Class News

Sam Low '64 and Ron Parlato '64 on environmental depletion and pollution

The following discussion was contributed by Sam Low and Ron Parlato. Anyone in our Class is invited to contribute to the discussion, by email to Sam or Ron. As Sam wrote, "This is kind of a bull session we are having - and we envisioned it as an open discussion with others chiming in. We are certainly not passing ourselves off as experts on anything."

Overview: During the 25th reunion, Sam Low encountered classmates who believed that there was no cause to worry about environmental depletion and pollution because the capitalist market based economy would stimulate technological breakthroughs that would solve all conceivable problems. This incredibly optimistic view was then — and still is — beyond Sam's understanding. He found himself exploring the frontier between liberal and conservative views of life. A month ago, Sam and Ron Parlato began exploring these differences. Here is the result. Issue: Are planetary resources limited? Do we need to husband them in order to avoid ecological disaster? Or will new technologies emerge to produce energy and food and other resources and allow us to clean up our wastes to ensure that human beings can continue to accelerate their consumption of these resources?
PARLATO	LOW
Personal	Personal
I believe that while many known energy and material resources are limited, many are not, such as nuclear and hydrogen energy, are not. Energy efficiency increases yearly, partly because of increased international competition, the necessity of reducing costs to maximize profits; and partly because of consumer desire to reduce their costs. Market forces tend to favor energy efficiency and innovation. I therefore do not feel that there is a concern about depleting energy resources. These same market forces will favor the exploitation of existing energy resources while they are available; and hence the concerns about pollution in the Arctic tundra, etc., the continued pollution of the air, etc. This pollution will continue unless and until alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear, are available on an industrial scale; and/or public demand for less-polluting energy increases. The question about whether or not global warming, pollution, etc. matter at all depends on a more philosophical perspective. I believe that man's place within the universal eco-system is value-neutral. He is an actor just like viruses, bacteria, insects, gamma rays, asteroids, and little green men. As such, he will be influenced as much as influence. To ascribe a more potent or lasting or negative role is presumptuous. Our actions have consequences, some intended, others not. We will live within the circumstances of these consequences, and those many others produced by factors beyond our control. We will react to them, try to anticipate others; but in the end will be knocked about with our fellow travelers like pool balls clacked by random blows. In the medium term, I believe that the human beings will be unrecognizable within the next 250 or even 100 years. Retooling the human genome and full and complete interface between mind and computer will alter life in unimaginable ways. Virtuality and reality will merge. Human nature will be altered. Given this perspective and incredible potential, I simply cannot get exercised about environmental concerns.	Intellectually I believe that our resources are limited and that their overuse, with resulting pollution, must be controlled to ensure the future of our grandchildren. While arguments can be made that the human genius will overcome these natural limits by producing new energy and other resources, there is no guarantee of this. The risk that these arguments are false is too great for me — I advocate strong measures to control population, pollution and consumption (within a democratic political structure and the free market system) to both prevent impending disaster and explore alternatives. The free market system is based on mass consumption, profit and self interest. It promotes a shortsighted way of looking at our planet and its resources and will never, without a great deal of tinkering, solve our pressing environmental problems. Spiritually I believe that there is something in nature that reminds us of our smallness and our hubris, that encourages us to explore beyond our selfish needs, and that creates a philosophy of life that is essential to our health in ways beyond the mere physical. The preservation of wilderness and reverence for the natural world is necessary for our spiritual survival. While I believe that there is nothing inherently better about one life form vs. another — human beings as compared to viruses — I think that we are endowed with intelligence that we are required to use to the best of our ability to control our destiny. Not to do so is to avoid the challenge of being the thinking animal. I also believe that human beings are potentially the most dangerous animal to the health of our planet because we have evolved a way of life that can destroy all other life if we are not careful. We have a duty to leave our home planet in as good a condition as we received it. Politically, I worry that those who argue for a basic "don't worry" attitude toward this issue are protecting a privileged lifestyle in a way that is basically mean and shortsighted. I suspect that they may mostly be Republican in political persuasion.
