Solving Energy Crisis with Renewables Could Lead to Ecological Collapse

Lost amongst all the "solutions" to the energy crisis lies the fact that the energy crisis is simply one component of a much broader ecological crisis. Addressing the energy issue in isolation and attempting to solve only this one aspect could easily exacerbate many of the other ecological problems we now face.

Our true crisis is one of over-consumption. This is not limited to supplies of fossil energy, but affects every component of the earth's biosphere. We are cutting down too many forests, sprawling out on too much arable land, dumping too many poisons into our waterways, pumping out too much dirty air (especially CO2), sucking up too much water; the list could go on for a very long time, but I'll stop there.

Energy is, of course, the means by which we consume all these other resources. The fact that we now use dirty energy rather than clean energy to consume these resources is, ultimately, not that important. Turning our dirty energy sources into clean ones is important for mitigating global climate disruption, but if this allows us to continue down the path of over-consumption of everything else that sustains life on this planet, then renewable energy will simply be the enabler that allowed our misguided species to continue its ultimate destruction of the most amazing thing in the universe: Planet Earth.

We have, unfortunately, set up a system of values, reflected in our economic system, that prizes material goods above everything else. Not just prized above every other species we share the globe with but prized even above our own happiness. We have reached the limits of our ability to consume and have still not obtained happiness. Rather than see these limits as barriers to be removed so we can consume yet more, we should reconsider the assumptions and foundations that have led us to this crisis point. Renewable energy, yes, of course, but only in moderation.

Our notions of egalitarianism, based on the fundamental principle that we are all equal, insists that our own way of life does not infringe on other people's ability to provide for themselves. A world of seemingly limitless resources has allowed us to pretend that our own consumption does not affect anyone else's. But we have now grown numerous and powerful enough to see that limitless consumption on a finite planet is an impossibility. Everything we consume in an unsustainable way means there's that much less available for everyone else. Only five percent of the world has ever flown in an airplane. Only 15% has access to a private car. Imagine the implications if everyone on the globe had access to these things.

In times of crisis, we must demand more not just from ourselves, but also from our leaders. The earth has not seen such a crisis since the dinosaurs went extinct, so our expectations must be very high. After having spent the last eight years or so suffering under the worst president in our history, it's easy to get excited about almost anyone who might replace him. Can Mr. Obama, if elected, dislodge our system of government from the notions of endless consumption to which it now seems hopelessly conjoined? Or will he simply apply a few band-aids to the hemorrhage? Mr. Obama seems like an extraordinary man, perhaps the best our political system is capable of producing. If he cannot begin to steer our country in a sustainable direction, not just in terms of energy but also in everything else we consume, then I suggest the time will have come to reconsider the foundations upon which our society is governed.

As a society, we must not become fixated on one aspect of the over-consumption problem (dirty energy) to the detriment of all the rest (water, topsoil, species extinction, logging, etc). We must, of course, embrace renewable energy and rid ourselves of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. I believe Mr. Gore's goal of a carbon-free nation can be reached by 2020, but not if we're consuming other nonrenewable resources at the same level as we do now. Individually we need to reexamine our own lives not just in terms of our excessive energy use, but our over-consumption generally. There are few people in our country, ourselves included, that could not dramatically reduce their ecological footprint, not just their carbon footprint.

Stephen and Rebekah Hren are the authors of The Carbon-Free Home: 36 Remodeling Projects to Help Kick the Fossil-Fuel Habit from Chelsea Green. For more information about green living, the Hrens, or their book, visit chelseagreen.com.

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

Are we consuming too much? In America, yes. In Chine and India, Africa and parts of South America, no. Europe and Japan are probably somewhere in the middle, models for how the world can live without restricting the health and well being of any human. We know that we have to generate approx 2-5kW/human. See e.g. the following map for the poor distribution of available energy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Energy-consumption-per-capita-2003.png/800px-Energy-consumption-per-capita-2003.png

This graph

http://www.lib.utah.edu/services/prog/gould/1998/Figure_9.gif

shows how increased energy use leads to diminishing returns in human terms, but that there is a lower level of per capita energy use below which people start to suffer consequences. This is approx. 2-5kW/human.

