ROW Episode 34

In this episode we explore the idea of pooling critical energy resources in the hands of a supranational high authority for energy as a way of solving a trifecta of global challenges namely: equitable energy distribution, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

Episode Transcript

Sovaida (00:08):
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast
dedicated to envisioning abetter world and to infusing
hope that we can make theprincipled choices to build that
world.
In this episode, we explore theidea of pooling critical energy
resources in the hands of asupranational high authority for

(00:31):
energy as a way of solving atrifecta of global challenges,
namely equitable energydistribution, climate change,
and nuclear proliferation.
I believe that we, the people,need to educate ourselves and
have lots of conversations,consultations, brainstorming

(00:52):
events to explore how we cancreate a better world.
As we have these conversations,we'll also be preparing
ourselves, albeit unwittingly,but maybe we can do this
intentionally, to elect fitleaders who are capable of
meeting the needs and challengesof our world today, and to take

(01:13):
the kind of action that theformer Foreign Minister of
France--this is in the 1950s--Robert Schuman referred to in
his famous comment when he said,"World peace cannot be
safeguarded without the makingof creative efforts
proportionate to the dangerswhich threaten it." And while

(01:38):
it's important for us to makecreative efforts, I also believe
that as humans we tend to feartaking big leaps all at once.
It's therefore a good idea tothink about incremental steps
that we can take, and this iscertainly something that would
be advisable if we're to figureout what we can do to solve the

(01:59):
myriad global challenges beforeus.
Now, I've believed for a numberof years now, and I've been
talking about this and writingabout this for a long time, that
we should pursue a particularcourse of action that would give
us the biggest bang for ourbuck, so to speak, and would

(02:19):
take us a long way to solving atriad of global crises, three
major dangers that the worldfaces.
Remember Robert Schumann says weneed to make creative efforts
that are proportionate to thedangers we face.
What is this triad ofinterrelated global threats?

(02:42):
As you will see here on thiscaption, the equitable
distribution of energy, climatechange, and nuclear
proliferation are the threemajor global challenges that I
believe are intimatelyinterrelated, as we'll see in a
second here and that, andtherefore, a solution to them
needs to take account of.

(03:02):
All three of them.
Let's look a little bit at thefirst one, the equitable
distribution of energy.
I think we're all becoming, as aresult of the conflict in
Ukraine, very familiar with theidea that all nations need to
have equitable and fair accessto the correct amounts of energy

(03:24):
that they need to sustainthemselves and at reasonable
prices.
It's definitely a challengethat's plaguing us today, and
what we're seeing is thecomplete opposite of anything
that's a system that'sequitable.
In fact, we're seeing that we'vegot groups of energy rich
countries who are acting withimpunity to hold other countries

(03:46):
hostage.
They're saying to countries whodon't happen to sit on barrels
of oil and gas or whatever otherforms of energy they need,
they're saying,"Tough luck.
We've got you over the barreland you now need to comply with
our demands or else we willdeprive you.
It's as simple as that." Theyfail to recognize the reality of

(04:06):
our interconnectedness and thefact that their behavior is
going to impact not only othernations but themselves.
Consequently, we're alreadyseeing that the world economy
has taken a massive body blowand is reeling from the effects
of this behavior, as is evidentby rapidly rising inflation and

(04:27):
the high costs of energy andother things food and so on, and
commodities.
And it's clear that the world issinking into a global recession.
We've also seen in the mix thatthe system again is broken
because of the action that we'veseen just in this month of
October with the OPEC plus, theoil cartels deciding to restrict

(04:50):
output just as nations are goinginto winter in Europe and need
more access to energy andthey're doing it with the sole
purpose of keeping energy priceshigh.
The behavior is based on selfinterest of certain nations and
expediency rather than thecollective good.

