The Twentieth Century, Humanity's Most Affluent Age, Paid for with Global Warming

It was about 200 years ago that the Industrial Revolution began in England. Since then, we have set up mechanical industries that consume huge amounts of energy, resulting in the affluent society of today. The first thing I would like to do today is to ask everyone to think again about our lifestyles. What kind of progress has humankind made over the last hundred years (during the twentieth century)? In one sense, this affluence has a cost, that is, a dark side. It is natural for those who are enjoying the affluence to pay the cost, but in fact a huge bill has been run up that is not being paid. That "bill" is becoming the biggest problem of our present age, the problem of global warming.

The respected thinker, Lester Brown, who established the World Watch Institute over twenty years ago, wrote a book called "Beyond Malthus." The eighteenth century economist Thomas Malthus warned in "On Population" (1798) that if human population growth were not curtailed, restraints on food supplies would arise. In "Beyond Malthus," Lester Brown's forceful argument was that the increase in human population is indeed a problem, and that human population increase is the major factor working to disrupt society and the planet's supplies of food, water and energy, so human population growth must be restrained. I hope that everyone will give some thought to these arguments.

The solemn fact is that the human population nearly quadrupled during the 100 years of the 20th century. What caused this to happen? One reason was because all those people managed to get enough food to live. And, they also had room and space enough to live in. In the case of plants and animals, and in the insect world as well, it has been observed many times that a species' population will increase up to a certain point before it suddenly goes extinct. In this sense, we might take the cynical view that this is the direction we are heading, in view of the way the human population is increasing.

Every one here today, every one of us, is one individual among the 6 billion people on the planet today. Japan's population is presently 126-127 million. If we look back to the Edo Age, the population is said to have been 33 million. As you know, during the Edo Age Japan was shut off from the outside world and constituted a closed society. However, the 33 million Japanese people at that time are said to have been very happy, enjoying a rich culture and a clean lifestyle. What about today? Due to Japan's industrial and economic might, we are enjoying one of the most advanced states of affluence in the whole world. I wonder how everyone here feels about this affluence. How do you perceive your environment? If we think about it, the 33 or 34 million Japanese of the Edo Age had no electricity, no escalators, no splendid school buildings such as the one we are in now. However, if we consider that, even so, they might have led happy lives, my honest feeling is that it is time to take another look at the growth of human population and affluence.

PAGE TOP

All Things Have Costs and Benefits

About 240 to 250 years ago, the steam engine and other machinery brought about a major revolution in industry. This was the Industrial Revolution, with which you are all familiar. These original steam engines started out using firewood or other wood as fuel. England today has few forests. It is said that this is because all the trees were cut down and burned as fuel during the Industrial Revolution, completely changing England's natural environment. Together with the Industrial Revolution, the development of coal mining was also progressing, and this supported the Industrial Revolution. If we look at changes in world energy consumption, we can see that it suddenly shot up around 1950 and the latter half of the 20th century. This energy was consumed in the form of coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower and nuclear power, and the reason for the increase was the growth in human population and extreme affluence. Behind this growth lay the Industrial Revolution and our mechanized civilization, supported by these energy supplies.

Analyzing energy consumption statistics over a long period of time is problematic due to numerous uncertainties in the data. The most easily accessible, and moreover quite credible energy statistics are the data kept by the English oil major, BP (British Petroleum), in the energy corner of the BP web site (www:bp.com/centres/energy2002/foreword.asp). Here you can see very interesting figures recording annual data since 1965. In 1965, world consumption of primary energy was 3.862 billion tons, and in 2001 it was 9.125 billion tons. According to these figures, world energy consumption increased more than 2.2 times during those 36 years. These world primary energy consumption figures are given in petroleum conversion equivalents. That is to say, at present the world at large is using 9 billion tons of energy. Behind the growth in population and affluence lies the fact of this energy consumption.

When we speak of energy today in Japan, we generally mean electricity, gas and petroleum - coal's peak in Japan has passed. However, coal is still playing a major role in the world, and if we look at the global situation we will find that coal use is continually increasing. I expect that some of the speakers here have already said something about the fact that coal use increases carbon dioxide emissions, accelerating global warming, and so it is difficult to employ coal or coal-type energy sources, and that is certainly true. However, at the same time the reality is that coal use is presently growing right before our eyes.

In any event, if we look at this reality in terms of environmental problems, the common theme of these lectures, it can be seen as a matter of "light and darkness" or "costs and benefits." This is my way of expressing it, but what I am talking about is the affluence resulting from the industrialization that followed the Industrial Revolution, the large-scale consumption of energy attending this affluence, and the various social and global problems that this has caused.

