What is the biggest obstacle to a just sustainable world?
May 19, 2011 12:06 PM   Subscribe

The biggest obstacle to a just sustainable world? It's energy. But how do I prove that?

I'm not talking about normal energy like oil, and solar. I'm thinking new energy that is small, portable, and cheep. There is obviously some breakthroughs in technology that need to happen, but I'm not writing about that. I'm writing about how that energy source will help get to a just sustainable world. I'm looking for websites and articles, and maybe some personal thoughts(I'll cite you).
posted by andykapahala to Education (16 answers total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: You need to have more of an explicit answerable question for this to work on Ask Metafilter. Maybe try and narrow this down and give it another go next week. -- cortex

 
To clarify: Are you asking for examples of how some kind of magical new technology that you hope/assume will be invented will change the world? Because we've sort of been down that road before, with "Cheap atomic power in every car!" and "Fusion generators in every housewife's pocket!" and it just hasn't happened. "A vastly improved solar/wind/tidal/geothermal-based energy infrastructure" might happen. "New energy that is small, portable, and cheap" - and, I assume, clean - is just a wishlist.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:08 PM on May 19, 2011


Response by poster: It's hypothetical, if energy is not a problem. Then how to we get to a just sustainable world.
posted by andykapahala at 12:15 PM on May 19, 2011


A search term that may help is "post-scarcity" or "scarcity" in general. Unlimited cheap energy is usually one of the premises of discussions of a post-scarcity world/economy.
posted by restless_nomad at 12:22 PM on May 19, 2011


It's called perpetual motion and no you can't have it. No, no, no.
posted by longsleeves at 12:26 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Everything that we human beings do requires energy of some sort. Even if no machines are involved, for example we are just taking a walk, that uses chemical energy from food to power our muscles to allow us to walk. The higher the standard of living to which we aspire, the more energy is used.

But it would be an oversimplification to say that energy is the biggest obstacle to a just sustainable world. No matter how much energy you have, it is energy per capita, not total energy which will relate to standard of living. So of the population of the world continues to increase without limit, then it must eventually become excessive no matter how much energy you have (assuming that you do not have an infinite supply - but guess what, even if you had an infinite supply, all energy use eventually degrades into waste heat, and even with very efficient cooling systems, there is a theoretical limit to the speed with which excess heat can be radiated into space, so there are certain limits that are unavoidable - even the colonization of other planets, which would become possible if there was infinite energy available, only postpones the inevitable). I would say that family planning is the ultimate bedrock of what the world needs if it wishes to create a just and sustainable society. And then there are doubtlessly many other very vital elements as well. No matter how much energy you have, if your society is ruled by a corrupt or psychotic dictatorship such as the Kim dynasty of North Korea, you will fall well short of justice or sustainability.
posted by grizzled at 12:28 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


There is some breakthrough in thinking that needs to happen.

Basically all energy this planet receives comes from the sun. Sustainable means not using the energy on this planet any faster than it arrives. That's the antithesis of what our civilization has done with fossil fuels. It's the difference between living on a budget or burning through your savings: only the first is sustainable.

Technology is a consumer of energy, not a source of energy.
posted by maniabug at 12:37 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Energy isn't sustainability. Its consumables and other resources that are in short supply also and either cannot be renewed or will not be helped by this. Rare earth elements, plastics (oil), clean water, food, farmland, fish, etc depending on the region you are talking about. Having 1/10th the energy bill without pollution doesn't help any of that.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:40 PM on May 19, 2011


Many people may disagree with your premise. It seems disingenuous to ignore sanitation techniques, potable water, birth control, agriculture, distribution networks, increased access to medicine and education are other elements of infrastructure which may also contribute to improved third world. Many of these might require some element of energy production - be it green or not - but none of these things independently require such production. Moreover, adopting the philosophy that a silver bullet single pronged focus on prioritizing energy development probably results in a lack of improvement in all other aspects of infrastructure – meaning you shoot yourself in the foot.

