Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet

When the first Earth Day took place in 1970, American environmentalists had good reason to feel guilty. The nation’s affluence and advanced technology seemed so obviously bad for the planet that they were featured in a famous equation developed by the ecologist Paul Ehrlich and the physicist John P. Holdren, who is now President Obama’s science adviser.

Their equation was I=PAT, which means that environmental impact is equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Protecting the planet seemed to require fewer people, less wealth and simpler technology — the same sort of social transformation and energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday.

But among researchers who analyze environmental data, a lot has changed since the 1970s. With the benefit of their hindsight and improved equations, I’ll make a couple of predictions:

1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because…

2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run.

I realize this second prediction seems hard to believe when you consider the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere today by Americans, and the projections for increasing emissions from India and China as they get richer.

Those projections make it easy to assume that affluence and technology inflict more harm on the environment. But while pollution can increase when a country starts industrializing, as people get wealthier they can afford cleaner water and air. They start using sources of energy that are less carbon-intensive — and not just because they’re worried about global warming. The process of “decarbonization” started long before Al Gore was born.

The old wealth-is-bad IPAT theory may have made intuitive sense, but it didn’t jibe with the data that has been analyzed since that first Earth Day. By the 1990s, researchers realized that graphs of environmental impact didn’t produce a simple upward-sloping line as countries got richer. The line more often rose, flattened out and then reversed so that it sloped downward, forming the shape of a dome or an inverted U — what’s called a Kuznets curve. (See nytimes.com/tierneylab for an example.)

Read more . . .

Related articles by Zemanta

• “Geoengineering” To Fight Global Warming? (cbsnews.com)
• Meet the sceptics (guardian.co.uk)

Random Posts:

• Synaptics debuts Fuse next-generation mobile phone concept
• Climate Change May Mean Slower Winds
• IPoint 3D: Using Your Fingers As A Remote Control
• Hybrid Cars Could Be More Reliable And Cheaper With New Fuel Cell Technology
• Unique selling proposition

Related posts:

1. How Women Can Save the Planet
2. Can We Feed and Save the Planet?
3. Setting Boundaries: 10 Guidelines to Save Earth
4. Betraying the Planet
5. Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds

Tags: earth day, ecologist, energy revolution, energy sources, environmental impact, green revolution, Innovation, paul ehrlich, science adviser, social transformation, sources of energy

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pm and is filed under Innovation, NY Times, Project Energy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.