This is the third post in a collaborative series titled “Environmental Historians Debate: Can Nuclear Power Solve Climate Change?”. It is hosted by the Network in Canadian History & Environment, the Climate History Network, and ActiveHistory.ca.
There is no longer any debate. Humanity sits at the precipice of catastrophic climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provide clear assessments: to limit global warming to 1.5ºC above historic levels, thereby avoiding the most harmful consequences, governments, communities, and individuals around the world must take immediate steps to decarbonize their societies and economies.
Change is coming regardless of how we proceed. Doing nothing guarantees large-scale resource conflicts, climate refugee migrations from the global south to the global north, and mass starvation. Dealing with the problem in the future will be exceedingly more difficult, not to mention expensive, than making important changes immediately. The only question is what changes are necessary to address the scale of the problem facing humanity? Do we pursue strategies that allow us to maintain our current standard of living, consuming comparable amounts of (zero-carbon) energy? Or do we accept fundamental changes to humanity’s relationship to energy?
In his new book, The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Conflicting Visions of the Future of Our Planet, Charles C. Mann uses the life, work, and ideologies of Norman Borlaug (the Wizard) and William Vogt (the Prophet) to offer two typologies of twentieth century environmental science and thought. Borlaug represents the school of thought that believed technology could solve all of humanity’s environmental problems, which Mann refers to as “techno-optimism.” Vogt, by contrast, represents a fundamentally different attitude that saw only a drastic reduction in consumption as the key to solving environmental problems, which Mann (borrowing from demographer Betsy Hartmann) refers to as “apocalyptic environmentalism.”
In the industrialized countries of the world, the techno-optimist approach enjoys the greatest support. Amongst those who think “technology will save us,” decarbonizing the economy means replacing fossil fuel energy with “clean” energy (i.e. energy that does not emit GHGs). Hydropower has nearly reached its global potential, and simply cannot replace fossil fuel energy. Solar, wind, and to some extent geothermal, are rapidly growing technological options for replacing fossil fuel energy. And as this series reveals, some debate exists over whether nuclear can ever play a meaningful role in a twenty-first century energy transition.
The quest for new clean energy pathways aims to rid the developed world of the blame for causing climate change without the need to fundamentally change the way of life responsible for climate change. In short, those advocating for clean energy hope to cleanse their moral culpability as much as the planet’s atmosphere. This is the crux of the climate change crisis and the challenge of how to respond to it. It is not a technical problem. It is a moral and ethical problem – the biggest the world has ever faced.
The USGCRP’s Fourth National Climate
Over the last thirty years, industrialized countries, such as Germany, the United States, and Canada have consistently consumed considerably more energy per capita than non-industrialized or industrializing countries (Figure 1). In 2016, industrialized countries in North America and Western Europe consumed three to four times as much energy per capita as the global average, while non-industrialized countries consumed much less than the average.
Most of the research that has
In case it is not already clear, I do not think technology will save us. Solar and wind energy technology has the potential to provide an abundance of energy, but it won’t be enough to replace the amount of fossil fuel energy we currently consume, and it certainly won’t happen quickly enough to avoid warming greater than 1.5ºC. Biofuels entail a land cost that in many cases involves competition with agriculture and places potentially unbearable pressure on fresh water resources. Carbon capture and storage assumes that pumping enormous amounts of carbon underground won’t have unintended and unacceptable consequences. Nuclear energy might provide a share of the global energy budget, but according to many models, it will always be a relatively small share. Techno-optimism is a desperate hope that the problem can be solved without fundamental changes to high-energy standards of living.
The current 1.5ºC-consistent energy pathways include no meaningful changes in the amount of overall energy consumed in industrialized and industrializing countries. The studies that do incorporate “lifestyle changes” into their models feature efficiencies, such as taking shorter showers, adjusting indoor air temperature, or reducing usage of luxury appliances (e.g. clothes dryers); none of which present a fundamental challenge to a western standard of living. Decarbonization models that replace fossil fuel energy with clean energy reflect a desire to avoid addressing the role of energy inequities in the climate change crisis.
Climate change is a problem of global inequality, not just carbon emissions. Those of us living in the developed and developing countries of the world would like to pretend that the problem can be solved with technology, and that we would not then need to change our lives all that much. In a decarbonized society, the wizards tell us, our economy could continue to operate with clean energy. But it can’t. Any ideas to the contrary are simply excuses for perpetuating a world of incredible energy inequality. We need to heed the prophets and use dramatically less energy. We need to accept extreme changes to our economy, our standard of living, and our culture.
