Embracing attribution

“A game changer for addressing climate change.” “It has a role to play in litigation and in policy, because it gives us that precision.”

The game changer that gives precision? A “fast-emerging field of climate research” called attribution science that “is helping scientists pinpoint just how many dollars from a natural disaster can be tied to the historic emissions of individual oil companies.”

Every week there’s at least one news report from the climate frontlines that has me telling myself “Now we’ve done it. We’re finally at peak transitionist.” Of course, every week that follows proves me wrong.

This one has been no exception and the above is one of my top-three Peak Transitionist picks for the week. But on to the actual news. That “attribution science” that the above report details was brought to my attention by Stephen Heins and I’m massively grateful because I’ve grown accustomed to a certain dose of straight-faced lying every week.

So, what does this attribution science do? You already know, don’t you? Well, here it is: “When a flood or wildfire hits, researchers in “attribution science” run computer models to help determine whether the disaster was caused or intensified by climate change.” Hooray for computer models that can never ever be influenced by the inputs made by very human agents who are very concerned about the state of the planet’s climate.

Oh, and the quotes at the start come from a person identified by a Louisiana news outlet as “the lead scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists.” The Union, as we know, is a totally objective, impartial, unbiased and otherwise pristine organisation with no interest in the energy transition at all. Attribution science is beautiful. But it’s not the most beautiful this week.

The Most Beautiful title has to go to deindustrialisation, as promoted by another impartial, unbiased and otherwise pristine organisation by the name of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. This I got from Tammy Nemeth, so more thanks are in order.

Researchers from this researchy place have called on the industrialised world to embrace deindustrialisation and outsource more industries to reduce emissions. Yes, I know it sounds like someone who’s been going hard on the liquor for quite a while. But no, it’s not drunk blabbering. It’s a perfectly serious call based on perfectly serious considerations.

You see, Europe is trying to reduce its emissions while keeping local industries going. But, according to the Potsdam Institute researchers, this is the wrong way to go about reducing emissions, which is, of course, the ultimate aim of every European politician in power.

Instead of trying to prop up local industries that are struggling with rising energy costs that have come out of nowhere, Europe should encourage these industries to die or relocate — to places like China where there’s more wind and solar, and the electricity they produce is cheaper, making green products cheaper, too.

So, per those giant brains at the Potsdam NGO, which is entirely funded by the German state, by the way, it would make more sense for Europe to let its steel and ammonia industries shrivel and die, and start importing the steel and fertilisers it needs from China.

That would be the same China the EU is investigating for the fact it has more money to give its wind and solar developers, and EV makers than the EU itself. Apparently, in such a situation it is perfectly reasonable to kill your own production of essential materials and increase your dependence on producers you don’t like very much.

But even this is not the hit of the week, no. The hit of the week is contained in a paraphrased statement by one of the researchy researchers from Potsdam, courtesy of Euractiv. Are you ready? Here it is:

“While EU politicians want to maintain existing domestic supply chains and nurse new green value ones in the face of international competition, researchers warn against creating industries that depend on subsidies to survive.”

I’ll give you a moment.

Okay, moment’s over. So, these researchers into climate impact are recommending that European governments not create industries that depend on subsidies to survive. Instead, European countries should take advantage of industries that the Chinese government has nurtured with subsidies for decades.

It actually makes a perverse sort of sense if you think about it. Why bother splurging on subsidies for anything when we can buy Chinese subsidised products that are cheaper. Independence? Yeah but At What Cost?

In fact, it would have made sense was it an accurate representation of reality. Because the actual reality is that it isn’t steel and fertilisers that only survive thanks to subsidies. It’s wind and solar, and I know each and every one of you knows it but I had to say it. This is what makes that statement above so ridiculous. It is true, just not about the industries that the author, by the beautiful name of Falko Ueckerdt, meant.

Speaking of industries surviving on subsidies, Ford just issued the latest in what are now regular updates on EV losses. The Big Auto survivor reported it lost $132,000 on each EV it sold during the first quarter. The sum total of those sales? Ten thousand cars. Total losses for the quarter? $1.3 billion. It’s not even funny any more.

Staying in the U.S. for a bit longer, the Biden administration just approved a set of new emission rules for power generators that may force a lot of coal power plants to close by 2039 — while demand for electricity is seen surging and certain uninformed people are worrying about blackouts. They have yet to be educated that deindustrialisation is good and a blackout now and then never hurt anyone.

From Bloomberg: “The Environmental Protection Agency regulation unveiled Thursday will force the nation’s current fleet of coal plants to capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions — or close — by 2039. And it will compel similar pollution cuts for many of the new gas-fired plants built to replace them.”

To this, the chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association responded with “We’re already in a tough spot,” amid warnings that 19 states are at risk for blackouts even under normal peak demand conditions. “It creates uncertainty about how we’re going to keep the lights on.” As if anyone needs to keep the lights on. Catch up, Jim Matheson, we have a climate to save.

Back to Europe, the same people who are fighting a losing and apparently unnecessary battle against deindustrialisation scored a win against the biggest enemy to the climate: people who buy food. Starting in 2030, single-use plastic packaging for fresh fruit and vegetables will be banned with a view to reducing plastic pollution. The same sort of packaging will also be banned for food and drinks served at cafes and restaurants.

It’s the right thing to do, of course. So what if it results in more food getting spoiled and thrown away by supermarkets? So what if that same food becomes more expensive because of the cost of that increased waste that supermarkets will happily pass on to their customers? So what if more trees need to be cut to produce paper-based packaging alternatives to plastic? It’s for the climate. So is the ban on miniature toiletries in hotels and “very lightweight plastic bags” in shops. For some reason.

More climate care came this week from the UK, where the government mandated blending sustainable aviation fuels into jet fuel for every plane that takes off from a British airport. By 2030. The mandate is for 10% SAFs in every litre of jet fuel.

Do you know how much SAFs there were in jet fuel in the UK last year? Less than 1%. But sure, let’s go from less than 1% to 10% in six years. And we’re talking about fuel that is so expensive to make it ends up costing three times as much as regular jet fuel — and some doubt its sustainability at the scale it would need to be produced to replace any meaningful portion of jet fuel demand. The solution? Fly less. Let those airlines go bankrupt, like steelmakers in the EU. Working industries are so boring. And bad for the climate, of course.

After so much beauty from the news stream, I’m afraid we must end on a cautionary note. UBS has just revealed that Norway, the EV capital of the world, has seen virtually no change in its oil demand in recent years despite the surge in EV sales. These now account for 21% of Norway’s total car fleet and yet oil demand has remained unchanged.

The bank’s musings about the reasons come down to two suggestions and one observation. Suggestion #1: Maybe a 21% of EVs of the total is not enough to push down demand for oil. Suggestion #2: Maybe Norwegians have two cars each and use the EVs for short journeys and the ICE cars for longer ones.

Then comes the observation: “In Norway, LPG/ ethane demand, which is mostly used in the petrochemical sector, but also as fuel for heating and cooking -  has been particularly strong, around 35%.” The climate must be very disappointed in Norwegians. Who needs heating and cooking when the world is burning?