Loud announcements about a climate emergency will be followed by concrete measures that will affect not only every individual but also companies and countries; however, there are still no answers to many important questions.

This was pointed out in an interview with DB by Andrei Belyi, a docent at the University of Eastern Finland and a board member of Balesene OU. In his view, the focus of attention is not just on the debate over new EU policy, and especially the abstract goals of the new 'green' direction, but rather on the complexity of the declared emergency and the costs of the proposed electrification of all of Europe.

What is the significance of the fact that the new European Parliament and the European Commission began their term specifically with a climate emergency and a 'Green Deal'?

The European Commission did not use the term 'climate emergency' because it was inserted into their resolution and voted for by a majority of the European Parliament. Allies of new European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Parliament voted against the term 'climate emergency'. However, the roots of these events are to be found elsewhere—specifically in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established by the UN and the World Meteorological Organization, which has been operating since 1988. The goal of this expert working group is climate modelling using computer software. Professor Samuel Furfari of the Faculty of Applied Sciences at the Free University of Brussels, who works with the IPCC, recently wrote that this group is working on only one hypothesis of climate change: the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature, which, in S. Furfari's opinion, can create a lack of balance in the scientific debate on this topic. The said working group does not deal with other climate change hypotheses that exist in the scientific world. According to the baseline version of the intergovernmental working group, the main cause of climate change is greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane. In 2018, in a special report, the IPCC, using modelling data, concluded that if the ambient temperature increases by 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to the hypothetical temperature level, the world can expect unpredictable natural disasters, soil changes, a shortage of drinking water, etc. Essentially, there was a departure from the traditional view that the economy is capable of absorbing a two-degree increase compared to pre-industrial times. In this context, S. Furfari's finding that there are very different hypotheses regarding the determination of the average pre-industrial temperature is interesting.

In fact, these 0.5 degrees are considered enough to cause significant harm, and they represent a kind of dividing line. At the same time, this model is developed based on a computer program model and corresponding simulations—what might happen—but it has nothing to do with the predictions and apocalypse described in the Bible, which many people perceive. Essentially, the created model examines only a few of the possible scenarios, which are not linked to how the economy or the global financial system works or does not work, and what measures reducing CO2 emissions have been taken so far.

The idea that greenhouse gas emissions, and especially CO2, must be reduced is correct and understandable to the scientific community, but this situation should not be perceived as a potential apocalypse that will arrive in a few decades. It was precisely the interpretation of the expert group's reports (on the issue of climate change) and a lack of understanding that created and contributed to distortions and exaggerations. In September 2019, World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas also pointed to this fact in the Finnish media. Specifically, climate change panic has crossed all possible boundaries, because experts do not need to convince those who do not believe in climate change, but rather stop those who are causing panic because of its potential hypothetical consequences.

The 'Green' parties in Europe heated up this issue to a situation where the new European Parliament also adopted a resolution on a climate emergency, even though the European Commission used a different designation more often—'an area needing urgent solutions and measures'. Of course, the questions are whether the Members of the European Parliament themselves have an understanding of this discussion among climate change experts—scientists—the results obtained from their computer simulation model, and its potential deviations and errors, or perhaps such knowledge rests with their assistants. Undoubtedly, business circles will be interested in selling more expensive technological solutions, such as electric vehicles or solar panels. It cannot be ruled out that some are lobbying the interests of the corresponding business, which has a great interest in the declaration of a climate emergency.

Specifically, all types of consumers (both individuals and companies) will be forced to spend money where they might otherwise not have, for example, on replacing technology. Professor Mike Hulme has already pointed out that climate issues cannot be viewed as an emergency from either a political, economic, or social perspective. Specifically, decisions made in haste, for example, regarding rapid infrastructure changes, which later turn out to be wrong, may not help the environment but, on the contrary, cause it even greater harm. An example: currently, it is 'fashionable' to build wind farms that produce electricity, but at the same time, under certain conditions, they change the ecosystem, for example, the forest ecosystem.

