By Vijay Jayaraj
Ever since signing the Paris climate agreement, Vietnam has shown interest in reducing its dependency on fossil fuels, introducing in recent years a slew of measures to cut consumption.
However, in what is considered to be a major U-turn, Vietnam’s government announced last month that it will increase coal imports for the next 13 years.
Critics of fossil fuels, including most mainstream media, are out of sync with the world’s energy realities. They are consistently premature in their celebrations of the emission-reduction promises of developing nations like Vietnam only to see commitments yield to the need to meet growing energy demand with coal, oil and natural gas. Even developed economies like Germany and the UK have ditched — or suspended — grandiose plans for “carbon-free” utopias to fend off social unrest or economic collapse.
In a new strategy drafted to develop the coal sector, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade says that it will increase annual coal imports to as much as 83 million tons during 2025-35.
This decision is a marked departure from ambitious emission-reduction plans that the country seemed keen to embrace, thus delivering another blow to the international campaign against fossil fuels.
Vietnam’s consumption of coal has increased rapidly in the last decade largely to generate electricity — from 27.8 million tons in 2011 to 38.77 million tons in 2015 and 53.52 million tons in 2021. Demand for coal is projected to peak at 125-127 million tons in 2030, mainly due to growing needs in power generation and in the cement, metallurgy and chemical industries.
For countries like Vietnam, there is no option but to increase fossil fuel consumption in the coming decades. Coal, oil, and gas together represent the most affordable, dependable, and abundant source of energy. In fact, a majority of the world’s primary energy comes from these fuels.
The favored technologies of climate alarmists — wind and solar — cannot meet energy needs of large populations. What little electricity they do produce is intermittent and expensive. So, developing countries cannot reduce fossil fuel consumption without a significant compromise in power reliability and economic growth. The consequences of energy shortages due to the anti-fossil fuel stance is greater in developing countries where poverty is still rampant.
Coal consumption correlates closely to Vietnam’s growth in gross domestic product (GDP). The doubling of consumption between 2011-21 tracks with a steady increase in the rate of growth over the same period.
Though correlation does not necessarily mean causation, we have observations that show GDP growth across the world has been driven by a growing energy sector’s dependence on fossil fuels. Vietnam realizes this and knows that only coal can sustain the kind of growth expected for the future.
As per the most recent World Bank economic assessment, Vietnam’s “GDP growth is anticipated to soar from an estimated 2.6 percent in 2021 to 7.5 percent in 2022.” Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia are projected to be the the fastest-growing economies in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
If projected growth rates are to become reality, Vietnam would need to continue using fossil fuels without restrictions. Being a top-performing ASEAN economy is, in fact, an impossible feat unless fossil fuels are employed.
Vietnam’s case is just one of the many stories emerging across the world. The shortage of Russian gas made many European nations go back to coal. The UK leadership has said that it will soon end a ban on fracking for natural gas. Both China and India have announced new increases in coal production. Multiple countries in South America and Africa are expected to start producing oil and gas from new fields in the coming years.
Worldwide, the use of fossil fuels is going nowhere but up.
This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy, October 17, 2022, and can be accessed here.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India.
ESG means nothing to countries that want to increase their economic standing and the lifestyles of their people. “I fart in your general direction”.
Untrue. Sri Lanka had a high ESG score. It caused them to go bankrupt.
No. They were bankrupt and tried to con their way out by claiming they were adopting organic farming.
I think you need to do more research on that. They were thriving until government forced them to give up fertilizers to be organic, i.e., green.
You misunderstood my comment. I agree with you.
After a brief flirting with powering the World with bottled Unicorn farts as a substitute for Russian Gas, the World is slowly regaining its sanity and returning to fossil fuels …. Any port in a storm.
True. But there will be no port for UK and Germany in the coming natgas scarcity winter storm starting next month. UK cannot frack fast enough, and Germany has zero LNG terminals in place..
For both countries, their crazy high penetration renewable wind backup was CCGT. And for both, there will not be enough G.
The UK had a chance to frack nearly fast enough, thanks to the one thing that Liz Truss got right, but the Tory dunderheads have disabled it.
In Canada, The Little Dicked Tater, Trudeau just doubled down in a speech stating that current events mean a faster transition away from fossil fuels is needed. We’ll see if my fellow citizens will show sanity in the next election
China won’t play. India won’t play. And now Vietnam won’t play climate games.
