The Energy Race: is it the Economy or the Ecology?
Dec 11
For some time now the Energy Race was driven largely by economic rather than ecological incentives. Governments, in cooperation with investors and entrepreneurs are stepping up efforts to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, be aware that this mega goal won’t be easy or cheap, despite the fact that numerous innovative ideas are being developed around the world.
On the other hand, consumer awareness has been rising and interest in green products and the green way of life is surging. Consumers feel better about consumption when they choose brands and retailers that exibit a green philosophy and ethic. We expect businesses that adopt sustainability policies will gain competitive advantages in their markets.
A recent study by JWT addresses the issues.
Key Questions Investigated
• Why is clean energy an important goal, and how has it become a priority all around the world
• What is the role of the public sector in the Energy Race? or of the private sector? Which countries are making significant progress in this direction?
• What alternative energy sources are attracting the most interest and investment?
• How are consumer priorities are influenced by the issue of energy conservation, and how are businesses addressing these new priorities?
Key Findings of the Study
1.Climate-change skeptics have lost their footing, but the prospect of global warming is only one factor driving the Energy Race. The current international search for energy has serious political and economic consequences for governments and consumers.
2.However we should be aware that good intentions or modest inflows of money to this direction are not enough and also have the danger to raise expectations but result in mediocre energy savings
3. But at this stage, it’s unclear which clean energy solution will win. Many ideas are being developed that may in the future prove more viable than today’s leading options, such as solar power and wind energy.
4.As government and investors work together to fund green energy projects, more people are thinking about how they impact the planet and are acting accordingl by buying hybrid cars, and purchasing carbon offsets
5. There is no doubt that businesses who will lead these initiatives will gain competitive advantage.
6.Corporations and governments, both national and local, are fast coming to understand just how powerful, and profitable, an early role in the Energy Race can become.
However, one word of caution is appropriate especialy now that economies are in deep trouble and consumers are counting their scarce resources.
Linkedin
Twitter
Dec 16 at 20:46
Its amazing, the push back that fossil-fuel has incountered. The fact that coal is the most abundant fuel source in the United States is lost to those who could benefit the most if they understood that clean coal and similar technologies are coming to the forefront to solve the CO2 problem(s) attributed to fossil-fuels.
This should be and will be our solution to the environmental challenges, on a large scale, as opposed to an aternative solution, which not only isn’t feasible but cannot replace whats already a vast resource.
Dec 18 at 23:13
when countries and companies have invested millions in oil and coal infrastructures, any change will be seen as costly. It’s not a question of innovation, we’ve plenty of that. However the resistance to innovation and change is strongly correlated to preceived loss and a challenge to established habits.
For example –
At the household level, if I’ve spent $30000 on conventional car, I’m unlikely to want to change to an alternative energy car because in doing so I will have to acknowledge that I made a bad decision in the car purchase I chose (not to mention to being walloped when it comes to resale). It’s all about looking good and to look good we can create the most convoluted reasons for our choice. This process multiplied many times is simply what governments and industries do to justify the status quo.
There’s another problem…we’re just not good at changing our habits – even if it concerns our long term health or survival. There’s a huge list of examples, drink-driving, smoking, over-eating, under-exercising. We’re simply too wrapped up in our old habits to make anything more than rudimentary changes. Billions have been spent on anti-smoking cmpaigns for example and while we can point to stats showing improvement, there are still a large and persistent group who insist on taking their chances with lung cancer.
Overeating is the same – with the resulting increase in heart, cancer, diabetes etc…so changing our fossil fuel habits will be difficult both as individuals and as societies/nations. Do you remember the fuel shortages in the early 1970’s? I worked in a service station then and was astonished that people were willing to spend hours in a fuel queue in order to fill ther petrol tanks – now THERE’S an addiction!!!
People are not necessarily logical – all our whims, habits and addictions take over at the drop of a hat. Our fear of loss and our concern for looking good/right are more influential and motivating than common sense or even common decency. We can justify our bizzarest and most immoral behaviour (take a look at the justifications given in war trials).
So, unless we can see a clear and inspiring win, there will be few changes.
Nick Nicholas
The Demographer’s Workshop
Dec 18 at 23:16
How is it that absolutely everything nowadays is described as a “crisis”?
First off, I don’t see today’s environment as a crisis. However, I don’t see a need to hold back development of alternate energy sources either.
I do have a big problem with the punishment of the existing energy users and penalizing or restricting existing energy sources when the alternate sources are still under development and not capable of standing on their own from efficiency, quantity capability, and financial suitability.
Portfolio energy supply, utilizing multiple sources, should be the plan, including nuclear!
