Ann. nucl. Ener9), Vol. 16. No. 4, p. 211, 1989 0306-4549/89 $3.00 + 0.(1tl Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press pie

L E T T E R TO T H E E D I T O R S

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

(Recieved 1 September 1988)

F rom the standpoint o f a world policy, it doesn' t really matter whether this summer ' s heat wave, experienced in cer- tain parts of the globe, was a natural variation in weather patterns or the official beginning of the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect is comi ng - - and scientists are virtually certain that it i s - -wha t we are doing right now is important. These few extra days of 100 + degree weather were enough to show us how inadequately prepared we are to deal with even a minor climate change, especially one created by activi- ties we've traditionally considered to be solutions rather than problems. But fortunately, the heat wave also focused our attention on some steps we can be taking to soften the inevi- table blow.

The problem transcends politics and ideologies. For exam- ple, as health danger alerts were issued, people of all politicai and ideological persuasions sought refuge in air-conditioned buildings and cars. In this situation, air-conditioning was no longer a luxury. It was necessary for many to survive, particularly in some cities.

This situation presents our society with a unique d i l emma-- the solution feeds the problem in a way that we have never had to confront before. Virtually everything we do uses energy, and most of the types of energy we use contribute to the greenhouse effect. The increased use of air-conditioning ironically drives up the use of gasoline for driving and of electricity produced primarily from fossil fuels, for cooling in buildings and homes. And this increased use of fossil fuels feeds the greenhouse effect.

Once carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere, their effects seem inevitable. Currently, worldwide, we are adding about 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. About half of this is naturally absorbed by oceans and forests; the rest remains. Researches tell us that we have already added enough green- house gases to the atmosphere to ensure an eventual average rise of l~, .5°F. If we continue at this rate, our average global temperature could increase as much over the next 50 yr as it has in the entire time since the last Ice Age. The hotter our world grows, the more energy we will need to survive in it.

Cause and effect are linked, t runk to tail, in a circle that must be broken if we are to prevent irreparable damage to the environment on the one hand, or energy-cutting measures that will drastically change our health and our way of life on the other. The policy challenge is complicated even further by the global nature o f the problem. Any meaning- ful measures to correct it will have to be international in scope.

The primary problem is our heavy dependence on fossil fuels. It is obvious, however, that the world will continue to use fossil fuels as a primary energy source for decades to come ; there is very little choice.

It is also obvious that we cannot really turn back the clock on energy use. Society as we know it is predicted on

abundant , reliable energy- - to meet the basic needs of a grow- ing population, to support the world's economic inlYa- structure, and to provide the base for advancement in science, health and communications. The worldwide need for energy is bound to grow even more as the developing countries in the Third World demand access to the energy needed to advance their s tandard of living.

The best we can do in the short term is to keep from making the problem worse. The most immediate way is to get more work out of the energy we do use.

Even with our best conservation efforts, we will need new energy supplies. The World Energy Conference projects that world energy use will at least double, and perhaps treble, by the year 2060. So, for the long term, we must develop new techniques for burning fossil fuels more cleanly and, every- where possible, substitute non-combustible forms of energy. Transportat ion is the biggest problem. We can help by increasing fuel efficiency and fueling our cars with natural gas, which produces half the carbon dioxide of gasoline. But unless we devise a practical substitute like electric cars or acceptable mass transportation, automobiles will continue to be a major problem.

The promise is brighter for non-transporat ion energy uses, where electricity can be substituted for fossil fuels. Much of our electricity will still have to be made with coal. New techniques growing out of coal gasification research may make it possible to trap the carbon dioxide and divert it from release into the atmosphere, but questions about cost and technical feasibility make the prospects uncertain.

Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy source, except falling water, that produces no greenhouse gases. Its use is being expanded rapidly in Europe and Japan, but regulatory and financial problems have kept U.S. utilities from ordering any nuclear plants for more than a decade. These problems can be overcome by a combinat ion of regulatory reforms already before the U.S. Congress and the use of simpler standardized designs now being developed by the nuclear industry. The greenhouse problem far overshadows the con- cerns that are keeping us from using nuclear power more widely.

Likewise, we should put our efforts to develop renewable energy sources back on the fast track. These all but died when oil prices dropped. But we can no longer afford to let economics- -or our obsession with minor safety risks or even aesthetics--dictate our energy choices. The U.S. and the Soviet Union together account for about 45% of the world- wide CO2 emissions. This gives us a good place to start.

This summer ' s heat wave has given some of us a glimpse of the different world we may have to live i n - - a word to the wise.

President Florida Institute o f Technology

DR LYNN WEAVER

211