The following is an irreverent expression of the writer's frustration with the prevailing attitudes toward the environment and the natural world. In contrast to attitudes in the early 1970s, the period of birth of the environmental movement, Nature and its on-going rapid destruction now appear to rank low in the public consciousness and, in many minds, are largely divorced from the economy. Meanwhile, this economy has risen to new heights of waste, obsession with short term monetary returns and Nature's exploitation. Equally, natalists have gained the upper hand, and concern for the burgeoning world population and its many social and environmental impacts is at a low ebb. Comments are invited.
The Threat to Ecosystems
and Human Survival
and
What Can be Done
R. F. Mueller, Ph. D., January, 2006
Abstract
The
Earth is faced with
a multitude of interacting environmental problems that threaten our life
support systems as well as Human culture, and possibly our survival as a
species. The major sources of these problems are Human overpopulation and the
intrusion of this population on Nature's life support systems: atmosphere,
hydrosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. Coupled with overpopulation--and, to
large degree, its impetus-- is the expanding production and use of
technological energy. Additionally, there is a misunderstanding of the nature
of this energy's interaction with the environment, particularly in terms of the
First and Second Laws of thermodynamics. Myths are propagated regarding our
salvation by such ill-defined and deceptive entities as "clean" and
"renewable" energy and "sustainable development." It is
still widely believed, even among scientists, that, contrary to the Second Law,
it is possible to achieve an overall control of technological energy and its most
familiar form, pollution, while maintaining our present lifestyle. Inevitably,
solutions, such as increased efficiency of existing technologies, that are
proposed for first magnitude problems, such as global warming, are palliative
and inadequate by at least an order of magnitude. There is also a political
inertia that encourages pandering to a populace that maintains this highly
wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle. Unfortunately, a significant cohort of
influential scientists and economists still supports this dominant political
stance. By contrast, the results of a number of recent studies by more
visionary scientists and economists, as well as those presented here, lead to
the conclusion that the only effective remedial policy is a drastic reduction
in the consumption of energy and the reform of our wasteful economy. Some
suggestions toward achieving this end are presented here. Realistically,
however, it is unlikely that remedial measures that address these problems
directly will be adopted until there are very severe impacts on the environment
and, in particular, on the economy. So far, those raising warning flags have
quickly been tagged as unreasonable "doomsayers" by those who reap
short-term benefits, political, economic or otherwise from the optimistic
status-quo. However, we may hope that the inherent logic of the needed reforms
will prevail as conditions worsen.
Introduction
It
is likely that time--even short time--is not on the side of our present culture.
Human driven planetary changes will probably soon force the issue. A number of authors, among them Ehrlich (1971), Georgescu-Roegen (1975), Catton (1982), Price (1995) and Diamond (2004),
have discussed this subject in depth. Most of these authors are scientists, and
their conclusions are based on well documented scientific studies, although
economics also plays an important role. Indeed, we appear to have little choice
but to turn to science and economics for solutions, if any are attainable. An
attempt is made here to further explore the problem from a largely energy-centered
approach, with particular regard for the constraints placed on our choices by
thermodynamics.
The Problem
The
central problem faced by our culture is the impact of our species' overpopulation,
and the intrusion of this population on nature's realm. Included in the latter
are coastlines, the remnants of natural forests, grasslands, deserts, wetlands
and waters worldwide. Coastlines and shores are increasingly developed for
human habitation or intensive recreation, and are thus irreparably damaged and denied
to some of our rarest wildlife, which require them for their very existence. Increasingly
also, there are repercussions, such as added vulnerability of Human property
and lives to storms. Forests are fragmented and degraded by roads and logging,
natural grasslands are converted to agricultural land, with losses in topsoil;
desert vegetation is browsed by domestic flocks until only sand remains, and
wetlands are filled with little appreciation of their critical hydrologic and
ecological functions. The most remote deep ocean areas are impacted by
indiscriminate fishing, which is driving to extinction many non-target
organisms such as marine turtles, seabirds and sea mammals. At the same time,
in shallow waters and bays, installations, like shrimp and salmon farms,
eliminate vital spawning areas, such as mangrove forests, for wild marine life,
while they soil the water with nutrients and waste products. As a consequence
of these factors and over-fishing, many fisheries have declined or collapsed. And
as background to all this is the steadily increasing burden and diversity of
chemical pollutants that find their way into the atmosphere, rivers, lakes,
oceans and the human bloodstream itself. Even the
remotest Polar air masses, ice fields, and fauna now bear these chemicals. Among
the latest revelations are the impacts of global warming, which, although not
settled as entirely human-caused, has for years been known to follow from the
increasing values of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the industrial era. Because
world per-capita energy use has nearly doubled since 1950 (Dorf,1981), this trend will be difficult to interrupt let alone
reverse. Perhaps the ultimate threat, although remote, is that of a run-away
greenhouse effect by which the entire planet might be rendered uninhabitable.
Already, rapidly evolving consequences include the dramatic shrinking of ice
fields and glaciers, the rise in ocean water levels, the loss of coral reefs, and
the increasing power and frequency of hurricanes and other storms. Likely
recent specific examples are the unprecedented high temperatures in many parts
of the world, and in the US,
the catastrophic Gulf Coast
hurricanes, widespread late season tornados and Western and Midwestern severe
droughts and fires. All of these phenomena are in the process of documentation
and are the subjects of almost daily up-dates. It seems likely that many other
currently unanticipated detrimental effects of human culture and technology
will emerge in the near future.
Not
discussed here are the problems associated with nuclear energy, such as
potential military uses, nuclear proliferation and the problem of waste
storage, to name a few. Generally, however, the gravity of nuclear problems is
more widely appreciated than that of those listed above. Certainly they
contribute to and further enhance the urgency of the latter.
There is a point of view that
holds that Human culture can continue to flourish despite the distress and loss
of natural ecosystems, because technology will set us free. For these people ecosystems
count for little, and the focus is almost entirely on resources used by Humans,
which are claimed to be infinite or nearly so (e.g.
Simon, 1996). Increasingly this hope is being shown to be a vain one, partly,
I believe, as a consequence of issues to be raised in this piece, but by a
multitude of other issues as well. It is expressed by the popular ecological
saying that "everything is connected to everything else." or "We
can never do merely one thing." (Hardin, 1993).
A single
theme unites all the above-mentioned examples of environmental degradation.
This is the accompanying growth in energy use with that of population. Energy
is generally considered a great boon to our existence, and its continued rapid--
if not unlimited--growth is assumed necessary for our future wellbeing. This virtually
unquestioned belief has even invested much of science. In the words of Cambel (1970) :
"The
solution to the conflict between energy and the environment must not be in
curtailing energy supply, but in reducing the irreversible and dissipative
effects when we convert and consume energy."
Of course
energy is implicit in all events, in everything we do or ever did, including
our mental activity. All that benefits and inspires us in
nature runs on energy. Most conspicuous is the energy from the Sun that
brings us comfort and fuels the plant world through photosynthesis. Our use and
conversion of Nature's energy forms through technology also benefits us, but at
a price. Unlike Nature's own energy conversions, such as occur in photosynthesis,
many technological energy forms have come on the scene so rapidly, and in such
great diversity, that Nature can adapt to them only with great difficulty, if
at all.
Energy
has the properties of quantity and quality, where quantity is measured
in some established
unit such as the calorie, and quality refers to the extent to which a
particular energy form is useful and lacking in harmful effects on Nature and Humans.
As a general rule, quality decreases with use. Thus the high quality electrical
energy that runs a motor is, on use, quickly converted, not only to useful
mechanical energy, but also to useless and even harmful energy
forms embodied in noise, heat of friction and wear products such as metallic
dust. The extent to which an energy conversion is useful to Humans is its
efficiency. For example, modern electric
power plants usually have an efficiency of a little. more than 30 percent, and
most of the original fuel energy ends up as thermal pollution. The efficiency
of heat engines such as this is limited by the fundamental laws of
thermodynamics, although even this degree of efficiency is seldom if ever
attained. Energy degrades to useless and harmful forms at every step of use or
conversion. Thus, when the 30 percent useful energy produced by a power plant
is used to run an electric motor, only a part, albeit a large part, ends up as
useful mechanical
energy, while the rest is lost as identified above. Of course,
the mechanical energy, which may be used to drive a machine, is then also
degraded in this machine as frictional heat and other waste forms. Thus, energy,
such as that derived from wind, may seem "clean" when generated, but
quickly becomes "dirty" when used and disposed of. A good argument
can be made that when technological energy interacts with the environment and
organisms, it behaves as a pollutant, and that in fact all pollutants are so by
virtue of their energy content (Mueller,1971, 1972,
1976; also, see our section "Energy in a Real World").
A
characteristic of all energy transformations is their spontaneity.
