Should we wait...or should we go? Some thoughts on energy in 2066

One of the fundamental questions raised during discussions of Global Warming, though really just about never discussed at all, is that of how our use and abuse of resources today will impact the planet down the road...say 250 years from now...a quarter millennial or so, and what we need to do to ensure that energy needs are met along the way.

The United States uses 25% of the world's resources, amazing right? We use it and abuse it all. That isn't in any way a sustainable effort. When it comes to fossil fuels...coal, oil, natural gas...we burn more than anyone, and we therefore add to the global dispersion of GHGs at an alarming per capita rate.

So, what will our energy outlook for the year 2266 look like? Well, our use of fracking technologies and oil-sands recovery is creating a surplus of oil and natural gas today, all of which can be sent to market at alarmingly low rates ($). We seem to want to extract it faster than we could ever use it. But profit today...that's the goal...so frack away.

At our production pace today we have about 100 years of low cost natural gas and perhaps the same for oil. On the same scale, however, we find that we have coal supplies in the United States that, if we could clean it up, might produce electricity for as long as 250 years. So about 100 years out we will probably find that coal, on the decline now, may have a resurgence, especially if our government finds a way to employ Clean-Coal technologies that would reduce the emissions of GHGs, capture most of those, and then sequester them.

What is Sequester? you ask. Well, that means create filtration and separation systems that will capture the GHGs and the toxic particulate (poisons and radionuclides) and then inject them into storage, perhaps deep underground (miles deep) so that they are held sequestered there forever...or so we hope.

250 years from now the planet will be out of natural gas and oil (oh, some remains, but not enough to run the world), we will be closing in on the end of our coal deposits, and we will be relying heavily on alternatives...like solar, wind, thermal, and perhaps manipulated hydro power as well...if we can figure out how to engage deep ocean currents and coastal tides.

So, why not move forward now? Afterall, we don't have any clean coal technologies in place, sequestration is being experimented with, but it is way to expensive...and oil and NG both emit carbon, so they are not perfect either. Other technologies are in the mix as well...and we will surely need them in the centuries to come. What we don't need is more Global Warming...and we need to make a stand on creating sustainable programs that will deliver energy and, through it, prosperity to future generations.

Hey, just a thought...or we could just lob off the top of say another 100 mountains and burn that coal to keep us warm...in more ways than one.

Is Sustainability Sustainable (S/S)?

To answer that question we probably should define what we mean by sustainable. Sustainable means that a process retains its function and value...stays the same...year after year way out beyond the foreseeable future.

Sustainability, on the other hand, is a process that ensures that your operations are environmentally and economically sound, and that they are equitable in how the support all involved in the process for todays generation, but also for the generations the follow. Further, sustainability is not just about us (our organization), it impacts all of our stakeholders and those in their spheres of influence.

While I live in the United States and feel that our culture should be a sustainable one, sustainability is not limited to our nation…or the developed nations…it is about all nations, the entire planet. And for sustainability to become sustainable we need to create clear, simple, programs that promote sustainable culture

If we take a simple issue…and a very common organization…we can find a way to look at S/S so that it lasts for the long haul. Let’s consider this issue:

Storm runoff management is an important issue for communities, so we should look at this issue through the eyes of the small town, community, small city point of view.  

Like most, this issue requires that we define the problem for our specific area, as well as the things about it that we see as dangerous for our three areas of interest (Environment, Economy, and Equitability). We also want to project into the future and try to understand how our issues today will impact the generations to follow.

If we look at this for one lake or river we find that our runoff delivers all of the things washed into the gutters, drains, road side ditches that feed the waterways in our community to our precious bodies of water. Failure to restrict this pollution from entering our system means that we are impacted today, as junk in the lake is bad, but it also remains in the water and settled to the bottom of the water course so that it will impact future generations.

Our solutions need to be realistic, effective, and sustaining…drainage systems need to route water where we need it to go. They also need to be accessible so that they can be cleared, where possible they need to have effectively designed settling bays that allow some of the heavy constituents to be captured, and not allowed to flow to the waterway or lake. At the same time we need to limit our costs, both for initial development and for continuing maintenance, and we need to have a reasonable replacement strategy so that we continue to effectively meet these needs.

