Later this month an estimated 10,000 people from over 180 countries will descend on the old Canadian city of Montreal for an historic United Nations meeting on climate change. It will be the first official meeting since the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol was ratified in February this year. The Protocol is an internationally-binding policy that sets out targets to stabilize and reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

Delegates in Montreal will be plotting the second stage of the Kyoto process. They hope to sign an agreement that will include key developing nations such as China and India that are not currently bound by the existing Protocol and whose rapidly expanding economies are a source of growing pollution.  They will also be looking at setting new targets for reducing emissions after 2012, when the first agreed deadline expires.

It will not be easy to come to any agreement. The largest polluter of them all – the United States - has rejected the Kyoto Protocol outright. Australia refuses to sign up until China and India are forced to sign as well. There is also another problem. Although we know we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, in the affluent West our use of energy continues to soar and therefore our emissions increase.

Just fifteen per cent of the world’s population consumes nearly two-thirds of the electricity. In contrast, 41 per cent of the world’s population has access to only 6 per cent of the energy. The reality is that the so-called first-world is addicted to using energy– and all the trappings of an oil addicted lifestyle: the cars (which are getting bigger); the shops; the cheap flights; the televisions; the fridges; the electricity on tap.

No politician in the Western world wants to tell their voters to stop driving or flying. They know the problem but refuse to act. That is why George Bush and Tony Blair continue to be criticized for their inaction on climate.  Just last week, Blair was criticized by Britain’s three main environmental groups. The pressure group Greenpeace blockaded the entrance to his official residence at Downing Street with tonnes of coal to protest at Blair’s failure on climate change. “Blair’s burning more coal than ever, our CO2 emissions have gone up, he’s set to miss his own global warming targets and now it seems he's trying to kill off the Kyoto Protocol” said Stephen Tindale, the head of Greenpeace.

A second environmental organization, Friends of the Earth, said the Prime Minister's credibility on climate change was “evaporating fast." The third, the World Wide Fund for Nature, argued that Blair’s negotiating position on climate had become indiscernible from that of the biggest climate criminal of them all: US President George W Bush." Blair and Bush are climate criminals together.  

The West’s failure to act offers a real opportunity for others to take the lead. Would it not be the ultimate irony that the countries with the most oil and gas – the Middle East – took the lead in arguing for a reduction in oil and gas and a reduction in greenhouse gases? Whilst on the surface this may seem completely improbable, a new scientific study shows just why it could just make sense.  

A ground-breaking report has just been published by the German Aerospace Centre that was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment. The scientists looked at different scenarios for energy in what they called they called the MENA region that stands for the “Middle East and North Africa."

The German scientists note that in the MENA region "economic and social development is the first priority" and that because of this "climate protection only has an ancillary role." Only a few countries in the region have ratified Kyoto, although none from OPEC as this would be “detriment to their primary market interest."

In theory the region is the heart of the problem. The Middle East sits on over 61 per cent of the world’s oil reserves and 40 per cent of the world’s gas reserves.  These reserves are vital to their economies. However, when all this oil and gas is burnt it will contribute to climate change. But just as the Middle East is part of the problem, the German scientists argue it is also part of the solution, because of its vast reserves of renewable energy. This is energy that is not finite and not polluting. Therefore it does not cause climate change.

The potential for solar energy is absolutely staggering, the scientists argue. “By far the biggest resource in MENA” they conclude “is solar radiance, with a potential that is several orders of magnitude larger than the total world electricity demand.”  But there is also wind energy which is already a major resource in Egypt and Oman whilst geothermal power is available in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen.

You could argue that with so much oil and gas under their feet, it would be economic suicide for Middle Eastern countries to advocate reducing the use of fossil fuels. In the short-term this may be so, but in the longer term it makes economic and environmental sense. 

What is stopping a transition to renewable energy is it is much cheaper to carry on producing oil and gas in the short-term. Solar cannot compete with oil. To change to renewable energy needs huge financial investments as well as the huge political will it would need for Middle Eastern governments to break the yoke of fossil fuel dependence.

The German scientists calculate that it would cost a staggering US$75 billion to make renewable energy break even with fossil fuels before 2020. But while that is a vast sum of money, the Germans point out two things: Firstly this is the kind of money that would be spent developing any kind of comprehensive nuclear programme. Secondly and more importantly, they calculate that after 2020 a shift in renewables would save the region US$ 250 billion. They say that this is a conservative estimate and the more the oil price rises the more money the region could in theory save.  So you spend US$75 billion to save yourself US$250 billion: a net saving of US$175 billion. 

In contrast a radical shift to renewable energy will reduce the cost of energy, reduce conflict, help conserve water, and create the economic stability for development. It will create energy and water security, they conclude. It is a much cheaper future.

Which path will the Middle East choose? One is easy for the leaders because they have to do nothing. One is hard, but the rewards will be rich. It is a tough choice but one that must be made today for tomorrow will be too late. It will take years for any changes to take place. Within ten years the groundwater resources that feed cities such as the capital of Yemen, Sana’a, may reach a point where they are bone dry. Energy intensive fossil fuel desalination plants will not give affordable water. Renewable energy could though.

We know the United States will not act at Montreal. The European Union countries will talk tough, but end up arguing internally. China and India will drag their feet too. So would it not be amazing if the Middle Eastern countries went to Montreal and demanded a radical shift to renewable energy. They can save the planet by simply leaving the oil and gas where it is: underground. Leaving it to rest in peace. Yes, they have the most to loose by leaving the oil and gas there, but they also have the most to gain.

The report can be accessed here.