Introduction

Combined, the chapters in this volume present a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the interdependencies between the climate, energy and water sectors, and the knock-on consequences of those interdependencies for other issues such as food production and biodiversity conservation. In many respects, the book makes for sobering reading, and it is worth recalling some of the most alarming facts presented by the authors, which stress the enormity and urgency of the challenges ahead.

To recall, the problem

In 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted 35 per cent growth in annual global energy demand from 2010 to 2035, and under a forecast scenario that accounts for planned energy-related policies and announced commitments, it estimated global oil, coal and natural gas consumption to expand from 2010 to 2035 by 13 per cent, 21 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively (IEA 2012, cited in Chapter 4). Significantly, even with an anticipated increase in market share for renewable energy (eg seven-fold and twenty-five-fold projected increases in wind and solar photovoltaic generation, respectively), fossil fuels are still expected to satisfy the vast majority of future energy demand (IEA 2012, cited in Chapter 4). If the IEA projections hold true, resulting carbon dioxide emissions would rise by over 20 per cent, corresponding to a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degree Celsius (IEA 2012), ushering in a suite of climate impacts.

Those impacts in turn pose major, near-term risks for energy systems, largely from episodic disruptions due to extreme weather events, especially in particularly vulnerable regions. For both energy supply and energy use, extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires pose significant threats to sustainable energy services and thus to societies and economies (IPCC 2014). Both electricity demand and electricity supply will be affected by increases in both average and extreme temperatures, as heating requirements reduce and cooling requirements increase.

Introduction

There was a time, not very long ago, when scholars, policy makers and those engaged in private enterprise were consumed by the quest for sustainable development. Gaining prominence after the 1987 Brundtland Report and subsequent UN-sponsored conferences, the concept of sustainable development demanded and received enormous attention over several decades, and in many ways, the achievements of those heady days are remarkable. For example, the key tenets of sustainable development – notably, the principles of precaution, policy integration, inter- and intra-generational equity, and the polluter pays principle – were incorporated into significant international law and into the domestic policies of almost every country on earth. The sense of urgency and import generated in that period also ushered in a suite of initiatives and instruments to support the process towards sustainable development, from ‘triple bottom line reporting’ and ‘corporate social responsibility’, through to the mainstreaming of environmental impact assessments and third-party certification of environmental practices. Not surprisingly, the momentum generated from the late 1980s onwards was matched by a concomitant rise in the representation of pro-environment parties in many countries, the establishment of national and state departments of the environment, and the proliferation of sustainability-related professions and associated educational offerings.

But somewhere along the way sustainable development – the ideological concept, process and goal – has almost disappeared from the international stage. Indeed, notwithstanding its rebadging to a green economy by UNEP, ‘green growth’ and the post-Rio+20 emergence of Sustainable Development Goals, it is fair to say that the global effort expended on ‘sustainable development’ has faded, replaced by similar levels of zeal and activity targeted at climate change. Why is that the case? Perhaps because the all-encompassing scope of ‘sustainable development’ made it unwieldy and intractable in practice? Or was it a consequence of the characteristic boredom that humanity exhibits when a concept lurks too long or is too difficult to achieve?