Richard from Bristol is dead right, THE only solution can only be.... a combination of ALL the solutions discussed so far : a radical push on energy efficiency -particularly in rich countries with ludicrous BTU's/capita consumption and high CO2/capita emission-, a combination of all the renewables we have heard of, biofuels, a lot of nuclear... and, yes, high taxes and tough regulations incetivating all the above....and, by the way, we have to move fast on all these.

Juan Sabogal, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Isn't it depressing how nearly all the comments above are searching for ONE SIMPLE answer. The result is that opinion and people are frighteningly divided as each champions a particular solution - becoming a squabbling mass that cannot agree on action.

The truth is that this is not a simple problem and so the answers will be complex and diverse. Just about every solution suggested will have some part to play - more efficiency, more renewables, more local power, some biofuel, (and, yes, some nuclear).

Time to wake up and see that almost all of those solutions are valid in some way.

Next time you hear yourself say 'surely all we need to do is...' or 'this is just a simple matter of...' just stop and instead think about how many of the solutions in the room will make a contribution. Then stop arguing act together.

Richard, Bristol, UK

So long as fossil fuels are the most economical energy source, it will be the most abundant energy sourse.

As we are just starting to find with renewables such as ethanol from corn, this route could have devastating effects on the global food supply and food price inflation. China has wisely banned the production of fuel from food sources.

IMHO, the global warming hysteria is not supported by irrefutable scientific fact. and so long as the "true believers" absurdly attempt to close off all debate, the science will not move forward.

There is plently of oil and gas in the ground, and we are safe to use it. But it will cost more to get out of the ground than it has in the past, proiding soem support for alternatuive technologies such as solar & wind energy. I cannot support nuclear energy so long as a solution has not been found for disposal of the depleted fuel rods.

Stop worrying and enjoy life.

Tom, San Rafael, CA

The best way to avoid emissions, is to simply not use the energy at all. At current consumption levels we can get oil prices back to $30/bbl from $60/bbl by improving our efficiency in relative terms by factor 2. And we can spend upto $30/bbl doing it, extending current longevity of supplies by the same factor, simply because prices will continue to rise if we do nothing at all about our behaviour. Why spend money on literally burying the problem by CCS when spending less money most likely will set us on a path of truly sustainable development of ever improving efficieny, energy conservation and technological advancement until finally we can grow all we like and face different problems most likely, but at least not this one.

Wout Dillmann, Bergschenhoek, Netherlands

So called "renewables" are just another means of energy conversion to a usable form. Unfortunately they are, in the main, unreliable and intermittent in their output - for instance, in the event of a long calm summer, where is the "windmill" power? In the event of Russia limiting gas supplies, how many power stations reduce output or close?
We need to have guaranteed power supplies under complete national control and this can only be nuclear!!
I would like to see heavily subsidised, untaxed, solar panel systems made available for taxpayers to install on their homes for power generation, thus reducing the fuel demands. These generate regardless of sunshine or cloud.

Chris Goodman, Fareham, England

Too true Jeremy
When are our 'leaders' going to realise that we can not continue to grow exponentially in a finite system! They seem to be so enamoured with the reality that they and their financial buddies have created that they can’t see any alternatives.

Climate Change and Oil Dependency are linked to one thing and that is the unsustainability of our current economic system which has grown totally divorced from the environmental and social necessities of life.

Considerable work is in progress by such bodies as the New Economics Foundation looking at alternative measures of progress (wellbeing rather than GDP/GVA) and the sooner we can get them in place the better.

Ian, Truro, Cornwall

Hello Everyone,
The point you all so conveniently miss is that with the current rates of population growth and economic growth, there isn't a cat in hells chance that we'll ever achieve 100Mb oil a day, in fact within a few years decline in production of existing sources will be so rapid that nothing we do will even be capable of keeping us running at present day levels. Think about what we use oil for.

We will need 0.66 times all of the oil we have ever found in history to meet demand growth by 2030 (120Mb/day). Discovery peaked in the 1960s.

If we don't choose to reduce our energy use, nature will simply force us to, it's simple mathematics of finite resources being consumed by exponential growth.

See Albert Bartletts work. Essentially many our key resources are reaching maximum output. Growth might continue in the wealthiest countries to a small degree, the poor countries will suffer first and then the poorer members of the so-called developed world. Check-out ASPO, the info..

