by Edward Milford
14. December 2009 07:22
Though it can sound very pernickety at times, accurate use of language often helps when thinking through complex issues. I was reminded of this when long-standing energy thinker and campaigner (and Earthscan author) Walt Patterson gave the annual UK-ISES David Hall memorial lecture last week.
As Walt cogently pointed out, when the word ‘energy’ is used in public discourse, this is almost always simply a shorthand for ‘fuels and electricity’. As a physicist, he commented, to hear people talking about ‘energy security’, or ‘reducing energy use’, or whatever shows that they are simply missing the point (and frequently displaying an ignorance of basic physical laws). What is almost always meant is ‘fuel security’; or ‘reducing fuel use’ etc – it is fuel, the substance, that is the course of concern.
Contrast this with what he refers to as ‘infrastructure’ electricity; bits of buildings or equipment that can make use of the ambient energy (whether wind, solar, geothermal etc) freely available to us, without fuel costs. So blind are we to this distinction that, for instance, we have financial systems and models entirely geared up to deal with fuel-based systems, not infrastructure-based ones which typically have a higher capital cost but much lower running cost.
The climate change negotiations in Copenhagen are, though, the best example of where this important distinction is lost. CO2 emissions are caused by fuels; the whole COP process is a glorified discussion about how to ration or share out the use of fuels, and nothing to do with energy. Consequently, the long term solution can only be a major shift from fuel-based systems to infrastructure-based ones, and this is where efforts should surely be focused. Unfortunately, don’t expect to see much discussion of infrastructure in any final communiqué!
(His latest book, Keeping the Lights On, has plenty more thought-provoking writing on energy.)
