Essay by Eric Worrall
Level of dependence on Russian Gas was not a report metric – but if it was a metric, the order of top places would probably have been much the same.
The Green Future Index 2022
…
The Green Future Index 2022 is the second annual comparative ranking of 76 nations and territories on their ability to develop a sustainable, low-carbon future for their economies and societies. In this year’s ranking, we have found that many countries may not be maintaining the rate of change first brought about by pandemic-related slowdowns and lockdowns. Moreover, faced with uncertainty as the pandemic drags on, many have reverted to old carbon-intensive habits to recharge theireconomies.Yet,therehasalsobeenanincredible ramp-up in the investment in renewable energy (accounting for more than 70% of all new power generation in 2021) and many of the world’s leading nations—including some of its largest polluters— committed to firm dates to achieve carbon neutrality. Our collective efforts to establish a green future are inexorably (if perhaps more moderately than hoped for) gathering momentum.
The key findings of this year’s report are as follows:
In this year’s index, many countries are not maintaining the rate of change first brought about by pandemic- related slowdowns and lockdowns. Faced with uncertainty as covid-19 drags on, many have reverted to old carbon-intensive habits to recharge their economies. Yet, there has also been an incredible ramp-up in the investment in renewable energy, which accounted for more than 70% of all new power generation in 2021.
• Europe’s green leadership maintained for a second year. In the 2022 rankings, 14 of the top 20 scorers have remained largely in place this year. Sixteen of the Green Leaders are from Europe: Iceland and Denmark still hold the number one and two spots, and third and fourth places are now held by the Netherlands and
• New leaders are innovators. New entrants to the top-ranked cohort represent an additional cluster
of European economies, as well as South Korea, Japan, and the United States; all three have seen significant rises in their innovation scores thanks to their world-beating green intellectual property contributions (South Korea leads the world in green patents) and notable increases in pivoting infrastructure spending toward clean and green projects.In this year’s index, many countries are not maintaining the rate of change first brought about by pandemic- related slowdowns and lockdowns. Faced with uncertainty as covid-19 drags on, many have reverted to old carbon-intensive habits to recharge their economies. Yet, there has also been an incredible ramp-up in the investment in renewable energy, which accounted for more than 70% of all new power generation in 2021.
…
… as 2021 unfolded, several signals indicated that, instead of heeding the wake-up calls and seizing the opportunities revealed by the pandemic, the world had collectively hit the snooze button. For one, a world desperate to get back on track economically quickly resumed “normal” modes of manufacturing and production. China, still the world’s factory, saw its export values surge over 20% in 2021. And while China continues to lead the world in clean energy development and has committed to phase out coal-fired power generation as part of its 2060 carbon neutrality pledge, the manufacturing giant’s energy needs continue to grow apace. The IEA saw global energy demand increase by 4.6% in 2021, more than offsetting the 4% drop in 2020.
…
Report available from https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/24/1048253/the-green-future-index-2022/
The report was sponsored by Morgan Stanley, Citrix, and Iris Ceramica Group.
The top 10:
Iceland tops the list. The entire island is basically one big volcano, so Iceland is one of the few places in the world where geothermal energy is an economically viable option. And we all know greens love geothermal – fracking to release geothermal energy is somehow different to hydrocarbon fracking, so Iceland topping lists of green champions is pretty much a given.
The USA places 21st, behind Canada at 15th place – so I guess MIT is not completely sold on the progress of President Biden’s Green New Deal Build Back Better.
There is some good news. MIT notes some nations have “reverted to old carbon-intensive habits”. I’m guessing at least some national politicians are finally prioritising economic security, pragmatism and energy security over maintaining a high ranking on MIT’s green virtue list.
Update (EW): Reworded the first paragraph.
News flash: Germany declines to commit economic suicide.
(AP) German bosses, unions jointly oppose boycott of Russian gas
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-germany-europe-economy-b9004fca7ea3a60fd281ad58d21a7bd4
When Europe starts legalizing methods to extract tight gas again, we’ll know they are serious about energy security. France and Poland have the most abundant resources.
What other choice do they have? Sure, it’s spring but Germany still needs to heat homes. It would be political suicide to do otherwise.
