The following interview is simply a fragment of the publication of the Institute of fresh Europe – A year of fear and hope. What awaits Europe in 2023? [Report]
The resignation of Russia's war-funded energy resources led to a steep emergence in fuel, gas and electricity prices, and experts say that Europe's energy problems will not vanish quickly. Should they be resolved at the expense of abandoning climate policies? Is the prescription for an emergency a wide return to coal? These are questions for Jakub Wiech, a writer and writer specialising in energy.
Michał Banasiak: The recruiters like to ask the question: “Where do you see yourself professionally in 5 years?” I will modify them a small and ask: “Where do you see European energy in the 1920s?”
James Wiech: In 20 years, or 2043, I see European energy with an even greater share of RES than today. I see energy that is gradually decarbonised and I hope that Europe will permanently apologize to atomic energy. This could be the time erstwhile advanced technologies of tiny atomic reactors will emerge, or the first major energy retention projects. I besides see a Europe that is dealing with little and little energy, due to the fact that for 20 years this sector can go through a truly far-reaching transformation and possibly we will primarily address manufacture and transport, due to the fact that these sectors are more cumbersome in terms of full decarbonisation and achieving climate neutrality.
The process of decarbonising European energy could be completed with the happening "We smoke the last lump of coal in the European Union". What year do you think this happening is real?
I think it's the 1930s. The 21st century is the last year of coal power plants for most countries in Europe. For Poland, the border date may be the beginning of the 1940s. I believe that then there will simply be no coal in European energy. Already on our continent it is mined by only 2 countries – Poland and the Czech Republic, with Poland liable for 95% of mining. This shows where we're headed.
We'll have coking coal, utilized in industry.
It is needed for the production of steel, utilized not only in the reinforcement industry, but besides in the energy manufacture – to build both windmills and atomic reactors. We'll gotta wait longer to get distant from this coal.
Will it take us much more time in Europe to accomplish climate neutrality?
Climate neutrality, a situation where the economy does not emit net greenhouse gases, is simply a small more complicated. I think that this 2050 year is very ambitious – although I will not say that it is unattainable – and if I were to bet, I would say that it might be the 1950s, 2060s. We don't have much time until 2050.
Thanks to fiscal procedures, thanks to the fresh form of the market, low- and zero-emission sources are economically superior to fossil fuels. This is already happening, for example, in Europe. This is besides what China is beginning to pursue, which has realized any time ago that they will not halt this momentum of changing the global marketplace model
We have been talking about the request for energy transformation for years. There are many announcements, many ideas, but equally many changes of head and abandoned projects. The energy crisis of war and the resignation of Russian natural materials will prove to be a breakthrough?
I think we should not treat crises as a social breakthrough. The pandemic crisis was so perceived, and in fact, we returned rather rapidly to the old model of functioning, whether it be our economies or even our societies. After the 1970s energy crisis, we had a clear increase in interest in modern form of environmental activism, an increase in interest in alternate energy sources, an increase in interest in moving distant from fossil fuels. After the energy crisis from 2011 to 2012, connected with the arabian Spring, we had the improvement of the USA as an oil and gas seller, the improvement of fracturing technology, which was very affirmative from the marketplace point of view, due to the fact that it stabilised, for example for Poland-Poland uses this shale revolution. So I believe that something good will stay after this crisis. I believe that this will be the acceleration of decarbonisation, the acceleration of climate policies and the deeper advancement of those already targeted not only as our way of coping with climate change, but besides as our way of cutting through certain import dependence that inactive weigh on our economy.
During the crisis, voices were raised to suspend any of the climate policies. 1 could say the eternal problem of transformation: we put it off for later due to the fact that we gotta solve the current problems.
No major country is taking climate action just to cut emissions. There is always something else behind this, most frequently a change in the economical paradigm. We decision distant from a marketplace based on fossil resources, understood as the cheapest, to a fresh structure on the rule of "who emits, who pays". Thanks to fiscal procedures, thanks to the fresh form of the market, low- and zero-emission sources are economically superior to fossil fuels. This is already happening, for example, in Europe. This is besides what China is beginning to pursue, which has realized a while ago that it will not halt this momentum of changing the global marketplace model, due to the fact that Europe is besides starting to support the United States in this area, and in general business has already moved on to fresh economical paths. There is simply a immense geopolitical thread in all of this. The theme, which I have the impression, is not seen by many commentators, especially in Poland, who consider climate policy to be any kind of invention of a very narrow environment, sold through left-wing organizations and nothing more. Nope. This is the authoritative economical doctrine of the vast majority of the world's economies, due to the fact that the 5 largest economies, namely the United States, China, the European Union, India and Japan, are moving in this direction. We are so looking at a reasonably well-targeted way towards certain climate objectives and those who neglect to adapt rapidly adequate will fall behind.
