Okay, now that I've run out of things to post about from spring break, I can get back to the environmental science-y stuff.
Click here for a TED talk given by Stewart Brand of The Long Now Foundation. He is a self-described environmentalist (like me!) and one of the men behind the environmental movement of the 1960's and 1970's and the energy conservation measures used to level off California's energy consumption for the past 30 years while their economy grew by roughly 80%.
The video is an accompaniment to his recent book "Whole Earth Discipline", in which he argues that cities, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and geo-engineering, although labeled as taboo by many environmentalists and governments, are good for the future of Earth and humankind.
Regarding cities: According to Mr. Brand, rapid global urbanization is the dominant demographic event of our time. Each week, 1.3 million people worldwide leave rural areas for the opportunities available in urban areas. There are currently about 1 billion squatters helping to "build" the urban world, with another 1 billion expected by the time the Earth's population levels off around mid-century.
He expects the world's population to level off around 8.1 billion in the 2040's then drop rapidly. The world's population is expected to be 80% urban by 2050 - mostly in the developing world.
Slums (a major component of cities worldwide), Brand argues, do not undermine prosperity. Rather, they create it. In his eyes, the people there are not crushed by poverty. Instead they are all helping each other get out of poverty faster than if they remained subsistence farmers.
What's just as important is they are doing this in the "informal economy", with undeeded, unlicensed, and untaxed people, property, and businesses. They are full of social capital and chomping at the formal economy bit. We can help them join by giving them access to sanitation, electricity, and clean water, among other things.
Cities and slums are not only good for prosperity, he argues, but they are also "green." The close proximity of general supply and demand and better connectivity means fewer emissions and less waste generated by people getting to where they need to go.
Cities also "defuse" the population bomb, as increased opportunity leads to a decreased birth rate. Another way of putting it - children are an asset on the farms, but a liability in the cities.
Less people means less stress on the Earth and its systems. Imagine if every city-dweller converted to the American Dream way of life with a big house in the suburbs, 3 kids, and a couple of cars. Our total ecological footprint would be multiple Earths.
Cities and slums are also good - and green - because people are leaving subsistence farming, which Mr. Brand refers to as an "ecological disaster." Deforestation and desertification from poor agricultural practices is halted and the natural environment is allowed to return to normal, helping to regulate the climate and providing other ecological services humans depend on.
Brand is also rethinking his position on nuclear energy, another environmental "no-no." According to him, climate change is happening, will continue to happen faster than we expect, and we will keep being surprised by more and more disasters. Climate refugees, resource wars, and chaos wars will be all too common. Part of the climate change solution? Nuclear power.
More nuclear power will mean less coal and natural gas being burned for baseload electricity - the main driver of climate change. The developing world is leading the way in planning, approving, and building nuclear reactors to reduce the amount of solid and atmospheric waste (CO2) they produce. Governments can do their part, he argues, by making coal and other fossil fuels more expensive.
Oh yeah... he also thinks genetically modified foods are a good thing, which a lot of other environmentalists would whole-heartedly disagree with. He explains that GM crops allow for no-till farming, which keeps soil in place, reducing the amount of CO2 that is released from the soil into the atmosphere. GM crops also reduce pesticide use while increasing yield, which reduces the amount of land required to grow food.
That freed up land? It can return to its natural state. It shouldn't even be a debate anymore according to Brown.
Geo-engineering, mainly pumping sulfur compounds and other aerosols into the atmosphere to improve the reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere and cool the climate, is another good and affordable idea, he argues.
As someone with a pretty decent environmental science background, I'm fully on board with all of this. Except maybe the GM foods... For me, environmental science is not only about improving the environment, but also improving the quality of life for everyone. Part of improving our quality of life is eating healthy, natural foods. And I have to wonder just how healthy GM foods are and what the long term health implications are.
In his (slightly modified) words: "We are as Gods, so we might as well... no, HAVE to, get good at it."