Peter Hartley and Anteros
There is no doubt that the increase in affluence, standard of living, quality of life and life expectancy, which the industrially developed world has experienced over the past 150-200 years has been to a large extent a result of the availability of a reliable and low cost energy source..
There is also no doubt that this is the path now being followed by China, India, many smaller Asian nations, Brazil etc.
Those that are fortunate enough to have their own resources of fossil fuels, are using these for this transformation; others are supplementing local resources with purchased ones.
The poorest nations of this world do not have a reliable energy infrastructure based on low-cost sources of energy. They might have the basic fuel resources, but they lack the capital investment for developing the infrastructure.
Each of these nations will have its own “energy policy”. For example, China’s economic growth objectives are based on the continued growth in energy demand. So the “energy policy” is basically in support of an economic growth policy, which in turn is based on gradually improving the quality of life of its population.
“Climate policy” is a more nebulous concept.
A few already affluent nations (in Europe, for example) have a stated goal to “reduce carbon emissions to X% of what they were in year Y by year Z”, or to “hold global warming to no more than 2 degC”, but this is not really a “climate policy”, but only empty political posturing.
Curiously, it is precisely these nations, which do not have a coherent “energy policy”, as witnessed, for example by the UK’s “chasing windmills” or Germany’s “nuclear phaseout”, neither of which addresses the future energy needs of its populace.
The IPCC would like to promote a “global climate policy” (to reduce CO2 emissions globally in order to avert a virtual computer-projected climate disaster), but the larger nations of this world are not buying in to the need or desirability of doing this, as was evidenced at Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban, so it will not become a reality.
Nor have there been any concrete actionable proposals to date, which would result in a perceptible impact on our planet’s climate – NONE.
And it has become increasingly evident that we humans are unable to change our planet’s climate, no matter how much money we throw at it.
So I’d say that a “climate policy” (on a national or regional basis) should be to be able to respond to any climate changes, which nature throws at us, in order to minimize any harm or maximize any potential benefit that these might cause.
And this has no connection with an “energy policy”.
Max.