As researcher Valentino Lutterini has pointed out, climate is the result of the interaction of four complex systems—the atmosphere, the ocean, the biosphere (which absorbs CO2), and space (solar influence). If people take significant steps driven by good but perhaps utopian future intentions, there is a risk of causing harm to other systems, first and foremost the biosphere. Quite recently, an interesting article was published about how many raw materials (such as lithium, zinc, cobalt) are needed just to develop the ambitious idea of renewable energy. Large-scale renewable energy development will require raw materials and minerals, as well as an increase in the production volumes of aluminium and other metals, which can not only increase the volume of greenhouse gas emissions but also contribute to the destruction of the local biosphere where the relevant raw materials are extracted and processed. In fact: a rapid transition to renewable energy to reduce emissions is like switching from vodka to whisky to combat excessive alcohol consumption. Furthermore, one of the most complex issues in renewable energy is what to do with the waste it creates, which may not be harmful to the environment individually, but which creates very dangerous substances when mixed. For example, in India and other countries, there are state support programmes for the purchase, installation, and use of solar batteries. As a result of the aforementioned support measures, solar batteries have become relatively cheaper and more accessible, but: how much CO2 is generated to produce solar panels, and what happens to them after their operational life ends? There is another nuance: dust accumulates on solar panels, as a result of which the panels do not generate the power they should. Due to air quality in India, these relatively cheap solar panels have to be replaced almost every year. The other inherent part of the problem is waste management, and state policies—and even more so systems implemented in practice—are not present in very many countries, especially developing ones.

As a result, non-functioning solar panels sooner or later end up in the ocean or are buried underground because their recycling is very expensive or impossible; furthermore, these activities cause harm to the ecosystem. In this context, the words of Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Ilya Prigogine regarding the existing paradoxical situation come to mind: 'On one hand, there is a societal demand for science to save the world; on the other hand, science is increasingly studying complex, unpredictable systems.' Unfortunately, currently, no model can explain absolutely all processes, their mutual interaction, and potential results, and therefore the consequences. The only thing that can be done is to avoid extremes—denying climate science and using the phrase about the views (opinion) of some majority of scientists as an argument. There is hardly any point in repeating the strategy of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet-era pseudo-scientist who promoted the adaptation of organisms to changing environmental conditions and who, 50-60 years ago, used phrases like 'most scientists support', 'proletarian science supports', and 'there is proletarian science and there is bourgeois science' to defend his views when speaking. Unfortunately, even today in the context of climate change, such a propagandistic approach exists, and such people go to organizations, institutions, and parliaments saying: 'scientific studies show that...', 'the majority of scientists believe that...', even though science does not work on the Bolshevik—majority—principle.

The saddest thing is that we are starting to divide this science, just like T. Lysenko, only no longer into bourgeois and proletarian, but into correct and incorrect, even though science cannot be correct or incorrect. Furthermore, those who do not believe in the 'correct' science are dubbed by their opponents (especially the more active part of eco-activists) as oil and gas lobbyists, reactionaries, obscurantists, etc., but all of this was already experienced in the Soviet system, and those who lived in the USSR have already felt it all. The root of the problem is that there is no understanding in part of the society, and also no desire to understand what is not understood; moreover, there is an increasingly observed tendency to abandon Karl Popper's 'open society' that is geared towards discussion, and an increasingly greater leaning towards Lysenko's propagandistic one, where one—the correct—direction, view, or position dominated. This is a dangerous tendency that is underestimated in many offices and halls, but the question is how to maintain control and carry out adequate measures, including in energy, that would help reduce CO2 emission volumes without exaggeration and unnecessary radicalization.

What changes can be expected in energy?

