In Pursuit of a Carbon-Free Economy

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000033

In Pursuit of a Carbon-Free Economy

By John Lash

02/13/08

...

Opportunities for New Leadership

While climate change may well represent the biggest challenge to mankind in recent history, it clearly represents the biggest new market opportunity in world history. For the United States, it provides an unprecedented opportunity to galvanize American innovation to become the center of a new global carbon-free economy. In rising to the challenge, America can level the playing field of today's geopolitically driven energy market by using its strongest resource—innovation and technological know-how.

In a carbon-free economy where energy is available to all who know how to harness it, the presence or absence of fossil fuels within a nation's borders would no longer determine a country's wealth or power. America has the opportunity to free itself from dependence on foreign oil, improve international security, and create an economic engine that will ultimately dwarf the current fossil fuel economy.

It seems America has everything in place to make this happen, except political will and leadership. Part of the Bush legacy will be failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, making America a lone holdout after the first act of Australia's new leadership was to ratify the agreement. Added to that legacy is responsibility for stripping all key renewable energy provisions from the Energy Bill passed into law late December 2007.

Amid the well-publicized fanfare for an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) automotive efficiency standards, the promotion of renewable energy was silently dropped from the bill at the eleventh hour to avert a presidential veto. Gone is the shift of subsidies from the mature oil and coal industries to renewable energy development. Gone is a national renewable energy standard requiring 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources. Gone is the extension of the federal investment tax credit for solar energy and the production tax credit for wind energy.

...

:patriot:

[The2ndWheel]

1. "create an economic engine that will ultimately dwarf the current fossil fuel economy"

So we want to make things worse?

Carbon is the problem of the fossil fuel economy. Something else will be the problem of the non-fossil fuel economy. And if that new economic engine dwarfs the current economic engine, then the problems of the new economic engine will dwarf the problems of the current economic engine. Does our current economic engine dwarf previous economic engines? Do the problems of our current economic engine dwarf the problems of previous economic engines? That whole equal and opposite reaction thing.

Wind, and solar, and any other source of energy won't let us do whatever we want with no consequences. The more energy we use, the bigger our impact. We can't escape it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. This does not follow logically

First, economic growth does not necessarily imply more energy usage.

A simple example: the use of CFL or LED rather than incandescent lighting. The more efficient forms mean less money is wasted on heat. That means greater productivity, because of less energy use.


Second, greater energy use does not necessarily mean greater environmental impact.

A second, simple example: organic farming. Organic farming is more energy intensive, but has less of an environmental impact.


Advancing technology can be good for the environment. Consider the change from lighting our homes by burning whale blubber to lighting our homes using electricity.

Let's look at a car.
A car with a standard internal combustion engine.
A gasoline hybrid-electric car.
A fully electric car (with batteries recharged by a coal-burning plant.)


Even though the fully electric car gets its power from burning coal, it's still better for the environment than its less-technologically-advanced cousins.

[The2ndWheel]

4. "First, economic growth does not necessarily imply more energy usage."

Other than in every example of economic growth.

"A simple example: the use of CFL or LED rather than incandescent lighting. The more efficient forms mean less money is wasted on heat. That means greater productivity, because of less energy use."

And what happens to the energy and money that is saved? Does it just sit there? Or do we find more ways to use it?

"Second, greater energy use does not necessarily mean greater environmental impact."

Where does that happen?

"A second, simple example: organic farming. Organic farming is more energy intensive, but has less of an environmental impact."

Farming is destructive environmentally. Then again, existing is destructive environmentally. The greater the scale, the more destructive.

"Advancing technology can be good for the environment. Consider the change from lighting our homes by burning whale blubber to lighting our homes using electricity."

Yeah, it allows us to stay "on" all hours of the day, in any time zone. We do more stuff with more electricity. We increase our impact by doing more stuff.

"Let's look at a car."

We need places to go with a car. We need a way to get to the places to go with a car. We need more places to go with a car(since a car allows us to travel quickly and "cheaply"), and so we need to build the places to go further and further away, and then need a way to get to those places.

We live in physical reality. The planet didn't evolve for most of its existence with cars, electricity, and economic growth. Today it is doing just that. The planet evolved to support many different forms of life, not just one. It was give and take. We then took over, and are trying to mold the planet to fit us. We don't get to do that without consequences. We might be able to do it, but, it will come at a cost. We will do everything we can in order to externalize that cost, but that's the way the cookie crumbles I suppose.

