GLOBAL TRENDS IN ENERGY USE

Forest and Bird, Volume 21, Issue 1, 1 February 1990, Page 21

GLOBAL TRENDS IN ENERGY USE

IL, COAL AND NATURAL GAS supply 88 percent of world fuel consumption. The use of these fuels became the burning environmental issue of the 1980s. Even without acid rain and climate change, world economic order is threatened by the imminent depletion of our oil and natural gas reserves. Coal is more abundant, but less versatile, and because of its higher carbon content makes a greater contribution to the greenhouse effect per unit of energy produced. Most of the world’s fuel consumption occurs in the developed nations. The USA alone uses 24 percent of the world’s fuel. Its average per capita consumption is 50 times that of the poorest nations. If the projected world population in 35 year’s time were to have an average per capita energy use equal to the industrialised nations today, world consumption would grow to over 5 times present levels. Such a world would require the oil output of at least three new Saudi Arabias, massive increases in coal production, and hundreds of nuclear power stations the size of Huntly. Even if this growth is logistically feasible using the current mix of supply technologies, it would shatter the world economy and ecological support systems. One may well ask whether, without massive reductions in the material wealth of the rich, there is any possibility of a better living standard for the world’s

poor. Fortunately there is. Instead of focusing on supply we can look at what causes Our appetite for energy. The impact on the biosphere of world energy use depends on the product of 5 equally important factors: @ World population e The stock of material possessions per person e The throughput of resources to maintain these possessions e The amount of energy to produce this throughput @ The environmental impact per unit of energy used The factors at the top of this list involve very important social decisions while those toward the bottom are very strong functions of technology. While the world must face these decisions, use of the right technology can buy time. A number of studies have shown that per capita energy use in the industrialised countries could be more than halved without cutting living standards and using technologies which are cost-effective. At the same time the living standards in developing countries could be raised to those in Western Europe. Even with the projected world population growth, energy use in the year 2020 would be not more than 10 percent above present levels. This is not just theoretical. Japan used 6 percent less energy in 1988 than it did in 1973 even though its GDP grew by 46 percent over the 15 years. The savings have further sharpened Japan’s commercial edge. As a result of its lower energy intensity (the amount of energy to pro-

duce a dollar of GDP) Japanese exports are estimated to be 2 percent cheaper than American ones. Clearly both the responsibility and capability for limiting climate change and slowing resource depletion lies with the developed nations. Indeed the concept of sustainable energy use is meaningless for those in the world on the edge of starvation. Change involves action at every level. It is now in the interests of developed nations to transfer efficient technology to the developing world. These countries have a low per capita fuel consumption, but because of their low efficiency, their economies are more energy-intensive than the wealthy nations. Unless they leapfrog the energy intensive phase of development, climate change and rapid resource depletion seem inevitable. At the national level governments need to remove barriers like information and market distortions which prevent efficiency competing on equal terms with supply. Local authorities need to examine ways to make cities more accessible without reliance on massive quantities of liquid fuel. Energy institutions need to sell their customers efficiency rather than more supply. Consumers need to link their desire for a sustainable future to the goods they purchase and their own use of energy. Delaying action could be catastrophic. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that, if responses to global climate change are delayed until the year 2010, then the long term global temperature rise could increase by 30-40 percent.