It would be a major achievement if, a decade from now, Copenhagen has replaced Kyoto as the city most associated with efforts to avoid catastrophic climate change. Mention of the name of the Japanese city that hosted the first international effort to set greenhouse-gas reduction targets in 1997 now brings mockery from those who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming and disappointment from leaders of the science-based environmental movement. Only if world leaders can manage to negotiate a more meaningful schedule this December, can the Danish capital escape Kyoto's fate.
The international community is currently negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of this year. The new treaty could create an international policy framework that encourages investment in a sustainable energy infrastructure in both the developed and the developing world. Yet, to date many questions remain open as to what negotiating parties are willing to agree on. Controversial issues include the level of emission reduction commitments and the sources of funding for low-carbon energy investments in the developing world. What does the UN Climate Conference have to produce to encourage more sustainable energy production and consumption?
Whether or not nuclear power should be a part of the future energy mix, two things seems almost inescapable. First, nuclear power will part of the near-term energy mix because there are plenty of existing plants that have more than a decade left in their lifespan. Shutting them down doesn't make any economic sense nor would that do anything measurable to mitigate climate changes. Second, nuclear power won't be a part of the long-term energy mix unless some way can be found to split atoms a lot more cheaply.
The use of nuclear power in global electricity generation is on the rise, especially in Asia, says a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the Western hemisphere, only a few countries have phase-out policies for nuclear energy, while most other governments are extending the licenses of existing reactors or are building new reactors. Yet, nuclear power is highly controversial. On the one hand, it bears high risks for humans and the environment, including the risk of nuclear proliferation. On the other hand, climate experts increasingly argue that nuclear power is an essential element of a low-carbon energy supply. What role should nuclear power play in the future energy mix?
In May, the bloggers from the Energy Grid gathered in Boston for an evening of discussion about the energy crisis and how technology, design, communication, and art can assist the transition to sustainable energy. James Hrynyshyn, Grant Kristofek, Deb Todd Wheeler and Richard A. Sears—a Shell researcher and visiting MIT scientist—participated in a panel moderated by Seed Magazine editor TJ Kelleher, and the conversation ranged from the importance of reducing energy consumption to the concept of "energy time". Now, you can watch highlights from the event below.
The rebound effect, in which efficiency gains are nullified by increased usage, is almost certainly to blame for rising transportation-sector emissions in much of the world, but not in the United States, it seems. The 1908 Model T, to use one widely cited example, got 25 miles per gallon, which is about the same or even better than the average family sedan coming off the assembly lines today.
The transport sector accounts for about 60 per cent of the world's final consumption of oil with road transport taking a large chunk of this. While motor vehicles have become more efficient over the last decades, these efficiency gains have largely been offset by increases in vehicle miles travelled. There are more cars on the road, and people travel more. In environmental economics, this is referred to as the re-bound effect. Not only industrialized countries are experiencing this, but also major emerging economies such as China, as they are going down the path of fossil-fuel based transport. What are the options to reduce energy consumption in the transport sector and/or to run transport on more sustainable forms of energy? What role could, for instance, biofuels, electric vehicles and mass transit play in this context?
I'm not convinced that "nudging" a population measured in the billions will be sufficient to produce the momentum required to get civilization where it needs to be by 2050, let alone 2020. It's not just a question of how much we cut our greenhouse gas emissions, but how fast we cut them. If we wait until after the 2020s to really begin cutting (as Waxman-Markey would have us do), then we'll probably have poured enough carbon into the atmosphere to commit the Earth to more than 2 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels, with all the consequences that entails.
The pace of change will have to be far faster than anything nudging can bring about. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace anything that does move us in the right direction. Nudging and shoving are not mutually exclusive.
Over the last 40 years, the world's total final energy consumption has doubled. Given this growth in energy consumption, saving energy is a necessary response to the challenges of energy security and creating a sustainable energy system. Yet, shifting consumption patterns is an inherently challenging task in liberal societies. In their New York Times bestseller "Nudge", authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein propose smart "choice architectures" for a number of public policy problems. These would nudge people into beneficial directions, while not constraining freedom and choice. How would smart policy and design look like that nudge consumers and companies into saving energy?
The Energy Grid Blog is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them 
