A recent NYTimes article suggests that we “Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet.” Unfortunately, this one is too good to be true. I propose that we use less energy, get rich, and save the planet.
The premise of the NYTimes argument is that “as people get wealthier they can afford cleaner water and air. They start using sources of energy that are less carbon-intensive.” This concept is embodied in a Kuznets Curve and is completely true – as a society advances, water and air quality increase. The society also starts shifting wood and coal use to cleaner fuels like crude oil, natural gas, and hydrogen. But as a society advances, it begins to use far more energy than it did before. Take a look at the USA: Americans make up only ~4% of the world population and yet use ~25% of the world’s energy. Imagine if the entire world used energy like we Americans do – we’d need a lot more energy than we currently make. This is not going to happen – especially given our dwindling fossil fuel supply.
So yes: “as incomes go up, people often focus first on cleaning up their drinking water, and then later on air pollutants like sulfur dioxide,” but this does not mean “richer is eventually greener.” In fact, it takes more energy to clean out these pollutants. Had the author actually read the article on Kuznets Curves [http://www.perc.org/articles/article207.php], he would have realized that the simplistic solution of “using more energy” will not only make the problem worse.
Bottom Line: This article wants you to think that you have to choose between personal wealth and the environment. Guess what? We can have both if we’re smart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/science/earth/21tier.html?_r=1&ref=earth