Media talk everyday about climate.
It’s spelled climate but it means energy. In fact the current issue is which energy mix humanity is going to adopt in the future. It is a serious and fundamental issue: everything on our planet relies on energy, no area is exempted from it. This explains the harshness of the debate, which is not restricted to the academic circles.
Great issues always have several implications: the one the general public gets is rarely the key one, which instead must identified from time to time. Research, even the scientific one, ultimately is kind of a treasure hunt or the search for the responsible in a detective novel. The great choices, which affect collective destinies, require strong motivations, capable of involving the masses. Given their relevance and the complexity involved in obtaining consensus, it is understandable that this is the result of careful construction.
As they say, “knowledge is power”: the power of those who know over those who don’t know. It seems trivial, but the English sociologist Linsey McGoey, a keen observer of the socio-political transformations of our time, has introduced a specific field of study on the political use of ignorance[1]. Referring to the management of Covid, McGoey speaks not surprisingly of fatalistic liberalism. A “politically correct” formula for what Michael Crichton, in a techno-thriller that invites us to reflect on the roots of terrorism in the broadest sense, calls a state of fear[2]. Once upon a time it was said, in a semi-serious tone, Cherchez la femme. In times closer to us, Giovanni Falcone invited us to follow the money trail. This is the perspective that we favor in geopolitical research: the geoeconomic perspective.
Fifty years of research on hydrocarbons’ market (oil and gas) has highlighted how the dynamics of these sources, which represent over 60 percent of the energy produced and consumed in the world, allow us to understand a good part of what has happened on our planet in the last century. And this has clear implications in both the scientific and cultural fields.
Framed in this perspective, as an example, the current war in Ukraine can be viewed as a drastic reduction in gas sales from Russia to Europe, which is reorienting its trade flows towards the Atlantic. This is functional to America’s strong comeback into the energy markets, which it had abandoned since 1974, following the agreement with Saudi Arabia negotiated by Kissinger to save the dollar. Also it is no coincidence that in Great Britain Prime Minister Sunak has recently launched a new, ambitious program to develop the oil fields in the North Sea, to replace those that are now exhausted[3].
Like it or not, we cannot give up hydrocarbons and this is demonstrated not only by China and India who continue to burn coal as well as oil, but by the two countries that have proposed themselves as leaders of the transition to “green” energy.
It should be remembered that the new “renewable sources” were developed during the oil shocks of the 1970s, as a technological response to the loss of control of oil fields by the Western world. There were also different, much more robust responses on a political-military level. Therefore they were “emergency” energy sources, which were scaled down as the real objective was achieved: lowering prices with the threat of reducing purchases from OPEC countries.
Today – or perhaps we should say “yesterday” – the challenge has become relevant again, as part of a gigantic plan of technological change, aimed at giving a primary role back to the economies of the West. Economies exhausted and at risk of collapse in the face of the advance of the new industrialized countries: first and foremost the BRICs, which now bring together half the population and approximately 37 percent of the world’s GDP. A situation that heralds an epochal reversal of the balance of power on the planet.
The “big project”, led by the WEF, is centered on the exit from fossil fuels. This would involve – the conditional is obligatory – remaking the entire global production system. A colossal business. This explains the easy enthusiasm, which, supported by a pounding media hype, spreads where we least expect it. But at the moment – without the “help” represented by a new world conflict – there are serious doubts that the West has the industrial, financial and ultimately political capabilities that the undertaking requires.
From a geopolitical point of view, the ongoing processes seem to lead to a new division of the planet, between two types of economies that move at different speeds, corresponding to the relative energy supply scheme. On the one hand, the “already industrialized” world, which would regain its lost technological superiority, thanks to the generalized use of electricity; on the other, the former “Third World”, deprived of Western innovations and fueled mainly by fossil fuels[4]. Thus ignoring the Kyoto agreements and green movements.
This is a scheme that could work – perhaps – if relations between the two worlds were restored to the levels that existed in 1947. Simply put, a new “iron curtain” would have to fall. However, we all know that this is simply impossible. The “Cold War” divided the communist world not only from Western countries but also from their colonies. Which in the meantime have become independent, have “grown” economically and rightly claim to decide their own destinies. A West limited to partial Europe and North America – basically the OECD area – is an area too small in order to maintain the primacy but also a sufficiently vital economy.
