Efficiency is the key word to effectively utilise and conserve energy
LET us accept the general consensus of
scientists that global warming is happening, that it is caused largely by carbon dioxide released by burning fossil
fuels, and that it cannot be reversed
without a reduction in the use of fossil
fuels. Following on from Rio and more
recently Berlin, most governments
have accepted this in principle. More
tellingly, so has the insurance industry.
Peter Harper, a policy analyst at the
Centre for Alternative Technology at
Wales, UK, has stated in the Geographical
Magazine (August 1995), London, that
governments have, however, failed to
spell out the real implication. If, as the
authoritative Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (ipcc) asserts, a 60
per cent cut in global carbon dioxide
emissions is required immediately-, then
for Western Europe, we are looking at
cuts of 70-80 per cent. Think for a
minute what this implies. There are two
4ical possibilities. One is to replace
most of our fossil fuels with non-fossil
resources which could mean a 10-fold
aq)ansion of the nuclear industry.
The logical alternative of actually
reducing energy use by four-fifths,
would appear completely impossible.
We have built a whole culture on cheap
md abundant energy: wars are fought to
maintain supplies of it, and governments totter when they try to increase
stges on it. Measures required to bring
0" warming under control could
Aws backfire politically. So we cannot
V6n for them; we cannot even start a
VWhbc debate.
At the outset, however, the answers
Aready clear. There is a fundamental
tion going on in more sophistienergy policy circles, and it is very
on the 'use less' side of the arguit shifts the focus away from
, supply to energy use; it points
out that the pattern of
energy use which has
evolved is arbitrary, inefficient, and deeply irrational;
that we do not need anything
like the amount of energy we
use to run modern societies;
and that investment in efficiency and more rational use
is simpler, quicker, and
kinder to the environment
investment in the
than
supply of energy. Using less
energy is also a cheaper
option and can often produce a direct profit.
But can a country drastically, yet
practically, lower its energy consumption? Yes, it can. For instance, the per
capita consumption of energy in
Western Europe and Japan, hardly
backward parts of the world, is half that
of the us. And energy consumption in
these two countries has remained more
or less static for the past 20 years,
despite substantial increases in their
gross national product. So Western
Europe,and Japan have become more
efficiept without really trying. Once
they do start trying - once energy use
becomes a prime focus of policy - then
almost anything is possible.
So achieving ipcc's target is not
such a forlorn prospect after all. The
barriers are not technical or economic,
but cuttural and institutional. We can
start to break them down by daring to
think the unthinkable, and insisting the
debate be joined.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.