novembre 12, 2024 - 2:30pm
Étant donné que son parti a promis lors de l’élection de faire de la Grande-Bretagne une « superpuissance de l’énergie propre » avec un système électrique neutre en carbone d’ici 2030, la présence de Keir Starmer à Bakou cette semaine n’était pas surprenante. Il s’est rendu à la conférence annuelle des Nations Unies sur le climat, COP 29, bien que les dirigeants de l’Union européenne, de la Chine, de l’Inde, de l’Allemagne, de la France et des États-Unis ne soient pas attendus.
Selon son porte-parole, le Premier ministre y est allé parce qu’ « il est important que le Royaume-Uni retrouve une position de leadership mondial en matière de climat », et qu’-il voulait « envoyer un signal clair » que la Grande-Bretagne s’engage à des objectifs d’émissions « ambitieux ». Ce qu’il a fait ce matin, en dévoilant un engagement selon lequel, en plus d’atteindre l’objectif d’électricité Net Zéro, la Grande-Bretagne continuerait à réduire les émissions dans d’autres domaines tels que le chauffage et le transport. L’objectif de ce plan est qu’en 2035, les émissions du pays soient réduites de 81 % par rapport à 1990.
Cependant, ce qui n’est pas si clair, c’est de savoir si d’autres grands pays dont les chefs de gouvernement seront absents suivront réellement le chemin que Starmer et le secrétaire à l’Énergie Ed Miliband entendent ouvrir.
L’élection de Donald Trump aux États-Unis a déjà provoqué de vives lamentations de la part des environnementalistes. Après des années de déclarations similaires, en septembre, Trump a décrit le changement climatique comme « l’une des grandes arnaques ». De plus, il a juré de retirer l’Amérique de l’accord de 2015 conclu lors de la COP 21 à Paris, qui devait lier le monde à maintenir l’augmentation des températures moyennes à 1,5 °C au-dessus des niveaux préindustriels.
Malgré Starmer, il semble donc certain que la COP 29 n’atteindra pas ce que de nombreux défenseurs de l’environnement considèrent comme son principal objectif : un engagement des nations avancées à augmenter « l’aide climatique » au monde en développement de 100 milliards de dollars à 1 trillion de dollars ou plus par an.
Le retour de Trump n’est pas le seul défaut du processus COP sans fin. Neuf ans après la COP 21, il vaut la peine d’examiner ce que certains des plus grands émetteurs du monde ont fait avec leurs propres systèmes énergétiques depuis l’accord « historique » de Paris, en gardant à l’esprit que la Grande-Bretagne représente seulement 1 % des émissions mondiales de gaz à effet de serre.
Depuis 2006, la Chine, la deuxième économie mondiale, émet plus de dioxyde de carbone que toute autre nation — presque un tiers du total planétaire. En 2020, le président Xi Jinping a promis que les émissions chinoises atteindraient leur pic d’ici 2030 et atteindraient le Net Zéro d’ici 2060.
Cependant, Pékin a approuvé et construit de nouvelles centrales électriques fonctionnant au charbon — le combustible le plus polluant au monde — sans retenue. Depuis le début de 2022, la Chine a accordé des autorisations pour de nouvelles centrales au charbon d’une capacité totale de 218 gigawatts (GW) — plus de cinq fois la demande totale moyenne du Royaume-Uni en électricité. La Grande-Bretagne n’a désormais plus aucune centrale au charbon, et tandis que les émissions de la Chine continuent d’augmenter, celles du Royaume-Uni ont diminué de 46 % depuis 1990. D’ici la fin de 2023, presque la moitié des nouvelles centrales au charbon approuvées en Chine étaient déjà en construction.
Les promesses de l’Inde ont été tout aussi vides. En 2022, son gouvernement a soumis un document à l’ONU exposant sa politique de promotion d’un « mode de vie sain et durable basé sur des traditions et des valeurs de conservation et de modération ». Quoi que cela ait pu signifier, l’Inde a également construit et mis en service de nouvelles centrales au charbon avec enthousiasme. Elle a actuellement de nouvelles centrales en projet avec une capacité combinée de 46 GW, à peu près autant que la demande totale de pointe du Royaume-Uni lors d’une froide journée d’hiver, et a déclaré qu’elle ne supprimerait pas mais doublerait sa production de charbon d’ici 2030.
La liste des pays qui ont ajouté à leur approvisionnement en électricité au charbon depuis Paris est longue. Elle inclut également l’Indonésie, le Vietnam, le Japon, la Corée du Sud, la Malaisie, la Thaïlande, le Sénégal et le Kazakhstan.
Il y a, bien sûr, une raison pour laquelle la Chine et d’autres pays aiment l’électricité alimentée au charbon : elle est relativement bon marché. Cela signifie qu’ils peuvent l’utiliser pour fabriquer et vendre des produits tels que des panneaux solaires à leurs clients plus soucieux de l’environnement, comme la Grande-Bretagne. La Chine contrôle plus de 80 % du marché mondial des panneaux solaires, tandis que la dernière usine solaire de la Grande-Bretagne a fermé en 2013 — grâce à la concurrence chinoise.
