The developed, rich world has been talking for three decades about curbing its addiction to imported oil. But despite all the rhetoric, the oil supply problem has become worse and energy security more complex. Over the past 30 years, the United States, “the policeman of the world”, has doubled its dependence on imported oil, notwithstanding the repeated calls from top ranking politicians to move towards energy independence.
Threats to cut oil supplies as a means to change a country’s foreign policy have a long history, particularly where the Middle East is concerned. Moreover, new dimensions of the problem of energy security have emerged recently. One of them is the great increase in energy demand from the rapidly growing economies of Asia, particularly China. Furthermore, countries including Russia and Venezuela are taking advantage of this ever more demanding situation and are using energy as one of their main foreign policy tools. Many of the State-owned companies in both countries are not responding merely to market forces but are using their newly found pricing power for political purposes.
Finally, the energy security problem has been complicated by the problem of global climate change. Science has made it increasingly clear that climate change is now a major political issue at both global and national levels. The most recent confirmation of this is the Nobel Peace Prize given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Rising sea levels are threatening the existence of low-lying islands like the Maldives; drought in Africa is increasing political, economic and social problems since some lakes are already drying up. In addition, hurricanes in the Caribbean and typhoons in the Indian Ocean are becoming the norm; the deadly Hurricane Katrina that left a trail of devastation is a case in point. All these pose a new type of threat that must be taken seriously. Measures to deal with energy security must address the demand side even more than the supply side.
Some legislators favour the transformation of coal into liquids, or to secure supplies, but this would create more carbon dioxide emissions than oil itself. I dare say that this should be avoided until technologies for clear coal or carbon capture are perfected. On the other hand, reducing demand through improved energy efficiency and conservation measures are beneficial for both the security of supplies and the global climate.
The way forward is to encourage alternative sources of energy. In fact, all around Europe some effort is being made. In Britain, Gordon Brown has proposed building five new eco-towns with 100,000 new environmentally friendly homes. This already exists in BedZED, on the outskirts of London. Energy for eco-homes should come from renewable sources and wherever possible is generated on the buildings themselves or the site. BedZED is powered by a small-scale combined heat and power plant (CHP), fed by off-cuts of wood from tree surgery that would otherwise have ended up in a landfill. This is a community-scale solution, but individual houses can also make a difference.
In Germany the use of photovoltaic cells and solar panels in individual houses is becoming the norm to generate electricity in the home. This is also popular in the UK. What I can’t understand is that, considering the amount of sun light in the UK or Germany and that of Malta, it’s crystal clear that this system is 100 per cent efficient but we are not making use of it.
From the local perspective, the Prime Minister said that he’s really worried about the price of oil and I agree with him. However, what kind of initiatives we are taking to reduce the demand for oil? The government, whoever will be in power, must subsidise a good percentage of solar panels, photovoltaic cells and must give incentives to those who are making an effort to create a greener house. A very good example is Palazzo Falson, which runs on alternative sources of energy.
Last week the EU said legal action will be taken against those countries that had not submitted their energy strategic plan. Unfortunately, Malta is one of them. What impressed me was Tonio Fenech’s statement on the fuel liberalisation infringement during the Xarabank programme discussing the budget, “When there are infringements, then we’ll see.” On the same programme, AD candidate Arnold Cassola warned that another infringement was on the cards as the Maltese government had subsidized a number of buses manufactured in China, since China is one of the worst polluters in the world. I totally agree with Cassola’s reference to hydrogen cars that are being used in Europe and are efficient as well. Why don’t we go for alternatives like that rather than playing with surcharge rates? Why don’t we do our utmost to improve our transport system so that citizens are encouraged to use public transport, and public transport will not be just buses. I think Anglu Xuereb’s master plan has some if not all the answers to this.
Not to sound anti-government by undermining its efforts, I must say that the subsidy given to those buying an electric car is a good idea. We must redouble our efforts to reduce the energy problem. We must address this problem by giving incentives to those that are environmentally friendly rather than increasing the surcharge that affects everybody.
bjornazz@hotmail.com
