Historical Memory in the Food and Water Security Debate

 

Published June 2008

 

The meeting at FAO this week is bringing to the fore a structural weakness of international forums, in the development of long term strategies for food and water security; the neglect or misuse, under pressure of short-term tactical political aims, of institutional, civil society and corporate memory and more specifically its political dimension. The importance of why and how we are where we are to day.

 

And yet, how to utilize such knowledge in setting out a “vision of hope” for humanity’s food and water security might be crucial. Established wisdom suggests that those who pay no attention to history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, or worse even make bigger mistakes. The apparent surprise of global institutions with the current crisis is very worrying.

 

This article looks at aspects of such institutional, civil society and corporate memory and its effective management as a vehicle in shaping a ‘vision of hope” for global food and water security. Although it views the three parties separately, its underlying focus is the combined product of their interactions.

 

Demographics is the discipline least influenced by short term aims of interested parties. Projections made at the end of last century are fully validated today. What is perhaps missing is stronger emphasis on the linkages between food and water security.

 

It is worth mentioning that thirty years ago we predicted that:

1. today we would have 10-15% more food than 4 billion people did 40 years ago, and yet, we still have more than 800 million people undernourished. 
2. demand for calories per head would be geometrically escalating with economic progress of large parts of the world such as China, India and Latin America. 
3. towards the middle of this century, only 13 % of the world’s population would live in countries regarded today as developed and prosperous. 
4. long-term prices trend would be firmly upwards. 
5. land available for food production would be shrinking. No socially acceptable options would be left to us to safeguard food and water security but a strong and consistent positive trend in productivity.  
6. the need to make optimal and long-term sustainable use of land and water resources on a global scale would become crucial to social stability  
7. main factors affecting food security were seen as poverty, the decision of many countries to rely on a high degree of self-sufficiency, physical transportation deficiencies and finally, but most importantly, adequate supplies to meet demand.

We thus knew that we were facing a large looming threat to longer-term food and water security with grave repercussions on international socio-political and economic stability. We had also identified how narrow our options were. Nothing should be a surprise to the leaders of the world today. Why the crisis?

 

Interestingly, this threat was and even today is often erroneously perceived of concern only to specific parts of the globe. But as facts become more evident of a firm globalisation trend, there is a stronger awareness that it affects us all. A useful sideline but relevant example of global “rippling” is the current economic and social anxiety on oil pricing.

 

The key question is: “how each of the three partners, institutions, civil society and corporate has utilised projections of the early 90s and their cumulative experience of the intervening period in their role as contributors to shaping a strategic direction? Why such a poor performance?” It would be entirely missing the point if one were to apportion blame. The scene is as complex as it could be. Progress was undoubtedly made but inadequate and the threat remains and is larger and more imminent.

 

Aging international institutions have a complex participation but the parochial political commitment of member countries and heavy technical and bureaucratic nature of their staff results in a serious democratic deficit and lack of political credibility. In certain cases direction provided is seen as irrelevant and implementation takes a form of lip service. Institutional memory as a source of learning as to how to tackle the challenge of food and water security seems to have had very limited use; thus calls from everywhere for overhaul or replacement of the institutions themselves.

 

A simple example to highlight this point is the biotechnology position in FAO.

 

In the middle of the 90s, during the World Food Summit, the threat of food security was clearly identified and commitments made. Fifteen years later (!), after numerous half-hearted initiatives, FAO finally provided direction on this important technological tool. Here are some relevant points agreed:

 

 o the technology holds great promise for agriculture in developing countries;

 o the benefits are being widely distributed among industry, farmers and consumers;

 o it should complement, not replace, conventional agricultural technologies;

 

while some benefits have been observed, environmental effects have not been detected in commercial production; scientists generally agree that the transgenic crops currently being grown and the foods derived form them are safe to eat; there is a need for effective science-based biosafety assessment;

 

Given the urgency why did it take so long? Why progress is so slow? What was the role of the interested parties? Why is Europe still fighting tooth and nail?

 

Although FAO is seen as the archetype of international institutions in the area of food and water, others such as the World Bank and WTO have similar but perhaps less pronounced weaknesses. What appears common is the poor utilisation of institutional memory.

 

Civil society on the other hand is very broad, encompassing social tendencies driven by multiple agendas, varying in sophistication as well as ideals. Its importance was proven for the functioning of modern societies. However its mechanisms of more credible input to the debate are always tenuous and disputed. Civil society could be better heard, if the issues of its technical competence and accountability are improved. NGOs on a global platform are a relatively new, incomplete but sensational phenomenon. It is still a unique media magnet. Records of its contribution and methods of exerting influence to the global debate are crucial knowledge.

 

“Regulating” civil society inside broad rules of accountability can contribute to the equilibrium and harmony of the debate but requires leadership courage and serious effort. A rational trend is slowly emerging. Representation of real public interests as opposed to ideologies can now be seen on global scale such as consumers, natural environment, ethical issues etc. This partner is making better use of historical memory.

 

The corporate partner might be the easier to consider. It is crucial as a productivity improvements motor through targeted research. Society could better shape it to provide the technological means but it must be conscious of the limits to the rate of change avoiding structural collapse in sections of its wealth generating part. Corporate entities suffer from a number of burdens. Public policy often places heavy regulatory pressure that only large businesses could support. Inconsistent application of government standards creates an uneven playing field and acts as serious dis-incentive to players that follow the rules. A typical case of this is intellectual property protection. As a consequence Enterprise veers to short-termism and risk aversion. Large and mature entities with entrenched positions dominate the debate. There is no effective support framework to promote and project small and medium size entities, a sure indicator of healthy regeneration potential. Only very few manage to find niches to be successful.

