Energy and development
I have a few comments on the article on energy, development, and climate change, which asks readers to begin a debate on the whole platform of actions by the mighty United Nations, a platform I believe is based on a flawed theory against fossil energy resources and their development (OGJ, Feb. 2, p. 18).
The premise of the UN platform is to estimate so-called economic impacts on poorer and developing nations. Then what comes out after millions of dollars worth of meetings and forums are these: IPIECA, CCWG, UNFCCC, IPCC, ECOSOC, CDM, UNEP, WSSD, and so on. Do you think developing nations could deal with such complex UN establishments to address core issues?
Another UN goal is to develop a framework for poverty alleviation—an idealistic slogan. But on the key priorities list, the most important and most critical element, proven to be most effective, is listed last: primary education for the citizens of poorer nations. Good luck to UN efforts.
Access to modern energy services is allegedly a key issue for economic and social development, according to the UN. Well, what a misread item! If access to affordable energy could solve social crises, there would be seamless and cohesive social fabrics in several nations where energy is plentiful and oftentimes given away free to citizens.
We can cite many nations where cheap energy is available to low-income citizens, yet we read almost regularly how poorer the same sections of the population are becoming in those nations.
Answers to these two complex issues about social and economic development have daunted the global community for the last 70 years or so, yet UN pundits keep on repeating the same tune. The best terminology should be improving the local economy based on particular geographic and sociocultural fabrics of any specific population, not on imported models germinated in the tall UN offices in New York, Geneva, Paris, or Rome. The last word is and will be that it is the people who make changes in their lifestyles and strive for future success, provided the governance in those nations is conducted according to will of the people.
Another commandment from the UN lays blame for climate change on industrialization and economic improvement of the residents of the world. Should the UN mandate cessation of economic activities and reverse the economic betterment achieved during the last two centuries?
A cleverly unwritten fact is that a major portion of global climate change, if there is any now or when it happens, is due to Mother Earth's inherent geodynamism and other celestial phenomena. Oil, gas, and the exploration-production community don't deserve blame for every ill of this planet.
S.K. Bhattacharjee
Geologist
Houston