Peak Renewables?

The idea of “peak oil” has been around for some time. It is a simple idea. At some point, we start to deplete oil reserves faster than new reserves become available and when this occurs, the peak of available oil has been reached and its all downhill from there – we are in a terminal decline.

There are several problems with this idea, The first is that technology changes. As it does, our ability to make the oil we have go further or to extract more from known deposits increases. So the “peak” keeps moving. For example, horizontal drilling and “fracking” open new opportunities to increase supply from previously inaccessible reserves or to pursue enhanced recovery from known reserves. Similarly, carbon capture and storage is a technology being pursued in part because it enables enhanced oil recovery. Given that most drilling and production leaves 60% of the oil in the ground, new technologies could essentially double the value of reserves by securing a further 40%.

The second problem with trying to pin a date on peak oil (not necessarily with the construct itself) is that we keep finding new reserves of unconventional oil as well as conventional oil. For example, the reserves of oil sands in the Peace River area of Alberta are substantial but not yet fully accounted for in the analysis of reserves.

The third problem is that demand is also a function of other factors. For example, the price of natural gas is helping households switch from oil based heating to natural gas and oil consumption for transportation demand is affected by substantial improvements in fuel efficiency for motor vehicles.

Given all of these factors, current predictions of the timing of peak oil include the possibility that it has recently occurred, that it will occur shortly, or that a plateau of oil production will sustain supply for up to 100 years. None of these predictions dispute the peaking of oil production, but disagree only on when it will occur. How helpful is that?

But we can also apply the idea of “peaking” to the renewable energy industry – wind, solar, biomass, hydro.

Two arguments for switching to renewable energy -- the depletion of fossil fuels and national security – seem now to be less plausible. The U.S., Canada and Mexico are sitting on substantial quanities of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.

So now the major reason for supporting a transition to renewables rests on their potential mitigation catastrophic global warming.

As governments around the world look to better manage their fiscal resources, they are changing the “rules” of the game with respect to subsidy of renewable energy. For example, Ontario has suspended all offshore wind projects indefinitely – throwing the policy for renewables into doubt. The leader of the Ontario Conservative Party, currently favoured as the next Premier, sees the subsidies for renewables and the likely impact on energy bills (a 42% rise over the next four years is predicted by the Government of Ontario), as a key election issue. He is receiving widespread support.

In the UK, which has over 2,560 wind turbines installed, the ambition has been to secure 40% of energy from renewable sources, primarily wind. A total of 7,000 turbines, on and off-shore, are either under construction, approved for building or seeking planning permission in the UK. Wind power currently provides 2.3 per cent of the UK’s energy needs – leading the Government’s target to be dismissed by most experts as unrealistic. To achieve the target, two new substantial turbines would need to be erected every day for the next twelve years.

According to government figures, the average wind turbine operates to just 27 per cent of its and there are some grounds for suggesting that even this is a significant exaggeration. Professor Michael Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, says that in 2008 less than a fifth of onshore wind farms achieved 30 per cent capacity. In that same year, the 140-turbine installation at Whitelee, near East Kilbride operated at just 7.3 per cent of its capacity.. Professor David MacKay, chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has pointed out that in autumn/winter 2006/7 there were 17 days when output from Britain’s wind turbines was less than 10 per cent of their total capacity. On five of those days, output was below 5 per cent and on one day it was only 2 per cent.

To encourage more green energy, the Government launched the Renewables Obligation scheme. Each year, power suppliers must buy a fixed proportion of electricity from green sources. If they fail to meet the target they pay a fine to Government. That money is then split between the owners of existing wind farms. The cost of the Renewables Obligation is passed on to consumers in their fuel bills and is rising sharply each year. In 2006 it was $958 million. By 2020 it will be $4.79 billion.

The Daily Mail looked for the most useless wind-turbine in Britain. The current prize winner is near Reading. The 280ft generator located near the M4 just outside Reading worked at just 15 per cent of its capacity last year. It generated electricity valued at an estimated $159,000, it secured its owners subsidized of $207,000.

The contribution to CO2 reduction of wind power in the UK is minimal. In fact, a House of Lords study shows that wind power is at least 50 per cent more expensive per unit generated than the other main non-CO2 option, nuclear. That is, it offers less CO2 reduction for the dollar than other means of CO2 mitigation, including solar.

Solar is another renewable technology widely seen as part of the “solution” to the CO2 challenge. Yet Britain has just cut its solar subsidies for at or above 50kW solar systems 70% on the grounds of affordability and encouragement of “other technologies”. The impact on the solar panel industry will be significant. More importantly, as fewer installations occur, so the impact on CO2 will be less.

The situation with respect to solar in Spain is dire. The solar industry received subsidies in 2010 of €2.6bn ($3.66 billion), a sum neither the country – nor the utilities – can afford. The three Spanish energy utilities have paid out €20bn to subsidize solar and wind projects since 2005, and are still waiting for the government to pay them back. Credit rating agencies threatened to downgrade the companies if something was not done to address the "tariff deficit".

The Government has now cut the solar subsidy program dramatically. The former subsidies were so generous that Spain has 10 times the amount of solar capacity the government had planned for by 2010 – and a much bigger bill than it had envisioned. Given its overall economic situation, cuts were needed. Similar developments are taking place in Portugal, Ireland and Greece.

All energy sources have potentially harmful side effects. The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation. But the environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels – and these too have side effects. Wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that accompany them that slaughter eagles and other birds. The ENGO’s support for blanketing desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation is also another “side effect” Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, is been sacrificed to the ideological whims of a few.

But more significantly, there is a public counter-reaction to “green” energy. Anti wind-farm and solar movements are springing up across the developed world, angry about energy price hikes and at the impact on the environment which these technologies have. They are also sceptical about the impact these technologies are actually having on CO2 reduction – especially given recent reports that CO2 continues to increase, despite a recession and a massive investment in these technologies.

As these industries begin to experience “subsidy-sunset” – they are driven by subsidy not market conditions – then the peak of renewable energy from wind and solar may have been reached. The fact that significant and vocal sections of the public are also speaking up and campaigning, may also be another sign that commitment to renewable energy has peaked. We shall see.

With low cost gas, significant new access to oil and an ongoing investment in clean coal we may not need to worry. We are a long way from peak energy.

“Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken”. Donald Trump

I am getting some stick for my comparison of Donald Trump with Sarah Palin on two counts. One Donald Trump is no Sarah Palin, she is much sharper and more experienced. Second, I don’t understand American politics – one claimed that 45% of Americans don’t believe that Obama was born in the US (see below), and that both are very credible and respectable potential Presidential candidates and both are speaking on issues which most potential candidates won’t touch with a barge pole. So don’t do down the Palin-Trump axis.

First, I agree with this last point and stated it several times. I also wrote this on my blog post about The Donald: “he may be the only candidate who could garner sufficient support with the party and the people and beat Obama” precisely because he has the cojones to talk about what matters most. I also wrote:

“The tea party don’t like “moderate”. They want radical. They want a candidate who reflects true grit, conservative position and will cut budgets, taxes and restore American to its rightful place in the world. They get excited listening to and encouraging Sarah Palin – they think she’s not just sexy, but right. They think Donald Trump is the new Sarah Palin and is a real man, despite his hair. But they really think that Michelle Bachman, the Senator from Minnesota, combines the best of the Donald and the Sarah into one being. She is likely to be their candidate in the end, and Sarah and Donald will not find a place on the Republican ticket.”

So what’s the scoop.

Birther Issue

On the radio show, which I had no hand in preparing, they played extracts from Donald Trump talking to George Stephanopoulos about the “birther” issue and from his interview on CNN with Candy Crowley. In these interviews Donald said that he thinks the birth of Obama is an issue, but one which the media keeps bringing up. He hopes that Obama is an American citizen, but he suggests that Obama needs to prove it. The majority American opinion is that Trump is wrong. But there are a substantial number of Americans who don’t believe that he was born in the US. A CNN poll conducted in March 2011 has these figures for all Americans:

• Definitely born in U.S. 46%
• Probably born in the U.S. 26%
• Probably born in another country 15%
• Definitely born in another country 10%

but amongst Republicans has these figures:

• Definitely born in U.S. 20%
• Probably born in the U.S. 32%
• Probably born in another country 28%
• Definitely born in another country 15%

A different poll suggests that 51% of Republicans who intend to vote in the US Presidential election believe that Obama was not born in the US. So now we see why Donald is pursuing this viewpoint.

In contrast, Sarah Palin in 2009 denied asking for Obama's birth certificate or denying his citizenship, and again compared birther theories to questions about baby Trig from "many on the left" which were not so much rightful as questions they had a right to ask. In April she again did not pursue the issue when given the opportunity to do so. She does seem to think that it’s a fair question for Trump to pursue, but it’s not a question central to her.

Foreign Policy

“If you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.” Donald Trump

His big idea with respect to Libya, which came from his CNN interview, was for the US to go in and get the oil or not go in at all. He did say that he would let Libya have some of its oil so that they could live a good life, but the battle was about oil. Lets call it what it is and get the oil.

His foreign policy is basically very simple. Tell people what to think. Tell OPEC that we will not pay for oil at the price they want to charge. Tell China to stop playing footsie with their currency (despite the fact that the US is doing the same) and talk up the US. That’s it. Here is what he says: “We have to make it absolutely clear that we’re willing to trade with China, but not to trade away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries that steal from us”.

