Comment ▼ An environmental challenge homas L. Friedman, syndicated columnist for The New York Times, wrote a column that appeared shortly after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, entitled, “Ask Not What…”. He was quoting the famous inaugural address by U.S. President John F. Kennedy on January 20, 1961, that inspired the country to greater good and sacrifice. Friedman was imagining what would have happened if President Bush had challenged the country to conserve energy, improve mileage standards, and sacrifice for national goals. He felt that the nation’s second “greatest generation” may be in the wings just waiting for such a chance to prove their mettle. It was one of Friedman’s most popular columns. We are a nation comprising 4.5% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of the planet’s energy resources and emit 25% of the global greenhouse gases to the atmosphere where they accumulate and have a halflife of more than 100 years. We are a nation that spends billions of dollars to support soldiers overseas to protect our energy supply lines, yet we have never been summoned to do anything more than continue shopping at the mall. Perhaps we are ready for something greater than just getting and spending, getting and spending. Just to stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide at 550 parts per million in the atmosphere (double the preindustrial level) within the next 100 years or so would require dramatic cutbacks in emissions of ~70% from current levels. We need a whole new way of doing business, replacing the fossil fuel age over the next few generations. I truly believe that 100 years from now, people will look back on this fossil fuel age and our profligate ways as primitive. We are trying to burn all the fossil fuels that took 300 million years to form in the earth’s crust within a period of a few hundred years (and we are gassing ourselves in the meanwhile). According to Herman Daly, author of Steady State Economics (1991), a sustainable society requires that (1) the rate of usage of renewable resources should not exceed their rate of natural regeneration; (2) the rate of usage of nonrenewable resources should not exceed the rate at which renewable substitutes are found and developed; and (3) the rate of pollution emissions should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the earth. Unfortunately, we have problems on all three fronts. Particularly ironic is the severe pressure on renewable resources such as fisheries and forests, which can only be preserved if we harvest at sustainable rates, a global commons problem. So here’s an environmental challenge for the United States in the 21st century: • Achieve energy self-sufficiency in 2020 by using conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy resources, and clean coal technologies.
T
© 2003 American Chemical Society
• Promote solar, wind, and hydrogen fuels (fuel cells) as 30% of our energy mix by 2020. • Ratify the Kyoto Protocol to demonstrate solidarity with other nations, to improve the treaty, and become a leader on the world stage again. • Plant trees and buffer strips, reforest marginal lands, restore prairies, and use less tillage on farmland to sequester carbon, improve water quality, and increase wildlife habitat. • Become the most generous country in the world again by providing food, medicines, technical assistance, and environmental support to needy people and nations everywhere. Sure, it’s risky and will require some sacrifice. We will have to drive less, buy fuel-efficient cars, live in smaller homes, invest in renewable energy resources, and plant trees. But if we don’t try it, we can be sure of where we’re going. As the world’s largest economy and the greatest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, it would seem that we have a moral imperative to act. If we want to strategize about home security, these issues will do a great deal of good for our nation in the long run. With a national economy of more than $10 trillion dollars, almost one-third of the Gross World Product, we cannot afford not to act. We grow great by dreams and thinking large. The act of achieving this grand environmental challenge could become the main element of growing the economy in the 21st century. Still, the greatest environmental problem is global poverty. If we want to ensure home security, we should think about the hopes and dreams of 1.1 billion people who live on less than $1 per day and who do not even have access to safe drinking water. By ensuring their future, we help to ensure ours. Even though I edit a journal with a “T” for technology in the title, I would not characterize myself as a technological optimist. I think that technology can and will play an important role as we strive toward a more sustainable society. But I think that a great portion of that change must come from the heart. Indeed, on a small planet where everyone lives downwind from everybody else, we need a fundamental change in how we see ourselves within the global context. Tackling such a challenge creates tremendous good will that would elevate our discussions and enrich our lives. In that same speech on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy also challenged us, “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
Jerald L. Schnoor, Editor (
[email protected])
APRIL 1, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 119 A
