Energy Forum in Budapest

(Below in English my opening speech to the session: “On the Way to European Energy Security: What to Expect from the European Union?” and the text in Swedish)

The Energy Forum in Budapest was organized by the Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies in Warsaw, Poland and the Constellation Energy Institute in Budapest, Hungary. The fact that it was held in Hungary meant that the significance of central Europe was emphasized. The “gas war” of last winter between Russia and Ukraine was central to most panel discussions. One can state that the EU’s energy security was the central issue for the entire forum.

For the opening on Sunday evening Hans Larsen presented the report ”The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future” that was put together by the Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy at The Technical University of Denmark. The take home message was that introduction of renewable forms of energy requires that a combination of many forms are used so that the system can be in balance.

The opening panel discussion addressed ”Energy as a Factor of Prosperity and Sovereignty”. Political heavyweights from west to east discussed the importance of energy for society. Richard L. Morningstar from the USA Department of State was there. He is the Secretary of State’s “Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy”. The fact that the USA Department of State has an envoy for Eurasian energy, and Morningstar’s statement that Russia will always be important for European energy security, highlights the importance of this issue. Last autumn Russia passed Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer and it has long been the world’s largest producer of natural gas. If one adds to this that Russia is one of the world’s largest producers of coal, that they have large deposits of uranium and if we realize that it is energy that controls the world then everyone should understand the extent to which Russia will be a world power in the future.

Today, the EU imports over 40% of its natural gas from Russia. In future they estimate that this percentage will increase. To break Russia’s dominance a new gas pipeline, Nabucco, is planned that will run through Turkey and further through Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary to then join with the EU’s large network of gas pipelines. From Morningstar’s comments one can see that Nabucco is also a political play to reduce Russia’s dominance.

Russia was represented by Vice-Chairperson for Duman, Alexander Babakov. In my notes I have written down the quote, “We are absolutely right”. Before this Hungary’s and Czechia’s former prime ministers discussed last winter’s gas crisis when Russia closed the taps. From the Russian side, all blame was laid on Ukraine.

Mirek Topolánek drew the connection between national sovereignty and energy. He cited Andrei Sakharov who apparently said that Europe’s freedom must be built on the freedom that nuclear energy gives, i.e. nuclear power makes a nation in western Europe independent of Russia. Note that this statement was made during the Soviet period. Sweden is one of the few nations within the EU that is not dependent on natural gas from Russia and, of course, this is because of our investment in nuclear power.

The sessions that I followed dealt with various aspects of the EU’s energy security and mainly future secure imports of natural gas. Today, around 80% of Russian exports pass through Ukraine. The new gas pipelines that are now planned have been influenced by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There is “North Stream” that will pass through the Baltic Sea, “South Stream” that will pass through the Black Sea and both these pipelines are controlled by Russian interests while, as mentioned earlier, Nabucco that passes through Turkey is controlled by the EU.

My Ph.D. student Bengt Söderbergh is currently working on the conclusion to his thesis that, among other things, discusses natural gas security in Europe. I can only state that his thesis could not come at a more appropriate time. I showed some images that are included in the publications upon which the thesis is based and there was great interest from east to west. An energy consultant from Moscow asserted that what we had shown was completely correct. The list of people wanting a copy of the thesis is growing quickly. If you are interested in attending the thesis defense then mark February 19 in Uppsala in your diaries.

Finally we are approaching the heart of the matter, the Russian state-controlled energy company Gazprom. They asserted that, according to international law, the existence of state-controlled monopoly companies was completely legal. Gazprom has a right to exist. The pipelines that they are now planning are also completely legal, but the fact that Gazprom controls the pipelines gives them great power. Gasprom’s representatives promised that there would be no problems this winter as, for the moment, there were no problems with Ukraine. Some from Ukraine complained that, in their opinion, Gazprom was trying to influence the impending election while others asserted that the EU was doing the same thing through its actions. If all the new pipelines are built so that the Russian gas does not pass through Ukraine then Ukraine will lose a large amount of income. How this will influence the future remains to be seen.

Personally, I think that we must pose ourselves the question of whether Russia is a part of Europe or not. The choice of borders will be decisive for Europe’s future. If Russia is kept outside of the EU then the EU will do everything possible to become less dependent on Russian energy exports and Russia will turn towards China. At the same time we can state that, for the next 40 years, the EU will be dependent upon imports from Russia.

The other alternative is for Russia to be welcomed into the European family. From that relationship a unified democratic base can be created. Both solutions require a great deal of work.

The fact that the Swedish government has decided to create an Institute of Russian Studies at Uppsala University may be a step in the right direction. My written speech to the Energy Forum is shown below.

Opening speech to the session: On the Way to European Energy Security: What to Expect from the European Union?

Ladies and gentlemen and dear guests. It is an honour for me, and very stimulating, to be invited to the 4th Energy Forum here in Budapest and to have the possibility of presenting my personal viewpoints on Europe’s future energy security under the theme, ”On the Way to European Energy Security: What to Expect from the European Union?” I would like to point out that I base my viewpoints on the research that we conduct into global energy systems at Uppsala University in Sweden.

The first question we must ask ourselves is, ”What is Europe?” Before my journey to Budapest I dug out my old history atlas from my high school days. Within it is clearly shown that the Ural Mountains were Europe’s eastern border. Furthermore it showed that, historically, Budapest was a political centre in Europe.

Having been born in Sweden in the spring of 1945 I realise that, just at that moment, a new border was created in Europe, an iron curtain that marked the boundary between western and eastern Europe. It was an ideological border between the peoples of the east and west where the west was democratic while the east was controlled by dictators. The border ran straight through Berlin. We have just recently celebrated that this artificial boundary was torn down 20 years ago.

20 years ago the European Union had grown sufficiently strong that membership in the EU was regarded as synonymous with membership in ”Europe”. Sweden applied for membership and when, for the first time, it held the EU presidency the question of the EU’s eastern border became a leading issue for the Swedish government. One of the nations that were welcomed into the community was Hungary. From my school days I remember when we received new classmates that had then been forced to leave Hungary. I am proud of the fact that Sweden offered them a home and that Sweden has fought for Hungarian membership of the EU.

We shall now discuss European energy security and what the European Union should do in the future. I need only to open my old history atlas from high school to realise what should be done. In it Europe’s eastern border is marked as the Ural Mountains. Russia is part of Europe and the EU should now actively work to re-establish the Urals as Europe’s eastern boundary. At the moment this question is much more important for Europe than to attempt to negotiate a climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.

