Energy and Climate Change: We are heading toward the merger of energy and finance instead of the substitution of one energy for another.

• Author: Hale, Lyric Hughes

COP26 ended in overtime after more than two weeks in Glasgow. As with the Paris Agreement, a joint statement outlined measures to counter adverse climate effects, with no guarantee they will be more effective or enforceable than they were in 2015. For when we talk about climate change, we are really talking about energy. During the Covid recovery, rising energy costs have been the primary input stoking inflation, and they will in large part determine if current inflation is transitory.

Despite noble pronouncements of cooperation, we can reasonably expect that individual nations will continue to act in their own best interests when it comes to critical resources that allow their economies to grow and to prosper. The biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are the two largest developing economies, China and India. The targets they have set for themselves are distant in time, beyond the lifespans of many who attended COP26 except, perhaps, Greta Thunberg.

As Albert Bressand, energy expert at University College London, observes, "the same governments that fought hardest for the Glasgow Deal were at work the very next day to decrease the price of carbon-heavy oil and natural gas by increasing global supply." The United States led the charge to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and asked China and others to do the same to tamp down prices. While regulators met in Scotland, energy science and innovation have been moving ahead at a tremendous pace. Technology leaders Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are turning their attention towards space, which is exactly where the climate crisis could be solved. Solar geoengineering, in which particles are released into the stratosphere to create shade from the sun and lower the Earth's temperature, simulates the natural effect of an active volcano albeit with greater control.

Sadly, just as the World Health Organization, with a miniscule budget and no transnational enforcement authority, was unable to stop a pandemic, we should not expect institutions such as the United Nations to keep the environment safe for human habitation. They can best contribute through discussion, creating awareness, and by setting standards, but individual countries, regions, and private enterprise must take up the baton to keep energy both safe and affordable.

LEAVING OIL BEHIND

Where are we today compared to twenty years ago, when carbon dioxide emissions targets were more manageable? Eighty-one percent of global energy usage is still carbon based--the same as in 1999. Yet the bulk of alternative energy investments are in solar and wind technologies, instead of carbon mitigation and orphaned alternatives such as nuclear energy. As Albert Bressand explains, "The German case shows us how the Green movement can trap policy in a proverbial hamster cage: closing German-built zero-emission nuclear plants, while ignoring Russian Chernobyl-type plants still in operation."

The new mantra is that carbon-based fuels and nuclear power are seen as existential threats, while solar, wind, and "clean" electric energy are unquestionably good. Full electrification is seen as the inevitable alternative. As described in this article from Foreign Affairs, "From today's vantage point, no single domain offers greater opportunities for deep decarbonization than electric power." The authors clarify:

The use of electricity does not increase or reduce emissions in itself... Still, electrifying the economy--in other words, designing more processes to run on electricity rather than the direct combustion of fuels--is essential. This is because, compared with trying to reduce emissions in...