IPCC, 2018: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
Charles C. Mann, The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Conflicting Visions of the Future of Our Planet(Picador, 2018), 5-6.
USGCRP,Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II,Chapter 1: Overview.
IPCC, Global warming of 1.5°C,Chapter 1.
IPCC, Global warming of 1.5°C; Detlef P. van Vuuren, et al., “Alternative pathways to the 1..5°C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies,” Nature Climate Change, Vol.8 (May 2018): 391-397; Joeri Rogelj, et al., “Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C,” Nature Climate Change, Vol.8 (April 2018): 325-332.
Mariësse A.E. van Sluisveld, et al., “Exploring the implications of lifestyle change in 2°C mitigation scenarios using the IMAGE integrated assessment model,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.102 (2016): 309-319.
Latest posts by Andrew Watson (see all)
- Call for Contributors: Environmental Histories of the Future - January 20, 2021
- The Mirage of Industrial Agriculture: Fossil Fuels, Groundwater Irrigation, and Feedlots on the High Plains - October 27, 2020
- On an Island: Writing and My Soul in the Time of COVID-19 - July 28, 2020
- New Year and New Faces at NiCHE - January 7, 2020
- Only Dramatic Reductions in Energy Use Will Save The World From Climate Catastrophe: A Prophecy? - February 27, 2019
- “Flicking switches, turning dials, and pressing buttons”: The important work of energy historians - February 4, 2019
- Canadian History and Environment Summer Symposium (CHESS) 2018: Prairie Landscapes and Environmental Change in the 20th Century - May 28, 2018
- Southern Identity and Northern Territory: Review of Desbiens, Power from the North: Territory, Identity, and the Culture of Hydroelectricity in Quebec. - April 26, 2017
- Call for Proposals: The Material Realities of Energy Histories - April 10, 2017
- Sustainable Farm Systems in Mallorca - July 25, 2016
Hi. Thanks for this, Andrew.
One major drawback to the data presented is it’s uneven balance. Comparable countries should include Russia, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Siberia, for example. Gigajoules per person seems an odd comparison between Canada and Costa Rica — perhaps especially so this winter.
What people would like to hear from climate change leadership is practical ideas of what to do, what to expect, and strategies not only for reducing carbon footprint of a household, but communities, hospitals, schools, etc. There are major issues at play around plastic and sterilization, for example, let alone packaging and transporting pineapples to rural Saskatchewan in January. We built much of our current system for reasons, some good, some bad. Strategies to change the public expectation around those reasons — say, safety packaging on food or medicine, or single use everything in hospitals — will take concerted effort to change.
What strategies has everyone started in their own households?
Hi Merle, Thanks for the comments. I’m glad you enjoyed the post.
First off, as I said in the post, individual/personal/household lifestyle changes are not enough to have any impact on climate change limited 1.5C. In fact, the only value this level of change holds is in preparing our entire society for dramatic changes at the culture level (i.e. getting used to drastic reductions in energy consumption).
Second, as a society, we need to have the conversations you’re talking about. There are lots of ways of imaging drastic reductions in energy consumption without discontinuing critical medical technologies. It will certainly take lots of effort, as you say. Tremendous effort.
Finally, if I understand your opening comment, you think comparing Canada to the other countries I’ve include in my graphs is misleading? I invite you to go through the data (https://www.iea.org/countries/) and make whichever comparisons you’d like. Two of the countries you mention (Norway and Sweden) look much more like Australia in their energy consumption per capita (GJ/person) than they do Canada. If what you’re driving at is that Canada is a cold weather climate, and therefore would logically (necessarily) have much higher per capita energy needs than tropical countries, then I think these numbers suggest otherwise. Canadians’ energy consumption has always been much higher than other countries even when climate is factored in. I would recommend Richard Unger’s recent article in the special issue of the CJH, which is still open access: https://utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cjh.ach.53.3.06
Perhaps Canada will continue to exhibit slightly higher per capita energy needs in the future, but nothing can justify the extraordinary amount of energy we use in this country. Canadians are among the greatest climate change villains of this story.
These sources present a much better support for your arguments, Andrew. Thank you for the links. Much to consider.
I fully agree with you, there will be major change to come. In the depths of the 1930s, when major climate instability led to climate migrations across Canada, there was a corresponding cultural shift towards different ways to go about living daily life, farming, and making a living, including in the city where wages plummeted, pay cuts were common, and people took multiple jobs to pay the bills. I suspect that Canada’s future will look much like Canada’s past in this regard. It will depend on how catastrophic or gradual the change is, both environmentally and economically, before we can truly predict what is to come.