Best practices include flowing water to common collection sites before moving it on to storage locations, in support of the needs of the community. We also find that some towns and cities have flowed water through downhill targetable regions so that we automatically water these areas, without having to pipe or pump water to take care of these needs.

Through these simple design steps we have looked to meet environmental and economic (cost) aspects of the problem. But how do we ensure equity… in this example we plan and design our solutions so that all of our community is addressed to cover our current needs, while looking toward future community growth to see how we feel the future will be serviced by our solution…years to decades, decades to centuries.

Sustainable Sustainability… multi-faceted and deliverable if we plan for it effectively.

A little bit of economics...for our sustainable mix.

This morning while listening to the radio I heard two economics specialists discussing the different economic programs being proposed by the Right and the Left.

Putting the arguments of ‘Trickle Down’ and ‘Wealth Sharing’ aside, they raised a fundamental point of economics, the question of whether economic success must be based on market growth.

Economics are impacted by many, often overlooked, elements that influence the production and growth of a market. Among these is declining population which, as it goes down, shrinks the pool of available labor. The United States, still considered the place to be for life satisfaction and economic success, has not yet felt the impact of slowing and declining populations. Some of this is due to the continued desire of many to immigrate to the USA, which has continued to increase our population. Many of our global trading partners, however, have been impacted by reduced population which has resulted in reduced productivity.

It is projected that the reduction in available labor over the next 50 years will reduce by 40% the rate of growth in global economic output for the world’s 20 largest economies compared to the growth experienced in the past 50 years. The McKinsey Global Institute* projects that in order to prevent gross domestic product from slowing productivity will need to accelerate by 80% from historic rates.

If we look at our Candidates for answers we find that they are moving toward programs that will impact our overall population as they try to address the question of undocumented immigrants. Both deportation or absorption of these workers will directly effect this economic question.

The Republican view supports releasing restraints on dollars, through large tax reductions, and reducing the restrictions imposed on business that prevents them from performing, like EPA requirements to protect the environment. These thoughts are aligned with more of the same, and would propose that we rebuild past industries and promote current industries by reducing social barriers that call for corrective actions today, in order to ensure a sustainable envelope for the future. The Republican model does not include maintaining the 12 million undocumented immigrants, they would be deported thus reducing our workforce…and our market.

The Democratic view is that tax reductions are not the answer. Considering that today’s corporate profits and income for the upper echelon are at all-time highs, they seem to have a point. After all, if Trickle Down was going to work it should have kicked in by now. They would promote increased taxes on the 1% of our population that controls an inordinate amount of national wealth, and correct programs that allow major corporations to pay little or no tax on their profits. They would also establish programs that would allow the undocumented immigrants in our workforce to stay and achieve citizenship.

On reviewing economic history, it is obvious that population growth has spurred economic growth. Looking at the past century we can clearly see that market expansion has been key to economic success, and companies with global presence are often the most successful. Exxon Mobile, Toyota, Proctor and Gamble, and Apple are but a few of these success stories.

But what of markets where populations are in decline? Can an established company, offering good products and services, doing business within markets with shrinking populations succeed? And when product lines are OBE… Overcome by Events…are there ways for companies to change in order to continue their path to success?

There are, and in that lies the difference between loss and gain. Sustainability is about maintaining an effective mix of economics, environment, and equity or social sharing. If we build our new businesses or refine our old ones to deliver good products that have clear value, and that maintain our 'market' growth for growing demand of products (globally, not just locally) then a smaller population may not have as devastating an impact as might be thought. The key is that companies must recognize the importance of selling new, innovative products that attract the attention of their target markets, are sold at a proper price, and that cross physical and cultural borders.

The economic equation isn't just looking at the target market for who could purchase your product, but it also looks at your skilled and available workforce. After all, if your workforce declines then your ability to produce may decline along with it. If you eliminate 10-million workers from an initial worker base of 180-million you will have eliminated more than 5% of your workforce. 

By doing that your ability to maintain production will be dramatically cut, and the economy will be negatively impacted. 

Sustainability calls for strong economics to drive the success of the social and environmental elements within its structure. Fair now, and fair in the future. We need to solve the immigration issue without deporting workers who contribute to our productivity and our tax base.

* McKinsey Global Institute report 

Darlene Ferris LaBar Making a Difference...