His overall strategy is this:

“In the modern world you can’t very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker. Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII, and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms. A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations, and above all, constantly put America’s best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning, secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It’s been a long time since America had a president like that. “

The Other Side of The Donald

In any attempt to look at The Donald seriously, one needs to bear in mind Trump's support of the "banking and auto bailouts," his previous description of President Ronald Reagan as a con artist, his affection for Canada's single-payer health care system, and his donations to Obama White House insiders Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley. He has also said many a thing that will come back to haunt him.

Overall though, he will be an interesting, serious and fun person to watch. I am all for this. After all, look at the rest of the field that’s lining up. Not exactly exciting.

One Down

Earlier today Hayley Barbour made clear he was not running for the Presidency. One down, sixteen to go.

The Race for the Biggest Loser

While my wife does not like to miss The Biggest Loser, I am a sucker for political stories. So on Tuesday nights as she watches very large people get shouted at and lose weight, I do my due diligence on the Republican hopefuls for the 2012 Presidential election. It’s the same kind of process – a large number of people get shouted at by trainers (also known as interviewers, pundits and former candidates) and many fall off the wagon, leaving a few standing to run in the primaries. Once the primaries start, there are regular weigh ins (known as polls) and some are voted off the show. Eventually there is one left standing and he or she becomes the Biggest Loser, losing to President Obama in the actual Presidential race in November 2012.

One difference between the two shows is that the Biggest Looser weight loss show makes money and the Biggest Loser Republican show costs money. Its estimated that Obama will raise close to $1 billion to fight his campaign and that the Republicans, between them will outspend him 2:1 in the run up to November. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are buying weight loss products, too tight fitting spandex and signing up for gym membership and boosting the weight loss industry profits.

Part of the problem we have with the Republican party is that it has lost its way. Any party that can have George W Bush as its front runner has lost its way. So the traditional conservatives have formed the loose association we know as the Tea Party. This is an organization that rarely drinks tea and has made clear that it is not a Party in the sense of the Republican party, more like a network of like minded groups. They stand in favour of lower and fewer taxes, smaller government, less intrusive government and what they know as traditional conservative values – no to same sex marriage, abortion, gays in the military and immoral conduct. It is an organization Margaret Thatcher would have recognized as the conservative party she led in Britain – she drank tea and shared these values. The tea party have considerable influence over the candidates and the Republican party, as we can see.


It’s a Melee and a Muddle

At my current count there are some twelve potential candidates (some of whom have declared) and a further six who are “waiting in the wings”.

The key people, and the only serious candidates to look at, are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. If you look at polling undertaken across the US over the last six months, these stand some chance of saving face and not losing too badly. In the most recent poll, Romney is close to Obama (he would lose by 4%) and Huckabee is next (he would lose by 6%). Both are relatively sane, articulate and moderate.

And that’s the problem. The tea party don’t like “moderate”. They want radical. They want a candidate who reflects true grit, conservative position and will cut budgets, taxes and restore American to its rightful place in the world. They get excited listening to and encouraging Sarah Palin – they think she’s not just sexy, but right. They think Donald Trump is the new Sarah Palin and is a real man, despite his hair. But they really think that Michelle Bachman, the Senator from Minnesota, combines the best of the Donald and the Sarah into one being. She is likely to be their candidate in the end, and Sarah and Donald will not find a place on the Republican ticket.

Newt Gingrich comes close to Michelle Bachman in the minds of the tea party, except for the hair. The former speaker is a thoughtful, well read and experienced politician but has the air of the night about him – like a lost ghoul searching for a victim who will willingly sit and listen to him talk for hours. The tea party people see him more as a grandfather than as an aspiring fiancé for the White House. He will not win the nomination.

Then there are at least six men who are smart, articulate but too centrist (or even left of centre) for the liking of the current party. These include John Huntsman (currently Ambassador to China, but about to return so as to run), Tim Pawlenty (former Governor of the State of Minnesota), Mitch Daniels (Governor Indiana), Hayley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi - who made clear after this was originally posted that he wouldnt run), Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) and Rick Santorum a former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). All of these are possible contenders – Gary Johnson is already declared – but will require someone to make a major mistake before they make the ticket. One could really say that all are really running for the Vice Presidential place on the Republican ticket, though they will deny this.

If this list wasn’t enough (if you’re keeping count, we’re at twelve), there are another six possibilities that are deeper in the outfield than those listed here. They include Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City), Congressman Ron Paul from Texas (again), gay rights activist and declared candidate Fred Karger, Buddy Roemer, Rudy Giuliani (yes, again) and former UN Ambassador, John Bolton. None of these will make the ticket, though I suspect some will enter the race.

So the list to date of possibilities is eighteen. Eighteen. The Biggest Looser starts with roughly this number of competitors. Their prize for the winner is health, weight loss and a $1 million in cash as well as world wide recognition. For the Republican nominee the prize is debt, losing and world wide recognition. Which do you think is the better deal?

Who Will Trump the Donald?

It's pretty certain. Donald Trump, wealthy man from real estate and the master of poor hairstyles, will run for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. He is smart, articulate, popular with some and more to the point, comes with little political baggage.

True, he comes with other baggage - two divorces, a bankruptcy and his penchant for which publicity. His focus on Obama's birth record is an example of his opportunism, as is his role as executive producer and star on The Apprentice. He is the man behind some seemingly sexist pageants and is also backing the sale of alternative health products. Others may dislike him because of his wealth, estimates between $750 million ( Deutsche Bank's estimate, which The Donald disputes vehemently) and $2.5 billion.

His political views are well laid out in several interviews he had done over the last decade. He is pro life, pro gun and, anti same sex marriage and anti foreign aid. He wants out of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and strongly believes that, rather than playing nice with China, we should get tough economically with them until they do something to correct their currency. He would put the economy first.

He wants to be liked, but doesn't mind being disliked for doing what is right. He talks a good story, appears tough and cares deeply about America.

He is not likely to win the Republican nomination, even though he may well be a winning candidate. The nomination is likely to go to a GOP "establishment" figure, like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. The Donald has no strong ties with the party elite, is seen by the party as an outsider and spoiler and, as one commentator has already said, "he will out for himself before the party", which is actually what Presidents do.

If he fails to win the party nomination, he may run as an independent - in fact, if he reads the tea-leaves in time, he may just do this off the bat. If this is where he goes, he will split the Republican vote and give Obama a second term. If by some miracle he does become the party nominee, he may be the only candidate who could garner sufficient support with the party and the people and beat Obama.

There are many days between now and polling day November 2012 and so much could happen. Sarah Palin could develop intelligence, Trump might find just the right person to run as his running mate to bring the party on board, the early GOP primaries might signal to the party that their anointed candidates stand no chance of winning and the Tea Party might switch to coffee. Whatever the case, The Donald will make things interesting, at least for a while.

The Situation is Hopeless, But Not Serious

Johan Norberg, the Swedish writer who has written the highly recommended Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation with Home Ownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis, wrote this in The Spectator:

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have. There is a broad consensus that the financial crisis of 2007 was at least in part a result of record-low interest rates, huge deficits and large-scale credit-financed consumption. Today, governments across the world are trying to solve the crisis — by means of record-low interest rates, huge deficits and large-scale credit-financed consumption. This time, they are also using more novel means of creating easy money: bank bailouts, stimulus packages and quantitative easing.”

And so we now have the spectacle of a US government owing $14.5 trillion to its bond holders, most US States being significantly in debt and the Canadian government, so widely praised for its response to the financial crisis, also facing significant debts which we will take some time (and some pain) to recover from.

Debt is not necessarily a bad thing, if its planned for, manageable within the available overall financial picture and there is a plan to deal with it. But in the case of the US the situation was not planned for, is not manageable and there is no viable plan to deal with it. Given this, we are all in trouble.

For all the talk of austerity, governments everywhere plan to get through 2011 and beyond by borrowing like crazy. The world's rich countries have increased their debt by some 50 per cent over the past three years, according to the IMF. As we saw from S&P’s comments on their credit rating for the US, at some point the bond market determines that it can no longer accept the situation and action has then to be taken. Sovereign bond markets panicked when Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, suggested that investors might one day have to bear some of their own losses. Bond holders don’t like to speculate – especially those holding Sovereign bonds (bonds issued by a Government) – but that is exactly what they are doing. While the bond is underwritten, bond issuers sometimes default – ask those holding Iceland’s bonds.

On this matter, Norberg writes:

“The problem with socialism,' Lady Thatcher once said, 'is that eventually you run out of other people's money.' This time, it is worse: we are running out of our children's money, and our grandchildren's money. We are assuming we will have a never-ending supply of borrowed money, and we have no backup plan if this supply chokes up.”

So it is time for realism. It is time to bite the bullet and start to deal tough with debt and get it down to a reasonable level in the US, each of the US States and Canada. If we adopt the Golden Rule (ironically developed by Gordon Brown) that that the Government will only borrow to invest over the economic cycle and cannot borrow to fund current operations, then we will see draconian cuts to programs and increased taxes. As a grandparent, this is what we need to do to protect my granddaughters future.

The US needs to get its debt down by two thirds (a spending cut of $9.6 trillion) by 2015 and each of the US states should have debt within 4% of their GDP. Canada should rid itself entirely of debt by 2015. While this will impact employment, wealth and the economy, such a price is necessary to restore economic sanity and give confidence back to people. Its ironic that in order to restore confidence, we may first have to shake it. But shake it we must.

