The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a dire prediction of doom and gloom.
The climate is changing. The cause is increasing levels of carbon dioxide. The consequences will be severe - everything from increased flooding to protracted winters to desertification. It won't be the first time that the climate has changed but it will be the first time that a species on this planet has deliberately messed with the ecosystem.
It is all well and good to say that we have a problem but what do we do about it? What is the answer?
I would suggest that contrary to the many critics that argue that any change in our economy would send us "back to the stone age" doing something about climate change can actually improve our economy. We just need to be smart about what we do.
To put things into perspective, a Stone Age hunter/gatherer typically consumed around 5,000 calories per day. Their diet was similar to ours - around 2,500 calories - and then they consumed additional energy in the form of other goods. For example, making a clay pot or treating a hide.
By the Middle Ages, energy consumption of this agrarian society had increased to around 25,000 calories per day. Food constituted about 5,000 while the rest of our daily activities chewed up the rest. For example, transportation required around 1,000 calories of energy on a daily basis.
Industrial society in the latter part of the 1800s had increased energy consumption three-fold to around 77,000 calories per day. And by the turn of the last century, that number was closer to 130,000 calories per day. Food and food production was still only around 7,000 calories per day. The remainder was tied up in all of the modern conveniences of the time.
By the year 2000, that number had increased to 260,000 calories per day or 52 times the energy consumed by hunter/gatherers. This is the energy demand placed on the world for all of the goods and services that we presently enjoy. Food is only a small portion - somewhere around 10,000 calories per day. Transportation, industrial activity, agriculture, household uses, and commercial enterprises consume the rest.
It takes energy to make a cell phone or a computer or a car or a restaurant meal. Lots of energy. Indeed, pretty much everything that we do requires energy. Invariably, that energy comes at the cost of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
That wasn't always the case. We used to burn wood and capture the power of water and wind with waterwheels and windmills. We used to get most of our energy from much more environmentally benign methods.
But around 200 years ago, coal emerged as a more efficient form of fuel. Coal has more calories in given mass and much less ash to deal with than wood. It was a major advance in energy production. It was portable, compact, and a powerful source of heat. Even so, 150 years ago, it was replaced by an even better source of energy - petroleum. Under the right conditions, the combustion of petroleum yields almost twice the energy of coal and even less ash and particulate.
It is the utilization of fossil fuels which allowed our per capita energy consumption to soar to its present heights. We take energy for granted and use it at a rate that is unsustainable. Indeed, in the exponential growth rate in energy consumption continues, we are going to need a whole other earth to meet our demands.
What then is the answer? Return to the stone age? No. We do not need to go back to that level. If we simply returned to the level of industrialization at the beginning of the 20th century, we would decrease our emissions by 50 per cent and likely save our future.
However, who would want to go back to the early 1900s without its quirky medicine and horse-and-buggy transportation?
That is not what anyone is actually suggesting. We do not need to return to 1914. We simply need to dial back our energy consumption to 1914 levels. This means doing more with less energy. For example, less packaging on the goods that we buy or maybe keeping our latest smart phone for longer than 6 months. It means thinking about alternative ways of moving people. It means developing better houses that do not take as much energy to heat.
Some of the solutions are modification of human social behavior while others will require technological advances. However, none of the solutions are beyond our capacity if we are willing to change.
The only question that really matters is what type of future do we want our children and our children's children to inherit? We can certainly change our consumption patterns now and leave them a better world in the long run.