How does Poland stand on top today?
Poland is simply a country where there is simply a crucial hazard that it will be on the side of this economical race, that we will lose the competitiveness of the economy, we will be increasingly affected by energy disturbances. We neglected our chances by betting on another horse in this race. A horse that turned out not to run at all. We should now make up for the shortcomings between us and the EU average in decarbonising energy systems. In my opinion, even despite this current energy crisis, we must clearly decision towards decarbonisation.
So far, we've given ourselves a carbon dispensation. In the fall, we pulled it from wherever we could, put any eco-friendly programs in the drawer. Their implementation takes time and the crisis must be tackled immediately. Is there a hazard of carbon renaissance or is this his forced and final dance?
Paradoxically, this situation shows how immense the problems with coal are. Poland, a country considered to be a coal giant, is incapable to satisfy even its own needs. In Germany, the Netherlands or France, any "carbons" have returned to use, but this is not the scale to talk about the Renaissance. If I were to compare this to any anthropomorphic phenomenon, it's more like premortem shocks, the fresh seizures in this sector. In Poland, mining is in immense trouble. We sale coal that is, under average conditions, non-market. He loses competition even with coal from exotic countries of origin specified as Colombia or Australia. It's hard to abruptly regain religion in this natural material. We should do everything we can to drain our remaining mine resources permanently unprofitable and invest in those mining powers that are inactive able to produce fuel for our power plants. We're not leaving coal overnight. For at least a twelve years, we will gotta trust on coal sources, so it would be worth that we should someway supply them with our own powers, due to the fact that if we deepen import dependence on coal now, in my opinion, it would be a full degrengolade of the Polish coal sector, in which we have already invested immense money. In fact, Poland has already decided to close its mining sector. A social agreement was signed between the government and miners. We know what the time perspectives are in this process. We want to get out of the coal by 2040 and this is the right way. In fact, I think that this sector will come up even earlier, due to the fact that after recruiting for mining schools it is clear that there is no interest in working there.
In Poland, mining is in immense trouble. We sale coal that is, under average conditions, non-market. He loses competition even with coal from exotic countries of origin specified as Colombia or Australia.
There is simply a fear that the transformation will cost us dearly that fresh energy sources mean – at least in the short word – more costly energy.
We're already paying for it, but not for our transformation. We pay primarily at prices for electricity, but this is simply a very shallow knowing of the subject. We gotta import coal, due to the fact that unfortunately, we have a virtually intact share of this natural material in the energy mix over the last 30 years. Of course, he was changing by respective percent points, but this is not the change we should make during this period. That's why we gotta take coal from abroad today. If we were to focus on the dynamic improvement of alternate sources in the last 10 years, we would be able to reduce the share of coal in the mix adequate to let the mining that our mines are presently engaged in, possibly even for the full country. And I'm not saying you had to go right into the atom. It was adequate not to block windmills to keep the growth dynamics of the energy they produced before the entry into force of the Distance Act. present we would have about 12 GW of power in this technology. Now we wouldn't gotta buy natural material from Australia, Indonesia, Colombia, the USA or South Africa.
If we want to mitigate the effects of this transformation in any way, we can look for cheaper energy on the 1 hand, but there is besides a second way, I have the impression that a small overlooked – or possibly overlooked – means saving, reducing energy consumption. Now, of course, we are forced to do so at the level of all farm and besides at the level of public administration. In fresh years, haven't we gotten a small lazy with this comfort? Could we not save energy globally, not only during the crisis, but permanently?
Of course, we are spoiled by adequate energy, but it is not bad in itself. We are in an economical model that combines the amount of energy consumed with the standard of living. The rich North, especially Europe, consumes more than 10 times as much energy as African countries. This is the dimension of our development, this 10 times marks the barrier between the rich North and mediocre South. At the moment, we do not have an economical model that would let us to quit energy consumption while maintaining the pace of development. Of course, I think that we as a civilization should further make so that generations will live in better conditions than erstwhile ones. We must besides think of those who already live at a much lower level at this point, for example the people of African countries. improvement there must besides be linked to increased energy consumption, especially per capita. Only in order to do so, we, as the rich North, must come out with a certain programme to supply these people with adequate energy, but already generated in a way that does not burden the environment - otherwise it will be a threat to our climate objectives. We have no moral right to say to them: “We have been developing for 150 years with fossil fuel, but you cannot, due to the fact that you will destruct our climate policy.”