But limits have yet to stop us. The last few thousand years are proof of that. We're able to break down every wall. That certainly won't stop because I'm not following logic. So, maybe everyone will be able to get everything they will ever need, and we'll have an actual habitat too, full with diverse life and everything. We designated ourselves as the keepers of the planet(I don't think we got that right democratically, but in the end what isn't about force?), and hopefully it'll work out.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Let me see if I understand your reasoning ...

...

"A simple example: the use of CFL or LED rather than incandescent lighting. The more efficient forms mean less money is wasted on heat. That means greater productivity, because of less energy use."

And what happens to the energy and money that is saved? Does it just sit there? Or do we find more ways to use it?

...

So it would be your contention that the ecosystem is better off if we don't switch to more efficient lighting?


Help me.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Well, if you want to go that far...

It would probably be better if we had less lighting period. Or at least less of the kind that requires centralizing the process by which to get it.

I know I'm saying that as someone who uses lighting, and lives in 2008 America, and enjoys human contact. I'm as much part of the problem as anyone. I do what I can. I keep the lights off at home as much as possible. If I could, I'd work with no lights but the light that comes through the window during the day.

If we switch to more efficient lighting...if, that's funny...when we switch to more efficient lighting, we won't consume less electricity. You know that picture of the Earth from space when it's dark, and all you see are the lights of all the major energy consuming locations? When we get more efficient lighting, there will be more energy consuming locations.

I don't know if there is a good answer. If everyone burned firewood for their light, that's more carbon. If the entire planet exists in perpetual light 24 hours a day, that energy has to come from somewhere, and living in physical reality as we do, means it has to have some type of impact somehow, somewhere.

The eco-system would be better off if we weren't able to extract the needed resources for lighting as efficiently as we do. People would be less well off if we couldn't extract as efficiently as we do. That's the whole point of advancing technologically. To be able to extract more from the world around us, not less. The reason for increasing efficiency is so that we can do more things with less energy for each individual product, but that increase in efficiency also improves our ability to get the energy. That's why we end up using more energy. We come up with different ways to use the energy that we were able to get but didn't have to use. Instead of 100 pencils, we'll make 10,000 pens and pencils. We'll improve our ability to communicate from longer distances in shorter amounts of time. We'll make who knows how many products out of plastic. That's why we use more energy in total today than we did in any previous year. We can't run a global civilization without increasing our environmental impact.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. You're making some bold assumptions

Some years back, I replaced essentially all of the bulbs in the house with CFL's. Did I use the savings of electricity some other way? No.

I did not say, "Hey, now we can afford to leave all of the lights in the house on all of the time!" I did not say, "Hey, let's get a big new TV! or a video game or..."

Your assumption is that we always consume to the extent we are able. That's not the way I was raised.

However, we do seem to be cultivating "consumers." Today, people feel virtuous for recycling. How many people do you think know why the recycling symbol has 3 arrows?


Recycling has some virtue compared to throwing everything into trash, but it's the "third R." First, reduce consumption, then reuse what you can, then instead of throwing out what cannot be reused, recycle it.


Let's go back to lighting again for a moment. In the past people lit their houses with whale oil.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076727/whale-oil
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2085&pageno=38

...

In New Bedford, fathers, they say, give whales for dowers to their daughters, and portion off their nieces with a few porpoises a-piece. You must go to New Bedford to see a brilliant wedding; for, they say, they have reservoirs of oil in every house, and every night recklessly burn their lengths in spermaceti candles.

...

Compared to the hunting and burning of whales, I'd say the use of solar-generated electricity to light a CFL is environmentally benign. (What's the difference? Generations of technological advances.)

Of course, our houses are much better lit today than they were back then.


It's not that we have replaced savings and efficiency with more consumption. I don't believe that's the problem. When I was a boy, my parents had one car (bought used.) My father worked, my mother did not, until my siblings went to college. The only debt they had was a mortgage on their modest home (which they paid off early.) For decades, they've had one credit card, which they would use to make one purchase each year, to keep it active. This year, Father discovered the joy of paying "at the pump."

They were never rich, but Dad retired early. Mom kept working a while longer; not because she needed to, but because she wanted to.

By contrast, many young families today feel that both parents must work. They need two (or three!) cars. People use credit cards at McDonalds! and many have made no provisions for retirement.

My parents taught me to save money. I had a "piggy bank" and made deposits in my own bank account (I didn't make a withdrawal for many years.) Today, parents try (often unsuccessfully) to teach their children to use credit cards "responsibly."


My car is a '92 with ~170,000 miles on the odometer. I bought it used. I've never made a "car payment" in my life. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to be "leasing" cars nowadays. They make car payments; and at the end, they don't own their car... But every 3 years, they've got a new one!