Just as almost everyone I know supports the law, but breaks it every time they get behind a steering wheel or supports “green thinking” and “action on climate change”, but does nothing about it (and generally make matters worse), so we must accept that a part of the problem is ourselves. Our assumption that the government will be there “no matter what” and that we have rights to such services as health care and wonderful services that we refuse to pay the real costs of. Its time for a one time tax hike to pay down debt and restore sanity. Its time for us to get serious about our future and rethink all of our public services in the light of known demographics and technology changes that could make things more expensive. Its time to get serious about our future.

So once the Canadian election is over, let the Government (and it really doesn’t matter which one it is – “the government always gets in”) do some straight talk to its citizens and tell us what we have to do to eliminate debt by 2015 and live within our means after that. Having started this journey, we should then all turn our attention to the US and use whatever networks and influence we have to persuade the people to get engaged in a campaign during the 2012 election cycle to eliminate two thirds of US debt and to live within its means.

When I was training as a counselling psychologist, I was always impressed by Paul Watzlawick’s book The Situation is Hopeless, But Not Serious – The Pursuit of Unhappiness (available free for downloading – just Google the title). The idea is simple. We may feel hopeless in the face of such challenges, but when we put our minds to it, we can cope and deal with the situation. It may take courage, determination and some harsh facing up to reality, but few situations are beyond redemption. What makes us unhappy and sick is the sense that “we’re stuck and there’s nothing we can do about it”. We’re not and we can.

When the US Sneezes Alberta Gets Pneumonia

Standard and Poor’s decision to send a shot across the bows of US economic policy is very welcome. AS the US continues to spend beyond its means and build up a considerable debt - $14.5 trillion and counting – and the politicians cannot agree on a basic strategy to deal with it, someone has to remind the US that sovereign debt needs repaying and that, in the absence of a sovereign, this requires the US to both cut spending on key services (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Services and Defence), reduce transfer payments to States and raise taxes. The trouble is none of the politicians, who tax their friends so as to keep them in office, has the real courage to actually do anything.

To be sure, various politicians talk a good story. But words are cheap. It the action that counts. The recent kerfuffle between the Grand Old Party and the Obama Democrats over a small cut of $38 billion – less than 1% of spending – tells us that courage is absent, politics is broken and even minor challenges to the status quo scare those who govern the nation that used to be the most important on earth.

President Obama has proposed a program of cuts estimated at $4 trillion while his Republication opponents have proposed cuts of $5.8 trillion over ten years. Both see reducing debt as important, but we all know that neither, especially in a Presidential election year, plan to do anything. Cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Services, Defense and hard caps on spending in all other areas coupled with tax increases don’t “sell” to an electorate already battered by the impact of recession.
Yet these same politicians watch the PIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain – struggle to restore confidence in their economies abroad while fighting real battles at home over the nature of economic stringency. The US must see the protests in Greece and Spain as signals of what might happen in Georgia, Detroit, Nebraska and Arkansas and wonder who will be the political survivors.

This is a major issue for Alberta. Our economy, increasingly dependent on unconventional oil and services, relies on the US for its robustness. Our $247.2 billion GDP relies heavily on exports - $53.9 billion in oil and gas - shipped mainly to the US. What happens if the US has a double dip recession and then starts to have real cuts in public spending of the order of a $500 billion a year for the next decade?

We have a clue. When house building collapsed in the US due to the recession, triggered by the housing bubble, our exports of lumber suffered massively and are only now recovering. While we are increasing exports to other jurisdictions of wood and other natural resources, the US is still our major customer. We know that when the US catches a cold we get pneumonia.

So it is in our interest to keep a close eye on the US debt reduction strategy. We should encourage our Southern Cousins to follow the example of Britain and cut deeply, fast and now. Setting an aggressive debt reduction agenda and then following through by doing it may significantly slow the rate of the US recovery, but this is preferable to a unsustainable recovery based on false accounting, avoidance of key issues and a refusal to act. In the medium to long term, the US would be helped not hindered by stringency.

The Next and Last Pope?

Benedict XVI was elected in April 2005 at the age of 78. This was six years ago and he is now 84 and seemingly in good health, though he has had some health incidents since he came to the Throne of St Peter. But when he does fall ill and leave us, who will be the next Pope and will the next Pope be the last?

The front runner is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Cardinal Secretary of State and Camerlengo, having previously served as Archbishop of Vercelli from 1991 to 1995, as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the direction of the current Pope. Born in 1934, he is getting on in years, but is a lively and engaging personality and widely respected in the Church. He is favoured by Benedict as his successor, as a number of small indications seem to suggest.

He is not the only Italian in the running. The Cardinal Archbishop of Genoa, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, (68) is also seen as a strong candidate. President of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), and was elevated to the cardinalate in 2007. He is considered to be conservative in his views, and a theological ally of his predecessor in the CEI, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, who was seen as a major candidate when Benedict was elected.

During the last conclave some liberal media seemed to suggest that an African cardinal may stand a strong change, since it is in Africa that the Church is growing quickly. Cardinal John Njue (67) of Kenya is the only Africa currently rated with an outside chance of winning the election by the College of Cardinals. He is the fourth and current Archbishop of Nairobi, having previously served as Coadjutor Archbishop of Nyeri (2002–2007) and Bishop of Embu (1986–2002). He was elevated to the cardinalate in 2007.

Another African cardinal, Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson (73) is also in the running. Although some bookmakers have made Nigeria's Cardinal Francis Arinze the favourite to succeed Pope Benedict – and thus become the first African pope since the death of Pope Gelasius in 496 – Arinze is now 77 and retired and he may well be too old by the time of any vacancy at the Vatican, Turkson is very active and a constant companion for Benedict – he travelled to the UK on the Pope’s visit in 2010.

There are other, younger members of the College of Cardinals who are seen as pababili – electable Cardinals (though in theory, any Catholic can be elected by the College of Cardinals to the office of the papacy). These include: Oscar Maradiaga, 69, Honduras; Odilo Scherer, 62, German ethnicity, but now Archbishop of São Paulo, Brazil; Philippe Barbarin, 61, Moroccan-Born and currently Archbishop of Lyon in France; Jorge Urosa, 69, Venezuela; Lluis Sistach, 74, Spain; Raul Chiriboga, 77, Ecuador; Stanislaw Dziwisz, 72, Poland and Jose Policarpo, 75, Portugal.

It is unlikely that a Cardinal from Latin America would be elected for three reasons. First, they are distant from the day to day politics of the Vatican. Second, voting would likely be split between them – there are four candidates from the Americas and it is rare that they are aligned on issues or could align around a single candidate. Third, it is more probable that, as has been the tradition for some time, the next Pope like all of the last century, will be a European.

There is some talk of the next Pope being the “last Pope”. In 1139 St. Malachy set out from Ireland on a harrowing pilgrimage to Rome. On sighting the Eternal City he fell to the ground and began murmuring cryptic Latin phrases, each signifying the future destiny of the popes. For four hundred years the manuscript capturing his comments was locked in the labyrinth of the Vatican. On its rediscovery in 1595 it was rejected by the Church authorities as fraudulent but the content of the prophecies remains remarkably and chillingly accurate: to this day 90 percent have come true. St. Malachy prophesied an end to the Roman Catholic Church and predicted the fates of the popes until Judgment Day. According to this prophecy, only one pope remains after Benedict on the doomsday list. We will see.

Meanwhile, you can place your bets at www.paddypower.com. This online betting site has Cardinal Arinze (Nigeria) as the favourite (7/4) and Cardinal Scola of Venice (6/1) and Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras (8/1) closely followed by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco (11/1) as the front runners. Cardinal Bertone, who I see as leading the pack, is sitting at 14/1. For those looking for a wild bet, Bono is 1000/1 as is the former co-star of comedy TV series, Father Ted, Father Dougal McGuire (played by Ardal O’Hanlon).

Innovation, Education, AISI and Alberta

Canada is not very good at innovation. While we spend a lot on research and development as a nation – around $14 billion a year and close to $1 billion from the Alberta Government – we are not very good at turning research into new goods or services which people want to buy or to significant and sustainable improvements in health and education. Indeed, our ability to do so is declining as we become less productive and less competitive as a nation over time.

One of the reasons we are not good at innovation is that the innovation agenda is being driven by Universities. Universities do tremendous work in producing high quality people and in basic research, but have a poor track record in converting research into goods and services or to changes in health, education and social services which last and make a sustainable difference. They are also in general poor at applied research undertaken in partnership with the private sector or with health or educational practitioners, though this is something they are trying to get better at.

In education, the gap between what university researchers in general focus on and what schools need, do and care about is evident. There is an in-built tension between the systematic school improvement focused research needed by school systems versus the individual research interests of particular scholars. This is reinforced by the reward structure of Universities, which puts weight on publications and conference presentations by educational researchers rather than the impact their work has had on student engagement, learning outcomes or teaching quality. Researchers are rewarded for process achievements rather than outcomes.

The attempt to reposition an applied and systematic approach to school improvement as within the scope of university research in Faculties of education suggests three things. First, it is the end of bottom-up teacher driven research. Universities will want, over time, to reify this work. They always do. Look what has happened to the bulk of research in business schools to see how relevant most of this is to the needs of firms. Second, it will slow the pace of research. The term “fast, focused, results oriented research” which has characterised AISI since its inception does not fit within the culture of universities. Finally, we can expect an increase in competition between Universities for research opportunities as opposed to increased service from the Universities to school based researchers seeking to make a difference to the wellbeing and learning of students.

