Economics is about choices. Choices are driven by, in part, ambition. So, what are the ambitions of today’s world, or of today’s New Zealand? I raise this question because I am, at times, disheartened by climate change deliberations that focus on the horrendous future facing tomorrow’s generations. How is this predominantly negative focus going to instil the ambition to meet this monster challenge? And how will it help make the choices that are needed to be made?

So how can ambition help? Ambition leads to a search for diverse options and makes for more informed choices. I remember a time when, admittedly coloured with an ample dose of youthful naivety, talk was of eradicating poverty and going to the moon. Well, one out of two is not too bad, I suppose. Is climate change the equivalent for today’s teenagers? If it is, it should be presented to inspire their ambitions, rather than to scare the living daylights out of them.

Yes, I am glad that such a prestigious organisation as the Nobel Foundation has unambiguously acknowledged the importance of the challenge that climate change poses. And so I applaud the Peace Prize award to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, I do have difficulty with Al Gore being regarded in the same company as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Médecins Sans Frontières, and Aung San Suu Kyi. And that’s because I draw a large distinction between those who rely on evidence and those who primarily rely on rhetoric.

Yes, rhetoric has a place. But it should not send a message of helplessness. My fear is that the award to Al Gore reinforces the proponents of various doomsday scenarios. And, the rhetoric associated with these scenarios provides little assistance in generating options and encouraging the choices needed to protect the future. And it makes sowing the seeds of ambition just that little bit more difficult.

Also, let’s not forget that climate change is just one of many challenges. And throughout human civilisation there have been many, many challenges that have, with varying degrees of success, been met and overcome. Despite the many Armageddon proponents through the ages – from Nostradamus through to Malthus, and on to AIDS, SARS, bird flu and peak oil – there have been just as many triumphs. For example, the abolition of slavery, the technical advances through the industrial ages, the eradication of smallpox, not to mention progress fighting polio and yellow fever.

Thus, I smiled while reading Paul Roberts’ book The End of Oil¹ and its discussion of four scenarios regarding the world’s future energy options. The third-worst option postulated peak oil being hit somewhere between 2010 and 2015 causing the price of a barrel of oil to surge “to $40” with consequential global recession. A political meltdown in the Middle East underpinned the worst scenario, where oil “reached $50” and the end of the western economies as we now it.

No doubt the abolition of slavery was met with similar prognostications of the ‘end of the world as we know it’. I suppose they were right, because the world of the time did end – and a new one began. I need not add that oil has now been well over $60 for two years and is, indeed, approaching $100. And, yes, there are negative consequences, but the world’s economies continue to function and a global recession has yet to arrive. And that’s the point, civilisation did not end when slavery was abolished, nor did it end when oil reached $50 a barrel. The world just changed.

Yes, the world economies will look a lot different in a future without oil than with. And, yes, climate change may mean a dramatic new world is about to evolve, but that may not be a bad thing. As long as the ambition is there to explore as many clever options as we can come up with and be prepared to make the necessary choices.

But gloomy prognoses as to the future of the world are akin to warnings about eating too much. Without supporting evidence and practical ideas on adjustments to be made, the warnings will either fall on deaf ears, or be dismissed as interest group lobbying.

In this context I applaud the newly released New Zealand Energy Strategy in presenting the climate change discussion in a positive tone. It sets some challenging targets for the country. And it implies some dramatic choices that we will need to make concerning the way you and I live, work and play.

However, the Strategy is light on these choices and this is where I think it can be called into question. Indeed, I’m not sure if many realise the scale of the changes implied by the Strategy. Unless an informed assessment of the choices arises, then the new world may well seem perilous. However, if options are clearly understood and informed choices willingly made, then the new world may slightly more inviting.

Remember, the quest for a sustainable future is not new. It was the prime reason for the Think Big projects strategy of the late-1970s and early-1980s. That was seen as a way for New Zealand to become more economically independent and less reliant on fossil fuels from abroad. Now the emphasis is on renewables versus fossil fuels. Of course, the economist in me queries the need for regulations to limit new baseload fossil fuel generation. Ensuring a significant relative price difference between the two forms of energy generation should be sufficient to meet the desired outcome.

In economist-speak, the Energy Strategy’s 90 percent target for generation from renewables is not a cheap option. And a sustainable future is not a cheap option. But such targets are definitely ambitious. But rhetoric won’t get us there. And searching for cheap options won’t either. But an informed assessment encouraging informed choices will certainly improve our chances.