Dear Guterres, the energy transition is a serious matter

“Fossil fuels must disappear just like the dinosaurs.” Had Angelo Bonelli – who, by profession, is the leader of the Greens – said this, it would have been nothing more than a quip or an election slogan. However, it was António Guterres – who, by profession, is the UN Secretary-General – who said it; and he even added that fossil fuels do not disappear because they have and wield lobbying power, whereas dinosaurs did not.

Let’s start with the dinosaurs, where Guterres unwittingly declares himself an enemy of biodiversity. The culprit appears to have been an asteroid, whose impact triggered a chain reaction of pollution and climate change. Around 75 per cent of animal species became extinct, though not all dinosaurs – the avian dinosaurs (ancestors of the birds we know today) survived. In literature, we speak of catastrophe and the end of the world; and, in short, equating the end of the fossil era with the end of the dinosaurs does not seem fair either to the dinosaurs or to humanity. The next time this appears in print, replacing ‘dinosaur’ with ‘plague’ might be less ambiguous.

The Secretary-General states that the modern plague (the fossil fuel industry) survives solely due to lobbying. This remark appears to imply that its competitors (renewables, nuclear, etc.) are free of such influence, just as the dinosaurs were. It is unclear on what basis the Secretary-General formed this opinion, but if this is indeed his perspective, it suggests that he may have forgotten how Brussels operates; a considerable amount of time has elapsed since he last engaged with the city as Prime Minister of Portugal, and a brief return visit might be advisable.

“Fossil fuels must disappear”. 2015. COP 21. Paris. Climate agreement. And alongside this, the Pope declaring the climate a global good (much to the dismay of economists) and China declaring its intention to take the lead in the fight against climate change. Given the breadth of the coalition, one might have thought that phasing out fossil fuels would be a triumphant march. 2015–2025. At first glance, it does not seem triumphant, but something does appear to be happening. In 2015, oil accounted for 35.2 per cent of primary energy sources, falling to 33.5 per cent by 2025; natural gas rose from 23.9 to 25.1 per cent; and coal fell from 30 to 27.7 per cent. In percentage terms, at least, the situation is not getting worse. Emissions, however, are measured in volumes, not percentages; and the volumes show that, from Paris to the present day, fossil fuel consumption has actually increased in absolute terms. Rounded off, oil consumption rose from 93 to 103 million barrels per day; natural gas from 3,470 to 4,185 billion cubic metres; and coal from less than eight to more than nine million tonnes. To top it all off, we keep telling ourselves that the future is renewable and (partly for that reason) electric; yet in 2025, coal’s share of global electricity generation was still above 33 per cent.

Are you sure, Mr Secretary-General, that the lobby is to blame? The reality is that, despite mobilising heads of state and popes, over the last decade we have broadly managed to meet the growing global demand for energy with non-fossil fuel sources but (as the figures show) have not managed to make a dent in the fossil fuel stronghold. On a global scale, renewable energy has been an addition rather than a replacement.

If fossil fuels were to disappear tomorrow morning, we would be left without almost 80 per cent of the energy we consume; and we would have to go back to the woods to chop wood (which, in turn, would run out quickly). Decarbonisation must be our primary objective; but let’s move forward, sensibly and as far as we can.

The transition requires capital – and plenty of it; it cannot work without public support; and it requires substantial investment in upgrading the infrastructure. And, by definition, investment in infrastructure ends up on Mrs Gina’s utility bill.

Where the transition requires not only capital but also consensus. Beyond the ford lies the Land of Milk and Honey. Free sun and wind for all. But one must cross the ford; and come to terms with the fact that, during the transition, energy costs tend to rise throughout the crossing, and that Gina is therefore not sure she wants to cross the Red Sea. The transition requires compensatory measures for the most vulnerable groups and a gradual, non-disruptive shift in energy sources and systems. In Brussels, they had not realised this; and they have managed, through their approach to decarbonisation, to generate dissent and, consequently, difficulties in governing.

You, Secretary-General, think that energy is all about lobbying; and I fear we would instead have to talk about politics. I also believe that it is not good policy to leave it in the hands of antiquated institutions.

Massimo Nicolazzi, author of the essay “Elogio del petrolio. Energia e disuguaglianza dal mammut all’auto elettrica” (Feltrinelli)