Humans are now the dominant force driving change on the Earth. We have changed landscapes and built cities. We have developed technologies and harnessed energy. We have managed and controlled the landscape so much so that we have exploded to a population of 7 billion people in only a few thousand years.

Interconnected North America: A world of cities

We are all much more interconnected that we think, something I was reminded of recently when I suffered an ankle injury while training for a half marathon, an injury that was somehow connected to not only my old knee injury but also to my quads and my calf muscles. Many Earth systems are just as interconnected as my ankle injury; some are even more reliant on a delicate balance of factors that we may not even be aware of.

So far, Earth’s systems have been able to absorb the changes we’ve made to the planet without many problems, but if we take a look at the changes taking place in the Arctic we can see a glimpse of exactly how much cumulative effect human activity is having on the planet and its physical, chemical, biological and ecological systems.

Interconnected systems mean that cumulative effects can reach tipping points and suddenly flip, as opposed to continuing to react in a linear and until now predictable manner. This has been documented in the Arctic as a result of positive feedback loops which amplify processes. “Arctic Amplification” is a positive feedback loop which is contributing to air temperatures in the Arctic being two or more times higher than those observed at lower latitudes.

This means that the Arctic today is a living lab demonstrating what changes in the climate will be in store for the rest of the world with +2⁰C of global warming. That future looks non-linear. As the NOAA report card press release stated:

‘The amplification of warming in the Arctic reflects a powerful feedback between the region’s ice covers and air temperature: As the air temperature increases, ice melts; as the ice (which is a bright, white, highly reflective surface) melts, it reveals darker ocean and land surfaces that absorb more solar energy during a summer season when the sun never sets; this causes more heating, which causes more melting…and on it goes.’

Here the connections begin to reveal themselves. A reduction in summer sea ice cover leads to increased ocean acidification because a greater area of open water enhances the uptake of CO₂ in the water which reduces the pH (increases the acidity) of the ocean. This subsequently thins the shells of marine organisms, which increases their vulnerability to pollutants and disease, and the connections continue.

Arctic temperature amplification, NOAA

The consequences of this level of global warming (which is already locked in from the amount of CO₂ currently in the atmosphere) will require a high degree of adaptation – we already know this. However, it’s the non-linear patterns that caught my attention as that’s something we can’t plan for or anticipate. This will require a shift in how we manage risk on a day to day basis.

Some insurance companies are already talking about the changes that will need to be made to adapt to 2⁰C of warming, as well as organisations like the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment, who recently published a report on how businesses will need to adapt to climate change.

This is our new non-linear world, coming to you over the next few decades. The Anthropocene: this will get interesting, and we need to start planning for it.

Full earth economics: understanding we are dealing with finite exhaustible resources (Carbon Talks)

This is not a new idea. For well over a decade Dr. Olewiler has been a major proponent of pricing carbon and using extra revenue for projects that conserve natural capital. While BC has caught on with a carbon tax, which is set to increase this summer to $30 per tonne, the federal government has consistently avoided the idea. Our conservative government has made it clear that reducing government spending, introducing an era of constrained budgets, and paying down the deficit is what is best for the economy. Unfortunately, while we avoid the potentially politically unpopular policy of a federal carbon tax, taxpayers are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on programs that have little, if any, promise of reducing GHGs.

Currently, we are heavily subsidizing the oil sector, pumping hundreds of millions into programs to deal with the negative externalities of the industry, yet still paying high prices at the pump. Such subsidies are perverse and inefficient. They distort the market by making it seem as if certain products are more profitable than they really are. Corn ethanol subsidies have increased food prices in developing nations yet do little to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions; this is a prime example of how subsidies can have unintended consequences. When subsidies are eliminated and carbon or other environmental contaminants are taxed (a concept known as full-cost pricing) the market responds by producing better goods that are kinder to both the environment and our health. This is ultimately cheaper for the public and more efficient in the long term for both government and industry.