Today, energy security has a number of components. They are, most importantly, coal, oil, natural gas and uranium but there are also renewable forms of energy such as hydroelectricity, windpower, waverpower, and solar energy. Europe’s energy security is a combination of all these. Carbon security is a security that is determined by political decisions – how much carbon dioxide we shall release from coal-fired power stations in future.

When it comes to oil the West Europe has three nations among the 40 largest oil producing nations on Earth. They are Norway, the UK and Denmark. Every time I mention Denmark everyone is surprised but the fact is that Sweden imports 30% of its oil from Denmark and 100% of its natural gas, although this presents a problem in future.

The analyses that my research group has performed show that, by 2030, these three nations will only be able to produce oil for their own use. There is no energy security for the European Union with its current borders.

According to the EU’s future scenarios, natural gas is the future form that our energy supply should take. By 2030 our consumption of natural gas should increase by 50%. The main reason for the increase is that the EU needs natural gas as a component in regulation of its electricity production. To examine natural gas production in the EU we must turn to Denmark, Holland and the UK. If we examine the volume that these nations currently produce it covers a limited amount of what is needed and that volume will fall in future. The fact is that Norway is not part of the EU and that the EU’s natural gas security is completely dependent on Algeria, Norway and Russia.

Uranium today is an internationally traded commodity that flows freely over national borders but there is a problem. Nations with known deposits of uranium ore need to have a positive attitude to its future exploitation. Currently the EU’s nuclear reactors consume fissionable material that was originally set aside for nuclear weapons. The number of nuclear weapons is declining and we will soon have used up the reserve of available weapons of mass destruction. I hope that we can continue and consume the reminder of the weapons of mass destruction that still exist, but the fact is that, internationally, we are facing an increased need for uranium mining.

Europe’s most pressing energy security issue has, in recent years, crystallised into a matter of our stance on whether or not Russia is to be welcomed into the European family. This is a question that is decisive for the EU but also a question that is important for Sweden. Today Sweden imports 90% of its oil from three nations, Denmark, Norway and Russia – about 30% from each source. However, in 2030 only Russia will be able to export oil.

Today, the EU’s imports of natural gas by pipeline come mainly from Algeria, Norway and Russia. In 2030 Norwegian exports will be less than today. The same applies to Algeria whose exports derives from one giant gas field and will have declined markedly by 2030. Russia and Kazakhstan remain but a question exists about whether or not Kazakhstan has sold its gas three times over – to Russia, to China and to the EU via Nabucco. To be accurate we should note that there is currently no contract with the EU, but the EU acts as though one existed.

Today, the EU imports 40% of its natural gas from Russia. Future Russian gas production and exports require enormous investments in order to commence production from the fields on the Yamal Peninsula and from Stockman in the Barents Sea. To secure this production is essential for the EU’s energy security. Russia needs long-term contracts with the EU and one can only state that the EU’s politicians do not realise this.

If we gaze into the future to see what the EU should do for Europe’s energy security there is a decision to make and it is to say, ”Russia, welcome to the European community!” This will also strengthen democracy in Europe.

(Swedish)

Energy Forum i Budapest organiserades av ”Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies” i Warszawa, Polen, och ”Energy Constellation Institute” i Budapest, Ungern, och det faktum att vi var i Ungen medförde att Centraleuropas betydelse lyftes fram. Vinterns ”gaskriget” mellan Ryssland och Ukraina var i centrum för de flesta paneldiskussionerna och man kan påstå att EU:s energisäkerhet stod i centrum för hela forumet.

Inledningen på söndag kväll var en presentation där Hans Larsen presenterade rapporten ”The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future” som arbetats fram av ”the System Analysis Division” vid den tekniska högskolan i Risö, Danmark. Slutklämmen var att introduktion av förnybara energislag medför att det behövs en blandning av allt för att få ett system i balans.

Inledningspanelen diskuterade ”Energy as a Factor of Prosperity and Sovereignty” och här diskuterade politiska tungviktare från väst till öst energins betydelse för samhället. Från utrikesdepartementet i USA kom Richard L. Morningstar, ambassadör och ”Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy”. Det faktum att amerikanska utrikesdepartementet har ett sändebud för Europa-Asisk energi och Morningstars uttalande att Ryssland kommer alltid att vara betydelsefull för Europeisk energisäkerhet markerar frågans betydelse. I höst har Ryssland passerat Saudiarabien som världens störta oljeproducent och sedan länge är man världens största producent av naturgas. Om man till detta lägger att Ryssland är en av världens största kolproducenter och att man har stora fyndigheter av uran och vet att det är energi som styr världen borde alla förstå vilken maktfaktor Ryssland kommer att bli i framtiden.

I dag importerar EU över 40 procent av sin naturgas från Ryssland och i framtiden räknar man med att det kommer att bli en ännu större faktor. För att bryta Rysslands dominans planeras en ny gasledning, Nabucco, som skall gå genom Turkiet och vidare genom Bulgarien, Rumänien och Ungern för att sedan kopplar ihop med EU:s stora nätverk av gasledningar. Från Morningstars kommentarer är Nabocco också ett politiskt spel för att minska Rysslands dominans.

Ryssland ställde upp med vice ordförande för Duman, Alexander Babakov. I mina anteckningar har jag citatet ”We are absolutly right”. Innan dess hade Ungens och Tjeckiens tidigare premiärministrar diskuterat vinterns gaskris då Ryssland stängde kranarna. Från Rysk sida läggs hela skulden på Ukraina.

Mirek Topolánek kopplade ihop nationellt oberoende och tillgång till energi. Han citerade Andrei Sakharov som lär ha sagt att Västeuropas frihet måste bygga på den frihet som kärnkraften ger, dvs kärnkraft gör ett land i Västeuropa oberoende av Ryssland. Notera att detta uttalande gjorde under Sovjetunionen tid. Sverige är ett av de få länderna inom EU som inte är beroende av naturgas från Ryssland och självfallet beror det på vår satsning på kärnkraft.