 

This partner tries to utilise its memory but oddly efforts are further mitigated by its nature. As the essence of its members is competition the sector positions are a common denominator of the members’ interests. True sector initiatives beyond these common positions are rare. Presence of enlightened and consistent leadership has been largely absent. Perhaps in light of what is happening in the wider world in recent years, many of the current corporate representation structures may require serious rethinking. Although economic criteria in performance should remain dominant, the history of last thirty years provides evidence that other parameters should also be looked at more seriously, including social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Corporate memory points to a need to establish strong communications channels with the genuine points of knowledge about the global challenge of food and water security.

 

In conclusion, global leaders in the debate on food and water security for the world should be more alert to the importance of historical memory, as a guide to avoiding the mistakes of the past or even making bigger ones. Perhaps more importantly they should be clearly accountable for the effective use of this knowledge. They will thus demonstrate their awareness and grave concern about the escalating seriousness of the challenges ahead and ensure a marked qualitative improvement of the process. It will bring savings of valuable natural resources and avert catastrophes.

 

Nobody doubts that the future is unpredictable but deeper study of historical records is the best anchored launching pad to continue our wandering in the darkness ahead. It would ensure that we make optimal use of our natural and social resources as well as technologies to lighten the darkness of the unknown and make for a bright future.

 

Is the tap opening?

Published October 2009

Back in October 2008 in an article about the World economy I wondered “with all these gigantic losses to the taxpayer, investors, banks and other financial institutions employees, who are the ones that gain? We are talking about large amounts of wealth and their frightening negotiating power on future arrangements of the financial and perhaps other sectors or even political processes. Assuming there have been intentional distortions of the system that have caused the crisis, people behind them will fight to preserve their gains”.

There is now ample evidence that this fight has been raging with early signs it might be reaching a critical point, an unhappy moment for public interest.

With multiplicity of disturbing to the layman financial instruments involving peculiar terms such as “bad banks” and “toxic assets”, governments led indisputably by the US administration have been funneling public wealth to the whole chain of the private financial system directly or indirectly. In return they increased their level of influence in key institutions of this system being mostly under the control of a small group of majority shareholders. This small group kept the financial system at ransom. Its goal seems to be of drawing enough public funds to eradicate liquidity problems in the parts of their operations been affected whilst keeping healthy and unhealthy parts out of reach of a robust national and global regulatory or supervisory regime. The situation now seems to be reaching a point of settlement with maximum gains to this small group without loss of critical majority ownership and strategic decision making capacity.

On reaching that point the privately owned global financial system is gradually opening the taps and funds flow irrigating the choking global economy, rapidly boosting the markets. Shares and particularly shares of financial institutions are climbing back to normal values. Governments hope to recover public funds. Shareholders though in addition to what it has already been provided to cover for the reckless risks taken would see their shareholding value skyrocketing. Given that the small group of majority shareholders has interests not only in the part of the financial chain that led to the crisis but also in related industries such as construction and property trading, it is coming out of the crisis having accumulated wealth created by years of laboring of the world economy. And from this position of strength it continues challenging the introduction of whatever regulatory or supervisory framework in the name of their notion of the “market”.

There are four key actors in that game, the controlling shareholders’ group, governments, including existing global institutions, civil society and communications media. It might be worth looking at the apparent positions of each and public’s expectations.

Controlling shareholders from a strong position are expected to continue fighting for a loosely regulated global financial environment and further development of exotic instruments of finance engineering. They have formidable weapons. In addition to their level of control on the world’s physical assets they control the financial sector employees, one of the brightest parts of society’s workforce. With minor exceptions this group represents the hard and uncompromising face of pure capitalism, often expressed by arrogant colluding senior management. Any notion of social capitalism model is anathema to them. They would only yield to highly determine political and civil society presence because they know that ultimately their license to operate depends on acceptance by society.

On the government side, with a strong mandate to a promising President in the US, an effectively linked sage China, a careful Japan and reasonable political stability in broader Europe the conditions couldn’t be better. Options such as regulation or supervision, related to the social structure of countries might be clouding the horizon but the essence of effectiveness of their implementation is a common goal. The same goes to the channels used to revitilise the economy. The US is funneling most of funding via the private financial system. Europe as expected is using public funds via social channels. On a broader global perspective these two approaches might prove complementary. Leaving aside critics on details, the process of getting the necessary steps to free the global economy from the financial blockage is progressing. Determined political leadership seems to me emerging. Against all criticism the G-20 meeting has shown signs of this. The fundamental weakness of this actor is credibility. In intervening in the financial sector they are obliged to employ experts emanating from the very system they are called to overhaul. Public expects an innovative approach in bridging this credibility gap; besides a strong public overview is required.

This is the crucial role of a well organized and effective civil society. Unfortunately this seems not to be the case. Civil society in this sector is unusually lagging on dynamism, militancy and constructive proposals made public. Perhaps this is due to the economic decline and its consequences to the unemployment threat. Memories of past year’s terror of collapse are fading rapidly and energy for strong long term sustaining action is waning. Well tested channels of building strong pressure on governments have not been apparent. Disillusionment is setting in. We believe this actor has a catalytic role to play. How can this player be mobilized? Without it exerting tight and long term political pressure very little will be achieved.

The role of the media has been crucial but counterproductive. Saturating the public with masses of redundant information has created confusion, fatigue and indifference. The real threats as well as the options to counter them were poorly exposed. How objective is the strategic perspective on such an issue of the large media groups privately owned by controlling minorities with sometimes much broader economic and political interests? Is real-time insatiable media scrutiny of the political establishment even on private lives, influencing government policy? Their role is critical but have they gone too far? Media have a fundamental responsibility to stay independent and keep the public truly informed and mobilized in order to enable civil society to play their catalytic role. How can this be achieved?