General Statement	General Statement
Energy resource depletion is not an issue. While many known energy and material resources are limited, many are not, such as nuclear and hydrogen Energy efficiency increases yearly because of desire for reduced costs on the part of both producers and consumers Market forces tend to favor energy efficiency and innovation Pollution levels will decrease as energy production and use becomes more efficient. Decrease in pollution levels will accelerate if public demands for emission controls on industry, cars, increases The planet may warm over the next decades until emissions decrease; but the combination of human adaptability and technological advances will compensate for this phenomenon Earth elements (wood, minerals, etc.) may be finite, but new synthetic materials will revolutionize home and office building, clothing, etc. etc. In the long term, engineering of the human genome and eventual full and complete brain-computer interface will so change human nature and society that virtuality will replace "reality" — a change so radical that arguments about the physical environment will have to be complete restructured and rethought	Development of clean energy resources should be encouraged on all fronts by government stimulus. Some gains in energy efficiency are noted. These are the result of environmental activists and government intervention. The market would prefer SUVs — as long as they are profitable in the short term. Market forces favor short term profits. This is so IF energy producing and use were to become more efficient. Yes, of course, operating both through demand and voting for more curbs on market excesses. Global warming is a sufficient threat to warrant immediate intervention by the public and government. Not to do so will endanger our grandchildren's future. All matter on Earth, whether natural or synthetic, is limited. This is a fantasy world which makes me wonder about your sanity — and even your motives for proposing it.
Specifics	Specifics
Available Resources/Waste 1. Nuclear/Hydrogen Nuclear energy represents a significant potential for providing unlimited, non-polluting energy Nuclear energy is safe. There have been high-standard nuclear power plants in the US and other countries (esp. France) for decades. There have been only two significant nuclear accidents since nuclear energy became commercial; and the impact was relatively small. Modern nuclear power technology has been vastly improved. There have been no significant events of nuclear waste leakage from current sites, located miles deep in reinforced sarcophagi in empty, non-seismic quarter of US desert Ultimately, nuclear waste will be rocketed to deep space as commercial space flight becomes profitable. Hydrogen-based energy represents significant new and probably source of power. It is non-polluting. Non-polluting alternative technologies exist, but have not been further developed or deployed because of lack of demand 2. Energy Use in Agriculture Energy use in agriculture, already declining per unit of food produced, will continue as genetic modification continues. Fertilizer, pesticide use will decrease; heartier crops will reduce damage and waste, extend shelf-life. Energy use will also decline as logistics, inventory systems improve through IT resulting in more efficient distribution, higher shelf-life, etc. 3. Overall Energy Use Patterns Consumer demand for energy will decline significantly because of Internet sales, telecommuting, etc. Virtual meetings, enhanced interactive communications (social, professional) will obviate the need for travel. When full mind-computer interface is achieved within 100 years, virtual relationships will be indistinguishable from "real" ones. In fact the entire virtual world, from sylvan forests to Bangkok massage parlors, will be as "real" as the "real" thing. Industry demand for energy will go up in the short and medium term as world consumer population demand increases; but efficiencies in industry (robots, full mechanization) plus new energy technologies will provide for environmentally-friendly production	Available Resources/Waste 1. Nuclear/Hydrogen Nuclear energy produces radioactive byproducts that are highly polluting and difficult or impossible to store safely. The risk of a nuclear meltdown or even terrorist attack is too great to accept at this time. It has cost hundreds of billions of dollars to generate 20% of our electricity by nuclear plants today. Nuclear generation has declined since Three Mile Island which caused the evacuation of 140,000 people. In 20 years not a single U.S. plant has been added. No new failsafe plants exist. Nuclear plants cost twice as much as coal or gas fired plants and take 3 times as long to build. Rocketing fuel into space costs money too. Lots of money. And it contaminates space with our greed and sense of entitlement. Research into better ways to produce nuclear power along with all sustainable sources of power — wind, solar, hydrogen — should be encouraged. This will require government sponsored research and incentives because the free market will never support it. 2. Energy Use in Agriculture It takes on the order of ten times more energy today to produce a single calorie of food with industrial methods than it did in the past with a simple digging stick. We are less efficient when limited resources are factored into the equation than were our Native American brothers and sisters. Increased use of fertilizers, pesticides etc. pollute our planet and reduce our ability to produce food in the long run. IT? Why not? 3. Overall Energy Use Patterns Internet economies may exist but the overall demand for energy will still increase, partly due to the need for mass consumption to increase to support a market based economy. Virtual relationships, as opposed to real ones — and virtual travel, as opposed to real — will continue to isolate us — "the haves" from "the have-nots" - continuing a process toward aggressive jingoism and a fantasy world in which we live out our lives in Soma Holidays. I do not agree.
