Our planes, trains, and automobiles all run on oil. When people think carbon emission, they instinctively think transportation, that to reduce emissions we must stop moving about so much. But oil enables far more than transportation. The fact is, just about everything around us has been made better or possible because of widespread energy availability. Oil use is ubiquitous. Oil is much more than the liquid that makes a car go; it is truly the lifeblood of the world. Transportation accounts for only 20 percent of carbon emissions, the bulk comes from power generation, 35 percent, and the commercial and public sector, 25 percent (Browne 26).We live in an oil-based world economy, it is the energy source for all we do; just as the human body needs certain nutrients to transform into usable energy and operate smoothly, so the world requires energy, and oil is intensely energy-packed, cheap to extract, and thus nearly impossible to stop using.

The supply of oil can only last so long. Every oil-producing region on Earth has peaked, with the exception of the Middle East. With China and India’s oil demands rising along with the United States’ already insatiable appetite, oil reserves will disappear faster and pollution will grow worse. Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel Laureate who discovered the “buckyball” which gave rise to the field of nanotechnology, frequently noted that currently mankind can only produce 15 terawatts of energy; by 2050 there will be 10 billion people and a quadrupled energy demand. Dr. Smalley also heavily advocated full use of solar energy, because energy from nuclear, wind, geothermal, biofuels, all simply cannot produce 60 terawatts of energy, so the Sun is the only option that makes sense. However, modern technology does not allow cost-effective use of solar energy. The development of efficient solar use is at the forefront of energy research. Energy is possibly the most essential form of wealth, and if even more widespread conflict is to be avoided the world will need 60 terawatts of energy, a demand far beyond current technological and structural capacity. Thus the need to find an alternative source of energy is mankind’s number one priority – despite anything, “skeptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg might say.

Greenhouse-gas reduction treaties are wildly different from CFC control treaties, such as the Montreal Protocol, because they get at a deep-seeded issue, the oil-based economy; it’s like asking someone to eat less food – it helps, but one can only eat so little. Finding alternative propellants isn’t the most monumental task, but creating an alternative energy source as effective as oil is a feat greater than setting foot on the moon. So, the United States should participate in reduction treaties, with a clause dictating that a state will contribute to alternative energy resource development at some proportion of oil consumption; this would have to apply to all participant states, not to limit consumption necessarily but to develop the, literally, world-saving technology as soon as possible. This should be the key to any greenhouse reduction treaty; the problem is countries compete with one another for new technology development. International coordination would expedite the process, but the rewards for a country that succeeds alone are absolutely enormous – a monopoly on revolutionary technology is always favorable. However, this technology, if it is to be used to yield its maximum public benefit, must be implemented in every country. Thus a contract for mutual development of alternative energy is in order. The agreement must also carry tangible means to get the developing world up to speed in environmental care by creating environmentally sound wealth, and working to eliminate wealth destroying factors like malaria and HIV/AIDS. Reduction should indeed take place, so an optimal distribution of resources between reduction/efficiency and revolutionary technology development will have to be found.

To carry the human analogy, imagine 60% of a person’s organs failing. A group of 1,300 scientists concluded that 15 of 24 ecosystems necessary for maintaining life as we know it are being exploited at unsustainable levels (Pope/Lomborg 67). Most of the problem comes from the developing world, from outdated energy producing technology, and an increasing need for energy. Priorities would dictate then that the next step would be to focus on enriching the impoverished so they can take care of their own environment, just as the rich countries are attempting to do (Lomborg/Pope 68). While it is certainly true that the impoverished, meaning nearly half the world, should have a greater share of resources, if Lomborg’s system of priorities is enacted ultimately the overriding priority will become mere survival; he can forget his economic priorities analysis. His priorities are too shortsighted because they are based on a faltering energy source. He focuses on indoor pollution, indeed an important issue, but if he wants to discuss priorities, climate-change-causing pollution should dominate his list. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, while flawed, gets at least one thing right – humans need all basic survival tools available before to dealing with any other issue. So, Lomborg is definitely right to say developing countries need more wealth to adequately deal with pollution. But wealth distribution and pollution removal are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact with the need for alternative energy, and more efficient energy use the two almost go hand in hand (Pope/Lomborg 69/73). An effective way to create wealth while simultaneously ensuring proper environmental care for the developing world might be to eliminate a substantial part of its debt to be used towards responsible insulation projects, and alternative sources of energy, like wind turbines and solar panels. This could go a long way in developing a more technologically capable developing world, ready for the 21st century.