In concluding however there is a much more important underlying issue. It is perhaps the first real crisis on a truly global scale and of course happened to a sector that has gone more global than any other. But by having caused such damage to other sectors such as the global economy it is a strong wake-up call. It is forcing global political leaders to coalesce realizing that the planet is rapidly integrating and the need of effective global governance has become urgent. Existing global governance systems are antiquated and ineffective left far behind by modern societies, technology and accelerating communications media. The recent creation of G20 is only one positive sign of this trend. Relevant to the four players in this article, other global crises are looming in sectors such as energy, climate change or even the next financial one. The challenge seems to be in creating modern effective global institutions on time to deal with them. This is where everyone that believes in sustainable evolution of life on this planet has to contribute.

Keeping society in limbo

Published 12 October 2008

Somebody has finally to explain the underlying issues of this financial crisis and ensuing clouds of severe recession for the benefit of non-economists. People have had enough of jargon and cloudy lofty statements keeping society in limbo. Amidst the confusion because of catastrophic developments in the financial sector on a global scale the ordinary informed person struggles to interpret myriads of incompatible and mostly incomprehensive messages. They are meant to reassure but achieve the opposite. And yet he needs a comprehensive description of the problem in order to be active in developments affecting his welfare and the destiny of his children.

A simple observation suggests that the severity of the crisis in a country is analogous to the stage of its economic development and the apparent role of the financial sector, with the US leading. It is in advanced countries that media are bombarding the population with threatening messages creating this limbo as to the way out, the consequent real cost and calls for accountability. Underdeveloped countries are much less affected for the time being.

Confidence can only be built if a holistic assessment of the problem is shown, the real economic and social consequences are stated but related to the solid wealth foundations that already exist and the opportunities offered to move to more viable arrangements in the functioning of the economy. Public consent to this assessment is the most important negotiating tool in the hands of the authorities attempting to tame a financial sector gone wild. Today this is not available.

It would be necessary to highlight the existing solid wealth base in real and not monetary terms. Irrespective of its ideological base, the potential of developed society has two dimensions that relate to its economic performance, natural resources and human capital. Financial services are only a small sector of the human capital albeit highly specialised. The real strength of developed societies is their flexibility to adjust because of the diversified highly specialised human capital pool. It would not be the first time such societies face a problem with a sector of economic activity and ways exist to tackle them at their root causes at a cost. These ways might prove more challenging in this case chiefly because of the emotional connotations of “money”, than the severity of the crisis itself; but are unavoidable.

Although root causes are closely linked and their borders blurred, some can be pinpointed even by a non-expert observer.

To begin it might be purposeful to question: With all these gigantic losses to the taxpayer, investors, banks and other financial institutions employees, who are the ones that gain? We are talking about many trillions of dollars of wealth and their frightening negotiating power on future arrangements of the financial and perhaps other sectors or even political processes. Assuming there have been intentional distortions of the system that have caused the crisis, people behind them will fight to preserve their gains.

We know that the consequences of the oil crisis have accumulated very large amounts of financial reserves in the hands of states and people outside the countries with acute problems. Although some of these reserves have been invested back and suffered from the crisis, their longer term perspective cushions this pressure. A lot more should be available. Given the political and cultural sensitivities surrounding some of the holders of these resources as well as their geopolitical arrangements guaranteeing their survival, what would be the consequences of using these reserves in the global economic system when the moment is right for them?

How objective is the strategic perspective of the large media groups privately owned by controlling minorities with broader interests or sometimes non-democratic governments? Is real-time insatiable media scrutiny of the political establishment beyond political processes, even in their private lives, influencing government policy? If so to what purpose?



Greed is part of human nature. It will manifest itself if conditions are ripe. In the case of this crisis, there is ample of it in a provocative manner for some time. Why did the supervisory system accommodate it?



Finally, developed economies are under this crisis for some time. Signs from everywhere indicated that the problem is as global as the financial and economic networks. Why is it taking such a long time to accept the need for a strong global coordinating institution? Why EU has been so slow to come together on this issue? Do its leaders realize that the very viability of the Euro edifice as well as the whole European experiment depends on forming a common view before a strong global institution comes into being?



Perhaps it is time to accept that this financial crisis is much more of a fundamental political challenge to society and proceed with renewal of government mandate to deal with it. There is a need to effect fundamental change at a speed that will avoid collapse of the broader economic edifice in the shortest possible horizon.

Food crisis? What is the real issue?

Back in the nineties, in my capacity as director general of a global federation of industry directly involved in the production of food, I wrote the following article with title “Hungry for an Answer” published by Farm Chemicals International (Edition of Summer 1999).


“How far will desperately hungry people go to feed their children? It is virtually impossible for those of us living in the developed world to answer this question. The plight of the starving and malnourished masses in many developing countries is simply too far away from our own experience for us to be able to imagine what their lives are like.

Most of us in the developed part of the world –including those dealing with food and farming issues in government, the industry, and other stakeholder groups – have been influenced by the ideology of the environmental movement.

Environmentalists promote a utopian image of agriculture. This vision consists of a patchwork of small fields bounded by well-kept hedgerows teaming with wildlife, where cows graze contentedly in the meadow, and the sun always shines.

This postcard image bears little resemblance to an actual countryside, but is still viewed as an ideal to strive towards and something which large-scale industrial agriculture has stolen from us.

Ironically, it is large-scale agriculture that has created the food security that allows society to see environmental care as its first farming priority. The public in developed countries sees modern agriculture as the worst of all possible worlds; a wasteful excess of food, grown under conditions that are damaging the environment beyond all hope.

But it is precisely because we no longer worry about getting enough food that we have the luxury of worrying about how that food is produced. In other parts of the world, the pressure and problems are very different. Where subsistence agriculture is still the norm, the number one priority is simply getting enough food.

Developing countries clearly see the need for high tech agriculture, but people preoccupied with where their next meal will come from simply do not have much time to worry about maintaining natural resources and sustainable development.