I just hope Germany works to find practical substitutes to Russian gas and stops the Net-Zero nonsense to focus on energy sources that work 24 * 7.
Their knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima is really coming back to bite them in the ole A-double scribble, as my Aunt Helen used to say.
They could start by announcing they have cancelled the scheduled December shutdown of their last three nuclear reactors. Then follow that up by announcing they will restart the three reactors they shut down last December. That would be a credible step towards an energy posture that does not leave them totally dependent on Russian gas.
They will pay a lot more for avoiding the Russians, but then again when has government cared about poor people 🤔
Not in the headlines, but most of the EU continue to import from Russia. by pipeline: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Finland, Lithuania. As LNG: Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands.
If they procrastinate too long Ukraine may well decide to bomb the gas pipeline infrastructure … I suspect they haven’t at the moment because Germany is promising support although they have yet to deliver.
Ukraine gets free advanced, lethal weapons, and training, from NATO countries to “defend itself and deter Russia”, however, the US is concerned these weapons are not being distributed to Ukraine armed forces, but are disappearing on the Ukraine black market to be sold for top dollar to various unsavory countries!!!
https://moneycentral.com.ng/markets/article/us-weapons-for-ukraine-disappearing-into-black-hole-cnn/
‘The report was sponsored by Morgan Stanley, Citrix, and Iris Ceramica Group.’
Rope, meet useful idiots.
Seems like they want you dead but they want to rob you first.
Its too much effort to roll bodies over to get a gold teeth filings.
Hire more Sonderkommandos. [My favorite word of the day.] It works well for wind turbine denial.
China continues to lead and increase their fossil fuel use and they’re 26th?
China owns a LOT of people.
Rhoda:
And China treats them like farm animals.
Morgan Stanley, Citrix, and Iris Ceramica Group, and MIT do business in/with China.
This is just a make believe study with a MIT stamp.
It takes real dedication to ignore repeated lies.
Well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, mainstream media steadfastly refused to report the energy disaster that was ongoing in Britain and Europe.
Because of the utter failure of wind and solar-electricity generation (combined with Europe’s colossal wrong-way bet on natural gas supplies from Gazprom), even in December 2021, prices of electricity and natural gas in Europe were 7-8× what they were and are in the U.S.
The failure of U.S. media to report this is mind-boggling. They deliberately and intentionally failed to inform the public.
It is the height of irresponsibility, massive bias and unethical behavior.
Welcome to state-run socialist media.
Where is Duane to tell you are wrong …these are professionals 🤓
Well God forbid that the media, science and government would do anything against “their precioussss” by pointing out how unreliable wind and solar are. A Jehovah’s witness would never acknowledge the repeated failures of prediction so why would any climate scientist or their followers? It’s basically the same, climate scientology JW, Scientology, [insert name of any cult here].
It started way before December.
You are absolutely correct. I was writing in haste and in anger. Thank you for supplying this graph.
EXCERPT from:
THE UKRAINE PLOT IS THICKENING WITH GERMANY AND FRANCE BARELY IN LOCKSTEP WITH US/UK-LED NATO
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-plot-is-thickening-with-germany-and-france-no-longer-in
World LNG Market
LNG is made by cooling natural gas to minus 260F, which reduces its volume by a factor of about 600
Natural gas is piped to a port, processed, liquified, and loaded onto LNG carriers for shipment by sea.
To receive LNG, a receiving port must have a gasification plant to convert the LNG to gas, to send it by pipeline to end users.
Liquefaction and gasification plants cost billions of dollars and take multiple years to build.
Europe has 29 gasification plants.
Many of the world’s top suppliers are maxed-out, with little capacity to produce and liquefy more gas than they are already moving.
About two-thirds of all LNG is sold under firm-price, long-term contracts, with fixed destinations.
Some major contract holders, such as South Korea, Japan and China, could redirect some cargoes to Europe, if a cutback in Russian exports creates a worsening supply crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/4jGrXsE6YqQ?wmode=transparent&start=0
Dubai LNG Supply to EU: The reason behind the Western incursion into Syria and Qatar-funded attempts at revolution, had nothing to do with installing a democratic government, but with removing Assad’s pro-Russia government, so that Qatar could safely pass a pipeline through Syrian territory, which would then proceed to the EU. Putin’s support of Assad successfully quashed the pipeline.