Human population will grow to 10 billion and we have to find sustainable ways to generate 20-50TW. This means we are looking at up to a tripling of our current energy consumption. This is basically non-negotiable. We can not suppress the development of a large fraction of mankind. I don't think that is realistic.

Can we generate e.g. 40TW? Yes, we can. Even with solar energy it takes no more than roughly 1 million square kilometers of covered are. That's 1/500 of the Earth's surface, about 100m^2 (1000 square feet) per capita and less than half the land area of Saudi Arabia.

[leduck]

You are right about America
We use far to much energy per capita then we should
Canada uses more energy per capita then we do though
I like Europe
I wish we were more like them, but I don"t think all of Europe is necessarily sustainable in the long run
As I look at this graph:
http://www.lib.utah.edu/services/prog/gould/1998/Figure_9.gif
Japan uses half as much energy as we do and are about just as much developed
That"s a lot of waste
But I have to disagree with some of what you are saying
Is south america ok? It depends on how much rain forest you"re willing to give up

I don"t believe we can match current energy usage on renweables let alone tripple it. How much would it cost us to try to scale up wind energy or solar to generate 40 TW of electricity?
I also doubt we can sustain 10 billion people let alone 6.6 billion without fossil fuel

China may be fine with regard to per capita energy use, but why would anyone want the U.S. to have their population?

Any gains they make in per capita energy savings is partially undone by the shear size of their populations. We need more birth control in the worse way!

[KillTheMessenger]

Deforestation in South America has nothing to do with primary energy production. Biofuels are simply a very poor way of producing energy, even in Brazil. But they are seemingly cheaper than solar energy. And they make a lot of money for a select few. As a result we cut irreplaceable forests for a quick buck. I do not agree with that in my post. But several countries in South America are short of the standards of living we should offer to all human beings. The people who are cutting the forest are, of course, not trying to help those unfortunate. They are just lining their own pockets.

That you don't believe we can triple our energy production is, at best, a belief. It has no footing in reality. It's a fact that solar panels in the right location can produce 40W/m^2 on average. Not to mention that we could maintain that level of energy production with nuclear for centuries. But I don't like nuclear much, so I wasn't even mentioning it.

We not only can sustain 10 billion people but we will have to. There is nothing to discuss about that. I won't go into detail about your "birth control" nightmares. Please inform yourself about the reality of human population growth.

[Sumocat]

"Canada uses more energy per capita then we do though" -- That's not a reasonable comparison. In general, Canada is much colder than the States. Thus, they require more energy to keep warm.

[leduck]

it's not just oil and coal that depletes...,
what about:

depletion of fossil water (ogallala aquifer)
declining ocean catches
depleting topsoil
declining grain production
loss of old growth trees

wind and solar may help with electricity, but what does it do for grain production?
Peak Oil is merely a symptom

[research]

In order:
Night time drip irrigation, replace nukes coal and oil with wind and solar.
very small fishing quotes till it rebounds.
crop rotation, contouring, trees and permaculture
organic farming
unfortunately: parks and museums

But if the population explosion is not reversed, eventually we Will find out how many people the Earth can hold till it breaks.

You post is timely: each power source has more effects then just plus or minus CO2.

[KillTheMessenger]

leduck, please try to read up on the science and engineering aspects of the things you mention. You will see that most of these are the result of wasteful techniques and poorly thought out short term economics.

Fossil water is not a necessity, like oil and coal it is simply an opportunistic exploit.

Oceans supply very little of the world's food. They are a poor resource to begin with. Even if they were completely fished empty, the consequences would not go much beyond the closing of seafood restaurants.

