The frustrating thing about the climate "crisis" is the way it tends to be presented in the media. It is presented as a very urgent problem, an "existential crisis", "time is running out" we are told, "action is needed now". The message of the protesters outside the COP 26 conference in Glasgow is essentially "enough talk, it's time for action." What I am looking for in all of this hype is the solutions. We need to act now, but what are we supposed to do? I mean, really, I see very little specific information on solutions to climate change. It is very clear what we need to stop doing (burning fossil fuels), but what should we be doing, meaning the average person on the street. I want to ask the next pundit I hear telling us how urgent the climate crisis is how they got to work this morning. "If it was in a fossil fuel powered vehicle, then, STFU! You're part of the problem", stupid Americans . . .
In many ways this can be seen as an American problem, or an American lifestyle problem. And, much of the world aspires to our standard of living. If we look at the largest oil consuming countries we will see China at the top of the list with 3381 Mtoe (Megatons of oil equivalents) oil consumed in 2019. The U.S. comes in at #2 with 2046 Mtoe oil consumed in the same year. "Those greedy Chinese", you might say, but we must remember that China has over four times as many people as the United States. When we look at the oil consumption per person, the average American uses over 5 times as much oil (31,223 kWh) as the average Chinese citizen (5,406 kWh). And, many in the world still aspire to our high standard of living. So, you see, the American way cannot be the way of the world. To our credit, the United States is doing a little better than China in terms of our per capita coal consumption (9,573 kWh, vs. 15,823 kWh). The elephant in the living room is our total consumption. The world still consumes over 80% of its energy in the form of fossil fuels. One reason is that none of the other energy sources come close to fossil fuels in terms of energy per kilogram, or energy per acre, or energy per dollar, however you choose to measure it. We have become spoiled rotten by this extremely rich, extremely cheap source of energy. I put the essential question to my Environmental Science students in this way: "Can we maintain our current energy consumption, while at the same time eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels?" I say, no! Absolutely not! If we are ever to eliminate fossil fuels we are going to have to seriously reduce our overall energy consumption. This is not a popular idea, however. We are talking about expanding the electrical grid (to accommodate the coming transition to electric vehicles which the current grid could not handle) not reducing it. And, remember, we had better make sure all the new electrical generation necessary to power those electric vehicles comes from renewables and/or nuclear power. Much of the promotional material we see for renewable energy technologies, while not coming right out and saying it, seems to suggest that we can have this beautiful green cake of a future, and eat it too, without giving up anything. This is pure fantasy. Sure one day we may develop the technology to make this possible, but it is not possible with current technologies. What is most sorely needed is for us to adjust our expectations and learn to make due with less. The energy consumption picture in the developed world is overburdened with waste. This might be the low hanging fruit for the climate movement. Addressing waste and inefficiency can go a long way to reducing our fossil fuel dependence as well as reducing our overall energy needs. So, we should start there. Tackling waste will not be enough, however. We will still need to figure out how to use less. This is where adjusting our expectations and even our lifestyles, just a little bit, could really help. Let's look at the electric vehicle problem as an illustration. The problem is how to scale-down an automobile so that it can run on electricity. We've done a pretty good job of matching the speed and power of a gasoline powered vehicle (a Tesla Model S goes 0 - 60mph in 1.99 seconds). Where the technology is lagging is in the range and in the charge times. It takes me less than 5 minutes to gas-up my pick-up truck. That Tesla could take 8 - 10 hours to get a full charge. My Ram 1500 pick-up can easily make over 500 miles on a single tank of gas. The Tesla will be lucky to make it 400 miles on a charge. All of this, like I said, is based on scaling down an automobile to run on electricity. What about scaling-up a bicycle to run on electricity. First off, the amount of energy required to drive a bicycle at the same speed (yes, the same speed, think in-town driving) as a car will be much less. The speeds and power possible on an electric bike are far greater than those possible on a traditional bike. Cargo carrying capacity would also be increased over a regular bike. Add a third wheel, or a trailer, and you could carry some seriously heavy loads. How many of the typical trips to get groceries or items at the drug store could be managed just as well on an appropriately equipped electric bike as they could in an SUV? Of course I might still need my pick-up to haul the occasional load of lumber, but we could replace automobiles with electric bicycles on a large portion of the errands we run on a daily basis. Inner cities will be the first to phase out gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, which will make them far more livable spaces, too. It would be much safer to simply eliminate cars from whole sections of cities. Unfortunately, bicycles don't seem to mix well with car and truck traffic. Right now, safety is a significant barrier to many would be bicyclists, electric or otherwise. Americans could adjust their expectations when it comes to energy consumption and actually see an increased quality of life in terms of better health and a cleaner environment. Part of it is about where we choose to live in relation to our jobs. We know that the rush hour gridlock experienced in most American cities is absurd, extremely unhealthy both mentally and physically, and I think deep down we all realize it is completely unnecessary. For many, the pandemic lockdowns illustrated this perfectly. If you want to live in the suburbs, consider tele-commuting, at least part of the time. Consider using public transport. Invest in a comfortable backpack. If the inner cities were made into more livable spaces, then people would not feel the need to buy a house 100 miles away in the suburbs. People could live near enough to their work to walk or bike. Restaurant and food markets could be located in pedestrian zones which would make for a much more pleasant dining or shopping experience. Besides, who wants to buy their produce on the sidewalk next to a busy intersection. Perhaps we could reserve fossil fuels for the big jobs like hauling large quantities of freight, construction, and military uses. The bottom line is that us here in the "Developed World" are going to need to learn to do with less in terms of energy, if there is any hope of meeting the goal of eliminating fossil fuels. The rest of the world is looking at us. We need to lead by example.
0 Comments
|
AuthorCurrently teaching High School Environmental Science and Biology. Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|