If the damp squibs that were the Copenhagen and Durban conferences have told us anything, it is that the threat of environmental catastrophe is not enough to spur energy reform. But however much politicians may debate the trade-offs between reform and economic inconvenience, change is likely to be forced on us before long.
One prediction that we can make with some certainty is that energy prices will rise. Oil's slow drift upwards over the past year has led to panicked headlines and uneasy populations; policy reactions, however, have generally been directed at suppressing prices rather than dealing with the underlying problem.
Those who think the status quo can be maintained are dreaming. China's energy security requires it to secure supplies at almost any cost. For China, energy use is an investment in future economic growth, while in countries like the United States, energy supports a lifestyle. It will be China, rather than the US and the developed world, that sets the bidding.
Of course, this is no excuse for complacency, because higher energy costs will undoubtedly slow China's development, a slowdown it can ill afford as the Chinese people clamour for a standard of living similar to that in the developed world.
China (and the rest of the world) also lacks alternatives to oil. Renewable energy is still at least 50 years away from being reliable, efficient and cheap enough to completely replace fossil fuels. The potential for hydroelectric power is limited, and often forcibly displaces people in rural villages and towns. And coal, the only fossil fuel that will probably remain relatively cheap in the long term, is too polluting for China to use on a much larger scale. Consequently, China needs to vastly improve its energy efficiency. Fortunately, it is starting from a relatively low base and has plenty of room to improve.
Chinese officials often argue, with justification, that they should not be required to restrict energy use for future development to compensate for the developed world's 'bingeing'. This misses the point. The relevant changes concern styles of living, not necessarily standards. Chinese citizens may deserve a 'Western' standard of living, but that does not imply they require an American lifestyle.
What lifestyles are sustainable in a world with US$200-plus barrels of oil? The car culture of the US has to go, to be replaced with mass transport. Populations will need to accept the high density of the metropolis rather than the low density of suburbia. No longer can consumer products be replaced yearly; product life cycles will have to be extended. Ultimately, people will need to accept a more efficient lifestyle of quality over quantity if they are to live with expensive energy.
