letter to the editor
  from: Offshore Engineer
  Friday, April 04, 2008

Sir, A strong economy is fundamental to the progression of any society, regardless of the basis of trade and currency (hard or soft). Unfortunately, Prof Economides is a bit wide of the mark (OE November 2007) when he loosely interprets the work of Adam Smith: it is not industrialization that separated the rich and poor countries at the time that his works were published. Smith addressed two fundamental questions in his work TheWealth of Nations; 1) how wealth is created, and 2) how wealth is allocated. Smith answered (1) by stating that wealth – ie economic value – is created when people take raw materials from their environment and, through their labour, turn it into a product that other people want. In its most basic form, economic value is created when the productivity of that labour is improved (industrialization is only an extension of this postulation). Regarding (2), Smith’s supposition was that only the individual can determine his own level of happiness; therefore individual choice would lead to the most fair allocation of wealth. In terms of society as a whole, Smith postulated that society would allocate resources as efficiently as possible to achieve the most fair allocation of wealth – ie inefficient allocation of resources is morally unjust as it results in reduced wealth for the society.

Instead of delving into the issues of poverty, social injustice, ecological degradation, and, yes, climate change, Prof Economides instead uses what should be a forum for serious debate and turns it into a spectacle of conspiracy theories. Yes, climate change is real, but it is not the only issue with which all societies must grapple. It is also a business opportunity. It is also an opportunity for the myriad of cultures, legal systems, governments, and technical societies to build a truly global forum for solving one of many very complex problems. Simply focusing on personally attacking Al Gore (and the UN General Secretary, IPCC, etc by inference) and making references to the rest of world being jealous of the US and how climate change represents the dark hand of Al Qaeda is laughable.

We, both as an industry and as humans, have the opportunity to use the issue of climate change as the rallying cry for (finally) coming together as a global community to solve one of our most difficult and complex problems – sustainable development. As I can see the smiles of the sceptics already starting, let’s first define what sustainable development is not: it is not about saving an obscure frog species in the Congo, or a unique ant colony in the Gobi Desert. Species come and go, as our paleontologists have shown through decades of intense study (unless you subscribe to ‘intelligent design’ or creationism, which I will not address as it this is not the forum).We live in a complex, dynamic, closed biosphere. Shouldn’t we allocate the resources such that it gives the greatest wealth for our societies? If the rallying cry of climate change results in the introduction of technologies that ensures the sustainability of our societies (and in particular the poorer countries) into the next millennia, is that morally wrong? Is the effort spent on researching and developing new technologies that addresses climate change, but has a direct effect on the Triple Bottom Line, morally wrong?

It should not be surprising that I don’t agree with Prof Economides that ‘energy abundance’ will separate the ‘rich and poor’ in the 21st century. Energy abundance has always been part of the equation. The G7 industrialised countries did not grow their economies to the trillions of dollars, euros, yen, etc that trade daily by having energy abundance. And those economies will not crash due to lack of energy abundance. The economies of the world will continue to grow and prosper not only through the fair allocation of limited resources, but also through the application of the most fundamental aspect of a prosperous economy – innovation.

We have changed the world irreversibly. It is time we accept that the world will never be the same as it was 1000 years ago. There is not a corner of the globe that has not be impacted by human economic activity. However, we have the intelligence, compassion, passion, and adaptability to look at our environment, work together, and use our technology (innovation) to its maximum extent to achieve a long, sustainable, and fulfilling life for all peoples, flora, and fauna. No, Prof Economides, it is not about who will be ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ in the 21st century: I prefer to think that we all have value, and that we all can contribute to a sustainable future for humanity and the complex system in which we live. It is about vision. It is about leadership. Our industry is ideally positioned to deliver on both. I just hope that respected journals like Offshore Engineer can see the positives in the ‘climate change’ issue, and embrace the real issues facing our industry to push the vision forward.

Sean Cuthbert, Eur Ing, CEng, MIChemE Consultant process engineer APC Europa (Oil & Gas), Switzerland

Click here to register to receive your own copy of Offshore Engineer each month.