Biden decided to play (day 1 cancelled KXL) and completely screwed up the US in just 2 years. Doubled gas and natgas
prices. Diesel shortage. Drained SPR. Begged ‘evil’ Saudis for more crude production because he throttled it in the US, and got punched in the mouth by them in return. Not a good look.
Yep. China is ramping up again.
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/10/china-says-cheap-energy-is-more-important-than-climate-wish-list/
He treats the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a President’s Private Reserve.
Art Laffer (82) has a point, he reckons the thing with Biden (79) he no longer cares ‘has no vision of the future and just wants to muddle through and get back home and have some hot chicken soup’.
I would have said giant ice cream cones, but otherwise totally agree.
Spent much of my life avoiding south east Asia. Then I went to the hot humid part of China to work at a nuclear plant. China has lots of slave labor coal but not that part of China.
Importing coal exports money and requires the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open.
VN has two problems. Importing energy and China as a neighbor.
The Chicoms are a problem for everyone.
I have lived in Vietnam for most of the last 3 years. Demand for electricity is growing at an amazing rate. Some years its up as much as 15%. Renewables aren’t going to cut it in a country that isn’t very windy and has such incredible power demand. Luckily the Vietnamese have been smart enough to figure that out early. A lot cheaper and more reliable to keep burning cheap brown coal from Indonesia.
But the new Australian Federal Government Minister is saying that Australia must build more wind and solar installations to get electricity prices down and to provide reliable supply.
/sarc.
Not only that, we’re going to be world leaders!!! And we’re going to export green energy too! We’ll show em.
Is that export over the mythical HDVC cable to Singapore? 🙂
And Indonesia was the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal in 2021 with exports of 434 Million tonnes (Mt) more than twice as much as Australia (199Mt).With a growing population they will want to maintain those exports, though they did earlier this year suspend exports for a month because domestic stocks were running low.
From the article: “For countries like Vietnam, there is no option but to increase fossil fuel consumption in the coming decades. Coal, oil, and gas together represent the most affordable, dependable, and abundant source of energy. In fact, a majority of the world’s primary energy comes from these fuels.”
This doesn’t just apply to Vietnam, it applies to every country on Earth.
This is the way forward.
Windmills and solar are not fit for purpose.
Unless of course the purpose is rent seeking.
Or installed as a very small scale boat or caravan with battery storage system.
From the article: “The favored technologies of climate alarmists — wind and solar — cannot meet energy needs of large populations. What little electricity they do produce is intermittent and expensive. So, developing countries cannot reduce fossil fuel consumption without a significant compromise in power reliability and economic growth.”
Developed countries also cannot reduce fossil fuel consumption without a significant compromise in power reliability and economic growth.
The difference is that we can afford it for enough time to completely trash our economies. Then we end up becoming ‘developing’ nations, and go back to fossil fuels.
Go green with renewable, reliable, high performance, ecologically nutritious, environmentally friendly hydrocarbons.
After all, the more we burn, the greener the planet gets.
And the ultimate renewables.
I was surprised to read (above) that Vietnam is importing coal, so off I went to do a search on Vietnam and coal.
It seems that Vietnam was an exporter of coal until recently. They produce about 47 million short tons of coal per year.
Then I ran across an article that mentioned that around 2018, their usage started to exceed their production. IIRC, they are at about 53 million tons per year now.
I’m not sure why they haven’t increased domestic production. Maybe it’s a lack of capital at the moment. The pressure is on lenders not to fund coal mining, so money for new mines may be scarce.
Anyhow, they probably aren’t importing huge amounts, but another article had somebody’s projections that they expected to double usage in the next couple of decades. Perhaps they will have developed more mines by then or maybe they will still be importing some coal. But they have no plans to back off on coal.
Oh, it seems they tried wind and solar, but then soon realized that “This just ain’t gonna work.” So they are developing their country and economy with coal power.
Because the Vietnamese are pretty savvy people
At the last Federal election in Australia in a Sydney electorate held by Labor for decades, now a Vietnamese Australian area, the former NSW Labor Premier who was a candidate for the Federal electorate was beaten by a Vietnamese Australian women, an astute and well spoken person standing as an Independent.
You are right.
Unlike US democrats…
Diminutive Wind and Tiny Solar: But, you must help us, Coal!!!! Help!! Heeeeeelllllp!!!!!!!
Big Coal (sigh): Sure fellas. Give me a few minutes. You’ve had me tied down so long that I need time to get circulation back in my legs.
Good for Vietnam.
UK Leadership will lift ban on fracking?
That was so yesterday’s leadership!