(05:11):
That's the first major challengethat we're facing.
The second challenge is climatechange.
It's yet another crisis.
And unfortunately, because we'vebecome so focused on nations
scrambling basically to satisfytheir energy needs for the
upcoming winter season,especially in, as I say, Western

(05:33):
Europe, we have lost focus.
We've become distracted from theneed to figure out how we can
very quickly reduce our relianceon these very fossil fuels that
we're worrying about gettingaccess to, and to reduce our
reliance on them to zero,because we absolutely need to do
that in order to avoid the worstimpacts of climate change That

(05:56):
we have covered in previoussessions of this program.
If you want to learn more aboutthose, feel free to go and
scroll through the YouTubechannel to get more details on
that.
And we've got this other problemof climate change.
Energy experts also agree thatin this period of transition
between reliance of fossil fuelsand relying completely on

(06:20):
renewable clean energy, nuclearenergy has got to be in the mix.
We simply can't survive withoutit, because we are unfortunately
not at the point yet where wecan completely substitute clean,
renewable energy for for fossilfuels.
During this period oftransition, we need to have
nuclear energy in the mix, butthis brings us to our third

(06:44):
global challenge, which is thefear and the reality of nuclear
proliferation and the threat ofnuclear conflict.
Now the threat of nuclearconflict has already gone up
with the war in Ukraine and withthe saber rattling that's been
going on,"Oh, we might use ournuclear weapons, and we mean it.
We're not bluffing here." So thefears and anxieties around the

(07:07):
use of nuclear weapons has goneup again.
It's at the highest pitch it'sbeen since the Cuban Missile
Crisis, according to theexperts.
So the idea of allowing morenations to be able to build
civilian nuclear reactors inorder to have access to more
electricity for their people,which is something that we want

(07:28):
for folks, also means that we'reincreasing the risk of that a
subset of those countries willalso develop illicit,
destructive, nucleartechnologies and weapons, as
history has demonstrated that anumber of countries have already
done.
We're already finding ourselvesas an international community in
a pickle with those countries,like North Korea and Iran's

(07:52):
continued efforts to gainnuclear weapons according to the
international agency that ismonitoring this stuff.
So this is the third crisis.
You can see the interconnectionbetween equitable distribution
of energy, What kind of energydo we use, because climate
change is a problem?

(08:14):
And gee whiz if we need to usenuclear in the mix, how do we do
that while also keeping humanitysafe against the threat of
nuclear proliferation andpotentially nuclear war?
So this brings us to the verysimple idea.
This is not my idea, I willimmediately hasten to add, and
I'll let you know in a minutewhere this idea came from.

(08:36):
But it's an idea that requirescollective action, that is
dependent on a new kind ofthinking, and an approach to
solving problems that takes thelong view into consideration as
opposed to acting expedientlyconsidering only short term
interests and narrownationalistic interests.

(08:56):
Fortunately, it's an idea that'sborn of a historical precedent,
and the good news about that isthat we've already experimented
with this idea, albeit at aregional level in Europe, and it
has proven very successful.
So we have a historic model foraction.
Now, the idea is that we pool asubset of critical resources, in

(09:20):
this case energy resources, andhave them be jointly controlled
and managed by a supranationalauthority, a high authority that
sits above nations.
This idea was proposed by JeanMonnet, who's considered the
father of the European Union.
It was based on his deep beliefabout the need for the common

(09:45):
management of common problems,and his understanding and
belief, again, that humanity wasat a stage, and Europe was
definitely a stage in theaftermath of the Second World
War, where its interests werefused, and so we needed to be
considering collectiveinterests, as opposed to this
game that we play ininternational relations, which

(10:06):
is this constant seesaw game ofattempting to maintain an
equilibrium of nationalinterests.
Honestly, it is exhausting.
It is not really successful.
As soon as you think you'veachieved equilibrium, something
else goes wrong and there you gooff again.
And you're constantly trying todeal with bilateral, trilateral,

(10:27):
four nations, five nations,occasionally multilateral
relations, but without bindingagreements.
So people pull out and the wholething goes into seesaw mode
again.
This just doesn't work very welland Jean Monnet, who had been
the Deputy Secretary General ofthe League of Nations, had
observed this in the League ofNations and thought, We've been
doing this for hundreds ofyears, it doesn't work so well,

(10:48):
so let's try somethingdifferent.
He also believed that bystarting an incremental process
pooling resources in a narroweconomic sphere, which was coal
and steel at this time, thisgroup of nations that engaged in
this experiment could build linkby link a chain of ever
increasing integration thatwould eventually lead to a

