Country Scorecard - Countries at a glance

Economology - Ecology is long-term economy (2)

As above mentioned British Petrol is an example of thinking long-term. BP is the positive highlight in the mineral oil sector. The field “gas, power and renewables” had a turnover of 39,442 million USD in 2001 and engaged 4,200 employees. BP is a global solar leader, accounting for nearly one fifth of the world solar market. They use their own products to provide renewable energy at their service stations, plants and offices, making them the single largest user of solar energy in the world.

Their position to the greenhouse effect: (Source: BP)

“The possibility of global climate change causes genuine public concern. We share this concern. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are increasing and the balance of informed opinion is that this increase could lead to changes of the earth's climate. Uncertainty persists about not only the magnitude and timing of any changes but also the consequences.
Many countries are acting, or are preparing to take action, on climate change. BP believes that industry worldwide should co-operate with governments and others in seeking economically sound and internationally agreed solutions. For the oil and gas industry climate change has become a dominant issue of public policy.
We think this debate is too important to ignore. BP is but one company and any sole action taken is likely to have a limited effect on the pace of change of the planet's climate. We supply just 1.5% of the world's energy and around 3% of the world's oil and gas. If other companies inside and outside the energy industry committed themselves to action, then we believe, significant progress could be made.
We have demonstrated through our performance in meeting our target to reduce our operational GHG (i.e. greenhouse-gases) emissions by 10% at no net cost, that it is possible for industry to take precautionary actions.
By achieving our operational target involving all of our operations worldwide, we have learned a lot over the past 4 years. Our position to date has focussed on achieving emissions reductions in our own operations. This action does not address the emissions from the oil and gas products that we sell to our customers. These emissions are roughly ten times higher than those of our operations.
We therefore now intend to broaden our position to take the impact of our products into greater account. It is our intent to grow our business to provide cleaner, more efficient products, including hydrogen fuels and renewable energy. In doing so, we need to take account of the emissions which result from both our operations and from the use of our products.

BP aims to seek solutions to the climate change challenge in five main areas.

• Reducing the climate impact of our operations and pro-ducts
• Promoting flexible market instruments
• Working with others to accelerate new energy technologies
• Participating in the policy processes
• Investing in research

The development of energy supplies from renewable sources, such as the sun and wind, is seen as a key route to reduce this dependency and provide access to sustainable energy resources in the long run.
We believe gas, which results in lower carbon dioxide emis-sions, will be the transitional fuel for several decades while re-newable energy technology is being further developed.”

In my opinion BP has recognized the signs of the time. They think long-term and save the environment as a kind of by-product. I believe that all mineral oil companies should follow this example.

2.1.4 Effects

There are huge losses in the economy as a whole. Contemplate catastrophes like the flood in 2002 in Middle Europe or storms in the USA.
The connection between human development and global warming has led to worldwide measures to reduce carbon emissions, in particular the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Despite the uncertainty surrounding climate change, governments and businesses are being urged to take a precautionary stance because, if the worst-case scenarios came true, the cost of coping with its effects could be extremely high.

The chart below shows the number of big worldwide catastrophes in the last five decades. They more than trippled in the last four decades.


(Graph not available in online-edition)

Moreover, the losses in economy as a whole multiplied by nine (taking the inflation rate into account) in the last four decades.


(Graph not available in online-edition)

According to this data we are looking in a horrible future. The trend is extremely bad for us, as you can see in the following chart. Altogether only a little part is insured.

(Graph not available in online-edition)

These three charts refer to so called “big” natural catastrophes. All other elemental losses - of which MunichRe registers 600 to 700 annually - are not included. These losses approximately double the total volume of losses. This increase is predominantly due to an increasing concentration in mega cities. Industrialization, rising standard of living, increasing population and susceptibility of modern society and technology are other reasons. Another reason which we should not underestimate is climate change.
The expected increase of the average temperature leads to an extraordinary rise of probability of maximum temperatures. Berlin is one example: The maximum temperature in this century was 39 °C. At the end of the 21st century we have a nine times higher probability to pass this mark.
With the “business-as-usual” scenario, that is an annual in-crease of GHG emissions by 1 per cent, the world warms about 1.4 to 5.8 °C till 2030. By stabilizing emissions the world warms approximately 0.2 °C per decade. When confining only to the most necessary the world warms roughly 0.13 °C per decade.
Decisive in all these scenarios is that the rise of global warming in the 21st century would be higher than ever before in 10,000 years.
The consequences of global warming are not easy to foresee. What will happen with the sea level? Will climate zones shift? Will there be more catastrophes, etc.?
A study calculated the costs of an increase of the sea level. An increase of only 1 metre would cause costs of 488 billion USD only for saving the coasts.
The geo-scientists of MunichRe say that above all the number of storms and floods will increase due to global warming.

2.1.5 Solutions

In February 2000 the Deutsche Bundestag founded the Enquete-committee. This committee is nearly unknown and is in the shade of the famous ones like the Hartz-, Süßmuth- or Rürüp-committee. The task was creating long-term energy strategies with the aim to cut national greenhouse-emissions till 2050 by 80 per cent.

The outcomes were 3 strategies:

1. fossil energy plus energy saving
2. renewable energy plus energy saving
3. nuclear extension

With all theses strategies the aim could be reached, but they are not all as good as the other. Problematic in strategy 1 is the storing of CO2, because calculating the costs for that is not possible. Strategy 3 means to build 50 to 70 new nuclear power plants in Germany, which includes many risks. Strategy 2 would be the best.
An advantage would be the prevention of conflicts because of resources.

The following chart compares the actual value and the potential of regenerative energy in Germany. Except water power all others (wind, photovoltaic and bio-substances) are extremely underdeveloped. All four have a potential of 135 TWh/a.


(Graph not available in online-edition)

We should introduce regenerative energy in all places where it is economic.
The best solution, however, is energy saving. Consider the ex-ample in the introduction, how much energy could be saved by operating a switch.
In addition, researches in the development of cold-fusion (melting of hydrogen, process which takes place in the sun) should be intensified.
It is important to save fossil energy, because we need them more as chemical raw materials than for energy production.

Due to increased catastrophes a compulsory insurance against elemental losses would be an advantage. This would give incentives to set preventive measures, because these would reduce the premium. Furthermore political pressure for better preventive measures would increase in high-risk areas.

In future we should do business sustainably. That means to create less waste in production and consumption which take synchronized care of resources. Sustainability means to use up not more non-regenerative resources than we can compensate with regenerative resources. It means to reduce emissions of pollutants and deposit of waste that they can be broken down naturally.
Never put out of your mind that we cultivate the environment and make use of the earth, but simultaneously we are part of nature and remain - despite all science and technology - de-pendent on it.
 

The paper can also be ordered as pdf-file for just 5€, just contact me.

Home - Sitemap - Contact
© Hannes Mungenast. All rights reserved. Before copying material refer to Legal Notice.