Dr Jeremy Wilkinson, Nelson,

Hi, I took a class in Oceanography about 20 years ago, and there is an enormous amount of potential energy available from the Ocean, over 1,000 times the present amount that is being used.
One source are the Western Boundary Currents, such as the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshia Current, off the coast of the U.S. and Japan, respectively.
Another source is the Thermal Gradient, the difference between the surface temp, and the temp in the lower part of the Sea. There are devices that are being used for this, in Hawaii, and in the Caribbean.
A third source are dams, currently on the White River, and in France, with another 20 or so sites around the world.
Source, "Oceanography: an Introduction", by Igmanson and Wallace.
I am starting an initative in my area, to get put on the ballot, other sources of energy, in my area.
I suggest that you do the same.

Joe, Oceanville, N.J.

With van der Veer and Tillerson saying oil and gas can’t keep up with demand – and also pointing out renewables can’t fill the gap – what are we left with? Energy shortage, that’s what. When ExxonMobil calls for a carbon tax we should know it’s time to panic!

Chris Vernon, Bristol, UK

Its nice to see people starting to wake up the problems we face, although they still don’t get to the cause and without doing that they wont get to an effective solution. They mention economic growth. I wonder if it has occurred to them that if we were to cut back that economic growth will bring us back to the same point sooner or later? I wonder if they realise that its economic growth that has brought us to the point in the first place? Perhaps we should start looking for an alternative socioeconomic system?

Dr. A. Wallace, Umeå, Sweden

Why not get your local household energy from the source--use photovoltaic cells on all roovesand solar water panels. then the excess can be stored say in some hydrostatic measurre to be available to boost supply when required quickly.battery technology needs to be iimproved and be cheap. We may find that the lots of littlpackets of energy from homes can be used to generate hydrogen via electrolysis for the futurenhydrogen driven vehicles.
Little trickles of solar energy could drive electric motors for all sorts of uses.The cumulative combined effect should save coal and oil for manufactoure of plastics and other chemicals.
Photovoltaic cells dont have to be superefficient ,but it would help.
eg try photovoltaic driven irrigation of deserts.
There is not much in it for the current energy suppliers!!
Governments need to initiate the change with home subsidies.

Terry Jones, Tauranga, New Zealand

"“The supply outlook for nonOpec countries will be modestly up or flat,” Mr Tillerson predicted. He was sceptical about the drive by governments to increase use of biofuels and said that a fifth of America’s corn crop was being used to produce four billion gallons of ethanol, compared with targets of 12 billion gallons by 2012."

This is very telling. US liquid fuel (petrol and diesel) consumption is 200 billion gallons per year, so if 4 billion takes one fifth of the crop then it will take ten times the current US corn crop to replace all the liquid fuels, or 11 times if people want to eat too.

G Watson, Newcastle,

The world's energy supplies will be enough for the next 30 or so years but we need to start thinking about organic fuels and other kinds of alternative sources more efficiently! What we have today are just discussions and plans that nobody knows how successful will turn out to be.

The recent global warming issues have become very popular and a way of making a company well-known by advertising using this notorious warning. But believe me, not many people pay the needed attention. When they do,however, it will be too late. That's what all scientists are trying to emphasize.

Let's not make these serious problems (oilfields going into decline and global warming taking greater dimensions) into another multi-billion campaign that will just coin money to some people and continue causing severe damage to our environment.

Tsanimir Tsanev, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Is this not a simple matter of supply and demand? Whenever the supply/demand ratio alters in favour of demand, the price goes up. When the price goes up, those who can't afford to pay go without.
Of course, those who can afford to pay may have to make sacrifices elsewhere, so in future, living standards may fall in the West as heating, transport, and industrial energy becomes costlier. But we currently have such affluence that we can afford to fall a long way before things get serious.

Tony Jones, Grantham, UK

Even more reason to concentrate on, and promote reduction in business and personal energy use.

Caroline Baker, London, England

I keep hearing that biofuels are "not the silver bullet that will solve our problems" but I never heard anyone say that it was. Although 30% biofuels by 2050 sounds like a significant contribution to me. Does anyone want to wait until we do find that "silver bullet" before we start building toward a future without "fossil-fuels"? Does anyone want to guess how much gas will cost in 2050 without a 30% contribution from fossil fuels.
http://www.mrbiofuel.net

Chuck Downing, New Boston, Michigan, U.S.

