Debate 26 - Notes

Energy Debate #1. Supply: What are our needs and can we meet them?

1. Do we need peak oil - is it the answer?
   Could be a silver lining - reasons to be cheerful: drivers for efficiency will be bigger, disruptive technologies that foster innovation and improved community.
   Worries: scope for panic. Markets will go 1929 style. No escape. Could be a cyclical component to it. Massive social unrest - bringing in extremists. People could flee to
   Coal (the Nazis tried to get liquids from coal) Extent to which renewables and efficiencies replace coal is key. Endgame is a struggle between people who want to go the efficiency route and those that go to coal.

2. Our needs - what about future generations, do we discount their claims. Presupposes that energy we are using is the energy we should be using. Issue of climate change, needs to be against the background of climate change. Only one solution - carbon rationing. But we are all talking about carbon rationing in different terms.

3. To get to domestic quotas we need a framework. We need to believe that we have a problem.2 mega technologies - decarbonising coal and hydrogen. Maybe neither will work but they might. Need to prepare for the fact that they might work.

4. Hydrogen is not part of thesolution as it is not an energy source; it is an energy carrier

5. Global debate - what influence on China and India. More of onus on the West to put its house in order. In terms of future technologies, coal is more plentiful than oil and gas. There is also fusion.

Moral dimension - danger of chopping problem up too much. Need to think in systems terms. Current system - fossil fuel, breaking down, depletion and CO2. Issue is not to define the time scale too closely. But it definitely spells the end of western civilization. We have built ourselves a very vulnerable system that is dependent on energy

US Hirsch Report (on internet). We don’t actually know when the oil problem is going to hit. If it hits 20 years away and if you are now preparing with structure, conservation and renewables dominating all other policy areas, we might escape. If we only have 10 years to prepare we are in big trouble. If it hits without any preparation VERY deep trouble - massive die back of the population.

What’s the issue - nuclear will not solve the problem and the world is still enthusiastic. Are they badly advised? Matter of being able to read the oil statistics. Why hasn’t the oil issue been taken on board before - it is not rocket science. Perhaps for the same reason they are not taking the nuclear issue clearly.

How can we make this audible to a government that is known not to listen. What is the practical way to get this out to the population?

Are we looking too much at one solution - dirty carbon bio-solutions? Are we forgetting key innovations - different supply chain, not conditional on David’s first 2 conditions?

Pacific ocean algae energy - harvested at the seabed with use of heat pumps, but major solutions will take 20-50 years. Research programmes under way.

Politics of denial - nothing in it for politicians. If you are on the receiving end, the Opposition will pin it on you, if you raise it in Opposition, a marginalisation process will be brought to bear and you will not be able to sell it as a good story. Despondent that we can respond to the threat before it happens cf. ‘Collapse’ by Jared Diamond. We are capable of being collectively blind to resource depletion and are simply rehearsing something that has happened a number of times before.

10 years history of Governments being told and not listening. All comes down to timing and ad hoc responses. How quickly can solutions be brought in? Diplomacy is not going to do it. If politicians will do nothing, it comes down to what we can do on the timings. But we can’t do any of it quick enough, therefore what will happen will happen; then we begin to rebuild.

Moral issue, systems not sophisticated enough to withstand a system challenge. Do the solutions exist? Is there a socio-political system that can foster the move to the solutions - so the second has to come first?

We should be talking about what is going to be happening. Behavior of people after Katrina, different from the tidal wave. Lessons to be learnt. We need to talk to the people about what it is like. However, ability of our society to react quickly has been demonstrated in the past, we could build a lot of wind turbines quickly, for instance.

Politicians are a vested interest group. Need consumer power. (eg CFCs). We need to move this into the consumer arena to make things happen fast.

50% of emissions from business - it is the largest slice, but the influence the consumer has on business can be profound cf. GM foods

Solar update: one of fastest growing markets in world, esp. where governments are enabling markets. Solar Century 25th fastest growing new tech company. Bad news for British economy. Links up with other renewable technologies. But the current world capacity is minute = the size of Didcot power station. Local governments are leading through planning permission rather than national government. But these technologies cannot even come close to closing the gap.

Pressure developing in supply chain on business. Environmental policies from customers

Efficiency - meeting needs with less energy. Can meet consumer reluctance to change especially on houses.

Supply - what should politicians be doing about the supply problems - what are the polices

We are a net importer - no concern in DTI about peak oil depletion

Role of the Institutions - professional practice or institution change

The step change seems to have disappeared but that is what we have been talking about it. There are no supply-side solutions. They have to be cultural and demand side. Something our leaders are retreating from. We can do a lot individually

Issue is not about maintaining energy-profligate life styles. We are deluding ourselves. We must stop believing that the voluntary approach will work. The answer is carbon rationing and C&C. But few are prepared to live to their carbon ration. There is only one solution and it can only be taken by government - rationing.

But what role can we and the Institutions take? Are we requiring the Institutions to say unpopular things that would not necessarily reflect the views of their members?

RIBA has introduced training. Every little bit helps and we need to blame the media

Edge introduced the idea of carbon rationing in the 1990s. It was something the Institutions could have picked up on, esp. as it has become a PMB.

There are politicians who are keen to do something

The two parts in society that can move fast are business and the military. Fixation of government flies in face of historical evidence. The meltdown is bad for business. They are going to be interested. 50% of world GDP is corporately owned - they are a small number to target.

But working with business, they have long-term objectives and short-term concerns which brings us back to the political framework. We might not maintain 2.5% growth

Institutions can have a powerful role. Government listens to them but listens most to those that are well organized around single issues. Our Institutions need to take a leadership role on this.