To countries struggling to feed their population, international efforts to protect the environment seem to be based on a double standard; the industrialised countries were allowed to develop without environmental controls. In contrast, their poorer counterparts are prevented from reaching similar standards of living in the interest of environmental conservation.

Aspirations and expectations in the developing countries have been raised through improved global communications. If people in these countries continue to feel that their needs are being ignored,

desperation will set in, with catastrophic results for wildlife and the environment, not to mention political and social implications. How far will hungry people go to feed their children? Surely they will not think twice about chopping down every last three in the rainforest or hunting a species to extinction. It is a concept to alien to the developed countries that it stretches beyond the limits of our imagination.”

It feels as though a century has passed since these lines were written. Environmental movement has matured, some conservation measures are timidly progressing but on a broader front, the pressures of humanity’s unsustainable natural resources consumption continue to increase, towards a catastrophic threshold. Evidence such as rising energy and food prices, the weakening of the dollar and consequently the world economy are just a small number of the symptoms.

The fundamentals that are listed below and which are responsible for this continuing trend have been known for some time. They were simply neglected by the leadership of this world and apathy mixed with desperation of the public, particularly in the developed world, in policies of an ostrich.

The first fundamental factor is Demography. In our children’s lifetime the population of the Globe will be approaching ten billion; an increase of more than 60%. Even larger trends are at work however such as the rise of more than one third of the global population in China and India alone. Hundreds of millions of people are moving from poverty into the global economy. Their per capita wealth shows a more spectacular growth, a factor compounded with the increase in numbers. Such wealth is inevitably increasing their food and material demands accordingly. These people are now eating twice a day instead of once, and causing rapid urbanization.

Another fundamental is energy availability. Three basic sources of energy exist today, hydroelectric, coal and hydrocarbons. Hydroelectric, although clean is reaching the limits of its capacity. Coal, in ample reserves, has certain serious disadvantages. These include polluting the environment, and contributing to the creation of the greenhouse effect. Hydrocarbons are the most important source of energy on the planet. However, apart from sharing similar disadvantages to coal, our planet only possesses only about 30 years worth of reserves at projected consumption levels. Renewable sources such as wind and solar power are still in early stages of development. The current situation of energy supply is not sustainable and requires a major review and revision. As the infrastructure surrounding the provision of ‘energy’ is a very important element of the world economy, any changes are bound to have serious repercussions.

In addition, the political philosophy of a triumphant and sole prevailing capitalism is driving a dramatic wedge between a small minority that controls the use of natural resources and the rest of the population. With perfect human nature this controlling minority projects an image of greed and consumerism causing frustration and anger. The handling of the current financial crisis, the further accumulation of wealth by this minority through the energy and food supply and the emergence of members in this minority with principles against human rights, might prove to be the beginning of serious cracks in social order.

Finally, the environment. Since the early eighties ‘science’, be it in the public domain, in non-profit institutions, or in industry is sounding alarms. The evidence was tenuous at the beginning, but became more and more concrete and worrying as we entered the new century. Many thought that industrial research was a hindering factor. This confusion has a lot to do with the initial political agendas and urge of important NGOs to be recognized as authoritative and influential voices. Responsible industry concerns were never about the need for change to a more sustainable state. It was about the modalities in a fiercely competitive arena and more importantly the speed of that change to avoid the collapse of crucial sectors that service the society. This is not stated to contradict the extremely important role of civil society in raising real issues and fighting public apathy. The further strengthening of civil society’s initiatives in all fundamentals is perhaps the most encouraging aspect. There is also no denying that the controlling minority, through the socioeconomic levers, have played an important role in the current state and negative trends of the planet’s health.

Mankind might be reaching a defining moment of development where important dimensions of man’s true nature might have to give in to ensure longer term co-existence and social order.

This takes us to the issue of food crisis. Is it really a crisis or part of a continuous and deteriorating social disorder pointing to major catastrophic events? The fundamentals suggest the latter. From this further questions might arise. Are there ways to avert catastrophe? Is there time to act? What is missing today?

In order to address the question about ways to avert catastrophe we could look at each of the fundamentals.

The demographic challenge, however complicated by moral issues, is inescapable. There is a need for humanity to address the issue of its size on the planet, the horizon to obtain it, the moral price in

reaching it, the resources required and the modalities of implementation by the international community. Current theories about natural stabilization contain a lot of uncertainty. It is a very difficult challenge. And anybody attempting to address it would risk being seen as playing ‘God’. Different societies are based on different value systems. This is particularly true when distinguishing the West from the East; religion plays a dominant role in some, and not in others. But unless this issue is tackled, and assuming no revolutionary changes occur in the way we attempt to maintain sustainable resources, we risk a collapse of the social order by the end of this century, purely as a result of this fundamental.

As far as energy is concerned, a longer term stable situation would have to be based on sources that are renewable. Energy supply should be based on hydrogen and solar technologies. Hydrogen would need to be the primary fuel consumed by new generation power plants as well as for vehicles on land, sea and air/space. Other sources such as wind power would of course have a role to play, but would remain of secondary importance. Given the long term research, planning and implementation required to put such new infrastructure in place, the preparation for the transition of this fundamental into the new era is well behind schedule.

The need for an overhaul of the shape of capitalism to take into account globalization, increasing knowledge density of the public across the globe, communications and socioeconomic evolution is also a challenge. Moving away from rampant individualism and indiscriminate consumerism to more social welfare philosophy, without sacrificing human rights and entrepreneurial spirit would not be easy, but it remains a necessity. Exploring ways to run the global economy on a non material growth pattern with its radical social implications becomes compelling. The widening chasm between a small minority of very rich and the rest is untenable.

