Just wanted to share a beautiful blog on the Environment

In my opinion, you pose the wrong question by allowing only three options. But what, then, is the energy crisis a manifestation of? I would couch the question in ecological terms. Humans for the longest time (at least beginning 10,000 years with the origins of agriculture and settled village life) have obtained energy subsidies by taking over resources that increased biological success. This included taking over habitats for increased agricultural production, intensification of production by use of draught animals and human labor (slavery) and the emergence of more complex societies designed to maintain success and advantage in the face of growing populations, limited resources, and conflict (social hierarchies, labor specialization, standing armies, etc.). Still, limits to growth were imposed by the availability of arable land, other people, fresh water, and sunlight. All energy was “renewable” but not necessarily replaced as quickly as it was used, as exemplified by the deforestation of Europe during the middle ages. Things could well have gone badly, sooner, had we not been able to obtain the largest energy subsidy in the history of planetary life—ancient sunlight. Science and technology have since been employed (part of their mystique) in a desperate attempt to stay ahead of declining efficiencies, depletions, growing populations,and environmental degradation. Thus began, and continues, a gargantuan drawdown of stored, accessible, and portable source of energy that we have been spending as if it were income—yet it is only a temporary deposit to our savings account. In the meantime a good portion of the species has enjoyed unprecedented biological success—unheard of wealth, the rise of a comfortable middle class, explosive population growth, but also at the expense of the physical environment. Certainly consumption (over-consumption) has become a way of life. But it has been made possible (and viewed more-or-less as an entitlement) due to the very events that made industrial society such a success in the first place. There is no blame. It is interesting to note that the total contribution of renewable energy today is barely twice that of the 1850 levels.
The energy crisis is thus a manifestation of a biological imperative and any species would be “proud” to have attained such astounding success. But the gains are temporary (and made possible because of our big, clever brains) and with the colossal inputs of fossil energy the human carrying capacity of the earth has been exceeded probably by many times. Topsoil these days, or what is left of it, is more-or-less a sponge for hydrocarbon based fertilizers and pesticides. Even a return to pre-industrial technologies could be problematic. Nor is it just the fact the those sources of energy may soon enter or already be in their depletion phase, but equally so far a variety of resources, even those that figure into high tech energy “solutions.”
Thus it is likely to be wishful thinking that technology can continue to keep pace of explosive growth, or given the time frames, be scaled up to provide substitutes for depleting fossil fuel sources or to satisfy the need to combat global climate change in a timely way. Here’s a fun exercise: How many nuclear reactors of average size would be needed to provide the total annual electrical consumption of the United States? How many more reactors (substitute wind turbines, solar panels, etc.), for argument sake, would also be needed to provide the electrical energy equivalent to the energy of combustion of all of the gasoline used to power our current fleet of automobiles (shoot—even if the current fleet were all hybrids) for one year? We face an overwhelming ecological crisis, not just an energy crisis and not just a climate change crisis. And make no mistake, this would all entail incredible sums of money to even begin to solve and it is not completely disingenuous to broach this ugly fact when tossing around traditional solutions. For most people and certainly for me, the future may revolve around finding or keeping a job, feeding my family, wondering if I have enough gas for my car (can’t afford a new fancy thing) or if I should be armed when filling the tank, wondering if there will be food in the grocery store, wondering if the city will dispose of my trash, wondering if I will receive police protection for my property, wondering if I can afford electricity (or even if there will be electricity), and the list goes on. This is the prelude to ecological collapse.
Do not look for political solutions, technological solutions, or efficiency and consumption rate solutions. All are inadequate. Look for a future with far less energy to go around and probably far fewer humans walking the earth, and perhaps massive social dislocation. Look for an ecological transition as significant as the origins of plant and animal domestication were to the history of the species 10,000 years ago. However, it is perhaps reassuring (at least to some) that we probably behave no differently than any other organism faced with the same circumstances. It would appear that humans may be more clever, but certainly no smarter, than yeast.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf May 20, 2009 12:25 AM