Energy Access to Mitigate Poverty and Energy Security to Mitigate Energy Dependency Are More Immediate Needs Than Climate Concerns: Echoing Scott Tinker’s Op-Ed in The Hill

 

     Geologist Scott Tinker’s Op-Ed in The Hill addresses the very real needs for energy access in developing countries and the needs for energy security in all countries when considering how to respond to climate concerns. In terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs for accessible and affordable energy that can be securely obtained are more immediate needs than the need to mitigate future climate concerns.

     While it is true that abject poverty has been decreasing and continues to decrease in the world there is still poverty that is less extreme. Tinker points out that 4 billion people live on $7 per day. He also notes that the poorest nations are also without adequate energy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and its fallout with energy disruptions and sanctions have forced Europe and other nations to reassess priorities. The former priority of climate change mitigation was disrupted, and energy security became a more immediate concern. As a result, more coal and biomass were burned, and more gas was imported via LNG rather than via lower emissions pipelines. As global natural gas prices skyrocketed countries like China and India turned back to coal as did some European countries. Coal increased in 2022 as a share of electricity in the U.S. as well.

     Poorer countries with domestic fossil resources have been encouraged (and coerced through lack of available financing in some cases) to build out clean energy like wind and solar and to forego fossil fuel projects. That is not sensible or fair to those countries. Developing domestic resources is one ticket to needed economic growth and quality of life. Tinker notes that job creation is the way out of poverty and this economic growth requires more access to affordable energy. The 2017 book, Climate Pragmatism (which I reviewed on this blog) demonstrated how access to modern energy and modern electricity at abundant levels was key to developing undeveloped economies. A world where people don’t have to struggle for basic needs is in the best interest of all of us. Poverty alleviation and energy availability in sufficient affordable quantities, go hand in hand.

     Tinker points out that dense forms of energy like oil, gas, and coal are still needed as the dominant transportation fuels and fuels of industries that require high-temperature heat. He also points out that countries that burn coal and other fossils fuels in manufacturing are often the same countries that provide us with low-cost manufactured products. Thus, a fair amount of our CO2 emissions can be considered to be outsourced.

     Tinker writes:

 

“Is this dual challenge of energy security and climate protection intractable? No. But it does require more than the oversimplified and singular focus on a climate catastrophism narrative.’

 

“Wealthy nations should consider the relatively limited number of affordable and timely technologies that can actually reduce CO2 emissions and begin to turn us toward a “net-zero” situation in which the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere is equal to the amount emitted. At the same time, they must put equal attention and investment into helping the rest of the world emerge from poverty.” 

     

     Tinker also calls for the U.S. (presumably the government) to support all U.S. energy industries so that we can export our technologies to better enable energy access and emission reductions technology to countries with needs. That means supporting the fossil industries as well as lower carbon energy industries.

     He notes that China controls global supply chains for clean energy and that that is good for China and the countries that need the infrastructure but not so good for the rights of miners, the environment, or energy security in the U.S. He phrases his proposal to export U.S expertise in energy development and emissions control as “net-zero poverty to accelerate net-zero emissions.”

     The U.S. oil and gas industry has come a long way with efficiency and emissions reduction, with natural gas amounts certified as responsibly sourced approaching half of U.S. supply. Most other sectors of the U.S. oil and gas industry have adopted strong emissions reduction plans, techniques, and monitoring. We could export the expertise in these areas to places where emissions are unnecessarily high in countries like Turkmenistan and Libya where methane emissions are high, or Nigeria where flared gas is high. Exporting gas as LNG, while more emissions intense than pipelined gas, is still far less emissions intense than mining and burning coal. As EQT CEO Toby Rice might argue: In the U.S. we can export certified low emissions gas to replace coal as the most economic way to reduce emissions fast globally. Of course, in order to accelerate that exporting of LNG there will need to be more export terminals and trains, more pipelines, and more wells. In addition, there is clear a need for permit reform and regulatory certainty for energy projects. That is one kind of support than can be offered to all energy industries.  

 

 

References:

World’s road out of poverty is paved by energy — and plenty of it. Scott Tinker. The Hill. April 7, 2023. World’s road out of poverty is paved by energy — and plenty of it | The Hill