People consume more today, not because they can, but because they're told they should. When our country was attacked in 2001, people were not told to conserve (as they were during WW II) they were not encouraged to buy "war bonds." No, they were given tax cuts, and told to spend more.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1674.html


Technology is not the problem here. Instinctual behavior really isn't either. The problem is simply one of a lack of enlightenment/education.

People are being taught to consume.

[The2ndWheel]

30. But then that would make an ass out of both of us

"Some years back, I replaced essentially all of the bulbs in the house with CFL's. Did I use the savings of electricity some other way? No."

You may not have, but it was used somewhere. Another office building just built in China or India now used that extra energy. The couple that just bought the bigger house for themselves, their young child, and their new baby use more energy. The factory can now produce an extra few cars because it makes sense economically.

"Your assumption is that we always consume to the extent we are able. That's not the way I was raised."

Well the way you were raised and the way civilization works aren't the same.

"Compared to the hunting and burning of whales, I'd say the use of solar-generated electricity to light a CFL is environmentally benign. (What's the difference? Generations of technological advances.)"

But not everyone used whales for lighting. Today, most everyone uses the same resources in the same way for everything. What's the difference? Generations of technological advances.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Using whales for lighting is using one part of the whole. Using solar energy is using the energy that helps regulate the planet, that helps to diversify life, basically using the whole for a part. If that makes any sense. I'm not sure we can do that and be environmentally benign. Granted, I'm not a scientist, I didn't pay a good chunk of change to get an expensive education being trained as an engineer, or anything else like that. I could be completely wrong. I'm just some jackass putting my thoughts on a screen.

"People consume more today, not because they can, but because they're told they should."

So would you agree we're living in...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html

that world?

"Technology is not the problem here. Instinctual behavior really isn't either. The problem is simply one of a lack of enlightenment/education."

I guess you would say we're living in that world then.

If we do live in that world, what's the destination? Is there a point to molding everyone to fit the same system? What is the endgame? Who gets to decide what enlightenment is? What is the right education?

"When our country was attacked in 2001, people were not told to conserve (as they were during WW II) they were not encouraged to buy "war bonds." No, they were given tax cuts, and told to spend more."

Why were they told to conserve during WW2? So that more could go towards the military effort? So that our organized expanding society could take out other organized expanding societies?

It's a problem without a solution. You(the royal you) can't force people to do things your(the royal your) way, but then if you don't force people to do things your way, something might happen that will screw everything up. Then again, your way could be the way that screws everything up, and if you force everyone to do it that way, then everyone is in trouble. Who gets to figure who is right? Is there a right answer?

All I'm saying is that we will impact the environment differently with solar(or whatever) instead of carbon. We impacted the environment with sharp sticks that we threw at food. We impacted it by picking berries. We can't escape that. At every turn, at every technological advance, we've impacted the environment more. I don't see how that changes.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Please, no more myths

"Some years back, I replaced essentially all of the bulbs in the house with CFL's. Did I use the savings of electricity some other way? No."

You may not have, but it was used somewhere. Another office building just built in China or India now used that extra energy. The couple that just bought the bigger house for themselves, their young child, and their new baby use more energy. The factory can now produce an extra few cars because it makes sense economically.

...

No building in China or India used that "extra energy." (Unless someone's built transoceanic power lines I'm not aware of.)

Buildings in China or India would have used the energy they used whether or not I used less. What I did (effectively) was decrease the rate of increase of global energy usage.

X = Energy that would have been used by the world if I hadn't replaced those bulbs.
Y = Energy which was used by the world because I replaced those bulbs.

100 × (X-Y)/X = percentage of power saved. (Thi is an incredibly low number, barely worth mentioning, unless it's multiplied many times over, by people who choose to make a difference.)


Following your line of thinking, it makes no difference at all how much power we all use. (If we don't use it, someone else will.)

Okay, so everyone in the US of A might as well open all of their doors and windows and turn their thermostats up to 90°F; put 150 Watt bulbs in all of their sockets and turn them all on; leave their cars running 24 hours a day, so they're always "warmed up" and ready to go.

It won't make any difference. Because if we don't do it, someone else will.

[GliderGuider]

33. Do you know about the Jevons Paradox?

That's the economic formalism that underpins this argument:

Jevons Paradox

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons, that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to Jevons's intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the cost of using a resource – which increases demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. One word, "may" (n/t)

[GliderGuider]

35. OK, so if the USA switched entirely to electric cars tomorrow

What do you think would happen to global oil consumption?

