Hydrocarbons, poverty lift, and the poor want air quality too.

Two worlds?

It seems true that when it comes to fossil fuel combustion, there is currently a world of two halves. 

There is a rich world, OECD nation driven, where the populace and its embedded investors are highly focussed on emissions reduction. That can, for the sake of argument, include energy efficiency improvements, reduced & clever energy use, carbon capture, nuclear energy, and greater use of renewable energy sources for heating, cooling, and electrical power. 

Then there is another world of countries where emphasis is on a lift from poverty, and an across-the-board increase in prosperity to the population. For these countries a big part of the lift from poverty is greater and more reliable energy supply. Many of these countries have access to coal and hydrocarbons, and the fastest route out of poverty, at first glance (for all the caveats) often appears to be via fossil fuels.

This leads to an apparent dichotomy – with the one half saying the wellbeing of the whole world depends on a reduction in emissions and a reduction in fossil-fuel-based combustion, and with the other half saying something like: – “…hearing you, but our priority is to get what you have already – a lift out of energy poverty and it’s wrong of you to deny us that.”

Stalemate

So, what to do?

Well, first up, an admission perhaps that both camps are right. Emissions reduction is a global problem affecting everyone and mitigation can’t be achieved by the efforts of any one region alone. Global poverty lift, likewise, is of paramount importance too, and impossible, immoral, to ignore.

As an aside, to get it out of the way up front, let's clarify that hydrocarbons are not just fossil fuels for combustion. They have other manifold chemical feedstock uses that will remain in demand for the foreseeable future – but let’s park that for now.

The hydrocarbon industry itself is of course quite vocal on this "two worlds" issue. It not incorrectly proclaims – "Look, whatever happens in North America and Europe, the economies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, COVID or no COVID, are hydrocarbon hungry and that is going to drive increasing demand there. Where these countries have this resource, or access to it through allies, they will want to use it.”

OK, so kind of a stalemate then. 

China, India, and those watching them…

What I would like to do at this point is stand back a bit and focus on two countries – China and India. Big countries, influential countries. Together they account for over a third of the world’s population (36%). They are each at various stages of development, and this varies enormously regionally within each of them too. They are, however, I would argue, steadily lifting themselves out of historical poverty shackles and each has an increasingly huge “middle class” with income-spend at its disposal.  

While every country globally is different, whatever works energy-wise in these two huge countries, it is likely that other countries will emulate. Any “solutions” that can’t be applied in these two countries, are also likewise, unlikely to be “solutions” for the world. It has to work here, for it to work at all. Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, DR Congo, Egypt, Iran, Philippines, Turkey are amongst other big (>1% of world pop, ~ 80 million) countries at various stages of development, that will be looking to them. Not necessarily copying them blindly but looking to see what works there. Indeed, all of us will be.

China and India for now remain hungrily dependent on fossil fuels, and the hydrocarbon industry is not wrong to point this out. The point, however, is that both countries recognise this as a problem. It is plainly visible for all to see. The air quality problems which dog the Ganges Basin and northern China, affecting at least a billion people regularly – are impossible for any citizens, from the poorest to the richest, the humblest to the greatest, to ignore. These problems overwhelmingly stem from fossil fuel combustion, and so anything which can help replace it will help this issue.

No easy routes or trite answers

China seems the most advanced and vocal of the two in thinking about this. A feature of its population’s increased prosperity is a greater demand for private, and business vehicles. Road and rail and power grid infrastructure has increased enormously. Recent steers towards electric vehicles have been toned down as it was realised that for so much of the power supply to still be dependent on fossil fuel power stations, means that the scale of huge new demand in EV’s would also result in large rises in combustion related emissions. As a result, more recent steers have been more pragmatic and included hybrid vehicles in the brief. 

The inner thinking of the Chinese leadership is always somewhat opaque, and no-one is pretending sainthood is imminent, to say the least. However, on some things perhaps we can take them at face value. We can’t know, but maybe. Hints of late from leading academics who have historically been in alignment with the leadership, look more fundamentally at the issue and draw the conclusion that a radical twin-track strategy of nuclear and renewables is required to impact the fossil fuel dependence. Significantly this isn’t an immediate assault proposed, but a staggered, incremental shift, aiming at 2060. Recent investments in nuclear including nuclear fuel deals with Kazakhstan - the world's largest uranium supplier, and huge scale renewables projects - wind, solar, and hydro - appear to bear this out at least to some degree.