Which means any Qatar gas sent to the EU would be LNG, carried by LNG carriers, which are in short supply.
Qatar is getting cold feet about the LNG-to-EU strategy.
Qatar energy minister Saad al Kaabi said most of our LNG exports are tied to long-term contracts.
Russia Pipeline Gas Supply to Europe
Fossil fuel provides about 70% of Europe’s primary energy
Natural gas provides about 20%; of that about 20% for electric power generation, the rest for heating and industrial processes.
Russia provided Europe and Turkey with 200.8 and 198.97 billion cubic meters of gas (bcm), in 2018 and 2019, respectively;
Russia provided 174.9 bcm in 2020, because COVID reduced economic activity.
Russia provides about 40% of annual EU gas requirements. See Note
Other gas suppliers are: Norway 22%, Algeria 18%, Azerbaijan 9%
Germany, Italy and Turkey received 45.84, 20.80, 16.40 bcm, respectively, in 2020. See URL
http://www.gazpromexport.ru/en/statistics/
LNG from Elsewhere Replacing Russian Gas
In case of no gas flow from Russia, 200 bcm/y, Europe would have a 40% shortfall, of which about 10% to 15%, or 20 bcm/y to 30 bcm/y, could be offset by diverting LNG from other sources; gas and other spot prices would be at new highs.
NOTE: In 2020, Russia provided the following percentage of gas to Europe, by country:
* Members of the EU.
Bosnia + Herzegovina 100%, N. Macedonia 100%, Moldova 100%, *Finland 94%, *Latvia 93%, Serbia 89%, *Estonia 79%, *Bulgaria 77%, *Slovakia 70%, Croatia 68%, *Czechia (Czech Republic) 66%, *Austria 64%, *Greece 51%, *Germany 49%, *Italy 46%, *Lithuania 41%, *Poland 40%, *Slovenia 40%, *France 24%, *Netherlands 11%, *Romania 10%, Georgia 6%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/russian-gas-dependence-in-europe-by-country
Uhhh . . . MIT, in your http://www.technologyreview.com article that is referenced in the above article, I request that you provide objective justification that your term “innovation scores” is a meaningful metric for developing “a sustainable, low-carbon future for their economies and societies.”
Failing to do so will confirm that your published article is pretty much just a fluff piece.
The Tech Review has been publishing fluff pieces for quite some time now.
I really never under stood why Course 17 (political science) was offered as a major at MIT.
It’s neither technical nor even a science.
As a Canadian I can’t express how relieved I am that we didn’t make the top 10, but I remain concerned that Justin the court jester has high ambitions to do so in the near future.
In his mind we are number 1
Because he made announcements
Are these ratings based on something these countries have done or just things they promise to do?
The above quote makes me believe it’s words and promises that matter more than actions to the study’s authors. I recall past US administrations that refused to sign on to international climate agreements but actually out-performed the signatories when it came to reducing “carbon” pollution.
“. . . past US administrations that refused to sign on . . .”
AFAIK, there were only two:
(1) the administration of President Donald Trump (R) rejected the Paris Climate Agreement that his predecessor, Barack Obama (D), had previously signed. Subsequently, President Joe Biden (D) reinstated the US as signatory to that international climate agreement by Executive Order on his first day in office.
(2) shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush (R) announced the U.S. would not implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol — an agreement brokered by former Vice President Al Gore (D) and signed by former President Bill Clinton (D).
And yes, the US led the world’s top industrialized nations in reductions of CO2 emissions while under the administration of Donald Trump (R), mainly due to the massive switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas plus technology-enabled increases in fossil fuel combustion efficiency that occurred over that period.
Kyoto failed to get Senate approval. The vote was against Kyoto Treaty 97 to 0 as I recall.
G’Day Thomas,
“The vote was against Kyoto …”
Ann Coulter put it – “Kyoto was defeated by the narrow margin of 97 to 0.”