In the “pre 2011 budget” version of AISI, most of the work of Universities was that of providing educational support to in school applied researchers, as collaborators on specific projects or as mentors, coaches and guides to teams doing applied work in schools. While some of this will continue, over time we will see funding for action oriented research erode and Universities increasingly driving the AISI agenda. This is not a good thing. The real authorities on what is needed in schools and what the agenda for change and development should be are teachers and in school administrators: those nearest to the challenges and opportunities.

A world class model of how to do this has been developed, recognized and well resourced in the past. This model has been the engine of continuous improvement (and in some cases transformation) and it has led to significant gains in learning outcomes. This model is AISI as it was, recognized by many as one of the leading programs of its kind in the world and the envy of many jurisdictions. Programs can always be improved and developed, but when Universities take them on they are rarely improved.

Let me be clear. Some Professors at some Universities have done outstanding work in education and in schools and some have also developed collaborative programs that have made a tremendous impact. The Galileo Educational Network within the University of Calgary is one example. But such individuals and such focused and systematic programs are few and far between. Anyone who has worked in Universities knows that they are not adaptive and responsive cultures. Over time, AISI will change and not for the better.

Alberta needs an innovation agenda for change driven by teachers and in school administrators; it needs a process by which those best able to deliver sustainable change in response to that agenda receive support on condition that they share their results in a way that promotes best practice; it needs to see true collaborative partnerships between teachers, administrators, researchers and communities that lead to school improvement; and it needs to see nimble, flexible approaches to how innovation is done. Whatever happens to the next version of AISI and whatever the rhetoric, we should judge the work in terms of impact and outcome.

A Tribute to Chris Gonnet - Leader, Friend, Colleague

Every so often one comes upon a person in authority who is a true leader and an inspiration. One such person was Chris Gonnet, Superintendent of Grande Prairie Public Schools. Chris was a friend, a colleague and a fellow champion of inspiring education. He died yesterday of heart attack. He will be missed by many, but most of all by those instructional leaders within Grande Prairie whom he supported with passion and commitment.

Chris and I worked closely together on the Real Learning First project with JC Couture of the ATA. JC and Chris had taught together in Hinton and both had a commitment to education, innovation and learning that I have always found inspiring. Chris was a champion of the Alberta : Finland partnership for educational change and development and, wearing this hat, he and I spend time together in Stockholm, Helsinki, Jasper and Boston.

Chris was an imagineer and passionate about the core values of a school system. He made a difference. He will be missed.

My heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.

Creative Alberta

There is a lot of talk in educational circles and amongst employers about the need for the next generation of workers to have twenty first century skills. By this they usually mean that, in addition to mathematical and literacy skills, those leaving schools, colleges and universities should have knowledge and skills in design, teamwork, creative problem solving, critical thinking and an ability to leverage social networks and knowledge. They also need to be able to communicate effectively, both in person and in writing.

Of these skills, what we need most is creativity. We have problems that need solving –environmental challenges, social problems, problems with our health care system, problems of democracy – and its clear that our existing approaches to problem solving are not working. We also need creative people in all walks of life – creative leaders of non-profit organizations, creative designers of clothes, creative culinary technicians, and creative teachers.

The arts are also key to the vibrancy of our communities. Alberta has first class symphony orchestras, a world class ballet company, a very successful opera community and really powerful theatre sector, especially in Edmonton, and a strong visual arts community. In addition to providing pleasure to a great many people, the arts are also a major economic engine in the Province – they are a basis for a significant industry sector in their own right.

Creativity is not at the core of our school system – compliance is. In Grade 7 in Alberta there are over 1,300 objectives to be achieved by students, leaving very little room for creative exploration, real in depth project work or learners creating their own learning agenda. Teachers in high schools feel pressured by the volume of work they must complete so that students can achieve high performance on Provincial Achievement Tests and the High School Diploma. Universities and Colleges push schools each year to do more so as to ensure that students moving to post-secondary institutions have the required skills.

Creativity is also difficult for teachers in large classes – classes of thirty five to thirty five. Schools as physical locations are built for compliance and conformity. The notion of a “class” of students, versus a learning program for each student speaks to this challenge.

If we are serious about developing the creative skills of our learners at all levels then we need to change both what we ask these learners to work on and how we support that learning. In short, we need a transformative change which changes the context, structure and process of learning and change our support systems for teachers to enable this to happen.

This is not an option. To improve the competitiveness and productivity of Alberta firms, to sustain vibrant communities and to rethink our public services we need creative thinking, informed critical thinking and all the design skills we can muster.

A new organization, Creative Alberta, is focusing energy and capacity on making some of this change happen. What a true strategy for a Creative Alberta would be is for Minister Hon. Dave Hancock, Minister of Education, to implement the agenda for change outlined in Inspiring Education – reduce the scope and scale of the Provincial curriculum (teach less, learn more), free schools from many of the constraints under which they currently operate, downsize the role of Government and ehance the independence of schools, change the accountability regime and move to a public assurance model for accountability and invest in the professional development of teachers. There is also a need to create several different routes for the High School Diploma, only one of which should be focused on progression to post-secondary education.

Twenty first century skills require twenty first century schools. Its time we enabled them.

Sarah Palin for President? Not..

The idea that Sarah Palin could be a serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2012 helps sell newspapers, but is beyond belief. She may become a candidate – an independent republican – but she will not be the official republican candidate and she is unlikely to win. She is the Ross Perrot of the 2012 election.

The US voters will not elect her President for five reasons. First, she is a quitter. She did not see out the last key employment contracts she has entered into, either as Mayor or as Governor.

Second, she is ignorant of world affairs and economics. Just read her Facebook entries and listen to her speak of economic issues and options.

Third, she has no credibility on the international stage. However popular the idea of a President focusing inwards on the economy may be, the reality is that improving the US economy requires a global effort and real strength in economic diplomacy – not something for which Sarah Palin has any credibility.

Fourth, she is a polarising figure. You either love her, find her amusing but dangerous, or hate her. This means that there will not be enough popular support for her to secure the votes needed to beat either the official republican candidate or a sitting US President.

Finally, she is a “foot in mouth” politician. If you wait long enough, she will destroy her own ideas through her own efforts. Just ask her about what she reads or what she understands about fiscal easing and she will put her foot in it. She will, of course, blame others – she is never to be accountable for her own actions – and look at the situation she herself created as if it is a meteor from another planet.

She will increase her profile throughout 2011, make more money, court the right people on the right and be seen frequently enough to fuel speculation. But a serious Presidential candidate? Never.

Watch Out - The Premier is About..

As we approach the new year, be prepared for real challenges to our public sector and financial double-think from the Government of Alberta.

Some time ago the Premier of Alberta made two bad decisions. The first was to declare that. “while I am Premier”, there would be no new taxes and no increases in taxes. It was one of those declarations that sounds good at the time but, on reflection. is a terrible mistake. It limits and sets up a requirement for him to resign when taxes inevitably do rise.

His second mistake was to cave into the pressure from the oil and gas sector over royalties – ensuring that Alberta has amongst the lowest regulated royalty rates in the world (in the same league as Yemen).

These too major errors of judgement feed into a philosophic position held by the Premier and the majority of caucus: the principle that government should live within its means and not have deficits or debt. A principle few sensible governments adopt, but always admire in others.

What we are about to see are significant and brutal cuts in Alberta public expenditure of so as to continue to “cover up” the two errors of judgement and sustain a philosophic position, now clearly out dated and inappropriate. Its time for a sea change in thinking – even if the Premier may have to go to make it possible.

The Provincial deficit is growing, due to: (a) a structural change in the economy as it relates to royalty revenues from natural gas – the Province needs to get used to a much lower price for gas (around $4.50 - $5.50 as opposed to $7); (b) the growing strength of the Canadian dollar – oil is priced in US dollars, so the achievement of parity costs the government money; (c) continued relatively high rates of unemployment in some sectors; (d) but a return to inflation for some goods and services.

Estimates of the deficit vary, but let us just assume that its between $5 billion and $6 billion. While this could be covered by a combination of cuts to services and a transfer from the stabilisation fund established by the Government to deal with these situations, we cannot go on doing this. Our key source of revenue in the past – natural gas – is not going to return to “normal” for some considerable time – the new technologies enabling the extraction of shale gas has changed the industry for some time to come. We now rely on modest oil revenues and revenues from casino’s, drink and cigarettes.

Trimming spending is the natural instinct of conservatives – just look at the Wild Rose`s position to see how stark this can be. But they are coy about what this really means. Typically, they protect health care spending, which accounts for the largest single chunk of public expenditure and is a system in need of major reform – but they have already committed to a five year funding formulae and we`re just ending year one.

Education also gets a modicum of protection, especially given that the Minister is seeking a second five year settlement with the teachers union.

So what`s left to cut and how deep? 20-30% would be needed to cover the whole deficit for the remaining departments to balance the budget by March 2012 – another strange commitment made by the Premier.

It i time for Alberta to recogonize that Alberta has a revenue problem. It is time to rethink its tax regime – its time for a 3-5% sales tax. Ted Morton signalled this as an option form review on 25th August, but was quickly told to withdraw this thinking (remember the Premier’s commitment). A sales tax would buy time to rethink our public services – especially health care – and to reposition the Province. The Alberta Advantage of low taxes is no longer a true advantage, and will disappear if, as a result, we have low quality public services.