Consequently, there can in general be no technological "control" of
energy, or by extension, pollution, without the introduction of more energy, a
conclusion based on the Second Law of thermodynamics. Thus, reducing the
"irreversible and dissipative effects" of energy conversion and use,
as suggested by Cambel, is in general not possible
without introducing other irreversible and dissipative effects. The use of
technological energy is essentially an attempt to order the local environment,
or what is synonymous, decrease the entropy. However, according to the Second Law,
the order of the environment as a whole (universe)
must decrease and the entropy increase, in any spontaneous transformation. One
consequence is that the same lifestyles will run on the same mix of energy and
hence produce the same pollutants, regardless of the source of that energy. In
sum, virtually all human actions have unintended consequences for the
environment, and the only way to moderate--let alone overcome-- this problem,
is to substitute low for high energy processes in our daily lives where this is
possible (Mueller, 1971). An excellent recent overview of the role of entropy
in Human affairs has been provided by Hokikian
(2002).
The
examples of Human impacts on Nature listed above are not only characterized by
energy-based unintended consequences, but are defined by them, since there is no
way to conduct the activities which cause them without such consequences.
Because all energy is eventually dissipated into the natural environment as
various forms of pollution, there are limits to the quantity of energy that can
be assimilated without lasting damage to ecosystems. Since such damage now
appears to be occurring, it is essential that we slow and eventually decrease
this energy flux.
All this
does not of course, preclude the use of careful planning (which may take relatively little energy!), as represented by administrative
acts, by which energy expenditure may be greatly reduced. In many cases such
low energy paths of action will, however, entail inconveniences, as in the
substitution of public for private transportation, or as in the conversion to a
vegetarian diet (Pimentel
and Pimentel, 1996). Actually, a vegetarian, or rather a near vegetarian diet,
would, in all probability, turn out to be more convenient than one based on
meat and fish, as well as having many health benefits.
At present
virtually all planning for the necessary cultural transition is mired
in standards which
seek to preserve the existing "level of comfort" while eliminating
the unintended consequences-in the manner of Cambel.
This problem not only extends to the highest ranks of government advisory
bodies and their scientists but particularly characterizes them. Since the
problems of energy in the environment first emerged, there has developed a craft
of utterances and committees that amount to a "survival of the unfittest." In them there
is a play on terminology as well as actions that are designed to serve the
needs of pandering politicians. The first rule is that there be
little or no effect on the lifestyles of voters; the second is that the
ultimate outcome will be favorable to the existing society. In this world view
there has developed a cheerful and complacent terminology, examples being
"clean energy", "renewable energy", "sustainable
development" and "pollution control." It's true that the
scientific pundits, up to and including members of the National Academy of
Sciences, say many of the "right" things, that, if acted upon, would
at least amount to token improvements to our planetary dilemma. There is, for
example, considerable support for the Kyoto Protocol, which is designed to
reduce the rate of global warming, and is weak enough to have some chance of eventually
being adopted even by our politicians.
At this
point it is informative to consider specific examples. The Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) of Harvard
University is one of the most
prestigious and influential institutions in the matter of energy policy.
Prominent in the BCSIA, the Harvard faculty, and now
also as the Director of the Woods Hole
Research Center
is Professor John Holdren. Recipient of numerous
honors, including membership in the National
Academy, Prof. Holdren
has written extensively on energy policy, both as sole author and with other
experts as coauthors. The writer remembers Prof. Holdren
from the early 1970s, when he wrote requesting copies of the NASA documents on
energy cited here. For an insight into his thinking we consider his article
"Meeting the Energy Challenge" (Holdren, 2001). The article begins with:
"Affordable energy in ample quantities is the
lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the development of
the others....Energy may also be the most intractable element of the world's
environmental problems. This is because energy's effluents drive many of the
most dangerous environmental problems at every scale (from
the health impacts of woodsmoke in Third
World village huts to the disruption of global climate by
anthropogenic greenhouse gasses) and because the energy system characteristics
at fault are often costly and time-consuming to change."
And later:
"Meeting these challenges will require increased
efforts to maximize the capabilities and minimize the liabilities of the full
array of energy options: improvements in the end-use energy efficiency in
vehicles, residences and industries; renewable energy sources; advanced fossil
fuel and nuclear fission technologies; and nuclear fusion. There is no silver
bullet in this array nor are there any that we can be confident we can do
without."
Also in FOCUS:
Energy Technology for Sustainable Development (Holdren, 2005b) we read that:
"Energy is responsible for most indoor and outdoor
air pollution, most of the acidification of rainfall caused by human
activities, most of the oil polluting the seas, most radioactive waste, and much
of the environmental burden of trace metals."
A
superficial reading of these statements in the context of popular opinion would
classify them as quite reasonable and positive. The least we can say about them
is that they are in harmony with those of Cambel
thirty years earlier. The need to "maximize the capabilities and minimize
the liabilities" fits the pattern. There is, despite Prof.
Holdren's impressive credentials, an apparent lack of
understanding, or at least a mind-slip, regarding
the nature of energy and entropy and their
roles in the environment, as typified by
the above paragraph beginning with "Affordable energy" and the quote
from the FOCUS article. And he must have disagreed with the NASA documents or
at least not read them carefully! In Prof. Holdren's
mind energy is regarded as simply one element, albeit an important one, in the
array of environmental problems. However, on careful reflection it is difficult
to list an environmental problem in which energy doesn't have a critical role. This
is true because nothing happens without energy transformations. And as a
consequence of the Second Law, energy, in conjunction with entropy, not only
makes things happen but limits severely our ability to control or predict the
consequences of its release in our service. And Prof. Holdren
appears to be totally sold on the concept of energy control.
If
"lifeblood" is an apt description of energy in industrial societies,
it raises some serious questions. In successful organisms a lifeblood
needs to retain its integrity, or the organism it nourishes will die. Its
wastes must be recycled and eliminated without harm to the organism. By
contrast, technological energy is on use continuously transformed and degraded,
and its wastes accumulate as toxins in the form of pollutants. The gasoline
burned in an automobile, as well as the fuel and materials used in the car's
manufacture, end up debilitating us with a thousand pollutants. Thus energy's
ultimate "affordability" as well, is in question from the start. In any
case, there is no need to minimize a lifeblood, but ample reason to minimize
our use of energy. By contrast, Prof. Holdren
Apparently believes that such primary targets of efficient technology, as the
automobile, can, by the latest tinkerings and conversions,
be turned into a real counter force to global warming and energy waste--
without, however, any consideration of the total technology or its societal
underpinnings.
For a
further insight into Prof. Holdren's thinking we may
turn to his statement for the Clean Coal Conference, held in March, 2005 (Holdren, 2005a). It
begins:
"This country needs to expand coal use for
electricity generation and for reducing dependence on oil and natural gas in
other applications. But it also needs to take serious steps to reduce the risks
from climate change. Reconciling these two objectives requires a three-pronged
approach, as recommended in the recent report of the bipartisan National
Commission on Energy Policy that I had the privilege of co-chairing."
"The first prong is to provide a market signal that
begins to slow the growth of carbon emissions, but at a pace that doesn't force
premature retirement of existing coal-fired generating capacity."
"The second prong is speeding up the
commercialization of integrated gasification-combined-cycle multipurpose coal
plants, which can produce liquid and gaseous fuels as well as electricity,
which sharply reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and which offer the
potential for affordable retrofit to capture CO2."
"The third prong is accelerating the development and
commercial-scale demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration technologies
needed to realize the potential of IGCC plants to drastically and affordably
reduce CO2 emissions."
This statement
illustrates well the chain of influence in a disastrous energy policy, a policy
heavy on belated long range planning and safe "concern" about climate
change. Technologies mentioned in the three prongs are not likely to come on
line for years if at all, and there is nothing about their environmental impacts. But people and the environment are
suffering greatly today, and have long suffered from pollutants emanating from
coal and its destructive mining practices. The time of publication-2005- is
important here. Most glaring today, for example, is the practice of mountain
top removal / valley-fill mining in Appalachia, which
not only deforms the landscape on a colossal scale and extinguishes headwater
streams, but also pollutes rivers to their mouths. Clearly in violation of the
Clean Water Act and a number of other environmental laws, these methods of
mining are propped up by corrupted administrators and courts. They are also
bolstered by expert endorsements such as the above. They could probably be
ended with little effect on energy supplies, jobs or prices. Although these
abuses have been practiced for some years, Prof. Holdren's
concern seems to be dominated by the "need" to increase energy
supplies without any questioning of this need in terms of life style, or even
mention of the terrible abuses that mining and coal use entail.
The
perfunctory and trite nature of Prof. Holdren's
responses to these urgent environmental problems is the more surprising given
his early collaboration with Paul Ehrlich (e g.
Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971).
As
indicated earlier, the Belfer Center of Harvard and
Prof. Holdren are perhaps only the most prominent of
expert energy planners. Perhaps the most important characteristic of this
select cohort is "credibility". They must be recognized as experts
and not "kooks", with the implied definition of the latter term as referring
to one oblivious to achievable goals. Another group that bears a certain aura
of credibility is the Union of Concerned Scientists. The UCS is a
science-centered environmental group. Unlike advisory groups such as the
Belfer Center,
the UCS depends more on advocacy that concentrates on informing the public
through its publications, web site etc. and thereby influencing this public to exert
pressure on politicians. This organization provides much useful information and
many services in alerting the public to environmentally destructive activities
of industry and governments as well as related legislation. However, like the
Belfer Center
and similar establishment instruments, emphasis is almost entirely on
increasing energy production, but with stress on "clean" and
"renewable" forms. Suggestions to individuals involve little
sacrifice and can result in only mild life style modifications. Thus there is
no indication of leadership in meaningful energy conservation or any analysis
of the required thermodynamic factors.