Immaterial of this, bringing in low cost goods via various WTO and relief organizations may actually hinder the development of self sustainability from a fundamental misallocation of resources (cheaper goods are bought at a priority over equally necessary long term structural needs). The continued subsidization of used clothing and requirements by organizations such as the WTO forces these countries into endless cycles of actually having to purchase these products instead of investing the money elsewhere – effectively its as if McDonald’s lent all the homeless people in NYC $100 at a 10% interest rate, and dropped their prices for those people. Sure, the homeless people would eat, but they would not improve their overall quality of life, instead focusing on the food instead of the other things. McDonald’s sort of looses out today, but they probably recover $130 from each of those people. With the third world, the WTO gets countries this way with subsidized grains, subsidized used clothing, and requirements on school infrastructure. Furthermore, the WTO uses this leverage to get first world companies rights to the natural resources of the country that they are allegedly 'helping'. Its a sick sick cycle, where the country is pacified and propped up enough for vague stability while their natural resources are robbed by the first world. We don't take countries by violence these days, we economically rob them - want to improve these countries justice? Rewrite the terms the WTO dictates to them for assistance.

Point being: There is no silver bullet, no starting point, nor one single item that solves the third world’s problems – whether we invest our time in energy production, trade reform, medical assistance, or infrastructure. I’m convinced that at this point the only folks that really go in and do good are doctors without borders – and they just provide triage service to an area that needs it.
posted by Nanukthedog at 12:48 PM on May 19, 2011


There's no definite connection between energy and a "sustainable" world, only between finding a cheap renewable energy source and a sustainable energy supply. Environmental factors go far beyond energy use (ie cutting down rainforest to make farms). Importantly, there is also no connection between energy and a "just" world. So given that, I would suggest reworking this question.
posted by modernnomad at 12:50 PM on May 19, 2011


(Sorry, I mean there is direct connection, as in having a magical free energy supply will not therefore result in an automatic "just" world. Free renewable energy won't eliminate sexism or racism, for instance.)
posted by modernnomad at 12:51 PM on May 19, 2011


(Fuck me, I mean there is NO direct connection...)
posted by modernnomad at 12:51 PM on May 19, 2011


As I recall you are a high school student, right? If this is for a term paper, I don't really think asking for research and quotes from us to put in your paper (cited or not) is an appropriate use for AskMe.
posted by misha at 12:53 PM on May 19, 2011


Here is an academic take on the issues of sustainable energy (subscription may be required): Powering the planet, by Drs. Nathan Lewis and Daniel Nocera.


Basically all energy this planet receives comes from the sun. Sustainable means not using the energy on this planet any faster than it arrives. That's the antithesis of what our civilization has done with fossil fuels. It's the difference between living on a budget or burning through your savings: only the first is sustainable.

We receive orders of magnitude more energy in the form of sunlight than we need. The main issue is how to effectively harvet it.
posted by beepbeepboopboop at 12:54 PM on May 19, 2011


(at least in terms of sustainability, justice is another issue entirely)
posted by beepbeepboopboop at 12:55 PM on May 19, 2011 [2 favorites]


Andy you are 15, correct? Before this thread goes bye-bye you may wish to think of everything in terms of potential energy. Fossil fuels have potential energy that was imbued in their very structure a long time ago. Nuclear energy is unleashed when you release the potential energy trapped in atoms. Technology doesn't create energy whole cloth. It taps potential energy.
posted by dgeiser13 at 1:00 PM on May 19, 2011


The other issue is the word, "just".

Having an abundance of energy (or, resources) doesn't necessarily mean you end up with anything just. Consider say, the amount of food being thrown away in the US, while simultaneously propping up dictatorships to keep agricultural land control in other countries to grow cash crops (coffee, chocolate) as the local population is starving.

The problem with greed is that it can never be sated, and such, can't be "paid off" into respecting other peoples'/nations rights or property.
posted by yeloson at 1:00 PM on May 19, 2011


« Older Oh, blinking tag, how I loved thee..   |   Where can I find an IT support refresher course? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.