To meet soaring energy demand, we would need a massive influx of alternative fuels, which would mean equally massive investment — in the trillions of dollars — to ensure that the newest possibilities move rapidly from laboratory to full-scale commercial production; but that, sad to say, is not in the cards. Instead, the major energy firms (backed by lavish U.S. government subsidies and tax breaks) are putting their mega-windfall profits from rising energy prices into vastly expensive (and environmentally questionable) schemes to extract oil and gas from Alaska and the Arctic, or to drill in the deep and difficult waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The result? A few more barrels of oil or cubic feet of natural gas at exorbitant prices (with accompanying ecological damage), while nonpetroleum alternatives limp along pitifully.

Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy ASIN: 0805080643

Whether the forecast by Michael T. Klare is on target or not and whether enough right action is taken or not, the next few years are going to be rough. Paul Walton of The Daily News writes:

Food prices are soaring, and in the poorest nations of the world — in parts of the Caribbean, South East Asia and Africa — the cost of basic foodstuffs means that the line of subsistence is being eradicated. The next stop for these people is starvation.

The estimate is that 100 million people will see their current means to buy food siginificantly curtailed, if not eradicated.

This is not about a lack of food. We’ve seen famines before, and they are never about a shortage of food for all. Those who starve in famines are generally those who can no longer afford to pay rising food prices.

As with prior famines, the one upcoming is not so much about food as money. Poor harvests happen, and no one is saying there is a lack of wheat or rice. What is happening is that the effect of poor crops, whether in rice or wheat, is being exacerbated by the global energy crisis.

Wheat alone has risen in price by 130% since March last year.

This is not a new problem. Parts of ancient Rome, even Rome itself, saw food riots from time to time. The French Revloution, brewing for years, finally exploded only after bread prices rose, followed by famine and starvation.

It’s not difficult to put together the pieces that have led us down this path again. The question is what this crisis will look like. Different nations have already seen food riots, and the warning bells are going off. But they may be ringing too late.

It’s one thing to be short on oil, significant curtailments will allow our infrastructure to continue operating. There are certain things we can do without.

The British between 1939 and 1945 made significant concessions; they lived through food rationing, blackouts and bathing in cold water.

But the only thing that Winston Churchill and his advisors really worried about was if food imports were cut off. And that is what the Germans were aiming for. Both sides knew that when the amount of daily calorie intake fell below a certain threshold, nothing could contain social unrest.

But the allies managed to defeat the prowling submarines and the plucky English made their way to the spring of 1945 on erstatz coffee and spam.

What the growing food shortage will look like here is not difficult to tell. More and more people will be forced to live on cheap processed foods. Currently it is those on social assistance and the working poor forced to live on carbohydrates and cellulose.

The fact is that protein is expensive, and the result in North America will be that good food will get more expensive in comparison to food that fills the stomach but has little or no nutrition.

Perhaps no one in this city or others in Canada will starve as may happen in the developing world, as we watch famine set in. But for an increasing number of people, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat will become for the most part out of reach.

Without food and water, socieities fall apart. A lot can go by the wayside before reaching that point. It’s very difficult to see the headlines coming across the wire and not to become gloomy.

One thing the British had during the Second World War was a positive outlook. They had Churchill, they had tradition and a strong social fabric that allowed them to triumph over incredible odds.

Imagine we’re in a world of 8 GtC that has gone mad for old coal, so emissions are rising 3% per year. Assume no “significant spontaneous decarbonization of the global economy” (i.e. we stay mad for old coal for decades). That means the BAU projection for 2050 is about 28 GtC. But we need to be at 4 GtC for the 450 ppm path. So we need to cut 24 GtC off of BAU (Business As Usual), which is 24/1.77 = 14 wedges!!

That’s right. If we use Princeton’s BAU assumption of steady decarbonization of coal plants, which returns us to their BAU assumption of 1.5% annual increase in carbon emissions, we need 14 wedges to get down to 4 GtC in 2050. And, if we use Pielke’s assumption that does not allow “significant spontaneous decarbonization,” which means that BAU is 3% annual increase in carbon emissions, we still need the same exact 14 wedges to get down to 4 GtC.

In Princeton’s world, those 14 wedges are worth 1 GtC/yr each in 2050 because they replace efficient, futuristic, decarbonized coal plants. In Pielke’s world, those 14 wedges are worth 1.77 GtC/yr each in 2050 because they replace traditional, inefficient, undecarbonized coal plants.