 | New UK Energy Minister | The Oil Drum: Europe | IHS Data Suggest Kuwaiti and Global Proved Oil Reserves Significantly Lower Than BP Estimates |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The Poles are of course correct in demanding more from the Russians than just vague promises for the future. Otherwise we have no security at all. Exclusive supply contracts with a supplier is not necessary, Europe does not expect that but a long-term planning certainty is important. Getting caught in a Russian bear hug, a massive blackmail, as in Georgia, is very dangerous for the EU economies, especially as the North Sea will be producing less every year. This blackmail could be an implicit rejection of NATO/EU dominance in a few years in exchange for energy and in its place make an EU-Russia European security and trade zone. The USA and their British cousins has justification for fearing total isolation and of ocurse Eastern Europeans who just gained theri freeedom have a right to wonder if the last ten years was just a short walk around the prison yard before having to go back into their cell.
It is counterproductive to export energy intensive industry from a country in Europe with relatively strict environmental legislation to somewhere like China with lax legislation. European consumers should be exposed to the costs of the marginal environmental damage caused by the Chinese factory over the European factory (including transport) and pollution based import tariffs seem a reasonable approach... if there was robust international pollution accounting.
If we accept that manufacturing a widget in China (or similar country) emits more CO2 than manufacturing that same widget in Europe (to quantify this, comparing the average CO2 per kWh of Chinese vs European electricity might be a good proxy to start with) then anything that encourages such off-shoring of widget manufacturing drives global CO2 emission.
Putting a price on European CO2 emissions of, as you say around €9/mt for 2007 and €16/mt for 2008 forward creates addition incentive on top of all the others for this CO2 increasing off-shoring. Import tariffs in excess of the local emission costs would negate this effect, at least for European consumption.
To be fair though carbon trading must also be lowering the carbon intensity of CO2 emitting activities that remain in Europe so it can't be all bad news!
Many European companies also seek to offset their emissions through the purchase of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) in other parts of the world, which obviously also goes to offset to a certain degree the exported pollution of off-shored manufacturing.
There is some anecdotal evidence that not all CER schemes are actively welcomed by their host communities (small hydro schemes in India flooding valleys and forcing population relocation, for example). Furthermore, I am not convinced that saving rainforests from slash/burn agriculture or palm plantations is ACTVIE reduction of emissions, in that carbon would be sequestered in any case. That is not to say that I am not in favour of saving the rainforests, I am, hugely so.
On another note, I believe the growing need for liquid bio-fuels as petroleum replacement represents the biggest single threat to the rain-forests. Both Malaysia and Indonesia are accelerating the destruction of Borneo's forests to plant palm oil plantations, and I believe that Brazil will increasingly encroach on the Amazon when it becomes clear that US corn is both too expensive (in comparison to Brazilain sugar cane) and also increasingly required to feed both humans and farm animals.
We need to look to crops that can be grown on marginal land rather than compete for either arable or forest land. In this respect Jatropha appears to be a perfect biodiesel source plant (http://www.biodieseltoday.com/whyjatropha.htm). I calculated that we could produce 1 million barrels/day of biodiesel with "only" 24 million hectares of Jatropha plantation or approximately 0.35% of the land mass of the African and Asian continents. Clearly not a "silver bullet" solution, but surely grist to the mill and also a provider of signifincant employment and revenue in the world's poorest regions.