The pitfalls of climate & energy policy in the 21st century

The issue of ‘climate change’ as an incentive for political action is without question a burning one. Regardless of one’s views on the nature of the phenomenon, its causes and potential implications, it would be unwise to deny the significance of its grasp on the collective awareness of today’s global society. From an almost purely intellectual concern, which it was in the final decades of the 20^th century, the struggle against climate change has now shifted into one of the determining factors of contemporary public policy, especially in the fields of energy and economy, bearing great consequences for our daily lives and habits as consumers, citizens and taxpayers. This is a new experience for the civilised world, which has to be approached sensibly, with the common good and public welfare in mind.

A little more than two decades after US Vice-President Al Gore was commonly ridiculed for his dismal predictions about global warming, now all the major political powers of the world are taking the issue with great seriousness. Some of the most consequential decisions undertaken on the international level, within the frameworks of organisations such as the UN, the EU and even the military alliance of NATO (see: NATO Climate Change and Security Action Plan) pertain to the issue of the climate. That of course applies also to the most powerful nation-states, most significantly the United States, the European Union, China and India, who have pledged to reach climate (emission) neutrality within the next few decades (between 2050 and 2070). The fact that global politics is inextricably connected to this endeavour has simply become a fact of life.

As it was to be expected, the quandary of how – and if at all – to combat adverse climate changes, like all great political questions became a highly divisive issue, prone to ideologization and oversimplified rhetoric. Nowadays, the discourse on the subject is very much dominated by radicalisms on both sides – one claiming that in order to save the planet it is necessary to drastically change our ways of life, immediately do away with many comforts such as fossil fuels, cheap commercial flights or even the consumption of meat, and the other – often denying the existence of any form of climate change (without scientific grounds other than anecdotal evidence), or dismissing the issue as wholly irrelevant from the perspective of public policy. Many exponents of both sides of the dispute to some extent have abandoned rationality and entrenched on their extreme positions. On the other hand, both sides sometimes raise sensible arguments against the opposing side’s vision.

Such a situation renders it difficult to approach the issue rationally. In spite of a common misconception, the truth does not always lie in the middle. However, it rarely lies on the fringes either. In order to assess the issue properly, it is necessary to allow for an unrestricted debate, unencumbered by the ideological dogmas of both radical approaches which could make it possible to ascertain how to reconcile the care for the future of our planet with the
public good. The problem has to be simply put into perspective and placed rationally in our hierarchy of priorities.

Leaving scientific considerations behind, as should be left to the experts in a meritocracy, and accepting that a potentially harmful climate change does in fact exist, the first and most serious task would be to try to fit it correctly in the hierarchy of other problems our societies are currently facing and adjust the countermeasures accordingly. No matter how serious the threat is, it is not the only one we have to find a way to deal with. That is the problem not many people seem to understand – rarely is the question asked, how much are we willing, and how much should we be willing to sacrifice in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.
The ostensibly obvious answer would be that there must be some limit, as there have to be some other values which must be taken into account, and it is in no way evident that climate-oriented concerns should always take priority over other problems. In other words, the cure cannot be worse than the disease – it could be hardly called a success if we somehow managed to overcome the climate crisis at the cost of pushing millions of people into extreme poverty and eradicating entire branches of our economies across the world. But even such a statement seems controversial in some circles of the most ardent climate activists and their elected counterparts.

The challenge of constructing a tenable hierarchy of values which should guide public policy is of course a difficult one. And the care for our environment and its future condition without a doubt should have its place in it. But if its significance is unreasonably inflated, it can only happen to the detriment of other values which should be protected, many of them even more urgently. Additionally, if handled inappropriately, such approach can even prove to be detrimental to the climate itself.

The clearest example would be the dominant axiology of energy policy which many countries in the Western world choose to pursue. The European Union, for example, through its emphasis on preventing climate change is now championing an effort to subordinate virtually all other spheres of life to the “green paradigm”. By analysing the European effort in the context of the values it tries to protect and the values which it almost completely omits, one can easily see the dangers of elevating the climate/ecology issue above all others.