Canadian hard-earned moolah (courtesy of KittyCanuck, Flickr)

Another example of inefficient subsidies (one of many) is a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project led by Shell Canada in the Athabasca oil sands. This project was partially funded by the governments of Alberta and Canada to the tune of $865 million in 2011 and has a cost of $1.35 billion to build and run the operation for the first 10 years. The technology sounds exciting. It promises to capture and permanently store (up to 1000 years) around 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year deep underground. However a million tons of CO₂ is a drop in the bucket compared with the 545 million tones of CO₂ we produced collectively in Canada in 2010. When the numbers are crunched, it becomes apparent that the program is preposterously expensive.  Rather than slapping a tax on carbon at $30, $40 or even $50 a tonne, this project is costing taxpayers roughly $112.50 a tonne. And what happens in 1000 years when some of that CO₂ starts to leak out? It’s hardly a cost-effective solution, especially when the science is, as of yet, unproven.

But why price carbon at all? Why place a seemingly unnecessary tax burden on Canadians, especially in today’s economic climate? Pricing carbon protects natural capital, and protecting natural capital increases productivity, improves health outcomes and reduces poverty. In fact, the United Nations Environment Program is so convinced that protecting natural capital is the key to long term, sustainable economic development that they have created a Bank of Natural Capital, a project that stemmed from The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative.

Wetlands: nature's water purification system (Claire Havens)

The conservation of wetlands as water purification systems (such as in New York City), mangroves as buffers to erosion and storm surges (something they failed to consider in Cancun and Thailand), and tropical rainforests as carbon sequestration mechanisms are classic examples of how protecting natural capital is economically efficient and can even save lives.

When considered in the long term, protecting our rivers, lakes, oceans, forests, wetlands and other ecosystems will ensure our country remains wealthy and healthy for generations. We can avoid potentially billions in costs; Olewiler insists that “the sooner we get going the better, the longer we wait the more expensive it will be.” Taxes, despite their negative connotations, are efficiency-enhancing when applied to pollution and other undesirables. They allow us to harness the power of the market to produce better goods and services, improving our economy and our lives.

Dr. Olewiler is clearly frustrated by the federal government’s recent rhetoric pitting jobs against the economy; the public is pressured to choose between reduced environmental quality with the promise of increased jobs in the resource sector, or the status quo. What infuriates environmental economists such as Olewiler is that they know that good jobs stem from a healthy environment. Natural capital provides us with a flow of goods and services that, if properly managed, can allow us to prosper in perpetuity. The idea of destroying an ecosystem beyond restoration is simply not economical in the long term.

Fishing in BC: jobs reliant on a healthy ecosystem (Claire Havens)

The mantra is not “jobs versus the environment” but instead “jobs and the environment.” To pretend that we have to choose between the two is short-term thinking at its finest and, to quote my thrifty grandma, “penny wise and pound foolish.” Let’s pad our wallets with a few extra dollars that would otherwise go into subsidies, and pay a few pennies more at the pump for a commodity we should all be cutting back on anyway.

With contributions from Mark Bryan, MPP.

What do all these numbers mean? (Flickr, brendan.wood)

I admit it, I don’t look too closely at my electricity bill. It always seemed to me to be an esoteric jumble of rates, charges, definitions, and explanations. As long as the dollar figure didn’t climb too high, it didn’t bother me much. However effort to save electricity translates directly into cost savings, not to mention possible emissions reductions, no matter how small. It’s hard to argue with a virtuous act that also saves me money.

A typical electricity bill will tell you the number of kilowatt-hours that you used during the billing period (or an estimate of that number, based on previous patterns of usage), along with a rate. But what does that really mean? What is a kilowatt-hour? How much electricity do my various appliances and habits use? If I wanted to decrease that amount, what’s the most efficient way to do so? To answer these questions, we need a little bit of math.

In the context of electricity, the basic unit of measurement for energy is the kilowatt-hour (kWh) – if you use 1000 watts in one hour, then you’ve used one kilowatt-hour. A kilowatt is one thousand watts, and a watt itself is a measure of power – that is, how much energy is used over a certain period of time. To put things in perspective, one kWh equals approximately 3.6 million joules, or approximately 860 nutritional calories; that’s just over a dozen apples.