The issue of costs and benefits is a universal one, and applies to everything about our lives and lifestyle. Something good always has a down side. This is reality. If there is light, there is always a shadow. Anything with a front also has a back. In the course of my work of providing everyone with electricity, I have become almost painfully aware of the fact that something good always brings with it some kind of problem. This is probably the biggest difference between those of us who are actually doing the work and the professors, NPOs, NGOs and others who are addressing environmental issues.

PAGE TOP

The Benefits of Electricity Now Enjoyed by Only Two Thirds of Humanity

I have been speaking about how affluent humankind has become. This affluence is measured in various ways. One way of measuring how well off people are is the mortality rate of infants and children. The infant mortality rate is even now a very symbolic way of expressing this. For example, at the 1974 United Nations General Assembly, the group of 77 developing nations further divided itself into sub-groups, one of which was the category of least developed countries (poorest nations). At that time (in the 1970s), the poorest nations were defined by an annual per capita income of about 100 US dollars. At present, an annual average per capita income of less than 300 dollars defines the poorest nations. By this definition, 57 countries fell into the poorest nation category in 1998. I would like to tell you what the infant mortality rate is for these 57 poorest nations. These figures are a few years old, but out of 1,000 children born in these poorest nations, 109 will die before they reach their first birthday. That is, one in ten will die - that is the situation in the poorest nations. The reasons for these deaths include malnutrition, poor hygiene and so on. In a sense, these figures show that it is infants and children that face the harshest trials in the struggle for survival.

So, what about the developed countries? Thirteen out of a thousand die. The rate for Japan is slightly lower. For those countries normally spoken of as developing countries, the figure is 64 per thousand. In fact, these figures were the same for Japan 10, 50 or 100 years ago. During the first half of the 20th century, lots of children died. A slight abnormality in the weather would cause famine and food shortages, and thus the death of many children. There was also the sad fact that many children were killed soon after they were born. In any event, the infant mortality rate, although very simplistic, serves as a valuable indicator of the progress of socio-economic development and the level of affluence. The situation in Japan over a hundred years ago was like developing countries now. In this context, I hope you can get a feeling for what a nice, pleasant society we are living in now.

This kind of thing is not limited to the infant mortality rate; in terms of energy it is the same. We are nice and comfortable here today, but when I was a university student, I never felt this cool in summer. Every day was so hot we had to listen to our lectures with fuzzy brains. You are all very fortunate to be able to pass your time here in such a pleasant environment. To use energy for comfort is, in a certain sense, something only possible in developed countries. Of the 6 billion people on Earth, 2 billion do not enjoy the benefits of electricity at all. The reality is that only about two thirds of humankind enjoy the benefits of electricity.

Corollary to this is that as population and affluence have increased, various sorts of problems have arisen. I mentioned the problem of global warming just now, but the problem of the gap between rich and poor is also very serious. I spoke just now of the problems of energy and infant mortality in the poorest countries, and the widening of the gap between rich and poor is part and parcel of our present affluence. This situation was symbolically referred to some 15 years ago as the North-South issue. In recent years the term "North-South issue" has gone out of vogue, but the gap between annual average incomes and the affluence of the industrialized nations continues to widen in proportion to the rise in the average level of affluence of humankind as a whole. This is an extremely confusing and difficult problem. Naturally, this problem is symbolically brought up in considerations of what is being done about greenhouse gases in relation to the global warming issue.

I have also participated as an observer at United Nations-sponsored meetings on climate change in The Hague, Netherlands and in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The developing countries, for example, insist that, "It's not our fault. The global warming problem has been caused by the advanced industrialized countries that grew affluent by consuming huge amounts of energy. Therefore, you developed countries should address the problem and bear all the costs. We also have the right and the will to develop, and so if we use as much energy as we want and accelerate global warming, that's just too bad."

At the same time, the petroleum producing countries also register their very symbolic protest. "The developed, industrialized countries are making a big fuss about the global warming issue, have promoted less use of coal and are now promoting less use of petroleum, but as petroleum-producing countries, we cannot countenance this.Ó This kind of thing is being loudly insisted upon by the leading countries of OPEC, such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. "It's no joking matter for us; our countries' very existence depends on the production and supply of petroleum. So, if you are going to say, stop using petroleum, you should pay us compensation," is how they talk.

