thinkingstring.com

Earlier in June I posted this quote from John Wyndham. The intervening ten or so days has just reinforced the appropriateness of the quote, in my mind. Both the IEA, and Alexey Miller, who is the head of the Kremlin-owned gas giant Gazprom, are pointing to the likelihood of $250 a barrel oil prices. Much hand wringing and protesting by truck drivers all over the place. The drivers are even choking on their jasmine rice in Thailand, though whether a “drive-slow” or a “traffic blockade” would be noticed in Bangkok is another question.

Meanwhile, in my native Australia petrol is now at A$1.60 a litre and predicted to head to A$2.00. The Australian government of Kevin Rudd, which was voted in only last year and promptly signed up Australia belatedly to the Kyoto protocol, doesn’t have the bravery to say what needs to be said: “Price reflects supply, and what we’re seeing now is a harbinger of what a carbon emission restricted economy and lifestyle will look like”.

This is why, to me, a carbon-down future is not an issue for technology. The highest barriers we will need to overcome are those in people’s minds. Mind you, we can’t blame them. Governments the world over have known about the reality and risks of climate change for at least twenty years, while Hubbert predicted global peak oil in the 1950s. Economic policy, education curriculum, and a lack of bravery and honesty by politicians have wrapped humanity in a warm(ing) comforter blanket of high energy dependency.

On the weekend I met up with some friends. The teenage son of one couple said that his high school science teacher says that global warming is caused by sunspots. I choked on my beer (we were having a quick rest and refreshment halfway through a bike ride), while I quickly jotted down the name of his school so I can make sure I don’t send my kids there. No doubt it would be regarded as inappropriate meddling to make the reality of anthropogenic climate change a required aspect of the next generation’s eduction. Pity, as they are going to have to live with the consequences of the choices and actions of today’s workforce and government.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has published “Energy Technology Perspective: Scenarios and Stragegies to 2050″. The report is the direct response to concern expressed at the 2005 G8 summit, and a subsequently developed action plan.

The report generally finds that a sustainable future for energy production is possible, addressing both climate change and peak-oil factors. Albeit the report actually states that a “more sustainable” energy future is possible - I’m not sure I get that. Its either sustainable or its not sustainable. Regardless of the semantics, the report highlights that substantial investment, substantial effort, and urgent action is required to stimulate transformation.

The report is strong in support for so-called clean-coal power production, a switch to natural gas for power gen’, nuclear, and CO2 capture and storage. Of note is the view that decentralised power generation, fuel cells, and “emerging technologies” require further research and commercial development, and even then may only account for 3% of global generating capacity by 2050.

Technology is not the panacea that will get us there, rather it is one enabling factor, together with social/behavioral changes, a focus on efficiency, and political will and cooperation. This is not to be a short, easy journey. A soft landing for humanity will be a long journey; one that will take at least two decades to engineer and implement. Remember that the next time any company claims to have the simple solution.