Interesting . . . and this invites the question: what was the Senate vote for approving the Paris Climate Agreement?
Simple, there was no vote, as everyone knew it wouldn’t pass. The vote was 1-0. The 1 was Obama.
. . . as is exactly the same for there being no Senate vote to back up Biden’s EO restoring US commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement.
The only vote was 1-0. The 1 was Biden.
In his inaugural speech (searchable copy available from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/20/inaugural-address-by-president-joseph-r-biden-jr/ ), Biden used the word “together” a total of six times. His last use of “together” in that speech was in this sentence that led into his closing remarks: “And together, we shall write an American story of hope, not fear.”
I simply observe that executive orders have ZERO correlation with “together”.
And US citizens don’t fear rampant inflation right now? . . . gee, who knew?
Fixed it for you. There is no “carbon pollution,” just harmless emissions of plant food.
Thank you. The green left has been extremely successful in linking CO2 with soot in the minds of the western world.
Didn’t Obama tell us we were suckin soot?
Here’s Sooty…
“Faced with uncertainty as covid-19 drags on, many have reverted to old carbon-intensive habits to recharge their economies.
**************
It still fascinates the hell out of me that this wind and solar energy campaign has been going on for all this time now with little or no attention paid to any feasibility study or studies that apply sound (and I do mean sound) physics, engineering and economics to this issue of energy generation via solar panels and wind.
If the wind and solar energy cult members are still stomping their feet and pounding the table wondering why they are still experiencing less success than they demand from governments and the private sector, those feasibility studies would give them the answer. If the cult is anti-nuclear, we are pretty much at a dead end in terms of the sustenance of the world’s economies if fossil fuels have to go in the name of the Earth’s climate.
One would think that, under normal circumstances, at least a few feasibility studies would be mandatory before engaging on such a massive project as transforming our energy infrastructure to wind and solar. One might also think that, under normal circumstances, seeing economies reverting back to fossil fuels after the coronavirus shutdown might provide a clue that there are issues with wind and solar that require attention.
But I guess these are not normal times. What is that old saying about the inmates running the asylum?
Or about religious fanatics running everything
OPM will buy you anything you want. Eventually, though, the OPM sources of ratepayers, consumers and taxpayers will get wise. Sadly, when that happens the politicians, Deep State, NGOs, academia and crony capitalists will move on to the next scam.
I would have thought that France would be closer to top position with having two thirds of its electrical power coming from nuclear.
Can’t get much more green than nuclear…
It’s not the right green Richard 😉
CO2 is the greenest. It’s almost 3/4 Oxygen by weight.
Norway scores higher – it used to be virtually all hydro, now supplemented with some wind. What’s more they have the highest ratio of EVs in their vehicle fleet.
“Private Jet John” Kerry (a/k/a “Do As I Say, Not As I Do Kerry”) was interviewed on NPR yesterday about his recent attendance at the “Our Oceans” conference held on the mid-Pacific island of Palau.
Unfortunately, the interviewer neglected to ask “Private Jet John” if he rowed a boat out to Palau or if he burned a bunch of hydrocarbons to get there.
A transcript of the interview is available. As usual, whenever I hear “Private Jet John” pontificate, I found myself reaching for an air sick bag.
If Kerry wanted to set a good example, travelling by sailboat would be a good option.
As an MIT grad, my dad subscribed to Technology Review for decades. This article and many others like it would have persuaded him to cancel. Woke horse maneuvers…
I was also a long time subscriber.
Cancelled a whole bunch of years ago, along with the rest of the periodicals I read every month since I was in grade school.
Actually, I think TR was one of the later one’s that finally jumped the shark once too many times.
Grads get free subscriptions for life. Mine usually acts as a coffee table coaster.
MIT Climate Change Virtue List Topped by EU Nations
I nominate the UK numero uno among them as what’s breaking 7.5 million eggs to make a global omelette I ask you? Some small sacrifices have to be made to fix this climate crisis-
Energy bosses call for price cap to be scrapped and more aid to prevent ‘horrific’ winter ahead (msn.com)
Let the weaning off fossil fuels begin in earnest eh griff?
