by Jerome a Paris
Tue Jul 4th, 2006 at 05:13:14 AM EST
Jonathan Stern, director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (...) suggests at least four different definitions of the problem:
- Inadequate investment in energy supply and infrastructure to meet future demand;
- Developed countries becoming increasingly dependent on imported energy from unstable countries or regions (such as Middle East oil or Russian gas);
- China and India needing such a huge volume of energy for future industrialisation that it puts an intolerable strain on resources;
- Rising oil and gas prices threatening to deprive the poorest countries of affordable energy.
To those might well be added the fear of terrorist attacks on energy installations, or natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, in a market with very little margin of spare capacity.
The debate over global warming also adds an extra dimension, with fears that those countries seeking to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions will make themselves uncompetitive, or be forced to turn back to nuclear energy, in spite of its uncertain financing and costs of waste disposal.
That's a fair summary of the issues - as the article, while not giving it full credence, at least mentions elsewhere that Gazprom worries about security of demand.
Of course, that summary has one major, unsaid, hypothesis, which is actually the core of the problem: it takes demand growth as a given, or worse, as an necessity, accepting the link we've discussed previously between 'growth' and energy consumption.
When will we realize that energy security is, first of all, an energy demand problem, and as such, entirely within our own control. If we waste less; if we consume in smarter ways; if we accept that energy is a precious resource that we can no longer take for granted, then we'll have a chance to have energy security. Otherwise we'll just be pushing the final reckoning a few years further each time we open up a new country to investment, find a new way to drill oil or gas or coal. Maybe a few years more is good enough for us. But will it be good enough for our children? Why can't we be a bit smarter?
The solution is in our own hands.
Is it really easier to compromise with the Saudis, spark a new cold war with Putin, spar with the Chinese and the Indians all over the planet while enriching countless corrupt regimes (including suppsoed awoved enemies) than to make a small effort at home to need these imports less by using them less - as we know is possible?!
It looks cheaper, but is it?
The solution is in our own hands.