If a farmer depletes his topsoil, he is essentially a poor farmer who cares nothing about the future of his children. Organic and technological methods are known to actually enrich top soil by agriculture. Our farmers will have to learn.

Grain production can decline and we can still feed all of humanity. Not with so much beef, of course. And we can replace quite a bit of food with chemically produced sugars, starches, etc. The total amount of energy needed for that would amount to no more than 5-10% of our total energy consumption. A human, after all, uses only as much energy as a light bulb.

What do we need old growth trees for? Wood is not an essential resource. We mostly make paper towels out of it.

I understand that you have an emotional perspective, but this is not an emotional problem. Feeding mankind is an engineering problem and always was. Farming is applied bioengineering.

[research]

excellent post.

residential and commercial rooftop area may be enough area for solar.

Wind energy for overcast areas.

[KillTheMessenger]

I am merely citing facts that have been known for a long time. If we would teach our kids on school these facts at every possible occasion, we would have, within a generation, individuals who could easily solve these problems. How do we teach this? Like so:

Math:

A gallon of gasoline contains 130MJ of energy. How much energy does an SUV tank of 22 gallons contain?

Biology:

A human being converts 100J/s of chemical energy into heat and mechanical movement. That is the same amount as a 100Watt light bulb. Calculate the total amount of food energy a human being needs in a month. How does it compare to the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline (130MJ)?

Physics:

The max. efficiencies of thermodynamic engines are given by the temperatures of the temperature baths they are connected to. If the hot bath has a temperature of Th and the cold one has a temperature of Tc, the max. efficiency is given by

eta_max = (Th-Tc)/Th (Carnot limit)

Calculate the Carnot limit for a heat engine with Th=600C and Tc=150C and for a solar cell with Th=5500C and Tc=80C.

History:

Write an essay on how the coal deposits in Europe drove the adoption of the steam engine and the mechanization of production in the 19th century. Compare to the adoption of mass transportation in the 20th century and elaborate the parallels between coal and oil.

Easy? I think so.

[mouselion]

"Individually we need to reexamine our own lives not just in terms of our excessive energy use, but our over-consumption generally. There are few people in our country, ourselves included, that could not dramatically reduce their ecological footprint, not just their carbon footprint." -- This is the premise by which I base not owning a car and choosing the location where I live. People seem reluctant to accept that they, too, can do the same. To them, it is an impractical proposition. Why? Because it does not fit with their expectations that they have formed.

[leduck]

This is one of the best posts I"ve ever seen on HuffPo
This has been one of my main points all along

We can try to solve peak oil with alternative energy (assuming we can scale it up)..., but we have many other problems to solve too.
Loss of topsoil
Loss of fossil water
Loss of rare minerals to depletion
As we grow exponentially, pollution and degradation also grows exponentially

Peak oil is merely a symptom of a bigger problem -- growth
Our throw-away society must end b4 nature ends it for us

[JeandeBegles]

I completly agree with you. The western society way of living is just not sustainable. So we must decrease our levelof consumption, while the third world has the right to increase its consumption.
This decrease (ungrowth) is kind of a taboo, but medically speaking such a diet should be the right medecine for our fat societies.
I think Al Gore doesn't dare to clearly address this need of decrease to get the mainstream on board with him. But in fact his plan to shift from fossil fuel energy towards renewable energy will use financial incentives like a carbon tax that will help the society to perform this huge move, and this will be with an increase of the energy price that will automatically involve a decrease of energy use.
So your main point is right (we need to decrease our consumption), but the indirect criticism of Al Gore plan doesn' need to be.
For me this is an example of the difficulty of unifying a majority of people to effectivly fight global warming. We will not succeed if people like you and Al Gore don't go together.

[MysticInd]

Great article; I almost bypassed it due to sounding negative; I lump it all together though...energy, water, etc. But all things do need to go and it starts with each person...

How do you want to contribute?