And whatever “the leadership” might say one minute, who is going to invest a farthing in Fracking when half the allegedly “Conservative” party are GangGreen through and through and the doctrinaire Socialist parties would far rather see thousands of pensioners freeze to death rather than quit their virtue signalling (and nice brown envelopes)?
Please don’t hold your breath.
I like that GangGreen that is what our government in New Zealand is infested with .
The Ganggreen is destroying our country .They are that sick that they are going to tax methane from our livestock and our fertilizer usage .Agricultural production will fal and so will exports.
The ganggreen way to stuff a country .
“Vietnam’s consumption of coal has increased rapidly in the last decade largely to generate electricity — from 27.8 million tons in 2011 to 38.77 million tons in 2015 and 53.52 million tons in 2021. Demand for coal is projected to peak at 125-127 million tons in 2030, mainly due to growing needs in power generation and in the cement, metallurgy and chemical industries.”
Imagine if there was no scare about CO2 emissions and all under-developed countries, including Africa and South America, were to rapidly increase their use of fossil fuels to achieve a ‘Western’ level of prosperity, and imagine also a scenario in which it was recognized that extreme weather events which regulary cause billions of dollars worth of damage, are mainly natural events that cannot be controlled by reducing CO2 emissions.
Wouldn’t the use of fossil fuels, in such a scenario, escalate dramatically to the point where the world economy, at some time in the future, really would reach reach a situation of dire scarcity of fossil fuels resulting in a world-wide economic collapse.
One reads many comments on WUWT that we have hundreds of years worth of fossil fuel reserves in the ground, but that’s at the current rate of usage.
“According to the IMF definition, there are 152 developing countries with a current population of around 6.69 billion. At 85.33 percent, this is a considerable proportion of the world’s population. It includes the whole of Central and South America, the whole of Africa, almost all Asian countries and numerous other island states.”
https://www.worlddata.info/developing-countries.php#:~:text=A%20further%20downgrade%20takes%20place,proportion%20of%20the%20world's%20population
In addition to the increased use of fossil fuels to raise the living standards of 6.69 billion people, we also have the problem of protecting populations from extreme weather events which cannot be blamed on CO2 emissions. That involves the use of even more fossil fuels throughout the world, to rebuild millions of homes in safer locations away from flood plains, build elevated roads and more dams, reshape the landscape with better drainage to avoid flash flooding, and strengthen homes in hurricane-prone areas so they can withstand the damage from strong winds, and so on.
However, renewable energy is obviously not the solution currently, but hopefully, with technological development, it might become a part of the solution, but with many mistakes and blunders along the way.
Your remarks indicate that you did not study economics in college, here is some suggested reading to educate yourself about scarcity and how resources do not suddenly, “dramatically,” run out and how free markets calmly create new technology/discover new ways of using existing resources (e.g., silicon for copper and nanotechnology synthetic chemistry innovations such as James Tour’s graphene):
1) Milton Friedman’s books
2) Walter E. Williams’ lectures and books
3) Thomas Sowell’s numerous books and YouTube videos.
4) book: Hard Green by Peter Huber (especially re: Malthusianism which is essentially the error you are making above)
*********
Further, you are basing your suppositions on the not-backed-by-evidence assumption that more prosperity globally is highly likely to rapidly use up all the fossil fuel (including synthetic versions of it) we could possibly discover.
Bottom line:
The answer to your assertion masquerading as a question is:
no.
Well Janice, thank you for your attempt to debunk my arguments. However, there are a couple of points which you don’t seem to have grasped.
I did not state that the scarcity of fossil fuels would occur suddenly, and my use of the word ‘dramatically’ referred to the escalation of the use of fossil fuels as undeveloped coutries strive to reach Western standards of prosperity, and also, as all economies, both developed and undeveloped, strive to protect their communities from the devastation of natural weather events, which would involve a significant increase in the use of fossil fuels.
The problem I’ve tried to highlight is that the dependency of the ‘whole world economy’ on fossil fuels, after the use of fossil fuels has escalated to the point when even the Antarctic continent is being explored for its oil reserves, could pose a potential disaster.
I agree that free markets would attempt to discover alternative sources of energy when even the Antarctic coal and oil reserves were being explored (assuming they exist). However, this wouldn’t be done ‘calmly’. When the world is using around 10 times the amount of fossil fuels per annum, that it is currently using, and it becomes apparent that prices are going to escalate as resources diminish, there will likely be a huge panic,
We already know from the current situation, that alternative energy sources cannot compete with fossil fuels. The technological change to competitve alternatives might take 50 or a hundred years. Would you prefer we start now, or in 50 or a 100 years time?