A little more than two years ago I met an Artist and Environmentalist, Darlene Farris LaBar, at East Stroudsburg University where she is a Professor of Fine Arts. She was engaging in so many ways, most important of which was her commitment to her students in the Art Department…where she was experimenting with 3-D printing.

Her love of nature and her ability to convert her vision into artistic statements through her large scale Art Installations, which she designed to transform the viewer’s perception, demonstrated to me her ability to effect change throughout the world.

Through to today…Darlene has undertaken a process of 3-D capture which is allowing her to find and copy flora in its natural scape and save it for the future through its recreation. Her commitment to flora---not yet gone---but nearing extinction due to human overextension, is making a statement the world over.

Darlene has exhibited in China, Columbia, Brazil, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Centre du Louvre Paris, London, and throughout the United States as she has brought her work forward to inspire others with the importance of changing the world.

Thank you Darlene, you are proving that each of us can make a difference.

Visit Darlene at her website, and look for her presentations and exhibits nationwide.

HALF-EARTH – Our Planet’s Fight for Life, a review of E.O.Wilson's Book and Project for Sustainability

How do we come to appreciate Biodiversity?

We, mankind, tend to think that as the only cognitive creature on Earth, we are the focus of the planet’s bounty, and everything done on earth should be done for our benefit. But what about the other ‘Millions’ of living species on earth? Don’t they have a right to live… to flourish and enjoy our planet?

Many of our discussions have been about just that, the right of all living things to continue…unabated by human interference, and allowed to survive naturally. Man does not seem to understand, and appears unconcerned with the future of the other species within our ecosystem. Indeed, through our actions we are making the Earth less and less sustainable, and even now we are paying the price. Global Warming isn’t hype, it isn’t smoke and mirrors established to create new funding for the scientific community. Neither is the damage we are doing to our land, seas, rivers, aquifers, and sky. 

We are truly leaving the world in a mess…causing damage almost everywhere man chooses to go. 

Edward O. Wilson, considered among the world’s most renowned Naturalists and Biologists, has captured his thoughts on the destruction we have brought to the world in the few short (in geologic terms, to be sure) centuries of our human dominance. In an attempt to gain our attention, he has written HALF-EARTH – Our Planet’s Fight for Life (2016/New York) in which he charts our course along our destructive path to a point where we have begun to conserve…but way too slowly to achieve success in our attempt to save the Biosphere and the diversity of species that it holds.

As always, E.O. Wilson has provided us with a powerful treatise for our consideration, this one on the life around us, and on the impact that humankind has had, and continues to have on that life. He proposes that we are capable of saving most of that biodiversity…but that we need to choose the course of action that might bring that about, and that we have only limited time to act.

In his closing arguments in HALF-EARTH Wilson states:

‘If humanity continues its suicidal ways to change the global climate, eliminate ecosystems, and exhaust Earth’s natural resources, our species will very soon find itself forced into making a choice, this time engaging the conscious part of our brain. It is as follows: Shall we be existential conservatives, keeping our genetically based human nature while tapering off the activities inimical to ourselves and the rest of the biosphere? Or shall we use our new technology to accommodate the changes important solely to our own species, while letting the rest of life slip away? We have only a short time to decide.’

His last chapter, only 3 pages long…but with such importance, offers a suggestion that is clear and concise. We need to take immediate action to create a series of reserves/preserves the world over that will help us to save the diverse population of species that are the citizens of our planet. By committing to the creation of these wilderness sites, some native, some rebuilt from their present state, and others completely recreated …from previously destroyed regions, we will set into motion a process that will deliver, not for us…for we shall never see it, a world with an abundance of nature regenerated over centuries to return our Earth to a balanced state for all future generations. 

This would be done through the HALF-EARTH concept. As noted by Wilson, 'In a world gaining so swiftly in biotechnology and rational capabilities, it is entirely reasonable to envision a global network of inviolable reserves that cover half the surface of Earth.'

This is an interesting read, with real consequence, which I highly recommend. And after reading HALF-EARTH I also recommend supporting the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation and their HALF-EARTH Project.

Sponsoring the Anthropocene Era May Mark Our Demise.

What is an ecosystem?

No, really...what is an ecosystem? Give it some thought, and then consider that if one species is removed from an ecosystem, is there any real impact?

Darwin said, in closing the 'Origin of Species',

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us."

