I am surprised not to see more weight given to the influence of pricing. Except for a few comments on the relative price sensitivity of transport versus industrial uses, there is very little discussion of the most powerful and far-reaching driver of both supply and demand. Policies to reduce energy demand, or to shift it from one source to another, are likely to be overwhelmed unless they align with the signals that pricing gives to the several billion people that make energy use decisions every day.

I think large multinational companies have to play a major role in popularizing the use of green energy (backed by the government). Every thing should start from the tiniest devices ranging from MP3 players to Laptops. We already have a lot of small companies doing this. They make use of the available renewable sources like solar, wind, and biomass. And this change has to kick start from the developing economies, as we see according to the graph above, they are the ones consuming more compared to the developed ones.

The reason why I say developing economies is that they are the ones who look to buy more and more electronic products, and the growth rate for electronics is always on the rise. In short, these can be the factors which will affect the peoples decision on turning towards green products.

1) Multi National companies taking initiative by manufacturing green products.
2) Government backing up the “green start-ups” by providing subsidies.

Our energy usage will keep growing as civilisation grows. The more complex and structured a civilisation is, the more energy it needs to maintain the structure.
1) A big change to the overall energy picture will only happen when we make big changes across the entire energy supply and demand systems. The internet is one enabler in keeping a complex civilisation running on less energy.
2) Changing the oil picture will only change if we move to renewable energy. (After all, an electric car charged from a fossil fuel power station consumes the same primary fuel per km as an equivalent petrol car, hence doesn’t change the picture overall.)
3) Such changes can only happen fast and well if done together with everyone affected by the changes. People and planet need to be in the centre together with profit as we move forward.

The energy demands do also have social and cultural issues attached, particularly so in developing economies where societal elevations have made rural and underprivileged populations more dependent on energy.

Technology and energy efficiency measures retard this move to higher consumption levels, marginally. These needs to be factored too until basic infrastructure, such as mass public transport, is established; affordable alternate technology, like electric cars, is available; and an energy-efficiency based culture is absorbed.

I am slightly bewildered by this interactive graphic. I select 50% all electric vehicles and almost nothing happens. Yet the implications are in fact huge for reducing pollution and global politics (resource wars). On the other hand it does not reduce demand much since usage is assumed to remain the same. To reduce energy use in transportation, you need mass transportation, livable cities, information technology (surrogate travel), and lighter more efficient cars.

Similarly, usage is not necessarily affected by alternative technologies such as wind and solar but they have the same effect as electric vehicles: much less pollution and more national energy autonomy in the global economy and in homes and communities.

To reduce demand per se is a tall order, even if a very good idea. Meeting the demand in sustainable ways is more feasible and it has been the focus to date. However a focus on end use efficiencies, see Amory Lovins work, and conservation and co-generation technologies, would do both.

So the purpose of this graphic is what? To show that energy demand is heavy and rising, is fairly recession proof, and is impervious to alternative technologies not accompanied by greater efficiency or changed behavior?

What happens when a large chunk of the population in India, China, and other emerging economies climb on the energy and oil ladder, even without being linked to GDP growth and other supporting factors? In school when I was scoring less than 10 (out of 100) in mathematics, I did not need any postitive stimulus to score around 20-25, only with time I ‘imporved’ to that level.

Let’s understand one thing, the under-privileged population in emerging economies is so large that their upward migration in sectors like energy consumption, education, etc, is on auto-pilot or time-driven. GDP and other facilitating factors will only accentuate the forward process.

I do not know, whether the model accounts for that type of underlying inertial variables, otherwise it will be akin to long-term weather forecasting.

The context of this writing seems to be inclined towards the economic impact of neglecting social issues. What is more important is the after effect of energy efficiency on the bottom line (GDP) of developing countries who export fuel. These countries are still plagued with mismanagement, misappropriation of resources, and corruption and have not been able to better the lives of their citizens with the enormous funds generated from such exports. The question then is how will they survive when demand for fossil fuel decreases significantly? If such countries cannot sustain growth because of a decrease in self-generated income, then they will rely heavily on handouts and aids from developed countries thereby stretching these developed nations.

Make hay when the sun is still shining.

These underdeveloped exporting countries should use these export proceeds judiciously by increasing their reserves or by creating legacy structures and systems that can sustain them after 2015. If not then there is fire on the mountain and flood by the valley for these countries.

When you consider that the science is suggesting that we need global emissions stabilisation before 2015 to remain within the mythical 2 degree C global temperature rise, this looks pretty frightening, really.

Richard Otte raised a very important point and it is about the time required to make a change in energy consumption, especially if the focus is light duty (passenger cars and light trucks) vehicles, as the McKinsey scenarios are focused.

Take the US, one of the largest light-duty markets in the world, where the average age of a passenger car is nearly ten years old. Yes, you read that right, ten years... so any regulatory activity around corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) or electric vehicles will have long lead times for impact.

And this is just light-duty vehicles in the US. Other energy uses and other geographies are not considered in my comments, and just energy/oil consumption is considered in the McKinsey scenarios, not greenhouse gases. This underscores the complexity of any solution, the need for a local and global consideration of each solution, and the need for speed.

The projection of global energy demand fails to consider the revolution of urban transportation from personal automated transport (PAT), which will improve the energy efficiency of passenger transportation by one order of magnitude. In this case, the energy demand for developed countries will drop significantly, and the energy demand for developing countries will only increase modestly since they will largely bypass automobile and go directly to the new mode of urban transportation. The global energy demand will be lower in 2020 than the current level.

How is energy productivity and its sub-criteria defined?

If one had to ignore the transport sector to do such a project, what could the possible criteria be?

First, an observation. What is more important than the amount of energy used is the source of the energy. If we move to nuclear, and to the extent possible renewables, and greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, then this level of consumption is OK. If we do not, this is worrisome due to the implied resulting global warming.

Second, I’m surprised at how little the various scenarios change the energy required. That suggests we need major efforts beyond what is currently proposed to reduce green house gases.

Hi. I read the article and used the interactive chart which I found very useful. I have a question. I am interested to understand why under a Very Severe Downturn scenario, all other factors constant, demand in developing countries in 2010 actually rises as opposed to a Severe Downturn scenario. I would have expected it to either decrease or remain constant. is there a reason why this is the case?