Some might argue this is merely lip-service for international consumption. There is certainly no real indication that China is prepared to sacrifice economic growth for this end, and so for now fossil fuel consumption increases. That, however, is not the same as believing they are not sincerely looking for alternatives. It may instead be a pragmatic recognition that change will take time. The commitment to change could well be serious. 

South and East Asia CO 4th Dec 2020 - combustion derived

South and East Asia PM2.5 particulates, 4th Dec 2020 - predominantly combustion derived

Our air – up close and personal

The www.nullschool.net maps of particulates and COx (i.e. CO and CO2) emissions are available for all to see. If you live in the middle of the worst bits, you will be asking yourself how it can be improved. The scale of the air quality issue in China is such that it seems likely they are serious about improving it.  The domestic wellbeing of Chinese citizens - for all the chequers on that track record, I suspect is of far more importance to Beijing than any overseas propaganda victory. No regime, even a totalitarian one, can get away with ignoring the health of a large proportion of its population indefinitely.

A stated desire to move to twin track renewables and nuclear may therefore have a ring of truth to it. Less smoke and mirrors for international consumption and a real policy for domestic self-preservation. Can it be done? No option is without problems and costs. We shall see, but if it is achieved, many countries will be interested in emulating any success, and China is likely to be willing to help.

In India the water, much like the sediment-laden Ganges, is somewhat muddier. The Ganges Basin smogs, especially in the middle of heat waves as happened last year, are thick enough and toxic enough to rival anything in northern China. Yet they too are looking seriously at all the options - including nuclear, and vast expansions in infrastructure and power grid.

Poverty trumps air? Does it? Will it?

We can look to the poor in such countries and say – look, the priority, now, for them, is not emissions, it is a lift from poverty. If forced to choose the preference would be that paradigm change in standard of living. Perhaps this is true, but we need to be careful that we know they are saying that rather than just presuming it. It is probably true, and if that is the choice they make, then far be it from us to argue. 

However, the poor want good air quality too. 

We need to avoid that patronisation where we assume they are not interested in that because they are poor. If forced to choose between a lift from poverty and reduced emissions they may well choose the former over the latter, but is there really any premise, any basis, for us forcing a choice between these two things? If there are alternatives which allow both, surely, they would want those wouldn’t they? Of course. 

Time

So, the question now stands – are there alternatives that can provide both?

In addressing that question, there is inevitably one more element that has to be introduced, and one which is a key focus of this article – the element of time. In a nutshell, maybe there aren’t alternatives that can provide both straight away, now – but maybe later.

There may be things that can be done immediately, but in many cases in the poorest economies, it may be a case of holding onto hydrocarbons for a bit longer while other options are evaluated. Denying that opportunity for an immediate lift from poverty to comfortable existence, would be churlish. At the same time, believing that this will be an indefinitely acceptable solution in light of the local air quality issues, never mind climate change, would be to deny those recently lifted from poverty, an aspiration we already insist upon ourselves.

The message here is that if fossil-fuels have to be endured a bit longer there, albeit with improvements - coal power moving more to gas, and increased looks at local carbon capture, then so be it, if it eradicates energy poverty. The demand required to achieve this if "done smart", need not compare with rich country consumption.

In the meantime though, don’t assume this is a status-quo that will remain. The global emissions problem and the local air quality issues will not go away, and as populations emerge from poverty, they too will be ever more loudly insisting on such threats being addressed. The signals from India and China are aligned with this perception. Even if what is happening practically now is just scratching the surface, the level of high level “chatter” on how to tackle it is significant, and driven not by international pressures, but by these domestic issues.

It is perhaps harder to extrapolate these signals to other places, but there seems little doubt those places will be very interested in how China and India evolve. 

Peak hydrocarbons versus peak attitude

A lot of people are investing a lot of time right now in discussing whether peak oil has happened, will happen shortly, or is decades off. To my mind, that is almost a bit of distraction. We have seen the vast majority of Europe take a decision to move away from hydrocarbons – at least philosophically - but increasingly in real terms too. We are seeing North America slowly turning that way, in fits and starts. Witness Denmark this week putting a definite schedule to the end of indigenous oil and gas. Rich countries are starting to walk the talk, even if it is the easier, smaller producing ones taking the plunge first.

Hydrocarbons have been a feature of our energy stage for one and a half centuries. Whether peak oil is now, next decade, three decades from now, seems to me immaterial in the bigger scheme of things. The recognition of the air-quality issue and climate-change is now vocally recognised at high level in Europe, North America, China and India. In terms of global hydrocarbon demand, that is, I suspect, a quorum. How long the decline takes to arrive is one thing, but the acceptance that it is desirable – that does seem here now, and here to stay. 