On the other hand, the developed countries, for example the United States, insist, "We are also doing our best. But, if the developing countries do not join us in these efforts, greenhouse gases will not decrease." This kind of symbolic discussion dominates the grand scene of 200 countries gathered at the United Nations. This discussion symbolizes the difficulties of what I was saying just now about the widening gap between rich and poor despite increased affluence. I have no doubt that everyone here will be meeting up with this problem at various times and places in the future. When you go out into the world, I hope you will be able to get a sense of this gap.

In this connection, I have been presenting these issues in the secret hope that you will think about what we can do. The greatest problems attending this gap are problems of poverty and hunger. At the end of August this year (2002), a large United Nations conference, called "Rio + 10," will take place in Johannesburg, South Africa. It will have been just ten years since the Rio de Janeiro conference (in 1992). This conference will discuss all issues related to the global environment, not just the global warming issue.

The most serious problems are poverty, famine and hunger. In dealing with these problems, global warming is one issue, but even before this issue is addressed, there is the problem of the gap between rich and poor that lies behind our present affluence, as I mentioned, and the realities of this problem are exceedingly grave. In this sense, if we perceive global warming to be the one and only problem, we will be completely wrong. Among the planet's 6 billion people and its 200-plus nations, perhaps the only countries that are sincerely interested in global warming are the advanced industrialized nations of Europe and America, and Japan. The true feeling of the other countries is, "We want to develop more. We want to escape poverty. We want to escape from hunger and famine." Compared to these hopes, how great is our affluence? I think we need to renew our feelings about this matter.

PAGE TOP

Nearing the Planet's Physical Limits for Human Population & Food Supply

In any event, there is one problem that will most likely to arise in relation to the subject of this talk. That is, it is being emphasized that the planet appears to be reaching its physical limits in terms of how much more it can tolerate the use of resources, energy, water and food by a human population of 6 billion. I believe this may actually be true. Awareness of this problem is bound to have a very decisive influence on how we behave in future, on how our society functions, and what our lifestyles will be like, but there is still insufficient proof that can show whether or not this is necessarily so. If in future we will be faced with the hazards of reaching a point of no return, we should try to do something about it as soon as we realize that such a situation might occur. We have in truth realized that we do appear to be approaching the physical limits of what the planet can tolerate, and so we should make an effort to change our behavior.

One of the problems related to this is our common theme of "Global Environmental Problems." However, this problem has even more serious consequences. Population increase. Food shortages. With these considerations we enter into an exceedingly serious discussion, and the same goes for water resources. Some are seriously indicating that there are water shortages. And, energy consumption. I think we can say that these are the main categories in the discussion of the approaching the planet's physical limits of toleration.

The average surface temperature of the Earth has been rising in the period from 1866 to 1997. What has caused this? There are various explanations, one of which is that carbon dioxide surrounding the planet is functioning like glass enclosing a greenhouse, resulting in a warming effect. We have the expressions "green house gas effect," and "global warming," and the most common scientific explanation presently being given identifies a cumulative increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the main cause for the rise in average surface temperatures. Some in the United States and other countries are of the opinion that this needs to be confirmed one more time, and doubtless there is a need for this. However, as I mentioned just now, once we reach the point of no return, things will get a lot harder, so, as I am sure you are aware, efforts to decrease emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide, have already begun.

Incidentally, carbon dioxide happens to be a troublesome material. Presently, carbon dioxide forms about 0.00034 percent of the atmosphere. And, even as I am speaking, and all of you are breathing, and indeed with every activity of all plant and animal life on Earth, carbon dioxide is emitted. Strike a match or use a lighter, burn anything and carbon dioxide is emitted. Carbon dioxide is the stuff that is created by the life processes of living things, and in this sense it is one of the natural components of the environment.

The extreme affluence and population increases of the 20th century were accompanied by a worsening of the gap between rich and poor. However, the major theme we are addressing today is the burgeoning of greenhouse gases brought on by our massive consumption of energy. This constitutes a new problem of our own creation. Our outlook will influence how we see this problem, but the fact is that we have become affluent, and we really ought to have been paying the costs of that. However, we have not paid. Thus, how humankind in the 21st century will manage to carry those costs is now the subject of much debate. As I mentioned just now, the developing countries insist that this is not their problem, that the industrialized countries should be the ones to pay these costs, and they will continue to insist on this with considerable force.

