The Green Party and the Electric Reform

The position of the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (PVEM) regarding the electric reform proposed by the federal government should go down in history as a serious risk to the environment of Mexicans and as a flagrant violation of the principles of green parties worldwide.

Green parties exist in a large part of the world and are born as an alternative movement to traditional parties of the left or right, liberal or conservative, because instead of proposing a broad agenda based on a series of values, they concentrate on an ideal or specific value and seek to influence the political system transversally, in this case and primarily, the environment.

For the most part they are the result of the revolution on sustainability that developed in the 1970s-1980s and if we start from the classic quote by Max Weber: “Politics is the aspiration to participate in power or influence the distribution of power,” initially these political organizations, more than the aspiration to participate in power, had as their purpose to influence the distribution of power in order to position sustainability on the agenda.

The first green parties appeared in Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom in the 1970s and began to spread throughout the rest of Europe between the 1980s and 1990s with the growing relevance of sustainability, the environment and climate change of the new world order after the Cold War. In Mexico, as part of that same wave, in 1993 the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico was founded.

In 2001, around 800 delegates from green parties from 72 countries in the world met in Australia to sign the Global Greens Charter based on six guiding principles: ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, nonviolence, sustainability and respect for diversity.

The Global Greens Charter was revised in 2017 and in it they recognize the climate crisis as one of the great challenges of world society and establish their commitment to limit the increase in global temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees, for which emissions should have gone down by 2020.

The agenda of the greens considers, then, working to support the transition to a zero-emissions global economy, promoting a moratorium on fossil fuels, stopping deforestation, promoting taxes on non-renewable sources and using the funds to finance the adoption of renewable energies and energy efficiency programs.

After reviewing the history and principles of the Greens worldwide, it is impossible to justify the arguments and actions of the PVEM in the proposal for constitutional reform in electric matters promoted by the federal government, since, despite the fact that it is established in the constitutional text, it does not contribute to the energy transition.

“…the green supports an initiative that bets that with the change of dispatch, CFE plants that use diesel, fuel oil and mineral coal will be used first.”

Instead of that, the green supports an initiative that bets that with the change of dispatch, CFE plants that use diesel, fuel oil and mineral coal will be used first. In contradiction, hydroelectric plants will not be able to increase their capacity in great proportion and will depend largely on the amount of water stored during the rainy seasons.

The PVEM allied itself with a project that does not establish taxes on fossil sources and, on the contrary, eliminates the only financial instrument that existed to promote the installation of renewable energies, the Clean Energy Certificates (CEL). In addition, instead of limiting dirty generation, it will promote it.

For this reason, and if Mexicans had a reliable long-term memory, the position of the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico regarding the electric reform proposed by the federal government should go down in history as a violation of the international principles of green parties, against the historic struggle of these organizations worldwide and against our environment. Unless green is only because of the color of the bills.

This article was originally published by Energía a Debate.
Date: Aplirl 12, 2022
Link: https://energiaadebate.com/el-partido-verde-y-la-reforma-electrica/ [Online]

Energy and Globalization

The energy transition planned and developed through international agreements is framed within the project of world order after the Cold War. This project, however, requires economic stability and global peace to foster international cooperation from an approach of mutual gains. Current events not only question the validity of the world order based on globalization, but also change the traditional paradigm of the energy transition that was gestated in this world order.

Let us go back in time three decades and return to the 1990s. In general, it could be said that this decade was marked by international optimism and economic stability, not to say an economic boom. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War brought to an end the bipolar global order that governed the international community since the 1950s, which generated confidence to establish a new world order based on international free trade.

The appearance of regional blocs based on this new idea was a reflection of the possibility of a global world. The North American Free Trade Agreement created the largest commercial region in the world, while the Maastricht Treaty laid the foundations to advance in the integration of the European Union. The need to advance in the development of the less favored countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America was also recognized, leaving aside colonial aspirations of the countries but generating mechanisms for free trade.

“It was recognized, then, a threat to international security different from the traditional threats of the postwar period.”

With the threats of mutual global destruction due to a nuclear conflict behind, the international community began to concentrate on other social demands such as climate change. In the 1990s, the Earth Summit, the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol were pillars to guide the first global efforts of decarbonization. It was recognized, then, a threat to international security different from the traditional threats of the postwar period.

Facing the Russia and Ukraine conflict, the possibility of continuing under this model of multilateral cooperation in the future is questioned and it reveals the difficulty of maintaining cohesion to achieve common objectives, particularly in the energy and international decarbonization issue. It would seem that with this the stage of international optimism closes to return to that of multipolar political realism where each region defines its priorities based on its particular interests.

This article was originally published by Energía a Debate.
Date: Aplirl 5, 2022
Link: https://energiaadebate.com/la-energia-y-la-globalizacion/ [Online]

Energy Martyrs

Listening to the arguments of those who are in favor of the electric reform initiative in the open parliaments, I remembered the fable of the horse and the scorpion. The latter, wanting to cross a stream, asks the horse to help him cross. The horse, cautious as equines are, refuses, in the first instance, because the scorpion has a reputation for stinging and killing other animals.

The scorpion, skilled in his words, makes it evident to the horse that if he were to sting him and cause his death while they cross the stream, both would die, for which reason he would not do it. Thus, the horse agrees, the scorpion mounts him and begins his crossing. Halfway through, the horse feels the pain product of the sting.

While he becomes paralyzed and realizes his mistake, before dying the horse questions the scorpion as to why the sting, if now both would die. The scorpion, without philosophical or ontological arguments, without greater reason than instinct, replies only that this is his nature. Thus, both die, the horse and the scorpion.

Before knowing that from the Coordination of Corporate Communication of CFE those who participate in the Open Parliament representing the company have been instructed to concentrate on arguments that appeal to emotions because, from said Coordination, all this is a staging, it was evident that the arguments of those who are in favor of the electric reform initiative followed a certain pattern.

The most worrying of them is that there is not much talk, in the speeches of those who are in favor, about electricity costs going down, but rather all the arguments are concentrated on the supposed injustices that CFE has suffered since 1992, although much is focused on the 2013 reform.

“The central argument is how to increase electricity prices.”

Deep down, what is worrying are the veiled statements of the officials among which stand out that households must pay more for energy, that businesses must pay more for energy and that industrialists must pay more for energy. That is, the central argument is how to increase electricity prices.

To the vehement cry that the provision of the public service does not seek profits, there is indeed advocacy for continuing to increase the monetary flows that go to CFE either through the increase of transmission and distribution tariffs, limiting those who want to install panels on their roofs because they would represent less income for the company, and increasing the amount of energy that comes from CFE by reserving at least 54% of sales, even if the energy comes from more polluting and more expensive sources.

At no time has there been talk about how the cost of electricity can indeed go down, how to reduce labor liabilities, how to make processes efficient, how to integrate new and cheap technologies, how to empower the consumer, how to expand and strengthen the networks. None of that, only how to increase costs.

This is dangerous for the citizenry and harms us all, we are the horse whom the scorpion asks to help him cross, but halfway through, giving everything to CFE is going to cost us all, in price increases, pollutants, job losses and limitations to freedom. This is a reform that only favors CFE and its arguments are not in favor of the benefit of society and, in the end, it will harm us all, including CFE.

If the reform initiative is approved, we will be, then, energy martyrs to sustain the privileges of a company, the State company.

This article was originally published by Energía a Debate.
Date: February 8, 2022
Link: https://energiaadebate.com/martires-energeticos/ [Online]