What's the answer?
We should do our best to invest, for example, in pure powers in Africa or South America, South Asia. This is all happening slowly, only unfortunately there are arguments or geopolitical problems. If we look at Africa, that's where Russia and China mostly invest. China invests a lot, for example, in atomic power plants. Therefore, I think that we should start taking the initiative, due to the fact that this is not only in our geopolitical interest, but simply in the human interest, as a kind of compensation for decades of colonization, which should be primarily addressed by the erstwhile colonial powers. It will besides be useful for all the purposes we set ourselves as a developing civilization.
I'll go back to the question of savings, but I'll rephrase them. If this rich North had begun to self-limit, wouldn't it have been easier for us to transform?
I'm not signing that now we should make mass self-limitation. Of course, in times of crisis, this limitation is necessary, but due to the fact that we know that we do not have adequate energy for everyone, so here any countermeasures are mandatory. But if we presume a return to the state before 2019, specified self-limitation will be impossible. People get utilized to comfort very easily. Man will be much more willing to fight for what he already has and to defend what he has than trying to accomplish what he does not have or which is any abstraction for him. I think that most voters in Europe or in the United States will defend their comfort, e.g. driving a car, the anticipation of impunity-free switching on lights or another home appliances, alternatively than trying to limit themselves now in the name, inactive for many abstract climate change. We should strive to supply everyone with as much energy as they request and that this energy is produced with minimal environmental footprints.
President Duda spoke at the climate summit of COP27 in Sharm El-Sheik, so that we would not be climate hypocrites. In order to accomplish their climate goals, we do not do so by throwing all factories into China, India or Bangladesh. In fact, it may turn out that China, which besides has its carbon neutral objective, will start moving chimneys to Africa and say, “we have clean hands and we are eco-friendly.” How, alternatively of specified "spychology" to meet all the goals on paper, can we actually accomplish them?
First of all, this issue of carbon leakage is already rather well explored at the level of the European Union. This issue is to be addressed by Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which will, on the 1 hand, halt this industrial escape from Europe and, on the another hand, will not let 3rd countries to play a low production price, mainly based on a advanced proportion of sources specified as coal, i.e. burned without environmental standards. So, it's slow resolved. We have any examples of, for example, the escape of the steel industry, which can service as case studies. Moreover, much of the world's economies are already replicating the mechanisms implemented by the European Union, and there is besides any unification. For example, China has implemented its own emissions trading strategy based on the European ETS. It has been in operation since September 2021 and I think that this can be brought into line at any time already in global terms, which would solve this issue of carbon leakage.
Would that be a political agreement? After all, the escape mechanics is very useful, hence its universality.
I think this agreement is slow being built, at least in the ellipse of the largest economies that declare climate neutrality objectives and effort to reduce emissions or invest in fresh energy sources. Importantly, China has been the leader of investments in RES and atom for years, and so this country, which is considered to be a non-climate country. If we look at the share of coal in Chinese energy, we'll see that it's falling. Although fresh coal blocks are, of course, being built, and China is inactive the leader of coal power, the share of coal is falling due to the fact that the coal units there are set to re-powering – we close the old "carbons", we open fresh ones. Therefore, the share of these capacities in the Chinese energy generation structure is no longer increasing. Although there is simply a hazard that China will at any point effort to shift the high-carbon manufacture to Africa and make it China.
China has been the leader of investments in RES and atom for years, and so this country, which is considered a non-climate country. If we look at the share of coal in Chinese energy, we'll see that it's falling.
Voters perceive differently, but they surely perceive erstwhile there are elections, and voters, as you know, vote in wallets. So, is there no specified threat, on a global scale, that politicians will effort to rise capital in denying the request for transformation and convincing that fossil fuels can be cheaper?
Of course, it's a threat. any fluctuations were observed, for example, for Donald Trump's presidency. But even despite his actions to resurrect coal, to exit the U.S. from the climate agreement, or to come down with interior limits for coal-producing units, he failed to halt the decline in the share of coal in energy and the United States began to lose this natural material in their energy structure to clean sources: atomic power, renewable sources, but besides gas that acts as a carbon pusher. So we see here a trend that is increasingly little dependent on the actions of circumstantial politicians, due to the fact that it is simply a global trend. I think the key costs we can bear are alternatively the costs of combating this trend. For example, Poland now pays not for its fight against climate change, but for the fight against climate change. It is due to this approach that we have not transformed our energy, which makes it 3 times more emissions than the EU average. And that's why our electricity bills are jumping up as emissions rights fees increase.