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. Perhaps that's the wrong question to ask

Obviously, it's an artificial situation, since it couldn't happen.

Your manner of thinking counts on humanity as being absolutely mindless. In that case, freeing up that much demand would lower prices, giving other nations the incentive/ability to buy/consume more oil.

Judging from this graph, it would be the countries of the EU who would take up the slack.

However (unlike the US) the countries of the EU have pledged to cut their consumption, and have been succeeding.
http://europa.eu/press_room/presspacks/climate/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/835&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Climate change: Commissioner Dimas welcomes 2005 reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions and calls for further action

European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas welcomed today's news that the European Union's greenhouse gas emissions fell by 0.7% in 2005 and urged Member States to accelerate structural economic changes to ensure deeper, lasting emission cuts. The emissions fall in 2005 took EU-27 emissions to 11% below their levels in the Kyoto Protocol’s base year (1990 for most countries and gases) and EU-15 emissions to -2 %. The EU-15 is committed under Kyoto to ensuring that its emissions between 2008 and 2012 average at least 8% below base year levels.

“It is very encouraging that we are cutting emissions while the European economy grows strongly," Commissioner Dimas said, "but it is clear that many member states need to accelerate their efforts to limit emissions significantly if the EU is to meet its Kyoto target. With the adoption of long-term emission reduction targets by EU leaders in March, there is no reason to wait to take bold steps to achieve the necessary structural changes in how we produce and use energy. Doing so will ensure that emissions cuts become progressively deeper and remain permanent.“

...

Now, here's a paradox. Their economy has grown while GHG emissions have been cut.

Since their economies have grown, that means their ability to consume has increased, so (by your reasoning) GHG emissions should have increased as well.

Maybe humanity is smarter than you give us credit for?

[GliderGuider]

37. Looking at growth rates it would be China that would take up the slack.

As you point out, the EU has made commitments to reduce consumption and emissions. China has made no such undertakings.

I understand perfectly well the concept of energy intensity - it underpins two of my recent analyses on energy and GDP. The OECD is making progress on improving the energy intensity of their economies, and producing fewer emissions as a result. Countries like China and most of South and South-East Asia are not doing as well.

It's true that I believe that the behaviour of large groups of humans is strongly constrained by evolved neuro-psychology. That doesn't mean we're not smart, it just means that there are limits to the decisions we are capable of making in groups. This is mostly because we are unwilling to risk giving up competitive advantage to people from other tribes. It really comes down to wisdom, a trait that I see much more in individuals than groups.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. China

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/09/03/kyoto.china.glb/index.html

China ratifies global warming treaty

September 4, 2002 Posted: 2:43 AM EDT (0643 GMT)

Staff and wire reports

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- China, the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has announced it has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, bringing the environmental treaty one step closer to implementation.

However, because China is regarded as a developing nation, it is not required to curb emissions. Instead, it would be eligible to earn credits by setting up emission-reducing projects and other so called clean development mechanisms.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/world/asia/05china.html

June 5, 2007

China Issues Plan on Global Warming, Rejecting Mandatory Caps on Greenhouse Gases

By JIM YARDLEY and ANDREW C. REVKIN

BEIJING, June 4 — With global warming high on the agenda for the world’s industrial powers gathering later this week in Germany, China staked out its position on Monday by releasing its first national strategy on climate change, a plan that promises to improve energy efficiency but rejects any mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

The 62-page plan, two years in the making, served at least partly as a rebuff to separate efforts by President Bush and European nations to draw China and other developing countries into a commitment to reduce emissions, which was expected to be a focal point at the expanded summit meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized nations.

...

The centerpiece of China’s approach to controlling emissions is an existing plan that calls for a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency between 2006 and 2010. Mr. Ma noted that China had passed new laws on environmental protection and energy efficiency, and that factories across the country were beginning to improve. He said fiscal and tax policies were being revised to reward clean industry and punish high-polluting factories.

But given China’s high economic growth rate, the energy efficiency program would, at best, slow increases in emissions rather than reduce them. And it is far from certain that China will be able to meet the 20 percent goal. Under the plan, China should have netted a 4 percent reduction in 2006 in the amount of energy needed to generate each unit of gross domestic product. Instead, environmental officials announced earlier this year that the country had failed to meet that goal.

...

http://www.germanwatch.org/presse/2007-12-07e.htm

...