As for the environment, it is too easy to accuse parts of the society such as government, industry and even academic research for causing damage to it. Looking back in history one may take a different view. There are many cases where scientific breakthroughs and their industrial implementation have created great relief, particularly in areas of food, medicine and shelter. Without delving into the “Green Revolution” effects, I could only mention one simple example. When DDT appeared as a remedy for malaria, it was seen as a miracle. Millions of people were saved. Nobody knew that the implications of large scale usage could apart of benefits incur damage to the environment. There are many cases like this where our knowledge was limited by the time of the introduction of new discoveries and damage caused was not known to man.

But the state of the environment is clearly worrying. Precaution must prevail, particularly in sensitive sectors such as public health and nutrition. However, one must be conscious of the fact that the science of the environment is young and the size of forces related to the equilibrium of the planet and their interactions are beyond our full comprehension. Striving for balance between caution and encouraging research and entrepreneurship is a delicate task.

How much time is there to act? The answer to this question might not be very encouraging. The momentum of all four fundamentals and the evidence of symptoms of serious degradation raise a lot of anxiety. Much of the time to act has been lost as world leadership seems to have developed policies encouraging public apathy around the fundamentals. In our age of the “media”, distraction with every day news has become an art. We have undergone two generations in this environment, particularly in the western world, with terrible consequences. The worst part is that the younger generation, apart from certain minorities where anger is boiling inside the kettle, seems to be even more apathetic than the mature population, neglecting their civil responsibilities. They seem blissfully unaware that their attitude may result in severe consequence for themselves and more importantly for their children. There is a desperate need for global leadership to help educate and raise awareness.

And finally addressing the question of what can be done. Humanity today has ample reservoirs of fine quality brains with higher education as well as an accelerating knowledge density of the population. In contrast, there is confusion surrounding the future for the individual as well as for society. What seems to be missing is a clear vision for the future of humanity. This vision will have to provide answers in a language that everyone is able to comprehend, from the intellectual to the layman. It must clearly address and explain how we will all work together to tackle the fundamentals. It will have to describe the role of man’s presence on this planet 50 years from now. Otherwise more and more kettles of anger will burst open.

The way humanity rode through the 20th century was by establishing global institutions such as the UN and the World Bank using the bitter experience of wars and economic catastrophes. These institutions however were designed for their time. They still exist today but show ample signs of being out of touch with the modern reality.

The world has become a small closely knit village and requires global governance through appropriate institutions to deal with the fundamental challenges. We are at the infancy of a process of forming the global government of the future through such institutions. This should be the ‘instrument’ that will debate and deal in a concerted manner with the fundamentals and the resources required in a timely fashion. There is little doubt about the difficulties of creating such institutions but without them humanity will remain rudderless heading towards its destruction.

Concluding it is important to re-iterate that current events risk not being a crisis but the beginning of a long decline in humanity’s history. Every responsible citizen has to contribute to the rapid introduction of strong global institutions that will shape this “Vision of Hope” and lead in its implementation.

Energy in the 21st Century

So much has already been written on the subject of”energy needs”, and as humanity continues to advance in this century, the pace of interest is accelerating. Anybody with a reputation in the field has expressed views, and as the debate intensifies the risk of overflow of information is clear. In full conscience of the risk of adding to this, the aim of this article is to set out a “vision of hope” for the energy challenge addressed to the informed reader. To stand only a slim chance of success this vision must face the issue on a global perspective keeping appropriate balance between short and long term. The challenge is of direct concern to the whole planet and one should accept that more and more people will become directly involved, many with growing power of influence. No attempt is made to touch upon the transition planning, as this would affect clarity and the importance of such a vision as a reference. An exception is only made in dealing with CO² storage.

Some undeniable background facts should help create a framework:

The easiest to start with, is demography. Unless major unpredictable and catastrophic events occur, we can be sure that by the middle of this century the population of the Globe will be around ten billion; an increase of more than 60%. More importantly the per capita wealth will have marked a more spectacular growth, a factor compounded with the increase in numbers. And such wealth will inevitably increase the expectations for standards of living accordingly. One does not need detailed statistics to realise that the consequent growth in demand for energy will consign many of today’s hotly debated topics about CO² emissions, its sources and the resulting damage to the environment to a subservient role. The key is to have a higher-level vision.

It is surprising that in the current debate, short and long-term challenges of energy needs are often confused, creating an obscure horizon and thus providing little hope for a clear vision for the interested non-expert population. Reacting to evidence of damage already done momentum is building up for a multitude of localized actions. It is as if the scientific community and political leaders intend to deal with what they assume to be highly complex issues on their own, leaving the citizens of the planet in the dark. There is evidence of feeble co-ordination and more importantly, ineffective or non-existent global governance institutions to deal with the challenge. This should be placed in the context of spectacular growth in the knowledge density within the population of the planet. If there are relevant communications strategies, they look very poorly conducted indeed. We are all together on a burning platform and need desperately a global consensus. Civil society has shown a way but most of its members have no global reach and some have highjacked narrow niches becoming a part of the problem and not the solution.

The public seems to gradually develop doubts about society’s adequacy of scientific knowledge on major phenomena such as climate change and renewable energy sources. It is unhappily opting for precaution, introducing severe regulatory constraints with a greater chance of wasting natural resources. Clearly major and urgent research effort is required.

Compounded with this lack of knowledge, we testify to an increasing politicisation of science with potentially disastrous consequences. History, even recently, abound with such disasters. This does not only come from the academic community or governments. Civil society is also a player. A movement that started with ideals and has contributed very positively in improvements in quality of life has gradually shown occasions of politicised science in order to pursue agendas often alienated from these initial ideals.