(11:10):
deeper federal unity betweenthem.
So his idea revolved aroundpulling coal and steel, which
were the two most criticalresources necessary for
rebuilding and reconstructingEurope after the devastation it
had suffered as a result of theSecond World War.
Today, the resources that areakin to the coal and steel in

(11:32):
those days are oil, gas, andnuclear energy, basically energy
resources that all the worldneeds, that we need to figure
out how to manage together as acollective whole, while taking
into account all of the thingsthat we need, including to
resolve the climate change issueand to make sure that, in our

(11:53):
quest to ensure clean energytransition, we don't increase
the risks of a nuclearproliferation.
Now, there is much that we canlearn from Monet's proposal.
Interestingly, this whole ideaof a supranational authority
included that there be a customsunion and a common market in
which this high authority wouldensure the supply, today it

(12:17):
would be of coal, gas, andnuclear energy, on equal terms
to participating nations.
The high authority would betransparent.
It would collect informationabout how much of these
resources each nation needed andhow much was being used and what
the production levels were sothat you could meet everybody's
needs on reasonable terms atreasonable prices.

(12:40):
And you could ramp up or reduceproduction in accordance with
needs, not just to make moneyand increase profits.
That there should be a built intransparency that we've just
talked about and adequate properrepresentation of different
countries.
It required putting asidenationalistic interests and

(13:00):
advancing collective interests.
For example, the high authorityfunctioned as a college for the
purposes of decision making.
There was no requirement ofunanimity like we have, with the
veto on the Security Council,where one of the P5--permanent
five members-- can veto adecision.
Decisions were to be taken by amajority once a quorum of half

(13:24):
--the presence of half themembers-- had been met.
There was also to be autonomy indecision making.
The representatives were not toseek or accept instructions from
their national governments.
They were there to act for thecommon good.
It's just phenomenal that thisman had this vision back in the
1940s and 50s.

(13:46):
He also wanted to ensurefinancial independence for this
institution because we all knowthat when nations contribute to,
say the United Nations or anyone of these quote unquote
international organizations, asopposed to supranational
organizations, they feel theyhave more say then in how things
are done and the decisions thatare made.

(14:08):
Again, Jean Monnet had seen thiswith the League of Nations and
he didn't want to replicatethat.
So it was completelyindependently funded by imposing
a 1 percent levy on theproduction, the value of the
goods, the coal and steelproduced.
The decisions of the highauthority should have binding

(14:29):
effect on all nations and shouldbe enforceable inside nations.
So you don't have this lame duckinstitution that spouts out
resolutions, the way our UNGeneral Assembly does these
days, without those decisionsbeing binding.
The decisions would have directeffect.
Inside all the member countries,you didn't have to pass

(14:52):
independent legislation to makethem effective.
They would automatically havethe same effect as national
legislation.
The high authority had the powerto penalize enterprises that
didn't follow the rules.
It could use the courts of thenation states and their legal
systems to enforce these rules,which is just so farsighted;

(15:13):
talk about creative effort,proportionate to the dangers.
This is what we need today.
We need such a high authoritythat is capable of making
decisions that are binding onall nations, that can use state
courts to implement, and thatcould suspend payments due to
nations if they fail to comply.
So it really had teeth.

(15:35):
And in addition, it also had itsown court of justice whose
judgments were binding on allthe member nations.

So this is the idea (15:41):
pooling our oil, gas, and nuclear energy
resources in the hands of aglobal supranational authority.
Now people sometimes ask me,Isn't this the same as having a
cartel?
Isn't this just another form ofcartel?" It's a really important
and good question.
I'm going to go ahead andanticipate that question and

(16:03):
just very simply answer bysaying, No.
It is nothing like a cartel.
Cartels, as we've seen with therecent decision of the OPEC
plus, seek to restrain outputwith the goal of increasing
profits for themselves.
The high authority's goal wouldbe to increase productivity.
The goal is to meet the needs ofmember nations, not to make

(16:26):
profits.
Cartels tend to have their dealsmade in secret.
The high authority, by contrast,is transparent and publishes
both demand and supplyinformation, and encourages open
agreements.
Again, transparency.
And cartels serve the privateinterests of industrialist

(16:46):
members, while the highauthority serves as the agent of
the broader public.
It's very existence and its goalis to serve the broader public
good.
Now one of the boons ofimplementing this proposal, as
we saw happened in Europe and isvery likely to happen if we