So how many apples of electricity do I use per month? To determine how much electricity a particular appliance or piece of equipment is using, first you need to determine its wattage. Most of us grew up with typical incandescent light bulbs, and those almost always have the wattage printed directly on the bulb; an average bulb may be 60 to 100 watts. Let’s say you use the bulb for roughly five hours per day; over the course of a month, this would add up to approximately 150 hours. We then divide 150 hours by the wattage of the bulb (let’s say it’s 60 watts), working out to 2.5 kilowatt-hours (or thirty apples, for those of you still counting in fruit). Larger appliances like a refrigerator may use 50-160 watts on average, yet spike to 700 watts when the compressor is running. An average window unit air conditioner runs somewhere around 1000 watts. An electric water heater can draw a remarkable 3800 watts.

Is it turned off? Think again (Flickr, smig44_uk)

Sometimes your device doesn’t list wattage, but only amperage and voltage. In this case, you’ll need to multiply these two numbers together. For example, my laptop draws 3.65 amps at 16.5 volts, which works out to about 60 watts. This is the maximum draw, however, and when your laptop is sitting idle or sleeping it could be significantly less.

Standby power, or the more romantically descriptive “vampire power”, is electricity consumed by an appliance when it’s plugged in, but not necessarily turned on. This includes not only a laptop, but also devices like a charging phone, an idle stereo system, or even the clock on the microwave.

In 1999, the International Energy Agency launched the One Watt Initiative with the goal of ensuring that all new appliances sold by 2010 would use only one watt in standby mode. Governments followed their lead, and in 2007 California enacted appliance standards limiting standby power to just 0.5 watts. In 2010 The European Commission put into force a regulation limiting regular standby power to 1 watt, and standby for any equipment that is displaying information or status to 2 watts.

In Canada, we are phasing in our own specific regulation on standby power; Natural Resources Canada estimates that we use between 5 and 6 terawatt-hours of standby power per year. That’s 5.5 billion kWh, or… 460 million apples.

The question of electricity cost is complicated, and depends on a number of factors not limited to where you live. The time of day, your peak usage, tiered pricing, and demand charges can all drastically affect the cost you’re paying per kilowatt-hour. Here in British Columbia, we pay based on what’s called a “stepped rate” system whereby we pay 6.8 cents per kWh for the first 1,350 kWh, and then 10.19 cents per kWh above that threshold. BC Hydro suggests that this system encourages conservation, and argues that the 10.19 cents rate is a more realistic charge for current sources of electricity.

Are we taking this comparison too far? (Flickr, diebmx)

Now that we know how to calculate our energy usage, and how much it costs, we can think about how to bring those numbers down. Last month I used approximately 420 kWh, and so I’m on the hook for about $28 – I live alone, with heating and hot water provided by my building, so this number doesn’t accurately reflect my total home energy footprint. But how can I decrease the amount of that electricity that I do personally pay for? I could turn down the fridge, as it’s probably too cold. I could use the microwave more often, instead of the electric stove. I could use standby power conservation sockets for my computer, phone, and other electronics. And of course I could simply use less water, lighting, and heat.

These are relatively easy things to do, yet how we can take personal responsibility for shifting Canada to a low-carbon economy is something most of us are likely to ignore, purposefully or otherwise. Things like carbon taxation and legislated emissions reduction targets will happen despite our habits. Other strategies, like a home energy retrofit, increased reliance on public transportation, and greater consumption of local food, rely on a combination of market forces that make a choice economical and desirable by default. However the smallest things we can do are at home, and those things will save both energy and money. With a bit more effort at conservation, I could save myself 1200 kWh per year. That may not seem like a whole lot, but it’s the equivalent of over 14,000 apples. That’s a lot of fruit.

Previously underwater tree stumps exposed by low water levels in Lake Hume, Victoria (Flickr, Tim Keegan)

I had a conversation with a Canadian friend recently who suggested I shouldn’t really worry about conserving water here in BC because it’s a renewable resource, so it doesn’t matter how much we use. Well technically that’s true, but by that standard so is coal – it’s just that the rate we’re using coal and the rate it regenerates don’t align.

This is not yet happening with water supplies in BC, but as an Australian, I can tell you that when it does happen it’s not pretty.

