Starting tomorrow The Economist Online Debate Series is starting a two-week long online, Oxford-style debate on solving the world’s energy crisis. Since this topic is highly relevant to you and readers of Energy Bulletin, we wanted to give you and your readers an early invite to participate and be heard alongside notable experts and debaters in this intellectually stimulating, global conversation.
Debate Site at The Economist.
Would you be interested in supporting the discourse on this topic by posting about this debate and your response to our proposition on your blog? To help out, we’ve included a preview of tomorrow’s opening statement by moderator and Economist correspondent, Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran.
The proposition is:
“This house believes that we can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations.” What do you think? Will the reduction of global energy consumption be enough to sustain current fossil fuel reserves? Or should all efforts be directed toward discovering new technologies that broaden the world’s energy portfolio?
In his opening statement, Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran details both the Pro and Con arguments. Joseph Romm, Pro expert and Senior Fellow at the Centre for American Progress argues that “the world must deploy staggering amounts of low-carbon energy technology as rapidly as possible.” The Con argument made by Peter Meisen, President of Global Energy Network Institute argues that a “design science revolution is required.” Do you agree? Is it more important to support conservation or innovation? Given that both efforts are currently being explored in parallel, where should the center of gravity lie?
Joseph Romm and Peter Meisen will dispute the topic tomorrow in opening posts followed by rebuttals (August 22) and closing statements (August 27). A winner will be determined by popular vote and announced on August 29.
Additionally, the following guest participants are scheduled to post their one-time statements:
• August 20 – Michael Eckhart, President, American Council on Renewable Energy
• August 21– Katie Fehrenbacher, Founding Editor, GigaOM’s Earth2Tech
• August 25 – Makito Takami, Chief representative of Washington DC Office, New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO)
• TBD – Mujid Kazimi, Director, MIT’s Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (CANES)
Moderator Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran’s Opening Statement
Welcome to the latest Economist debate. This round, we are taking up one of the thorniest topics facing humanity today: the interrelated tangles of energy, climate change and innovation.
The formal proposition put forward for debate is this:
“This house believes that we can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations.”
Joseph Romm, a former Clinton administration official and vociferous foe of hydrogen technology, lays out the argument in favour of the proposition forcefully. He points to various evidence, including the work of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to conclude that a climate crisis is looming. This, he argues, means the world “must deploy staggering amounts of low-carbon energy technology as rapidly as possible.” This means government policy must not be distracted by the slow, if sexy, process of technology development. He insists that policy
must focus on the speedy deployment of the many clean technologies we already have ready or close to commercialisation.
Taken at face value, the Con side does not disagree with the notion that lots of low-carbon technology needs to be deployed. Peter Meisen opens his argument by invoking President George Bush’s famous line about the world being “addicted to oil” and acknowledging the climate problem, and goes on to cite various forms of renewable energy that can help. He even appears to agree with the side opposite that the key is “scale and speed.” However, he goes on to cite examples ranging from Iceland’s embrace of geothermal over coal generation to rural villages leapfrogging to micro-wind and solar that make clear he believes in the need for entirely new innovations. A “design science revolution” is required, he insists, but it is possible now because “emergencies help us focus.”
In short, this is not merely a Luddite battling a Techno-Utopian. We have a much more interesting battle of wits getting underway, one in which nuance and passion seem likely to be interwoven with the thrust and parry.
So what do you think? Judging from the intensity of the opening comments, this promises to be the most thought-provoking and certainly the most timely of our debates thus far. Please do jump in the fray and offer your views on this great debate of the age.