What happens in the 21st century will be based on what happened in the 20th century, and those of you here will be building up your lives and taking wing in the 21st century with your future on your backs. I wonder what your society and lives will be like in the 21st century. This is something I hope each of you will think about for yourself. However, I do think that, in facing these issues of global warming and the limits of the planet, a clear direction is emerging. The civilization and societies of the 20th century were based on massive consumption of energy sources like coal, petroleum and natural gas. Thus, the kind of society in which we have been living has been called a mass production - mass consumption society. Discussions are under way on the problems inherent in this kind of society, and how we can change our massively energy-consumptive society, and various things are starting to be tried. Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol was one of these, and I expect this will also be one of the themes at the conference in South Africa this coming August.

PAGE TOP

Creating a Society of Frugal Energy Use

In any event, I think that we humans are a little bit greedy. We want to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and stop using so much energy, but at the same time we want to maintain our present level of affluence, and keep developing at the same pace. If those of us in the industrial sector could have their way, we would like to keep up present production levels, or at least continue present rates of development and growth in a sustainable way. This is because there are still areas of the world, and lots of people, that want to become more affluent, and we would like to be able to provide for the aspirations of these people. However, there is also a strong feeling that we should not do any more harm to the environment. In a certain sense, this might be a greedy wish. At the same time, as something to try, it is an extremely challengeable goal. This goal is commonly called sustainable development or sustainable growth.

Japan's population of over 120 million is maintaining our present level of affluence, but could we give up our massive energy consumption and return to Edo Age society? This is a problem for us, and for everyone here today, and I think we need to give this point considerable thought, but normally the answer to that question would be, "hardly likely." What society is now looking for is whether we can somehow maintain our present affluence while devising ways to be kinder to the environment.

What we are looking for can be expressed in several ways, either as "creating a society of frugal energy use", "creating of a resource-cycling society", "urban remodeling to break energy-use vicious cycles", or as "structural reform of our lifestyle and living environment." Real-life actions in these directions are being started little by little. I think we should aim towards converting from a massive energy-consuming society to a frugal energy-consuming society that does not use all that much energy. How can we do this? One way is to recycle and reuse, which can be seen as things we can try in pursuit of a resource-cycling society that can maintain our present social environment while using fewer resources.

At the same time, I wonder if you are aware of the "heat island effect." Tokyo is the most salient representative of this phenomenon, in which, for example, the air inside this room is cooled by throwing off heat into the outside air. This thrown-off heat combines with the huge input of radiant heat from the sun to heat up the urban environment, made up largely of concrete and steel, which tend to hold heat. As the outer environment warms, more energy is used for cooling to keep the inside from getting hot. This very symbolic phenomenon is one type of vicious cycle that is occurring, mainly in Tokyo and other cities, and is called the heat island effect. Quite a body of research exists on the subject, and it is one of the types of energy-use vicious cycles now operating. Ideas about how to break this vicious cycle are starting to appear. I think everyone here has often heard talk about the need to "change our lifestyle," and this is more of the same kind of thing.

So, I think it is time for us, and for everyone here, to change the way we live. People have already started thinking about whether we should be gulping down energy in this way, and also what to do in terms of how we manage our cities, towns and homes, how we live our daily lives, how we commute to work, how we drive our cars and so on. In this way, people are trying new things, hoping to build a society that does not use so much energy. This is a really wonderful thing, and I think the pace needs to be speeded up.

PAGE TOP

Japan Depends on Imports for 79.8 Percent of its Energy

Something I would like everyone here today to confirm their appreciation of is one of our country's national particularities. Japan is very affluent, and this level of affluence is something extremely rare in our world Ð this is something I hope you can get a real feeling for from what I have been saying. But, I wonder if we might not rather be somewhat frustrated, living our daily lives without really feeling that we are affluent. I am a little bit afraid that this might be so - in fact I think the reality is that all of us, myself included, may need to reflect a bit and think about whether we aren't judging affluence and every other thing solely in terms of money. As is often said, true affluence is a matter of being rich in spirit, and there is also richness to be found in nature. There is also the affluence of the little pleasures - it is not always all about money. This is something I hope you will all think about.

In terms of energy as well, Japan is extremely unusual. Looking at the level of dependence on imported energy resources, the average for OECD countries is 27.5 percent, while Japan depends on other countries for 79.8 percent of its energy. Of the approximately 20 percent remainder, 16 percent is nuclear energy, which is counted as domestically produced energy, but if you look at what is left not counting nuclear energy, the fact is that domestic sources provide Japan with only 4 percent of its energy. While having virtually no energy resources in Japan, we import energy from all over the world and produce 15 percent of the world's GDP, enjoying an average annual per capita income of US $ 36,827.

Thank you very much for your sincere attention today.

PAGE TOP