energy security or 'energy transition'
oh, my
Tomorrow I will facilitate the inaugural subscribers’ chat beginning at noon eastern on the topics readers want to pursue; it will be open-ended and driven by those participating. I so welcome hearing from others—so don’t be shy!
If you are not a subscriber, please consider a monthly ($5), yearly ($55) or founder’s ($80) commitment to Actions Create Consequences in order to participate more fully and support this effort at civil, measured conversation on trials, tribulations, politix, and gratitude. Establishing that subscription is available on this column’s home page.
The National Bureau of Asian Research, the bicoastal policy-oriented organisation located in Seattle and in the nation’s capital, held another most relevant conversation this week on energy. I chaired a panel at NBR’s August Pacific Energy Summit focusing on the ‘Energy Transition’ in Asia—moving from fossil fuels to more sustainable and environmentally supportive sources—but this week’s session hit squarely on a new report ‘The Revenge of Energy Security: Reconciling Asia’s Economic Security with Climate Ambitions’.
The chapters all point to Asia more desperately seeking economic growth and opportunity while simultaneously fearing an ‘energy trap’—my term—because of the growing intricacies of international ties. If it weren’t such a vitally important challenge, it would be simply a fascinating one as we see Beijing, New Delhi, and Seoul (along with all of the remainder of the region) struggle to prioritise energy against trade and security dangers and opportunities. The revenge of the energy security problem is, however, quite real.
This all sounds perfectly normal for the contemporary world but two factors raise the urgency of determining priorities and actions. The first is the ever growing acceptance around the world, the United States a somewhat awkward outlier, of the immediacy climate damage is imposing. The dreadful, merciless drought and heat plaguing the southern tier of the United States this past year, compared with two comparable and devastating years across most of the People’s Republic of China, are not the only evidence of the effects of climate deterioration.
Rising salt water around the rim of the Pacific, particularly relevant for those island nations in the center of the second factor—Beijing’s and Washington’s struggle for state’s to choose allegiance—is rising faster than poor countries can find resources, much less solutions, to address. Food production similarly responds poorly to increased temperatures and decreased rainfall; clearly water in and of itself is a blessing and a curse. Food security is woven into fears of unending environmental onslaughts that will undermine life in entire parts of the world least able to pay for remediation. Where to begin in response? But what about adequate and accessible energy supplies, much less environmentally friendly ones?
The session yesterday reminded all of us how intricate the processes of strategy-making are, particularly as governments around the world attempt to satisfy domestic constituents while thwarting increased external threats. Why does this matter to us?
Because many, if not most heads of state, ultimately choose to renege their climate commitments because other pressing concerns—often creating sufficient jobs— scarf up the funds that the ‘energy transition’ and climate good intentions require. Climate activists in their pink tee shirts were held by Capitol security as they all discussed something—we can guess what—outside an adjacent House of Representatives hearing, reminding me that those who want to elevate climate to the primary international security risk exist in the United States but are rarely seen as helping in the decision-making debates.
As Asian security fears increase, spurring defense expenditures, climate deterioration hits the reality of countries choosing security over climate. This report reminds us that energy security similarly factors into this racking and stacking because sometimes the traditional security for one nation is a substantial threat to another. U.S. priorities on energy may not align as neatly with everyone else anymore than China’s choices do but this overall challenge nags at all of us in the Indo-Pacific. Pity those anxious that crossing either the United States or the PRC could undermine their energy and/or security independence. But even the process of becoming allies and partners with Washington (since Beijing has only North Korea and Russia as allies) increases risks since unstated assumptions of about how far those relationships extend on some of the policy questions are dangerously unexplored.
And every single aspect of the ‘energy transition’ is fabulously expensive. Energy independence through liquified natural gas might be a noble and seemingly logical step but it requires massie infrastructure to deliver the resource. That is simply one example of why this is so hard even if it would achieve the goal in a perfect world.
Americans fancy we would never use energy against any other nation except our adversaries during conflict. Asians appear less confident after nationalist harangues here increasingly critical of value of our foreign commitments. The resulting drive for energy security becomes ever more daunting as one more massive investment in a world where Washington is not really a reliable ally or partner.
The panel discussing the new report offered one especially small but rich reminder . Dr. Michael Kugelman of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars pointed out that among the reasons for India’s now appalling air pollution is the volume of centuries’-long tradition of burning fields, obviously to renew the soil for the future. Struggling by any measure to bring its world-largest population fully into the twenty-first century, neither the Modi nor any other government in Delhi likely will take on this sort of behaviour when confronting so many issues that could severely retard India’s future. An extremely small reminder that actions genuinely create consequences large and enduring. Governments respond to needs in different ways, often decidedly less to our liking.
I recommend the report as offering some pointed policy suggestions, as NBR seeks to posit practical responses to challenges. on options. This relatively brief report cautions us seemingly ‘past’ problems have a tendency to return to the mix all too often.
Late afternoon in Annapolis the bluish clouds of weather transition fill our sky. Early this morning, the hue was a more decided mauve.
I look forward to your thoughts on this column and the ‘energy transition’ problem. I know some of you have strong views so bring it on! I appreciate those who want to circulate this as well. Regardless of your reactions, I thank you for your time.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Erica Downs, Vandana Hari, Meredith Miller, Jennifer F. Sklarew and Rahu Tongia, ‘The Revenge of Energy Security: Reconciling Asia’s Economic Security with Climate Ambitions’, NBR Special Report 105, Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Asian Research, November 2023, retrieved at https://www.nbr.org/publication/the-revenge-of-energy-security-reconciling-asias-economic-security-with-climate-ambitions/