Its also time to implement in full the recommendations of the royalty review panel which the Premier struck at the time of his appointment. While the industry may sream – they always do – they will also stay and pay. Ask Alaska how it managed to significantly increase royalties (before Palin) and they will tell you that the companies screamed, threatened, offered all sorts of sweeteners, but in the end stayed and paid.

It is also time to commit to modest level of borrowing and debt – something most of us understand, since most people own debt. The idea that governments should be debt free is, frankly, bizarre. The issue isn’t debt or no debt, it is how much debt is reasonable given our understanding of the future patterns of revenue and expenditure. If debt to GDP was at around 4-5% no one would especially be concerned.

Finally, its time for a serious look at the future. The Premiers Economic Council will report in June 2011 and outline a strategy and investments needed for the “next” Alberta. Shifting from a reliance on natural resources, from being debt free and from having a revenue problem to investing wisely in the future is an essential task for the Government. Lets hope they have courage. It doesn’t look promising.

Setting the Context: Energy Challanges for 21st Century

A group of us at the Energy Futures Network and the Renaissance Innovation Network are developing a book Rethinking Energy - here is a working draft of the first chapter...

Introduction

In 2010 the late Hew Crane of SRI International – originally known as the Stanford Research Institute – created a new unit of energy measurement. It is known as the cubic mile of oil . Imagine this: a cube of oil a mile long, a mile wide and a mile deep. Now imagine burning this cube of oil to get energy – whether for electrical power, fuels or other forms of energy. A cubic mile of oil, for those of you technically minded, is equivalent to 26 billion barrels of oil or 6.4 billion tons of coal. A barrel of oil is equivalent to two full tanks of fuel for an SUV.

The reason Crane developed this new measurement was to make clear just what global energy consumption looked like. Each year, the world uses some three cubic miles of oil – some of it with hydrocarbons, some with nuclear and some with wind and bioenergy. Crane is using this measure to capture just how much energy comes from each source, as the following table shows:

Source of Energy Shows as Cubic Miles of Oil per Year

Oil 1.06
Coal 0.81
Natural Gas 0.61
Biomass 0.19
Nuclear 0.15
Hydroelectric 0.17
Geothermal <0.01
Wind and Solar <0.005

Table 1: Sources of Energy (2006)

AS the population of the earth grows – it will exceed eight billion by 2025 – so demand for energy will increase. The best estimate we have is that global energy demand will rise from three cubic miles to six cubic miles by 2050 – energy demand is currently rising at a rate of 2.5% per year.

Meeting Future Energy Demands

The question this gives rise to is simple: how will this demand for energy be met?
Crane and his colleagues have explored this question in some depth. They suggest that a cubic mile of oil can be secured by one of the following:

• 52 nuclear plants developed every year to 2050 – each plant currently requires ten years to construct, has a lifespan of forty years, occupies some four square kilometres of land and costs (at current prices) some $5 billion to build. There is also the problem of disposing of hazardous waste and the growing threat of the use of this waste by terrorists. For each cubic mile of oil from this source, we would require 500 new surface uranium mines; 1,000 new underground uranium mines; and 2,280 nuclear reactor operations.

• 32,850 wind turbines built each year for the next fifty years. A large wind turbine requires a location with a reasonably constant and abundant flow of wind, requires some 0.16 km of land and costs around $2m to build. There are concerns about environmental footprints, aviation and damage to bird life.

• 91,250,000 rooftop solar panels developed and installed each year for the next fifty years. A 2.1killowat solar array requires technical skills for installation, needs a supply of sunshine, covers around 14 m2 and costs around $15,000. Such panels present few, if any, environmental problems.

• 104 coal fired power plants developed each year for the next fifty years. A 500 megawatt coal fired power plant occupies about 2 m2 of land, costs around $650 million and will last while the coal continues to be supplied or thirty five to forty years, depending on national regulations. New regulations in some countries – Canada and the UK included – require such plants to capture and store CO2 emitted by the burning of coal. This adds substantial additional costs. Such plants are major contributors to man-made climate change impacts, acid rain and they give rise to significant environmental land remediation issues.

• 4 Three Gorges Dams developed each year for fifty years. The Three Gorges dam is the world’s largest and it is in China – flooding 632 square kilometers, displacing 1.25 million people and costing $30 billion.

It is worth observing here that it took 200 years (1700 to 1900) for coal to replace wood as the world’s primary energy source. It then took almost 100 years (1870 to 1960) for oil to replace coal. And it took 100 years (1900 to 2000) for natural gas to equal coal in energy usage.

It is also more complicated than this. Take coal fired power plants. To increase the use of coal for energy by one cubic mile each year would require 1,300 new surface coal mines, 2,600 underground mines, some 300,000 new trucks and 2,600 more trains (each consisting of 130 coal cars drawn by three 3,500 horsepower trains. Each mine would leave behind some 750,000 tons of excavated materials sitting some fifty feet deep across twenty square miles.

Wind power is also problematic – it is not windy all the time. In fact, win turbines generally operate at 24-30% of their capacity (never look at installed capacity as a measure of the potential of wind-power – take one third of this capacity and see this as the likely output of a wind turbine). This means that, as wind capacity is increased, additional natural gas fired power plants are needed to “back up” the system so that energy supply meets demand or that ways have to be found of storing energy for use when the wind is low. Given that wind farms are distant from the geographic areas of high demand, there is a need for transmission systems which in turn have environmental consequences.

Biomass – producing energy from landfill waste, wood, alcohol fuels, agricultural crops (including crops grown specially to produce energy) – is also seen by many to have great promise. The global potential is estimated to be no more than 0.5 cubic miles (some suggest it could be as a high as 2 cubic miles), but there is a downside. Most of the biomass in use today is wood. Burning wood may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions – in fact, in some situations, burning biomass can produce more greenhouse gasses than the direct use of fossil fuels. Further, growing crops for energy use will significantly reduce the amount of fertile agricultural land available for food production, thius disrupting the food supply system. We have already seen this. When energy prices were high, farmers sold food crops for energy resulting in bread prices and other food prices rising significantly, causing protests in a number of countries.

Given these observations, it seems likely that the world will be dependent on fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – for some considerable time.

The question then becomes – do we have enough reserves of carbon based fuels to meet demand?

Global Carbon Energy Reserves

According to several different sources, global conventional oil reserves based on current technologies and normative pricing are some 1,400 billion barrels – equivalent to 46 cubic miles of oil. Additional capacity would be found if the oil price was high – additional exploration and enhanced oil recovery occurs once prices exceed $100/barrel. The best estimate available here suggests that these “additional reserves” could amount to 94 cubic miles of oil. At the current rate of use, proven reserves would supply the worlds energy for some forty years, but at a cost. At the height of the oil boom in 2008 when a barrel of oil sold for $120, a cubic mile of oil would cost US$3 trillion – this is before we add the cost of mitigation the consequences of its use.

Most of this conventional oil (a term used to contrast this kind of oil from oil sands oil, which is seen as unconventional) resides in countries with no or limited democracies: Saudi Arabia (259 billion barrels), Iran (126 billion barrels ), Iraq (115 billion barrels), Kuwait (99 billion barrels ), Abu Dhabi (92 billion barrels), Venezuela (77 billion barrels), Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (39 billion barrels), Nigeria (35 billion barrels), the USA (22 billion barrels) and Canada (4 billion barrels). Canada in fact currently ranks number nine in world oil production, but by 2015 is expected to be in the top five due to the increasing flow of oil from the oil sands.

The North American oil sands provide a substantial opportunity for energy supply. Colorado, Utah and Wyoming hold oil shale reserves estimated to contain 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, according to the US Department of Energy, half of which is recoverable. Eastern Utah alone holds oil sands reserves estimated at 12 billion to 19 billion barrels. The Canadian oil sands region in Alberta contains recoverable oil reserves conservatively estimated at 175 billion barrels (the industry works on the assumption that there are an additional 125 billion of recoverable barrels in the Alberta oil sands for a total of 300 billion). In total, worldwide, these reserves total 400 cubic miles of oil.

Natural gas reserves are estimated at 42 cubic miles – sixty nine years of supply at current levels of gas consumption. New technologies which enable extraction of gas from shale are significantly adding to the estimates of reserves – an additional 66 cubic miles.

There are also other developments with respect to natural gas – gas hydrates. Gas hydrates represent a very large global reservoir of natural gas and they are estimated to contain more organic carbon than all other known fossil fuel sources combined. They bind immense amounts of methane within sea-floor or Arctic sediments; the breakdown of a unit volume of methane hydrate at a pressure of one atmosphere produces about 160 unit volumes of gas. Gas hydrates exist under large portions of the world's Arctic areas and on deep sea continental slopes in water depths greater than about 600m. All three Canadian continental margins contain gas hydrates. The Mackenzie River delta, in the NWT, contains some of the most concentrated deposits in the world. A number of other countries such as Russia, the United States, India, Japan and China also have substantial marine gas hydrate deposits. The worldwide amount of methane in gas hydrates is considered to contain at least 1x104 gigatons of carbon in a very conservative estimate. This is about twice the amount of carbon held in all fossil fuels on earth. Converting this into our cubic mile of oil measure, there are some 5,000 cubic miles of oil in gas hydrate fields worldwide.

