Renewable energy is taking off. The Global Renewable Energy Forum that took place recently in Leon, Mexico, only two months before the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, is recent evidence of its escalating momentum.

The event’s organizer, the Industrial Development Organization of the United Nations (UNIDO), “aspires to a world of opportunity where progress is equitable, accessible, and sustainable and where the alleviation of poverty is considered a common aim and global responsibility.” A large and perhaps impossible task, what with so many black swans on the horizon. (Climate change, peak oil, and world debt come to mind.)

According to the Mexican Energy Ministry (SENER), co-host of this conference intended to raise energy consciousness in Latin America, “Energy is a prerequisite for meeting the challenges facing the international community in the 21st century – poverty alleviation; economic prosperity and sustainable development; climate change; and global environmental and food security. Current energy systems are clearly inadequate to face those challenges. Profound changes are needed in the way human society produces and uses energy today and tomorrow.”

Clearly, this was not a conference propelling business as usual. The risks related to climate change and fossil fuel depletion are unprecedented in scope. Meeting the world’s goals of carbon reduction and renewable resource growth requires future investments in the range of $2 trillion to $3 trillion annually. That’s up to 6 per cent of world GDP. Not a trifling sum, considering that existing energy investments are in the range of $650 billion, tilted heavily towards oil production and power generation.

In 2008, renewable energy investments totalled $120 billion (U.S.), most of them in wind and solar projects. Energy efficiency brought in roughly $2 billion, hardly an adequate approach to sustainability.

According to conference backgrounders, depending on population growth over the next century, the outlook is not as bleak as one might expect. Active conservation, augmented hydro and nuclear energy, advanced coal, sequestration, and biofuels would mean that fossil fuel demand would drop such that available supply would be adequate – a very different forecast from what we conventionally anticipate.

The plan has considerable merit, while I still question some aspects of it. One of the larger problems is the financing of such a large shift in priorities. A worldwide cap and trade carbon market is crucial for several reasons. It raises the cost of carbon with respect to other less offensive energy sources, and it can be a source of funds for large renewable energy projects, R&D, and other requirements.

It also provides businesses and governments the necessary and predictable cost structure to make consistent long-term investments. Though there will be problems with developing countries having sufficient funds to bring their economies along the sustainable road.

As for Canada’s position on carbon at Copenhagen – if past history is a guide, the Canadian government will harmonize with the U.S. If the U.S. defers a commitment until 2010, we’ll likely follow suit.

Lisa Raitt, federal minister of natural resources, recently announced a carbon capture (CCS) plan by Shell with a joint governmental contribution of $865 million. Is CCS the most cost-effective strategy that we could be supporting, or is it just politically convenient cover, given the heat we get on the oilsands? Shell suggests that the decision to proceed is several years away.

A smarter route might be to invest in proven technology with an actual payback, directed towards reducing carbon usage in the rest of Canada. A number of initiatives the government might promote are national High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission systems linking sources of generation such as new hydro plants in Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia to population centres.

Canada might consider upgrading rail transportation systems both in quality and energy type (from fossil fuel to electric), the support of new hydroelectric construction projects, or maybe the completion of an energy standard for new building construction well before the proposed 2012 target.

Those arguing against carbon reduction seem to forget the real costs of oil dependence. Let’s not even consider the cost of climate change-induced damage at this moment. The yearly average price of oil went up $30 per barrel in 2008 due to the spike in gas prices. Canadians paid $25 billion more than in 2007. The world paid almost $1 trillion more at the pumps without considering the enormous costs of the bailout packages, monetary expansion, and stimulus of the economic system. Are we ready for the next price spike in 2011 or 2012?

Some economists link together how much oil we use, the cost of that oil and the health of the economy. That’s why Obama visited the King of Saudi Arabia in June hoping for a price cap. Saudi Arabia has since suggested that a fair price for oil is $75 to $80 a barrel. For the moment, they open the taps as the swing producer. What the King wants, he gets.

Stephen Harper can forge a long–term environmental vision on Copenhagen that could both make Canada an environmental leader on the international stage, and appeal to voters outside the Conservative base. Given the changing corporate mindset, my bet is that he will surprise us.