The Left giveth, the Left taketh away. Its instructive how socialists governments are constantly making new rules to respond to the failures of their prior rules. A new rule will come along in a futile attempt to fix this new one. I assume it will be cash payments to industries or consumers, provided by taxpayers or inflated away with money printing.
MIT should superimpose the amount of money paid towards Putin’s devastating Ukrainian war on to that list.
The plain truth is that many countries, especially Germany, have Ukrainian blood on their hands directly as a result of the measures they’ve taken to hit ridiculous net zero targets. I — and many others — were warning about this for years, but all of warnings were ignored.
Shame on those who believe the threat from carbon emissions is remotely close to the Ukrainians now being slaughtered, including completely innocent children whose childhoods and lives have been ruined.
Are you listening, Greta?
You’re right, this Ukraine situation has been in the making for about a decade and yet only a few could see the train wreck coming.
No amount of Green Achievement can hide the real economic situation which is looking bleaker by the day for a number of the top performers.
Well the brains trust and your taxes are working hard on the ‘stewards of grid stability’-
Wind Turbines Can Stabilize the Grid – CleanTechnica
and every milliwatt helps by all accounts-
Stanford scientists create solar panels that work at night – The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
“many of the world’s leading nations—including some of its largest polluters— committed to firm dates to achieve carbon neutrality.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Firm dates that have no basis in physical or geopolitical reality are on the same level as prophetic dates coming from the WatchTower.
One of the new great lies?
I see that the biggest “carbon polluter”, China, is a stunning number 26 on the list. Really, you can’t make this schist up.
Iceland mostly uses surface geothermal for building heat. 70% of Iceland’s electric generation is hydro, about 24% is deep well geothermal. Surface hot springs can’t drive a steam turbine but are adequate to keep people warm that close to the Arctic Circle. So many things about Iceland are unique; you can’t copy what they do anywhere else.
Curious that Finland ranks so high. They build the giant cruise ships and the enormous diesel engines that power them. Wärtsilä‘s largest engine is a 14-cylinder monster that produces over 80,000 KW (107,380 hp) used for the Mærsk E-class container ships. A large container ship will burn 200-300 metric tons of heavy fuel oil per day. A bit of a stretch to call that “carbon neutral”.
(For comparison the US Iowa-class battleships required 8 boilers and 4 turbines with reduction gears to produce a combined 212,000 shaft horsepower through four screws — slightly less than double the output of a single Wärtsilä diesel.)
Finland has a lot of wind turbines, and claims its making electricity cheaper. I’m not sure I believe them, but clearly whatever they are doing, even if it works for them, is not working anywhere else.
Finland’s primary energy, according to BP World Energy for 2020:
Oil 32.27% Gas 6.43% Coal 12.11% Nuclear 19.07% Hydro 12.77% Renewables 17.35%
Norway for comparison:
Oil 19.38% Gas 8.27% Coal 1.69% Nuclear 0.00% Hydro 64.88% Renewables 5.78%
Iceland is essentially a small isolated town. How renewable is their shipping and air travel, concrete and steel production. Their fully calculated emissions on imported agricultural or manufactured items would be quite high.
Many larger nations can find a sub region equivalent to Iceland. The Australian state of Tasmania would be one.
Iceland has about 10 times more electricity than they need, hence they can provide cheaply to aluminium manufacturers.
So from a financial point of view this makes sense but who is assigned the environmental black mark for transporting bauxite and or alumina from place like Australia. And then transporting the smelted aluminium to export markets.
The 630 MW Kárahnjukar hydro dam was built exclusively for the Fjarðaál ALCOA smelter as part of the deal; they didn’t start with a surplus then look for ways to use it. I don’t have details on the other two large smelters, but I suspect building hydro dams was part of the deal to get them; there would simply be no reason for Iceland to build generation capacity substantially in excess of need.
Nothing about carbon accounting makes any sense, even assuming there is a reason to care in the first place.
Are you forgetting the large amounts of CO2 emitted in the smelting process – not to mention fugitive PFCs?
The heading should read “EU nations, the UK and Norway”. Or, just “European nations”. Norway never has been a member of the EU and the UK left a while ago, thanks to the clearly-expressed democratic wishes of the UK electorate.