Assumptions are made by the UCS that certain
energy forms such as wind, solar, biomass etc are "clean" without
discussions of their negative production features and their inevitable
transformation to pollutants on use. Also, the likely impact of these energy
forms on supply is exaggerated. In one example the perennial native, Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum),
is touted as biomass fuel for a large electric power plant in Iowa.
Plans call for planting 50,000 acres in this grass for this purpose. It would
provide 5 percent of the plant's fuel at a profit of $40 per acre for farmers ("Clean Energy", UCS Web Site, 2005). It is
however difficult to visualize tying up 50,000 acres of rich farm land for such
a low return per acre! In the case of wind power and similar "clean"
technologies, tax revenues to rural jurisdictions are used as an additional
selling point, without mentioning that such revenues result from all technological
development, including the most pollution prone. In fact, another uncertainty
is introduced by touting "high-paying" job promotion of renewable
energy development. As was shown by Hannon (1975)
and Herendeen (1973), there is an almost linear relation
between total consumer (family) energy utilization and income, so that
regardless of social stratum, total energy use, and hence pollution production,
rises directly with income. As we have seen, there is no reason to believe
that, given current life styles, income
from renewable energy production is any less pollution prone than that from
other sources.
In a late
development the UCS heaps lavish praise on the Ford Motor Corp. for "a
leadership role in the reduction and stabilization of global warming pollutants"
by promoting hybrid cars. In view of all the highly pollution prone vehicles
Ford currently produces, do either they or the UCS expect to be taken
seriously?! In any case, all such palliative tinkering does little but
encourage "feel good" attitudes. Global warming is the result of
massive energy expenditures through generations, and it is likely that only
corresponding energy cut-backs can be effective in even slowing, let alone
reversing it! Nonetheless, one is torn between
necessary criticism of organizations
such as the UCS and a fear of jeopardizing some highly useful functions they
perform.
Another organization that is in
the forefront of influencing the public on the energy-environment problem is
the Worldwatch Institute. Founded in 1974 by Lester
Brown, both Brown and the Institute deserve much credit for introducing a broad
spectrum of people to the most pressing global problems, ranging from diseases
to war. As is the case with our two previous examples, the tone and approach is
generally up-beat with respect to the future role of technology and energy in
society. According to the Worldwatch website, they
seek to provide a "blend of interdisciplinary research, global focus, and
accessible writing", and work that "revolves around the transition to
an environmentally sustainable and socially just society." Exhaustive and
exhausting detail are provided on the latest developments of "green"
forms of energy, with particular emphasis on the economics of development, and
the boon to humanity of these energy forms is usually considered a given. Very
little attention is given to thermodynamics, the Second Law in particular, and
what happens to energy after use. Consequently people are left with the
impression that a "hydrogen economy" is inevitable, and that this
element is a viable and clean fuel "source", when, in fact, rather
than being made available, much energy is absorbed and much pollution generated
in freeing hydrogen from other elements, to which it is bound very firmly. It
also goes without saying that little attention is given to the energy drain by
pollution control technologies themselves and their affluent practitioners, or
indeed to the total energy
inventories required by the Second Law.
Indeed, one
of the most important contribution of the UCS and
Worldwatch may be in providing an exhaustive list of all
the energy forms masquerading as "green", with then-presented opportunities
for their systematic dissection via the Second Law!
One final
instance of an
organizations with blue-sky faith in
technology is The Rocky Mountain Institute. An example is their proposed "hypercar" (see their website), a gaseous hydrogen powered vehicle designed by the Institute's founder,
Amory Lovins. This vehicle would, according to an
institute promo, "virtually eliminate automobile pollution." With
such a cheerful message, little wonder that the
Institute is well funded-- presumably by those who know little of the Second
Law. There is little evidence, for example, that any account is taken of the
energy and resource demands, and pollution that would be produced, by the
complex technology and the social infrastructure that would, of necessity,
undergird such a vehicle. It is, however, a great bait for the hopelessly naive!
Since we know that all energy forms, even
"clean" forms, are spontaneously transformed to "dirty"
forms through the Second Law, our energy impact problems will never be solved
to any meaningful degree as long as energy use -any form of energy use-
increases without bound. This doesn't mean that increased efficiency is of no
benefit, but simply that it can never overcome an overall increase in energy
use. Thus, the most modern and efficient vehicles will never solve pollution
problems associated with transportation as long as the number of such vehicles
and their necessary infrastructure remain large. One reason for this is the
spontaneous degradation of even the most useful components of the energy needed
to operate such vehicles, while another is the virtual impossibility of
exerting any significant control over the supporting infrastructure. Let's assume the impossible, that all our machines achieve 100 percent
efficiency, so they produce only useful energy. However, by the First Law, this
energy cannot be gotten rid of after use, and by the Second Law it will all be
spontaneously degraded into pollutants or other forms, over which we have no
control, except by introducing more energy from the outside. And all this takes
no account of the existing prodigal waste of the current life style, which
occurs independently of any machine efficiency. It must be recognized that the
only truly clean technological energy is that saved through conservation. The UCS
speaks of "Shifting America to Clean, Affordable, and Safe Renewable
Energy." But there is a conflict here between a wasteful society that must
be catered to with "affordable energy" and the reality that this
society will probably not reduce energy use, and become less wasteful and
pollution prone, unless constrained by less
affordable energy. This is why technological efficiency improvements can never
solve emerging problems such as global warming, although they may contribute in
a minor way.
If we
return to our introductory list of environmental abuses, one of a number of energy
involvements is immediately obvious, an involvement that would be derided by current
politicians-namely the low price of energy. Destructive coastal development is
largely a consequence of artificially cheap energy, which is needed to sustain
this development. Cheap energy also lies behind the overexploitation of forests
and fisheries, subsidized agriculture in unsuitable locations, ecologically
destructive road building, with excessive dependence on vehicles, the careless
use and disposal of chemicals, and indeed, virtually every environmental abuse
by Humans. It's uncertain, however, whether these negative interpretations of
energy involvement in environmental problems would be accepted or even
recognized by Prof. Holdren and his colleagues, given
their concern with "affordable energy."
What can be done?
(blueprint for a lifestyle?)
What, in addition to population
reduction, can be done to rescue the planet's life support systems and Human
high culture-or are the two incompatible? The first thing we must recognize is that
we don't have a realistic world economy. As our most perceptive economists (e.g. Beers, 1970; Boulding, 1968;Georgescu-Roegen,
1975; Olson and Cumberland, 1970) have long pointed out, the prices of goods,
and most particularly energy, are too low to reflect their cost to the
ecosystems that produce them and those which must assimilate their waste
products. And our current economy-which has enshrined former long-time Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as a
national hero-is almost entirely based on waste, to the detriment of future
generations. In the words of Georgescu-Roegen (1975) :
"This is why in bioeconomics
we must emphasize that every Cadillac or every Zim--let
alone any instrument of war--means fewer plowshares for some future
generations, and implicitly, fewer human beings."
As indicated previously, energy
prices are most significant in this regard because they enter into virtually
all impacts on ecosystems. However, energy prices that increase in response to lowered
supplies produce hardships which fall disproportionately on poor people. Since saving
most ecosystems would seem to require a drastic decrease in energy use, and
since this use largely consists of waste, a strong conservation program is
warranted. However, for such a program to be fair, relief would be required for
the poor. This could be accomplished through energy tax revenues providing
subsidies proportional to income deficits rising above a certain value. Frequently
energy taxes are proposed so the revenues raised may be used to promote forms
of energy regarded as "clean" or "renewable". However, as
we have seen, these terms are not rigorously correct, since all energy forms
undergo spontaneous transformations to other forms and eventually degrade to a
variety of pollutants, also spontaneously. Consequently emphasis must be on
reducing total energy use regardless of form. A better alternative or
additional use of energy tax revenues would be the protection and restoration
of natural areas, since such areas require a minimal input of technological energy
for their maintenance (Mueller, 1971) and increase
the ecological health of the Earth.
