The EU has adopted a “Methane Strategy”. This is to reduce natural gas extraction and stop methane leaks into the atmosphere. It has the same weakness as pulling against carbon dioxide itself.
“Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Over a 100-year time horizon, methane has 28 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide and is 84 times more effective over a 20-year time horizon,” lists materials from the European Commission (here). And since the union believes that the world is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, it is logical that humanity is trying to reduce them vigorously. So it would be logical if…
If only all of humanity was really dedicated to it. But that’s not the case. Instead of humanity, it is primarily the EU that focuses on this. At the same time, it is hoping that the Methane Strategy will consolidate its leading position in the campaign against global warming. But this primacy does not bring any advantage to EU states. On the contrary. It only brings problems with sufficient energy and their high prices. However, global emissions continue to rise, so warming continues. So if emissions from human activity are really to blame for it, the Union’s efforts so far are completely odd.
As long as not only China and India, but also all other producers do not approach these emissions in the same way, the development cannot change. Which, of course, the EU leadership stubbornly refuses to admit. And quite inexplicably, the heads of member states echo him in this. It’s not enough.
The EU Methane Strategy (here) could easily be called “Liquidation Strategy”. Because natural gas is supposed to replace coal in the EU, ensure peak performance and continuously switch to intermittent sources (RES). But as soon as all emissions start to be taken into account, including those during extraction and transportation, the same thing will happen to gas that happened to coal. And it might even get worse. That the progressives will try to do that, take poison for that (e.g. Pirate Mikuláš Peksa here).
However, if the emissions of burned natural gas include those generated during extraction and transportation, gas producers will need the same permits as coal miners. This puts natural gas in the same position as coal. So it will very quickly be on the verge of profitability. Given that the union wants to withdraw allowances from the market more quickly in the future (a reform carried out under the baton of the Czech government), their price will rise even faster.
Which will have only three possible outcomes: closing steam gas sources (and heating plants), subsidizing their artificially expensive operation, liquidation of emission allowances. The third option is completely unimaginable for the current leadership of the union and for progressives in general. The closure of steam-gas sources will be unacceptable for the states, because after coal, gas is the only large-capacity and at the same time controllable source, and even in the heating industry, it will probably not have a coal alternative in a few years. So that leaves option number two. Governments that agree to artificially increase the cost of steam sources through emission allowances will subsidize their production. Which, of course, will not reduce the price of electricity for people and companies.
The result will be a definitive blow to the energy industry in the area of the Union. This will bring the industry to its knees and with it the standard of living of the people. At the same time, the planetary amount of greenhouse emissions – the claimed reason for the whole operation – will continue to grow, as it has been until now. The EU’s leading role in the fight against climate change notwithstanding.
On the contrary, limiting methane leaks will certainly be a positive step. Because overall it will lead to more efficient mining, which would then not need to be increased so much. However, achieving this goal would certainly be possible without the Methane strategy, which leads to a classic EU subsidy carousel. As long as there is something to subsidize. Which, taken financially literately and responsibly, is no longer the case now.
Provided by the server iUhlí.cz