Two additional factors make the situation worse. The first is the perception that energy supply is and will be controlled by a small minority of powerful corporations and nations. There is ample evidence to tempt an observer to agree. Public media abound with news on incidents suggesting important financial, national and sometimes social interests at play. The world at large is unlikely to accept this situation. Consequently the current model of social capitalism is bound to be under increasing pressure as sociopolitical currents from the developing parts of the globe manifest their influence.


The second factor is the long planning horizon necessary to introduce energy supply structural changes. From classical fossil fuel to nuclear energy, production plants require many years of design, planning and construction before coming into operation. Similar changes in the distribution are likely to have profound consequences for the ways societies function today. It is thus reasonable to set a vision for the “energy needs” challenge in the middle of this century.

To begin with setting out such a “vision of hope”, one may want to separate the production of usable energy, and its distribution and modes of consumption. This separation provides flexibility in establishing policies and strategies. It is proposed that the output energy will be either in the form of electricity for immediate consumption or hydrogen/oxygen for storage and consumption. Consequently, dealing with inputs to produce energy becomes independent of developments of storage and distribution networks that will evolve according to social needs.

A vision to meet the “energy challenge” by the middle of this century becomes clearer. Its foundation is CO² free energy production and use. There is no doubt about the difficulties involved, the complexities in the details of its design, demands for scientific and political leadership and the gigantic amount of resources required early in the transition. Neither is it suggested that this is the only vision.

In production there are a number of familiar longer-term sustainable technologies, all of them requiring much more research to improve their efficient use. They include hydro, photovoltaic and mirror thermal solar, fission and fusion nuclear, geothermal, wind, wave motion and other more exotic technologies such as space panels. These technologies are in fact non-CO² polluting and practically non-exhaustible. They would be used for the production of electricity. If appropriate, pure or hybrid hydrogen production as means of energy storage would be attached. Although in the case of solar energy production, small on-site individual units might eventually evolve, the large-scale highly efficient production units would be the ones handling electricity generation for the general demand. They would also be fully integrated on a global network in order to cover geographical peaks in demand. The storage of hydrogen would also evolve in to a very important flexibility instrument to tackle the weaknesses of sources such as solar and wind generators.

Most of these technologies face formidable but different obstacles.

Silicon based solar panels as produced and marketed today are space demanding and inefficient. Continuous silicon films and other materials with similar physical properties but higher efficiencies are likely to appear as research in this area intensifies, but initial installation investments require important subsidies, far in excess of the current timid support by governments.

As comparative risks are better assessed nuclear fission and fusion technologies are slowly progressing again and are very promising despite the entrenched positions of interest groups. The pressure from these groups has resulted in such polarisation that only serious political capital can lower the barriers that have frozen these technologies and starved their research.

Many of the other CO² free technologies are likely to make moderate contribution on a global scale however environmentally attractive they sound. Hydro is a distinct exception with well researched technologies, as it would continue to be a reliable and important contributor.

Finally plants converting electrical or direct solar energy to hydrogen/oxygen would achieve large-scale storage of energy, as buffer.


Fossil fuels still hold serious promise, particularly in the transition to the target date, set as the middle of the century. This is assuming that CO² underground storage and further processing technologies continue to be fully developed. Furthermore, setting aside investment to convert CO² back to carbon and oxygen might not be as unrealistic as it sounds as it opens opportunities for hybrid hydrogen production, storage and use.

An important point in meeting the challenge of “energy needs” is to focus production on only two usable forms of energy: electricity, and its derivative means of storage, pure or hybrid hydrogen. Successfully focusing in these two forms of energy would simplify production and distribution, introduce enormous economies of scale and exploit the fact that today large parts of the globe have an embryonic infrastructure and in many cases offer regions most convenient for the implantation of large energy production centres driven by CO²-free technologies. This would offer the opportunity to these areas to leapfrog directly to the final stage of the transition, meet their needs and provide excess supplies to energy deficient areas. Existing non-electricity forms of energy distribution and storage would gradually be withdrawn with only remnants for special circumstances participating in the final scheme. The only area that need hydrocarbons and reserves must be kept for their long term operations is the chemical industry, including the broad pharmaceuticals sector.

The integration of large production units via a network, mentioned above, would also be the backbone of the distribution system. From it, regional distribution networks to the consumer will be developed. Existing infrastructure will be expanded to new parts of the planet and upgraded with new technologies.

Consumers of energy should be seen in two groups. Entities directly linked to the electricity grid and others non-directly linked that would need to store energy, as they would operate disconnected from the grid. Battery storage urban use electric vehicles are included in the direct users.

Given the efficiencies of direct use of electricity, the scheme would provide for some basic principles. In transportation for example, all medium and long-range continental traffic should be made on land, chiefly by rail. Technological advances in this sector would almost certainly meet the challenge of offering satisfactory solutions. Development of appropriate infrastructure however will demand significant resources and time to come to fruition. Some of the existing road infrastructure, converted accordingly, could be used to lessen the burden.

Linked to this foundation, short-distance mobility would be ensured by electric vehicles with appropriate characteristics to meet the task without undue vain excesses. Urban and sub-urban public transport would be the main instrument for mobility for the public with small and economic private vehicles filling the gap. Of course such changes would require long-term comprehensive education campaigns coupled with appropriate fiscal policies to effect dramatic change of public attitudes to mobility, freedom of movement and the role of modern communications.

All other directly linked consumers such as buildings, roads and industrial plants would be using electric energy as well. More research would be required in the transition to ensure that every possible opportunity would be exploited for on site production of electric energy thus lessening the burden to the grid.

The non-directly linked consumers would be mainly vehicles with long-range mobility. They would require one extra stage of energy conversion, as they will be using hydrogen as fuel and modified power plants to operate. The storage of hydrogen on a retail scale is not a simple technical challenge; thus the importance to develop such infrastructure mostly for long-term professional transport. Such vehicles, e.g. ships and planes, would be used for intercontinental and perhaps interplanetary transport.