Climate change is going to make future weather patterns unpredictable. We will no longer be able to rely on consistent rainfall each year to fill the reservoirs that supply our cities with drinking water and a growing population will place even greater stress on our water systems.

It may seem a bit odd to talk about things like over-allocation of rivers and sustainable use of water resources in a place like BC where it seems to rain endlessly, but as the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council are increasingly finding out – the myth of water abundance can be dangerously misleading. Groundwater and surface water are closely interconnected. This means that when the river runs dry, it’s likely the well on the farm will be running dry too. As the aquifer is drained, a lack of surface water means there’s little seeping through to regenerate the aquifer.

In the Okanagan basin, residents use an average of 1000L of water per person per day in the summer. Compare this with the target that was set by the State Government in Victoria, Australia at the height of the drought in 2008: 155L of water per person per day. At the time, these kinds of water restrictions were normal. Showers for no longer than 3mins, with a bucket between my feet to catch run off that our family would use to keep the nectarine and lemon trees in the backyard alive. Sometimes in the height of summer, it would get to level 4 restrictions:  no outside watering with tap water at all. Compare this with someone I saw in Yaletown, Vancouver on the weekend hosing down a concrete sidewalk; there’s going to have to be a cultural shift around water consciousness in Canada.

Hosing down the streets in Yaletown, Vancouver. In Australia, this is not legal (Flickr, Roland Tanglao)

The myth of water abundance also means water allocations can be given out in areas that are already close to or fully allocated. This doesn’t create a crisis in a rainy year where not everyone uses their full allocation, however in dry years, which will become more common with climate change, this could be catastrophic.

There is a way to avoid ending up in an Australian-style catastrophic water shortage where rivers stop running all the way to the ocean – put in place conservation measures to ensure sustainable water use in a changing climate. For example, the BC Provincial Government, along with technical advisory groups like the WWF are working to modernise the Water Sustainability Act.

If the Province can get some robust legislation in place now – before we need it – with clear water scarcity plans, conservation and efficiency plans and drought trigger points, we will be better prepared to adapt to changes in our climate in the future. It will involve agreeing upon how much water is available and how it can best be used and conserved, including environmental flows to ensure continued river health, hydro power, irrigation for farming, industry and human consumption.

Such efforts will mean better river and ecosystem health in the long term. This will provide an environment for better human health in the communities around rivers, and a better quality of life for everyone. Action is required now, before over-allocation turns our BC lakes into something like this.

Boat parking sign – Green Lake, Horsham, Vic, Australia (Flickr, John Carney)

Amy and her brother Rob at Big White

Some really interesting research was recently published looking at the most effective way to create renewable hybrid systems (solar-hydro, wind-hydro, and solar-wind-hydro). I say it was really interesting firstly because I’m a science nerd, and secondly because the research is being conducted by my brother as part of his PhD!

What the paper is looking at is sophisticated weather maps in the state of Victoria, Australia that best determine optimal locations for renewable energy projects. One of the issues with renewable energy is providing base load power – because people generally aren’t going to be ok with the fridge randomly turning off when the wind dies down or the sun goes behind a cloud.

One way around that is to store the excess power generated for a time when you need it later. This can be achieved through hybrid systems. A detailed map of weather systems was created for the project and from the masses of data, the best sites in Victoria for wind (blue squares) or solar (red triangle) were found.

This data was then measured against electricity demand with surplus wind power being stored as pumped hydro, and natural gas also being used as a reserve power source. Results showed that the hybrid system would be able to meet electrical demand requirements.

The state of Victoria with optimal wind and solar locations

Currently here in BC, potential wind power sites are assessed on localised data that has a large ±10% error margin, in areas that are likely to have the data because they already have a wind turbine installed. The system in the Australian research looks at all of the weather patterns for a particular area and picks the most efficient energy production site that may not have a local windsock. It’s also able to provide data on a larger scale, which will be important as the sector grows in the transition to a low carbon economy.

And the sector is growing – quickly. There are currently 141 wind turbine locations in Canada, ranging from the single turbine on Grouse Mountain to a field of 34 turbines at Peace River. The Canadian Wind Energy Association predicts the industry is going to grow by 1,500 megawatts in 2012 alone, which is likely to be a conservative estimate. This is enough electricity to power a central air conditioning system for 750 years.

