Letter to the editor of Scientific American, 09 Sep 2006, by Ken Young

Dear Editor:

Your September issue on "energy solutions for a sustainable world has prompted this letter, my first in my 50+ years as a subscriber. I do have some credentials on the matter, having taught as a faculty member in the Atmospheric Sciences department of the University of Arizona for 20 years, including courses dealing with climate change.

Consider the article "A Climate Repair Manual" by Gary Stix. Stix' most optimistic (and unrealistic) scenario is to keep the emissions at their present levels for the next 50 years and then declining afterwards. My estimations are that the present rate of increase of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is about 1.3 ppm/yr. This would yield an atmospheric concentration of 438 ppm by 2056. His linear projection of emissions (worst case scenario) would yield a concentration of 476 ppm by 2056. The problem is that in 2056, the emissions will still exceed the total CO2 sequestration rate (natural and anthropogenic) and hence, the CO2 concentrations will continue to rise.

The REAL question is what would it take to maintain a constant concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (not to mention the other greenhouse gases for which the same question should be asked). The natural sequestration rate is quite low, given that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been rising for more than 100 years. Basically this says that in order to maintain a "sustainable" concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, i.e., one that is not increasing, the difference between the total CO2 emission rate and the anthropogenic sequestration rate cannot exceed the natural sequestration rate, i.e., cannot be greater than the CO2 emission rates at least a century ago. One could go further and point out that over the long term (100,000's years), the natural emission rate and natural sequestration rates are roughly equal. Hence, in order to truly achieve a constant concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nearly all of the anthropogenic emission of CO2 needs to be sequestered thru humankind's efforts. Note that the natural sequestration rates should increase slightly as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases.

Since this is simply not going to happen, given the technological dependence of present-day society, all of the "solutions" presented in the various articles in the September issue are nothing more than stop-gap measures. They will only delay the inevitable climate changes. This leaves either (1) adapting to the climate changes as they occur, or (2) develop a strategy that will produce a truly sustainable society. The strategy of adaptation is eventually doomed as the consequences of climate change would continue to make life less pleasant on the earth, forcing those who can afford to, to find another place (planet or artificial habitat) live and leaving the rest of humanity in a man-made hell.

A truly sustainable society has three aspects; these are the ecology, the economy, and the culture. Each of these aspects must achieve a mutual balance. It is not enough to balance the ecology without changing the culture that is creating the problem to begin with. A basic tenet of our modern technological culture is that growth is good. Everyone (or almost everyone) wants more then they already have. Businesses look to expand their market (and market share). People in under-developed countries want the same standard of living that people living in the developed world have. Even our financial system (debt money) requires a continued expansion of debt to survive. Thus, our culture and economic structure both force growth which in turn, makes the ecology non-sustainable.

The solution is to develop a civilization in which the ecology, economy, and culture are truly in balance. The challenge is to define a technologically based civilization that is sustainable in these terms. What would such a sustainable civilization look like?

For one, there probably would be a LOT fewer people. I do not see how the present population of the world can achieve a decent life for everyone, with ample food, shelter, clothing, and such, and still be sustainable.

Second, there would be almost total reliance on renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro). Oil and coal would still be very useful but limited to uses other than burning them for their energy and maintaining their extraction at roughly the rate which they are being formed.

Third, decentralization rather than centralization would prevail. Since there is little economy of scale for solar, wind, and hydro power generation, unlike nuclear or fossil fuel power plants, there would be no real need for centralized power generating stations and their concomitant distribution systems. Nanotechnology and other more advanced technologies for fabrication would similarly allow decentralization of production. This would similarly lead to decentralization of political power and large political units would become irrelevant.

Fourth, debt-free money would be created as needed and the interest used to fund local governments (there would be no national governments and no taxes).

And finally, fifth, people would understand their role in society and how to live in harmony with the natural world as well as with each other since this would be taught from the earliest ages. Decentralization would make it possible to limit the destructiveness of pathological greed and isolate such individuals.

The question is, how do we get there from here?