1 Motivations

I recently read two books, one by a physicist, and one by an economist. In Out of Gas, Caltech physicist David Goodstein describes an impending energy crisis brought on by The End of the Age of Oil. This crisis is coming soon, he predicts: the crisis will bite, not when the last drop of oil is extracted, but when oil extraction can't meet demand - perhaps as soon as 2015 or 2025. Moreover, even if we magically switched all our energy-guzzling to nuclear power right away, Goodstein says, the oil crisis would simply be replaced by a nuclear crisis in just twenty years or so, as uranium reserves also became depleted.

In The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg paints a completely different picture. "Everything is fine." Indeed, "everything is getting better." Furthermore, "we are not headed for a major energy crisis," and "there is plenty of energy."

How could two smart people come to such different conclusions? I had to get to the bottom of this.

Energy made it into the British news in 2006. Kindled by tidings of great climate change and a tripling in the price of natural gas in just six years, the flames of debate are raging. How should Britain handle its energy needs? And how should the world?

"Wind or nuclear?", for example. Greater polarization of views among smart people is hard to imagine. During a discussion of the proposed expansion of nuclear power, Michael Meacher, former environment minister, said "if we're going to cut greenhouse gases by 60% . . . by 2050 there is no other possible way of doing that except through renewables;" Sir Bernard Ingham, former civil servant, speaking in favour of nuclear expansion, said "anybody who is relying upon renewables to fill the [energy] gap is living in an utter dream world and is, in my view, an enemy of the people."

Similar disagreement can be heard within the ecological movement. All agree that something must be done urgently, but what? Jonathan Porritt, chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, writes: "there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power programme at this time, and ... any such proposal would be incompatible with [the Government's] sustainable development strategy;" and "a non-nuclear strategy could and should be sufficient to deliver all the carbon savings we shall need up to 2050 and beyond, and to ensure secure access to reliable sources of energy." In contrast, environmentalist James Lovelock writes in his book, The Revenge of Gaia: "Now is much too late to establish sustainable development." In his view, power from nuclear fission, while not recommended as the long-term panacea for our ailing planet, is "the only effective medicine we have now." Onshore wind turbines are "merely ... a gesture to prove [our leaders'] environmental credentials."

This heated debate is fundamentally about numbers. How much energy could each source deliver, at what economic and social cost, and with what risks? But actual numbers are rarely mentioned. In public debates, people just say "Nuclear is a money pit" or "We have a huge amount of wave and wind." The trouble with this sort of language is that it's not sufficient to know that something is huge: we need to know how the one "huge" compares with another "huge," namely our huge energy consumption. To make this comparison, we need numbers, not adjectives.

Where numbers are used, their meaning is often obfuscated by enormousness. Numbers are chosen to impress, to score points in arguments, rather than to inform. "Los Angeles residents drive 142 million miles - the distance from Earth to Mars - every single day." "Each year, 27 million acres of tropical rainforest are destroyed." "14 billion pounds of trash are dumped into the sea every year." "British people throw away 2.6 billion slices of bread per year." "The waste paper buried each year in the UK could fill 103 448 double-decker buses."

If all the ineffective ideas for solving the energy crisis were laid end to end, they would reach to the moon and back. . . . I digress.