Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the pro-nuclear and the pro-renewable energy lobbies.
There are many doubts as to the reliability of fossil fuels and their ability to keep up with the rapid world population growth. This second concern arises as the availability of fossil fuels is declining and many other sources are being suggested as time advances. Moreover, people agree that fossil fuels contribute to global warming as it releases many greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect. Nuclear and renewable energy lobbies are these alternatives, which seem appealing due to their numerous advantages. Nonetheless, there have some weaknesses to consider.

Regarding pro-renewable lobbies, environmentally they are the best solution without doubt. Renewable energy is helpful for the environment as it seeks to tackle the enhanced greenhouse effect. As the greenhouse gases released by this form of energy are low, people support these lobbies. Not only do locals support these initiatives, but also tourism would grow, as the ‘clean environment’ would attract foreigners. Furthermore, these lobbies approach the future in a sustainable manor. Sustainability is meeting the today needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Renewables are those capable of natural regeneration over a human timescale, and are infinite in human terms.

Nevertheless, there are some weaknesses such as the efficiency of these energy sources, as they depend on climate. Wind Power, for example, is not always available. In areas where wind is not frequently strong, the amount of energy produced is small, which suggests that the investment will not be successful. The same happens with solar energy. Also, there are many countries, which cannot access this form of energy because the cost of renewable energy sources is significantly high.

The pro-nuclear lobbies are becoming powerful and it may be that this source of energy will substitute fossil fuels in the future. Nuclear organizations are exposing more strength to their projects each time, for example, the fact that they emit nearly no greenhouse gases. This is an important factor for the campaigns to gain popularity because today, people are very concerned with the enhanced global warming and a way of dealing with this problem urges. Nuclear power comes from Uranium, a recyclable fuel that allows it to be used repeatedly if it is managed carefully. For instance, nuclear waste in the USA is over 90% Uranium. Also, nuclear power plants can be sited almost anywhere, unlike some fossil fuels like oil, which has to be imported by many nations from the Middle East like Iran. Consequently, this would allow countries to be energy independent, which is a main target for many as they seek for more reliable and productive energy sources. If these nuclear power plants turn out to be efficient, the economic boost would be significant.

However, nuclear power plats have economic and political issues. Not only is it costly to build, but also to maintain and manage in order to be able to reuse this energy in the future. This arises doubts as to the economic ability to gain benefits once the nuclear power pant is put into use. Most countries cannot afford this investment, calculated in medium-term investment of up to 10 years. On the political side, waste products are dangerous and need to be carefully stored. Nuclear weapons may lead to conflicts between countries as they can be seen as a threat to a possible attack in the future. Moreover, as nuclear energy triggers energy independence, in the countries where this source is unavailable it will be complicated to obtain nuclear power plants.

In conclusion, although the pro-renewable and pro-nuclear lobbies have a few negatives, it is evident that these schemes will overtake fossil fuels as, overall, they provide more efficient and sustainable approaches towards future energy and they are more environmentally friendly. Global warming is a very serious matter and the solution to tackle the induced greenhouse effect seems to have arrived, providing energy efficiency at the same time.

Summaries the broad issues facing countries as they decide on their 'energy futures'.
Today, countries are concerned with the future energy sources as the availability of fossil fuels declines and new schemes are being suggested. In order to decide the sources of energy each nation will use, governors need to take into account several factors such as energy supplies, economic costs, environmental impacts and public opinion. Today, fossil fuels dominate global energy sources, however, thing may change in the next few decades.

The main factor to consider is the availability of each energy resource, or what is the same, energy supply. Fossil fuels supplies are diminishing, and concerns arise as to the ability of the supplies available to keep up with the increasing population. In developing countries, energy demand rises constantly so the supply must be increasing. As the country develops, more reserves of resources are found. Countries in the Middle East, like Iran, have huge reserves of oil and therefore do not have to worry for the future sources. In developed countries, renewables are more likely to dominate future energy, as they are more environmentally friendly and economically beneficial.

On the economic side of energy, some countries struggle to supply sustainable energy. Renewable energy schemes are very attractive to most countries, however, they are highly expensive to build and maintain and not all nations can afford it. This is one of the most important factors for governments to decide. Although it is costly, countries, which can afford renewable energy, see this as a medium-term investment. If they are confident that they will regain the money invested, this could be a good alternative to fossil fuels. Countries with surplus energy sources tend to export part of their reserves in order to have an economic boost, such as China, which exports much coal due to its enormous reserves.

Furthermore, environmental impacts must be considered. Global warming is becoming a larger issue, as greenhouse gas emissions are constantly high. Fossil fuels contribute highly to the enhanced greenhouse effect and renewable energy offers a very 'clean' scheme. This is a favorable factor for renewables. Also, taking into account the green tax in some places, emitting many greenhouse gases will result in economic, social and environmental issues.

Public opinion is quite a strong point because governors seek for re-election and for this they must keep the citizens happy. However, it is not the strongest factor so, even if the people aren’t in favor, countries will proceed to take the most favorable decision overall.

In conclusion, these four factors are determinant for countries to decide on their future energy sources; energy availability is crucial; economically, it must be beneficial; it must be helpful for the environment; and finally, if possible, citizens must be content. With all these factors together, governors may decide whether using renewable sources or fossil fuels is more convenient for their country for the future.

To date, how effectively are international, national and local decision-making each playing their part in deciding energy futures?
In order to decide the energy futures of countries, action must be taken in different scales. International decisions, such as those taken by TNCs, are the most important, followed by national ideas and finally local suggestions, such as councils and consumers. Generally, local and national decisions will depend on the ones agreed by the international groups. How effectively are these groups taking action is a different issue to consider.

International decision-making is exposing many appealing suggestions regarding the energy futures. For example, as the availability of fossil fuels is depleting, many groups are trying to develop renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power to produce electricity. This initiative seems to be efficient and people look forward to it with optimism.

On the other hand, some initiatives to help the environment such as the Kyoto Protocol failed. Their goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by introducing some limitations to different countries. However, the failure was yielded from three things; surplus emissions were allowed to be traded, which was seen as a way to increase emissions not reduce them; people thought that all countries should have the same emissions limit; and the USA didn't join the initiative, which made people see it as a weak organization. Furthermore, the Middle East countries are trying to encourage others to continue with oil, as they want to safeguard their interests due to their massive oil reserves.

On a national scale, it depends on the ruling government. Their approach to solving the high levels of emissions and assure sustainable energy sources in the future starts with embracing energy diversification, offering new types such as renewables. To know if they are effective we must wait to see if renewable energy succeeds in the decades to come.

Finally, locals suggest smaller projects with not much magnitude because they don’t cause a great impact if we compare it with the transcendence of the international initiatives. Consumers have contributed positively by putting pressure on governments and other lobbies to persuade them to pass onto renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. Although they do contribute in a small scale, they continue to have a small influence.

In conclusion, international organizations have the most influence regarding the decisions made towards the energy futures and are working hard and effectively. National decisions depend on the governments and their political ideology, whilst locals are also working hard to leave fossil fuels behind despite their small influence.