Bali, December 7th, 2007. Sweden again ranks in first position in the current Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI 2008). However, even those at the top of the class - Sweden achieved two thirds of the total score - only achieve average grades. The index is published annually by Germanwatch and CAN-Europe and compares the climate protection performances of 56 industrialised countries and emerging economies which together account for more than 90 per cent of global energy-related CO2 emissions.

"Sweden benefits from relatively low emissions levels, but its performance is only rated average regarding climate policy and emissions trends", explained Jan Burck, responsible for the Climate Change Performance Index at Germanwatch. "The result does not mean that the 'class winner' delivers outstanding climate protection", he continued. The average evaluation of climate policy of all 56 countries equals 3.9 on a scale of one (very good) to five (very poor). Significant European states such as Germany, Hungary and the United Kingdom were able to maintain their 'leading position' in the Top Ten of the ranking. But it is particularly remarkable that Mexico, India and Brazil represent some major emerging economies in top flight.

National climate policies of almost all countries were rated poor by the consulted experts, seven of the world's biggest CO2 emitters are on the lowest end of the ranking. The worst climate sinners are Saudi Arabia, the USA and Australia who not only have extremely high and mounting emissions levels, but also employ insufficient and inadequate climate policies.

"The international community is still failing to comply with their responsibilities regarding climate protection", stated Matthias Duwe, Director of Climate Action Network Europe. "They have not set themselves firmly on the path of limiting global warming to less than two degrees celsius and to avoid the destabilisation of global climate ", continued Duwe.

The index's ranking of the largest emerging economies differs significantly from country to country. In the case of Mexico, its constructive international and national climate policy and its relatively favourable emissions trends contribute to its positive evaluation. India's still very low emissions level and the positive assessment of recent developments in national climate policy account for its good result. China, however, ranks far behind at 40th place due to its significantly higher emissions level and high emissions trends. Nevertheless, the country's serious efforts to enhance energy efficiency and promote renewable energies as well as the recognisable turnaround in national climate and environmental policy within the last two years meant that it already jumped up four places in this year's ranking from last year's position. "China's relatively positive political assessment gives hope that emission growth will slow down in the future", explains Christoph Bals, Executive Policy Director of Germanwatch. This puts it far ahead of some countries in the ranking.

...

[GliderGuider]

5. Look up the ecological equation I=PAT

There are no examples of growth that I'm aware of, whether in human numbers, human activity or human technology, that haven't increased our impact on the ecology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_PAT
http://www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/IPAT.html
http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/TheIPATEquation.aspx

There's even a model under development for estimating our impact statistically: STIRPAT

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I thought you liked facts and numbers

I = P × A × T

Human Impact (I) on the natural environment equals the product of population (P), affluence (A: consumption per capita) and technology (T: environmental impact per unit of consumption).

...

That's not an equation I'm comfortable with. It needs much better definition of terms.

First off, I reject the notion that Technology≈impact per unit of consumption (i.e. that as technology increases impact increases perforce.) Consider the environmental impact of an internal combustion engine of the 1950's compared to the environmental impact of an ICE using current technology. (i.e. today's ICE has less environmental impact, due to increased use of technology.)

Next I reject the notion that individual Affluence≈individual consumption.


Finally, it's a useless "equation." In essence, all it says is that the total impact of the population equals the sum of the impacts of its members. Isn't that a tautology?


Frankly, I'm more impressed by the "Drake equation" and I've never been impressed by it at all.

[GliderGuider]

9. Numbers are great.

But sometimes ideas are good too. This is one of those times.

For example, one of the primary effects of improved automobile technology was to make them more affordable and therefore more numerous. If each one has half the ecological footprint but you sell four times as many of them, what happens to the aggregate impact?

You might want to read a bit more about why ecologists generally accept the ideas behind IPAT. Feel free to reject the assumptions, but accept that doing so places you in a distinct minority of ecologists. Not that I have anything against minorities...

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Actually, the technology which made cars cleaner also made them more expensive

The catalytic converter, the definitive anti-pollution device, with its little bit of platinum added a significant amount to the cost of the automobile (as did many other things.)

A 1967 VW Beetle cost $1,640 (US). That was $10,180.86 in 2007 dollars. The base price for the "New Beetle" is $17,365.

Now, admittedly, the "New Beetle" is not simply a 1967 VW Beetle with anti-pollution technology added on. However, I think you'll see my point. Show me a German car that I can buy for less than 10K brand new.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Ideas are good

It's good to remind people (for example) that a smaller number of Americans can have a greater negative ecological impact than a larger population, if the average American is much more wasteful than the average citizens of some other country.

To that extent, the idea is good. However, the basic assumptions are flawed.


