Had I lived little more than 150 years ago, I would have worked during daylight and gone to bed when it was dark. I would have rarely travelled beyond the town next to my own, and would have got around mostly on foot or by horse-drawn cart (I doubt on one of those new shakey-looking bicycle things). I would have grown my own vegetables or bought local produce, and would have worn thick stockings and skirts - maybe even gloves - around the house to keep myself warm. Now I stay up late on the computer or watching TV. I journey by train to the capital a few times a week, sometimes driving to the main line first, and fly overseas once, maybe even twice, a year. I can buy parsnips in summer and apples from New Zealand. I occasionally wear socks in bed, but otherwise . . . you get the picture.

In a very short period of its history, humanity has managed to turn nature's apparent blessing of oil, gas and coal into something closer to a curse. In a far shorter period of history, we must act to prevent our dependence on them from destroying us altogether, whether through environmental devastation caused by energy emissions or social disintegration caused by the pipelines running dry - or, indeed, both.

We barely need to look beyond the short term to realise the gravity of the crisis ahead. Which is perhaps why governments, industries and individuals seem much more comfortable with the short term. Yet ignoring the problem only exacerbates it. For example, as Jonathan Stern suggests (page xxvii), it was ludicrously short-sighted to allow the UK to turn so rapidly from a net exporter to a net importer of gas. New Labour has dangerous amounts of faith in the all-round efficacy of the market. Leaving responsibility for cutting pollution to those who create it in the first place is a leap of faith too far.

To bring about sufficient change, we may well need the effort of a war economy (see Simms, page iv); but we may need even more than that. While the capitalist system remains behind the wheel, speeding recklessly on with no regard for the equality and well-being of its passengers, and determined to consume as much as possible for as little as possible, it is hard to see much opportunity for change. Yet there are signs that people want change, and that they are prepared to make sacrifices to help achieve it. In a recent New Statesman online poll, 86 per cent voted yes to the question "Are high petrol prices a good thing?" They believed this and other economic factors were just the thing to motivate consumers to use less energy and to convince industry of the huge potential market in alternative, renewable sources. The consensus was: we must be shocked out of complacency, so bring it on.

Admittedly, not all citizens are as responsible and rational as NS readers, but there are few people these days who would openly argue that energy is not one of society's biggest, most threatening problems (I certainly couldn't find anyone who would do so on these pages). At the same time, few of us are very sure about how it could, or should, be tackled. The following pieces provide some pointers. They make clear that we cannot afford to hang around on standby, consuming the same amounts of energy as now while waiting for our leaders to enforce change. And yet we cannot solve these problems alone. Nor, for that matter, can our government: in this regard, no man or country is an island. Nevertheless, Britain could have a go at showing the rest of the world what is possible, and then - just for once - we might justifiably call it Great.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website