As people take to the streets to demand that governments address global warming, we’re also facing the prospect of our fossil-fuel based economy running itself into the ground. And while the effects of global warming are becoming increasingly apparent, our consumption of oil has hit all-time highs. So has the price: and most observers think it’s because global oil production is at or near its peak. The more rapidly we consume oil, the more we exacerbate global warming, the sharper the rise in prices is, and the harder it is for our economy to absorb. How do we weather this “perfect storm“?There are answers out there, and they’re not all good ones. Here are some I encounter regularly:
- Allow the market solve the problem. The market is already being allowed to do this, and its solution is to burn all the oil as fast as we can in order to keep our economy running, and then switch to the next cheapest fossil fuel. Rebuilding our infrastructure around renewable energy is not likely to be profitable in the short term, and oil is still priced lower than renewable energy.
- Wait for a scientific breakthrough that will provide low-cost energy. It’s impossible to argue that this couldn’t succeed, but most consumers are not willing to risk their energy security on a bet. And when proponents of hypothetical breakthroughs start talking about how much energy the human race could possibly harness (e.g., the total solar energy striking the earth every day), you can be sure they’re not thinking about how much it would cost to build and run the infrastructure required to capture and distribute that energy.
- Sequester all the carbon we emit, so we can still afford energy. See #2; existing carbon sequestration techniques and technologies are not capable of globally reducing CO2 emissions, and even if they were they wouldn’t be cheap, and energy consumers would have to pay for it.
- Use biofuels. Again, this is already happening, but production of biofuels is not and will not grow fast enough to significantly delay the peak in what is increasingly being called “total liquids production” (e.g., oil + other liquid fuels). And even if it were it is less energy-efficient than pumping oil, so it’s never going to be as cheap.
- Use nuclear power. What proponents of this view mean is ramp up the use of nuclear power from current levels. There are serious safety and security concerns about nuclear power and the waste it generates. The industry has built few plants in the United States, but a transition to a primarily nuclear-powered energy economy would require the construction of hundreds of plants in a very short period of time. Among other things, that wouldn’t be cheap.
So what is the solution? Fortunately, it’s simple and irrefutable. Consume less energy.
Reducing energy consumption would lower CO2 emissions and reduce energy costs, freeing up money to invest in a transition to renewable energy sources. It would also help curtail urban sprawl. Sprawl separates residential communities from work and shopping, resulting in more driving per person. And many suburban developments consist of large houses that are expensive to heat, cool, and maintain. Consumers that are “on an energy diet” need high-density, mixed-use, walkable and bike-able neighborhoods. This emphasis on increasing efficiency and reducing waste can eventually pull us out of some of the worst consequences of rapidly rising energy prices. In fact the transition to renewable energy will take work, creating many new jobs in the rapidly-growing renewable energy sector.
Here in Champaign-Urbana, we’re better off than many communities, because we already see the value of public transportation, walkable neighborhoods, high-density mixed-use development, and local food. The storm is upon us, and a good many of us are prepared. If you’re not, there are still many opportunities to reduce energy consumption and save money. Step it up!
5939 Comments »
So attend, listen, and run (for office that is).