One more observation about oil and gas. In the last few years oil and gas companies have developed a technique known generally as horizontal drilling – rather than drilling straight down, this method drills straight down for a while and then turns and goes sideways. In addition to going sideways, the method also fractures obstacles that get in the way (stubborn rock formations, for example). This combination of actions creates a technology known as horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing. According to the US Department of Energy, this is unleashing the ability of oil and gas companies to extract oil and gas hitherto inaccessible to drilling. One field alone - the Barnett Shale located in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin - may have the largest producible reserves of any onshore natural gas field in the United States. The field is proven to have 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (455 square miles of oil), and is generally estimated to contain as much as 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources (5,460 square miles of oil). Oil also has been found in lesser quantities, but sufficient (with oil prices above $90 a barrel) to be commercially viable. The use of this technology is changing our picture of the state of oil and gas reserves.

Coal is an abundant resource – there are 120 cubic miles of proven and accessible reserves. It is also estimated that and additional 1,500 cubic miles could be accessed by a combination of price attractiveness and new technology: coal remains one the most significant energy asset on the planet.

This brief summary – believe us, there is a lot more we could say – suggests that carbon based energy will be a substantial part of the way in which energy demands are met worldwide for at least a generation.

Some may be surprised at this observation. They will have read about “peak oil”. This is the idea, which has been around for some considerable time, that our ability to find and extract oil has peaked and that oil supplies are in decline. M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. Hubbert initially predicted in 1974 that peak oil would occur in 1995 "if current trends continue." However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due mainly to the shift to energy-efficient cars, the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating, and other factors), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s. Thus oil production did not peak in 1995, and has climbed to more than double the rate initially projected. This underscores the fact that the only reliable way to identify the timing of peak oil will be in retrospect. Indeed, if you read the literature on peak oil, predictions include the possibilities that it has recently occurred, that it will occur shortly, or that a plateau of oil production will sustain supply for up to 100 years. None of these predictions dispute the peaking of oil production, but disagree only on when it will occur. Our observation is that it is not imminent.

The Consequences of Energy Use

Burning carbon based fuels for energy has consequences, not least for the environment and climate. There are three we should review here: climate change, water and land. But before we look at these, it is important to note that all forms of energy use have consequences, as we shall see throughout this book.

Climate Change

Roger Pielke Snr., a well-established scientist who has worked extensively on the climate change file, has suggested that there are basically three core hypothesis at play in the scientific community engaged in work on climate science. These are:

1. The Total Sceptic Position: Human influence on climate variability and change is of minimal importance, and natural causes dominate climate variations and changes on all time scales. In coming decades, the human influence will continue to be minimal. We should therefore not worry about our use of carbon energy sources. It will have little impact on the worlds climate.

2. The Emerging Position: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first- order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (C02) through the use of fossil fuels and intensive agriculture. Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades. We therefore must reduce our use of carbon energy and seek alternative energy forms.

3. The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change Position: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is C02. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades. We therefore must radically reduce our use of carbon energy – some suggest by 80% of higher by 2050 – so as to ensure that the climate does not warm beyond 2 degrees higher than at present.


Most of the peer reviewed scientific literature favours the emerging position over the IPCC position. It is also the case that very little of the literature favours the sceptic position. Scientific analysis therefore needs to take into account and give more serious consideration to the other factors that have a bearing on climate change. These include the role of oceans as “sinks” for CO2, the role of ocean currents, naturally occurring events (earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions), the sun and sun spots, other greenhouse gasses (especially water vapour), the tilt of the earth and so on. All are known to have some impact on climate. Nonetheless, using oil, coal and natural gas will have an impact on climate.

Roger Pielke Jnr, Professor of ¬Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, in his book the The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming , shows clearly that he both agrees with this analysis (not surprisingly, since it his father who offers it) but also he adds a key point. In seeking to mitigate the impacts of the manmade component of climate change by reducing the use of CO2 emitting energy sources, there is a need to balance this change with economic growth. He observes that policymakers who find themselves conflicted, are not confused. They are conflicted because they express a desire to increase the costs of energy so as to reduce the impact of carbon energy use on climate. At the same time these same politicians express a desire to lower those costs so as to sustain economic growth. They are not confused, because when such a trade-off is made, it is inevitably made in the direction of sustaining economic growth. This is Pielke’s law rule of climate change: when environmental and economic objectives are placed into opposition with one another in public or political forums, the economic goals win out. In a recent Financial Post article, Pielke said:

“Countries worldwide have expressed a commitment to sustaining economic growth, and these commitments are not going to change any time soon, no matter how much activists, idealists, or dreamers complain to the contrary. People will pay some amount for environmental goals, but only so much before drawing the line. That is just the way it is, regardless of whether economic growth measures what matters most to a country's well-being, and regardless of other metrics that might better capture quality of life” .

This runs counter to the proposition by many climate campaigners, like Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in the UK., who has argued that a "planned recession" would be necessary in the U.K. to reduce emissions in response to the threat of climate change. In practice, this would mean that "the building of new airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the U.K. until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil fuels." The UK provides an interesting case study. in coming years the U.K. faces the prospects of an energy shortage due to the closing both of coal plants (in turn due to laws governing their particulate emissions) and of nuclear power plants (as part of a long-term plan to reduce dependence on nuclear power), leaving few short-term options to meet expected demands for power. Possible measures to increase energy supply include building more gas-fired plants (which risks a greater dependence on Russian gas and all of the accompanying insecurities), building new nuclear plants or putting off closure of existing plants (despite significant public opposition), and building new, cleaner coal plants (despite their carbon footprints).

Of the choice, a U.K. government official explained in an interview in The Economist that in "a decision between building a new coal plant and letting the lights go out -- that's a no-brainer." The Economist interpreted that comment to signify that "something has to give, and it will probably be environmental targets."

In the UK At least 43 gigawatts of totally new electrical generation capacity, equivalent to half of Britain’s current total, will be needed by 2020, as all but one of its nuclear plants are retired and coal-fired power stations closed to meet EU air pollution standards. A staggering £200bn ($322 billion) of investment will be needed not only to maintain energy security against price spikes as North Sea oil and gas resources dwindle and energy imports grow, but also to deliver the largest single contribution to a low-carbon economy. Electricity output may need to double by 2020 as domestic heating, industry and transportation electrify, but there are very different ideas as to how this should be done, and the role of energy efficiency has been neglected. And it’s not only electricity that will be at a premium, the UK’s overall energy needs, including heating, transport and industrial processes are increasingly satisfied through importing oil and gas. There could be rolling black-outs in the UK unless a strategy for energy which balances economic growth and climate change can be found.

Water

After agriculture, the energy sector is the largest consumer of water in the developed world. All systems of energy production use water. In the US alone, the energy sector withdraws some 200 billion gallons of freshwater and seawater each day – close to half of the nations water use. Most of this water is used for cooling and a great deal is returned, once cooled, after use. Only solar power and wind power use virtually no water at all.

Most alternative energies—whether renewables like solar thermal and biofuels, or unconventional sources like oil sands—use more water than conventional fossil fuels . For example, biofuels produced from irrigated corn use 650 times more water than oil-derived gasoline. For soybean-based biofuels, that number is around 1,000 . Fossil fuel plants that attempt to bury their CO2 using carbon sequestration will likely consume 40%–90% more water than those who do not .

The conventional generation of electricity uses water to turn turbines for hydropower or produce steam for thermoelectric power; it also uses cooling water to condense the steam produced by thermoelectric generation. For typical thermoelectric power plants used for energy production in the US, for example, the amount of water which evaporates and cannot be reused or returned to its source is 0.47 gal (1.8 L) of fresh water evaporated per kWh of end-use electricity. Hydroelectric power plants evaporated 18 gal (68 L) of fresh water per kWh consumed by the end user. Combined, these values give an aggregate total for the United States of 2.0 gal/kWh (7.6 L/kWh) .

Extracting oil from the oil sands – a significant energy opportunity – uses a lot of water. Surfaced mined bitumen – the basis for the oil– requires between 2 and 5 barrels of freshwater to produce one barrel of oil. Increasingly, producers are finding ways of recycling the water and reusing it. Some of the water used in mining operations (but not in-situ extraction of bitumen) ends up in what are known as “tailings” ponds – vast lakes of water filled with particles which, until recently, took some forty years to settle. Using synthetic biology, these tailings ponds can now be reclaimed much more rapidly (in months rather than years) and the water in these ponds can be cleaned and reused. Nonetheless, there is a challenge about water use for energy production.

Climate change and water are related and have an impact on energy production. In France in 2006, heat waves caused the temperature of river waters to rise significantly. Nuclear plants that used river water to cool their systems could not use the water since it was too ``hot`` and the plants had to be temporarly shut down . Spain also experienced this same challenge. A biorefinery built in Minnesota has been unable to operate, since insufficient water can be found to support it .

It is clear that energy use and water consumption cannot be seen to be distinct from one another, especially if we wish to push towards so-called ``green`` energy. Access to water and seeking methods to reduce water use and loss in energy production will be a key challenge.

Land Use

Extracting oil, coal, oil from the oil sands or increasing our use of biofuels or wind power all have major impacts on how we use land. Land use and the maintenance of the land together with the species that depend on the land is a key challenge for all engaged in the production of energy.

We saw, when looking at what it would take to replace one cubic mile of oil with other forms of energy, just how tough this will be. Look at pictures of oil sands mining and the tailings ponds mining (but not in-situ) create as a result of their process, and you can see the challenge. Remediation of land use from mining operations for oil sands, gas, oil, coal and other forms of extraction (in Canada the Province of Alberta, for example, has 45,000 disuses oil and gas wells that require remediation) is a major challenge. This is leading to many to seek an increase in protected or “set aside” lands which, though they contain oil or gas, cannot be exploited so as to preserve the land and biodiversity.

