As the threat global warming intensifies, energy costs rise and Europe’s dependence on imported oil and gas increases, consensus is growing that dramatic change is needed. But what is the cheapest and cleanest way to secure future energy supplies? Many environmentalists, businessmen and politicians believe that renewable power and bio fuels are the answer. But sceptics complain that such tiny industries cannot grow quickly enough to meet rising demand and are entirely dependent on government subsidies. Proponents retort that the technology and economics of renewals will improve, while rival energy sources, from nuclear power to petrol, also benefit from government largesse. Which side will triumph, and what part should governments and ordinary citizens play in the debate?

85 people came to participate in the lively discussion moderated by Edward McBride (The Economist). Professor Claudia Kemfert, from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin, represented the view that renewable energies will make a contribution to solving the energy problem; however, it was a question of time. Professor Klaus Gretschmann, from the Council of the European Union, demanded that we say farewell to energy nationalism: “What we need is energy subsidiarity, energy solidarity, energy solidity, energy research and energy diplomacy.”

Jürgen Trittin, Germany’s former Federal Minister for the Environment, declared the organizers had the wrong title, as he believed renewable energies would have to solve the energy problem. Jürgen Hogrefe, from EnBW, Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, concurred with him to a certain extent, but focused more on an effective energy mix, in which atomic energy would also have to play an important role. The results of this discussion pointed to an energy mix in which renewable energies will play an important role and Germany’s withdrawal from nuclear energy should be reconsidered once again.