(17:09):
implement this at a globallevel, is that it brought peace
to Europe.
It was a huge benefit.
The nations of Western Europe,particularly France and Germany,
for once and for all put asideall the wars that they'd been
engaging in, most of whichinvolved their desire to access
territory that was rich in coalso that they could then produce

(17:32):
the steel.
You need the coal to burn infurnaces in order to create the
steel.-- I cannot tell you whata huge boon this is.
If we were to put in place sucha high authority for oil, gas,
and nuclear energy, chances arethat we would reduce border
conflicts around the world byabout 80 percent, because most

(17:53):
of them are fought over accessto resources, very often energy
resources.
This is another huge incentivefor us if peace is to be one of
the windfalls of thisarrangement.
Now some of you may beskeptical, completely
understandably, and say, This isnever going to fly." And to

(18:16):
those of you who are theskeptics in this group, I'm
going to respond in the same wayJean Monnet did.
He used to propound hisproposal, go around.
He was actually considered a bitof a pain in the neck.
Wherever he went, dinnerparties, whenever he met his
group of friends, he would talkabout this proposal and people

(18:37):
would say,"Ah, you're dreaming.
This is never going to happen."And his retort was that when the
current system failed, as itinevitably would.
And honestly, when we look atthe world around us, we can see
the systems unraveling beforeour eyes.
And we can see that countriesdon't really know what to do.
Just think of the economiccrisis right now.

(18:59):
How do we manage just inflationand energy costs and food costs
of food and other commodities?
So he said, once the systemfails, as it inevitably would,
those very same people who werenaysayers and said this scheme
is not going to work, would bethe very first to adopt the
plans that somebody had thoughtabout in advance, had planned

(19:23):
long term, and prepared.
Our job is to be prepared.
Our job is to have a vision, tohold a high vision, to have some
ideas, to have plans.
Goodness knows the world needsthese.
And when everything crashesabout our ears, as it is already
in the process of doing, thenmaybe some of these plans will

(19:47):
prove useful.
Obviously, it will be up tohumanity to decide at that
stage, and up to our leaders,and up to our decision makers to
decide what to do.
But in the meanwhile, our job asthe public, as the masses who
elect those leaders, is toeducate ourselves about what's
possible, what the vision mightbe, how we might bridge the gap

(20:10):
between where we are to where wewant to be, and take those
steps, get those ideas out intothe environment so that we can
elect the leaders that, whohopefully, when the time is
right, may take on board some ofthese ideas and implement them.
Okay, that's the end of my spielhere for today.

(20:32):
For those of you who areinterested in learning more
about the nitty gritty detailsof how would the system work,
and you who have questions,obviously I've spent just 20
minutes covering the subjecttoday, but I've treated it at
length in a book called Bridgeto Global Governance, Tackling
Climate Change, EnergyDistribution, and Nuclear

(20:52):
proliferation.
It's available everywhere on theworld on Amazon, both as a
paperback and as an e-book.
So if you're interested, feelfree to pick up a copy, take a
read, reach out to me, shareyour thoughts here on the
YouTube channel, on Facebook,wherever you're listening to
this, on LinkedIn.
And I look forward to engagingin conversations with you.

(21:17):
I'm going to check to see ifthere are questions or comments.
So I'm just going to put this uphere.
"Collective action and the longview, two huge challenges, but
indeed, Jean Monnet's EU plansdid come into fruition, and
those who leave, e.
g.
the UK, see how much worse offthey are by going their separate
ways." Yes, there's some veryinteresting articles in the

(21:39):
media in light of what the UK isespecially going through now
with the new government and theeconomic proposals that
apparently proved disastrous,and commenting on the fact that
this is a compounding effect ofseveral decisions that were
made, including Brexit, and thatwe're now paying the piper for
these decisions.

(21:59):
Again, long term thinking is sokey.
All right.
Thank you, everyone.
I look forward to seeing youagain next month.
Take care and goodbye for now.
That's all for this episode ofReimagining Our World.
I'll see you back here nextmonth.
If you liked this episode,please help us to get the word

(22:22):
out by rating us and subscribingto the program on your favorite
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.