Wind turbines also occupy a great deal of land and, increasingly, development of wind-farms is being challenged on environmental grounds. Large industrial sized turbines which are installed together to form a wind farm will have a much larger footprint on the land. Depending on the local terrain, wind projects occupy anywhere from 28 – 83 acres per megawatt, but only 2 – 5% of the project area is needed for turbine foundations, roads or other infrastructure. It is in relation to these larger industrial sized wind turbines and wind farms that land use issues become a significant factor in considering the development of wind projects to generate electricity. Successful wind projects require open space and clear access to the wind. This makes them an ideal choice for agricultural areas, grazing lands and the coastline – thus creating a trade-off between different land use options .

Biofuels also create these trade-offs. Unless energy is being produced from landfills or other waste streams from existing processes, land is required to create the feedstock to fuel the energy production system. So as to reduce the impact on food production and biodiversity, those growing fibre for conversion to energy (crops, trees, grasses etc.) are increasingly making use of retired agricultural land or forests (e.g. pine beetle infected forest areas) rather than use quality agricultural land. However, to reach the volumes required for biofuels to begin to replace fossil fuels, a substantial constraint will be access to land.


The Big Challenges

In this chapter we have built the elements of a jig-saw puzzle. So, looking at all of these pieces of the jig saw, we can summarise the challenge for the future of energy as follows:

1. Demand for energy is likely to at least double between now and 2050 – just forty years away. From the history of energy systems, this is not a lot of time in which to change energy production practices. Oil, natural gas and coal will continue to power our energy systems for some time to come.

2. Supplies of energy are sufficient, especially given new technologies for extraction (e.g. horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing) and new sources of available energy (gas hydrates) as well as unconventional oil (e.g. Canada`s oil sands).

3. So called “green energy” – biomass, solar, wind – will grow but remain a small portion of the total energy system. Caution needs to be exercised as many of these options use more water than conventional systems and some also create more greenhouses gasses than conventional oil and gas.

4. Energy production uses a lot of water and, as climate change has increasing impacts, water will be a major challenge for energy production.

5. Climate change is impacted by human activity (but it is not the only “cause” of climate change). So as to reduce the threats to various nations of the impact of climate change, systematic attempts need to be made both to conserve energy and reduce emissions.

6. Producing sufficient energy to meet demand while managing environmental impacts on water, land and air will pose a challenge. The iron law is that, when faced with a trade-off between energy for economic growth or constraints to support environmental policy, economics wins.

7. Getting to double energy supply without constantly invoking the iron law will be a tough challenge for all.

The balance of this book will explore these issues in more depth, focusing on Canada as a case study. The challenge being addressed here is simple: how can we balance three competing forces – the need for energy, the need for economic development and growth and the need to be effective stewards of the environment. This we refer to as the new 3xE challenge for Canada and the developed world.

Apologies and I am Back.

Apologies to my followers and occasional readers. I have been somewhat hectic, but will be back from now on.

My new collection of fiction - short stories and poems is just published: Beyond Words Short Fiction and Poems and the other book I developed with Don Simpson - Renaissance Leadership is doing well. You can find both listed at lulu.com or here.

Lynne and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary and we look forward to the birth of our first grandchild this month as well as my 60th birthday.

The Prince of Darkness Sheds Light on the Labour Leadership Race

Lord Mandelson, who used to be known as the Prince of Darkness, is now seeking to be the Giver of Light. In a series of comments on the coming election for a new leader of the British Labour Party, Mandelson has cautioned the party not to become over enthralled with its history as a socialist party. Noting the mood and character of British politics has changed, he calls for a centre right candidate to win the race and warns of the dangers of moving to the left.

Widely interpreted as support for David Miliband and a caution against his brother Ed Miliband, the front runners in the race to succeed Gordon Brown, it is also a hard knock against the only other serious candidate, Ed Balls, who has moved to the left as the campaign has progressed. Mandelson is positioning himself as the sage of “new” Labour following the publication of his book The Third Man which describes his pivotal role as the “piggy in the middle” between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He reminds the candidates that Britain needs careful and conservative management of its economy, a cautious social policy and real reform of health care. He dismisses two of the candidates – Andy Burnham and Dianne Abbot – as left and gone.

Tony Blair, Mandelson’s former colleague and occasional tormentor – he sacked Mandelson from the British cabinet twice - has clearly decided to support David Miliband. In several reported remarks, he has echoed Lord Mandelson concerns and has also spoken about intelligence, eloquence and courage – all things he attributed to David Miliband and not Ed Miliband.

Early polls showed Ed Balls winning, as the two Miliband brothers effectively split the vote, but betting at Paddy-Power – the world’s leading novelty online betting company - suggests otherwise. The money is going to the Miliband brothers, with David being favourite at 1:3 and Ed a close second at 2:1. Ed Balls is running a distant third at 50:1 and Diane Abbot is still wandering around the paddock at 125:1.

There is just under a month to go and, as Harold Wilson the former British Prime Minister said, “a week is a long time in politics”. Ed Balls is complaining that watching the Miliband Brothers campaign against each other is like watching Big Brother, while Diane Abbot is simply complaining. Balls laid out a social housing and social welfare program which he knows Britain cannot afford. Diane Abbot has demanded a restoration of welfare services which even her own Labour Government scrapped due to ineffectiveness and cost.

The serious focus is now on David Miliband. It should be. Labour just lost the last election and still have a large number of seats in the House of Commons – 258 seats to the Conservatives 301. The Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition, though starting out strongly, has a long road ahead of difficult decisions and potentially divisive issues. The next leader of the Labour Party could be positioned to win a slight majority if a general election is called over a fragmented coalition in the next three years. While some think that the coalition will last for some time, others take the view that, in the end, British politics are tribal: people like clarity and the coalition will become increasingly “fuzzy” as the days go by.

David Miliband, if elected leader, could find himself fighting an election sooner rather than later. The question is: does he have what it takes to win? He is clearly intellectually able to develop policy and strategy appropriate for the times. He is articulate, if over precise. But he is what the British think of as “a bit of an egg-head” – a policy wonk and a little effete. He comes across more like a University Professor than a passionate, committed and yet serious leader of a party of the people. In contrast, his brother, Ed Miliband, has a little more fire and brimstone, but seems to have less depth. Most critical of all is the question in the mind of the electoral college which will elect the new leader – does David Miliband have courage.

When a number of former cabinet members rebelled against Gordon Brown early in 2010, they did so on the basis of promised support from key members of Brown’s cabinet. One of these was David Miliband, also the last cabinet member to offer support to Brown during this crisis – albeit tepid support with a hint of malice. Earlier in his time as Foreign Secretary, he failed to respond to the plea from a close colleague and political ally, James Purnell, then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to join him in resigning from government to force Gordon Brown out of the position of Prime Minister on the grounds that he was a failure as a leader and could not win a general election. Purnell has since suggested that Miliband dithered, first agreeing and then reneging, suggesting a lack of decisiveness when the right thing to do conflicts with the strong ambitions and need for recognition which many see David Miliband as having.

We will know at the end of September when the election results are announced at the Labour Party conference in Manchester. All of a sudden, the race is beginning to stir.

Change at the IPCC

In a report commissioned by the Ministers of the Environment who are party to the United Nations climate change process, significant change is proposed for how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) works.

Three major changes are proposed in a report issued on Monday, 30th August. The first is that the term of the Chairman of the IPCC should be shorter. Currently, the incumbent, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, can serve two six year terms and he was renewed for his second term in 2008. It is suggested that the next Chairman should serve to produce a single report and then pass the leadership role to a new Chairman. What would help is if the incumbent resigned to make way for the reforms, but this looks unlikely to happen. Dr Pachauri has already said he will stay in place to see the reforms through.

The second change also relates to the alleged conflicts of interest between the business interests of the Chairman and his role as the lead authority on climate change on behalf of the UN – the role of Chairman is unpaid. The Daily Telegraph (UK), amongst others, had accused Pachauri of using his connections and office to secure funds for organizations of which he was a Director and could benefit directly. Pachurai has vehemently denied these allegations. The report released this week suggests that the IPCC needs to have a robust and thorough conflict of interest policy that deals with such issues. While the allegations concerning Dr Pachurai are one area of possible conflict of interest, another is the affiliation and allegiance of some of the scientific reviewers with environmental organizations.

The final set of recommendations, and perhaps the most important, concern the way in which the scientific reviews are undertaken – especially focused on what counts as legitimate in terms of appropriate science and analysis. The concern, highlighted by the admitted error over the future of the Himalaya’s (the IPCC said that the ice covering the Himalayas would be gone by 2035, but could adduce no evidence to support this view),was with the use of so called “grey literature” (magazine articles, newsletters, monographs) which were not subject to peer review. The review committee said that the review and analysis procedures needed tightening to minimise errors. It also urged the editors of each section of the periodic assessments to ensure genuine controversies were reflected and alternative views were accounted for. This counters the Climategate emails which appeared to suggest that there was a systematic attempt to minimise doubt and alternative views and to declare a “scientific consensus”, even though one did not exist.

More specifically, where climate change models are used to present a scenario (the IPCC does not make predictions, it does suggest what might happen under certain “what if” assumptions), the review committee recommends that the cautions and risk associated with these models should be given more emphasis and that the “concreteness” of these models be cautioned by the uncertainties of simulations.

