The developed world vs the rest of the planet

It’s the latest and possibly the last great myth of the 21st century: climate change is containable and even reversible through concerted human action.

And the frantic drive into renewables and its corollary energy storage — for this read the battery business — will save the planet.

From simple manufacturers of an essential component in modern and industrial life, we, collectively, have become visionaries for the future and saviours of mankind. That pesky carbon dioxide and that tricky global warming will be solved by our engineers, our entrepreneurs and not-forgetting our everresourceful innovators.

But one question doesn’t seem to be attracting much attention. And that’s whether the huge sums of money being committed to reducing emissions are worth the effort?

Certainly, it sounds the case when listening to the soundbites of politicians, that salvation is at hand. US president Joe Biden last year called the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act committing the country to huge tax breaks as the “biggest step forward on climate change ever.” The Brookings Institution, a think-tank, reckons the final cost of the package will top $1 trillion and almost three times larger than the US government estimate of $369 billion. The IRA, said Brookings, “ has the potential to lower energy costs, contribute to lower inflation, increase productivity, and raise economic output over time.”

It might be nice to think this is the case. The fact is that though the developed world — essentially North America, Japan and Europe — is making huge strides in reducing its emissions of CO2 levels, it is still a far-cry from carbon neutrality.

And meanwhile any shortfall created is being picked up elsewhere. Given what’s happening in other parts of the world, this is going to be just a drop removed from an ever-growing ocean of greenhouse gases.

Batteries International is not a climate-change denier, nor do we believe our drive into renewables and energy storage is a waste of money, time or effort.

However, on a planet of almost 8 billion people our efforts are not, so far, enough — failure of a sort will become inevitable.

The emerging world will not hesitate to put climate change lower down a list of priorities that contains elements such as better health care, education and a better standard of living, A quick look at their growing needs is reflected on their targets for climate neutrality — China aims for its CO2 emissions to peak by 2030 (and which already emits roughly a third of all climate change gases) and to be carbon neutral by 2060.

China provides more than half of the world’s steel and cement, but the CO2 emissions from just those two sectors in China are higher than the European Union’s total CO2 emissions.

India, with a similar population of around 1.4 billion souls, is aiming for climate neutrality by 2070. Already in 2022 India’s emissions are higher than that of Europe in its entirety.

The move into electric vehicles across the developed world is unlikely to make much of a dent into the emissions from those two countries — auto manufacturers may boast that some 500 EV types will be launched in the next five years but China’s own cement and steel manufacturing already accounts for more than the whole of the emissions from Europe.

China provides more than half of the world’s steel and cement, but the CO2 emissions from just those two sectors are higher than Europe’s total CO2 emissions.

There’s also no need to simplify the world into the good guys and the bad ones — the developed North versus this pair of the environmentally irresponsible two. The fact is the rest of the developing world is on the same trajectory as China and India. We tut, tut — hypocritically — at our peril about emerging nations’ irresponsibility in wanting a standard of living closer to ours at the expense of the environment.

Robert Bryce, the commentator, points to the issue of energy inequality in his brilliant and highly recommended blog, https://robertbryce.substack. com.

“The average American consumes 20 times more energy per year than the average resident of Africa, … there are 1.4 billion Africans, who, on average, consume about 600kWh of electricity per head, per year. The average American consumes that every three weeks.”

He writes: “The average American consumes 20 times more energy per year than the average resident of Africa, and four times more than the average of Asia. There are 1.4 billion Africans, who, on average, consume about 600kWh of electricity per head, per year. The average American consumes that much electricity every three weeks.

“The reductions in the US and Western Europe are being swamped by increases in the rest of the world, and in particular, in India and China. Thus, the big challenge facing the world is not how many Teslas are being sold in Marin County, but how many coal plants are going to be built in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and other desperately poor countries.”

He points out that nearly 19 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity was brought online last year, with the biggest new additions happening in India, Japan, and Pakistan. Between 2000 and 2022, global CO2 emissions increased by 10,700 million tonnes. Of that increase, about 10,300 million tonnes occurred in the AsiaPacific region.

So where does this all leave the battery industry? First the good times will continue for lead manufacturers and, if the world supply of the huge quantities of metals required holds up, the lithium battery manufacturers will do excellently too.

But we shouldn’t deceive ourselves as being visionaries of the future or saviours of the planet. Or not yet anyway.

Mike Halls, Editor-in-Chief