"In the First Person: Energy/Environmental Ethics"
John H. Gibbons (Energy Conservationist)
Former Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 1993-1998
Johnhgibbons.org

September 24, 2007

I have had, so far, a most fortunate life. Born just when the Great Depression began, from earliest memory I watched my father and mother husband every penny—but I never felt denied. We all helped with chores, including tending a big vegetable garden that fed us round the year and kept us close to the land. It was evident to most of us in those days that there was a clear and close relation between the "natural" world and our very survival.

At the same time, I witnessed places where once fertile soil was being eroded and depleted of nourishment. And I knew streams where thoughtless human abuses had poisoned the water and choked its flow with eroded silt. "Out of sight, out of mind" seemed to be a common attitude. Did things have to be that way in order for humanity to make "progress" and for economies to "grow"? Was it inevitable that my descendants would have to settle for a lower "quality of life" in order to achieve a "higher standard of living?"

Exploring "wild" caves was another avid pastime for me. We were thrilled by discovering new caves, unaltered by prior human visitation, but we became appalled by the actions of other cavers who made a habit of breaking off stalactites for souvenirs because it denied future cavers the chance to see the cave in its natural state. Our motto became "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints"—an early lesson in conservation ethics. There was another lesson gained from caving: in the "old" days, farmers would use sinkholes as dumps for all manner of trash, including dead animals. They seemed unaware that such practice practically guaranteed that someone's spring downstream would become contaminated. Another lesson in environmental ethics: "Out of sight, out of mind" is a bad perspective, but sadly a common one.

These experiences led me to pose the following question: What is the responsibility of each generation to maintain or improve the prospects for later generations?

I became fascinated by nature, science/engineering, and math: It was in the learning of arithmetic and geometric progressions (as used by Malthus 200 years ago to address the future of human population and food production) that I realized the potential collision course between population and resources (including environment). What could/should be done to change directions away from rapid exponential increases in population, which is inevitably accompanied by destruction of biological and physical resources? To what extent can advances in science and technology offset loss of resources?

I became (and remain) enchanted by the power and poetry of science, engineering, and mathematics. These human endeavors have enabled us to understand some of the language of nature, and with that unfolding knowledge we have gained the potential to provide necessities and amenities for living while simultaneously assuring resources for future generations. That "potential" does not guarantee success. Success depends upon continued discoveries in science, innovation in engineering, and a society that is committed to an ethic of ecological responsibility.

Taken in context (and with notable exceptions) I believe we are making considerable progress in being better stewards of creation. While population continues to grow at prodigious numbers (nearly 80 million more persons each year!), the rate of population growth is slowing throughout much of the world--thanks to international assistance in education, improved family health and birth control services (in the nick of time in terms of attaining long-term sustainability without catastrophic events along the way). Fossil fuels, except for coal, will be nearly gone by the end of this century. However, advancing capabilities of other energy sources (ultimately solar and nuclear) give reasonable hope for a sustainable energy future, especially as we learn more and more about how to use sophisticated technologies to provide energy services while using less energy.

On the other hand, we could justly claim that burgeoning human activities and their planetary impacts such as global climate change and bio-diversity loss are outstripping our capability to offset them. The combined stresses of population growth and resource degradation (minerals, energy, agriculture, water, healthy ecosystems) seem to be driving humanity on a long-term, irreversible course toward a lesser quality of life for all. Our work is cut out for us! There's no shortage of need for help from creative minds, but beware of the pie-in-the-sky economic creationists, such as the late Julian Simon, who defend the notion of a physical future without limits, enabled by bright minds. I recall a radio debate nearly fifty years ago between Professor Harrison Brown, a distinguished chemistry professor at Cal Tech, and Professor Colin Clark, an English economist, on the subject of ultimate overpopulation problems. Clark proclaimed that when we arrive at that condition we'd be able to send surplus populations off to other planets in space ships!! After recovering from shock and disbelief, Brown pointed out that even if cheap space travel were to become possible and even if habitable planets were found, the first rule in such a situation would have to be that strict birth control would have to be practiced on board the space ship. It seems that people would rather commit suicide than learn arithmetic.