The report of the Ministerial assessment group will be considered at the next meeting of Ministers in October in South Korea.

A New Kind of School Trustee

A group of candidates are running for office as school trustees in Edmonton who intend to change the nature of the trustee role and exercise their role as democratically elected oversees of the work of schools. Mostly under forty – and several just around thirty – it is a different generation from the “established” trustees and those they have hired as Superintendents of Schools. We can expect change.

While they accept their fiduciary responsibilities, they see their role in terms of educational outcomes and the development of educational strategy. They understand that they are not professional educators – they don’t need to be. What they are is important: they are the people’s representatives ensuring that educational processes are working and that they are effective in doing what they say they will do. In others words, they understand that their primary accountability is to the electors and the students in their jurisdiction. They are they to ensure that the schools in their constituency are providing the best and most appropriate education.

Superintendents will not like this. In some school jurisdictions, trustees are not permitted to visit schools, yet they are accountable for them. In others, all the reports they receive concerning education are always “positive” and “glowing” – it is as if drop out and the low rate of transition to post-secondary or our abject failure to provide a world-class education to aboriginal students did not exist. Trustees must be connected to the schools in their wards directly, must understand the strengths and weaknesses of those schools, must understand how they are doing – warts and all.

Older trustees will not like this next generation. They will challenge the model of governance which overly focuses on fiscal issues at the expense of teacher quality, student opportunity and educational achievement. They will see the shift from the “hands off” the real work of schools model of governance to a strategic governance role as a challenge. For example, Michael Janz, who is a candidate in Ward F in Edmonton, wants to establish a Ward Council – “a chance to bring together school councils, community leagues, MLAs, City Councillors and other interested citizens tri-annually to discuss our public education system”, engaging the community in the work of schools. Michael also favours direct engagement of trustees in the process of implementing the new strategy being pursued by Alberta Education – Inspiring Education. He is a big believer in “hands on” trusteeship. Many of the “old guard” will be challenged by this approach.

Superintendents – the CEO’s of the education system in your area – are appointed by Boards and the Minister. They have dual accountability. The Alberta Teachers Association, in a document entitled Courage to Choose – Emerging Trends and Strategic Possibilities for Informed Transformation in Alberta Schools, 2010-2011, are calling for an end to this dualism and are asking that the accountability be simple and clear – Superintendents should be locally accountable for the performance and development of the education services in a particular area. Trustees hire and can dismiss them. Superintendents report to them. This same document also suggests that each school, together with their stakeholder community, develop a school development plan which commits the school to a certain level of educational performance and activities – such a plan could be the work of the school in partnership with a Ward Council.

But they key suggestion from this document is for school boards to stop seeing themselves as trustees for the Government of Alberta funding for their school system, but instead to return to the idea that they are trustees for their local community – the people who elected them – for the work of the schools in that community. They are not answerable to the Minister of Education, but to the electors.

What this new generation of school trustee candidates stands for is a return to democracy. Shocking isn’t it.

Rethinking Schooling in Alberta

Alberta is about to transform its school system. The Alberta Teachers Association, School Boards and Minister of Education appear aligned on basic intent and will seek to reach a new three year Province wide teacher labour settlement to create the stable base for this work.

At the heart of this transformation will be a new emphasis on learning rather than instruction. That is, reduce the sheer volume of content requirements (there are over 1300 objectives in the Grade 7 curriculum for example) and focus more on the competencies and skills required in each subject to be knowledgeable and able to use that knowledge intelligently. While the Minister talks of this in terms of
“personalizing” learning, the focus is really on shifting the emphasis to knowledge in use and knowledge assessed through competency, rather than time on task.

A second key feature is a rethink of the teaching profession. Under discussion is the idea that teachers, like lawyers and doctors, will be certified by the profession and will be required to undertake continued professional development to sustain that certification. As teachers take on more responsibility for curriculum and competency based assessment and will increasingly be responsible for student assessment, it is critical that they update their skills and enhance their knowledge. A reform of initial teacher education will also be desirable.

A third key feature of the informed transformation relates to the use of technology. In the last decade, Alberta Education has invested close to $2 billion in technology for schools – not all of it smart investment. It is important to look carefully at the role technology can play and what the limits to its use can be – while we need to leverage technology, it is not a substitute for effective learning by problem solving or being taught by a person in real time. While some school boards have interpreted “personalizing” education in terms of making the Provincial curriculum available online so that students can study anytime and anywhere, the real meaning of “personalizing” is that means are found to build a stronger sense of student engagement with their learning. If technology can help, then fine – but the real challenge is to make the learning interesting and challenging.

The final feature of the transformation is to permit schools more independence from the top down control regime which has gradually overwhelmed the system. Not all schools have the same resource base, the same kind of students, the same kind of parental support or the same quality of teachers – not all schools are equal. Schools need room to manoeuvre so as to give the students the best chance of success. Some experiments are already taking place – there are designated flexible high schools, for example – but more is needed.

There will be changes to the School Act - students will be required to stay at school until they are seventeen, adding an additional year; there will be changes to school governance; changes will also be made to the accountability regime – but these are the symbols of change. What really needs to be different is how students think about their education and how engaged they are in pursuing it.

The UK Labour Leadership - How to Watch Paint Dry

The British Labour Party has debts of £20 million ($33 million) and no imaginable way of securing financial support to pay down this bank loan. The newly ennobled Lord Prescott suggests that bankruptcy is inevitable – this despite donations of over £10 million to help fight the election last May. But the bankruptcy of the Labour Party relates to more than money – they are also short on ideas.

This is surprising. With the departure of Gordon Brown from the front ranks of the Labour Party and an election for a new leader in full swing, one would think that ideas would be in abundance and that the party would be in a period of real renewal. A solid left wing candidate – Diane Abbot – and a feisty moderniser – Ed Balls – should provide the canvas for a robust and thorough debate about the politics of the left and the nature of “new” Labour. But the election, now widely seen as a choice between one of the two Milliband brothers, David and Ed, has been as dull as dishwater and is exciting as watching paint dry. There is no doubt that the Miliband brothers are the most talented Labour figures of their generations – it just was not a very inspiring generation of Labour leaders in the first place. At the moment, it is too close to call between them. The election results will be announced at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester at the end of September.

At stake is not just the nature of left wing politics in Britain, but also the quality of political debate. As the Conservative-Liberal coalition continues to demonstrate its ability to tackle the key issues in innovative ways, disaffecting of the centre-left in both governing parties (especially the Liberals) is strong. The opportunity for Labour is to provide an ideological base for a centre-left analysis of Britain and the opportunity to rethink solutions to the challenges which Briton’s face. These challenges – the out of control welfare state, an unsustainable health care system, an education system which shows few improvements over time and a sluggish economy – all have the appeal of requiring radical solutions while at the same time costing less money.

Labour is currently damaged goods. There is no doubt that Gordon Brown’s inability to govern Britain honestly and effectively will taint any attempt to reposition Labour and Blair’s duplicity in the Iraq conflict continues to harm the reputation of the party. But Briton’s can be very forgiving, especially if the party has fresh thinking and new solutions to offer.

Yet nothing imaginative or creative has appeared in the four months of campaigning already completed. Diane Abbot, clearly playing her status as a left winger, has used rhetoric and polemic to argue a left wing stance on University admission (guaranteed places for the poor), policing (stop racism), the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (exit timetables) and social housing (we need more). But on substance – foreign policy, the economy, the reform of welfare – she is quiet.

Andy Burnham, a centre-left candidate based in Manchester, is campaigning by criticising the recently defeated Labour Government – of which he was an integral part – and offering a few choice policy positions. One of these is a new National Care Service –aimed at helping those in need stay at home through the provision of home based care. On key issues he too is all talk and no detail – a characteristic of all in this leadership race.

Ed Balls, the former Minister of Education, is outspoken and bold in his use of language, even though he appears to have little to say of substance, other than that he disagrees with the Millibands. He now thinks that the war in Iraq was a mistake and that seeking to halve the deficit in four years (the commitment of the Labour government of which Balls was a senior minister) was a “mission impossible”. He is vague on what he would in fact do on the economy.

Ed and David Milliband, while expressing familial affection, are fighting similar but subtly different campaigns. David, the former Foreign Secretary, is committed to a broad ethical foreign policy and a radical rethink of the social policies of Britain – broadly in line with the ideas behind the Big Society, launched by the Prime Minister in July. He has defended the war in Iraq and supports fiscal responsible economic policies which minimize the impact on the most vulnerable. He is thought by many to be the likely winner.

His younger brother Ed, who was Energy and Climate Change Secretary in the last administration, takes a similar view of the challenges and has subtle differences with David on the response to these challenges. More of a common man than David – who is seen by many to be overly analytical and intellectual – Ed has a more passionate way of presenting ideas than his brother and, as the campaign unfolds, has been moving increasingly to the left. He has spoken of a four or five year plan to remodel the British economy by tackling the gap between rich and poor and creating a broader industrial base – focusing on personal and regional disparities. But he too has been short on detail.

By the time the Labour Party conference ends on 30th September, the party will have a new leader and the infighting will begin. Failed candidates will continue to vie for position and former grandees will look for front bench opposition places. Meanwhile, the coalition Government will continue to rule with authority and expediency and get on with the business of reinventing Briton, whether or not the Labour Party has anything new to say, which looks doubtful.