Posted by Steve Van Lieshout
Dec 18 at 23:18
Dimitris,
I don’t view the current situation and an either/or choice. It is not a question of fossil fuels vs. any alternative energy source — it is a greater question of economically viable ADDITIONAL sources. Oil and gas production has limits of production and distribution over wide areas of the globe. Electric generation has limits of sourcing coal, wind, nuclear and hydro availability. Global energy demand is on a constantly rising demand curve, so any single dominant fuel such as oil cannot sustain long-term production and distribution requirements by itself.
Perhaps it is time to evaluate needs by local necessity, economic viability, efficiency and abililty to offset any negative aspects of consumption with advances in technology. I agree with Steve Van Lieshout that it will take “multiple sources” in simultaneous development offering a “portfolio of energy sources.” Wind turbines won’t power the Underground railways of London any more than a coal fired powerplant is needed in the Saudi Arabian deserts. Continual development in Africa, South America and vast regions of Asia will require multiple resources beneficial to the economies, efficiencies and ecologies of each distinct region.
Posted by Rich Whitley
Dec 18 at 23:19
Gents,
It is more than obvious that the summit won’t work, and it is intended that way. This is only a pre-empt to strategically implement Nuclear power and with that controls and power sharing controlled by the energy sector.
Kevin
Posted by Kevin Skinner
Dec 18 at 23:23
Whenever there is an economic contraction, innovators and other ‘outside the box’ players are most affected in financial and intellectual capital. Meanwhile, behemoths of existing order contract and have far more to lose than startup inventors, and tend to invest disproportionately to sustain their fortress under attack.
20 years ago we used techniques used by medieval fortress siege to capture market from IBM and other mainframe centralized systems of organization with decentralized Unix boxes and distributed data with Oracle. That very line of asynchronous warfare led to business process outsourcing today. Technology was merely a tool to dismantle centralized raj.
Playing with alternate energy sources is a warfare. Oil and Coal industry (as well as, nuclear) is so powerful that they can buy the governments of many countries along with their entire defense establishments, far, far more than deBeers can with diamonds.
Can your solar panel, corn oil and Don Quixote’s Windmill buy the military-industrial-government nexus? Without energy nothing will exist in the man-made material world. Therefore, all energy sources are highly securitized. So, unless you learn to think like Julius Caesar, Alexander and Napoleon don’t sign up for frustration.
If you want to win the alternate energy game, then study the dialectic surrounding Iran’s nuclear game, thoroughly. Its a free gift for those wiling to set aside cheerleading either side and sit back to learn.
Posted by Sendil Nathan
Dec 19 at 16:27
I see the collapse of the Conference coming as the result of greed among the majority of the Conference attendees. Atleast media coverage seemed to highlight the focus of the end of the Conference being totally about “free money” that must come from mainly the USA. Arguing about astronomical dollar amounts, sounding as if it was part of an auction as the dollar values jumped higher and higher, seemingly by the hour was the focus and not the environment! I never once heard any discussions of specifically and exactly what any of the money was going to be used for. It seemed that dollars were supposed to given without a plan and verifiable benefit to the environment.
The premise of “Give us” nebulous amounts of money for an open ended timeframe for an undefined use based upon (supposed) guilt we should accept and embrace because of percieved history is unreasonable by any standard.
Posted by Steve Van Lieshout
Dec 20 at 16:03
Dear Gentlemen,
What are the real reasons behind the drive of having to use alternative energy sources on a worldwide basis.? Is it the fear of the results of Climate Change? Is humanity so naive to belief the environmental fanatic doom thinkers , who are wrongly convinced that the men made emissions of CO2 , do influence Climate Change.? Have we forgotten that since the creation of this planet , the earth was subjected to continious changes of the climate , look at the several ice ages , deserts that were once furtile fields covered with jungles and flora and fauna in abundance , land have been disappeared , other land created , long before men left his footprint on the surface of this earth. Of course it is better and healthier to control the quality of air in big cities. But our lungs of this planet the rainforests and clean seas and oceans , in order to provide the oxygen we need to live. To fight the result of climate change to change to other energy sources is a hoax. Only economic driven reasons will change the source of fuels we currently use.
Posted by Jan R. Scheele
Dec 20 at 16:04
Briefly I can say that crises have generated huge opportunities for the next generation for the treatment of green house gases and I feel that in the decade to come, variety of new products would come up, introduced and produced from CO2 and other gases. There is good amount of research going on in these areas and there would be remedies soon coming for the benefit of mankind. So let’s be positive.
Posted by Mukund Deshpande