The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published their quarterly Energy Trends document last week. It covers up to the first quarter 2010. The key points:

• Total energy production in Q1 2010 was 6.5% lower than in the first quarter of 2009.
• Oil production fell by 6% compared to the first quarter of 2009.
• Natural gas production was 9% lower compared with the first quarter of 2009. The UK was a net importer of gas in the first quarter of 2010 by 155 TWh compared with 106 TWh in the first quarter of 2009.
• Coal production was 12.5% lower than a year earlier.
• Nuclear’s supply increased by 1% on the first quarter of 2009.
• Wind, hydro and other renewables supplied 6.5% less electricity than in the same period last year, with hydro down 44% as a result of less rainfall.
• Final energy consumption rose by 4% between the first quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, with rises in all sectors except transport which fell mainly due to the adverse weather conditions.
• Gas demand was 13% higher than a year earlier.
• Electricity consumption was 2.5% higher in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the same period last year.

I spend a lot of time playing "What if?" It is an important aspect of my line of work, but we all do this to some extent. I do it when I am driving - "What if that car at the next intersection pulls out in front of me?" - when I am working "What if that high pressure line ruptures?" - and at home - "What if I wake up and find the house is on fire?" I also spend a lot of time pondering the question "What if there are energy shortages in the near future?"

When we do this, we are generally trying to understand the potential consequences of various responses to a given situation. This sort of exercise is a form of risk assessment, and it is a very important tool for making decisions about events that could impact the future. Sometimes the consequences are minor. If I choose not to take an umbrella to work and it rains, there is probably a small consequence. If I choose to pass a car on a blind hill, the consequence may be severe, and may extend to other people.

In this essay I will explore the implications of the question: "What if I am wrong on peak oil or global warming?"

This is a guest post from Robin Lovelace (lovelacerobin@yahoo.com), a graduate student at the University of York, UK. As part of his Environmental Science and Management MSc Robin was asked to pick a policy area and discuss how it could adapt to climate change. Due in part to the Oil Drum, he decided to include peak oil in the discussion, with a reluctant ‘OK’ from Professor Mike Ashmore. Robin is a qualified bicycle mechanic, writing part-time for Interclimate, starting an interdisciplinary PhD in energy research next year and wants to save the world.

On April 27/28, 2009 the Europe Forum Lucerne organized a workshop entitled Energy - A Conflict Area: Trends and Horizons.

In the tradition of a townhouse meeting, the Swiss public was invited to Lucerne to listen to an impressive number of high-caliber politicians, scientists, and journalists discussing issues of energy security that Switzerland and the world will be facing in the coming years.

The author of this report attended the conference and wishes to report to the readers of The Oil Drum what he heard at the meeting … and also what he didn't hear.

It is certainly a laudable goal to get the public involved in discussions concerning energy security issues as these undoubtedly affect all of us directly. We need to be informed in order to be able to contribute to the solution of the problems facing us and in order to reach the best decisions for ourselves.

Yet this conference once again missed an opportunity to inform in an unbiased way. The discussions were dominated by political interest groups, and the people attending the meeting were sent home with assurances that there is nothing to be worried about. We were told that we still have oil and gas for decades to come.