De sessionerna som jag följde behandlade olika aspekter på EU:s energisäkerhet och då framförallt säker import av naturgas i framtiden. I dag passerar ca 80 procent av den ryska exporten Ukraina och de nya gasledningar som nu planeras har påverkats av konflikterna mellan Ryssland och Ukraina. Vi har ”North Stream” som skall gå genom östersjön, vi har ”South Stream” som skall gå gen om Svarta havet och båda dessa ledningar kontrolleras av ryska intressen medan som tidigare nämnts Nabucco genom Turkiet kontrolleras av EU.

Min doktorand Bengt Söderbergh jobbar nu med slutklämmen på sin avhandling som bland annat behandlar naturgassäkerheten i Europa och det är bara att konstatera att den kan inte komma mer lämpligare än just nu. Jag visade några bilder som finns med i de publikationer som är basen för avhandlingen och intresset var stort från öst till väst. En energikonsult från Moskva hävdade att vad vi visade var helt riktigt. Listan på de som ville ha en kopia av avhandlingen växte snabbt. Är ni intresserade av försvaret av avhandlingen skall ni boka in den 19 februari i Uppsala.

Till slut närmar vi oss pudelns kärna, det ryska statskontrollerade energibolaget Gazprom. Man konstaterade att det enligt internationell lag var helt lagligt att det finns statliga monopolbolag. Gazprom har rätt att existera. De ledningar som man planerar är också helt lagliga, men det faktum att Gazprom kontrollerar ledningarna ger dem stor makt. Representanter för Gazprom lovade att det inte skulle bli några problem i vinter då det för tillfället inte fanns några problem med Ukraina. Några från Ukraina klagade på att Gazprom enligt deras åsikt la sig i det stundande valet medan andra menade att EU gjorde det samma genom sitt agerande. Om alla nya gasledningar byggs så att den ryska gasen inte passerar Ukraina kommer Ukraina att förlora stora inkomster och hur detta kommer att påverka framtiden återstår att se.

Personligen anser jag att vi måste ställa oss frågan om Ryssland tillhör Europa eller inte. Val av gräns kommer att bli avgörande för Europas framtid. Om Ryssland ställs utanför kommer EU att göra allt för att bli mindre beroende av rysk energiexport och Ryssland kommer att vända sig mot Kina. Samtidigt kan vi konstatera att vi de närmast 40 åren kommer EU att vara beroende av import från Ryssland.

Det andra alternativet är att välkomna Ryssland till den Europeiska familjen och utifrån den relationen skapa en gemensam demokratisk bas. Båda lösningarna kräver ett enormt ar bete.

Det faktum att regeringen bestämt sig för att skapa ett Rysslands institut vid Uppsala universitet kan vara ett steg i rätt riktning. Mitt skrivna anförande finns här nedan.

The Struggle Against Climate Change May Cause Starvation

(A Swedish version of this article is published in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, November 15, 2009. The translation to English was made by Michael Lardelli)

At about the same time as the climate meeting is being held in Copenhagen, the world’s population will pass 6.8 billion. We are now immensely more numerous than we were in 1950 when the world’s population passed 2.5 billion. The world’s new citizens since 1950 have experienced an era of development without equal and the fuel for this development has been the coal discoveries of the 19th century, gigantic discoveries of oil in the 1960s and, as icing on this cake, immense natural gas discoveries during the 1970s. We have been drenched in fossil energy and today’s globalised economy is completely dependent on this torrent. Today when you sit down at the dinner table and enjoy your food you should realize that it is soaked in crude oil and natural gas. The fact is that we, the world’s 6.8 billion inhabitants, would never survive without enormous quantities of fossil energy.

If we study our well-being in detail we can discern four important components. They are food, climate, the economy and peace on Earth. Each component is immensely important and is discussed continuously in various meetings around the world. However, the fact is that these components are coupled and dependent upon one another. “Humanity’s Well Being” (HWB) can be summarized in an equation that shows this and when we study the interdependence of these factors we see that they are all dependent upon energy (E):

HWB(E) = Food(E) + Climate(E) + Economy(E) + Peace(E)

The climate will be discussed in Copenhagen but it is obvious that the negotiators will fail, primarily because they have forgotten the importance of energy to food and the economy.

To move, think and work, and to maintain our body temperatures at 37 °C both rich and poor need the energy in food. Children and adults have different energy needs but, on average, we require 2500 kilocalories per day (kcal/day). This means that the world’s 6.8 billion inhabitants need large amounts of energy from food. Expressed in TWh it is 7100 TWh/y. Compared with the energy content of oil it is equivalent to 12 million barrels of oil per day.

Data on the world’s total agricultural production is collected by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN. In total, the FAO lists 129 different crops. At the Global Energy Systems research group at Uppsala University in Sweden we have calculated the total energy content of these crops. If one considers the seed grain that must be set aside for next year’s harvest, storage and quality losses, processing refinement (e.g. when wheat is milled to produce flour) products supporting animal production and if you add fish from the oceans then we see that the energy that can be used to feed the world’s population is 7200 terrawatt hours per year (TWh/y) – or 9300 TWh/y if we also include edible products that are used for other purposes. The global production of food is thus sufficient to feed us all but it is distributed unequally [1].

The central issue for the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen is that our climate is affected by our use of fossil fuels and the consequent emission of carbon dioxide. The EU has as its new goal the reduction of emissions by 30% by 2020. The most decisive factor for the world’s future climate is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the concentration target for 2050 varies between 350 to 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide.

The 50-90% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 that is currently discussed is clear evidence that our climate is affected by energy use. What is not mentioned is that this reduction will affect our food production and our economy.

When the world economy crashed gigantic stimulus packages were introduced and now it is said that “the economic wheels have begun to turn”. According to the USA’s energy authorities every form of economic growth requires increased energy use. We have never had global economic growth without a simultaneous increase in energy use. Economic growth projections of 30-50% by 2030 are commonly cited.

If one studies how much energy it takes to get food onto our plates this varies from nation to nation but, in general, it is fossil energy that is used. If one considers the energy used on the farm, in transport, processing, storage, purchase and preparation by the consumer then, in the USA, seven times as much energy is used to get the food to the table than is contained in the food itself. The energy used in the EU and the rest of the world is less but, on the whole, the world’s population uses mainly fossil fuel to provide this energy and then mainly oil and natural gas. At a global average of five times as much energy to put food on the plate as is contained in the food, the energy required is 36,000 TWh/year or approximately 30% of the world’s total fossil fuel use. With current farming and processing techniques, an increasing world population will require increased use of fossil energy while decreased fossil fuel use is needed for the sake of our future climate.