However, such measures as taxing energy directly should be regarded as minimal steps in
reaching an accommodation with Nature. Rather, it is likely that more draconian
measures will be required. These may take the form of regulating the size and
location of dwellings. Living space in the U S might be limited to 1000 sq. ft.
per four people as an example (the writer's family,
ranging from 3-4 persons, has for the last 30 years lived in a 700 sq. ft.
dwelling without sacrificing comfort). One of the most important actions that
could be taken is the conversion from our present transport-dependant, animal
product-centered diet to a vegetarian or near vegetarian diet (practiced by the
writer), based on locally grown products. Water use,
now so profligate, might be restricted, with particular emphasis on hot water
(ditto by the writer), since the large heat capacity of
water demands enormous amounts of energy for even modest heating. Daily or even
less frequent baths and clothing changes, which require much warm water, can
easily be done away with without significant diminution of cleanliness. This
may be accomplished without any ill health effects and might even benefit
health, since too frequent washing probably deprives the skin of protective
oils and a beneficial microflora, while it exposes
the body to unnatural chemicals. Enormous amounts of fuel energy, chemicals,
water and other resources could be saved by doing away with artificial
ornamental vegetation such as lawns and formal gardens and substituting native
ground cover (long ago adopted by the writer). This
would also benefit native wildlife, cut pollution, and have great educational
value for children, who are increasingly alienated from Nature. Another way to
work with Nature, with substantial savings in energy
and materials, would be to return to such practices as drying washing in the
sun. In the period of abundant energy, Humans developed a prodigal and
frequently mindless passion for travel (largely given up by the writer, who
has owned one new car in 65 years of driving),
especially by auto and air, which are very energy intensive and dump great amounts
of pollutants into the atmosphere, waters and on the land. While energy taxes
might curtail some travel, additional measures might be required.
A little
appreciated source of energy savings and environmental protection, which meshes
well with all the foregoing suggestions, is so-called "menial" work. Defined as any utilitarian physical activity that generally
dispenses with technology more complex than hand tools, it substitutes
elemental food energy for a variety of power-driven tools and thus produces
largely Nature-compatible waste. It saves energy in many ways:
1) in the
design, manufacture, purchase, servicing and replacement of complex machines
2) in the
protection of space needed to store these machines and
3) in fuels.
While
additional food energy is required for hard manual work, it is no more than is
required for brisk exercise. In any case, the energy involved would
overwhelmingly be expended no matter what. Additionally, such activity as
housework, manual gardening and a variety of practical manual activities are
excellent balances for sedentary intellectual activity. Perhaps one of the
greatest benefits of manual work is that it can enhance physical and mental acuity
and health, which in turn saves energy, a variety of scarce resources, time and money. The
exploitation of this form of practical physical activity, which was the basis
of pre-industrial economies in many parts of the world, receives generally bad
marks, since it has always been thought that leaving this life style behind was
one of modern society's greatest benefits. It could however save enormous
amounts of energy and resources in developed countries and do more to counter
global warming and general environmental degradation than many conceivable changes
in technology. And these suggestions are only a beginning. Of course most
people in our wasteful and self-indulgent society find these activities
unpleasant and almost instinctively retrogressive. Some (e.
g. Price, 1995) have warned that high culture and an active intellectual life
are incompatible with a reversion to a simpler life style. But this assumption
is probably based on the past course of human cultural development, which
entailed the invention of cultural
elements, whereas we can now start with many high cultural elements already in
place.
There are
examples that illustrate that our modern innovations are not always either the
most energy efficient or convenient. An example from the writer's personal life
involves shaving his full beard, now for more than 25 years. The instrument is
an ancient safety razor that uses double-edged blades. These blades are
manually sharpened against the wetted interior of a 3.5 inch diameter glass
tumbler. During all the time this razor has been in use, less than a half dozen
blades--really perhaps only 3 or 4-- were employed. While the quality of the
shave varies a bit, the result is generally as good as that provided by the
most expensive instruments. Its use is as convenient as can be imagined, and it
requires practically no care or servicing. It will be left to the reader to
estimate the energy and materials saved by this "retrograde"
instrument. Other examples could be cited in which simple hand tools are as
effective in executing a task as power tools, with substantial savings in
energy and resources, all the while providing healthy exercise that might
otherwise be paid for in a gym!
Although
adoption of the life style elements discussed above might be encouraged through
motivational education and artificial incentives, they would likely be
automatically adopted in an economy of scarcity brought on by environmental
threats and high energy prices. However,
it goes without saying that the transition from our present economy of waste to
one demanded by our long term survival, would be painful for many and might
even result in social unrest (Price, 1995). Part of
the problem relates to the severe economic readjustments that would be required
as a result of the diminution of consumption, since it is said that two-thirds
of the US
economy is based on consumer purchases. It is necessary and easy to say we must
cut back on our use of energy, but an emphasis on conservation over energy
production doesn't sit well even with the latter's most pitiful victims. Rather, they feel more
forceful arguments must be made for energy alternatives to the form from which
they suffer. Hopefully, enough time will be available for a graceful transition
to a life style required by the circumstances. Realistically however, it seems unlikely that
there will be significant remedial reform until conditions become so severe as
to threaten economic life or the lives of many real persons. As in the past,
anyone who spells out the consequences of the existing system is likely
immediately to be labeled an irresponsible "doomsayer" by those who
have a vested interest in either the economic or political status-quo. This is
why planning for the transition can't start too early.
As a
beginning, what is needed is enough of a reality check to recognize the gravity
of our present situation. For politicians this should take the form of having
enough courage to ask for sacrifices on the part of everyone, as was done by
President Roosevelt during World War II, the only recent emergency comparable
to the current threats to the Earth. For scientists it means transcending
denial and the seduction of the deep comfort zone in which inhabitants of the
most technologically advanced nations now exist. Although their own research
may point to planetary catastrophe, these scientists are themselves immersed in
the same lifestyle as everyone else. They too may have summer homes on seashores
or lakes that are easy to rationalize as contributions to their professional
productivity, while a fast car may seem as a small enough reward for all the
nights spent slaving in a laboratory.
What is
important is that we immediately enter into a realistic discussion of the
issues raised above. We need to repudiate, or at least provide alternatives to scientific,
economic and political leadership that entertains and promotes a rosy world
view and props up the existing dominant lifestyle of self-indulgent waste. We
need to expose the pundits of the Belfer
Center, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, Worldwatch and the energy establishment
in general for their lack of courage and for pandering to the basest instincts
of the public. Central here is the recognition of the true nature of energy,
once released, as largely beyond Human control, except through restricted
rather than expanded use, and the identity of virtually all technological
energy with pollution. Also needed are further studies in the nature of the
1972 Report to the Club of Rome, The
Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows et al (1972).
We could
also use a little moral authority from the devout, which is expended so
lavishly on lesser urgencies. According to the popular media Pope Benedict has
recently spoken out against "environmental destruction." Since we
know that over-consumption and ostentatious life styles contribute to the problem,
the Pope might well set an example by adopting humbler and more frugal habits,
beginning with foregoing his gold cape and miter, followed by encouraging his
subordinates to adopt personal forms of self-denial. He might also drop his
objection to family planning!
A word of
caution is also needed. Among the gloomiest scenarios for the fate of our planet
are the previously mentioned Population
Bomb (1971) by Paul R. Ehrlich and Energy
and Human Evolution (1995) by David Price. A number of the dire
predictions of Ehrlich's book proved to be so far off the mark that they led to
widespread ridicule by environmental optimists (e.g.
Simon, 1996). Similarly, Price's 1995 prediction that "A collapse of the
earth's human population cannot be more than a few years away." was probably
equally rash. Yet, while these errors of timing point to the foolhardiness of
the prediction game, their subjects are as threatening
as ever. The issues raised by these authors were and are timely, and we are indebted
for their vision, expertise and public spiritedness in bringing them to light.
It must be remembered that certainty is as impossible in science as it is in
every-day life. It is this very uncertainty that demands that the identification
and exposure of planetary threats be taken seriously, and that it is better to
err on the side of caution, because there is always the possibility that the
reality of the threats may turn out to be more severe than anything we can
envision. However, views such as those expressed by this reporter should also
be read with caution. Both Humans and Nature in general are adaptable and
resilient, and the knowledge of science, coupled with a new-found humility, may
yet rescue both us and this beautiful planet.
References
Beers, R. F. (1970) Intergovernmental Coordination of power development
and environmental protection act (S2752), Hearings before subcommittee on
intergovernmental relations, Ninety-first Congress, Part I, 242-268.
Boulding, K.E. (1968) Beyond Economics.
University of
Michigan Press.
Cambel, A.B. (1970) Letters, Physics Today 23,
38
Catton, William (1982) Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of
Revolutionary Change. Univ. of Illinois Press
Diamond, Jared (2004) Collapse; How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed. Penguin Group, New York
Dorf, Richard C. (1981) The energy
fact book. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968) The Population Bomb.
Ballantine Books, New York.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Holdren,
John P. (1971) Impact of Population
Growth. Science 171, 1212-1217.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1975) Energy and Economic Myths.
Southern Economic Journal
41 (3).
Hannon, B (1975) Science 189, 95.
Hardin, Garrett (1993)Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics and
Population Taboos. Oxford
University Press.
Herendeen, R. A. (1973) Am. Soc.
Mech. Eng. Tech. Digest 73-WA/ENER-8
Hokikian, Jack (2002) The Science
of Disorder. Los Feliz Publishing, Los Angeles, Ca.
Holdren, John P. (2001) "Meeting the Energy Challenge." Science 291, 5506,945.
