But you chaps are far, far more use than me in our energy debate.

However, I do believe in the power of such groups as ET to collaborate in a new way, across borders. It is a model of the future. The point as always though, is how to promote the final document to a wider public and to the official debates going on.

That, to me, should also be part of this discussion.

My example of anecdotal evidence from today, is that a neighbour who drives a large diesel Land Rover from the early 90's, came over to show me an article in an 'obession'  magazine for owners of these older models. My neighbour is a touch obsessed.

I have been feeding him for months with little energy digs in the midriff about his 10 l pr 100 l choice of transport. He's been defensive. I recently told him about incidents of deliberate damage to SUVs and wondered how many more irate people would attack gas-guzzlers if petrol went up to 5€ a liter.

So today he proudly showed me a story in his magazine about a new UK conversion for the T5 diesel engine so that it can use vegetable oil. Also, an extra tank for the oil means you can use the mineral oil to start on cold days. It had a story on a couple who had installed it and were very happy with it. Prominently in a photo of their car, were 2 litre bottles of vegetable oil sitting on the bonnet with the bold red text "50p a litre".

"There you go", I said. "It's a win-win situation"

He smiled broadly and retired, "I'm going to google this - you'll see - I'll have the first one round here"

Drip drip drip - but you can slowly change the minds of people.


You can't be me, I'm taken

I suggest a first thing is to draft a protest to Commissioners Piebalgs and Wallström about the method of "consultation" adopted. I'll try to get up a first draft for collective criticism/editing tomorrow.

Colman e-mailed the GP Consultation and (iirc, I can't find the comment) received a grudging reply that said we were free to submit a draft of our own without using their questionnaire.

So I suggest that's the second aim: produce a general paper on European energy and submit it as our contribution to the GP Consultation, by the 24th September.

I'm willing to join in suggestions and editing on that, though I lack the technical know-how to write on most topics involved. If biofuels/biomass is useful, I could pitch in on that.

I mentioned at the London meetup that I'd like to see a summary of the EU's primary energy production capacity, by source. Example:

Electricity [Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric]
Heat [Solar, Geothermal]
Fuel [Coal, Gas, Oil, Nuclear]

As well as the efficiencies involved in turning electricity into heat, heat into electricity, fuel into heat, electricity or fuel into motion...

The left is always taken with producing "manifestos". Much time and energy is taken up with this, tempers flare, friends stop talking to each other, and groups split into factions.

What's the result: A manifesto is issued - and promptly ignored.

Everyone can come up with noble goals, the Energize America is better than most in that it also offers specific legislative ideas as well. The sticking point to all attempts to change the status quo is the power of vested interests. For change to happen those who control the levers of power need to be convinced that change will benefit them, otherwise they will oppose it.

Let's take the specific case of the oil industry. Any proposal which aims to lower oil consumption will affect their bottom line. There is nothing in the way of a compensating development. Only BP has even started to think about moving into sustainable energy sources, but the motivating force, CEO John Browne, is going to retire next year. It is not only the oil companies that resist change, but all the politicians who are in their pocket. Finally, oil sales provide a large amount of tax receipts to the government.

Business leaders and politicians think about the present and the immediate future. Appeals to them in terms of saving the planet for future generations carry no weight. Paybacks need to be short term, or they aren't interested.

So, if I were to make suggestions, I think programs need to be devised which will benefit the current major players. Call it a bribe if you wish, but they hold all the cards.

The next negative is the resistance of the general public. No one has suggested a model to replace the private automobile or the suburban lifestyle that will be acceptable. Voluntarily changing lifestyles can only come about if the alternatives are more appealing. Mass transit is not more appealing that a private auto. Cluster housing or urban living is not more appealing than "a man's home is his castle".

What this means is that alternatives need to be demonstrable before people will be willing to change. This means that new communities will need to be built that are more energy and land efficient so that people can see the benefits. No private developer will take the risk. The same goes for new types of private vehicles. Private firms are not willing to spend the amount on speculative ideas. Especially given the succession of failures over the past 30 years (turbine cars, electric vehicles, Hydrogen power, etc.).

Change will require massive government involvement. This is not a popular model in this era of laissez faire government (except for the military sector). People are not interested in funding new speculative ventures, they already feel taxes are too high.

Realizing all the problems that lie ahead is better, in my opinion, that unwarranted optimism. But, as I said at the top, don't let me discourage anyone from trying.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

The EU has done a huge amount of research on the externalities of energy, cf. the ExternE project and its current extension, NEEDS.

Interestingly, the findings from ExternE indicate that the main external cost of energy production is the cost to our health. I note that the green paper neither mentions health, and the word 'external' is only used in reference to external policy.

A clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is funding...

In fact below will be my single, final contribution (reason: this is a field I am simply not qualified to talk on, so I might as well say all I've got to say, on it once and for all, regardless of how inappropriate it may be).

Chapter 1:

"All European nations will contribute 1% of their GDP for 20 years, towards digging a gigantic hole as deep as possible towards the Earth's core, in a highly stable geological area. <insert amazing computations here>. The tremendous amount of energy released <insert funky graphs here> will be enough to supply all of Europe with enough energy for millions of years. Sewage water will be sent back down the same hole."

Let me put this another way. The commander of the EU Energy Army is a man who believes that `peak oil' is only a theory, and even worse, has announced that electric and gas deregulation makes good sense. Accordingly, I think that we would all be better off if we pretend that this high-flown and dispensable conference with its bogus deliberations never took place, and future calls for a joint energy strategy are either pointedly ignored or ridiculed.

- Ferdinand E. Banks

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

I'd suggest that we should do a preliminary outline of the first before preparing the second.

Does someone want to volunteer a working group for this?

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/9/3/164257/3617#6

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes