{"id":714,"date":"2013-01-31T14:55:53","date_gmt":"2013-01-31T19:55:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=714"},"modified":"2013-07-07T16:42:50","modified_gmt":"2013-07-07T21:42:50","slug":"answering-the-wrong-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=714","title":{"rendered":"Answering the Wrong Question"},"content":{"rendered":"

On the Colbert Report<\/em> Monday night \u2013 if you\u2019re keeping count as I am, that\u2019s two weeks in a row that Colbert\u2019s \u201cforced\u201d me write a post \u2013 environmental policy expert Michael Shellenberger advocated for nuclear power<\/a> as a necessary energy source. His rationale is that energy demand is going to double by 2050, efficiency and conservation notwithstanding, so we really have no choice.<\/p>\n

The new e-book he and co-author Ted Nordhaus have edited is called Love Your Monsters<\/a> and in the Colbert interview, he explains we need to love our problematic children, our monsters, rather than abandoning them.<\/p>\n

As I\u2019ve mentioned before, I hate metaphors<\/a> because it seems you can always find one to make any position sound right. One of our monsters, he says, is nuclear power and we simply haven\u2019t been good parents. Were they my children, I\u2019d give nuclear reactors a really really long time out.<\/p>\n

\"SimpsonNuclearSafety\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I could go on about the major issues of nuclear energy, from the fact that it isn\u2019t economically feasible without massive government subsidies and insurance, to the not-so-small question of what to do with the leftover radioactive waste for the next few thousand years or so. But there\u2019s a bigger point at work here. Shellenberger and other pro-nuclear environmentalists like Stewart Brand are committing the ecological sin of not thinking in systems. They\u2019re looking at the energy issue as if it\u2019s independent from our other environmental and social dilemmas. In fact, there are at least two larger pictures that they are ignoring.<\/p>\n

That doubling of energy demand prediction is predicated on an assumption of the status quo: that the population will continue to grow until we reach 10 billion of us sometime mid-century and, perhaps more significantly, that our patterns of consumption will continue along the paths we\u2019ve been following for the last century.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s somewhat understandable that they follow the population growth predictions. Slowing population growth, to put it mildly, is a difficult issue. (Though, as I mentioned in \u201cLess is More, More or Less<\/a>,\u201d it\u2019s been pointed out that annual population growth is roughly the same as the number of unwanted pregnancies.) Altering our rates of consumption, however, is a much more achievable \u2013 and desirable \u2013 goal.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a fundamental mathematical formula that calculates our environmental impact. It goes like this: I=PxCxT. Environmental I<\/b>mpact is determined by the P<\/b>opulation, how much we C<\/b>onsume and the resource or T<\/b>echnological intensity of those things we consume. So the ways to reduce impact are by reducing population, reducing consumption and decreasing material and energy intensity. That predicting doubling of energy demand assumes we can\u2019t do much or anything about the first two and we can perhaps eke out some mildly increased efficiencies in the last one.<\/p>\n

It also assumes, as most conventional economic theory does, that those increases in C and T are a good thing because growth is assumed to be good. Sort of a tautology. But as has been mentioned here in EcoOptimism and elsewhere, more consumption and more technology do not automatically lead to improved quality of life. In fact, once basic needs have been fulfilled, the opposite is true. Many studies have found that people in developed countries are no happier now \u2013 and may be less happy \u2013 than they were a generation or two ago. Of course, indoor plumbing and antibiotics made life infinitely better and many of us would find it hard to live without Starbucks<\/del> drip coffee makers. However, the digital revolution, for all its amazing abilities and benefits, doesn\u2019t seem to have improved quality of life or happiness. Some would say it\u2019s done the opposite.<\/p>\n

So that\u2019s the first missing element in the pro-nuclear argument. The path it assumes is not actually the path we want. And the paths that would really make our lives better happen to also require less energy.<\/p>\n

The other part of the big picture that they are missing is due to a narrow concept of environmentalism that focuses almost exclusively on energy. One of the first slides I often show my classes shouts out \u201cIt\u2019s not just about climate change.\u201d Yes, climate change<\/span> chaos has the potential to do to us what that asteroid did to the dinosaurs. At the very least, adapting to it is going to be very expensive and will in all probability involve a lot of human suffering. Superstorm Sandy brought that point home. A seemingly relentless series of other atypical storms, heat waves and droughts are making the point elsewhere.<\/p>\n

But simply solving the energy issue with low-carbon sources, whether it be through \u201ctoo cheap to meter\u201d nuclear power or a more likely blend of renewable sources, won\u2019t make everything hunky-dory. It won\u2019t solve resource depletion, water shortages, loss of biodiversity or numerous other ecological impacts. Moving away from fossil fuels doesn\u2019t diminish the amounts of materials needed for all the stuff demanded by 10 billion people desiring to live as Americans do. It doesn\u2019t reduce the staggering amounts of material we throw out daily. It doesn\u2019t eliminate the toxic runoff from the industrial farming that barely feeds 7 billion people today. It doesn\u2019t change either P or C or T.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the thing: we can\u2019t approach this (nor should we) with only the goal of weaning ourselves off fossil fuel. We need to dramatically reduce the demand for energy and \u2013 happily — that can go hand in hand with some very positive changes in our patterns of consumption and in our lifestyles. And then we wouldn\u2019t have to deal with creating more misbehaving monsters in our nuclear family.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>