Wind turbines, Port Burwell Ontario (Flickr, David Rees)

BC Hydro has agreements with independent power producers, three of which are wind farms that feed into the power grid. A more decentralised power grid system is another bonus in our changing climate, because if one part of the grid were to be damaged by a storm, the rest of the grid is still functional. Systemic resilience is going to be important with stronger and more erratic storm patterns.

There may not be the ‘silver bullet’ single resource that replaces fossil fuels, but with renewable hybrid systems, we won’t need one. Programs like feed-in tariffs that pay local power producers who feed into the grid and increasingly more sophisticated and efficient technologies are helping renewable systems thrive around the world. In Canada, Australia and many other countries hybrid renewable systems are going to be a big part of our transition away from a fossil fuel economy, and that transition is happening already.

If you were unable to attend the event, or participate via webcast, we have posted a full video of the presentation and Q&A on the Carbon Talks Youtube channel. We invite you to watch and listen to Ms. Allan’s thoughts, and give us your questions or comments below, or via twitter @carbontalks.

Charles F. Kettering, American inventor and defender of progress (Wikimedia Commons)

This presents a great danger for the modern economy, when innovators and radical thinkers are dismissed. Projects that may very well benefit us all are shelved because they represent risk, and risk-aversion goes against short-term growth and unbounded economic prosperity, that swan song of the 20th century.

This holds particularly true when it affects our homes and communities. When the places in which we live are under threat of transformation and metamorphosis, may of us arch our backs and bristle with skepticism. For some cities, the issue may be bike lanes; for others, perhaps it’s smart meter technology; some communities get upset about wind turbines. Whatever the issue is, there are inevitably going to be people who cannot handle that their city is changing, and their idea of home is under siege.

As with many others of my generation, I grew up designing cities. Being a middle-class nerdy kid growing up in a quiet corner of Ottawa, along with heavy metal and soda, my main source of entertainment when I was twelve years old was video games. Out of all the games that my friends and I would play, often until dawn broke and the sugar crash landed, there was nothing more addictive, challenging, and fascinating than SimCity.

A nuclear meltdown!

SimCity is more of a toy than a game. You act as the all-powerful mayor of a city, and with the tools that the game hands you (different zoning, transportation options, taxation, power, and services) attempt to build the city of your dreams. Like reality, there’s no measurable way to win. If you want to build wind turbines, vast parks, city farms and a communist agrarian utopia, go for it. If you’d rather sack all the police, burn down the fire stations, and let crime and poverty run rampant, there’s nothing stopping you.

I wasn’t nearly so creative, and my own cities reflected my teenaged understanding of economics. I found that if I set low taxes on high-tech clean business, and compensated with high taxes on dirty industry, then it would encourage growth in the sectors that were attractive to me. But because the game required a diversity of economic drivers, I was forced to build some heavy industry, and put low-income housing next door. Without even thinking about it much, I would soon have a segregated city with high crime, heavy industry, and poor infrastructure near the power plant, and high-density apartments, office towers, and parks and plazas on the waterfront.

What I didn’t understand then is that the game had rules built in that were relatively inflexible. While real urban planners have to deal with their own structure of criteria, legislation, policies, and regulations, there is also room for creativity and innovation. Yet because of the risk-averse nature of financial institutions, government, and corporations, we are often stuck within a rigid set of rules just like the mayor of a SimCity.

The newest version of SimCity due out in 2013 will evolve to reflect a new reality of urban planning. Resources are now limited, neighbouring cities and their behaviour affects how your city grows, policies can encourage energy efficiency, and power plants are appropriately beneficial and harmful as you would expect. These are all welcome improvements, and maybe it will encourage children (of all ages) to think more critically about how our cities can evolve. But no matter what improvements are made by game designers, barring massive advancements in gaming and computer science, the player remains locked in a fixed set of rules.

SimCity 2013: Games have evolved since I was a teenager...

