Energy—Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth, Edited by Tom Butler and George Wuerthner, published by the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Postcarbon Institute and Watershed Media, 2012.
This is no doubt the heaviest book I've ever read, and I mean that literally. The 275 page book measures about 12 x 15 inches. It is full of dramatic photographs showing both the beauty of nature and the devastation caused by industry, especially fossil fuels. I like the sentiments—e.g. "beauty is that which is life affirming. And I appreciate the wealth of information—e.g. I learned that oil shale is not the same as shale oil.
I can't quite agree with much of the text, but I value the book's point of view. Clearly the authors are part of the struggle to solve our global environmental problems, and have assembled an impressive array of commentators with varying perspectives. I don't usually spend this much time reading a book with which I have so many disagreements, but I felt that I needed to understand these arguments, or I wouldn't be able to defend solar power and electric cars effectively as an important part of the solution to global warming.
I certainly agree with the authors that we have to learn how to live without fossil fuels. And I agree that conservation and environmentally sensitive renewable energy is the best way forward. I differ on three points that come up repeatedly in the book:
1. Peak oil is going to force us to consume less oil, and will have major economic impacts.
2. Wind and solar pose as many problems as they solve.
3. We have to create a new economic system to solve our environmental problems—i.e. one that is not based on growth.
To be fair, the book, which is a collection of essays, has various differing perspectives—e.g. Amory Lovins promotes a vision of a very comfortable standard of living based on clean energy. But most writers adhere to the three arguments above.
1. Regarding peak oil and economic impacts, I argue, with Bill McKibben from 350.org, that we have so much fossil fuel in the ground that we cannot burn it without causing catastrophic climate change. Therefore peak oil is not the problem—we have to leave the coal in the hole, the oil in the soil, and the gas under the grass. So, while the book argues, "whether peak oil has occurred, is imminent, or remains years or decades off makes little difference...the era of inexpensive oil is closing." (p 25), I would argue, along with climate science, that it makes a lot of difference when we stop burning oil, and we have to do so well before "decades" or we will be committing planetary suicide. Since we have to stop using fossil fuels whether we are at the peak or not, the peak oil issue is moot.
The peak oil line of argument also predicts economic crisis. Most dramatically, John Michael Greer predicts that the " decline of world's oil reserves . . . Will most likely lead to something like the technology and society it had before the industrial revolution began." (p 89) I argue that electric cars and solar power can sustain a comfortable lifestyle; we don't have to go back to the 18th Century.
Lisa Krall suggests, "Perhaps poverty is growing exponentially." (p 273) even though the dramatic decline in poverty in China over the past three decades has meant that poverty is actually decreasing worldwide. Too much doom and gloom is not helpful to our movement to get off fossil fuels.
The editors argue that the age of abundance is nearly over, and that "Confronting the population problem is the preeminent challenge of our time." (p 21) I agree that overpopulation is not sustainable, but the numbers show that population levels off in urbanized societies, and wherever women are educated. The climate crisis is the preeminent challenge of our time, not population.
2. I have disagreements with the way the book presents the case for renewable energy.
My strongest reactions come when various writers equate the problems of renewable energy with the problems of fossil fuels. For example, in the introduction Richard Heinberg decries, "a landscape disfigured by a coal mine or drill pads or giant industrial windmills". Similarly, David Murphy is critical of efforts to "search for oil under the arctic ice cap and coat the deserts with solar panels" (p 93). And below is a photo from the book that is captioned "visual blight". Personally, I usually find windmills to be rather attractive when I see them along the roadside. Is this visual issue really a problem that compares to the destruction of civilization by fossil fuels?
A stronger argument against renewable energy is the question about whether it can really replace fossil fuels. E.g. the editors assert, "the conversion of coal to electricity is over two times more efficient than solar panels." (p 121). This point is used by those who argue that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) is getting lower and lower as cheap fossil fuels run out, and that renewables are not viable. However, the EROEI for solar panels is around 9:1 (there is some debate about this on the internet, but that looks like a reasonable number to me). Therefore, it is a good investment, especially over the lifetime of the solar panels. Whether coal is more energy intensive is irrelevant, since burning coal is destroying the climate.
