July 28, 2010

Hybrid Cars Cannot Save Us; Lower Population Will.



We are often told that one major consequence of industrialization and modernity is the resulting climate change and its deleterious effects. We are further told that if we value planet earth then we should avoid all the activities that result in a major reallocation of carbon in the world. Note that based on the first law of thermodynamics no element is ever destroyed, all what we can do is to release carbon from being locked in fossil fuels to be released as a gaseous compound in the atmosphere. Is such a minute reallocation important for the planet? If we are to recall that this planet has been hit by a meteorite travelling at a tremendous speed, has experienced a cooling process and has a tremendous capacity to adapt and heal itself. In the words of James Lovelock the earth is a “homeostatic super organism” that will constantly change and adapt as to ensure its survival. So does the planet care about our reallocating carbon or any other element for that matter? Physics and common sense tells us that the answer is an unequivocal no. But that does not mean that climate change is not the biggest challenge that humans have ever been faced with. The operative word in the previous sentence is human.

In order to fashion a real and meaningful solution to any problem requires a clear understanding of what is the problem all about. Climate change is not about maintaining a carbon balance for the sake of the earth but it is a purely anthropocentric concern about life for the human species. No one can deny that human civilization has evolved to become an evolutionary factor. A major by product of human activity is climate change which will result in putting into motion a process that many ecologists are calling the sixth extinction. Climate change combined with the growing needs for more roads, buildings, deforestation have radically changed the nature and characteristics of the habitat and thus is leading to more and more extinction.

If we do value these changes, and we should value them, then the solution is not to develop an alternative to the internal combustion engine, although that is desirable, but what is required is a recognition that the biggest threat to human civilization and biodiversity as we know it is the human species itself. The threat is not purely that of numbers, although numbers do count but it is a combination of numbers and levels of affluence. The expression I= PAT as developed by Paul Ehrlich emphasizes clearly the relationship between environmental degradation (I), pure number of humans (P), lifestyles (A) and the level of technology (T). Note that if we are to constantly seek a higher level of affluence, for a larger and larger population then the inevitable outcome is greater and greater ecological degradation.



There are a number of studies that show conclusively that the planet is already beyond its carrying capacity. A popular and easy to understand measure is the estimate of how many global acres are required to provide a particular life style. Such estimates vary from one country to the other and from one household to the other. A simple back of the envelope application of the above shows that if a Western life style is to be adopted by the 7 billion inhabitants then the resources of six planets will be required.

Sustainability is everyone’s concern, large countries, small countries, poor countries and rich countries. Since sustainability does not recognize artificial political boundaries then it must be dealt with on a global level and coordinated policies. Yale University in cooperation with Columbia University have developed a rather sophisticated Sustainability Index based on 76 variables and 21 indicators that shows a weak relationship between GDP and Sustainability Index of each of the 146 countries sin the study. For example, three of the top ten most sustainable countries are not OECD member (Uruguay, Guyana and Argentina). Other rankings that are of interest: Japan is the 30th while the US is the 45th and the UK is the 65th.

Unfortunately, but understandably Lebanon ranks as the 129th most unsustainable country out of the group of 146. The other countries in the region are slightly better but all are very highly unsustainable. An application of the ecological footprint to Lebanon would not make things any better. The average footprint for an individual leading a Western life style is over 22 global acres when the world has on the average only about 6 global acres and Lebanon offers an average of just over ½ a global acre, a deficit of over 21 acres per Lebanese.

3 comments:

George said...

"God will provide for his creation" and "Go forth and multiply"...

Do you see anything wrong with these divine imperatives?

All 3 major religions, as a matter of dogma, oppose birth control, and often the women's right to control their own reproduction.

I also think that many politicians, economists, etc, don't see the whole picture, or at least long-term. For example, they talk about raising the standards of the poor to comparable levels of the advanced countries today.... while the latter strive for more affluence (and use of resources) by the time the poor get to that level the rich countries will be consuming even more.

Are you sure they haven't found any other earth-like planets in the neighborhood?

George said...

But, why do you think so many people don't think humans have contributed to adverse climate change?

Regardless of whatever it is, I would think that the sane approach would be: OK, we only have 1 home and can't leave it. We only can survive under a narrow band of conditions, so even if the earth is going through natural cycles, we shouldn't accelerate our demise.

I agree population control is a must and we have to start thinking globally. The sweaty masses perished first on the Titanic but eventually....

ghassan karam said...

George,
I think that we are still looking for a less painful way out. You see, the intelligent designer would not put us in this pickle would she?