Back in reality, we need not be so inflexible; the Platonic form of a city that we share is up for discussion. As more and more people move to cities over the coming decades, our cities must grow and evolve in response. Only the most open-minded community leaders will see the potential for positive change. The rest of us will be stuck with pre-fabricated cities built on a rigid set of rules that belong to an earlier time. That’s fine for a game, but in our own homes and communities, surely we can do better.

Captain Planet and the Planeteers

Saving the planet all on your own is an impossible task. As a child, I loved the TV series Captain Planet where five different youths were given rings with different powers; Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, and Heart. They worked together to stop the polluting bad guys (with hilarious names like ‘Looten Plunder’) and if the going got tough, by their powers combined you got Captain Planet who would save the day! They also had environmental messages at the end of the show like ‘always turn the light off when you leave the room’ that are considered quaint nowadays (it’s good to see we have made some progress).

So when the government is not providing any leadership to foster the transition to a low carbon economy, I think it’s time to make a team, just like Captain Planet.

We have the technology available to make the transition to a low carbon economy. There are new technologies for batteries that are better able to store energy. There are promising renewable power hybrid schemes where excess solar or wind energy pumps water into a storage area to be used as hydro when the solar or wind generation drops off. Added bonus – wind turbines are really elegant – much nicer than an open-cut mine.

Green power (Ole Houen, Flickr)

If the energy playing field was levelled and the huge subsidies to fossil fuel companies were removed, renewable power would be very competitive. The only reason oil is relatively cheap is because we’re not paying the full cost, the cost that reflects the pollution and lifecycle costs.

So how do we kick start the transition? We can get around political intransigence through unusual alliances, similar to how the Great Bear Rainforest Initiative was achieved.  Not only did environmental groups, First Nations groups and the provincial government manage to all agree, the forestry industry bought in too, which was crucial for the success of the agreement.

Sunset at Haida Gwaii (pmorgan, Flickr)

Environmental groups working with logging executives? Exactly the kind of alliance no-one would think of, and a big reason why the initiative was so successful. Similarly, Tides Canada is working on their Energy Initiative which has been endorsed by a whole range of groups, from industry to finance and even church leaders. There are the dialogues hosted by Carbon Talks that bring diverse interests together to reach solutions. There’s the Western Climate Initiative that will eventually implement a carbon emissions trading scheme that will link several provinces and California in their bid to transition to a low carbon economy.

There’s even a plan for how we can do it. So let’s skip the never ending arguments with deniers who are too vested in the status-quo, let’s ignore the nasty rhetoric coming from Ottawa, and let’s make use of the new energy paradigm that’s coming. Let’s look to building alliances with industry groups or businesses that wouldn’t traditionally be considered ‘green’ or working within supply-chain logistics to create change.

There’s a whole new industry to build and a planet to save with our new teams. Go Planet!

Pixar’s Wall-E working through the trash that engulfed the planet

The scale and rate of the human impact leads to more inequity and more environmental issues today than it ever did. But enough of the doom and gloom!

A number of serious think tanks such as The Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative are looking at alternatives for our current economic system, keeping in mind that true sustainability will not be achieved by just switching to cloth bags or recycling our cans and bottles. We need a more systemic approach to achieve sustainability –  a social-technical shift that focuses on efficiency, sufficiency and conservation. In short we need to do less with less!

Municipalities are already struggling with how to deal with our “clutter” and are taking serious steps to dematerialize certain aspects of our urban lives. A good example of dematerialization is the transformation of waste into energy. Countries like Switzerland and Austria have been pioneers in this field. They have achieved remarkable results in transforming their landfills into a source of heat and electricity, clearing up space for growing populations and reducing air pollution. Here in BC, Metro Vancouver has taken the issue seriously and has convened a congress to look at dematerialization in the greater Vancouver area. Here are some of the strategic directions they asked the participants to explore:

• The role that market forces and technology can play in driving innovation, including the development of alternative products and materials with which to make them.
• The roles that national and international agencies and institutions can play in setting policies to increase resource productivity: for example, setting the true costs of the things we make, use and dispose of, including environmental impacts, in product pricing.
• The leadership role that Metro Vancouver can play in developing and implementing strategies such as Zero Waste and international advocacy for cradle-to-cradle manufacturing.

