Date: 31 May 2002
Subject: Environmental

Will the last one to find any energy please turn out the lights...

An interesting article earlier this month (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/) looked again at predictions on oil and energy use. The article notes the latest energy predictions [URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_2.jpg] and also the way in which this is divided up [URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_3.jpg] Whilst the EE is projected to stay fairly static, the industrialized nations as a whole, and even more the developing nations, are projected for a sharp rise in energy use. Nuclear power is projected for a 4.7% rise in Developing Countries, whilst, in spite of better emission technology, fossil fuels will add to the known environmental problems. The article says:

"Renewable energy use is expected to increase by 53 percent between 1999 and 2020, but its current 9-percent share of total energy consumption is projected to drop slightly to 8 percent by 2020. Over the forecast horizon, growth in renewable energy resources is expected to continue to be constrained by relatively moderate fossil fuel prices."

Science and economics are inextricably entwined as shown in an article "Addicted to Oil" in The Economist late last year (15th December). In autumn 2000 petrol supplies in the UK were disrupted by a strike – and near chaos briefly ensued. Developed economies are addicted to oil.

Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's known oil reserves, and it's another 40% held by four of its neighbours. Though the Saudis choose presently to restrict production, it is cheap to extract. So what are the potential problems? The Economist considered the possibilities of deliberate disruption should a regime hostile to the West come to power.

Events on and post September 11th indicate that American military threats to stop this (irrespective of their morality) could be counter productive. On the dubious analogy with efforts of Saddam Hussein (who can hardly be called a fundamentalist Muslim by any stretch of the imagination) to keep his oil flowing, The Economist seemed to take an optimistic view. Yet it also casually remarked:

"Oil is not scarce. Enough lies underground to keep the world's motors humming for several decades yet."

Several decades? In several decades (with some divine forbearance and possibly a bit of biotechnology) I may still be around – and I certainly hope my son and daughter will be. The "supply and demand" pricing of oil by extraction costs rather than replacement energy costs, as indicated above, is discouraging alternative technology – which is projected to a drop in percentage contribution. Yet little alarm seems to be felt. America, particularly, guzzles its way through energy, and does little more than tinker ineffectively with fuel efficiency standards. Its president is known for oil links, and publicly proclaimed his commitment to mammon by saying that he would "do nothing to harm the American economy" come what may. Yet to avoid the coming shock as fuels run out, surely discouraging consumption through selective taxation is the way forward? Europe (in spite of the stupidity of electorates who clamour for lower fuel taxes) generally recognizes this – but The Economist reported an American senator's derision when a European expert suggested that federal fuel taxes should be increased to discourage consumption. A comparison with the well-fed if just slightly anxious lemmings of mythology is invited.

Where do Christians fit into all this? Unfortunately many of them may stand on the anti-interventionist "right wing". But, surely, there should be principles of mutual care not just for those alive today but for future generations? The theocratic society in the Old Testament was in some respects highly interventionist. The Psalms, of course, do proclaim that God is in control and is protective of the poor – but both they and the prophets also tell us in no uncertain terms that we have a responsibility to the poor. The New Testament is primarily about the Gospel of the Kingdom – which is "good news to the poor", and God is not just concerned that people get a spiritual destiny. In any future problems in the world economies it is inevitably the poor who will be least cushioned and suffer most. Christians, whether in relevant areas of science or in government, should certainly be taking a long-term view. We owe it to God and future generations."