While the ILC project is valuable from the perspective of producing raw data and knowledge which could then be leveraged within a range of applications and industry, ITER has a more specific focus. It’s goal is to investigate whether or not it is possible to produce a working fusion reactor – one which can be used to produce extremely 'clean’ power' - without emitting greenhouse gases in the process. Fusion power generators could potentially be the holy grail of energy. Some extremely optimistic scientists believe that fusion could be made viable with the first of many functioning generators producing power as early as 2050.

As mentioned earlier, one national partner in the ITER relationship backing out of itÂ’s funding commitments is though to be harmful but not fatal to the project. A second withdrawl, or a third, however, has the potential to derail the effort.

On a more political note, this year the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore of the US and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nobel committee believed that the recipients were worthy of this recognition based on their work to help ensure that members of the public and national policy makers were aware of the issues of global climate change. However, it is not simply the level of awareness which the Prize Winners brought to the issues that motivated the Nobel Committee. Specifically the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those which are recognised to have worked towards the reduction or elimination of wars and conflicts. Significant climate change in the future is thought to be the seed ground for wars over natural resources in the future.

Regrettably, it’s fitting at this point to mention that the US Federal budget for 2008 has allocated US$ 70 billion for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. While avoiding any judgement on the appropriateness of this expenditure, it's clear that funds allocated to one activity cannot be used for another – the pie can only be sliced up and eaten once. As most experts believe that climate change and global warming is a genuine and emerging threat – and if the potential dangers of regional conflict as identified by the Nobel Peace Prize committee are realistic – then there will be an ever greater need for military intervention in the future as more conflicts over resources arise. It’s unlikely that in the scenario we have outlined above will result in less funding being required for military activities - which results in the removoval of the money from other programmes, including those which could be researching energy alternatives.

The big question is - where exactly where the belt be tightened and which programmes will be cut? Some pain in the short term may be necessary so that the long term outlook doesn't darken to a disastrous global result.

For more information

The ITER project website
http://www.iter.org/

ILC - Linear Collider website
http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/