Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Ehrlich went as far as to say, of the overall devastation ahead, “If I were a gambler, I would take even
money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
18
And these were not idle predictions—the coming fossil fuel catastrophe was so bad, these leading ex-
perts said, that we needed dramatic restrictions on fossil fuel energy use. Ehrlich wrote: “Except in special
circumstances, all construction of power generating facilities should cease immediately, and power com-
panies should be forbidden to encourage people to use more power. Power is much too cheap. It should
certainly be made more expensive and perhaps rationed, in order to reduce its frivolous use.”
19
In 1977, Amory Lovins, widely considered the leading energy thinker of the 1970s for his criticisms of
fossil fuels and nuclear power and his support of solar power and reduced energy use, explained that we
already used too much energy. And in particular, the kind of energy we least needed was . . .
electricity
,
the foundation of the digital/information revolution: “[W]e don't need any more big electric generating
stations. We already have about twice as much electricity as we can use to advantage.”
20
In 1998, Bill McKibben endorsed a scenario of outlawing 60 percent of present fossil fuel use to slow
catastrophic climate change, even though that would mean, in his words, that “each human being would
get to produce 1.69 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually—which would allow you to drive an average
American car nine miles a day. By the time the population increased to 8.5 billion, in about 2025, you'd
be down to six miles a day. If you carpooled, you'd have about three pounds of CO
2
left in your daily
ration—enough to run a highly efficient refrigerator. Forget your computer, your TV, your stereo, your
stove, your dishwasher, your water heater, your microwave, your water pump, your clock. Forget your
light bulbs, compact fluorescent or not.”
21
All of these thinkers still advocate similar policies today—in fact, today Bill McKibben endorses a
95
percent ban on fossil fuel
use,
eight times
as severe as the scenario described above!
22
And all of them are
extremely prestigious. Since making these predictions, John Holdren has become science adviser to Pres-
ident Obama, Bill McKibben is called “the nation's leading environmentalist”
23
and more than anyone led
opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, and Paul Ehrlich is still arguably the most influential ecological
thinker in the world. Energy historian Robert Bradley Jr. chronicles his accolades:
Ehrlich held an endowed chair as the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the Biology Department
at Stanford and was elected president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. He was elected
to the National Academy of Sciences and received many awards and prizes, including the inaugural
prize of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences for Science in the Service of Humanity, a MacAr-
thur Genius Award, the Volvo Environmental Prize, the World Ecology Medal from the International
Center for Tropical Ecology, and the International Ecology Institute Prize.
He also received what is hyped as the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in a field where it is not awar-
ded—the Crafoord Prize in Population Biology and the Conservation of Biological Diversity.
24
Thus, today's leading thinkers and leading ideas about fossil fuels have a decades-long track re-
cord—and given that they are calling for the abolition of our most popular form of energy, it would be
irresponsible not to look at how reality has compared to their predictions.
Of course, predictions on a societal or global level can never be exact, but they need to be somewhere
near the truth.
So what happened?