Holdren, John P. (2005a) Statement of John P. Holdren
for the Clean Coal Conference, 10
March, 2005.
Holdren, John P. (2005b) FOCUS: Energy Technology for Sustainable
Development. The Harvard Crimson Online : Print
Article.
Meadows, Donella H., Meadows,
Dennis L., Randers,
Jorgen and Behrens III, William W.(1972) The Limits to Growth. University
Books, New York.
Mueller, Robert F. (1971) Thermodynamics of Environmental Degradation.
NASA X Document X-644-71-121. (see our section "Energy in a Real World")
Mueller, Robert F. (1972) Energy in the Environment and the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. NASA X Document X-644-72-130.
(see our section "Energy in a Real World")
Mueller, Robert F. (1976)
Letters, Science 192,11.
Olson, C. E. and Cumberland,
J. H. (1970) Intergovernmental Co-ordination of power development and
environmental protection act (S2752), hearings before the subcommittee on
intergovernmental regulations, Ninety-first Congress, Part I, 226-237.
Pimentel, David and Pimentel, Marcia, editors(1996) Food, Energy, and Society.
University Press of Colorado
Price, David (1995) Energy and
Human Evolution. Population and
Environment: A Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 16 (4)
301-319.
Simon, Julian (1996) The Ultimate Resource. Princeton
University Press, Princeton,
N. J.
R. F. Mueller, Ph. D., January, 2006
Abstract
The Earth is faced with a multitude of interacting environmental problems that threaten our life support systems as well as Human culture, and possibly our survival as a species. The major sources of these problems are Human overpopulation and the intrusion of this population on Nature's life support systems: atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. Coupled with overpopulation--and, to large degree, its impetus-- is the expanding production and use of technological energy. Additionally, there is a misunderstanding of the nature of this energy's interaction with the environment, particularly in terms of the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics. Myths are propagated regarding our salvation by such ill-defined and deceptive entities as "clean" and "renewable" energy and "sustainable development." It is still widely believed, even among scientists, that, contrary to the Second Law, it is possible to achieve an overall control of technological energy and its most familiar form, pollution, while maintaining our present lifestyle. Inevitably, solutions, such as increased efficiency of existing technologies, that are proposed for first magnitude problems, such as global warming, are palliative and inadequate by at least an order of magnitude. There is also a political inertia that encourages pandering to a populace that maintains this highly wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle. Unfortunately, a significant cohort of influential scientists and economists still supports this dominant political stance. By contrast, the results of a number of recent studies by more visionary scientists and economists, as well as those presented here, lead to the conclusion that the only effective remedial policy is a drastic reduction in the consumption of energy and the reform of our wasteful economy. Some suggestions toward achieving this end are presented here. Realistically, however, it is unlikely that remedial measures that address these problems directly will be adopted until there are very severe impacts on the environment and, in particular, on the economy. So far, those raising warning flags have quickly been tagged as unreasonable "doomsayers" by those who reap short-term benefits, political, economic or otherwise from the optimistic status-quo. However, we may hope that the inherent logic of the needed reforms will prevail as conditions worsen.
Introduction
It is likely that time--even short time--is not on the side of our present culture. Human driven planetary changes will probably soon force the issue. A number of authors, among them Ehrlich (1971), Georgescu-Roegen (1975), Catton (1982), Price (1995) and Diamond (2004), have discussed this subject in depth. Most of these authors are scientists, and their conclusions are based on well documented scientific studies, although economics also plays an important role. Indeed, we appear to have little choice but to turn to science and economics for solutions, if any are attainable. An attempt is made here to further explore the problem from a largely energy-centered approach, with particular regard for the constraints placed on our choices by thermodynamics.
The Problem
The central problem faced by our culture is the impact of our species' overpopulation, and the intrusion of this population on nature's realm. Included in the latter are coastlines, the remnants of natural forests, grasslands, deserts, wetlands and waters worldwide. Coastlines and shores are increasingly developed for human habitation or intensive recreation, and are thus irreparably damaged and denied to some of our rarest wildlife, which require them for their very existence. Increasingly also, there are repercussions, such as added vulnerability of Human property and lives to storms. Forests are fragmented and degraded by roads and logging, natural grasslands are converted to agricultural land, with losses in topsoil; desert vegetation is browsed by domestic flocks until only sand remains, and wetlands are filled with little appreciation of their critical hydrologic and ecological functions. The most remote deep ocean areas are impacted by indiscriminate fishing, which is driving to extinction many non-target organisms such as marine turtles, seabirds and sea mammals. At the same time, in shallow waters and bays, installations, like shrimp and salmon farms, eliminate vital spawning areas, such as mangrove forests, for wild marine life, while they soil the water with nutrients and waste products. As a consequence of these factors and over-fishing, many fisheries have declined or collapsed. And as background to all this is the steadily increasing burden and diversity of chemical pollutants that find their way into the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, oceans and the human bloodstream itself. Even the remotest Polar air masses, ice fields, and fauna now bear these chemicals. Among the latest revelations are the impacts of global warming, which, although not settled as entirely human-caused, has for years been known to follow from the increasing values of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the industrial era. Because world per-capita energy use has nearly doubled since 1950 (Dorf,1981), this trend will be difficult to interrupt let alone reverse. Perhaps the ultimate threat, although remote, is that of a run-away greenhouse effect by which the entire planet might be rendered uninhabitable. Already, rapidly evolving consequences include the dramatic shrinking of ice fields and glaciers, the rise in ocean water levels, the loss of coral reefs, and the increasing power and frequency of hurricanes and other storms. Likely recent specific examples are the unprecedented high temperatures in many parts of the world, and in the US, the catastrophic Gulf Coast hurricanes, widespread late season tornados and Western and Midwestern severe droughts and fires. All of these phenomena are in the process of documentation and are the subjects of almost daily up-dates. It seems likely that many other currently unanticipated detrimental effects of human culture and technology will emerge in the near future.
Not discussed here are the problems associated with nuclear energy, such as potential military uses, nuclear proliferation and the problem of waste storage, to name a few. Generally, however, the gravity of nuclear problems is more widely appreciated than that of those listed above. Certainly they contribute to and further enhance the urgency of the latter.
There is a point of view that holds that Human culture can continue to flourish despite the distress and loss of natural ecosystems, because technology will set us free. For these people ecosystems count for little, and the focus is almost entirely on resources used by Humans, which are claimed to be infinite or nearly so (e.g. Simon, 1996). Increasingly this hope is being shown to be a vain one, partly, I believe, as a consequence of issues to be raised in this piece, but by a multitude of other issues as well. It is expressed by the popular ecological saying that "everything is connected to everything else." or "We can never do merely one thing." (Hardin, 1993).
A single theme unites all the above-mentioned examples of environmental degradation. This is the accompanying growth in energy use with that of population. Energy is generally considered a great boon to our existence, and its continued rapid-- if not unlimited--growth is assumed necessary for our future wellbeing. This virtually unquestioned belief has even invested much of science. In the words of Cambel (1970) :
"The solution to the conflict between energy and the environment must not be in curtailing energy supply, but in reducing the irreversible and dissipative effects when we convert and consume energy."
Of course energy is implicit in all events, in everything we do or ever did, including our mental activity. All that benefits and inspires us in nature runs on energy. Most conspicuous is the energy from the Sun that brings us comfort and fuels the plant world through photosynthesis. Our use and conversion of Nature's energy forms through technology also benefits us, but at a price. Unlike Nature's own energy conversions, such as occur in photosynthesis, many technological energy forms have come on the scene so rapidly, and in such great diversity, that Nature can adapt to them only with great difficulty, if at all.
Energy has the properties of quantity and quality, where quantity is measured in some established unit such as the calorie, and quality refers to the extent to which a particular energy form is useful and lacking in harmful effects on Nature and Humans. As a general rule, quality decreases with use. Thus the high quality electrical energy that runs a motor is, on use, quickly converted, not only to useful mechanical energy, but also to useless and even harmful energy forms embodied in noise, heat of friction and wear products such as metallic dust. The extent to which an energy conversion is useful to Humans is its efficiency. For example, modern electric power plants usually have an efficiency of a little. more than 30 percent, and most of the original fuel energy ends up as thermal pollution. The efficiency of heat engines such as this is limited by the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, although even this degree of efficiency is seldom if ever attained. Energy degrades to useless and harmful forms at every step of use or conversion. Thus, when the 30 percent useful energy produced by a power plant is used to run an electric motor, only a part, albeit a large part, ends up as useful mechanical energy, while the rest is lost as identified above. Of course, the mechanical energy, which may be used to drive a machine, is then also degraded in this machine as frictional heat and other waste forms. Thus, energy, such as that derived from wind, may seem "clean" when generated, but quickly becomes "dirty" when used and disposed of. A good argument can be made that when technological energy interacts with the environment and organisms, it behaves as a pollutant, and that in fact all pollutants are so by virtue of their energy content (Mueller,1971, 1972, 1976; also, see our section "Energy in a Real World").