How will our well-being be affected by the expected growth in population? How will this affect our food supply, our climate, our economy and our hopes for peace? In Copenhagen the hungry will prioritise more food on the table before an unaltered climate. The poor nations want economic growth and we all know that this requires more fossil energy use. To see this we only need to study the development of China or India, or even Sweden from 1945 to 1970. In Copenhagen, this will mean that they will not want to sacrifice economic growth on climate’s altar. Ultimately, it comes down to we, the wealthy nations, not wanting to wear the cost of all the carbon dioxide waste we have dumped into the atmosphere without the poor and hungry also paying out.

In Copenhagen global emissions of carbon dioxide will be discussed and, for the sake of our future climate, it would be a good thing if emissions were reduced. However, according to the human well-being equation, it is not carbon dioxide but, rather, energy that is needed to produce food and to turn the wheels of the economy. By clever marketing of unrealistic future scenarios the IPCC has blinded the world’s politicians – particularly those in the EU – to these facts. Light was shone onto this issue when President Obama noted the importance of energy in a speech some days after his inauguration. He said, “No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy” and I with many others began to hope for a brighter future when the Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven Chu was appointed as the USA’s Secretary of Energy.

The USA is now making large investments in energy research to find positive solutions to the human well-being equation. The leaders of the conference in Copenhagen want to make the world respond to a “carbon dioxide stick” but we all know that it is easier to make progress with the aid of a carrot. President Obama has made it clear he does not intend to respond to the EU’s stick so it is time for Prime Minister Reinfeldt, leader of the EU-delegation, to put away the penalties and offer some inducements.

Kjell Aleklett
Professor of Physics
Globala Energy Systems at Uppsala University

[1] Detaljerade calculations will be published in Ambio, the journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Sweden’s representative at the IEA confirms problems with the IEA outlook / Sveriges representant i IEA bekräftar problem med IEA prognoser

In today’s Uppsala Nya Tidning [the main newspaper for the area around Uppsala in Sweden, ML] there is an article with the headline “International Support for Aleklett’s Oil Prognoses”. The article refers to the events of recent days and Johan Heimer has also followed up on this by interviewing Urban Bäckström from the Energy Authority. To quote the article,

“Urban Bäckström at the Swedish Energy Authority who is Sweden’s representative at the IEA, says that the IEA’s prognoses for oil resources are probably correct. But it will be difficult to increaese production as much as the IEA forsees.”

By this statement Urban has supported our conclusions. Namely, we have used the reserve figures that the IEA uses. However, the article makes the following comment,

“Even though our projection is much lower than that of the IEA, we must still regard our outlook as optimistic. The yet-to-be-developed reserves of 257 Gb in WEO 2008 are located in 1874 fields that should come into production during the next 20 years. That is something like 8 fields per month coming on stream during that period, with a significant proportion of these fields being developed at a pace equal to that of the North Sea. Even if the oil exists, it is questionable whether the necessary investment needed to produce such a rapid pace of development can be achieved in timely fashion.”

(Swedish)
I dagens Uppsala Nya tidning finns det en artikel med rubriken ”Internationellt stöd för Alekletts oljeprognoser”. Artikeln referera det som hänt de senaste dagarna, men Johan Heimer har också gjort en uppföljning genom att intervjua Urban Bäckström från energimyndighetern:
“Urban Bäckström på den svenska energimyndigheten, som är Sveriges representant i IEA, säger att IEA:s prognoser om oljetillgångarna är förmodligen stämmer. Men att det kommer att vara svårt att öka produktionen så mycket som IEA förutspår.”

Genom sitt uttalande stödjer Urban våra slutsatser. Vi har nämligen använt de reserver som IEA använder. Artikeln gör vi dock följande kommentar:
“Even though our projection is much lower than that of the IEA, we must still regard our outlook as optimistic. The yet-to-be-developed reserves of 257 Gb in WEO 2008 are located in 1874 fields that should come into production during the next 20 years. That is something like 8 fields per month coming on stream during that period, with a significant proportion of these fields being developed at a pace equal to that of the North Sea. Even if the oil exists, it is questionable whether the necessary investment needed to produce such a rapid pace of development can be achieved in timely fashion. “

“Peak of the Oil Age” and media

Our research at Global Energy Systems has two aspects. The primary one is to conduct research that is then published in scientific articles (publications). This work, that is mostly done by Ph.D. students and undergraduate students, also results in the production of theses (examples of master theses). The second aspect is that we hope that our research will influence society outside of the academic world – part of the university’s so called “third task”. This can occur through publication of opinion pieces or when journalists write about our work. When our scientific article, “The Peak of the Oil Age” was recently accepted for publication in the journal Energy Policy our conclusion – that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has overestimated the production of oil in 2030 by 25% – quickly became news. One reason for this is that, one day after our scientific publication became public, the IEA released the latest edition of its annual World Energy Outlook report. This made our research acutely relevant. On the same day The Guardian newspaper published an article in which a confidential inside source accused the IEA of intentionally overestimating future oil production. Our research was also particularly relevant in this case since the specific examples of incorrect estimates that are named in the Guardian article are the same that we describe in our scientific article. During the week a number of journalists from Sweden and other nations have spoken to us. Some of the articles they have subsequently written are listed below. Rapport [a Swedish TV news program] has also visited us and will present their first item on us in tomorrow morning’s economic news report. We will see if there is any additional reportage this evening.
International articles:

The Globe and Mail, Canada. Is the world awash in oil?, Eric Reguly

The Guardian, UK,
Oil: future world shortages are being drastically underplayed, say experts, Terry Macalister

Swedish newspapers:

Svenska Dagbladet,”IEA:s prognoser felaktiga [the IEA’s erroneous prognoses]”, Björn Lindahl

Dagens Nyheter, Varning för energikris [Warning of an energy crisis], Sofia Ohlsson Djerf

Sydsvenskan, Manipulerade oljeprognoser [Manipulated oil prognoses], Petter Birgersson