Cependant, la Grande-Bretagne a déjà les prix de l’électricité les plus élevés du monde développé, le coût pour les utilisateurs industriels ayant augmenté de 124 % au cours des cinq dernières années pour atteindre un niveau 50 % plus élevé qu’en France et en Allemagne — et quatre fois plus qu’aux États-Unis. En Chine, un kilowattheure d’électricité coûtera à une entreprise seulement 7 pence, mais au Royaume-Uni, le tarif est trois fois et demie plus élevé à 25 pence. Cela avant que les nouvelles mesures écologiques du gouvernement ne commencent à prendre effet.
Starmer n’est pas le premier Premier ministre britannique à se rendre à une COP en promettant un « leadership climatique », ni le premier à promettre que la réduction des émissions et la dépendance aux énergies renouvelables mèneraient à la sécurité énergétique, à la prospérité et à des emplois. Il pourrait apprendre à ses dépens que si d’autres émetteurs, beaucoup plus importants, ne suivent pas son exemple, le coût politique pourrait être incalculable. Le bénéfice pour la planète, cependant, serait presque négligeable.
Les billets sont en vente pour Exposing Net Zero Myths le mercredi 27 novembre au UnHerd Club.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePoliticians did not fail to foresee this crisis. They decided that other objectives were more important and they quite deliberately chose this path. We should not accept the consequences of deliberate action being framed as an accident or miscalculation.
Politicians did not fail to foresee this crisis. They decided that other objectives were more important and they quite deliberately chose this path. We should not accept the consequences of deliberate action being framed as an accident or miscalculation.
The idea that experts wouldn’t foresee an annual event is laughable, and gives far too much benefit of the doubt. All of this is intentional.
The idea that experts wouldn’t foresee an annual event is laughable, and gives far too much benefit of the doubt. All of this is intentional.
Sadly, people of power and influence are not going to take this problem seriously until there really are power cuts, and people die in large numbers because of their ideological fantasies about “renewables” and zero carbon.
This site is quite the most interesting viewing especially when things get a bit sticky as they are at present. Each of the dials has an explanation box if you roll your pointer over it. Our plucky wind turbines are providing 3GW, which is better than the 1GW yesterday morning.
G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk)
That is the problem, as much as wind can produce a lot of energy, it does not do so reliably. Without some form of mass energy storage, wind is not much of a solution.
The least power from wind is always mid-winter and mid-summer. That is when the wind doesn’t blow. And when electricity demand is highest.
The least power from wind is always mid-winter and mid-summer. That is when the wind doesn’t blow. And when electricity demand is highest.
Yes Mick, I often look at that site and also this one –
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
which shows much the same information. I think it comes from the same source. I find it interesting to look at the amount of electricity we are importing and exporting. It’s quite often the case that we are importing and exporting at the same time. The other thing I’ve noticed is that over the last week 3 – 4% of our electricity has come from coal fired power stations. Usually that figure is much less than that and often zero. I assume the fact that we are burning coal is an indication that we are approaching a limit.
Last year maximum demand was 47.1 GW. The maximum demand this winter so far is 46.98 GW.
Yes Steve it can become a bit addictive at times like this – a few days still to go I think.
I also think you’re right about the limits especially in what the grid can handle – I think we’ll find some subsidies have been handed out to ensure the coal fired power stations (such as they are) have come on line.
As Andrew says above we need grid scale batteries that can store a couple of weeks supply – a very big ask, although policy seems to have been based on the assumption that they’re already here.
Yes Steve it can become a bit addictive at times like this – a few days still to go I think.
I also think you’re right about the limits especially in what the grid can handle – I think we’ll find some subsidies have been handed out to ensure the coal fired power stations (such as they are) have come on line.
As Andrew says above we need grid scale batteries that can store a couple of weeks supply – a very big ask, although policy seems to have been based on the assumption that they’re already here.
That is the problem, as much as wind can produce a lot of energy, it does not do so reliably. Without some form of mass energy storage, wind is not much of a solution.
Yes Mick, I often look at that site and also this one –
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
which shows much the same information. I think it comes from the same source. I find it interesting to look at the amount of electricity we are importing and exporting. It’s quite often the case that we are importing and exporting at the same time. The other thing I’ve noticed is that over the last week 3 – 4% of our electricity has come from coal fired power stations. Usually that figure is much less than that and often zero. I assume the fact that we are burning coal is an indication that we are approaching a limit.
Last year maximum demand was 47.1 GW. The maximum demand this winter so far is 46.98 GW.
This site is quite the most interesting viewing especially when things get a bit sticky as they are at present. Each of the dials has an explanation box if you roll your pointer over it. Our plucky wind turbines are providing 3GW, which is better than the 1GW yesterday morning.
G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk)
Sadly, people of power and influence are not going to take this problem seriously until there really are power cuts, and people die in large numbers because of their ideological fantasies about “renewables” and zero carbon.
Drax has restarted 2 coal powered plants. We should keep them in operation and open some more mothballed ones. We should start mining coal again in the UK and importing coal from trusted partners and run these power stations until the day comes that nuclear or fracking or energy storage for wind power has increased to the point that they can be safely decommissioned.