You seem to miss the point. THERE ARE NO “alternatives” to fossil fuels “now,” wind and solar are virtue signaling, worse-than-useless tools for rent seekers to enrich themselves at taxpayers’ expense. They are a waste of fossil fuels, not an “alternative” to fossil fuels.
Indeed. Vincent sidesteps away from the point because, as has become clear, Vincent is simply doing a soft sell of solar-wind-etc..
“You seem to miss the point. THERE ARE NO “alternatives” to fossil fuels “now,” wind and solar are virtue signaling, worse-than-useless tools for rent seekers to enrich themselves at taxpayers’ expense. They are a waste of fossil fuels, not an “alternative” to fossil fuels.”
You’d better tell Janice Moore who thinks ‘free markets will calmly create new technology/discover new ways of using existing resources‘, when we eventually run out of fossil fuels, if no restraints are applied.
It’s true there are currently no complete alternatives to fossil fuels because all these alternative systems require at least some amount of fossil fuel use in their construction, development and maintenance.
However, this difficulty in developing efficient and reliable, alternative energy sources, should be a lesson for the future. It might take several more decades before we develop a light-weight, safe, affordable, and durable battery which doesn’t rely upon scarce materials.
Is it not better to start the research now, rather than leave it until a real emergency occurs? That’s my point.
Go for it, Vincent. Just don’t confiscate the taxpayers’ and or reliable energy ratepayers’ money to do it.
Vincent. Read the economics sources I listed above.
You haven’t done that yet.
I can tell, because you are still talking in a manner that shows you do not understand scarcity nor the function which price plays in directing the use of scarce resources.
The world didn’t run put of copper and THEN cry, “Oh, dear! What shall we do, now?”
The free market system and human ingenuity created an alternative before any crisis occurred.
“The free market system and human ingenuity created an alternative before any crisis occurred.”
Janice,
The free-market system obviously has its benefits, as Communist China eventually discovered, but this is not an ‘either/or’ situation.
You must obviously be aware of the huge amount of damage and loss of life that occurs around the world, annually, because of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, which we agree are mainly natural events that have occurred in the past and will continue to occur in the future.
Why hasn’t the free-market solved this problem? Consider Australia as an example. It’s widely known that Australia is a ‘Land of Floods and Droughts’. During this current triple La Nina event there have been continuous news stories of flooded houses.
Whenever I search for the BOM records of previous floods in a particular area, which records usually go back around 150 years, I find that the latest flood is rarely the worst. So I ask you, why are houses built in flood plains?
The answer seems clear to me. These houses in flood plains are a product of the ‘free market’. A property developer buys an area of low-lying land which has a nice view of a river, and gets permission from the local Council to build a housing estate. Everyone is very happy because of the economic development, and the creation of new jobs, and the flow-on effects of new industries locating to the area.
However, some sneaky person in the local council, say someone like Vincent, examines the BOM records and is shocked to discover that just 20 years ago the area that is now approved for development was completely flooded to a depth of 3 metres. He mentions this to his boss, and the reply is ‘Shush! We must not hinder the operation of the ‘Free Market’. We need the economic development.
10 years later, the entire housing estate is flooded, and most of the occupants did not realize that they were not insured for ‘Riverine’ flooding, because they did not read the fine print which makes a distinction between flash flooding, which is less predictable, and Riverine flooding which is more predictable and more expensive.
From the middle of this century the growth in world population will cease. The big problem facing the world in the coming century is not population growth, it is population decline. With that being the incontrovertible direction of world population, then the use of natural resources you ask about will rapidly decline. The amount of material we already have refined and in use will be recycled and less will be demanded as world population continuously declines in the coming decades and centuries.
We will never run out of resources because we are inventive animals. We can easily adapt to change and will always find new options.
Nuclear power is barely used globally, it is the ultimate energy option. All we have to do is adopt it.
Since you must use FOSSIL FUELS to mine, manufacture, transport, erect, maintain, demolish, transport and dispose of “wind and solar,” AND you must use FOSSIL FUELS to provide 100% backup for “wind and solar,” AND since “wind and solar” don’t return more energy (and certainly don’t do so WHEN NEEDED in any event) than it takes to bring them into being, and since backing them up requires FOSSIL FUELS to be USED INEFFICIENTLY running on “stand-by” to ramp up when the wind and solar don’t produce, just exactly how do you think FOSSIL FUEL use is going to DECLINE when all you propose to do is employ LESS EFFICIENT ways to USE IT to produce the energy needed?!
