“Emphasis, that the argument is weak.”
The anecdote of this handwritten note, in red pencil, made in the margins of an excerpt from a speech given by an ambassador, immediately came to mind while listening.
“It used to be global cooling… then they said it was global warming… now they call it climate change, because that way you can’t go wrong”, followed by “It’s the biggest fraud ever imposed on the world”.
And continues: “Clean. I call it “; “We’re putting an end to them. In fact, they’re a joke. They’re expensive and inefficient.”
The degree to which these statements are fabricated makes one suspect a great feeling of insecurity on the part of those who say them. Could he be realizing that the world is going through structural change and that? And this is not due to scarcity, but due to profound technological and economic transformations.
In a recent article, political scientist Ian Bremmer, founder of the Eurasia consultancy, lists a series of facts in support of this thesis:
– as a driver of change: the growth in Chinese demand for , which kept the world market hot — doubling between 2010 and 2020 — is running out. since the pandemic, and the speed of the energy transition are the main explanatory factors.
– Chinese energy revolution: on new vehicle sales in just five years. Heating and heavy industry are also being electrified, through the expansion of renewable energy on a historic scale — 270 gigawatts in six months, more than double the rest of the world.
– Limitations of other countries: even a growing one will not be able to compensate for the reduction in Chinese demand. Indian consumption is growing unevenly, and its economic expansion is based more on services than on oil-intensive sectors. Additionally, the country begins its own transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy. As for developing countries, batteries, electric vehicles and electric technology in general allow them to advance without necessarily going through the polluting phase that the industrialized world went through.
– Consequences: and may enter a structural decline, following what is already happening in Europe and the USA, where the intensity of oil use in energy, transport and heating has been falling. From a geopolitical point of view, China takes the lead in the energy transition, while the USA, by reinforcing its status as a “petrostate”, risks losing economic competitiveness and strategic influence.
OPEC itself signals that it perceives this structural downward trend in oil consumption. In a stable market, or one with assured growth, one would expect the continuation of the historical behavior of conservatively managing product supply, in order to avoid a drop in prices. What is observed, however, is precisely the opposite: an increase in oil production and supply, in order to recover the market lost to countries outside the cartel, such as the USA. With the prospect of falling demand, it becomes more important to defend market share than profit margin.
By the way, it is up to those who intend to start oil exploration projects now, whose product will only reach the market on a commercial scale in 12 to 15 years, to carefully observe this trend. .
Coherently, the presidential speech closes the “climate chapter” with an offer: “We are ready to provide any country with abundant and affordable supplies of energy. And most of you need it.” It refers, of course, to fossil energy.
Thus the most powerful nation in the world, under the influence of the fossil lobby, ignores climate science, internally sabotages renewable energies, discourages their expansion globally and uses tariffs to foist gas and oil on commercial partners.
History always has something to teach us.
Since ancient times, China had a virtual monopoly on silk, which it exported throughout the world through the “silk routes”. With the fall of Constantinople and the advent of navigation in the 16th century, this trade began to be carried out by sea. Over the years, England assumed a preponderant role in the consumption and distribution of Chinese products; not just silk but also tea, porcelain and gunpowder.
It turns out that the Chinese only accepted payment in silver (they were the destination of a third of all the silver in the world) and, being a closed economy, they did not import any foreign products, thus accumulating a large trade surplus, which caused enormous discomfort to the English. Sound familiar?
The English then began to supply the Chinese, via smuggling, with opium produced in India, the addiction to which spread quickly, causing a major public health crisis, with serious social repercussions. In 1839 the Chinese government reacted, banning opium and destroying British shipments of the merchandise.
England went to war with China “in defense of free trade”; the so-called Opium War. With a much more modern Navy, it easily defeated the Chinese and forced them, in 1842, to the Treaty of Nanking, by which China ceded Hong Kong to the United Kingdom and paid heavy indemnity, among other concessions. It was the beginning of what the Chinese call “the century of humiliation”. Fourteen years later, in 1856, the Chinese rose up against the continued opium trade and were crushed again, in a war that lasted four years. At the end of this, the Treaty of Beijing expanded Western privileges and legalized the opium trade. It would still take 90 years, until the 1949 revolution, for China to finally free itself completely from the yoke of opium.
The means change, perhaps becoming more subtle, less explicit. But this will not be the first time that attempts have been made to force the consumption of a product that is harmful to a weaker party.
