and gas seems to run counter to the emission reduction targets we should pursue. As an example: the extraction of the oil stored in the Canadian sand banks will become economically profitable with a high enough oil price despite the huge costs connected to the digging up and processing of the sand. Not calculated hereby is the huge amount of greenhouse emissions this will produce together with a tremendous amount of energy and water needed for the process, not to speak of the environmental damage to the land of the region. Another example is the increasing economic attractiveness of (especially gas) resources in the Arctic Ocean, which puts this vulnerable region in danger of unsustainable exploration and irreversible environmental damage.
Dilemma
So is there a trade-off? Does the Arctic have to be “sacrificed” and the increasing emissions through Canadian oil sand extraction be accepted in order to bridge the time until renewable and sustainable energy resources are sufficiently developed in order to replace conventional energy resources? What would the experts suggest?
Kathrin
When experts hold a presentation on, let’s say, “The Economic Challenges of Climate Change” they usually divide their PowerPoint presentation into two parts: one for energy and one for climate change issues. Unfortunately, mostly a third part is missing that puts the picture together!
Energy
In order to satisfy the growing energy demand of a growth-oriented world politicians and economic experts emphasise the growing necessity to extract new energy resources in the face of energy scarcity. The solution is – as everyone agrees – growing investment in and development of renewable energy resources like wind, solar or biomass. But experts emphasise that these innovations, investments and developments take time – they usually calculate in decades – before those alternative energy resources actually pay out and become a sufficient substitute for conventional energy means like oil and gas. In that sense, it is argued that besides the investments in renewable energies money should also be poured into the exploration of new oil and gas resources.
Climate
The latter conclusion contradicts somehow the statements usually made by the same experts that in close connection to the energy problem, climate change issues have to be in the centre of attention, mainly in the form of carbon emission reductions. It is claimed that we have to act now in order to remain within the temperature rise that still prevents a global catastrophe. But the demand to develop new exploration fields for oil and gas seems to run counter to the emission reduction targets we should pursue. As an example: the extraction of the oil stored in the Canadian sand banks will become economically profitable with a high enough oil price despite the huge costs connected to the digging up and processing of the sand. Not calculated hereby is the huge amount of greenhouse emissions this will produce together with a tremendous amount of energy and water needed for the process, not to speak of the environmental damage to the land of the region. Another example is the increasing economic attractiveness of (especially gas) resources in the Arctic Ocean, which puts this vulnerable region in danger of unsustainable exploration and irreversible environmental damage.
Dilemma
So is there a trade-off? Does the Arctic have to be “sacrificed” and the increasing emissions through Canadian oil sand extraction be accepted in order to bridge the time until renewable and sustainable energy resources are sufficiently developed in order to replace conventional energy resources? What would the experts suggest?
Kathrin
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen