I am an agnostic when it comes to the science of global climate change. I’ve seen Al Gore’s movie and I’ve read reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I’ve also listened to the skeptics. I don’t know who’s right. And now that Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize, it seems that at least for now the skeptics are losing the public relations war. Whatever. For me, in some ways the science no longer matters, because it has become so politicized.

Now the key issue, and the one that precious few are willing to discuss openly, is: then what? If political leaders agree with Gore and others who believe carbon dioxide is bad, then what are we going to do about it? Almost always, the too-quick answer is, “We’ll just use less energy.” That’s the immediate response of people like energy efficiency advocate Amory Lovins.

Lovins, who sees efficiency as the global cure-all, claims that “cutting global energy intensity” by 2 percent “would stabilize carbon emissions.” Cutting energy intensity by 3 percent, he insists, “would stabilize climate.”

These kind of glib predictions drive me crazy. Sure, the U.S. and a few other industrialized countries might be able to reduce their energy consumption. According to BP’s 2007 Statistical Review, between 2000 and 2006 America’s total energy consumption was essentially flat, at about 2.3 billion tons of oil equivalent per year. And between 2005 and 2006, America’s overall energy use fell by 1 percent.

But let’s look at the other five most populous countries on the planet – Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan. All of them are experiencing enormous growth in energy consumption, and that consumption is going to continue soaring even if they become vastly more efficient. Why? Because they want what we have: mobility, entertainment, and creature comforts. Between 2000 and 2006, the energy use in those five countries jumped by an average of 5 percent per year. Those five countries have a total population of about 3 billion – or roughly half of the people on the planet.

In the absence of a major natural disaster or global financial crisis, it’s reasonable to assume that the energy use of those 3 billion will continue increasing. There’s plenty of data available to prove that point. For instance, I could cite the huge growth in electricity generation in places like Pakistan (18.4 percent between 2005 and 2006) or China (14.5 percent over that same time period). But some of the most compelling data comes from a report put out last year by the consulting firm Frost & Sullivan.

Six Most Populous Countries Ranked by Number of Commercial Aircraft in Service, 2006
Country, Number of Aircraft
Pakistan, 50
India, 130
Indonesia, 150
Brazil, 375
China, 583
U.S., 8,837
Note: Pakistan’s number is the author’s estimate.
Sources: Frost & Sullivan, 2006, Wikipedia.

The numbers clearly show that the 3 billion people living outside of the U.S. lack air mobility. As they, along with other residents of developing countries get wealthier, they will fly more, and oil consumption will soar.

Regardless of what is happening with the global climate, the belief that the countries of the world can make a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions “ at a time when more than half of the people on the planet are still living in relative energy poverty, and have very little mobility “ borders on fantasy. Further, one of the best arguments against any effort to cut carbon dioxide levels (read: fossil fuel use) comes from Freeman Dyson, a renowned professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. In August, Dyson (who, by the way, is a skeptic about climate change science) wrote (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html), “The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger, all the conditions that deprive people of opportunities and limit their freedoms. The humanist ethic accepts an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a small price to pay, if world-wide industrial development can alleviate the miseries of the poorer half of humanity.

To that, I say Amen.