The most significant challenge of the new energy is not the introduction of renewable energy in the electricity sector, but the electrification of the economy, especially the housing, communal, and transport sectors. This means that the total share of electricity in final consumption will grow. European Commission economic forecasts for the electrification of the European Union economy were already published in 2018 in a document ('A Clean Planet for All'), which proposed several development scenarios, all of which essentially propose implementing electrification—a transition to one type of energy resource: electricity.

Even by the most cautious estimates, this would require EU electricity consumption to increase by an amount equivalent to the annual consumption of Italy. Meanwhile, implementing the most ambitious scenario would almost double EU electricity consumption. Since using electrons in the economy is more expensive than using molecules of gas and other types of fuel, the logical question is: who will pay for the increase in electricity capacity? Alongside this is the question of whether the EU economy will be able to bear the additional social costs of such electricity consumption. I also showed some calculations on the potential increase in electricity consumption in accordance with European Commission scenarios at the 'Business Forecasts 2020' conference held in December 2019, and the conclusion is as follows: as direct electricity consumption increases, the imbalance between EU member states will increase because the price of electricity, when converted to income, differs significantly across different EU member states.

For example, according to this model, people in Romania pay more for electricity than in any other EU member state. Romania is followed by Latvia and Lithuania. Conversely, in the Scandinavian countries, electricity costs in Sweden will be the lowest. This means that the electrification policy must not ignore regional and national characteristics because social costs will differ among countries. The second question is from what resources to produce electricity. It can be generated in stations that do not create CO2 emissions or in those where these CO2 emissions are very low, and thus arrive at a low-carbon or even carbon-neutral energy sector. However, the question is how much all of this will cost, as more electricity capacity will be needed. Who will pay for the creation of this capacity, let alone the replacement of technology? There are two possible solutions—the additional required electricity capacity is paid for by energy companies, which automatically passes it on to the consumers' shoulders, or the second solution—to introduce a partial or full planned economy (which was already in the USSR), where companies simply carry out the decisions—directives—of higher-ups. At the same time, it is impossible to completely avoid market economy issues such as financial flows, the value of the euro, etc. Furthermore, in the transition to the single energy resource—electricity—the question will be about the reaction of the public, especially its most active part, and also the position of the owners of industrial companies.

Why? Because the issue will be about costs. Currently, whoever uses electricity for heating their home has to pay two to three times the amount in winter, at least, than someone who uses central heating, where heat is obtained by burning wood or natural gas.

And also—how will voters react to such a situation, especially those who do not have high incomes?

Will they even be able to pay these expenses? Let us not forget that the 'Yellow Vest' protests in France started with an increase in energy prices. Meanwhile, industrial companies may not only have to make substantial investments in technology replacement, which, combined with expensive electricity, will raise questions about their competitiveness in the market, but as a result, the owners of these companies may be forced to move production to another region of the world, which will result in fewer jobs and tax payments, but in return, higher expenses on the part of the states. Currently, it is unclear, it is not known, how much such a solution will cost, nor what the impact on residents, business, or the climate will be.

In Europe, electricity is produced not only by burning natural gas and coal but also in nuclear power plants. To replace these capacities with renewable resources, not to mention the additional capacities that will be needed instead of petrol, huge additional energy resources will be needed. Where will they be taken from?

It is no secret that many European countries have problems with the percentage of renewable energy resources in total consumption. Currently, CO2 emission quota prices on the market have decreased, and thus even coal, for which prices have fallen due to large unsold stockpiles, can be used for electricity production.