Regionally staggered paces of change

We have, I would suggest, an obligation to the poor of this world to facilitate an elevation from the drudgery of poverty. We cannot deprive them of hydrocarbons which facilitate that while guzzling our own greedily from economic pedestals that have been firmly built on fossil fuel foundations for over a century. If there is an onus to reduce emissions, it is on “rich” nations first. We have many inches around our waists to pinch. 

At the same time however, it is folly to believe that what citizens of Europe and North America and East Asian democracies are increasingly insisting on – emissions reduction and clean air even in our megacities – Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Paris – that this is not also something the citizens of other nations will also call for, especially in the megacities that will become a growing feature of their landscapes.   They may deserve a lift out of poverty first, but they deserve and want clean air too.  Their leaders “get” this, or if they haven’t, soon will.

In many ways, poorer countries could have the benefit of "latecomer's advantage" - as per the mobile phone banking revolution. An ability to think about new fresh and different energy infrastructures or approaches, in a way that is harder and involves more "undoing" for "energy matured" countries. New innovations in 2020 abound, and the need to resort to the ways things have always been done is less, especially where infrastructure is being started from a low base. These countries could ultimately be the leaders, not the followers, in the energy transition.

The lungs of children

I head this article with a picture of Cairo, and the pyramids of Giza struggling to penetrate the smog. Quite fortuitously this brought to mind the ancient story of the stubborn Pharaoh and the plagues of Egypt. In this story, all manner of terrible plagues were endured by the Pharaonic Palace with cold-hearted sangfroid rather than sacrifice the mainstay of their economy (slave-labour). Only when the first-born in the corridors of the palace itself perished, did a change of heart finally come about and the slaves were released.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but I suspect peak hydrocarbons will not come about because of some altruistic effort by humanity to battle climate change. Sea level rise, more intense storms, melting ice caps, droughts, forest fires, they can too easily all seem far away and someone else’s problem for a majority. Others have made this point eloquently. For all the data, for all the science, the energy juggernaut in most of the globe trundles on with relatively little real meaningful change, as yet.

The respiratory and other health problems arising from breathing toxic air in the world’s megacity capitals is different to these “far away” problems – it is something that cannot be escaped in the presidential palaces, not by them, and not by their families, or those of their friends, colleagues and investors. As that toll becomes clearer, then the costs of carbon pricing and energy efficiency and energy use reduction may finally be deemed worth it, with unilateral measures adopted for domestic consumption and benefit, not externally imposed ones for international appeasement. 

It would be better for everyone if it didn’t have to wait till then. We shall see. Change will not be trivial and it will not be instant, but it is not impossible - at the every least to get things a lot better than what they are now. 

The photo album

The photos provided with the remainder of this article show what some of the existing [mostly] non-OECD megacities look like now, when the atmosphere conspires to trap their air around them. To be clear, this collection of images shows these cities at their smoggy worst. I make no apologies for biasing the collection this way – these days are a revelation of what these cites pump-out routinely. Normally it is diluted away by the breeze or stronger wind, but when these cities have to sit in their own (predominantly combustion incurred) pollution, this is what it looks like. It is the atmosphere saying, no, the flush-toilet is off limits, you have to wear a nappy for a day or more and operate in your own waste. Do-able for a time, but not so comfortable, and a recipe for hygiene disaster long term. The atmosphere's ability to change our nappies is diminishing.

We can take a long, hard, look at these photos, and ask ourselves, even if I was really poor – would I consider this air-quality situation acceptable?  Would it impact me? It might not be the worst problem you had on any one day, but that is not the question being asked. If we can look in our own megacities of Europe and North America, and insist on better air – why should we expect anything less anywhere else? Especially as prosperity increases in Afrasian and LatAm megacities, and vehicles increase concomitantly.  

The replacement of hydrocarbons in these places might not have happened yet. It might take some time and ingenuity for it to arrive. We should not however, underestimate the will to do so. Toxic-soup is nobody’s flavour of the month, nobody's menu of choice. Even if we can put up with it ourselves, we do not want it for our kids. Change is in the air.

The view from Delhi

The view from other parts of India

The view from Beijing

The view from other parts of China

The view from Latin America

The view from the Middle East and North Africa

The view from Africa

The view from some other areas of Asia

The view from more areas of Asia