And finally, the argument against renewables is, "Emerging technologies fail in one or more of the crucial categories in which fossil fuels excel--energy density, accessibility, transportability, storability, and sheer abundance." (p 135). My thought on that is that solar power has energy density (see EROEI), accessibility (nearly any rooftop), transportability (the grid), and abundance (except in December at higher latitudes). This leaves storability, which is an important issue. Fortunately wind and sun complement each other—it's windy at night. And hydro and geothermal power can provide energy in the early morning or early evening. This still leaves a problem for the dark times of the year. I agree that storage—possibly all of our car batteries—needs to be improved. Perhaps in December we could burn biomass or biofuel or even natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to generate electricity. True, we don't have all the solutions, but the answers are not that far from current technology.
The summary of the book states, "We hear from the techno-optimists that, with the right mix of innovative energy generation and efficiency technologies, we can run a growth economy on wind, solar, hydropower, and biofuels. (p 257) The authors are skeptical because such a transition would "require a phenomenal re-tooling of our energy and transportation infrastructure." But as Bill Nye, the Climate Guy, says, "Let's get 'er done!"
I argue that renewables, combined with conservation and improved efficiency can replace fossil fuels if we, as a world civilization, devote our resources to that end. Regarding conservation, I agree with Juan Pablo Orrego's comment that it is "Amazing how superfluously and frivolously electricity is utilized." (p 157)
3. The third line of argumentation where I have a problem is the viewpoint that an economy based on perpetual growth cannot be ecologically sustainable. Philip Cafaro asks, "Can an economy really be "robust" [that is, rapidly growing], without causing environmental harm? The evidence suggests not." (p 253)
A weakness of the book is that the discussion of economics is way too vague or inadequate. References to "A development model that demands economic growth" (p 8.) should be explicit. I believe the writers are saying that capitalism is incompatible with ecological sustainability. If so, they should say that and offer an alternative.
One writer who does focus on the economy is Lester Brown. He points out the failure of markets to protect earth's natural aspects. He argues that indirect costs from gasoline "now total some $12 per gallon" . . . "but the market tells us it is cheap." (p 58)
Besides being generally weak on economics, the text is weak on history. The 20th Century is full of revolutions and reforms against the excesses of capitalism.
- The progressive era in the U.S. with the income tax, civil service, health and safety codes
- The Russian revolution with a complete takeover of all private property
- The New Deal with social security, unemployment insurance, tax rates of 90% on the rich, the WPA; unionization of major industries
- Revolutions in China, Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere similar to the Russian revolution
- Social democratic programs in most capitalist countries such as free health care, a welfare safety net;
- Environmental regulations for air and water quality, banning lead in gasoline and paint, banning chlorofluorocarbons, cleaning up toxic sites, requiring catalytic converters in cars, California's global warming act, etc...
If the writers are indeed against capitalism, they need to build on this history and say what they see as the lessons of all these struggles. What has worked, and what has not?
Because the writers are not explicit, it is also possible that they are not really anti-capitalism. Certainly Amory Lovins, author of Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era, is not. Lovins points out that "California held per capita use of electricity flat for three decades while real income per capita grew by four-fifths" (p 232), certainly within a capitalist framework. Also within a capitalist framework, Sheila Bowers and Bill Powers write in favor of distributed (local, decentralized) energy production, mostly solar panels. The book's very brief discussion of "What We're For" lists seven topics: Energy Literacy, Conservation, Resilience, Eco-Localism, Beauty, Biodiversity, and Family Planning. The text shies away from details, and none of these lay out a clear political-economic strategy.
The sharpest political analysis in the book comes from Bill McKibben who proposes three steps to fight global warming:
1. Focus on global warming (not green jobs, not energy independence)
2. Demand a stiff price on carbon that is returned directly to American pockets.
3. Build a movement.
This is clear. This is explicit. We don't need to be anti-capitalist—we need to be anti-carbon.
I wished the other contributors in the book were so clear.
Philip Cafaro argues that climate change is not the only area where humanity is pushing up against global ecological limits. (p 253). This is a point well taken, but climate change is the one area that threatens us all right now. If we solve climate change we can also deal with water conservation, resource depletion, air quality, etc. If we don't solve climate change, everything else is moot, because we will destroy ourselves.
I think the question of whether capitalism can be made to become ecologically sustainable is an important one. Right now, however, our work is very clear—we have to get off of fossil fuels if we want to survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment