Chemistry Editorial

By Joe Alper

When Chemistry’s Advisory Board suggested that this edition of the magazine should focus on energy-related matters, I didn’t even hesitate for a moment to second that idea. First off, the timing couldn’t have been better. Our publication date followed on the heels of the 233rd ACS National Meeting and Exposition, which new ACS President Catherine Hunt decreed shall focus on sustainability of energy, food, and water supplies. If you attended the meeting, I hope you had a chance to attend one of the three presidential sessions on sustainability and the roles that chemists must play if we are to build a livable world.

I also knew that this issue of Chemistry would “go live,” in Web parlance during the time when the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would be publishing the four volumes that will make up the panel’s fourth quintennial review of the science of global climate change. At the time of Chemistry’s Advisory Board meeting last fall, I expected that this report, the first volume of which was titled Climate Change 2007, would be just one more tome arguing that the earth’s climate was changing, and certainly, it was that. But what I never expected was that Climate Change 2007, released this past February, would be the bombshell that would finally put to rest the idea that maybe, just maybe, all the carbon dioxide that we—humanity—have been dumping into the atmosphere was not warming the globe and altering weather patterns worldwide.

And somehow, my colleagues in the mass media paid attention. Given the news coverage that I saw in the days and weeks after the release of Climate Change 2007, I would guess that many reporters actually read the report, because story after story made the explicit but often forgotten point that carbon dioxide output is synonymous, today, with energy use. If we need to stop pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then we need to change—radically—the way we generate energy. And I know I’m not the first person to say this, but that change has to start here, in the United States, the world’s biggest energy hog.

Now this is where, in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I’m supposed to acknowledge that there are dissenting voices who argue that global warming isn’t occurring, that the IPCC report is more a political document than a scientific one, that cutting back on fossil fuel use will bankrupt the country. Okay. I acknowledge that there are people who believe those things. I also acknowledge that there are people who think evolution doesn’t occur, that the Bush Administration’s assessment that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was more a political statement than a factual one, and that the past 35-plus years of meeting environmental regulations was expensive, but worth it in terms of reduced health care costs.

Energy issues have long been dear to me, a remnant of my counterculture days when I read Mother Earth News and dreamed of getting “off the grid,” that is, generating my own electricity instead getting it from the local power company. But I also remember reading an issue of Scientific American, back in high school, that touted an energy future built on hydrogen, and hoping that I’d live to see such a cool development. To be sure, the environmental economics courses that I took during a work sabbatical had a major influence, and Rudy Baum’s excellent editorials in Chemical & Engineering News on the subject of energy have provided important grist for my mill.

But to be honest, I haven’t really been walking the walk. Sure, I was an early adopter of compact fluorescent light bulbs. Yes, my family and I recycle above and beyond the call of duty. Of course, we always buy a car on the basis of its fuel efficiency; we ride our bikes on short errands; and we didn’t hesitate to become WindSource customers, agreeing to pay a surcharge to get all of our energy from Xcel Energy’s Colorado wind farms.

Then, this past December my wife and I saw An Inconvenient Truth, former vice president Gore’s film about global warming. Five weeks later, Climate Change 2007 published. And then we read Barbara Maynard’s story on solar energy for this issue of Chemistry. For my wife Michele and I, these were the last straws.

It’s time, now, for us to put our money where our mouths are. It’s time for us to stop whining about President Bush’s head-in-the-sand approach to global warming and do something significant ourselves. It’s time for us to open our wallets and install photovoltaic panels on our Colorado home. It’s time for us to be a bigger part of the solution and a smaller part of the problem.

It’s time, too, to set an example, not only for our 12-year-old daughter but for our neighbors and the several hundred folks a day that drive and walk past our house. Indeed, we haven’t even installed our system yet, but our neighbor two doors down decided already to follow our lead. So, too, are at least two more friends of ours. And why not—here in Colorado we have great taxpayer-funded rebates available for solar installations, which when combined with the $2000 federal tax credit for home owners, dramatically cut the cost of solarizing our houses. If all goes well, I will be working on the next issue of Chemistry on my sun-powered computer.

Fellow members of the ACS, it’s our turn to step up, to set an example for our neighbors, friends, and relatives. We, the citizens of the world, need to change the way we make and use energy, and it’s now in our power to take action. If you live in a sunny climate, as I do, put solar panels on your roof. If you live in a windy place, check out the personal wind turbines that are now available. If those options aren’t available to you, check with your utility company to see whether it has a renewable-energy program through which you can buy renewable-energy credits or sign up for wind energy.

I’ve never been an alarmist, but the alarm is ringing. It’s time to answer the bell.

Joe Alper (ACS ’97), editor of Chemistry, is a science journalist in Louisville, CO.