Shanghai Houtan Park, photo from AECCafé.com

Shanghai’s Houtan Park: “Built on a brownfield of a former industrial site, Houtan Park is a regenerative living landscape on Shanghai’s Huangpu riverfront. The park’s constructed wetland, ecological flood control, reclaimed industrial structures and materials, and urban agriculture are integral components of an overall restorative design strategy to treat polluted river water and recover the degraded waterfront in an aesthetically pleasing way.”

When looking at dematerializing, solutions are often as simple as changing materials (do we really need all that packaging around the products we buy?), changing the weight of the materials we use, sharing (car-sharing can be a great way to take cars off the roads) or simply stop using certain materials (plastic shopping bags are being banned in a certain number of communities). However, dematerialization has to go beyond one-stop solutions. It requires a re-engineering of the way we consume and consider our economy.

Our cultural obsession with stuff and clutter is quite recent in the story of humanity.  And as more and more of the world’s population crowds into cities, it will require all of us to learn how to live with less.  So could a new cultural shift come from our cities? Could a dematerialization movement from Austria, Switzerland and Vancouver spread throughout the world?  Or do we stay the course and learn the ways of Wall-E?

So when we marry these disciplines together, there is an inherent conflict. In the realm of energy and fuel production, economics and the physical sciences – such as biochemistry, geophysics, or meteorology – trade off between cooperation and hostility. Cooperation when science gives economics what it needs for continued growth, and hostility when the opposite is true.

In a 2011 post that quickly became an internet classic, UC Professor Tom Murphy described the impossibility of the continued growth of energy consumption. In his post, titled “Galactic-Scale Energy”, Murphy uses intentionally absurdist arguments to show how our current trajectory of energy use is completely untenable. He says that given a 2% annual increase in energy consumption (a reasonable estimate given historical trends) we will need to cover all the land on Earth in solar panels by 2385. That leaves no room for cities, forests, roads, farmland, or open pit mines; literally every square meter of land would be devoted to collecting energy.

Estimated US Energy Consumption, 1650-Present (Tom Murphy)

Murphy is the first to admit that his predictions are cautionary, rather that realistic. We should take comfort in the assumption that world population growth will slow and plateau. Combined with the assumption of increased energy efficiency, and surely we will be in the position to meet energy demands without covering every last plot of land in solar panels. But how valid is that assumption?

If our current efforts are any indication, there is cause for concern. This week, corporate mega-giant Walmart released its 2012 global responsibility report titled “Beyond 50 years: Building a sustainable future”. Being the world’s largest retailer brings with it a certain degree of responsibility, and to be fair, Walmart is doing its part. Since 2011, among other listed accomplishments, the company has claimed to have reduced waste by 80%, turned almost entirely to locally grown produce, and moved to LED lighting. Thanks to these efforts, their GHG emissions per dollar of sales are declining steadily. Unfortunately that’s a combination of economic and physical measurements, and the result is misleading; total GHG emissions are actually rising by some 0.5 million tonnes of C02 per year (reaching 22 million tonnes total for 2010).

Charting emissions per dollar of sales is a nice metric for showing increased efficiency, but it’s not unlike countries such as China that prefer to measure their emissions reductions in terms of emissions intensity. While such numbers can describe relative increases in economic efficiency, they completely mask the reality of overall increased energy usage.

We are using more, and there are more of us. When my parents were born, there were 2.5 billion people on Earth; we’ve now passed 7 billion. Many of those billions are now driving cars, using phones, demanding imported goods, and buying into a consumerist lifestyle that encourages obsolescence and replacement. The Walmart example shows us that despite commendable and impressive efforts to increase efficiency, energy consumption will continue to increase if we do not change our habits.

While economists can happily predict a higher standard of living for everyone, with sustained and measured economic growth, they can’t break the laws of physics. There is a limited amount of energy in play, and we are using too much of it. Home retrofits, increased reliance on public transportation, high-density living, local food movements: these are areas where we can save energy. It is only a combination of investment in such innovative technologies and systems with a serious and dramatic cultural paradigm shift, that will allow us to prove the economists right.