Some hard realities are being acknowledged as diplomats, scientists, scholars and others ponder next steps following the indeterminate Durban climate negotiations — the latest failed attempt to limit climate risk using pollution-style restrictions on carbon dioxide under a global treaty.

The real-time demand for energy and economic vigor continues to trump long-term climate concerns, as has been clear in the climate talks for years.* So a focus on finding ways to boost energy access in places that lack it, while working to cut energy waste and the costs of non-polluting energy choices, is spreading. You can see this in the grudging Tweets from green-energy proponents acknowledging some of the merits of Bjorn Lomborg’s reaction to the climate talks, as with Tom Rand here and Lisa Vickers here.

You can also see a shift toward energy action in the latest thinking from William R. Moomaw, a scholar and professor at Tufts University who for decades has assessed international environmental diplomacy. Moomaw and Mihaela Papa, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Law School, sent me a short piece proposing ways to invigorate the faltering climate treaty process by shifting the focus from confrontations over emissions to collaborative work encouraging access to modern energy choices while limiting environmental harms.

Here’s an excerpt and link to the Moomaw-Papa essay, which I encourage you to read in full:

The current pollution control treaty on heat trapping emissions is doomed because it fails to recognize that the underlying problem is unsustainable development that produces vast emissions of heat trapping gases from the energy, industry, transportation, agricultural and forestry sectors. Two decades of debate over assigning blame for emissions, legal responsibility for reducing them and allocating per capita rights to use the atmosphere for disposing of heat trapping gases have created a zero-sum game without opportunities for solving problems by creating mutual gains. In fact no one needs these emissions or even energy. What creates sustainable development are clean energy services that improve wellbeing and do not disrupt the climate system. What people need is clean energy services for cooking, lighting, space comfort, hot water, heat for industrial processes, and electrical energy services like motors, pumps, computing and communications. [Read the rest.]

This shift away from CO2-centric emissions debates is also evident in a group blog post by analysts at the Center for American Progress, who propose a “multiple multilateralism” approach on climate that, among other things, seeks quick steps on sources of warming other than carbon dioxide – particularly sooty Arctic pollution and gases already considered under the existing ozone-protection treaty. As with President Obama’s efforts outside the treaty, this prescription echoes policies pursued in President George W. Bush’s second term.

Finally, I like how an approach focused on energy and ingenuity is described in a Green Law blog post filed from the Durban climate talks by Pace University law professor Elizabeth Burleson:

While we still struggle to agree on what constitutes a timely and robust response to climate destabilization, the topic of innovation is providing common ground upon which to build multilateral trust. [Read the rest.]

I couldn’t agree more. Considering the “super wicked” nature of the entwined climate and energy challenges, it’s clear that the innovations necessary to build an energy menu that works for the long haul need to happen not merely in the laboratory, but also in education, communication and policy.

To some extent, the positions above reflect or build on themes articulated by David G. Victor of the University of California, San Diego, in “Global Warming Gridlock,” Roger A. Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado in “The Climate Fix, and the authors (including Pielke) of “The Hartwell Paper — a New Direction for Climate Policy.”

There’s much more on addressing the global energy challenge, and opportunity, from Scientific American, The Economist, National Geographic, the United Nations Development Program, and both Michael Wines and Elisabeth Rosenthal of The Times.

In an e-mail exchange this morning, William Moomaw noted the growing energy focus in development circles:

As you probably know, 2012 is the year of initiating “Universal Energy Access Towards 2030.” A fairly cumbersome title. It is not seen as complimentary to climate negotiations, but is at least on the agenda. Still most people talk about it as simply more energy. According to the UN Foundation, the goals are: • Ensuring universal access to modern energy services. • Doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency. • Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

For one snapshot of what these bullet points can look like in the real world, watch this video report from Elisabeth Rosenthal and Times photographer Ed Ou:

* I updated this sentence with a link to a relevant post.