There is a growing realization that the world is currently on an unsustainable path and that it needs to mend its ways. No one can argue that.

The recently-concluded World Energy Congress too underlined in its final comments that the current growth model was no longer sustainable in view of the environmental uncertainties. Global energy leaders were warned that the world needed to mobilize itself on a war footing to reduce carbon emission to acceptable levels.

“Whatever we do today should not only be acceptable to us, but also to Mother Nature,” emphasized Lester R. Brown, the guru of the environmental movement and president of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, while addressing the august gathering.  “We need to cut greenhouse emissions by 80 percent — not by 2050 — but by 2020, if we need to grow, sustain and prosper,” he underlined.

The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerated pace and in a decade, we may already reach a point of no return. If the Greenland ice sheet is allowed to melt, it may cause sea water levels to rise by 23 feet. This could be disastrous and the effects would be unprecedented, Brown underlined in his passionate appeal to energy leaders, urging them to act before it’s too late.

Similarly, the ice covering on the Himalayan and the Tibetan Plateau is also beginning to melt, and this could have long-term implications on global grain harvest too — as these also nurture the irrigation systems of agriculturally important countries in the region — China, India and Pakistan. For every degree rise in global temperatures, the world could experience 10 percent less grain production, Brown cautioned.

It was apparently in this perspective that the Paris-based International Energy Agency came out with its 450 ppm scenario. The IEA 450 ppm scenario pursues limiting the global average temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. If it is allowed to continue as it is (the reference scenario), IEA projections say global temperatures could rise to six degrees Celsius. And that is going to be disastrous for Mother Earth.

As per this scenario, emissions in 2020 would need to be reduced by 3.8 gigatons worldwide, with 1.6 gigatons of this reduction to occur in OECD countries. Policies and measures in China already being considered by the Chinese government would account for one gigaton of emissions reductions, more than anywhere else.

“If the world continues on the basis of today’s energy and climate policies, the consequences of climate change will be severe. Energy is at the heart of the problem — and so must form the core of the solution,” IEA executive director Nobuo Tanaka was quoted as saying.

The stress on diversifying away from fossil fuel is thus gaining momentum with the passage of time. Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, remains a vocal and influential voice behind the movement. Energy efficiency remains his focus. With the transportation sector consuming almost 75 percent of the fossil fuels being used today, the race to promote efficiency in the sector seems very much on.

Car engines is a major target now, he underlined while in Riyadh earlier the year. The target for the engines is to yield 35.5miles/gallon by 2016. Future truck engines are also to be more energy-efficient. Jet engines are undergoing massive transformations, with oxygen sensors to air pressure and air temperature sensors all under the spotlight, he pointed out. The engines throttle position sensors and jet engine temperature sensors are also being looked at closely, to help push energy efficiency to new levels.

New refrigerators are to use six times less energy. The cost of solar cells is coming down. Breakthroughs in nano tube designs are making them more energy-efficient. The aluminum refining process, usually so energy-intensive, is also undergoing massive changes, with battery charging modes looked at currently. He also hinted at the strides in renewable and the nuclear renaissance taking place in various parts of the world.

A new energy model seems being worked out. Fossil fuel would still be a part of the new era, and indeed a significantly important one, yet may not be as dominant as it is today. Technology is getting into the driving seat. And all this would have far reaching implications.

And the implications are in political and strategic terms too. For more than six decades, it was the crude glue that kept Riyadh and Washington together. United States has been the largest market for Saudi crude and, conversely, Washington depended, and rather heavily, on Saudi shipments to quench its crude thirst — a marriage of convenience in some senses.

That is changing now. And though even today Saudi Arabia remains a major crude supplier to the US, it is no longer the top one. And in the meantime, China has assumed the mantle of the top destination for Saudi crude. This is a major change. The crude glue binding the two nations together is slowly and gradually peeling off.

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol too acknowledges the changing environment. By 2030, electricity generation from fossil fuels will go down and renewable energies such as nuclear, hydro and others would fill the gap. The car industry is undergoing massive and rapid changes. Currently, 99 percent of cars have internal combustible engines. Now that is changing, with rather stark implications for global fossil fuel consumption. After all, 75 percent of fossil fuels today are used by the transportation sector. As per the IEA 450 scenario, 60 percent of cars by 2020 would be based on advanced technology, mainly electricity.

The world is changing and changing rapidly. The global mood seems to be shifting against fossil fuels. Although the fact remains that fossil fuels would still be moving the wheels for decades to come, its intensity is definitely going to go down. Its strategic importance may be compromised if the trend continues. Yet there are question marks about the very intention behind this transition.

When Aramco CEO Khaled Al Falih warned global energy leaders during the World Energy Congress in Montreal not to discriminate against select energy resources, he had a point. He had reasons behind raising the issue. While addressing the august gathering, Al-Falih questioned the very logic of an approximate 4.5 percent average growth per year in global coal consumption this decade, against just 1.5 percent growth in oil consumption during the same period.

And this defies common logic since coal is regarded as a bigger polluter than oil. Wasn’t this selective discrimination against crude due to the fact that two thirds of current reserves are in Middle Eastern countries?  There appears to be more politics in play than economical and environmental consideration, one could perhaps infer, and this is what apparently Al-Falih was referring to in Montreal, indeed with tongue firmly in cheek.

He indeed has a point. There is no dearth of resources. Saudi Aramco has been openly underlining that it could continue supplying the world at current levels for at least eight more decades. Dearth of resources doesn’t appear to be an issue at this stage. Issues above the ground and not below the ground have more impact on the energy world.

With two billion people having no access to modern forms of energy and another two billion only enjoying only limited access, the world needs a lot more energy than is available today. All sorts of energy would be required to meet the yawning gap between available and required resources. And selective discrimination against oil hurts this global objective.

Changing lifestyles and the addition of yet another two billion people by the middle of the century means the world would continue to rely on traditional fossil fuels for most of its energy needs in the coming decades too. The contribution of alternatives will grow, albeit slowly. The absolute demand for fossil fuels would only go up. However, selective discrimination against oil may thwart investments in the sector. And this could be disastrous. The energy world needs to stand guard against this.