Editorial


03/2007		  

There is no alternative

Once again, the world’s politicians are focusing on energy. Security experts worry about access to oil and gas. Economists complain about high commodity prices. Development experts know that poverty reduction depends on economic growth, which, in turn, depends on energy. And environmental agencies tell us that business cannot go on as usual because emissions of carbon dioxide, an inevitable waste product from the combustion of fossil fuels, is heating up the climate. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done.

Unfortunately, not everyone is prepared to act in equal measure. It is absurd that we are still discussing whether airlines can afford to pay a kerosene tax – as though air travel did not seriously harm the atmosphere. It is anachronistic that German automakers only recently lobbied against tougher emissions legislation for their cars, which are relatively large by European standards – as though the transport sector had long ago significantly reduced greenhouse gases (see p. 109). And it is depressing that many supposedly advanced nations are emitting more greenhouse gases than ever. The EU will only – if at all – reach its Kyoto reduction targets thanks to one-off progress in Germany and Britain. Germany’s success is mainly the upside of an otherwise undesired economic collapse in the country’s east after reunification. In Britain, success results from the switch from coal to gas reserves, a switch the country would have made anyway.

But at least Europe is moving. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas did get his colleagues to commit to new carbon legislation for cars, though not in quite the strict terms he would have liked. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Commission President Manuel Barroso and other European leaders are calling for more stringent policy. They understand how serious matters are.

After many years of denial, even US President George Bush has seen the light. Back in 1992, his father – and predecessor at the time – refused to attend the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, stating that the American way of life was not negotiable.

In truth, the model of the rich nations matters immensely. All poor countries strive for that way of life. And let’s not forget that the economically successful nations are the ones to have caused global warming in the first place. They have emitted heat-trapping gases for many decades. Admittedly, China and India, each with over a billion people, are catching up in absolute terms of newly emitted gases. But per capita, Indians only consume around a tenth as much energy as Europeans do – and Chinese only a fifth. The EU, in turn, only uses around half the per-capita level of the US.

Meanwhile, some are beginning to talk of a nuclear-power “renaissance”. The Bush administration even wants to support India on that course. Nuclear technology, however, goes along with tremendous environmental hazards of its own. No engineer can guarantee that radioactive waste will be stored safely for thousands of years – as it must. International worries over arms proliferation indicate security risks. And even the civilian use of nuclear power implies security risks. Power plants could become the targets of devastating terrorist attacks, and so could nuclear-waste transports.

We need decentralised power- supply systems based on renewable sources and we need radically more efficient energy use. Both will cost money and require additional research, but it can be done. In terms of environment, development, business and security, there is no alternative.





Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief of D+C Development and Cooperation/E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
euz.editor@fsd.de