Considering the Technology≈"negative environmental impact" notion for a moment:

• Which was more advanced technologically during the cold war? Eastern Europe or Western Europe? and which had a more adverse effect on the environment?
• According to the Climate Change Performance Index, Germany improved its ranking, while the US got worse. Does that imply that Germany has regressed technologically, while the US advanced? (By constructing all of those wind turbines and solar panels, by doing all of that research, by creating all of those new jobs, was Germany actually becoming less technologically advanced?)
• The same report ranked only Saudi Arabia as worse than the US. Does that mean that Saudia Arabia is the only nation more technologically advanced than the US?

[GliderGuider]

13. Maybe your perspective needs to be a bit broader

Your example of Saudi Arabia is bit of a red herring - remember that technology is only one factor, and that consumption/activity level is another, and population level is yet another. An overall increase in any of them will result in environmental impacts. Nobody is saying that every increase in technology will have a negative impact. However, in general increases in technology (which is defined as our ability to manipulate the world around us) will have that effect. Here's an example of what I mean:

In assessing the relative importance of the three factors P, A and T in causing the big increase in pollution (200 – 2,000 percent) in the United States since the Second World War, Commoner (6) concluded that changes in technology, T, were primarily responsible. Change in pollution level, he says, cannot be accounted for simply by the growth of the human population, since the latter only increased by 42 per cent; so the ratio between the amount of pollution generated and the size of the population increased sharply since 1946.

Could increase in affluence be the chief culprit? Commoner argues no. Affluence as measured by GNP per capita increased by about 50 per cent, which is, alone, clearly insufficient to account for the observed increase in per capita pollution. Since GNP is only a crude over-all average of the goods and services produced in a country, it would be better to break it down into specific items such as food, clothing and shelter, etc. which he proceeded to do. With food, there was a slight decline in per capita calorific intake, a slight increase in protein consumption. With clothing, while styles changed, there was essentially no change in per capita production. As far as shelter was concerned, the number of housing units occupied per capita rose only slightly from 0.272 to 0.295.

The technological revolution, in contrast, had led to a big increase in pollution. New technologies had replaced old ones – e.g. soap powder replaced by synthetic detergents, natural fibres (cotton, wool) replaced by synthetic ones. Steel and lumber had been displaced by aluminium, plastics and concrete, railroad freight by car freight, returnable bottles by unreturnable ones. In farming, per capita production remained almost constant, but the harvested acreage decreased – in effect fertilisers had replaced land. Older methods of insect control were displaced by synthetic insecticides such as DDT, etc. etc. etc. In all these cases what had changed drastically was the technology of production, rather than the over-all output of economic goods.

Now, the same article mentions another way to think about it:

Holdren and Ehrlich (7) come to different conclusions as to the significance of the population factor both in pollution growth in the USA , and more generally. They state the impact equation as:

Environmental degradation = population × consumption per person × damage per unit of consumption.

They say:

“For problems described by multiplicative relations …. no factor can be considered unimportant. The consequences of the growth of each factor are amplified in proportion to the size and the rate of growth of each of the others”.

Now obviously, some technologies tend to reduce existing impacts. I still think that more technologically advanced societies tend to have bigger ecological impacts than less-developed societies. This is offset, of course by population growth, if the less-developed societies have higher population densities. Examples abound in South Asia. Generally speaking I see the world as having two different ecological problem sets. The developed West and North (broadly speaking the OECD) has a problem with consumption and high impacts due to technology, while the under-developed world (the East and South) even with lower consumption has high ecological impact due to population levels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. I would say that there is a vitally important missing factor here

E - Enlightenment/Education

Let's take just one example from the above list:

... soap powder replaced by synthetic detergents ...

I remember when my mother became aware of phosphates. Immediately, her habits changed. She changed laundry detergents. Affluence was not decreased, consumption was not decreased, technology was not decreased. Environmental impact was.

A few years back, I started seeing ads for "Cascade" (a dish washer detergent) bragging about its ability to dissolve food away. M'lady thought it was great! but I was leery. Sure enough, to my horror, when I investigated, I found out that they were boosting their phosphate content!

Enlightenment/education helps people choose appropriate technology for ecological reasons.


We can easily compare the current day to the post-war era, and point out an increase in environmental impacts. However it's a mistake to imply that there is any sort of direct correlation between technology and environmental impact. For example, when was the last time the Cuyahoga caught fire? What happened in the intervening years? (A decrease in population? A reversion to a primitive culture? A lessening of affluence?)