As a result, a situation arose where, in several European countries, the use of coal as an energy resource for electricity production increased. Conversely, so-called green—solar and wind—energy is subject to natural conditions—the sun does not shine at night, the wind blows when it blows, and this means that so-called electricity capacity stabilization stations were, are, and will be needed, because so far there are no such electricity storage devices. And here is where it gets most interesting—energy producers will pay extra for someone to consume it, or those who consume will be forced to pay extra for having electricity available. A solution was and still is in force that these electricity consumption and production complications will be solved with natural gas stations with very low CO2 emission volumes, and that is also one of the economic reasons why natural gas pipelines (including Nord Stream 2) to Europe are being built. Yes, there are ideas about using geothermal waters in energy, but no one can answer precisely what will happen to groundwater when such large volumes of water are extracted, how it will affect the soil, groundwater levels, geological processes, etc. Although natural gas is currently on the list of criticized energy resources, using it as CNG in car engines, as well as for electricity production, creates very few CO2 emissions. Of course, methane, which is one of the most harmful atmospheric heaters, enters the atmosphere during natural gas extraction.

Furthermore, there are also methane losses in the natural gas distribution system. A task for the near future would be to find solutions that prevent methane losses.

For companies that control gas distribution systems, certification and a corresponding action plan to prevent methane losses could be introduced, failing which, fines would have to be paid. Another aspect—in 2016, the European Commission withdrew from the World Bank programme on the flaring of so-called 'road' (unnecessary) gas. Specifically, smaller gas extraction companies simply burn this unnecessary gas as non-liquid, as a result of which CO2 and also methane enter the atmosphere, but how much methane enters the atmosphere in this way is unknown.

But the total volumes of flaring so-called ballast gas are impressive; in Russia alone, they are approximately 20 billion m3, which is about 15 times more than Latvia's annual natural gas consumption.

Alongside this, it must also be taken into account that exactly the same is happening in the USA, Nigeria, and many other natural gas-producing countries. Interestingly, the volumes of flaring so-called road gas have increased since 2018, even though they had been decreasing until then. The European Commission should return to the World Bank programme on road gas flaring to provide political support for reducing the flaring of so-called road gas and thus make natural gas even friendlier to the atmosphere.

Couldn't part of the energy be produced using hydrogen?

There is such a possibility, but there are also many questions. First, it is necessary to define in the regulatory acts what this hydrogen is, whether it can be sold in joules, kilowatts, then there are technical questions—whether hydrogen can be mixed with natural gas in pipelines, gas storage facilities, what the possible consequences are. For consumers, the question will be—how much does hydrogen cost?

According to the International Energy Agency, last year the price of green (produced from renewable resources) hydrogen was 5-6 times higher than natural gas prices. Currently, the total volumes of hydrogen production are microscopic compared to the volumes of natural gas production and consumption. The question of what happens to the environment if hydrogen is produced from renewable resources (how much is needed, where to get them) remains unanswered.

Furthermore, using hydrogen as an energy resource deprives the chemical industry of its most essential element. In such a situation, it is unclear what to do with this industry.

At the current level of technological development, a mass transition to hydrogen as an energy resource is more experimental than mass-scale.

What will happen with the goal set by the EU: greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to their absorption?

Yes, the new European Commission's goal is to create climate neutrality on the continent, but how can that be possible if the climate is global? Furthermore, if one speaks of Europe as a continent, then geographically, besides the EU, it also includes Russia and Ukraine. Or perhaps the discussion is about the EU? The tasks are also formulated very abstractly and, perhaps, create an opportunity for the EU to make its promises purely declarative. An alternative to these abstract goals would be to create regional working groups, which would give an opportunity to choose the most appropriate methods with which to fight against greenhouse gas emissions while not creating an imbalance and an increase in social costs.

'To be able to meet the set goal of stopping the increase in atmospheric warming, the efforts of the European Union alone will not be enough because the climate is global. Meanwhile, if significant measures are implemented in some separate country or even throughout Europe, but nothing of the sort is implemented elsewhere, then the entrepreneurs of the implementing country will lose competitiveness, and the state—taxes and jobs, while at the same time a reduction in the volume of greenhouse gas emissions will not be ensured on a global scale,'
expresses Andrei Belyi, docent at the University of Eastern Finland and a board member of Balesene OU.
(Photos by Konsta Punkka and zemeunvalsts.lv used)