Jack Byrne

Data from the Global Environmental Monitoring System indicate that pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and total suspended particulate routinely appear in the lower atmosphere of major cities at concentrations well above health guidelines set by the World Health Organization. As well, cities are major contributors to the build-up of greenhouse gases which now threaten climate change. These findings underscore the detrimental relation that has evolved between urban industrial society and the atmosphere. If this peculiar civilization is to be changed, three principles—equity, sustainability and peaceful development—must guide the reevolution of urban life. The paradigm of commodification needs to be replaced with a model of a commons of life. The article provides a theoretical framework and strategy for reforming global climate policy and urban sustainability planning in a manner consistent with life in the commons.

The hydrogen economy has received increasing attention recently. Common reasons cited for investigating hydrogen energy options are improved energy security, reduced environmental impacts, and its contribution to a transition to sustainable energy sources. In anticipation of these benefits, national and local initiatives have been launched in the United States, creating pilot “roadmaps” and technology partnerships to explore hydrogen economy platforms. Although hydrogen can provide several positive improvements over a carbon- or uranium-based energy system, several problems are also likely. As well, competitive technologies (e.g., hybrid vehicles) may offer comparatively greater economic and/or environmental advantages. Before policies to advance a hydrogen energy economy proceed, it is vital that all aspects of hydrogen be compared with other available alternatives. Important questions to ask in this regard are whether a hydrogen economy can fulfill key energy needs and whether there are appropriate roles for hydrogen to play in a sustainable energy future.

Global climate change may result in a wide array of social and environmental harms, and this prospect has given rise to an international treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Scientific uncertainties, nation state politics, and economic resistance had to be addressed before this landmark environmental agreement could be realized. However, questions remain about the foundations and core commitments of this agreement. Ellul's characterology of technique is applied to the task of building a critique of the current international response to climate change and is allied to the proposition that ecological justice should guide the social response to climate change. It is argued that contemporary international efforts are directed at producing a “rational climate,” rather than a climate for ecological justice.

Climate change, rising energy costs, and other dilemmas raise the prospect for major change in energy-ecology-society relations. Two prominent proposals for change include: a nuclear power renaissance; and mega-scale renewable energy development. Both suggest that modern society will receive a rising stream of less CO2-rich kilowatt-hours, so that increased energy consumption and economic growth can continue. The article doubts these CO2 claims and finds both options lead to deepening unsustainability and environmental injustice. A third approach is proposed. A new institutional and community strategy called a Sustainability Energy Utility. The SEU looks to reduce energy use and seeks to support remaining energy needs by community-scale renewables. To accomplish deep energy change, the authors show how an SEU can move society from an energy commodity to energy commons regime. Commonwealth economy and community trusts are key means to significant change: a future commons is offered as the more appropriate strategy.

Jacques Ellul argued that modernity's nearly exclusive reliance on science and technology to design society would threaten hunan freedom. Of particular concern for Ellul was the prospect of the technical milieu overwhelming culture. The commodification of the Volta River in order to modernize Ghana illustrates the Ellulian dilemma of the autonomy of technique. Displacing a commons way of life, the Volta River Project has imposed an energy commodity regime and a technocratic management scheme to rule the basin, which now includes modern aluminum manufacturing. But after 50 years of modernization, there is little evidence of poverty alleviation or an advance of freedom.

Rural electrification is now and will remain an essential element for rural development in China and other developing countries. With more than half of the world’s population living in rural communities, lessons for rural renewable energy applications and assessment from China can be very helpful in defining a global sustainable development strategy. This paper describes energy needs in rural China, examines the resource availability of three provinces (Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Xinjiang in Western China), and evaluates rural energy options and the economics of stand-alone off-grid renewable energy technologies for rural application in this region. An eight-year collaborative effort between several of China’s leading energy and environmental research institutes and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy demonstrates the existence of a viable renewable energy-based strategy to address rural electricity needs in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.