“how do you think FOSSIL FUEL use is going to DECLINE when all you propose to do is employ LESS EFFICIENT ways to USE IT to produce the energy needed?!”
I never stated that fossil fuel use will decline, at least in the near future. My point was that the scare about CO2 emissions will reduce the accelerating rate of increase in the use of fossil fuels and encourage the develppment of alternative energy sources, which should also include technologies such as Nuclear Fission which scientists have been investigating for many decades.
Affordable energy supplies are the foundation of our prosperity and we should begin to investigate alternative energy sources right now, whilst we still have abundant supplies of fossil energy.
Unfortunately, greed and economic growth tend to dominate, and without the scare about CO2 emissions, governments would leave it too late before encouraging action and investement in alternative energy. Also, why would private enterprises invest money in such research when it would likely take many decades before such alternative energy sources could beat, or even equal, the efficiency of fossil fuels? Who would pay for such investment?
Apparently the communists who run Vietnam are smarter than the communists who run our country.
Australia has energy and minerals in abundance, potentially one of the wealthiest countries of all, and if the politicians removed the barriers to mining and extraction of these valuable resources I believe no Australian would need to pay income tax.
Remove the UN based and organisations on the octopus arms of the UN and the red, green and black tape regulations, legislation, compliance costs, etc., and despite high wages the manufacturing industry now leaving could be encouraged to return.
Australia had cheap energy in abundance, reliable electricity grid baseload transmission, and that attracted the aluminium smelters, cement manufacturers, steel mills and many other businesses Australia has since lost and remains in danger of losing the businesses still here.
Undeniable, Dennis. Australia is definitely the ‘Lucky Country’. With such a huge area of land and a small population, we could have the highest standard of living in the World if we were to more fully and sensibly exploit our energy, mineral, and agricultural resources.
One example is the plan outlined before the 2013 federal election by the Abbott led Coalition in opposition, to extend the WA Ord River Irrigation Area, noting that the dam even today needs to be discharged during the wet season, across Northern Australia through NT and NQ. Rivers overflowing during the wet seasons to have dams constructed like done with the WA Ord River. The CSIRO identified the irrigation potential land area to be similar to Western Europe in area.
The Abbott Government later overturned QLD Labor Government “Wild Rivers” legislation that registered those rivers for world heritage to prepare for the huge project to create a massive food bowl for export purposes, Australia already exports farm products because much more is produced than is needed locally.
The new dams would also have pipelines and/or canals to move water from Northern Australia to the South.
Dennis the Riverina, often referred to as Australia’s food bowl is being inundated with renewables infrastructure. The government is looking to turn the region into an industrial renewables hub. Australia has a total of only 6% arable land.
Matt Kean has a lot to answer for. In recent years has gave the largest wind turbine manufacturer in China ‘Goldwind’ 10 million dollars, apparently for research. More recently he gave 11 million dollars to Energy Australia, who are a wholly Chinese owned organisation, to scope the potential pumped hydro project near Lithgow.
Is it a coincidence that the Vietnamese conical nón lá hats and a pile of coal are the same shape?
I was looking for the meaning of ESG. It is used so often these days, but how many people know what the letters stand for?
After a short search of financial reports and recent examples of ESG, it is clear ESG stands for;
Economic Suicide Guaranteed….?
“Worldwide, the use of fossil fuels is going nowhere but up.” Yet, the use of fossil fuels in the US is going down to net-zero. Which tells me biden’s climate change agenda to ban fossil fuels has nothing to do with climate change at all. It has more to do with his pushing the UN & WEF agendas regarding “sustainable” cities by 2030. And of course, state control over every aspect of our lives.
King Coal is back, baby.
Yes, if you want to GROW your economy coal is one of the legs you stand on.
Ah… the three legged stool, oil, natural gas and coal.
What a beautiful combination… for those who WANT to grow their economy.
Developing counties should focus on this combo like a laser.
Electricity production is the most stable with the 3-legged stool of coal, NG, and nuclear. The economy goes on a table, with the addition of oil.
http://verdeviews.com/climate/images/coal-energy-share.png
It’s not the reality of fossil fuels being needed that has Vietnam and others turning away from the Paris agreement. They always knew fossil fuels were needed if they were to grow based on their own country’s efforts. It’s the reality that the promised billions from the Paris agreement are not being funneled into their coffers fast enough to make up for any lack of growth that has them changing their tune.