@ green | JANUARY-FEBRUARY , 2023

Herein lies the question : Energy Transition or Mindset Transition ?

BY DR KENNETH PEREIRA

Number of Earths

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

THE ENERGY TRANSITION

It is hoped that such a move or switch from non-renewable energy sources , like oil , natural gas , and coal , to renewable or clean energy , will be progressively made possible through technological advancements .

There is another objective of the Energy Transition that does not get much airtime but is extremely important . This transition process provides a time buffer during which individuals , corporations and nations can develop or adjust their plans and strategies to protect their longer-term welfare as much as possible .

So that the objectives of the Energy Transition are comprehensively achieved , the deployment of technological solutions would have to be supported by the appropriate legal frameworks . And ( in many cases ) government subsidies combined most significantly with a societal push towards sustainability and using renewables as the feedstock of primary energy . This societal push factor is the most fundamental component of our move to renewables . Weakness in this area would signify a long transition whilst a strong push accelerates the pace .

THE MOVE TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE WORLD

According to projections from various international agencies , our planet has hit several limits . Research by Mathis Wackernagel of the Global Footprint Network resulted in the concepts of the “ Ecological Footprint ” of humanity and the “ Carrying Capacity ” of Earth .

Using specific accounting techniques , Wackernagel suggested that we have

Ecological footprint of humanity

Carrying capacity of the Earth

Figure 1 : Ecological Footprint versus Carrying Capacity of Earth . This chart initially developed by Mathis Wackernagel et al , using data at the end of the last century , shows that number of Earths required to provide the resources demanded by humanity exceeded what nature can supply by 1.2 times in the year 2000 ( i . e . we have collectively caused an “ overshoot ” of the carrying capacity of Earth by 1.2 times ). Updated information in 2018 showed that humanity had cause an overshoot of the carrying capacity of Earth by 1.75 times . needed more than one Earth to fulfil the needs of humanity ( i . e . we were in an “ overshoot ” state ) since the 1980s and that our demands of the planet were everincreasing ( Figure 1 ). In about 2000 , when the data was published , the planet ’ s population was six billion people . According to the United Nations , on Nov 15 , 2022 , our world welcomed its eight billionth citizen . Our collective demands stress Earth ’ s carrying capacity in many areas and make it necessary to seek long-term sustainable solutions .

THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ‘ OVERSHOOT ’

At the root of the concept of “ overshoot ” is our insatiable ambition for growth and a need for ever-improving levels of performance and efficiency in nearly every aspect of our daily activities . In the simplest form , it may take the form of a farmer wanting his crops to grow better and thus using fertilisers to enhance productivity . This farmer desires income growth . So , he cultivates his crops healthily and productively . On the other extreme , it could take the form of a space venture placing communication satellites into orbit to improve the quality of global internet connectivity .

Corporations , the catalysts of economic progress , rely on superior returns to attract investor interest , so growth and performance improvement are fundamental considerations in formulating business plans . On a more macro scale , political parties use or “ sell ” growth strategies to secure power or solve economic and social problems . Global wars have also been fought to grow national boundaries . It seems as if some form of growth is at the root of almost everything we do , and when we achieve some success , we celebrate our achievements .

The bottom line is that our ambition to grow and improve continuously , combined with access to the key enabler of affordable energy sources , has delivered longer lives and improved livelihoods for much of the planet ( Figure 2 : Source Our World in Data - https :// ourworldindata . org / lifeexpectancy ). It should be noted that in the mid-1800s , the average lifespan of a human was 45 years . Today , humans can look forward to an average of 70 years of life .

Unfortunately , longer lives and improved livelihoods are not equally distributed across the planet . So , another objective of the Energy Transition is to rebalance wealth . The theory is that during this transition , wealthy nations ( i . e . those which have utilised the resources of the planet the most in becoming economic leaders ) must redistribute some of their wealth to less prosperous countries . In the process , citizens of wealthy nations will likely experience a degradation in their quality of life .

Is such a paradigm shift realistic ?

TECHNOLOGY

The planet ’ s population is increasing at one billion per decade . While there were significant improvements to the lives and livelihoods of humanity , the only hope that emerging economies have of catching up with the more developed nations is to have access to the energy delivered at a reasonable cost in the future . However , companies engaged in fossil fuel-based , affordable energy sources are drastically reducing their investment rates , resulting from government policies and activism .

An energy crunch is on the horizon with clean energy sources on a mass scale not yet deployed .

What is also clearly observable is that developed ( Northern ) economies are advancing technologies that work optimally in their specific environments . For many South nations , particularly those in tropical areas , existing renewable technologies , like photovoltaic and wind , are not ideal for deployment . Thus , the question of how emerging economies in tropical areas secure green or clean energy on a large scale to improve their lives and livelihoods remains open . For such countries , perhaps some thought should be given to the proverb , “ a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ”, the proverbial “ bird ” being natural gas .

THE REALITY

The uncomfortable fact often consigned to fine print by politicians is that until and unless affordable and widely accessible alternatives are found , oil and gas , particularly gas , will be essential constituents of the energy mix for the next 20 or 30 years during the Energy Transition . Populist , short-term government policies that curtail investments in producing such resources , particularly gas , will only increase inflation . If the mid-term supply of such resources is not assured with new investment , governments will soon be spending a large portion of public money competing for a scarce resource like Liquified Natural Gas ( LNG ). They will also spend more considerable sums concurrently on taking bets on immature renewable energy infrastructure solutions . Public funds are a finite , scarce resource and should be deployed wisely . If large amounts are expended on energy supply requirements and deployed on importing clean energy infrastructure , what would be left in public coffers for medical services , education , security , support of water and food security initiatives ?

Natural gas is our best bet as a transition fuel and even more importantly , as a long-term energy supply safety net , but insufficient attention is being given towards replenishing this resource . The demand for gas has been growing at about 2.8 per cent since the 1970s . If demand continues to increase at this rate ( it is growing as users switch from coal and oil ), the gas requirement will be even more acute ( Figure 3 source : Limits to Growth – The 30-Year Update p . 95 ). Instead of curtailing investment , policies that incentivise more investment are required .

THE BATTLE FOR SUSTAINABILITY

The root cause , stressing the sustainability of our planet , is our collective demand for growth and continued improvement in performance in virtually all areas of economic activity . The result is an unimpeded energy demand at the lowest possible cost . With eight billion citizens now dependent on the planet ’ s resources , the importance of governments making the right calls at the right time has become ever more critical .

For Northern economic leaders , to push a clean energy agenda based on technologies that are available or best suited to their geographies is the expectation of their electorate . However , for Northern economies to concurrently make investments in more accessible , albeit polluting forms of energy more difficult for the South will undoubtedly result in further inequitable