For many years tax payers have funder fruitless international trips for politicians to energy gatherings. Prior to the 2008 recession, most governments put forward a strong showing in the light of ‘perceived’ climate change. Politicians fervently act poised in favour of climate change policy, but put the process on the back burner as soon as the world sees that they have met, again, at the expense of tax payers.
Till now the global economy has a plague build-up of detritus energy policies. There is reason for optimism in the energy markets. Over the last few weeks oil prices have been halved, natural gas is at a decades lowest. The lower oil prices are like an economic terrorist attack, with no one claiming responsibility. The reality in the market seems that prices will settle where they are for the foreseeable future. Even the term ‘foreseeable future’ has a new meaning.
We hold the option to prevent history from repeating itself. Between 1980 and 2010, we saw some of the lowest oil market prices. During this period, increased consumption led to a 36 percent increase in global carbon footprint.
A few years ago I watched a Chris Rock dvd. Somewhere he quips about the low cost of ammunition. He says that if we make bullets exceptionally expensive, we’d have fewer killing. Maybe the same can apply if the utilise the clean path to clean energy during the opportune period of falling oil prices.
Why don’t we attach a premium price to the use of fossil fuels, delete from every country, including emerging economies, any form of fuel subsidies. This will bring out the innovation for shale which has cut US fossil fuel imports in half.
Adding a curve-ball, this could help countries like China, US, UK and India to reduce their carbon footprints. Another two-prong advantage is reducing future environmental disasters and also fossil fuel can become the new currency that can underwrite currency. Think about it?
If fossil reserves can be preserved and carry economic merit in the markets as a backup, it becomes easier to gird market shocks. The reality is the dollar is on thin ice and has been for a long time. Could slowing economic growth actually be the key to slowing carbon emissions, that put pressure on climate effects on agriculture, bringing great freeze periods to the US and Europe?
In effect, if we purposefully slow economic growth while selecting the gear for use of alternative energy becomes the new economic base to spur sustainable economic growth, while reducing carbon emissions and the effects on us as humans. This in particular is critical for Africa.
We have sufficient proof. Thanks to more efficient technology, energy is becoming cleaner and abundant. Ubiquitous use of fossil based energy has always had negative impacts in geo-politics, economic shocks and as a limited supply of rations geographically. It has also been the cause of many a war, loss of life and anguish.
As an alternative, the sun is going nowhere. It source of energy is so intense. It can support many business hubs in emerging economies and has the potential to spur research and development, investment and innovation. A report by the IEA iterates the falling costs of solar energy and technology. Certainly this is spectacular news for Africa. 2013 saw $214 billion invested in solar energy globally.
Considering that technology already presents the only challenge to renewable – storing energy, it gives investors a place to inject their money. Digging further, there seems to be a sample of synergy in the manner in which nuclear power retains itself for 20 years and can keep and submarine underwater for this period of time. I am no nuclear Physicist, but logic has a prevailing success rate before science finds the solution. Logic provides the route to science to pursue evidence.
Some companies pay multi-million dollar penalties for corrupt practice or for oil spillages. Yet, such money could have reduced the 2.5 billion under-electrified people around the world at least by a third. Out of the $23 billion spent annually on Kerosene worldwide by impoverished people, $10 billion is spent in Africa. This is 100 times the cost per kilowatt being paid in a developed country or by a community that is on the grid.
Solar energy also provided the alternative route to energy infrastructure. It can reduce the cost significantly through local grids. South Africa for example is taking many year plus a few years and associated costs to the tax payers, to set up just one power station. Communities that remain rural with no infrastructure that makes transport possible, for a faction of the cost, can be electrified.
For year and still counting the poor in Africa are being fleeced. In 2008 a watt of power cost $4 and since has been reduced to just $1. This comes in the light of new technologies being developed, solar fridges and ATM’s that can be used in rural areas. These technologies are countering some experts that say alternative or solar energy cannot run an economy. The story is not complete. It just cannot, yet!
When I went to China I learnt a lot about thought processes and adapting current models of thinking to impact economic trends. Firstly the Chinese do not really drink anything cold with a meal. This particularly is for health reasons. Proven health reasons, that is.
While you are in your Hotel room, your bar fridge will remain on. As soon as you leave, it switches off completely. It is thus impossible to leave a little on by mistake and waste energy. It is also a health and risk measure. Without a alive circuit, no fire can start on its own from a short in the connection.
In China they manage demand, not supply. To support solar, the price of energy management systems needs to flood the market along with the solar systems. Until the storage capacity of solar systems is improved and the carrying capacity enlarged, innovative thinking models can change the market perceptions of use and management.
