playing energyville, destroying the planet

recently, i've been seduced by a very professionally crafted, frank and topical infomercial. it is called energyville, an interactive online game to illustrate the trade offs to be made to power a fictional city. the game had been developed together with the economist intelligence unit, the advisory and consulting branch of the internationally respected the economist group, and is part of a massive $ 40 mio international public relation campaign of chevron to polish its green credentials (source: chevron watch by oilwatchdog)

as an early fan of simcity and civilization, naturally i felt very compelled to engage as mayor of this city. even more so as an energywise interested citizen. later i learn, that this game is part of a continued greenwash effort that actually really is aimed at persons like me which are classified as more of the "potentially antagonistic socially concerned types". sadly, the game gets boring after 5 minutes since i do not really get options to manoeuvre around and work feverishly on my own energy policy. oddly enough, too, during the game i also never have to consult my co-citizens regarding my public decisions. they also never protest like in simcity when i plant a nuclear power plant next to their door. might this be related to the chevron way of doing business?

the first thing that really put me off though, is that i cannot affect any of the demand patterns. the game allows you only ex-post to choose between undifferentiated "low-cost energy efficiency" options which have so and so impacts as regards your economic and environmental score. "these measures will become increasingly important for the future as individuals and businesses try to limit costs and environmental impact", so the online game reasoning. this scenario is set for the second round of the game, 2015 until 2030 (!). don't we need action now?!

and, to emphasize the underlying assumption of the game, it is clearly stated at the beginning that current lifestyle patterns will have to prevail also in the far future. so, that means no discussion about whether a suv- & mcmansion, 12 ton CO2 emission per capita is the sound and sensible lifestyle to power on in the future...

i also liked the unexpected outside events that affect the deployment of various energy sources to power your city. around 2025 i am assured by a bulletin board that "breakthrough technology alleviates fears over oil supply". so after all, why do i really need to try to get off the oil hock since technology will eventually solve all my sorrows over oil supply concerns? well, the sad truth is that a high oil price is as much a peril as a bon to the environment. the higher price encourages for sure the development of alternative fuels and cleaner conversion technologies (let´s call them renewable sources of power) but as well makes it economically feasible to exploit oil from bitumen sands and oil shale. the end of cheap oil does not mean that we consume less oil in absolute measures. it means that we pay more for our oil use while alternative fuels and/or renewable power do not substitute oil but add to the total primary energy consumption. in relative terms we might rely less on oil.

my city also had to endure an "accident at a nuclear facility". but, too, this event did not diminish in any way my ability as mayor to plant more nuclear power plants next to the city. 2015 there was also a terrorist attack on a gas pipeline. i wonder if there is any correlation between foreign policy and attacks on energy infrastructure assumed in the game? but this would, of course, go beyond the parameters of the game. wouldn't it?

dirtyville vs. cleanville
to get to to know the game a little bit better, i decided to test two totally divergent energy deployment strategies. first i created "dirtyville". this was done by using only the dirtiest energy sources and conversion methods on the market available while never approving of any conservation efforts (i kept on adding coal power stations like we do today). the resulting energy mix by the end of the game in 2030 is displayed on the left side.
a major event occurred in 2010 when "major countries joined the kyoto protocol". further the message read that "additional major powers put their full political support behind the kyoto protocol, while others that have already joined meet their targets". this event was responsible for 25% decrease in my coal environment impact (!). another major event occurred 2022 when "enormous reforestation efforts ramps up sequestration of carbon emissions". this lead to another 10% decrease in my coal environment impact.

the final environmental analysis of my game (the impact was given a "high") explained me that "continued use of fossil fuels may exacerbate global warming and lead to even greater environmental impact". i scored around 579 millions points against an average score of 630 million points. this means that dirtyville is a only slightly weaker strategy (92% of average score) than the average energy strategy.

eagerly i went on the create "cleanville". this was done by adding the cleanest available energy source and conversion method as allowed by the game parameters. mainly i did this by relying for base power on hydro stations as much as i can as well as adding plentiful of solar and wind power. i was reminded by the game that transportation requires oil so i had to construct an oil platform and refinery. when i exhausted the possibilities of water, solar and wind i continued by adding biomass until cleanville was fully powered. needless to say, i also adopted always the strictest conservation efforts available.
i scored 5% above average, reaching 663 millions points. my environmental impact is stated as "medium". i am reminded that "the decision to use cleaner sources of power has to be weighed against the potentially negative impact of incurring higher short-term energy costs associated with renewable sources of energy".

i wish i could have a look the highest scoring cities to examine their strategies. sadly, this option is not given.

learnings from dirtyville vs. cleanville?

• first, we are playing games with the planet.
  the kyoto protocol event of 2012 displays it as a version of the prisoner's dilemma. i understand now better why the united states and australia, among others, do not join the treaty. "after all, all countries will enjoy the benefits of a stable climate whether they have helped to bring it about or not" explains an excellent article on exactly this topic by the economist (which belong to the same owners as the economist intelligence unit which developed the game for chevron)
• secondly, a clean strategy only scores slightly better than the dirty strategy.
  knowing how much effort it takes just to change the existing unsound energy structure and policies a little bit towards a more rational, decentralized and ultimately lower intensity energy system, the game obviously wants to imply the uselessness of pursing a cleaner strategy. i have to admit: a clean strategy is not feasible if we have to power our current lifestyle patterns and its associated structures.
• thirdly, go about your daily business.
  because climate change is not here yet and technology will eventually solve all our problems. we either just massively plant trees to get rid of excess carbon emissions or new technologies allow use to exploit also the plentiful available sources of unconventional oil. too, i strongly noticed the undercurrent of the game's analysis to reduce the relationship between global warming and massive use of fossil fuels to a still hypothetical nature.

greenwash not real options
i would like to remind you why chevron needs this expensive public relation campaign, which i can only label with one word: greenwash.

there are two strings to my explanations:

1. first, the company's strategic investments, its actions not its words, are heavily focused on fossil fuel technologies: it is about sourcing more conventional and especially more unconventional oil sources (oil sands, shale oil) as well as synthesizing fuels from gas. in 2007, the company estimates to invest about $ 14.6 bn for exploration and production activites for deepwater drilling projects in the gulf of mexico and oil sands projects in canada among others (source: chevron 2006 annual report). this is feasible due to structurally higher oil prices (now hoovering around $ 80 per barrel, $3 per gallon at the average joe's gas station) and highly profitable.
   to be correct, chevron is a leader in the development of geothermal power but it could not depict the real figures the company invests in a future beyond petroluem...
   
2. secondly, the company's environmental footprint is close to catastrophic, so it really does need a public relations clean up. the lawsuit "aguinda v. chevrontexaco" documents how chevron-owned companies have probably created one of worst environmental disaster on the planet, so the new york times, by spilling approximately 30 times more oil in the ecuadorian forest than in the exxon valdez event. too, it is asserted that the exploration company systematically dumped more than 80 billions liters of highly carcinogenic toxic waste into pits (source: chevrontoxico). see below a oil separation station in the ecuadorian rain forest, close to the town of shushufindi.

clear is, that chevron is not interested in change to the current game and its rules. if they want to engage the public on the "tough choices" we have to face, why all this greenwash? anyway, we need real options. and the bastard of corporation called chevron surely will not help along the way.