A characteristic of all energy transformations is their spontaneity. Consequently, there can in general be no technological "control" of energy, or by extension, pollution, without the introduction of more energy, a conclusion based on the Second Law of thermodynamics. Thus, reducing the "irreversible and dissipative effects" of energy conversion and use, as suggested by Cambel, is in general not possible without introducing other irreversible and dissipative effects. The use of technological energy is essentially an attempt to order the local environment, or what is synonymous, decrease the entropy. However, according to the Second Law, the order of the environment as a whole (universe) must decrease and the entropy increase, in any spontaneous transformation. One consequence is that the same lifestyles will run on the same mix of energy and hence produce the same pollutants, regardless of the source of that energy. In sum, virtually all human actions have unintended consequences for the environment, and the only way to moderate--let alone overcome-- this problem, is to substitute low for high energy processes in our daily lives where this is possible (Mueller, 1971). An excellent recent overview of the role of entropy in Human affairs has been provided by Hokikian (2002).
The examples of Human impacts on Nature listed above are not only characterized by energy-based unintended consequences, but are defined by them, since there is no way to conduct the activities which cause them without such consequences. Because all energy is eventually dissipated into the natural environment as various forms of pollution, there are limits to the quantity of energy that can be assimilated without lasting damage to ecosystems. Since such damage now appears to be occurring, it is essential that we slow and eventually decrease this energy flux.
All this does not of course, preclude the use of careful planning (which may take relatively little energy!), as represented by administrative acts, by which energy expenditure may be greatly reduced. In many cases such low energy paths of action will, however, entail inconveniences, as in the substitution of public for private transportation, or as in the conversion to a vegetarian diet (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996). Actually, a vegetarian, or rather a near vegetarian diet, would, in all probability, turn out to be more convenient than one based on meat and fish, as well as having many health benefits.
At present virtually all planning for the necessary cultural transition is mired in standards which seek to preserve the existing "level of comfort" while eliminating the unintended consequences-in the manner of Cambel. This problem not only extends to the highest ranks of government advisory bodies and their scientists but particularly characterizes them. Since the problems of energy in the environment first emerged, there has developed a craft of utterances and committees that amount to a "survival of the unfittest." In them there is a play on terminology as well as actions that are designed to serve the needs of pandering politicians. The first rule is that there be little or no effect on the lifestyles of voters; the second is that the ultimate outcome will be favorable to the existing society. In this world view there has developed a cheerful and complacent terminology, examples being "clean energy", "renewable energy", "sustainable development" and "pollution control." It's true that the scientific pundits, up to and including members of the National Academy of Sciences, say many of the "right" things, that, if acted upon, would at least amount to token improvements to our planetary dilemma. There is, for example, considerable support for the Kyoto Protocol, which is designed to reduce the rate of global warming, and is weak enough to have some chance of eventually being adopted even by our politicians.
At this point it is informative to consider specific examples. The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) of Harvard University is one of the most prestigious and influential institutions in the matter of energy policy. Prominent in the BCSIA, the Harvard faculty, and now also as the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center is Professor John Holdren. Recipient of numerous honors, including membership in the National Academy, Prof. Holdren has written extensively on energy policy, both as sole author and with other experts as coauthors. The writer remembers Prof. Holdren from the early 1970s, when he wrote requesting copies of the NASA documents on energy cited here. For an insight into his thinking we consider his article "Meeting the Energy Challenge" (Holdren, 2001). The article begins with:
"Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the development of the others....Energy may also be the most intractable element of the world's environmental problems. This is because energy's effluents drive many of the most dangerous environmental problems at every scale (from the health impacts of woodsmoke in Third World village huts to the disruption of global climate by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses) and because the energy system characteristics at fault are often costly and time-consuming to change."
And later:"Meeting these challenges will require increased efforts to maximize the capabilities and minimize the liabilities of the full array of energy options: improvements in the end-use energy efficiency in vehicles, residences and industries; renewable energy sources; advanced fossil fuel and nuclear fission technologies; and nuclear fusion. There is no silver bullet in this array nor are there any that we can be confident we can do without."
Also in FOCUS: Energy Technology for Sustainable Development (Holdren, 2005b) we read that:
"Energy is responsible for most indoor and outdoor air pollution, most of the acidification of rainfall caused by human activities, most of the oil polluting the seas, most radioactive waste, and much of the environmental burden of trace metals."
A superficial reading of these statements in the context of popular opinion would classify them as quite reasonable and positive. The least we can say about them is that they are in harmony with those of Cambel thirty years earlier. The need to "maximize the capabilities and minimize the liabilities" fits the pattern. There is, despite Prof. Holdren's impressive credentials, an apparent lack of understanding, or at least a mind-slip, regarding the nature of energy and entropy and their roles in the environment, as typified by the above paragraph beginning with "Affordable energy" and the quote from the FOCUS article. And he must have disagreed with the NASA documents or at least not read them carefully! In Prof. Holdren's mind energy is regarded as simply one element, albeit an important one, in the array of environmental problems. However, on careful reflection it is difficult to list an environmental problem in which energy doesn't have a critical role. This is true because nothing happens without energy transformations. And as a consequence of the Second Law, energy, in conjunction with entropy, not only makes things happen but limits severely our ability to control or predict the consequences of its release in our service. And Prof. Holdren appears to be totally sold on the concept of energy control.
If "lifeblood" is an apt description of energy in industrial societies, it raises some serious questions. In successful organisms a lifeblood needs to retain its integrity, or the organism it nourishes will die. Its wastes must be recycled and eliminated without harm to the organism. By contrast, technological energy is on use continuously transformed and degraded, and its wastes accumulate as toxins in the form of pollutants. The gasoline burned in an automobile, as well as the fuel and materials used in the car's manufacture, end up debilitating us with a thousand pollutants. Thus energy's ultimate "affordability" as well, is in question from the start. In any case, there is no need to minimize a lifeblood, but ample reason to minimize our use of energy. By contrast, Prof. Holdren Apparently believes that such primary targets of efficient technology, as the automobile, can, by the latest tinkerings and conversions, be turned into a real counter force to global warming and energy waste-- without, however, any consideration of the total technology or its societal underpinnings.
For a further insight into Prof. Holdren's thinking we may turn to his statement for the Clean Coal Conference, held in March, 2005 (Holdren, 2005a). It begins:
"This country needs to expand coal use for electricity generation and for reducing dependence on oil and natural gas in other applications. But it also needs to take serious steps to reduce the risks from climate change. Reconciling these two objectives requires a three-pronged approach, as recommended in the recent report of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy that I had the privilege of co-chairing."
"The first prong is to provide a market signal that begins to slow the growth of carbon emissions, but at a pace that doesn't force premature retirement of existing coal-fired generating capacity."
"The second prong is speeding up the commercialization of integrated gasification-combined-cycle multipurpose coal plants, which can produce liquid and gaseous fuels as well as electricity, which sharply reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and which offer the potential for affordable retrofit to capture CO2."
"The third prong is accelerating the development and commercial-scale demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration technologies needed to realize the potential of IGCC plants to drastically and affordably reduce CO2 emissions."
This statement illustrates well the chain of influence in a disastrous energy policy, a policy heavy on belated long range planning and safe "concern" about climate change. Technologies mentioned in the three prongs are not likely to come on line for years if at all, and there is nothing about their environmental impacts. But people and the environment are suffering greatly today, and have long suffered from pollutants emanating from coal and its destructive mining practices. The time of publication-2005- is important here. Most glaring today, for example, is the practice of mountain top removal / valley-fill mining in Appalachia, which not only deforms the landscape on a colossal scale and extinguishes headwater streams, but also pollutes rivers to their mouths. Clearly in violation of the Clean Water Act and a number of other environmental laws, these methods of mining are propped up by corrupted administrators and courts. They are also bolstered by expert endorsements such as the above. They could probably be ended with little effect on energy supplies, jobs or prices. Although these abuses have been practiced for some years, Prof. Holdren's concern seems to be dominated by the "need" to increase energy supplies without any questioning of this need in terms of life style, or even mention of the terrible abuses that mining and coal use entail.
The perfunctory and trite nature of Prof. Holdren's responses to these urgent environmental problems is the more surprising given his early collaboration with Paul Ehrlich (e g. Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971).
As indicated earlier, the Belfer Center of Harvard and Prof. Holdren are perhaps only the most prominent of expert energy planners. Perhaps the most important characteristic of this select cohort is "credibility". They must be recognized as experts and not "kooks", with the implied definition of the latter term as referring to one oblivious to achievable goals. Another group that bears a certain aura of credibility is the Union of Concerned Scientists. The UCS is a science-centered environmental group. Unlike advisory groups such as the Belfer Center, the UCS depends more on advocacy that concentrates on informing the public through its publications, web site etc. and thereby influencing this public to exert pressure on politicians. This organization provides much useful information and many services in alerting the public to environmentally destructive activities of industry and governments as well as related legislation. However, like the Belfer Center and similar establishment instruments, emphasis is almost entirely on increasing energy production, but with stress on "clean" and "renewable" forms. Suggestions to individuals involve little sacrifice and can result in only mild life style modifications. Thus there is no indication of leadership in meaningful energy conservation or any analysis of the required thermodynamic factors.
