Climate Change is a Distraction!

Yes, climate change is real and yes, without a doubt, humanity is responsible for much of the warming. If left unaddressed, we will suffer catastrophic consequences. However, its often characterized as the defining issue of our age. It is not. Its a distraction from the root cause of climate change. That root cause is mindless consumerism.

Renewable Energy Alone Will Make us Worse Off

Here’s the problem. Our politicians and leading intellectuals appear to take the position that all we need to do is transition our economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on ideally renewable or at least less harmful sources of energy. I’m all for that transition but the message they preach is that once we transition to a non carbon dioxide emitting source of energy we should be free to continue on our current path of “prosperity” and GDP growth that has brought us to where we are today. Not so! As mentioned in Health in Flames, we face at least three intertwined disasters all ultimately due to mindless consumption. Climate change is one of those three. The other two are the dramatic loss of biodiversity on Earth in the last few decades and the rise of chronic disease in America and abroad.

But what if we could instantly transition to a source of energy like nuclear fusion? What if it were suddenly cheap and limitless with almost no pollution?

If we failed to address mindless consumption, then transitioning to a cheap limitless supply of energy would only accelerate mindless consumption. That consumption would then further accelerate the loss of biodiversity and further amplify the chronic disease crises we face. Solving the climate crises in isolation is NOT ENOUGH! Failure to address the underlying cause ultimately translates to a worsening of our health and wellbeing. Why so?

Lowering Costs of Energy Use Leads to More Mindless Consumption

Let’s think about this carefully. There’s really two scenarios to think through. In the first, we transition to a source of energy that is a good substitute for fossil fuels but ends up costing more. For example, that might be the case if we transitioned suddenly today to all solar & wind or nuclear energy. Perhaps after accounting for energy storage and infrastructure costs, energy expenses go up. Perhaps, cap and trade policies (which would make fossil fuels more expensive) make the change more advantageous to the cost conscious consumer. However, over time, since these sources of energy are either renewable or cost little after the initial investment, costs come down.

In the current political climate and just given our reluctance to spend more on energy than we are used to, another scenario is perhaps more likely. In this scenario, we make the transition to other sources of energy only as costs come down.

Saving Money –> Spending More

Regardless of how we manage the transition, the problem is that as we save money on energy costs, consumption will go up. Why so? Because as people save money, they have more money to spend. That will spur consumption. According to our politicians (whether on the left or the right) whose overarching societal goal for us is to grow GDP, this is desirable. But they are wrong. That very consumer oriented lifestyle is likely to lead to a further decline in biodiversity due to resource use. Such a loss of biodiversity is not just tragic for wildlife but likely to lead to a rise in infectious pathogens and more pandemics. It is also likely to lead to a further worsening of our health.