My change in direction. In my undergraduate years I concentrated academically on science and math. It was a wonderful adventure, consistent with my intent to later pursue either science or medicine. Ultimately physics won out, and I enjoyed a career in physics research on the origin of solar system elements for nearly two decades. During that same time interval, mostly in Tennessee (Oak Ridge National Lab), several events transformed my life. Oak Ridge, a relatively affluent and sophisticated community, lies within the fringe of Appalachia. Its well-known weighty burdens of poverty and environmental degradation could not be ignored. The region was described as a place where "old cars come to die." Big timber was gone, agricultural land was depleted, and coal mining was king. Mineral rights for coal long had long ago been sold to wealthy out-of-state residents for a pittance. Then mining was transformed from pick and shovel by surface excavation equipment that enabled large-scale strip mining. Regional streams were drowned in silt and acid drainage, while coal was hauled away to electric power plants, each of which typically burned 10,000 tons per day and emitted prodigious quantities of ash, SOx, CO2, benzopyrene, mercury, etc.

It has been claimed that, "hickory wood heats you twice—once when you split it, and once again when you burn it." Analogously, I learned that using coal pollutes twice: once when you mine it, and once again when you burn it! I learned that many of the seemingly intractable problems with coal could be ascribed to unwillingness of industry to recognize and respond to the substantial external costs in the coal-electric cycle…a basically unethical position. Surely science and technology could come to the environmental rescue; it has over the last several decades, but more must be done.

At the same time I, a physicist working by day in nuclear research, was swept up in my spare time in coal and environment issues. My wife and I became acutely aware of the urgent need in Appalachia (America's "Third World" in many ways) for improved social services. Communities were isolated and health services sadly inadequate, especially in maternal and reproductive health. One desperate practice used to attempt abortion of unwanted pregnancies was to drink turpentine. More often than not the pregnancy was terminated, but so was the life of the unfortunate, desperate woman.

Any environmental ethic, if it means to be serious, must include consideration of human population growth. Unwanted pregnancies can be disastrous, not only to both parents and child, but also to environmental losses because population growth overtaxes natural resources and crowding exacerbates "sprawl" and stress. My wife and I found that when effective means to birth control are available, birth rates drop significantly, abortion demand nearly disappears, and family health environment greatly improves. The ethical lesson: people will act in a socially responsible way when effective means are available.

When I had a chance to shift professionally to work on energy and associated environmental problems such as air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and energy conservation, I leaped at the opportunity. There is a great promise for science and engineering research in these areas, but they also are deeply affected by economic and social policy. Such a change in professional direction was quite disconcerting for me, but I knew that by doing so there was a vastly greater chance for me to contribute more directly to the quest for sustainability and environmental conservation.

I realized that perhaps the most powerful cause of environmental degradation comes from energy extraction, processing, conversion, and use. A closer look at the energy system disclosed there were legions of technological opportunities to deliver energy services with much less environmental impact. We found ways to apply science and engineering to the challenge to provide more energy-related services using less energy…at no extra cost. In the three decades since the early 1970's the energy used by Americans to produce a unit of GNP was nudged down by over 30 percent…and environmental pressures fell, accordingly. That is an excellent example of the practice of environmental ethics using science and engineering.

Soon, however, it became apparent that there are distinct limits to increased efficiency. While we can use our ingenuity to achieve vastly more efficient use of energy and other resources, we must ultimately limit ourselves in population and consumption at a sustainable level. For me, therefore, the ultimate environmental ethic is to achieve population stabilization and a "dematerialization" of economic activity—essentially, learning how to provide goods and services with minimal impact on earth's "natural" resources. I can think of no more lofty challenges for humanity.