Time for the return of a government that doesn’t believe in fantasies.
Absolutely. I’d like to see some investment in thorium molten salt reactors, but that’s not likely to happen due to the high initial costs.
Safer, significantly reduced issues of disposing waste and with estimates of about 1000 years supply of the stuff, it surely ticks all the boxes. Other than cost.
Absolutely. I’d like to see some investment in thorium molten salt reactors, but that’s not likely to happen due to the high initial costs.
Safer, significantly reduced issues of disposing waste and with estimates of about 1000 years supply of the stuff, it surely ticks all the boxes. Other than cost.
Drax has restarted 2 coal powered plants. We should keep them in operation and open some more mothballed ones. We should start mining coal again in the UK and importing coal from trusted partners and run these power stations until the day comes that nuclear or fracking or energy storage for wind power has increased to the point that they can be safely decommissioned.
Time for the return of a government that doesn’t believe in fantasies.
I think we’re long past the point where we can expect any western govt to implement a logical and coherent energy policy. We can only hope energy shortages create minimal death and destruction before politicians figure it out.
If they haven’t figured it out yet then they never will. They are in hock to an ideology. They will see the light only when they start to lose their seats in serious numbers. Then they will pretend that it was nothing to do with them.
If they haven’t figured it out yet then they never will. They are in hock to an ideology. They will see the light only when they start to lose their seats in serious numbers. Then they will pretend that it was nothing to do with them.
I think we’re long past the point where we can expect any western govt to implement a logical and coherent energy policy. We can only hope energy shortages create minimal death and destruction before politicians figure it out.
Caught between a rock and a green place !
Caught between a rock and a green place !
There’s plenty of gas, only problem is that its buried underground in one form or another.
The sooner politicians get over the suicidal rush to greenwash themselves the better.
It’s more that the nord streams have been blown up and Europe has no Russian gas anymore to be honest. Lng is more expensive, has to shipped, has to be refined on delivery etc etc oil next, joy. This crisis is because of the sanctions on Russian energy, you can’t just replace that easily over night.
It’s more that the nord streams have been blown up and Europe has no Russian gas anymore to be honest. Lng is more expensive, has to shipped, has to be refined on delivery etc etc oil next, joy. This crisis is because of the sanctions on Russian energy, you can’t just replace that easily over night.
There’s plenty of gas, only problem is that its buried underground in one form or another.
The sooner politicians get over the suicidal rush to greenwash themselves the better.
The decision by Centrica to decommission it’s massive gas storage facility – called ROUGH and runs out under the North sea in Yorkshire, cannot be overlooked in this. This was a private sector decision to increase short term profit. I believe it’s now being re-commissioned, albeit cannot get back to what it did quickly and certainly not for this winter (but at least for the following). But someone closer may be able to confirm
Govt could probably have interjected and insisted this did not happen, but they were v happy for the free market to make it’s own decisions. National security and the potential for Putin to use Russia’s obvious leverage, esp when Londongrad was offering further advantages in Tory support, never came into it.
Yes. The political decision to allow it to be decommissioned was incomprehensible in terms of national security and the catastrophic effects if the domestic gas grid ever empties out.
The commercial decision by Centrica is also looking ropey- they would have made a fortune selling cheap stored gas into the present market. Perhaps they thought things never change (like the German bureaucrats smirking at Trump) or that they’d only be hit by a windfall tax if things got bad.
Yes MN. Do we know if any Centrica Board or Exec leads lost their job as a result of this decision? i.e: has there been a consequence. It’s fascinating how, given the energy crisis and it’s impact on folks this winter, that so little spotlight has been shone on this.
I doubt it JW. Anyway I hold the politicians(May’s government?) much more to blame than the Company – national fuel security is not really within their remit.
I doubt it JW. Anyway I hold the politicians(May’s government?) much more to blame than the Company – national fuel security is not really within their remit.
Yes MN. Do we know if any Centrica Board or Exec leads lost their job as a result of this decision? i.e: has there been a consequence. It’s fascinating how, given the energy crisis and it’s impact on folks this winter, that so little spotlight has been shone on this.
Yes. The political decision to allow it to be decommissioned was incomprehensible in terms of national security and the catastrophic effects if the domestic gas grid ever empties out.
The commercial decision by Centrica is also looking ropey- they would have made a fortune selling cheap stored gas into the present market. Perhaps they thought things never change (like the German bureaucrats smirking at Trump) or that they’d only be hit by a windfall tax if things got bad.
The decision by Centrica to decommission it’s massive gas storage facility – called ROUGH and runs out under the North sea in Yorkshire, cannot be overlooked in this. This was a private sector decision to increase short term profit. I believe it’s now being re-commissioned, albeit cannot get back to what it did quickly and certainly not for this winter (but at least for the following). But someone closer may be able to confirm
Govt could probably have interjected and insisted this did not happen, but they were v happy for the free market to make it’s own decisions. National security and the potential for Putin to use Russia’s obvious leverage, esp when Londongrad was offering further advantages in Tory support, never came into it.