It’s clear the economics of technological cooperation have to work out right. That is, the marginal costs must not exceed the marginal benefits. However, an individual country’s marginal benefit for technology production far outweighs the benefits of collective cooperation. Compare revolutionary energy technology to nuclear weapons. The technology could be held as a leverage tool against countries that did not possess the technology, so a monopoly was highly attractive. The same could be said about a viable alternative to oil. Every country knows the supply will run out sooner or later, and that if man is to continue on the technological energy-dependent path on which it is set, a new alternative will have to be implemented. The country that develops this viable alternative will have a patent on the resource that will transition mankind into a new era, and so, the race is on. But imagine a race that must be finished by at least one participant in 2 hours time before all racers are annihilated, and nobody wins. If the racers cooperate they won’t all finish first, but at least someone will within the 2 hours, and everyone will keep their lives. This would be a tough situation, and if no one is willing to abate their pride, everyone will die (pride revealing itself for the deadly sin it is). Ultimately though, it must be realized this is not a conventional race at all. It is not all against all, but all against the clock, pushing the most capable to the finish. So how can a negotiation be reached? First the fastest racer would have to be found, to maximize the odds of survival. This will have to be a realistic, honest process, effectively deciding who would win the race if the insane restrictions were not set. It is assumed that everyone wants to live, so the helpers and the fastest each need each other equally, and have little room to bargain. In this race the winner gets glorious prizes and benefits. Each needing each other equally, they will have to agree to split the winner’s spoils equally. Thus they all forge ahead; someone crosses the finish line in 1 hour and 58 minutes, and all narrowly avoid destruction. The analog to the current situation is obvious. Everyone wants to be the first to develop the world-saving technology, but the world is running out of time, and quite possibly the only way to reach the summit is to all forge ahead together. Luckily, with states, the conditions aren’t as tightly-wound as in the hypothetical death race. Instead of one country being decided as the most capable, the most capable from each country can coalesce and develop the technology. The benefits will of course still be spread equally, because optimal use of the technology occurs when every country implements it. It will be hard for the capable countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, etc. to forgo their individual chances of glory, but if the future is as ominous as predicted, pride must be swallowed. Unlike nuclear weapons, the entire globe benefits from alternative energy proliferation. The world’s nations are too often caught up in competition based on nationalism; this present challenge must be met with internationalism. If the cost of inaction is untold catastrophe, which threatens the continuance of civilization as we know it, then the benefits become contrastingly clear.

Each country should contribute a certain amount to the mutual development fund proportional to oil use. After all, if you go out to dinner and your friends purchase the finest wine and drink it all, it would hardly be fair to split the tab equally. The best route to a solution is suggested by Bell. Powerful NGO’s in India, and laws allowing people to indict polluters in the Philippines, give people effective tools for action (Bell 113). Common citizens must be educated in the costs and benefits regarding them directly and future generations. Polls often show most people like to see international cooperation – if states aren’t willing to cooperate in revolutionary technology development, then the citizenry will have to speak loudly, and armed with the knowledge of possible impending destruction, will have every incentive to push, even shove, for an internationalist approach, that at the very least guarantees the continuation of modern life. Either the United States government will participate on its own, or the populace will have to exercise its democratic rights and force the issue, either way, it is clear the race against the clock is on.

Works Cited Barrett, Scott. 1999. Montreal vs. Kyoto: International Cooperation and the Global Environment. In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, eds. Inge Kaul, Isabelle

Bell, Ruth Greenspan. 2006. What To Do About Climate Change. Foreign Affairs 85 (3): 105-113.

Browne, John. 2004. Beyond Kyoto. Foreign Affairs 83 (4): 20-32.

Pope, Carl and Bjorn Lomborg. 2005. The State of Nature. Foreign Policy 149: 67-73.