Assumptions are made by the UCS that certain energy forms such as wind, solar, biomass etc are "clean" without discussions of their negative production features and their inevitable transformation to pollutants on use. Also, the likely impact of these energy forms on supply is exaggerated. In one example the perennial native, Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), is touted as biomass fuel for a large electric power plant in Iowa. Plans call for planting 50,000 acres in this grass for this purpose. It would provide 5 percent of the plant's fuel at a profit of $40 per acre for farmers ("Clean Energy", UCS Web Site, 2005). It is however difficult to visualize tying up 50,000 acres of rich farm land for such a low return per acre! In the case of wind power and similar "clean" technologies, tax revenues to rural jurisdictions are used as an additional selling point, without mentioning that such revenues result from all technological development, including the most pollution prone. In fact, another uncertainty is introduced by touting "high-paying" job promotion of renewable energy development. As was shown by Hannon (1975) and Herendeen (1973), there is an almost linear relation between total consumer (family) energy utilization and income, so that regardless of social stratum, total energy use, and hence pollution production, rises directly with income. As we have seen, there is no reason to believe that, given current life styles, income from renewable energy production is any less pollution prone than that from other sources.
In a late development the UCS heaps lavish praise on the Ford Motor Corp. for "a leadership role in the reduction and stabilization of global warming pollutants" by promoting hybrid cars. In view of all the highly pollution prone vehicles Ford currently produces, do either they or the UCS expect to be taken seriously?! In any case, all such palliative tinkering does little but encourage "feel good" attitudes. Global warming is the result of massive energy expenditures through generations, and it is likely that only corresponding energy cut-backs can be effective in even slowing, let alone reversing it! Nonetheless, one is torn between necessary criticism of organizations such as the UCS and a fear of jeopardizing some highly useful functions they perform.
Another organization that is in the forefront of influencing the public on the energy-environment problem is the Worldwatch Institute. Founded in 1974 by Lester Brown, both Brown and the Institute deserve much credit for introducing a broad spectrum of people to the most pressing global problems, ranging from diseases to war. As is the case with our two previous examples, the tone and approach is generally up-beat with respect to the future role of technology and energy in society. According to the Worldwatch website, they seek to provide a "blend of interdisciplinary research, global focus, and accessible writing", and work that "revolves around the transition to an environmentally sustainable and socially just society." Exhaustive and exhausting detail are provided on the latest developments of "green" forms of energy, with particular emphasis on the economics of development, and the boon to humanity of these energy forms is usually considered a given. Very little attention is given to thermodynamics, the Second Law in particular, and what happens to energy after use. Consequently people are left with the impression that a "hydrogen economy" is inevitable, and that this element is a viable and clean fuel "source", when, in fact, rather than being made available, much energy is absorbed and much pollution generated in freeing hydrogen from other elements, to which it is bound very firmly. It also goes without saying that little attention is given to the energy drain by pollution control technologies themselves and their affluent practitioners, or indeed to the total energy inventories required by the Second Law.
Indeed, one of the most important contribution of the UCS and Worldwatch may be in providing an exhaustive list of all the energy forms masquerading as "green", with then-presented opportunities for their systematic dissection via the Second Law!
One final instance of an organizations with blue-sky faith in technology is The Rocky Mountain Institute. An example is their proposed "hypercar" (see their website), a gaseous hydrogen powered vehicle designed by the Institute's founder, Amory Lovins. This vehicle would, according to an institute promo, "virtually eliminate automobile pollution." With such a cheerful message, little wonder that the Institute is well funded-- presumably by those who know little of the Second Law. There is little evidence, for example, that any account is taken of the energy and resource demands, and pollution that would be produced, by the complex technology and the social infrastructure that would, of necessity, undergird such a vehicle. It is, however, a great bait for the hopelessly naive!
Since we know that all energy forms, even "clean" forms, are spontaneously transformed to "dirty" forms through the Second Law, our energy impact problems will never be solved to any meaningful degree as long as energy use -any form of energy use- increases without bound. This doesn't mean that increased efficiency is of no benefit, but simply that it can never overcome an overall increase in energy use. Thus, the most modern and efficient vehicles will never solve pollution problems associated with transportation as long as the number of such vehicles and their necessary infrastructure remain large. One reason for this is the spontaneous degradation of even the most useful components of the energy needed to operate such vehicles, while another is the virtual impossibility of exerting any significant control over the supporting infrastructure. Let's assume the impossible, that all our machines achieve 100 percent efficiency, so they produce only useful energy. However, by the First Law, this energy cannot be gotten rid of after use, and by the Second Law it will all be spontaneously degraded into pollutants or other forms, over which we have no control, except by introducing more energy from the outside. And all this takes no account of the existing prodigal waste of the current life style, which occurs independently of any machine efficiency. It must be recognized that the only truly clean technological energy is that saved through conservation. The UCS speaks of "Shifting America to Clean, Affordable, and Safe Renewable Energy." But there is a conflict here between a wasteful society that must be catered to with "affordable energy" and the reality that this society will probably not reduce energy use, and become less wasteful and pollution prone, unless constrained by less affordable energy. This is why technological efficiency improvements can never solve emerging problems such as global warming, although they may contribute in a minor way.
If we return to our introductory list of environmental abuses, one of a number of energy involvements is immediately obvious, an involvement that would be derided by current politicians-namely the low price of energy. Destructive coastal development is largely a consequence of artificially cheap energy, which is needed to sustain this development. Cheap energy also lies behind the overexploitation of forests and fisheries, subsidized agriculture in unsuitable locations, ecologically destructive road building, with excessive dependence on vehicles, the careless use and disposal of chemicals, and indeed, virtually every environmental abuse by Humans. It's uncertain, however, whether these negative interpretations of energy involvement in environmental problems would be accepted or even recognized by Prof. Holdren and his colleagues, given their concern with "affordable energy."
What can be done?
(blueprint for a lifestyle?)What, in addition to population reduction, can be done to rescue the planet's life support systems and Human high culture-or are the two incompatible? The first thing we must recognize is that we don't have a realistic world economy. As our most perceptive economists (e.g. Beers, 1970; Boulding, 1968;Georgescu-Roegen, 1975; Olson and Cumberland, 1970) have long pointed out, the prices of goods, and most particularly energy, are too low to reflect their cost to the ecosystems that produce them and those which must assimilate their waste products. And our current economy-which has enshrined former long-time Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as a national hero-is almost entirely based on waste, to the detriment of future generations. In the words of Georgescu-Roegen (1975) :
"This is why in bioeconomics we must emphasize that every Cadillac or every Zim--let alone any instrument of war--means fewer plowshares for some future generations, and implicitly, fewer human beings."
As indicated previously, energy prices are most significant in this regard because they enter into virtually all impacts on ecosystems. However, energy prices that increase in response to lowered supplies produce hardships which fall disproportionately on poor people. Since saving most ecosystems would seem to require a drastic decrease in energy use, and since this use largely consists of waste, a strong conservation program is warranted. However, for such a program to be fair, relief would be required for the poor. This could be accomplished through energy tax revenues providing subsidies proportional to income deficits rising above a certain value. Frequently energy taxes are proposed so the revenues raised may be used to promote forms of energy regarded as "clean" or "renewable". However, as we have seen, these terms are not rigorously correct, since all energy forms undergo spontaneous transformations to other forms and eventually degrade to a variety of pollutants, also spontaneously. Consequently emphasis must be on reducing total energy use regardless of form. A better alternative or additional use of energy tax revenues would be the protection and restoration of natural areas, since such areas require a minimal input of technological energy for their maintenance (Mueller, 1971) and increase the ecological health of the Earth.
However, such measures as taxing energy directly should be regarded as minimal steps in reaching an accommodation with Nature. Rather, it is likely that more draconian measures will be required. These may take the form of regulating the size and location of dwellings. Living space in the U S might be limited to 1000 sq. ft. per four people as an example (the writer's family, ranging from 3-4 persons, has for the last 30 years lived in a 700 sq. ft. dwelling without sacrificing comfort). One of the most important actions that could be taken is the conversion from our present transport-dependant, animal product-centered diet to a vegetarian or near vegetarian diet (practiced by the writer), based on locally grown products. Water use, now so profligate, might be restricted, with particular emphasis on hot water (ditto by the writer), since the large heat capacity of water demands enormous amounts of energy for even modest heating. Daily or even less frequent baths and clothing changes, which require much warm water, can easily be done away with without significant diminution of cleanliness. This may be accomplished without any ill health effects and might even benefit health, since too frequent washing probably deprives the skin of protective oils and a beneficial microflora, while it exposes the body to unnatural chemicals. Enormous amounts of fuel energy, chemicals, water and other resources could be saved by doing away with artificial ornamental vegetation such as lawns and formal gardens and substituting native ground cover (long ago adopted by the writer). This would also benefit native wildlife, cut pollution, and have great educational value for children, who are increasingly alienated from Nature. Another way to work with Nature, with substantial savings in energy and materials, would be to return to such practices as drying washing in the sun. In the period of abundant energy, Humans developed a prodigal and frequently mindless passion for travel (largely given up by the writer, who has owned one new car in 65 years of driving), especially by auto and air, which are very energy intensive and dump great amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, waters and on the land. While energy taxes might curtail some travel, additional measures might be required.
