September 11th was a turning point for many things. Energy was one. Reading many of the policy statements now coming from the Obama Administration there is a subtext: the structural shift to a low carbon economy is being driven first by energy security, then by other factors such as climate change. And that probably is the right order.
Energy security is becoming a top priority for all western governments as sources of energy in the west dry up and energy is supplied from the developing world where supply is not always within a government's control.
Worse, it may be coming from countries whose populations are hostile. So, the United States is looking to find a solution to its dependence on oil. Renewable energy is seen as one way of achieving that, but energy efficiency, using existing fuels better is also a top priority as is, to the grumbles of many environmentalists, nuclear options and carbon capture and storage. In Europe, the twin reliance on oil and Russian natural gas creates the energy security imperative. There the priorities, when analysed are much the same. In China, energy security, indeed resource security, is top of the agenda. China has a problem with the environment but for its government the bigger, immediate problem is securing the resources needed to maintain growth. China has never said otherwise.
This doesn't mean that it is bad for those groups looking for a low carbon economy based on renewable energies like solar, wind or marine. They remain part of a lower carbon economy where energy efficiency is part of the mix. However, it does mean that projects that many think are more deserving, such as solar energy technology are not being as readily funded. Funding is being given to more immediate forms of energy generation that may meet strategic objectives more easily. Carbon capture and storage, which presupposes the continued use of coal power stations, comes to mind. Greenpeace protests investment in this technology, it shouldn't.
If energy security is the top priority, this may not bode well for the next round of climate change talks in Copenhagen. Copenhagen's emissions reduction targets may be defined by energy security needs, not just a need to reduce emissions. Already we are seeing some evidence fom governments around the world. Japan, a technological leader, has set soft emissions targets, Australia's targets are all over the place depending on what others do, the US hasn't set targets because it is waiting for the Chinese and the Chinese will accept any target that doesn't interfere with its own growth objectives. India and Russia put development first. The devoloping world's argument that it has a right to pollute, to have its emissions catch up to the western world, remains.
Given where we are, it just might be, that to secure a clear path to a low carbon economy, that energy security needs to be sorted out first. Environmentalists won't like it but remember the two are related.
