People respond variously to dilemmas. Some simply follow their appetites, Some go to the Good Book for guidance. Others research their options, then make what they hope is an informed decision. The latter is what our forefathers desired when it came to shaping national or local policy. ‘Informed electorate’ was their language.

Those who have followed this column since February will have shared my own journey of discovery. Where are we as a nation, in terms of our energy needs, wants, and ability to provide?

There are diverse positions. I shall designate one position as that occupied by scientists, to encompass not only energy availability to but consequences of utilizing energy sources. Another I shall represent as commercial, and that will include economists..

The position of the scientists is (a) petroleum and natural gas are in finite supply and we will at some point be unable find new supplies of fossil fuel to replace fields as they become exhausted. They say we are rapidly approaching, or perhaps have reached, maximum production of natural gas and petroleum.

Economists, some energy company executives and their political allies hold that scientists are mistaken, that sufficient exploration will prove them wrong. Or that equivalent fuels are there for the taking and that liquid and gaseous fuel will continue to be readily available to consumers. Scientists are offering warnings about equivalent fuels on the grounds of energy efficiency and consequential increased carbon dioxide loading. If it requires as much energy to produce energy as you get out of it you have gained nothing of value.

On global warming the position of scientists is simply ignored, on the grounds that scientists have yet to prove their case. Any parent can understand the part about refusing to acknowledge reality when a youngster doesn’t want to hear it. Scientists, and those who believe science, accept that global warming is a demonstrable reality.

Should you wish to conduct your own investigation, which I recommend, I offer the following sources.

For the scientific view the books of Kenneth Duffeyes, Colin Campbell, and Roger D. Blanchard, previously reviewed in this column, and on the internet anything from APSO, the international umbrella organization of petroleum geologists, plus www.climatechange.org. the home of climatologists.

For the commercial point of view, anything by Daniel Yergin of CERA or the ‘Economics’ journal.

My own primary source of breaking information is www.energybulletin.net, It presents an enormous amount of information gathered daily from around the planet.

My personal conviction is that the sooner we move away from fossil fuel the better, and that it is not only possible but desirable that we do so. Sufficient energy comes in from the sun on a continuing basis to support a comfortable life style. That would require some modification; as noted, transportation is not a problem except for airlines.
goods and people can be moved electrically; the problem will be to make the alternative acceptable. Wouldn’t seem all that difficult. Europeans, by choice, eschewed the auto dominated lifestyle. I have traveled in Europe and find their transportation convenient, comfortable and inexpensive, and largely free of fossil fuel combustion.

We are seeing the lively development of new technologies to capture the energy which pours in every day on this planet. We are going to have to learn to live with that because fundamentally that’s all there is – using what was captured eons past won’t last forever. As someone who has at least tried to become part of the informed electorate, I support and urge wide public support for energy from renewable sources, and a corresponding lack of support for agendas which uphold our dependence upon fossil fuel. The latter is a blind alley lively with peril.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 11th, 2006 at 8:44 am and is filed under Energy Future, General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.