Then we must take into account the disasters caused by so-called “globalization” (the French continue to talk about mondialisation[5]). The transfer of industries to emerging countries has in fact eliminated the West’s ability to sustain itself. The United States could do it, rich in mineral resources, especially energy (but it would take 30 years of work). Europe, on the other hand, appears out of the picture. Furthermore, in the event of an interruption of trade, the capital invested outside the OECD area would be definitively lost, with the related returns, as is now happening in the case of Russia.
Even regardless of all this, a radical energy transition such as the one advocated by the WEF is unsustainable for both economic and technical reasons. In Great Britain they recently calculated that the cost for the country would reach 5,000 billion pounds[6]. There is not only the – already enormous – problem of refueling stations for cars: it would be necessary for example redo the entire energy transmission network, which is not at all capable of supporting the required consumption[7]. The calculations made at the time for the North American networks return mind-boggling figures.
Not to mention that the result would be an energy cost that would put any type of production, both industrial and agricultural, out of the market – worldwide. Of course there is always some joker who tries to demonstrate that alternative energies cost less than traditional ones. Even if it was true (asking when this will actually happen would be mean?), we simply point out that all these innovations would have to be made with debt, there is therefore an astronomical cost for interest, which everyone pretends to forget about.
The results of the latest COP28 conference, about which few were enthusiastic, give a good account of these realities. The only concrete result (so to speak) is that for the first time in 30 years it was stated in a world forum that global warming comes from fossil fuels. As if political declarations (beyond their intrinsic scientific credibility) could make up for the lack of binding agreements between states regarding the energy transition. Which is once again “hoped” with a deadline at 2050.
This makes us understand that the ongoing process is destined to scale down soon. In less than 6 months, after the elections have evicted the current coalition that controls the European Parliament[8], all this turmoil will subside. The increasingly strong pressure to accelerate the transition can be explained from this perspective. Many of those who dreamed of getting rich see their prey slip away. They will have to realize that the money simply isn’t there, hasn’t been there and won’t be there in the future either. During COP 28 in Dubai there was talk of 150,000 billion dollars in 10 years.
It is no wonder then that in the USA the green lobby is letting go. The scenario has completely changed, even without the hypothesis of Trump’s return to the White House. Discrimination on investments in fossil energy has been outlawed in 18 states and financial speculation, which had focused on eco-sustainable activities, is irremediably deflating. As appeared in the Financial Times, “in 5 years, the whole world that goes by the name of ESG will no longer exist”[9].
So is there anything to rejoice about? It doesn’t seem like it. The foreseeable slowdown in green investments is unfortunately destined to prove catastrophic for Europe, which has lost the sources of supply – coal, nuclear, low-cost gas from Russia – on which the competitiveness of its industry was based. Not only will we pay permanently higher prices for energy, but we will probably have to face very serious shortages in gas supplies, given the growing deterioration of relations between states. The only certainty is that dependence on suppliers outside the EU will increase, in an international scenario that sees us exposed simultaneously on multiple fronts: not only in Ukraine but in the entire “enlarged Mediterranean” (Red Sea route, but not only that). A scenario which at best can only freeze, in the context of a new generalized and global conflict, which appears difficult to imagine as “cold”.
At the same time, our industries, which have sold off world-class products such as automobiles and naval engines, will find themselves in serious difficulty. First of all, uncertainty about future technological progress puts at risk the programs carried out by European manufacturers[11] in all the sectors involved. As for electric cars, which will mainly come from China, without mentioning the significant technical problems they still present[12], they will be difficult to access for the increasingly poor European consumer[13]. And if road transport (and not only that) does not thrive, the enormous infrastructure investments planned will end up at a loss, sinking banks and public finances. The warning signs are already there, you just need to want to notice them.
Europe thus remains the only area in the world that fights against its own industry (and its own agriculture), a sign that the green lobby – which will remain in power hopefully for a short time – is stubbornly trying to complete the mandate entrusted to it by its globalist sponsors, which is to destroy the continental economy[14]. The objective, now clear, is to make Europe defenseless in the face of the exacerbation of global competition that is about to be unleashed shortly[15]. In this context, talking about Finis Europae is an all too easy prophecy for a continent that has refused to rely on God to rely on men.
Gianfranco Battisti
University of Trieste
Board of Authors of the Observatory
(Foto: Pixabay)
[1] It is significant that this scholar’s only criticism of Bill Gates’ “philanthropism” has been translated into Italian while his academic work remains in the shadows.
[2] M. Crichton, State of Fear, Harper Collis, 2004. The author has as an artistic personality rather than a scientific one, but the effect of this dystopian novel on the global warming debate was such as to deserve the attention of the usual anonymous debunkers (https://www.notesfromtheroad.com/roam/state-of-fear-michael-crichton.html). The interested reader should judge for himself.