(Swedish)
Vår forskning vid Globala energisystem har två sidor. Det primära är att bedriva forskning som sedan publicerar i vetenskapliga artiklar (publikationer) och detta arbete, som till större delen görs av doktorander och studenter, skall också leda till olika akademiska examina (exempel på examensarbeten). Sedan hoppas vi att vår forskning skall påverka samhället utanför den akademiska världen och där har vi universitetets så kallade tredje uppgift. Det kan ske genom debattartiklar (DN-debatt) eller att journalister skriver om vår verksamhet. Vår vetenskapliga artikel ”The Peak of the Oil Age” godkändes i måndags av Energy Policy och vår slutsats att International Energy Agency (IEA) överskattar produktionen av olja år 2030 med ca 25 procent blev mycket snabbt en nyhet. En anledning till detta är att IEA dagen efter presenterade årets upplaga av World Energy Outlook och att detta aktualiserade vår forskning. Att The Guardian samma dag publicerade en artikel där en hemlig källa påstod att IEA medvetet överdrev framtida produktion gjorde vår forskning extra intressant då de specifika exempel som nämns är de samma som vi framför i vår artikel. Under veckan har ett antal journalister i Sverige och från utlandet haft samtal med oss och här är några av artiklarna finns här nedan. Rapport har också vart på besök och ett första inslag fanns med på morgonens ekonominyheter. Vi får se om man återkommer i kväll:

(Länkar till tidningar här ovan)

Pressinformation från Uppsala universitet: Seminarium om oljan, framtiden och klimatet

Seminarium om oljan, framtiden och klimatet
(pressinformation)
[Publicerad 2009-11-11]

De senaste dagarna har klimatfrågan uppmärksammats sedan IEA:s prognoser för framtida produktion av olja, naturgas och kol ifrågasatts i brittisk media. Professor Kjell Aleklett leder en forskargrupp i globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet och har studier som bekräftar uppgifterna. Imorgon, torsdag, håller han ett seminarium som är öppet för allmänhet och media.

International Energy Agency (IEA), som är ett organ under OECD, presenterade den 10 november i London sina prognoser om framtida produktion av olja, naturgas och kol. Samma dag publicerade The Guardian en artikel där en anonym tjänsteman hävdar att IEA medvetet varit för optimistiska i sina prognoser under påtryckning av USA. Han nämner särskilt produktion från de oljefält som är i produktion idag och förväntad produktion från fält som man fortfarande inte har hittat.

Forskargruppen i globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet har under året publicerat ett antal artiklar där villkor för produktion av olja, naturgas och kol beskrivits. Baserat på dessa artiklar har man gjort en vetenskaplig analys av de prognoser som IEA presenterar i sin skrift World Energy Outlook. Artikeln blev i måndags godkänd för publicering i tidskriften Energy Policy. Resultaten av undersökningarna bekräftar The Guardians uppgifter, att IEA:s beräknade produktion är för optimistisk.

- Slutsatsen är att det bara går att verifiera 75 procent av den produktion som IEA hävdar och detta medför att världen nu nått maximal oljeproduktion, säger professor Kjell Aleklett vid Uppsala universitet.

I förlängningen medför detta att de utsläppsscenarier som IPCC använder för beräkning av klimatförändringar är överdrivna, menar Kjell Aleklett. Forskargruppen har också i en tidigare artikel som gäller kolproduktionen i USA visat att de scenarier som skall ge de högsta temperaturökningarna i framtiden enligt IPCC inte kan bli verklighet i framtiden.

- För det framtida globala klimatet är dessa forskningsresultat mycket positiva eftersom det betyder att möjligheterna att stabilisera ökningen av den globala temperaturen till 2 grader ökar markant.

- Men våra beräkningar visar att det inte finns en framtid med ständigt ökad användning av fossila bränslen, vare sig olja, gas eller olja. Vi får en helt ny spelplan för energiförsörjningen, världen behöver nya globala energisystem. Det innebär att resurser för energiforskning måste ökas dramatiskt, säger Kjell Aleklett.

Tid och plats för seminarium: Siegbahnsalen, Ångströmlaboratoriet, torsdagen den 12 november 2009, kl. 15.15.

Kontaktperson: Professor Kjell Aleklett, 070 425 06 04, kjell.aleklett@fysast.uu.se

Anneli Waara

Comments on “Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower”, The Guardian

I am not surprised that some within the IEA have leaked this news. Rather, it is astonishing that this has not become known earlier. (See the article in the Guardian: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower.)

The article ”The Peak and Decline of World Oil and Gas Production” was published as long ago as 2003 in the scientific journal Minerals and Energy – Raw Materials Report by Kjell Aleklett and Colin C. Campbell (Volume 18, Number 1, 2003 , pp. 5-20[16].) It was the first “peer reviewed” article to discuss Peak Oil.

That article was read in 2007 by representatives of the “Global Transport Forum” of the OECD and they gave me the task of writing the report, ”Peak Oil and the Evolving Strategies of Oil Importing and Exporting Countries”. This report was one of those discussed at a round table meeting that was held in the IEA’s conference room in Paris. At that opportunity, in November 2007, I had a number of private conversations with officers of the IEA. The revelations now reported in the Guardian were revealed to me then under the promise that I not name the source. I had earlier heard the same thing from another officer from Norway who, at the time he spoke of the pressure being applied by the USA, was working for the IEA. Since these anecdotes were not scientific evidence I never made use of the information other than as inspiration to continue our own research.

Earlier, following a suggestion by Colin Campbell, I had communicated to Sweden’s delegate at the IEA that Sweden should leave the IEA since it was deceiving the world and this would have serious consequences globally. I also asked how they could approve of something like the World Energy Outlook that was so in error. I had previously posted an analysis of World Outlook 2004 on ASPO’s homepage. In the discussion that followed it was revealed that the USA was applying pressure. The pressure was that the IEA should consider the prognoses that USA’s Energy Information Agency releases half a year earlier as guidelines for the IEA report. In connection with this I can mention that, in 2003, we received financial support from [Sweden’s] Energy Authority to begin the research that has now resulted in our publication “Peak of the Oil Age” and that Sweden’s Energy Authority also financed the first Peak Oil conference (ASPO) that we held in Uppsala in 2002.

After meeting with the Swedish delegate I have, at various times, communicated my view that Guy Caruso (who was then responsible for the EIA and its prognoses) was one of the world’s most dangerous people. Today a great deal of the responsibility for this situation rests with him. I have also asserted that I did not think that the level of competence within the IEA could be so low that all of its officers believed in what they have been presenting. What these faulty analyses will cost the world in the future is difficult to estimate but all the crisis packages that are currently in place are presumably a smaller part of that cost. In our publication ”How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agencies?” we have shown that the IEA’s future prognoses are erroneous.