The European Commission’s European Green Deal, inaugurated in 2019 introduced the
meta-goal of making the EU climate neutral by 2050, and transforming it into a “fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases (…) and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use”. A key instrument to achieve this vision is the Fit for 55 legislative package aiming at reducing the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. This collection of proposed regulations in its original form contained more than 4000 pages of text pertaining to many of the most fundamental spheres of life. Just to mention a few most blatant examples, it includes a postulate of a reduction of the total energy consumption by 9% and achieving the share of renewable resources of at least 49%, introduction of new national reduction goals in the farming, transportation and construction sectors. Emission costs are set to be imposed on the aviation and water transport sectors. Moreover, all private cars registered since 2035 have to be emission neutral, which effectively means an almost complete prohibition on the sale of new fossil-fuel cars.

Such plan of action, regardless of the intentions of its authors, is sadly an emanation of wishful thinking blind to the social costs its implementation would doubtlessly generate. It will surely lead to significant increase in costs of industrial production, causing price increase of many basic services (especially in transport and energy sectors), which will in turn lead to ubiquitous price increases, all to the detriment of the consumer, whose life will become much more expensive. According to independent calculations of the Polish Economic Institute, the result of introducing some of the proposed regulations would increase energy expenses among the least wealthy households by 108% in the near future. Obviously, the phasing out of the conventional energy sector too quickly might cause entire economies of many regions still heavily reliant on coal (especially in Central and Eastern Europe, Poland included) to succumb, many people employed in the sector to lose their jobs and plunge their families into poverty, drastically deteriorating national living standards. The ban on non-electric cars will also not somehow make their electric replacements more accessible to people who simply will not be able to afford them. This would deprive many people – especially from the working class – of accessible modes of transportation and make their lives more difficult on many levels. 

The failure to address these problems while designing the climate policy on national (and supernational) level might have disastrous consequences which could render the climate problem insignificant in comparison. Worse than that – such a scenario could also deepen the climate crisis – as the world-famous lecturer prof. Jordan B. Peterson has noted, by reducing the living standards of large classes of people, we inevitably reduce their capabilities to take action to introduce ecological solutions in their lives, instead forcing them to focus solely on sustaining their and their families’ basic needs, as their financial possibilities would not allow for much more.

Among other important values that the EU failed to properly consider is the issue of energy-independence, which has now become apparent in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian war and its implications. The crisis has forced Germany, a pioneer in the zero emission crusade, to reopen old coal-plants in anticipation of the country’s natural gas reserves running out. This might also serve as an exemplification of a brutal discrepancy between idealistic plans and not always predictable reality.

It should therefore be a natural conclusion, that the care for the climate and the future of our planet – as noble endeavour as it is – should not overshadow the most basic and natural needs of individual citizens and the security and stability of the states and other actors of the international order. The reasonable, conservative hierarchy of priorities should always be predicated upon the conviction that as precious and necessary as the environment is, it should always be subject to the needs of man, not the other way around. And if counterbalancing of vital human and natural interests proves to be necessary, the former should take precedence over the latter. 

Philosophically speaking, this is the understanding shared by the Christian social and moral teaching, with its roots in the commandment found in the Book of Genesis, where God tells the first humans to “replenish the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). But this ancient command does not relieve us from the duty of taking care of our environment as part of our great natural heritage – on the contrary – it obligates us to take sensible and possibly efficient steps to ensure its survival, so it can be enjoyed by the future generations. This is also what the late Sir Roger Scruton, the great British conservative philosopher described in his works as ‘green philosophy’, a way of thinking about the environment (and – by extension – the climate) as something we need to take personal responsibility to sustain in a good condition, but which should not ultimately become a goal in itself. 

As abstract as the insights listed above might sound in relation to the very technical and down-to-earth reasoning applied by the authors of contemporary climate plans and policies, which seem to leave the concerns of underlying philosophical concepts behind, it is well worth remembering what should guide our actions in this regard, and that in order to pass down the Earth with its natural wonders, plentiful resources and uncontaminated climate to the next generations of our prosperous societies, we must first not forget to ensure that the societies themselves survive in a shape good enough to be able to appreciate it.

Autor: Patryk Miernowski

źródło obrazka: Image by whatwolf on Freepik