In both energy resource scenarios we are faced with an impending and necessary restructuring. We can either run the course of the present energy framework, adapting to emerging challenges as they arise, or alternatively, begin to construct a new energy framework that integrates local, regional and global networks into a new international architecture of sustainability. Whereas the first scenario (which they term Scramble) relies on the activities of national governments to secure their future energy supply, the second (termed Blueprint) emerges as a consequence of grassroots coalitions (recall those 5 billion joined-up people) that bring together individuals, companies and other institutions to construct a new foundation for energy and resource generation and control.
In the Scramble scenario, over the coming decades, governments around the world scramble to attempt to guarantee the maximum amount available to them of the dwindling resource pool. In asserting their autonomy rather than agreeing to cooperate, governments increasingly compete with each other to secure energy for their domestic consumers. This has the impact of preserving high-energy prices and putting increasing strain on the existing energy infrastructure. In this scenario, although prosperity persists throughout the 2010s and 2020s, this relentless scramble and competition for energy resources continues to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Many of the resource gains that are made are due to the resurgence of the coal sector. In this scenario multilateral governmental institutions find themselves too weak to subsidise the creation of a global clean energy sector. To supplement the use of finite coal reserves, domestic investment is instead directed to the expansion of nuclear power and a modernised biofuel industry. In the short term they manage to sustain economic growth throughout the 2020s.
However, in the longer term (2020 and beyond) the scenario is increasingly negative. In the Scramble scenario governments increasingly have to react to the emerging constraints of the traditional energy framework, imposing solutions that often have immediate benefits but long-term negative consequences. Coal is not without its environmental problems, while nuclear fuel produces nuclear waste, and the biofuel industry competes with the food industry, pushing up prices of food to unsustainable levels. As a consequence, by 2025 the uncoordinated efforts of governments to secure resources have ensured that the existing framework is stretched to its limit, eventually necessitating draconian measures on production, consumption and mobility. For the governments of China and India, still in the process of developing a modernised industrial economy, these constraints prove hard to enforce. In Europe and America the introduction of a carbon tax and the scrutiny of the carbon footprints of individuals and companies put pressure on people to work from home and live austere lives. It is only when governments, companies and individuals reach this impasse that substantial steps to create a new energy sector are taken. Having failed to cooperate sooner, instead insisting on competing to use what remained of traditional energy reserves, nations begin to realise the extent of this undertaking. Not only do they have to restructure their energy framework completely, but they also have to confront the oncoming consequences of their lack of restraint.
The second Blueprint scenario reveals the beneficial aspect of confronting climate change and energy problems sooner (that is, before 2020) rather than later. It is also a scenario that depends both on a sense of urgency and the flow of information. It relies on the practical actions of well-coordinated coalitions who have acknowledged the implications of climate change, and are quick in their efforts to secure a safe and sustainable future. These coalitions include companies with mutual energy interests, cities and regions conscious of their future energy requirements, and a whole host of other institutions that are united in formulating low-carbon ventures. In this scenario general awareness of the damaging effects of climate change, and the initial successes of creative and efficient experiments and practices in infrastructural development, play key roles. Productive processes and lifestyle choices are quickly emulated by others on a national and regional scale. As more and more people come to accept the threats that a high-carbon economy poses to their environment and livelihood, pressure on governments, including those of developing countries, increases investment in emission-reduction projects. Emissions trading schemes offer incentives for the establishment of low-carbon ventures, while giving more traditional sectors the opportunity to adjust.
In this scenario, the Blueprints established by these multiple actors quickly create a culture of sustainability, helping to fuel a more effective international consensus. In turn, this consensus mitigates the inefficiencies and uncertainties that might otherwise continue to undermine a disintegrated, bottom-up approach. In order to stay at the forefront of innovation, many technologically developed countries bring about an era of brave policy-making that incentivises the creation of new and efficient infrastructural foundations. This establishes the emergence of new and innovative firms that become global leaders in exportable carbon management technologies and systems. Meanwhile, China and India commit to various international frameworks that guarantee technology transfer and secure an energy-efficient future. In rural areas of Africa, cheap and efficient wind turbines and solar panels ensure cost-effective access to energy and help make electric transport increasingly viable. Energy prices, though initially reflecting the cost of infrastructural reorganisation, remain affordable in the long run and continue to fall as wind and solar technology become more efficient.
These two scenarios, Scramble and Blueprint, are not polar extremes – neither is unrealistic. Yet they do differ substantially. The first is one of denial and competition, while the second is of acknowledgement and cooperation. Both inevitably confront the hard truths of climate change without sacrificing economic growth. These are the three pieces of the energy force that will have the most profound implications on the future of work.
1. Energy prices increase: Over the coming decades the easily available energy resources of the world will be depleted. At the same time, countries such as China and India will increase their resource requirements significantly. One of the most immediate impacts of the rising cost of resources will be that the movement of goods and transportation of people will have to be significantly reduced.
2. Environmental catastrophes displace people: the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature increases was already causing concern by 2010. By this time, changes had begun to occur in the many ecosystems of the world, sea levels began rising, wind patterns had changed and heat waves and droughts had become more prevalent.
3. A culture of sustainability begins to emerge: one of the implications of the dwindling of easily accessed energy resources could be a renewed interest in sustainability and widespread adoption of more energy-efficient ways of living, with a brake on vicarious consumption. These cultures of sustainability could have a profound impact on the way that work gets done.
As we consider the dark and bright impact energy resources will have on the future of work, it is easy to become overwhelmed by the negative. However, as we will discover, it is possible to cast the task ahead in a positive light, one that can rejuvenate faltering economies, promote greater equality and foster innovation. It could constitute, to some extent at least, an energy revolution that echoes that of the late 1800s, with the culture of sustainability having as much impact as the engineering culture had on Victorian Britain. It is possible that the collaborative spirit will influence business ventures and government policy, creating greater transparency and integration even beyond the energy sector. There are already clues to these scenarios in the other forces. The technology force implies 5 billion people connected with each other, creating a ‘cognitive surplus’ that could well become the momentum and energy behind the grassroots-led