One consequence of that which has now been revealed is that the emissions scenarios that the IPCC has advanced for calculating future carbon dioxide production from oil can never reflect reality. Before the round table conference in Paris I was also given the task by the OECD of writing another report, ”Reserve driven forecasts for oil, gas and coal and limits in carbon dioxide emissions”. In connection with the Global Transport Forum in Leipzig in 2008 I met the chairperson for the IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, and gave him a copy of this report. The subsequent interest from the IPCC’s side can be described as absolutely zero.

I would also like to highlight the fact that, in 2005, I was invited to the House of Representatives to give testimony about Peak Oil. (The testimony)

It is time for President Obama to establish a commission to undertake a detailed investigation of the EIA’s activities and establish the truth. It is extremely important that the members of this commission have no associations with the oil industry.

(Swedish)

Jag är inte förvånad att någon inom IEA läcker denna nyhet. Det är snarare förvånande att den inte kommit tidigare. Läs artikel i The Guardian: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower.

Redan 2003 publicerades artikeln ”The Peak and Decline of World Oil and Gas Production” i den vetenskapliga tidskriften, Minerals and Energy – Raw Materials Report, Kjell Aleklett and Colin C. Campbell , Volume 18, Number 1, 2003 , pp. 5-20(16). Det är den första ”peer” reviderade artikel som diskuterar Peak Oil.

Denna artikel lästes 2007 av representanter för ”Global Transport Forum”, OECD, och man gav mig i uppdrag att skriva rapporten ”Peak Oil and the Evolving Strategies of Oil Importing and Exporting Countries” . Rapporten var en av de rapporter som diskuterades vid ett rundabordsmöte vid EIA:s huvudkontor i Paris. Vid det tillfället, november 2007, hade jag personliga diskussioner med tjänstemän vid IEA och det som nu rapporterades i The Guardian rapporterades då till mig, under löfte att inte nämna källan. Jag hade tidigare hört samma sak från en annan tjänsteman från Norge, som vid det tillfälle då han berättade om USA:s påtryckningar, arbetade med analyser för IEA. Eftersom detta inte är forskning har jag inte använt mig av denna information, men informationen har naturligtvis varit inspiration för att arbeta vidare med vår forskning.

Tidigare har hade jag på förslag av Colin Campbell framfört till Sveriges delegat vid IEA att Sverige borde lämna IEA eftersom man förde världen bakom ljuset och att detta skulle få alvarliga konsekvenser för världen. Jag frågade också hur han kunde godkänna något som så uppenbart var felaktigt. Jag hade tidigare analyserat World Energy Outlook 2004 på ASPOS hemsida. Av den diskussion som följde framkom det att USA utövade påtryckningar. Varje år på våren publicerar Energy Information Administrtion sin prognos och då vet man också vilken påtryckning det finns från USA. Kan i detta sammanhang nämna att vi 2003 fick medel från Energimyndigheten för att påbörja den forskning som nu lett fram till publikationen ”Peak of the Oil Age”, och att Sveriges energimyndighet var med och finansierade den första Peak Oil konferensen (ASPO) som vi hade i Uppsala år 2002.

Efter mötet med den Svenske delegaten har jag vid olika tillfällen framfört åsikten att Guy Caruso, då ansvarig för EIA och deras prognoser, var en av världens farligaste personer. Idag vilar ett stort ansvar på hans axlar. Jag har också hävdat att jag inte tror att kompetensen inom IEA skulle vara så dålig så att alla verkligen trodde på vad man presenterade. Vad dessa felaktiga analyser i framtiden kommer att kosta världen är svårt att uppskatta, men alla de krispaket som nu existerar är förmodligen den mindre prislappen. I vår publikation ” How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agencies?”, visar vi att man vid IEA gör felaktig prognoser om framtiden.

Konsekvensen av det som nu framkommit medför att de utsläppsscenarier som IPCC rekommenderar för beräkningar av framtidens koldioxid från olja aldrig kan bli verklighet. Inför rundabordskonferensen i Paris fick jag också i uppdrag av OECD att skriva en annan rapport, ”Reserve driven forecasts for oil, gas and coal and limits in carbon dioxide emissions”. I samband med Global Transport Forum i Leipzig 2008 träffade jag ordförande för IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, och överlämnade ett exemplar. Intresset från IPCC:sss sida har varit absolut noll.

Det är dags för President Obama att tillsätta en kommission som gör en detaljerad undersökning av EIA:s verksamhet och vad som är verklighet. Det är enormt viktigt att medlemmar i kommissionen inte har något samröre med oljeindustrin.

The Peak of the Oil Age – The Uppsala World Energy Outlook

I have sent the following message to our Energy Minister via the [Swedish] Parliament’s registrar:

Dear Energy Minister Maud Olofsson,

For the past 6 years the Global Energy Systems research group at Uppsala University, www.fysast.uu.se/ges, has conducted research on fossil fuel reserves and future production from these. In a number of scientific publications we have defined the parameters that are significant for production. Today, 9 November 2009, the international scientific journal Energy Policy has accepted for publication our article titled, “The Peak of the Oil Age – analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008”.
.
Our analysis shows that the International Energy Agency (IEA) uses parameters in its calculations that cannot be supported on scientific grounds. For the year 2030, our scientifically-based calculations show that production of oil will be 25 million barrels per day lower than stated by the IEA.

This means that we have now reached the maximum rate of global oil production, Peak Oil. This will affect future economic development and carbon dioxide emissions. The article can be accessed at http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf

The same message has also been sent to the general director of the Energy Authority, Tomas Kåberger.

(Swedish)

Via regeringens registrator har jag skickat följande meddelande till vår energiminister:

Bästa energiminister Maud Olofsson!

Under en period av 6 år har Globala Energisystem vid Uppsala universitet, www.fysast.uu.se/ges, bedrivit forskning om fossila reserver och framtida produktion av fossila bränslen. I ett antal vetenskapliga publikationer har vi definierat parametrar av betydelse för produktionen. I dag den 9 november 2009 har den internationella vetenskapliga tidskriften Energy Policy accepterat vår artikel ”The Peak of the Oil Age – analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008”.

