The Sustainable Life

As the intergovernmental debate over climate change was raging in Copenhagen last week, I began to wonder what will happen in the next 50 years if human civilization is serious about mitigating green house gas emissions.  Specifically, what will the difference be between our current energy consumption and that of the future.

The number of potential changes that could be implemented is vast.  Perhaps the least costly and easiest change is to use less energy.  Another option is increasing the use of carbon neutral energy sources.  This includes both renewable (solar, wind, biofuels) and nuclear power sources.  Finally, there is the option of doing something with the emissions.  Something can be any option that results in a decrease of emissions without increasing costly side-effects.  In the climate debate, this possible part of the solution has received little public attention, so let’s address the options in more detail.

First, the CO₂ produced from burning fossil fuels could be used for constructive purposes.  These uses range from physical (inert gas applications) to chemical (concrete, plastics, or value added commodity production) uses.  These options face problems in-terms-of scale (is there enough demand for excess CO₂) and feasibility (CO₂ is very inert and incorporating it into valuable commodities is a major challenge to modern chemists).

Another possibility is a process known as carbon dioxide sequestration.  Simply put, CO₂ produced from burning fossil fuels is trapped before it is released into the atmosphere.  The CO₂ is then stored permanently either deep in the Earth’s crust or in the deep oceans.  In such simple terms, it could be argued that this solution is no better than sweeping the problem under the rug, or in case, a rock.  Now, there is some truth to this point-of-view, especially when you consider that big proponents for this idea are the coal companies espousing the virtues of clean coal.  However, this would be a cynical perspective given the complicated reality of curbing CO₂ emissions.

We need energy, and huge amounts of it, to keep our standard of living at its current level.  Coal is a cheap and abundant source of energy.  Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that Americans are not the only humans on the planet.  Millions, no billions, of people across the globe are aspiring to have a better life, and ultimately, turning these aspirations into reality will require vast amounts of energy.  For these reasons, human civilization will be inextricably intertwined with coal for the near term.

Hence, carbon dioxide sequestration should be considered not just an attractive part of the overall solution to mitigating emissions but a vital part.  If we can burn coal without emitting CO₂ into the atmosphere, our future transition from fossil fuels, to carbon neutral fuels will be much smoother.  This is not a cure-all solution, and I will emphasize the point that it can only be part of the overall strategy.  Yet, it has potential, and given the stakes, I will take something with potential over nothing at all.

-JSS