There is a saying that goes:
“Safety regulations are written in blood”.
This gruesome statement reminds us of what is at stake when following safety guidelines and standards. People die at work. Others study what went wrong. Then they write regulations, so it does not happen again.
Are energy policies written in blood as well?
Air pollution from burning fossil fuels killed more than 8 million people in a year[1] – that’s two million more than COVID-19 since its beginning[2]. We are warming the globe and unleashing catastrophes that will only get worse. Climate change would kill 250 thousand more people per year from 2030 to 2050[3]. We know that most of the greenhouse gas emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels[4]. Yet, the majority of the almost 2100 renewable energy policies in place around the world are related to economics[5]: payments, finance, taxation, grants, and fees. These instruments may help, but the time for stronger regulation and reforms is due.
When we burn a fossil fuel, it releases microscopic particulate matter into the air that humans breathe. Over time, it kills them. This cause-and-effect relationship is easy to dismiss by the public and politicians. Statistics do not help either. The causes of death from particulate matter are recorded often as stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma[6]. In some cases, natural disasters or accidents on the job are to blame. Ultimately, we know that there is direct causation between humans burning fossil fuels and death. And if humans burn fossil fuels, causing the death of another human being, we have a murder.
The policymaking process starts with agenda-setting, and politicians must rely on evidence to push energy policy to the top of the list. Extensive reforms and regulations should stop the burning of fossil fuels as soon as possible. This is a civic duty that the politicians, serving as our agents and civil servants, must follow since we have chosen them to represent us in a democracy. But frequently, politicians don’t use evidence as the primary tool for their agendas.
Energy policy can be biased toward lobbying groups.
Imagine, governments spend almost three dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels for each dollar spent on renewables[7]. And international public finance is almost equally divided between renewables and non-renewables[8]. How is it reasonable to give all this public money to fossil fuels amidst the climate change issues we face? Why are the top diplomatic forces discussing each year at the Conference of the Parties all these national targets and pledges but keep paying subsidies for fossil fuels or trading large amounts of oil, gas, and coal? These actions are unacceptable given the urgency of action to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Granted, democratic governments have limited power to make such abrupt changes in their energy systems. And people would suffer greatly if fossil fuels stop in a country from one day to the next. The national grid of many countries would collapse; industries, transportation, and households would be taken aback to a war zone-like environment with people rushing to the streets hoarding diesel, food, water… But that does not mean that our current pace to decarbonize our energy systems is going fast enough.
We, citizens, should get more informed and involved in the energy system because our choices also matter. Our choices could reduce energy consumption, thus reducing the demand for fossil fuels. Governments should take advantage of behavioural policies like nudges to expand information and educational campaigns but not at the expense of serious regulation and reforms.
Policymakers should use more randomised controlled trials; increase public participation in their policymaking process; arrange energy uses by top-emitting and tackle those first. Be transparent with data and procedures. Engage the public and trust the science. They should stop getting bamboozled with trendy nonsense topics that address 1% of emissions and stop patting themselves on the back because they joined yet another international forum or signed another Memorandum of Understanding.
We are, indeed, killing people.
You and I are responsible, either directly or indirectly. Some of you have been in politics or lobbying for so long that are disconnected from reality. And our energy policies are written in blood. Rivers of blood. But remember. Humans will write a story with your names on either side of a list. It is time for you to choose: hero or killer?
Everything written here is a personal reflection and is by no means educational, financial or professional advice in any way.
Please feel free to cite and refer reliable sources in the comment section down below.
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/
[2] https://covid19.who.int/table
[3] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
[4] https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2021
[5] https://www.iea.org/policies?source=IEA%2FIRENA%20Renewables%20Policies%20Database&status=In%20force
[6] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
[7] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Energy_subsidies_2020.pdf
[8] https://www.irena.org/publications/2022/Jun/Tracking-SDG-7-2022