Vår analys visar att International Energy Agency (IEA) i sina beräkningar använder parametrar som inte kan styrkas på vetenskapliga grunder. För år 2030 visar våra beräkningar, baserade på vetenskapliga grunder, att produktionen av olja kommer att vara 25 miljoner fat om dagen lägre än vad IEA anger.

Det betyder att vi nu har nått maximal global oljeproduktion, Peak Oil. Detta kommer att påverka framtida ekonomisk utveckling och utsläpp av koldioxid. Artikeln finns tillgänglig på adressen: http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf

Samma meddelande har också skickats till Energimyndighetens generaldirektör Tomas Kåberger

The visit to Sweden’s Parliament / Besöket i Sveriges riksdag

The invitation to the symposium in parliament on 4 November had been extended to members of parliament and others working in the parliament building. The symposium was an initiative of the Moderates [a “conservative” political party in Sweden that would, nevertheless, be regarded as left-of-centre relative to politics in most English-speaking nations, ML]. The meeting room that was booked had capacity for 36 people and most of the seats were occupied when we began our presentation. Only members of parliament from the Moderates and the Christian Democrats were present and it amazes me that the organizer’s political affiliation is thought to limit who can attend.

Those that attended engaged in a very interesting discussion about our research and we hope that this interest will spread to others as ripples spread on water. On Friday, our presentations will be posted on our research group’s website (www.fysast.uu.se/ges) so that the participants and others can see what we discussed. The most common comment from the participants was that our research is very interesting.

(Swedish)

Inbjudan till seminariet i riksdagen den 4 november hade gått ut till riksdagsmän och andra som arbetade i riksdagshuset och det var Moderaterna som var initiativtagare. Sammanträdesrummet som var bokat kunde ta 36 personer och de flesta av stolarna runt bordet var upptagna då vi började vår presentation. Vad det gäller riksdagsmän var det bara Moderaterna och Kristdemokraterna som var representerade och det förvånar mig att arrangörernas politiska färg tycks begränsa vilka som kommer.

De som var där hade en mycket intressant diskussion runt vår forskning och vi hoppas att detta intresse kommer att sprida sig till andra som ringar på vattnet. Våra presentationer kommer under fredagen att läggas ut på vår grupps hemsida (www.fysast.uu.se/ges) så att deltagare och andra kan ta del av det vi diskuterade. Den vanligaste kommentaren från deltagarna var att vår forskning är mycket intressant.

The Climate Question at DN-debate and UNT-debate [Swedish newspaper debate columns] / Klimatfrågan på DN-debatt och UNT-debatt

In today’s Dagens Nyheter [DN, Sweden’s largest circulation daily newspaper] Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has written on the climate question and in Uppsala Nya Tidning [UNT, Uppsala’s daily newspaper] the text from my previous blog entry has been published. Now we can compare both texts. To start with we discussed the EU’s decision on the climate question. The prime minister also discussed emission levels for the year 2050 and asserted that the UN’s target of 2 degrees requires a decrease in global emissions by 50% compared with 1990 levels. For the EU’s future plans he revealed that, last week, they set an own long-term target for emissions reductions. It is a reduction by 80-95% by 2050 and “therefore, other developed nations must now demonstrate similar leadership”.

In terms of concrete “mid-term goals” (which I interpret as meaning by 2020) these can be attained “by simple means”. They can “be reached substantially by energy savings and increased efficiency”.

The EU delegation’s trip to the USA then continues on to India and the message they will deliver to the Indian government is that the EU has nothing against increased economic welfare in India but that it must not occur through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. When Sweden built its welfare state during the 25 years from 1945 to 1970 our fossil fuel use increased by 1000% (one thousand percent). The requirement from the EU, (that itself bathes in fossil energy), is that India shall not continue with the development that it has begun – namely to increase its welfare with the aid of fossil energy.

Finally, the prime minister discussed his planned trip to China but, in doing so, his wagging index finger was not as apparent as when he discussed India’s future. He asserted that China, (23% of the world’s population), has just passed the USA (5% of the world’s population) in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. The message to China is “set more ambitious targets so that your emissions peak by 2020”. I have written earlier about our collaboration with China Petroleum University in studies of future production of oil, natural gas and coal in China. For coal we predict a production maximum around 2020 and we have just submitted an article for publication in a scientific journal that shows that oil production will also reach its maximum at that time. Their carbon dioxide emissions from domestic fossil fuel production should peak around 2020 but China also wants a share of the fossil energy that that we currently use for our welfare and with the economic power that they now have they are going to get it.

As I predicted in my previous blog entry the prime minister offers no concrete suggestions but, rather, a mass of words in pretty packaging. It would be interesting to hear what Prime Minister Reinfeldt’s views are on my concrete proposal to build a new railway around Africa’s coast.

(Swedish)

På dagens DN-debatt har statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt fått ordet i klimatfrågan och i Uppsala Nya Tidning finns infört en omskrivning av min blogg från i går. Vi kan nu jämföra de båda inläggen. Inledningsvis diskuterar vi EU:s beslut i klimatfrågan. Statsministern diskuterar dessutom utsläppsnivåer för år 2050 och konstaterar att FN:s tvågraders mål kräver minskade globala utsläpp med 50% jämfört med år 1990. Vad det gäller EU:s framtidsplaner framkommer att man förra veckan satte ett eget långsiktigt mål för utsläppsminskningen och målet är en minskning med 80 till 95 procent år 2050, och ”därför måste nu andra utvecklade länder visa samma ledarskap”.

Vad det gäller konkreta ”mål på medellång sikt”, vilket jag tolkar som år 2020, så kan de nås ”med enkla medel”. De kan i ”allt väsentligt nås genom energisparande och effektiviseringar”.

Resan till USA fortsätter sedan till Indien och budskapet till den Indiska regeringen är att EU har ingenting emot att välfärden ökar i Indien, men det får inte ske med ökade utsläpp av koldioxid. Då Sverige byggde välfärdsstaten under 25 år från 1945 till 1970 ökade vi vår fossila energianvändning med 1000% (tusen procent), kravet från EU, som badar i fossil energi, är att Indien inte skall fortsätta på den utveckling som man påbörjat, nämligen att öka sin välfärd med hjälp av fossil energi.