The suggestion that we use Cuba as an example of how to face the need to cut down on energy use is a breakthrough - Why not put the idea to the Chinese government, after all they are destined very shortly to be the biggest producers of CO2 emissions. I am sure that they will cut back when given this great example of how to do it.

Gerard, Brussels, Belgium

If you were to look at www.trecers.net it would be possible to see that there are strong possibilities for renewable energy this one concentrates on using the solar power that falls on this planet's desert regions - The Sahara in this case - and using it to supply a grid for the supply to both Europe and Africaso it can develop. It's always a concern to see opinions coming from the all powerful lobbies - in this case the oil companies. I am certain that they will be the first to leap on the bandwagon of change to renewables but only if they see a change in the way the consumer uses and recycles the products they manufacture - That's us. 1% of the sun falling on the Sahara could supply all of Europe's electricity - to get the grid in place would take some 40 years - let's get started.

John Huggins, Norwich, Norfolk

Atomic power can do the job. Metal reactors, either Na or Pb-Bi, have small cores and can be placed underground. These reactors operate at close to atmospheric pressure. Decay heat removal systems can reject at 3% pile power while pile is at full power. All requisite technology has been tested at full scale. All fuel can come as a byproduct of the 200 mega-tonnes per year P2O5 required to feed the human race and save the rain forests. 25,000 GWe is required by around 2080. High burnup, greater than 50 MWd/kg-HM and mixing during reprocessing will insure sufficient 240+ plutonium isotopes to make reprocessed fuel useless for weapons production. The breeder reactor can save the planet and modern civilization at the same time.
Atomic electricity would be used to produce aluminum cars powered by hydrazine and aircraft powered by liquid hydrogen.
Hot water is supplied by heat pumps. All that is requred is a little courage. Renewable energy is by definition useless.

William Ernest Schenewerk, Los Angeles, USA/California

Energy efficiency has always been the way to go but amercians do not like cars that do 40 to the gallon up from 5 to 15 now do they and only legislation or large scale increases in the price of oil can help out here. I doubt that the US Government will legislate (the yanks hate government interference) so maybe peak oil will be the only way that fuel makes people act efficiently.

If we cannot curb our energy habits than do not expect coal, oil and gas to bail us out as all of these products will also peak before 2050, oil first, then gas and finally coal. We need energy efficiency prograns, we need alternatives and we need them now to offset news stations reporting death and misery on a untold scale unless we do.

I sit and wait for nothing to happen because nothing works like the free market economy and people are sheep really.

Pete Best, Northampton, UK

So Mr van de Veer thinks "Alternative energy sources, such as renewables, will not fill the gap". Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? After all, he's making his money from selling oil, not renewables - no matter how "green" an image attempts to purvey. Had Shell put its money into renewable energies 20 years ago instead of oil exploration, it would be selling mainly renewables today. Interestingly, this is company that, only a few years ago, was found to have overstated its oil reserves. So I have to ask Mr van de Veer, will there actually be any oil left to sell in a decade?

Paulina Smid, London, UK

Yes - current so called renewables are not the answer, merely a slight temporary fix.
No, oil (etc) is not the answer either, the criticisms are correct.
And no, the future does not have to be bleak, there is an answer.

IF, and only if, the science establishment escapes it's closed mind and ego, and politicians and activists allow themselves to be educated, there really are other forms of energy and energy technologies that are sitting in private research labs right now, generating renewable energy - "Zero Point Energy". This is not myth, fantasy, unproven, unreproducable or anything else other than THE solution. Zero point IS proven, but mainstream science and it's supporters still froth at the mouth over the obsession with "perpetual motion machines". ZP can fix everything, now. There are many inventors working on it, with, in places, great success. But they are dismissed and underfunded. It is insane that we are "letting the ship sink" while the means to keep it afloat is here.

Alex Kerr, London, UK

There is no way that renewable sources like wind and sun would meet the increasing demands for power, however, individuals could make greater use of solar panels to provide some personal reduction in energy costs and there is no reason why many buildings with south-facing roofs or even walls could not be fitted with solar panels. However, to address the problem on a much bigger scale, in other words if we want to deal with the growing demand for energy sources, whilst also reducing carbon emissions, then the only way forward, at the moment, is to build nuclear power stations, possibly smaller and providing resources to smaller areas or regions.

Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England

The real world is finally talking. Climate change fascists propose solutions that deny the 3rd world their chance to live a little better than they do at the cost of life denied. Climate change deniers don't recognise that we heavy consumers of carbon don't have to do anything. Both polarities are unreasonable.

The way to solve the problem is economic growth because that will provide the wealth to both reduce the population from its current overpopulated 6.5 bn to more susatinable levels, and to develop the technology we need so that we do not damage the earth at a rate we cannot sustain. We are clearly consuming energy faster than we can access it and the damage done in pollution terms alone, setting aside the climate change arguments which are far from certain (NEVER trust the consensus especially one that is claimed politicians) because there are plenty of good reasons for not depleting, by definition, scarce natural resources.

Ian Campbell, Truro, UK

The solution to the problem is complicated but ultimately achievable. Various things need to happen which can be summarised as follows;

Renewables gradually increased as much as possible to take some of the burden.
Energy efficiency coupled with a lower energy demanding lifestyle incorporated by society and inevitably (unfortunately) more Nuclear Power Stations to plug the gap. I realise the latter is unpopular with many people but civilsation will still require electrical power in the future and these are the only viable long term solution. The waste can be safely stored, in a relatively small space deep underground, until it is no longer radioactive and the safety features in place within the plants mean a repeat of Chernobyl is impossible.

There is no way we (humans) could survive with almost no electrical power at all and to think that renewable could provide all the power we need is just madness.

Mike, Poole,

When youre fed a big plate of someone telling you what they think you want to hear, you might take it. I think these men are wrong. I think they said what they stockholders wanted them to say. If we want a better world, rich countries have to lead by example. As one of them pointed out with the rich country reference, it really is about the almighty dollar. Or whatever currency is favorable. Efficiency as the Shell guy pointed out was a great reference, but of course it was not mentioned at length. The truth is the problem is out of the hands of the common man. This is a BIG problem that governments, rich and poor alike, and industry are still ignoring. Just because you have "environmental" commercials on tv doesn't mean you are doing enough to help the planet. I just wish the outlook wasnt so grim. I hate to think what things are going to be like when I get old

Adam, Mcallen, Texas

If he had his way nothing would be done and we would
all burn oil gas and coal untilthe lights went out!!!!

Well!!!

What else would you expect him to say!!!!

McGahon, Dublin, Ireland

The whole energy / global warming theory debate needs a rethink. Renewables were never more than marginal answer. The clear answer to strategic energy needs and the perceived need to fight global warming debate is nuclear. By the way, I was interested to see that the Times and the British media ignored a science story in the New York Times a week or so ago. The research, going back over ten years has strongly suggest that the principal cause of Arctic ice melt was not CO2 but soot in the atmosphere that has settled on the ice cap and prompted up to 1.5 degrees of the 1.6 degree increase in the average temperature of the region. The research carried out by the highly regarded University of California felt that of the two evils soot and CO2, soot was currently the biggest evil. Of course that runs somewhat counter to conventional thinking in the UK and was ignored. If it is true, and the science is strong, the UK is being further hoodwinked by the global warming fundamentalists.

James, Epsom, Surrey

No mention of nuclear?

A Moger, Leeds, UK

J from Rapid City, get your head out of the sand.

With billions of Asians developing their economies (and overtaking the rest of us), renewables have no chance of making any meaningful impact for decades. The ethanol fad will just drive up the price of grains - are you really willing to pour food into your car??

Get real - oil, coal and nuclrea are sorely need and becoming more expensive by the day.

Bharat Vara, London , UK

Global market forces will prevail.

The era of cheap oil providing energy is gone for ever, more efficient ways will be found to take and store energy directly from the sun instead of using the medium of fossils.

The price of oil-based fuels will continue to rise, and oil will only be used as manufacturing feedstock, which is what should have been happening all along.

We will become more efficient at saving energy because we will not be able to afford not to.

Bill, Durham, UK

Renewables vs. Fossil fuels. The age old debate rises again.
Does nuclear really produce no CO2. What about the enormous cost of buidling the plant? Is Uranium dug from the ground, and therefore takes no energy? I hope so.

Simon, JiNan, China

Can you say "nuclear" ? Sure, I knew you could. It's the only proven source of non-GHG emitting electricity out there that can provide the quantities that we are looking for. Sure, we will be dependent on coal and oil for a long time to come, renewables can't come close. But we are serious about cutting emissions, this is the only alternative twithout to returning to the dark ages.

