Imminent release of World Energy Outlook 2008

Momentous, historic, inspired.

No, I’m not talking about the election of America’s first black president. I’m talking about the imminent release of the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2008. I said recently that this would be the most important document since the Stern Climate Change Review, and having read the executive summary (the full report is released Nov 12), I am more convinced of that than ever. The opening paragraph reads like a press release from Greenpeace or WWF:

The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable — environmentally, economically, socially. But that can — and must — be altered; there’s still time to change the road we’re on.

Keep in mind that the IEA is not an environmental organisation. It a highly respected and sober international body, and its predictions and analyses are relied on by goverments the world over as the basis of their energy policies. Here’s some more:

It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply. What is needed is nothing short of an energy revolution.

…

Preventing catastrophic and irreversible damage to the global climate ultimately requires a major decarbonisation of the world energy sources. On current trends, energy-related emissions of carbon-dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases will rise inexorably, pushing up average global temperature by as much as 6°C in the long term. Strong, urgent action is needed to curb these trends.

It is also worth quoting their closing paragraph in full:

For all the uncertainties highlighted in this report, we can be certain that the energy world will look a lot different in 2030 than it does today. The world energy system will be transformed, but not necessarily in the way we would like to see. We can be confident of some of the trends highlighted in this report: the growing weight of China, India, the Middle East and other non-OECD regions in energy markets and in CO2 emissions; the rapidly increasing dominance of national oil companies; and the emergence of low-carbon energy technologies. And while market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over. But many of the key policy drivers (not to mention other, external factors) remain in doubt. It is within the power of all governments, of producing and consuming countries alike, acting alone or together, to steer the world towards a cleaner, cleverer and more competitive energy system. Time is running out and the time to act is now.

I will post more about this soon.

Obama’s energy policy

“CHANGE WE NEED” said the banners. Change we need indeed, and change we will get. But how much?

As interested as I was in the drama of election campaign, I’m just as interested in what happens next. The question is – how large is the gap between ideals and reality? Grand ideas, grand oratory is easy. Making things work is hard. The Hollywood ending is so ingrained in the American psyche that it is hard to imagine that Obama could fail to live up to his bold words, and to the hopes of so many people, both inside America and around the world. We’ll find out soon enough.

In keeping with one of the main themes of this blog, I have been looking at Obama’s energy policy.

In general, my impression is that ideas are right. One of the interesting aspects is the way it has been framed. European-style energy policies tend to have three pillars – conservation, efficiency and renewable sources (or, you prefer the more populist language of the London Plan, “be lean, be clean, be green”).

In the American context, that doesn’t fly. Similar end goals in both candidate’s energy policy are framed as something quite different – energy independence; or, in typical parochial terms, independence from “foreign oil”, as if the stuff is automatically evil because it comes from that most un-American of places – the Middle East. Specifically:

“Eliminate Our Current [oil] Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years”

This is apparently a more palatable sentiment for the electorate than “We will reduce our oil consumption by 35%”. Still, however it is framed, the idea is the right one. The problem was perfectly framed by the world’s favourite environmentalist, George W. Bush, in 2006 – “America is addicted to oil.” Whatever you might think of Dubbya’s legacy, he has, at least, given us that phrase – an excellent metaphor for the developed world’s seemingly unbreakable dependence on fossil fuels. This is no small challenge, and one of the most difficult and important aspects of Obama’s transformational agenda.

The next category in Obama’s energy policy his pledge on climate change:

“Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050″

It’s is a bold, courageous aspiration. Or is it? 2050 is a long way off – ten and a half presidential terms, to be precise. Obama himself probably won’t be around to see it. For me, these kinds of goals are frankly quite meaningless. Things are changing so fast now, that the world of 2050 will probably be a very different place. Of course we must keep in mind the long-term future of our society when we plan our current actions, but to have such a specific goal that far in the future strikes me as the stuff of science fiction.

I have a feeling that in 2050, our descendants will think it rather strange that they should be measuring their current situation against a reference point that belongs in the history books (or whatever the electronic or post-electronic equivalent will be). By then, the physical reality of our climate system will either have condemned us or rendered our scientists Chicken Little fools – more likely the former.

His next campaign pledge is far more immediate:

“Provide Short-term Relief to American Families”

Translation: tax the hell out of the oil companies. Gordon Brown didn’t have the guts, Kevin Rudd wouldn’t dream of it, so we’ll see what kind of precedent Obama can set. Good luck getting it through Congress, Democratically controlled or otherwise. And finally:

“Create Millions of New Green Jobs”

Five million to be precise. This promise is really about building the renewable energy industry, along with other technology-based jobs in energy efficiency and clean coal. Early indications are that this will be at the top of his list of priorities – few politicians have the stomach to talk about deep emissions cuts in today’s economic climate.

Of all the great things that can be said about Obama’s presidental campaign, there is one thing he did not do very well at all, and that is managing expectations. He has an incredible job ahead of him. Good luck to him, and good luck to that country we too often love to hate.

Go Obama!

He might not change the world, he might not even be able to change America, but I really hope he wins on Tuesday.

The economic crash might have a downside

Following on from the last post, I thought I’d give some thoughts on the negative effects of the crash (I’m trying to avoid that terrible term “credit crunch”) on the environment.

In the realm of public concern, and in the marketplace of apocalyptic fears, climate change is now sitting one rung lower. The economic problems are far more immediate  and pressing, and it is easy for long-term considerations to be swept aside. Which possibility worries you more – rising sea levels or losing your job?

In the last few days, the green lobby is clambering to recover lost ground, but has been making little impact on the daily news cycle. One tactic is to draw a parallel, in ecological terms, between the culture of financial indebtedness and our propensity to draw on more of our resources than our environment is capable of delivering in the long term (making us “ecological debtors”). This is the approach of the WWF (et al) Living Planet Report*. Good luck to them, but I’m not sure they’ll make much ground at the moment – like John McCain, the media and the public can only concentrate on one crisis at a time.

At the same time, the Green Tech industry is going to suffer. Public sentiment and government regulation may be important in driving innovation, but it is up to business to deliver it. Although some measures, like reducing unnecessary waste and improving efficiency come for free or at a low cost, most energy saving or renewable energy improvements require investment. They involve a cost in the short term with probable medium or long-term paybacks. Anything that affects business confidence and the availability of credit will affect this industry as much as any other, and possibly more. The prospects of some large renewables ventures have already been dealt a big blow:

With banks reluctant to lend and their stock prices tumbling, many green-energy concerns are struggling to find the long-term funding they need to expand in a capital-intensive industry.

This may sound crazy, but another reason why the current troubles are bad news is that oil will be cheaper. Without wanting to discount the economic pain and suffering that high oil prices have caused recently, the positive side of these high prices is that it has helped us to understand that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and it is stupid for us to be so utterly reliant on them, and at the same time to be squandering them so thoughtlessly. My feeling is that high oil and gas prices have been more effective in inducing us to reduce our fossil fuel consumption than all of the scientific warnings about climate change. If prices stay low over the coming years, we may have the opportunity to test that theory.

But they won’t. I’ll explain why in my next post.

But back to the original question – recession, good or bad? I’ve been hedging my bets a little, but ultimately I have to say…

Bad. As much as it disappoints me to say it, environmental issues are treated as a kind of luxury item – an optional extra when times are good, but the first out the door when times are bad. It’s tough times ahead for bankers and environmentalists.

*Thanks to Dave for the link