Comparing Germany to the US on Climate Change, I don't think that you would argue that their level of technology has decreased, or their consumption or their affluence, not even their population, and yet... their environmental impact has.


This is my greatest objection to the nominal use of an "equation." By framing the idea in the guise of an "equation" you imply a mathematical rigor which is lacking. By placing too much trust in this "equation" you may be led to conclusions which are contrary to fact.

[GliderGuider]

16. Again, specific technologies can improve some aspects of the situation a bit.

Education is good for that, too. The problem is that such technologies and the education that promotes their adoption are just nibbles around the edge of the big picture.

My position is that there are no technologies in use today that are truly beneficial or sustainable from a whole-planet perspective. That applies to all the various flavours of agriculture, all the different ways we have of building our homes, lighting our homes, getting from place to place, making all the stuff we collectively use to make our lives easier and more interesting, and then disposing of it when we're done. All that is technology, and the more of it we use, the worse the planet gets. CFLs and electric cars and low-phosphate detergents are just more deck chairs.

A "plan" that includes the assumption of any growth whatsoever in the global economy or population (or even their maintenance at current levels) isn't worth the paper it's written on. The fact remains, there are too may of us, doing too much, for the planet to support for much longer. Soon there must be fewer of us, doing less. If we can't make that decision for ourselves it will be made for us, by natural forces that are both dispassionate and implacable. To imagine that we can avoid that outcome by tinkering up more "appropriate" technologies at this late stage of the game is, IMO, nothing but anthropocentric wishful thinking.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. I generally agree with your last paragraph

I agree that our population is too large.

There! we've identified the problem. (Too darned many people.) Okay, so, what solution do you suggest? Shall we start culling? I mean, it's fine to suggest that people have fewer kids (that's happening actually) But this won't have any significant effect on the population any time soon. So, unless you're pulling for plagues, WW III, or an asteroid strike or something...

No? then we'll need to look elsewhere for a solution.


You and I are both in agreement that conservation is the simplest way to decrease consumption. For some reason though, a lot of people don't seem to be all that interested in it. Okay, instituting conservation is actually amazingly simple. If the government decided that the threat was real, and dire, we could start rationing tomorrow. Put legal constraints in place, and people will learn how to conserve really fast.

I've been saying for years, "So long as the SUV is the most popular type of vehicle sold in America, gasoline is too cheap!" (I was all for higher gasoline taxes.)

Rationing would do great things for the US trade deficit too!

Of course, rationing might be unpopular with some people...


Okay, so what's left? Reduce the impact of their consumption. Power sources like Solar and Wind will cost about the same as what they replace, so it's not as if we'll be encouraging people to consume more. On the other hand, their environmental impact is a heck of a lot less.

It's a partial solution at best, but it's a start.

[GliderGuider]

21. Regarding population

We need to institute global crash programs of women's education and fertility reduction through universal free availability of contraception and family planning services (e.g. free voluntary sterilization clinics). We need to carpet Africa and South Asia with condoms. We must educate governments to the message that population growth is a problem, not a solution. We should encourage governments to tax heavily all children beyond the first one. If we're prepared to accept partial solutions, measures like those must be on the table.

That's what I'm pulling for. What I think will actually happen is world-wide famine and disease.

Yes, we should do all the things you identify - education, rationing, carrots and sticks to reduce consumption and human activity, and the adoption of low-impact technologies of every kind.

Activists of all types must work towards these goals. Little of it will happen and none of it will alter the ultimate outcome, but it will keep us busy and our consciences clear.

[Kolesar]

22. We have achieved stable population, so we can give the Indians our jobs

...so they achieve prosperity and hence reduce their reproductive rate to below replacement levels also. Easy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Famine and disease are facts of life

Well, for most of the world they're facts of life. Here in North America, we've largely forgotten about them.

In the US, we now have signs going up to teach people how to wash their hands, and to cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze. (Apparently parents stopped teaching children to do these things.)

A pandemic flu should be a right jolly good time. MRSA and resistant TB should just be appetizers.


My grandfather was a studied farmer. He took good care of his topsoil. That's partly because he remembered the "Dust Bowl" and partly because my grandmother was a botanist. He became good friends with his local cooperative extension agent.

Today's agricultural practices (as you've pointed out) are (ahem) "problematic." They lead to topsoil depletion and erosion. We're breeding "superbugs," and growing vast monocultures, that are dependent upon chemical fertilizers and artificial irrigation.


Yeah... disease and famine are our unacknowledged companions, but never very far away.