T. Foulke, Laramie, WY/ USA

Should it be sad to see that the need/ availability for energy is still dictated by a free market approach, hence less incentives for increasing the pace of developing renewable energy?

Or should it be considered sad we (the consumers) continue to blame the energy companies or event development countries but are reluctant to pay more for "green energy"?

seems that everyone in the value chain is waiting for some party to take a risk....

Gijsbertus van der Kroon, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Mr. van der Veer is saying that traditional carbon based fuels cannot keep up with the rising demand, the attempt may harm the environment more than we can accept, but he also seems to believe that developing alternative sources of energy cannot succeed.

If, as he says, carbon based fuels cannot succeed, and if Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil and all the other oil giants do not believe that developing alternatives is worthwhile, then it certainly makes sense to stop paying the oil monopoly so many billions in Euros and Dollars as subsidies and tax credits, and use the money for something that might have a chance to replace oil and coal.

Glenn Andersen, Orange County, California, USA

It is up to tough European rules that do not allow scientists from undeveloped countries to come and make research in order to support sustainable solutions and inventions. Genius are not determined by the country of birth, the mistery of genom combinations does not recognize borders, restrictions and any limitation. So let us be more open in thinking and allow equal chance for every clever head in the world.

Kristina, Belgrade, Serbia

Has Mr Wilkinson (first comment at bottom of page) ever been to Cuba and seen first hand the quality of life there?

If not, I suggest he visits there first before claiming how well Cuba does with a fraction of the energy consumption of other countries. In fact they don't manage - they are barely existing.

Sally, London,

Is it coincidence that no mention has been made of the strongest alternative to Oil / Gas / Coal powered generation?

Nuclear Generation produces little, if no CO2 (If CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, causing the atmosphere to heat up) and produces electricity in sufficient quantity to compete on Fossil Fuel output.

It may be a politicaly distasteful subject, but one that should be discussed and considered in an objective manner. The lesser alternatives may have their part to play, but as yet these seem to lack enough maturity to provide a consistent level of supply to match the demands of any nations consumption.

Jeremy Williamson, London, UK

Any way you try to tweak the knobs, this doesn't sound good for the future.

Hilda, Washington, DC

At last some honesty...

The question is, will governments enact conservation schemes, or will it be more business as usual with airport expansion, road building etc believing in the power of the market instead of the geological and engineering realities?

R Thoburn, Bournemouth, Dorset

Sniff sniff, it is just to hard to make do with renewable energy. We need to use more oil says the chief exec of any oil company. We need to use more blood from troops and civilians alike...The very thought of this renewable energy taking the place of the oil, is just pusillanimity at its best. Please disregard the global warming nonsense and get off the couch and get to driving a big SUV (the bigger the better) and leave your worries to the oil execs, we will take care of you and all of your needs. Trust big oil, we will not harm you...

j, Rapid City, USA

The illusion of cheap energy and endless growth is the myth that is leading us towards severe hardship and ultimately severe disruption of our climate.

The alternatives barely scratch the surface compared to our huge reliance on fossil fuels. The least painful way out of this mess we've created is behaviour change on a massive scale. A return to local economies and communites.

Cuba lost 80% of it's oil supply when the Soviet Union collapsed, they re-structured, a massive conversion to organic farming, every urban space converted to food production. They still enjoy the same life expectancy and infant mortality as the US, and they use an 8th of the energy per capita!

Collapse is only inevitable if we refuse to adapt. So, wake-up everyone, even Rupert Murdoch wants to make News International carbon neutral by 2012 (fat chance), but the desire alone is a major step.

The runaway train of growth will ultimately grind to a halt, but in some places faster than others.

Make a change...

Jeremy Wilkinson, Nelson, New Zealand

The simple fact is that the planet is overpopulated, in the last sixty years the worlds population has exploded, thanks to plentiful and cheap oil, talk of biofuels is a nonsence because agriculture is oil intensive

We are led to beleive by governments and the media that global warming caused by man is the problem, the myth of global warming, will soon be forgotten when people start to die, and yes we will return to coal,it is inevitable.

The cheap energy supply ,(oil) as it contracts wil impact on the worlds population, and i fear millions will die, even the use of coal can not make up for our dependence on oil to keep our road transport in a highley complex society ticking over.

Peter Barnes, salford, manchester