[3] A. Guerrera, “Gran Bretagna a tutto petrolio: ok a nuove trivelle nel Mare del Nord. Sunak: “Più sicuri contro tiranni come Putin”, La Repubblica, 28/9/2023.
[4] A signal in this sense could come from the saturation of the Chinese electric car market, which is supporting the demand for internal combustion vehicles (L. Della Pasqua, ” I cinesi dicono basta alle auto elettriche Adesso Pechino punta a inondare l’Europa”, La Verità, 10.1.2024).
[5] Others call it “big market” (A. Pollio Salimbeni, Il grande mercato. Realtà e miti della globalizzazione, Milano, Mondadori, 1999), as to say, with good reasons, a ”new form of colonialism”.
[6] P. Vietti, “Obiettivo emissioni zero. Qualcuno ha calcolato davvero i costi?”, https://www.tempi.it/obiettivo-emissioni-zero-qualcuno-ha-calcolato-davvero-i-costi/, 20.9.2023 (Lettura: 20.19.2023). The Government estimates for 2021 were just over one billion.
[7] Opposition to the green program of the European institutions is widespread (Bando endotermiche, la Polonia ricorre alla Corte di Giustizia, https://www.quattroruote.it/news/industria-finanza/2023/06/12/_2035_polonia_corte_giustizia_stop_vendita_benzina_diesel.htm, 12/06/2023 (Lettura: 14/10/2023).
[8]Timmermans, European climate commissioner and vice-president of the Commission, has already decided to seek a seat in the Netherlands Olanda (M. Magni, Frans Timmermans Il padre del Green Deal si dimette dalla Commissione Ue, https://www.quattroruote.it/news/industria-finanza/2023/08/23/frans_timmermans_dimissioni_commissione_europea_maros_sefcovic.html#:~:text , 23/08/2023
For Prime Minister Rutte, the secretariat of NATO is on the horizon, a probable reward for having taken care the interests of American agriculture more than the Dutch one. After the compromise on fuel for diesel cars, the rewriting of the energy efficiency plan for buildings that emerged from the so-called “Trilogue” meeting in mid-October further reflects the change of pace in the old continent.
[9] “In the first 9 months of 2023, in the US the funds focused on ESG investments had outflows of 14 billion dollars”, to which must be added 2.4 billion pounds disappeared in Great Britain in the entire year (G. Liturri, “Verde e tassi, l’Ue sbaglia ancora. Altre zavorre per la nostra industria”, La Verità, 14.1.2024).
[10] In June 2023 the European Court of Auditors released a Note which stated: “Europe must not end up in the same position of dependency for batteries as it found itself in for natural gas; its economic sovereignty is at stake” (S. Giraldo, “Transizione irrealizzabile”. Per la Corte dei Conti Ue troppi i fattori di rischio”, La Verità, 24.6.2023).
[11] Stretta di Bruxelles sugli e-fuel, la deroga è a rischio, https://www.quattroruote.it/news/industria-finanza/2023/09/25/e_fuel_commissione_ue_proposta.html, 25/09/2023
[12]In the USA the costs of repairing vehicles and the drop in demand has led Hertz to dispose of a third of its fleet of electric cars and to purchase new traditional cars (M. Astorri, “Hertz ci ripensa e vende 20.000 elettriche”, Il Giornale, 12.1.2024).
[13]D.G. Alberti, Volkswagen, pronto licenziamento di 300 operai?/ Colpa della scarsa domanda di auto elettriche, https://www.ilsussidiario.net/news/volkswagen-pronto-licenziamento-di-300-operai-colpa-della-scarsa-domanda-di-auto-elettriche/2590405/ , 15.09.2023
[14] Diverting investments towards the replacement of fossil fuels rather than promoting the increase in production capacity or the efficiency of plants will lead to an inefficient restructuring of the European economy. Public intervention in support of private initiative will become mandatory, increasing direct and indirect fiscal pressure through public debt (A. Pommeret (coord.), Les incidences économiques de l’action pour le climat. Sobrieté, Rapport Thématique, France Stratégie, Mai 2023).
[15]China did not bet on electric cars; it bet that Europe would bet on electric cars, and it won. (…) European industry, to convert to batteries”, cleared the field for Chinese exports. Incidentally, thermal cars, not electric ones”(P. L. del Viscovo, “Vetture green, il regalo a Pechino dell’Europarlamento”, Il Giornale, 13.1.2024).