A little appreciated source of energy savings and environmental protection, which meshes well with all the foregoing suggestions, is so-called "menial" work. Defined as any utilitarian physical activity that generally dispenses with technology more complex than hand tools, it substitutes elemental food energy for a variety of power-driven tools and thus produces largely Nature-compatible waste. It saves energy in many ways:
1) in the
design, manufacture, purchase, servicing and replacement of complex machines
2) in the
protection of space needed to store these machines and
3) in fuels.
While additional food energy is required for hard manual work, it is no more than is required for brisk exercise. In any case, the energy involved would overwhelmingly be expended no matter what. Additionally, such activity as housework, manual gardening and a variety of practical manual activities are excellent balances for sedentary intellectual activity. Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of manual work is that it can enhance physical and mental acuity and health, which in turn saves energy, a variety of scarce resources, time and money. The exploitation of this form of practical physical activity, which was the basis of pre-industrial economies in many parts of the world, receives generally bad marks, since it has always been thought that leaving this life style behind was one of modern society's greatest benefits. It could however save enormous amounts of energy and resources in developed countries and do more to counter global warming and general environmental degradation than many conceivable changes in technology. And these suggestions are only a beginning. Of course most people in our wasteful and self-indulgent society find these activities unpleasant and almost instinctively retrogressive. Some (e. g. Price, 1995) have warned that high culture and an active intellectual life are incompatible with a reversion to a simpler life style. But this assumption is probably based on the past course of human cultural development, which entailed the invention of cultural elements, whereas we can now start with many high cultural elements already in place.
There are examples that illustrate that our modern innovations are not always either the most energy efficient or convenient. An example from the writer's personal life involves shaving his full beard, now for more than 25 years. The instrument is an ancient safety razor that uses double-edged blades. These blades are manually sharpened against the wetted interior of a 3.5 inch diameter glass tumbler. During all the time this razor has been in use, less than a half dozen blades--really perhaps only 3 or 4-- were employed. While the quality of the shave varies a bit, the result is generally as good as that provided by the most expensive instruments. Its use is as convenient as can be imagined, and it requires practically no care or servicing. It will be left to the reader to estimate the energy and materials saved by this "retrograde" instrument. Other examples could be cited in which simple hand tools are as effective in executing a task as power tools, with substantial savings in energy and resources, all the while providing healthy exercise that might otherwise be paid for in a gym!
Although adoption of the life style elements discussed above might be encouraged through motivational education and artificial incentives, they would likely be automatically adopted in an economy of scarcity brought on by environmental threats and high energy prices. However, it goes without saying that the transition from our present economy of waste to one demanded by our long term survival, would be painful for many and might even result in social unrest (Price, 1995). Part of the problem relates to the severe economic readjustments that would be required as a result of the diminution of consumption, since it is said that two-thirds of the US economy is based on consumer purchases. It is necessary and easy to say we must cut back on our use of energy, but an emphasis on conservation over energy production doesn't sit well even with the latter's most pitiful victims. Rather, they feel more forceful arguments must be made for energy alternatives to the form from which they suffer. Hopefully, enough time will be available for a graceful transition to a life style required by the circumstances. Realistically however, it seems unlikely that there will be significant remedial reform until conditions become so severe as to threaten economic life or the lives of many real persons. As in the past, anyone who spells out the consequences of the existing system is likely immediately to be labeled an irresponsible "doomsayer" by those who have a vested interest in either the economic or political status-quo. This is why planning for the transition can't start too early.
As a beginning, what is needed is enough of a reality check to recognize the gravity of our present situation. For politicians this should take the form of having enough courage to ask for sacrifices on the part of everyone, as was done by President Roosevelt during World War II, the only recent emergency comparable to the current threats to the Earth. For scientists it means transcending denial and the seduction of the deep comfort zone in which inhabitants of the most technologically advanced nations now exist. Although their own research may point to planetary catastrophe, these scientists are themselves immersed in the same lifestyle as everyone else. They too may have summer homes on seashores or lakes that are easy to rationalize as contributions to their professional productivity, while a fast car may seem as a small enough reward for all the nights spent slaving in a laboratory.
What is important is that we immediately enter into a realistic discussion of the issues raised above. We need to repudiate, or at least provide alternatives to scientific, economic and political leadership that entertains and promotes a rosy world view and props up the existing dominant lifestyle of self-indulgent waste. We need to expose the pundits of the Belfer Center, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Worldwatch and the energy establishment in general for their lack of courage and for pandering to the basest instincts of the public. Central here is the recognition of the true nature of energy, once released, as largely beyond Human control, except through restricted rather than expanded use, and the identity of virtually all technological energy with pollution. Also needed are further studies in the nature of the 1972 Report to the Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows et al (1972).
We could also use a little moral authority from the devout, which is expended so lavishly on lesser urgencies. According to the popular media Pope Benedict has recently spoken out against "environmental destruction." Since we know that over-consumption and ostentatious life styles contribute to the problem, the Pope might well set an example by adopting humbler and more frugal habits, beginning with foregoing his gold cape and miter, followed by encouraging his subordinates to adopt personal forms of self-denial. He might also drop his objection to family planning!
A word of caution is also needed. Among the gloomiest scenarios for the fate of our planet are the previously mentioned Population Bomb (1971) by Paul R. Ehrlich and Energy and Human Evolution (1995) by David Price. A number of the dire predictions of Ehrlich's book proved to be so far off the mark that they led to widespread ridicule by environmental optimists (e.g. Simon, 1996). Similarly, Price's 1995 prediction that "A collapse of the earth's human population cannot be more than a few years away." was probably equally rash. Yet, while these errors of timing point to the foolhardiness of the prediction game, their subjects are as threatening as ever. The issues raised by these authors were and are timely, and we are indebted for their vision, expertise and public spiritedness in bringing them to light. It must be remembered that certainty is as impossible in science as it is in every-day life. It is this very uncertainty that demands that the identification and exposure of planetary threats be taken seriously, and that it is better to err on the side of caution, because there is always the possibility that the reality of the threats may turn out to be more severe than anything we can envision. However, views such as those expressed by this reporter should also be read with caution. Both Humans and Nature in general are adaptable and resilient, and the knowledge of science, coupled with a new-found humility, may yet rescue both us and this beautiful planet.
References
Beers, R. F. (1970) Intergovernmental Coordination of power development and environmental protection act (S2752), Hearings before subcommittee on intergovernmental relations, Ninety-first Congress, Part I, 242-268.
Boulding, K.E. (1968) Beyond Economics. University of Michigan Press.
Cambel, A.B. (1970) Letters, Physics Today 23, 38
Catton, William (1982) Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Univ. of Illinois Press
Diamond, Jared (2004) Collapse; How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguin Group, New York
Dorf, Richard C. (1981) The energy fact book. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968) The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books, New York.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Holdren, John P. (1971) Impact of Population Growth. Science 171, 1212-1217.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1975) Energy and Economic Myths. Southern Economic Journal 41 (3).
Hannon, B (1975) Science 189, 95.
Hardin, Garrett (1993)Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics and Population Taboos. Oxford University Press.
Herendeen, R. A. (1973) Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. Tech. Digest 73-WA/ENER-8
Hokikian, Jack (2002) The Science of Disorder. Los Feliz Publishing, Los Angeles, Ca.
Holdren, John P. (2001) "Meeting the Energy Challenge." Science 291, 5506,945.
Holdren, John P. (2005a) Statement of John P. Holdren for the Clean Coal Conference, 10 March, 2005.
Holdren, John P. (2005b) FOCUS: Energy Technology for Sustainable Development. The Harvard Crimson Online : Print Article.
Meadows, Donella H., Meadows, Dennis L., Randers, Jorgen and Behrens III, William W.(1972) The Limits to Growth. University Books, New York.
Mueller, Robert F. (1971) Thermodynamics of Environmental Degradation. NASA X Document X-644-71-121. (see our section "Energy in a Real World")
Mueller, Robert F. (1972) Energy in the Environment and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. NASA X Document X-644-72-130. (see our section "Energy in a Real World")
Mueller, Robert F. (1976) Letters, Science 192,11.
Olson, C. E. and Cumberland, J. H. (1970) Intergovernmental Co-ordination of power development and environmental protection act (S2752), hearings before the subcommittee on intergovernmental regulations, Ninety-first Congress, Part I, 226-237.
Pimentel, David and Pimentel, Marcia, editors(1996) Food, Energy, and Society. University Press of Colorado
Price, David (1995) Energy and Human Evolution. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 16 (4) 301-319.
Simon, Julian (1996) The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.