Will our planet be healthier by 2050?

Next lines are about different issues, but they all have something in common – creating healthier planet for our future generations. But how to get there opens more questions, than it gives answers right now.

Let me start by saying that I was really impressed by the work European Commission tried to put together with the long-term scenarios towards 2050. I also express full respect to the VP Šefčovič and Commissioner Canete in taking all the (internal) fights and stay firm to preserve a sense of high ambition – at least as a starting point. Years of intense discussions, reflections, ups and downs, paid off. But how will the recent communication on the Low carbon path towards 2050 read in 2030 or 2040? Will it be a fairy-tale or are we able to transform our society and avoid just pushing the (dependency) problem ahead in a new form?

I still remember debates in early 00’ when we tried to design the 2020 policy. Now, looking back, I can say we were naive but we (at least) met all key climate targets. We still can’t fully agree on the main reasons for succeeding, but the economic crisis certainly had an important impact. This time we dare to look even deeper in the crystal ball and predict 2050 scenario(s). But a lot has happened since 00’. Modern technologies became affordable, new breakthroughs were made and our general awareness of the importance and impact of climate change grew. Not surprisingly we all see the impact of climate change every year in different varieties and forms. Some positive, most negative. In Denmark, there hasn’t been such a long, warm and dry summer ever in modern history. First time ever, farmers also started to grow grapes and produce high quality wine. Strange, isn’t it? Not really. All predictions on the impact of climate change have been known for years, but we might just have been ignoring them. Now we start seeing them.

How to move ahead? Taking some good lessons from the past, European Commission sets out different scenarios, without really prescribing EU Member States how to contribute their share or which might be the right path. The only important objective in 2050 is known – decarbonized economy in Europe – free of carbon sources to produce energy we consume, being it electricity, heat or transport fuels. Looking deeper into the core of the problem, I have the fear that we often take prompt decision, which are primarily emotional, trendy or enable re-election.

Let me reflect on one example. Will the electrification of cars help solving our major argument of (fuel) import dependency in Europe? Are electrical cars (indirectly) emitting less CO2 emission than modern fuel or diesel cars? Is production of hydrogen carbon free and delivers net energy gain? The answers to all these questions in most cases today is – not necessary. Production of high performing batteries, allowing us all the comfort we’re used from the use of fossil fuels, requires enormous quantities of (critical) raw materials, often produced in regions with low work ethic, hazardous conditions, children labour and low salaries. In most cases these people have no other option to survive. Is this just outsourcing the dependency? Also here we have to preserve the “planet perspective”. Second issue, is the question of renewability/ availability – will these raw materials be endlessly available? Most certainly not. What is the plan if we run out of these raw materials by 2050 – will we turn back to oil? Similar argument applies to the production of windmills and solar panels – but at least there we know that the wind will keep blowing and the sun will keep shining, maybe even more impactful then today and metals will not go away but rather create a net carbon sink.

But the good news is that breakthroughs will happen and they are not modelled in the Commission scenarios. Certainly, they’ll deliver some of the answers to these questions and help us creating healthier planet for generations to come. 

Finally, I’m still struggling to understand why a simple benefits of energy efficiency is (still) not at the core of our efforts to reduce energy consumption? Maybe it’s not sexy, requires personal (emotional) engagement of every individual (voter) and  financial investment? It all starts at home, with every one of us. The only difference is the condition of our home – how comfortable and healthy is it. But isn’t the objective (for our planet) here the same for all of us?