3 things on the environment you probably get wrong …. and one that will surprise you

“It’s complicated” is a 21st-century cliché. Like most clichés, though, it has become common currency because there is a large degree of truth to it—and nowhere more so than when it comes to the future of energy and the environment.  Therefore, simplicities like “drill, baby, drill” or “100 percent renewable energy … within 10 years”—two statements uttered by 21st century American politicians—miss the point.

Here are a few bits of conventional wisdom that illustrate why these issues are considerably more complicated than you might think. But they are also more interesting, and in some ways more hopeful.

1. Germany is cutting greenhouse-gas emissions faster than the United States.

Nope. It is true that under the policy known as the “Energiewende,” Germany is making a huge, and expensive effort, to shift away from fossil fuels and toward the use of renewables. The country has spent an estimated  $222 billion since 2000 to subsidize the production and use of renewables. And it’s true that this has worked; renewables (wind, hydro, biomass, and solar) now account for 29 percent of production, about five times as much as in 2000.

So why is it that Germany’s greenhouse-gas emissions have barely budged since 2009, and risen since 2014, even as the cost of power has doubled over that period? Blame the tsunami-earthquake in 2011 that devastated Fukushima in Japan and closed its nuclear-power plant. In the wake of Fukushima, Germany decided to close all its own nuclear plants by 2022. In 2011, Germany got 23 percent of its power from nuclear; now that figure is down to 13 percent. That matters because German consumers and businesses need to be able to turn on the lights at will. Wind and solar cannot do that at the moment, although as storage gets less expensive, it may become possible. In the meantime, there needs to be a source of baseload power. Nuclear power plants can run 24/7 with no emissions; with those closing, the slack has been picked up by coal plants. In particular, Germany uses a good deal of hard coal (17.2 percent of power production) and lignite coal (23.1 percent); the latter is particularly dirty. In effect, Germany has replaced no-emissions nuclear with high-emissions coal. Seven of Europe’s top 10 polluters are German lignite plants. Thus, the strange combination of lots more renewables and no emissions reductions.

In the United States, meanwhile, emissions fell 1.7 percent in 2016, and is down 11 percent since 2008. That performance is chiefly due to the displacement of coal by another fossil fuel, natural gas, which is about half as emissions-intensive.

Germany is still much more energy-efficient than the United States, where emissions per capita were about 85 percent higher. Still, the differing emissions trajectory of the two countries illustrates that there is more than one way to address climate change, and that good intentions and lots of subsidies are not enough.

2. Renewables are too expensive for poor countries.

Wrong again. In 2015, developing countries actually invested more in renewables than rich ones. In 2016, it was slightly less, but it is the overall trajectory that matters. A decade ago, rich countries invested almost three times as much ($29 billion, compared to $83 billion) as poorer ones; over the past three years, they are basically even. Almost half of renewable capacity is in developing countries. Moreover, according to a forthcoming McKinsey survey of more than 2,400 business people, half of companies in China and India are already using renewables for at least part of their operations, the highest percentages in the world.

The reasons are not difficult to discern. The costs of renewables have declined sharply, making them more competitive; meanwhile, public pressure to reduce urban pollution has been growing. Earlier this month, Delhi’s chief minister referred to the city’s smoggy air (see picture above) as a “gas chamber” and United suspended flights to the capital. Moreover, building a grid is difficult and expensive; on-the-spot solar cannot provide power all the time, but it is a whole lot better than nothing. Bangladesh, for example, is a major market for solar home systems. Indeed, while India is not eschewing coal, it has cancelled several new plants in favor of renewables, which are emerging as a core part of its economic development and industrial strategy. While China accounts for the largest single share of renewable investment, what is striking is how broad-based this has become: Morocco, Uruguay, the Philippines, Pakistan and Honduras all invested at least $500 million in renewables in 2015.  

3. Big energy companies hate regulation.

Granted, this assertion is not as empirical as the previous ones. Granted, too, that their regulatory agenda is likely different from that of, say, Greenpeace. But the more important point is that there is common ground, too.

 Take methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas. A compound that is composed of one carbon and four hydrogen atoms, methane is also a potent greenhouse gas—84 times more than carbon dioxide—that can be released by fracking. Indeed, the more methane that is leaked, the less green natural gas is. Critics of fracking often point to this as a reason for their opposition, and there are proven, not very expensive ways to plug the leaks.

That is why in 2014, three oil companies—Anadarko, Noble Energy, and Ancana—worked with the state of Colorado and the Environmental Defense Fund to devise methane regulations that would allow them to drill, while reducing methane leakage. Already, leaks are down 75 percent and recoveries are up; in a 2016 survey of oil-and-gas executives in Colorado, seven out of 10 said that the benefits of the methane regulations outweighed the costs. At the same time, the effectiveness of the rules has muted the opposition to fracking in the state.  For similar reasons, Ohio and Pennsylvania, again with industry backing, are also making methane regulation a priority; North Dakota has worked with the industry to cut flaring by a third even as production has increased. The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative is working with the UN and EDF to create global standards on methane. I could point to similarly useful industry-regulatory efforts regarding pipelines and rail transport.

On climate change, a number of major oil companies, including BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total have publicly endorsed the idea of a price on carbon. As others (and I) have argued, this is likely the most economically efficient and effective way to de-carbonize the power supply. So why would these big oil companies  be in favor of it? Because they accept that climate-related regulation is a fact of life, and see a carbon price as a long-term approach that is more market-driven than the alternatives.

And that’s the point. While no doubt there are some fossil-fuel executives with ideas of government that are, well, fossilized, I have spent my working life in the industry, and while these voices are loud, they are the minority. . What big energy companies  don’t like are regulations that keep changing, or that are counterproductive, or that fail a cost-benefit analysis. As Robin Rorick of the American Petroleum Institute put it to Congress earlier this year—“pleaded” might be the better word—“the impacts of large regulatory and policy swings that can occur with changing political landscapes can create angst and hesitation on the part of gas and liquid pipeline operators to make longer term investments.”

4. Heart disease and AIDS are the world’s biggest killers.

 In what may be the first global study of mortality and pollution, new research published in the Lancet found that diseases related to air and water pollution(as distinct from the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with climate change) accounted for 9 million premature deaths in 2015, or 16 percent of all deaths worldwide. That’s more than heart disease (the number one global killer), according to the World Health Organization, and three times more than tuberculosis (6th), AIDS (7th), and malaria—combined.

These numbers are enormous—and a sobering reminder of why it’s important to bring light and clarity—and not just heat and anger—to discussions about the future of energy.