To start moving towards the proposed vision one has to be aware of implicit realities of today’s world. On the one hand, modern communications have made our planet look more like it really is i.e. a small planet or as we sometimes call it, a village. On the other, one is overwhelmed with the variety of histories, cultures, and socio-political and economic systems. The phenomenon of globalisation, driven only by economic forces is building tremendous strains on social and political dimensions. Lack of effective global institutions somehow suggests that humanity has put the cart ahead of the horse. And yet the opportunity to develop a clear global balanced vision built on multi- local and regional trends and move towards it by the middle of the century is unique, non-recurrent and compelling.


Today the developed western world still holds important leads but realises that the rest of the planet is catching up. Sociopolitical systems alien to western type democracies compete. Growth potential and numbers clearly favour the rest of the planet. Historical memory breeds mutual distrust and sometimes resentment. Both parts see that unless they deal soon with global issues, like the longer-term energy challenge and establish an agreed clear vision, there are bound to be major conflicts with catastrophes on an unimaginable scale.

Thinkers of world affairs push in that direction. They can see a new equilibrium soon where distribution of wealth within societies will not be very dissimilar across the continents and as a consequence demand for energy during the transition would differ dramatically. Poorer regions will demand much more. Here lies an opportunity. If the international community manages to satisfy these needs with technologies of the future, demands on the environment and the consequences in changing this climate of distrust and resentment can be important.

It follows that in moving towards a vision, there is an urgent need for effective global institutions structured for this century, as this is a key. Existing international organisations were designed and to a certain extent have managed to deal with the challenges of the second part of the previous century. There is ample evidence that unless significantly overhauled, these organisations will be unable to deal with the world of the upcoming fifty years. The institutions themselves have recognised this and drive changes but unless large nations, in existing and future forums like G8+, sit around the table, give guidance, provide implementation plans and unreservedly support them very little will change.

Finally, in looking at the transition towards the proposed vision, one can make an important observation. Any re-directing must seriously take into account margins of elasticity of the global system to absorb it. Abrupt changes could be catastrophic. Starting the transition at the earliest is imperative. Furthermore, a comprehensive global communications campaign driven by a credible international institution should run in parallel. The messages must be target audience specific and simple. Risks relevant to planning steps should be made clear. We live in the 21st century and transparency is crucial.

In conclusion, a common requirement for any “vision of hope” is the utilization of the time span covering the next fifty years, coupled with a calculated risk-taking political and scientific leadership on a global scale. The author regrets the pessimistic tenor of this article. It is however questionable whether current global institutions, market forces of modern capitalist and non-capitalist systems and the entrenched positions of major energy suppliers will be the most effective environment for such a challenge. Existing global and regional forums of political leaders must mobilize to avert catastrophe.

Energy in the 21st Century - Summary

The energy challenge is of direct concern to the whole planet. People with growing power of influence are becoming directly involved. Here are some undeniable facts.


In demography, by the middle of this century the population of the Globe will be close to ten billion; an increase of more than 60%. The per capita wealth growth would be even higher. And such wealth will inevitably lead to much higher energy demand consigning many of today’s hotly debated topics to a subservient priority.

In face of the emerging evidence of the damage already done to the environment momentum is building up to act. But short and long-term challenges are often confused. There is evidence of feeble co-ordination and ineffective or non-existent global governance institutions and if there are relevant communications strategies, they look very poorly conducted indeed. The public has doubts about adequacy of scientific knowledge and thus unhappily opting for precaution. This lack of knowledge is compounded with an increasing politicisation of science with potentially disastrous consequences.

Two additional factors making the situation worse are firstly the perception that energy supply is and will be controlled by powerful corporations and nations and secondly the long planning horizon to introduce structural changes. Such changes would have profound consequences on the ways societies function today. The world at large is unlikely to remain indifferent, with the current model of rampant capitalism under increasing pressure.

There is a need for a middle century vision for the energy challenge. Something the informed citizen of the world can identify with.

The foundation of a 2050 “vision of hope” is CO² free non-exhaustible energy production and use. In setting out this vision, one wants to separate production of energy, from its distribution providing flexibility in policies and strategies.

The output energy would be either in the form of electricity or pure/hybrid hydrogen. The process should be independent of distribution that will evolve according to social needs. There are sustainable technologies such as hydro, various forms of solar, fission and fusion nuclear, geothermal and wind for the production of electricity. Most of them face formidable obstacles. For example continuous silicon and other material films with higher efficiencies need replace inefficient silicon solar panels but R&D in this field require important support. Mirror thermal/solar must make further inroads. Nuclear fission and fusion technologies should progress again but need serious political capital to lower the barriers. Hydrogen production for energy storage and secondary transformation would be attached. They would be fully integrated on a global network. There is no doubt about the difficulties, demands for scientific and political leadership and the gigantic amount of resources required.

Focusing output on only two usable forms of energy, electricity and its derivative hydrogen/oxygen would boost efficiency and introduce economies of scale. Integration of large production units via global network would be the backbone of the distribution system.

Consumers would be seen in two groups. Entities directly linked to the electricity grid and others that need to store energy, as they would operate disconnected from the grid. Given the advantages of direct use of electricity, the scheme would set basic principles. In transportation all long-range continental traffic should be made on land, chiefly by rail. Linked to this foundation, short-distance mobility would be ensured by electric vehicles. Urban and sub-urban public transport would be the main instrument for mobility for the public. All other directly linked consumers such as buildings, roads and industrial plants would be using electric energy. Non-directly linked consumers would be vehicles with long-range mobility in need of one extra stage of energy conversion, as they will be using hydrogen power plants. Such vehicles, e.g. ships and airplanes, would be used for intercontinental and perhaps interplanetary transport.

