If the damp squibs that were the Copenhagen and Durban conferences have told us anything, it is that the threat of environmental catastrophe is not enough to spur energy reform. But however much politicians may debate the trade-offs between reform and economic inconvenience, change is likely to be forced on us before long. One prediction that we can make with some certainty is that energy prices will rise. Oil's slow drift upwards over the past year has led to panicked headlines and uneasy populations; policy reactions, however, have generally been directed at suppressing prices rather than dealing with the underlying problem. Those who think the status quo can be maintained are dreaming. China's energy security requires it to secure supplies at almost any cost. For China, energy use is an investment in future economic growth, while in countries like the United States, energy supports a lifestyle. It will be China, rather than the US and the developed world, that sets the bidding. Of course, this is no excuse for complacency, because higher energy costs will undoubtedly slow China's development, a slowdown it can ill afford as the Chinese people clamour for a standard of living similar to that in the developed world. China (and the rest of the world) also lacks alternatives to oil. Renewable energy is still at least 50 years away from being reliable, efficient and cheap enough to completely replace fossil fuels. The potential for hydroelectric power is limited, and often forcibly displaces people in rural villages and towns. And coal, the only fossil fuel that will probably remain relatively cheap in the long term, is too polluting for China to use on a much larger scale. Consequently, China needs to vastly improve its energy efficiency. Fortunately, it is starting from a relatively low base and has plenty of room to improve. Chinese officials often argue, with justification, that they should not be required to restrict energy use for future development to compensate for the developed world's 'bingeing'. This misses the point. The relevant changes concern styles of living, not necessarily standards. Chinese citizens may deserve a 'Western' standard of living, but that does not imply they require an American lifestyle. What lifestyles are sustainable in a world with US$200-plus barrels of oil? The car culture of the US has to go, to be replaced with mass transport. Populations will need to accept the high density of the metropolis rather than the low density of suburbia. No longer can consumer products be replaced yearly; product life cycles will have to be extended. Ultimately, people will need to accept a more efficient lifestyle of quality over quantity if they are to live with expensive energy. Elements of such a lifestyle can already be seen in Hong Kong. The high-density living of the city's 'new towns' was initially criticised, but has since shown itself to be a model for efficient urban living. Shops are located where people live instead of being in a mall that's a car-drive away. Combined with world-class public transport, well-maintained infrastructure and high vehicle and petrol taxes, Hong Kong manages to be relatively energy efficient. It consumes about 5,800 kilowatt-hours per person annually, compared to, say, Dallas, Texas, where each person on average uses energy at almost three times that rate. This does not mean that Hong Kong's energy efficiency is anywhere near optimal; energy consumption needs to be cut if the city is to avoid a painful transition. Low tunnel tolls and the lack of congestion charges still provide an incentive to drive, and there is plenty of room to conserve energy in other areas. However, Hong Kong's success at providing a standard of living comparable, if not identical, to that of the US shows that quality of life can be decoupled from energy consumption. For a mainland China looking for an efficient way to achieve a high standard of living, Hong Kong can be a useful role model. As more Chinese move to urban areas, the government can guide the urbanisation process to create highly efficient cities. China is already moving in this direction: high-speed rail, despite recent missteps, is a move in the right direction for Chinese long-distance mass transit. Ultimately, everyone is going to be living a more efficient lifestyle; the question is whether such a change comes from a gradual transition initiated by policy incentives or traumatically from precipitous market forces. If policymakers in Hong Kong, Beijing, Washington and elsewhere fail to spur their populations to gradually change their wasteful lifestyles, the market will painfully price these lifestyles out of existence. Fortunately, China's energy use is largely driven by economic development concerns and hence amenable to changing economic circumstances. In the US, any talk of reasonable change gets drowned in a sea of criticism. Many Americans believe they are entitled to their way of life, and so fight any regulation that makes it more difficult. Unless Washington has the courage to challenge these entitlements, the US, and its economy, will sooner or later suffer a painful and traumatic transition. No country can escape this imperative. The status quo is unsustainable. Policymakers need to stop obsessing over daily oil prices and look for a path towards a more efficient future: a path that Hong Kong helps reveal. Dr Patrick Ho Chi-ping is secretary general of the China Energy Fund Committee