[GliderGuider]

25. "Tertullian's Blessing"

Tertullian was a 3rd century Christian apologist. He wrote the following, which I find enormously illuminating in terms of how our attitudes have changed over time:

“The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars, and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.”

[NNadir]

12. There is no such thing as a "green" car.

There never has been and there never will be.

Further the idea that "conservation will save us" is nonsense. Energy demand is rising, not falling.

I am, however, hardly surprised to hear an anti-nuke sockpuppet declare that coal "is better for the environment than..."

Than what?

Farting?

There are ZERO fundie anti-nukes who understand the first or last thing about the external cost of energy. All of them are coal apologists. All of them are abysmally ignorant which is precisely why all of them talk about bullshit dumbass fantasies like "green cars."

[cloudythescribbler]

3. MORE than "carbon free" econ needed -- REforestation & air filters to have NEGATIVE net GLOBAL ...

Greenhouse contribution. By the time we get to a 'greenhouse neutral' economy by the most AGGRESSIVE goals (eg Norway carbon-neutral by 2030) that will be too late. Progressives need to band together to start demanding net NEGATIVE Greenhouse contribution globally, achieved SOONER than Norway's target date.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Please be rational

Currently, we're not only not carbon neutral, our carbon emissions are increasing.

Carbon net negative is a good goal, however there will be a number of milestones along the way:

1. Stabilization of carbon emissions (stop the increase.)
2. Decrease of carbon emissions
3. Carbon neutrality. (Stop adding carbon to the atmosphere.)
4. Net negative. (Decrease carbon levels in the atmosphere.)
5. Increasing negative. (Decrease carbon at a faster rate.)

We can argue about the rate that you'd like to pass those milestones at, but you still need to pass each and every one of them to arrive at your desired destination.

[cloudythescribbler]

17. Yes, all the intermediate steps must be travelled thru -- but activists need to call for WHOLE loaf

If the idea of net negative Greenhouse emissions isn't at least part of mainstream discourse on the issue, how are we going to achieve it.

This is part of the harm that global warming 'denialism' does (also HIV denialism). People spend their time refuting the denialism and NOT showing how, eg, widely touted goals of 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 is grossly insufficient. (Norway, which has a goal of carbon neutrality by 2030 FOR THAT COUNTRY) is a step that a mainstream institution has taken, but humanity WILL need to go further, and authentic progressives need to start vocally advocating it NOW.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x133777

[GliderGuider]

18. Problem is, the whole loaf is too big to chew.

As I see it, our civilization has been screwed for 100 years (since we started using oil), and our species has been screwed for 10,000 years (since we developed agriculture). The former should be understood simply as an acceleration of the trend started by the latter.
That makes it pretty late in the game to be deciding to change the way we relate to Gaia.

Now, we should definitely try to do All the Good Things, because we should try to preserve at least a remnant of our species and maybe a bit of our civilization (as an historical curiosity if nothing else). However, as the saying goes around here, carving a bigger stone head at this point is unlikely to solve the problem -- at least if the problem is defined with human beings as its focal point.

[cloudythescribbler]

26. Well, we may indeed already be doomed, but I STILL think repairing our situation ...

is worth at least the best try we can give it.

[GliderGuider]

27. I vacillate a lot on that issue

Some days I feel it's our sacred duty to try, other days I get overwhelmed with the idea that if we try and succeed we'd only fuck it up a bit later, other times I just feel there's no chance of any kind of success so why bother...

A lot of that seems to depend on the recent state of my sex life :-) As a result I'd much rather feel the sacred duty...

[cloudythescribbler]

28. Well, here are two sides -- on one side, there's certain doom, & on the other, trying to avoid it ..

It seems to me a no brainer, unless there is some mechanism out there rewarding people if they are willing to give up hope.

If there is such a mechanism, then it needs to be exposed openly and explicitly, and of course is certain to be resistant to doing so.

[GliderGuider]

31. It may not be a "mechanism"

But sometimes it feels more honest.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. I lean closer to the "sacred duty" view

I'm not so arrogant that I believe that humanity is the pinnacle.

If we pull through this, I think we will be changed by the experience (just as an individual is often changed by a "Near Death Experience.")

[cedric]

24. Waking Up To Reality

For the United States, it provides an unprecedented opportunity to galvanize American innovation to become the center of a new global carbon-free economy.

From this statement it looks as if it's simply a case of promoting the American economy rather than rectifying the problems of the planet. It might not have escaped the authors notice but a lot of other countries have been running with these issues a lot longer than America who collectively have only recently woken to reality.

How the US thinks it can provide leadership is beyond me. But then again I'm not American.