Avslutningsvis diskuterar statsministern sin planerade resa till Kina men nu blir inte pekfingret lika tydligt som då han diskuterade Indiens framtid. Han konstaterar att Kina, 23 procent av världens befolkning, just passerat USA, 5 procent av världens befolkning, vad det gäller koldioxidutsläpp. Budskapet till Kina är: ”Höj ambitionerna så att utsläppen når sin topp senast 2020”. Jag har tidigare nämnt att vi har samarbete med China Petroleum University vad det gäller studier av framtida produktion av olja, naturgas och kol i Kina. Vad det gäller kolproduktion ser vi ett maximum runt år 2020 och vi har just skickat in en artikel som visar att oljeproduktionen också har nått sitt maximum då. Vad det gäller inhemsk producerad koldioxid blir det ett maximum runt år 2020, men Kina vill också ha en del av den fossila energi som vi nu använder för vår välfärd och med den ekonomiska makt som man har kommer man att förse sig.

Som jag förutspådde i mitt inlägg finns det inga konkreta förslag utan bara ett staplande av ord i en fin förpackning. Det skulle vara intressant att höra vad statsminister Reinfeldt har för åsikter om mitt konkreta förslag om att bygga en ny järnväg längs Afrikas kust.

The EU’s climate change offer to the USA and a railway around the coast of Africa

Until 1 January 2010 Sweden holds the presidency of the EU. This means that Sweden’s Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is head of the EU-delegation that today travels to the USA for a summit on climate between the EU and the USA on Wednesday. Reinfeldt will meet president Obama today and can then present the offer that the EU nations agreed on last week.

In terms of emissions the offer is: The EU nations commit to, as a whole, reduce emissions by 30% by 2020 as calculated from the level of emissions in 1990. But there is one condition – other nations must make equivalent commitments in a climate change treaty that is binding under international law.

There is also a price tag that comes with the treaty and it concerns the total cost to aid the poorest nations to reduce their emissions. The price is at least 100 billion Euros per year until 2020. (A euro costs 1,5 dollar and a little more than ten Swedish crown – 1 € = $1,5 = 10.4 SK.) They also consider that this financing of climate change measures is a precondition for a treaty in Copenhagen and that 25-50% of this sum will come from the richest nations. The EU nations are willing to bear “a just proportion of the costs”.

President Obama does not have a mandate from the Senate to negotiate on a binding treaty and if he does not obtain it before the negotiations in Copenhagen it is doubtful that he will attend. Maybe the trip to Copenhagen to get the Olympic Games to Chicago had greater priority.

I the EU-family there are a number of nations from the former Soviet sphere of influence and their emissions per resident in 1990 were clearly greater than Western Europe’s. As an example it has been enormously costly to unite the former FDR and GDR but in terms of starting positions in the climate negotiations this has been a stroke of luck. It takes a bit of effort to find out what the actual numbers are but I will return to this point.

For the poorest nations, the nature of our current economic system means that they must increase their emissions in order to improve their standard of living. Take China as an example. That the richest nations will pay for less than 50% of the costs needed to allow economic growth in the poorest nations without the latter increasing their rightful proportion of emissions is not sufficient.

As usual the EU position is a mass of words without concrete proposals and therefore I would like to make a concrete suggestion to discuss in USA – The EU will pay part of a railway around the coast of Africa. The railway network between the EU nations is today the EU’s greatest infrastructural advantage. In Africa the former colonial nations of the EU built railways from the interior to the coast. The main purpose of these was to transport raw materials to waiting ships that would then take them to the colonial nations to increase their wealth. By building a modern railway around the coast and power it with renewable electricity they would create the possibility of climate-friendly trade between Africa’s nations and also the possibility of social cohesion.

Then the question is – What can USA offer?

(Swedish)

Fram till 1 januari 2010 är Sverige ordförandeland för EU och det betyder att Sveriges statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt också är ordförande för den EU-delegation som idag reser över till USA för ett klimattoppmöte på onsdag mellan EU och USA. Redan idag träffar han president Obama och kan då presentera det bud om EU-länderna enades om i förra veckan.

Vad det gäller utsläpp är budet: EU-länderna åtar sig att tillsammans minska utsläppen med 30% till år 2020 räknat från nivån år 1990. Men det finns ett villkor: Andra länder måste göra motsvarande åtaganden i ett folkrättsligt bindande klimatavtal.

Det finns också en prislapp som följer med avtalet och det gäller totalkostnaden för att hjälpa de fattigaste länderna att minska sina utsläpp och det rör sig om minst 100 miljarder euro per år fram till 2020 (en euro kostar lite mer än tio kronor; 1 € = 10.2 SK). Man anser också att denna klimatfinansiering är en förutsättning för ett avtal i Köpenhamn och att 25 till 50 procent av denna summa skall komma från de rikaste länderna. EU-länderna är villiga att ta på sig ”en rättvis del av kostnaderna”.

President Obama har han inte mandat från Senaten att förhandla om något bindande avtal och om han inte har det innan Köpenhamnsförhandlingarna är det tveksamt om han åker dit. Kanske hade resan till Köpenhamn för att få OS till Chicago större prioritet.

I EU-familjen ingår numera ett antal länder från forna Östeuropa och deras utsläpp per ivånare 1990 var klart mycket större än Västeuropas. Det har varit enormt kostsamt att förena Väst- och Östtyskland, men vad det gäller utgångsnivån i klimatförhandlingarna är det en vinstlott. Det krävs lite arbete att få fram vad det betyder i siffror men jag återkommer.

Vad det gäller de fattigaste länderna kräver dagens ekonomiska system att man ökar sina fossila utsläpp per invånare för att få det bättre, jämför med Kina. Att de rikaste länderna skall stå för mindre än 50 procent av kostnaderna för att de fattigaste skall få en ekonomisk tillväxt utan att öka sitt rättmätliga andel av utsläppen är inte tillräckligt.

Som vanligt är det en massa ord utan konkreta förslag och därför vill jag framföra ett konkret förslag: EU skall bekosta en järnväg runt Afrikas kust. Järnvägsnätet mellan EU-länderna är idag EU:s största infrastrukturella fördel. I Afrika har de forna kolonialländerna från EU byggt järnvägar som går inifrån Afrika till kusten för att framförallt frakta råvaror till väntande fartyg för att frakta råvarorna till sina hemländer för att skapa rikedomar. Att bygga en modern järnväg längst kusten skapar möjligheter till klimatvänlig handel mellan länderna men också en möjlighet till social gemenskap.