Of course, given the dramatic structural changes required in society, long-term comprehensive education campaigns coupled with appropriate fiscal policies would be developed.
In moving towards such a vision, there is an urgent need for effective global institutions. Existing ones have recognised this and drive changes but unless large nations give guidance, provide implementation plans and unreservedly support them very little will change.

Finally, even at this longer term horizon, we must make an important observation. Pace of change must seriously take into account margins of elasticity of the global system to absorb it; consequently starting the transition in parallel to a communication campaign at the earliest is imperative.


Read the full article on this blog

Behind Copenhagen

It is worth noting that amidst a fury of debating and bartering issues such as deforestation and broad development of less developed countries had a radically different outcome.


Delving into these two issues as examples we should probably not be taken by surprise but take stock of the outcome. The first is striking a note of encouragement while the second falling so short of expectations of the broader environmental movement. We would suggest this is because behind all noise of the “Climate Change” conference there are some fundamentals to be addressed first. Understanding these would lead to appreciating the attitude of countries and shape a view about future options.

Looking at the first issue, deforestation, it is easy to see that it directly affects life on the planet irrespective of location. It is of immediate concern to everybody as it will affect the destiny of any organism. Consequently assigning resources to mitigate its effect was immediately forthcoming by all developed countries. They came with the proviso that monitoring mechanisms will be put in place to verify that these resources will be tightly targeted to deforestation of major tropical forests. The challenge is focused on few large areas managed by reasonably organised state administrations with an infrastructure to carry out such programmes with the support of outside help. The existing ample evidence of the damage already done and science progress in understanding the consequences have helped to only loosely link the issue to the absurd debate about historical burden of the current state of the environment and consequent demands for compensations of countries of which some with administrations of doubtful records in using resources provided by donors.

The second issue became immersed into this debate of apportioning blame and broad demands for compensations for historical damages. Facing a challenging future together fell sideways. The camp of the claimants had divisions ranging from truly unfortunate members such as some island states that face an immediate threat of extinction to politically motivated opponents of the developed world and particularly the US and EU. In between there were countries with interesting propositions that fell victim to the general confusion. Most flew the sovereignty flag behind China and claimed unconditional compensation vaguely specifying areas for support such as new energy technologies. The camp of the defendants, mostly the Western world and Japan could have a more compact position. They proposed support in new energy technologies attaching strict conditions of monitoring the use of this support. They would have been more effective if the various streams of the environmental movement were more co-ordinated and politically alert of the global arena. Recent historical evidence of donor support to most of the developing countries fully justifies donor reservations in providing resources that do not reach directly the objectives. Some mature NGOs with experience on the ground see this. Others exercising pressure inside Western countries have much less awareness. The movements is undeniably making a very important contribution to meeting the environmental challenge but it has to accept that in the global arena it must limit diffusion and become more cohesive. It is issues like the second one that condemned a confused conference to mediocre outcome leaving progress made like in the first issue in the shadows. Prospects of a breakthrough towards Mexico look gloomy.

The most important weakness of the conference on the outset was lack of any credible global institutional framework in place ahead of preparations for the conference. Sadly, event after its poor conclusion there has been no clear signal about this failing. The UN and its Programmes, given their outdated mandate, demonstrated their inability to deal with the challenge. The timid appearance of a Convention Executive with questionable mandate had little effect in leading the whole process. Demands of global governance were evident well before the conference and yet we are only at early stages of a G20 finding its way to be subverted by G2 ideas. Crucial areas such as economy, social development, environment and energy have seen little evidence of an agreed global vision.

It was also the misuse of the concept of democracy in a community of 192 countries with such a versatility of socio-political structures, population and economic potential that makes the process a farce; a well known attribute of UN. It converted the conference to a unique platform of political declarations by known ambitious non-democratic leaders with little or no relevance to its theme. In addition it cultivated the utopian vision of flattening the global population development at one level, lifting people from very low social development and pushing down others that are above that level. The absurdity of neglecting the incompatibility of value systems, levels of social maturity and the need of respect for such differences was left out of this democratic utopia. In the end reality caught up and the declaration was in fact agreed by very few players that matter (with the EU and its members left backstage!) leaving the rest complaining as if surprised by the outcome.

One wonders, are there any options for progress now? As in other areas of global concern, the governance gap is rapidly increasing together with the realisation that chasing utopian democratic models of the global community is a futile exercise. There is evidence of a more realistic approach but progress is slow compared to the emerging threats to humanity. This should perhaps be the most important area to have the broader civil society movement exert its full weight in a co-ordinated fashion thus fulfilling the expectations of the public.

There are a lot of examples to draw from in conducting a down-to-earth global governance project. Countries and regions around the globe are running smaller scale governance projects. Perhaps the most interesting is the EU. But there are also countries that explore new models of social development in their research base such as France and others looking at the review of the established one based exclusively on GDP. After all there is clear evidence that humanity, conscious of the consequences, distances itself inexorably from material consumerism. There is a fine balance to achieve between ensuring all countries foundation for their development and non-intervention in their social system and values. It requires a long and delicate process of maturity that given current communications technologies will ensure exchange of ideas without undue compromising of sovereignty. EU has experienced this for two generations with often forgotten impressive progress in the subsidiarity-v-shared sovereignty balance.

We can even suggest important elements of this foundation such as the agreement on global values reflecting humanity’s conscience and provision of water and sustainable energy to all. Specifically water and energy, produced in a sustainable manner (1), managed by a global institution to meet the needs of the planet could become foundation assets of any global governance model. They are the common denominator for the co-ordination of activity on a global scale such as economic, environmental and social.

Perhaps going behind global gatherings such as Copenhagen and working in pragmatic ways urgently building global institutions is the highest priority for the leaders of this world.


K. P. Vlahodimos-Optir Executive Coaching
December 2009


(1) See on this site: Energy in the 21st century