Global Warming Estimates of past/current climate change may be correct; but assumptions of future impact may be biased Past estimates of demographic growth, resource depletion, etc., have been flawed/mistaken. Population has grown much more slowly and rate of decrease is likely to accelerate Assumptions about existing and new technologies must be factored into equation — depending on how fast nuclear, hydrogen, etc. are developed and applied, rate of climate change will be affected Assumptions about productivity growth, energy efficiency, etc. must also be factored according to various scenarios - i.e., optimistic, pessimistic, realistic	Global Warming Past estimates of population growth may have been flawed — but that does not mean that present or future ones will be. If you are able to entertain the prospect of irreversible damage to the ozone layer — why are you not crying out for more research and more pollution containment right now? More research is essential, but we know enough already to begin curtailment of dangerous pollution that affects the ozone layer.
Recycling Market-based recycling is a better model than legislative, coercive models. Recycling will become a reality once the cost of products comes down, due to the use of recycled products Recycling is a good stand-in for overall market-based argument for environmental protection: environmental issues will be resolved not through social conscience but economic self-interest	Recycling What is market-based recycling? Where does it occur? European Union countries, as one example, require their automakers to recycle the cars they sell by law. This is good government intervention ― set standards and allow the market to find solutions. Recycling cars at the expense of automakers forces them to find less costly ways to make them and employ materials that can be reused more easily and hence reduces resource depletion. It is a beginning step in factoring environmental costs into the market place. This has occurred through government intervention — not through the action of the free market.
Genetically Modified Foods There is no doubt of the environmental benefits to be realized from GM foods and products — less or no added fertilizer, pesticides; longer shelf life (as above translated into fewer transport costs); increased oxygen production, pollutant absorption, etc. Given the fact that potential environmental risks (unknown future, destructive species, etc.) are undocumented, the production of GM foods should not be limited.	Genetically Modified Foods The threat to health posed by genetically-modified (GM) food is one of the great unanswered questions of science. GM experiments may lead to gene exchanges causing the evolution of new diseases and the build up of new toxic compounds. The risk of going forward pell-mell for a technological quick fix is greater than the risk of being careful. The emphasis on speed in the adoption of new and untested technologies comes from the need for the market to continue to grow in order for profits to be made by large corporations and their shareholders.
Government Regulation There is a role for government regulation in behavior change. However, it is an accelerator of change, not a replacement for changes in public opinion. Seatbelt regulations accelerated a compliance which would eventually have come once public awareness increased. Government intervention in environmental issues is similar. Legislation on fuel economy standards, emissions, waste clean up, etc. have both accelerated compliance and contributed to public knowledge. The issue is the level of such interventions. Low prefers a far more aggressive intervention policy — increasing fuel economy standards, tightening emission controls, etc. I would argue for gradualism — progressive public and private moves towards environmental standards; and selectivity. The market is already becoming more energy-efficient because of international competition. It is unlikely, however, to respond as quickly to pollution.	Government Regulation Seatbelt standards are a good example of the government setting standards and enforcing compliance on a resistant industry. Consumer activism also helped here. The U.S. auto industry has always resisted fuel efficiency and anti-pollution measures in the interest of profits. There is nothing inherent in the market system that will encourage rapid R and D into resource, safety and energy alternatives. While the market driven system of demand and response may work eventually — it is too slow to respond to the impending threat. It is a system based on short term rewards, profits, and the stimulation of consumption that creates these profits. Therefore, research in all alternative energy systems must be stepped up by the government. And there is little time to lose. It will require a new way of thinking about markets and controlling markets to avert disaster - such as ways to factor environmental costs into the price of things. As I have said before, European Union countries require their automakers to recycle the cars they sell. This is good government intervention ― set standards and allow the market to find solutions.