As Edward O. Wilson points out in his book, 'Half-Earth; Our Planet's Fight for Life', those who believe that we can press living communities of species to extinction, and then expect them to be replaced by invasive species, delivered by the hands of humanity, to form healthy new ecosystems...those Anthropocene sponsors are both misguided and misinformed...for what took millions of years to achieve balance cannot be replaced by makeshift, and clearly unplanned transition to our human-centered world.

Through Global Warming, habitat destruction, the runaway growth of human population, resource consumption, over-harvesting of animals of all kinds for our use, and pollution...we are changing the planet, and we need to stop this lunacy now, or man very well may not be included in the ecosystems of the future.

Bleaching Demonstrates the Change to our Environment.

Most of us say we believe in saving the planet...but we don't seem to realize that we are already behind the power curve!

Our failure to address Green House Gas (GHG) emissions has caused both a warming of our atmosphere and an increase to the acidification of our oceans through increased CO2 absorption.  Many species are being affected, but perhaps the clearest image of this destruction is found in coral reef systems the world over, this because coral is directly impacted by both temperature change and acid encroachment.

This is a bleached coral head...before and after.

There are nearly 45,000 species of coral in our oceans today. As a 'family' that is extremely sensitive to temperature change and acidity, corals are headed for hard times...bleaching (seen in this photo), a term used to explain their transition from flourishing to dead, is underway on all major reef systems and it is anticipated that, with a 1* change in average ocean temperatures, more than 38% of all coral species will be extinct by 2050!

That is more than 16,000 varieties of corals...gone due to man-made pollution and a change in the temperature of our seas. We can't stop it all, but if we fight the trend set by those who think it can't be changed, or worse...those who think it isn't happening...we can reduce the GHG going into our atmosphere enough to slow the loss and hopefully hold the line before even more destruction is realized.

It's our fault...we...mankind made the mistakes that have gotten us to this point, and we should be able to put a stop to the destruction before a reasonable recovery is beyond reach.

Svante Arrhenius:He Warned Us, But We Didn't Listen.

   More than hundred years ago, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.

   In a sense, he predicted global warming… way back in the 1890s… when he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value.

His calculations were off, due to his data sources, but they track the path accurately!

   In the 1960s his calculations were improved on by EO Wilson and Robert MacArthur, and again showed that our increasing GHGs are pushing us toward accelerated Global warming.

Our Carbon Footprint...Will Deliver Death to the Seas...to Us All

Has anyone else noticed? We are destroying our planet...killing an untold number of species, and we don't seem to give a damn. I've seen coral, ablaze with color only a few years ago, bleached and dying today...and when it is gone its ecosystem will follow.

And the biggest cause...us...our incessant use of carbon fuels (fossil fuels) over saturating the atmosphere with CO2...and as a result the oceans, which absorb more than a third of it.

We must end this madness...

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

No More Lobsters, No More Clams...

As some of us know, but most of us don't, the water absorbs gasses from the atmosphere. In fact, tons of gasses are absorbed every day...millions of tons or more per year. And today, with our gross amount of carbon that we blow into the air we are poisoning the oceans as quickly as we are the atmosphere.

With our human-consumptions of fossil fuels we are creating a great deal of CO2, and with the warming of the planet we are seeing an increased release of suspended methane...an even harsher Green House Gas (GHG). These levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution...200+ years of ever increasing carbon levels...and the seas and oceans, even our lakes and rivers are suffering.

In fact 1/3 of airborne CO2 is now absorbed into the oceans, and as a result the Ph factor is coming down...making the oceans more acidic...it is approaching a null point of 7.8...when the general ocean Ph has been above 8 for literally millions of years.

Certain animal species convert chemicals suspended in the ocean waters into calcium shields, of sorts. These animals are called 'calcifiers' and they use their body chemistry to create their calcium based shells and exoskeletal armor. But with the higher acidic environment they are having to work harder to make, and keep their shells. The more CO2 in the water, the harder it becomes, and one day not so far from now...easily within this century...we will reach that 7.8 Ph factor, and the shells will become a thing of the past for many species.

What can we do? Reduce our carbon foot print, reduce ocean temperatures...or at least slow the warming trend, and act internationally to address the problem. As the world's largest contributors to global warming and the release of GHGs, the United States, China and now India all need to commit to reductions and then see these reductions through. There is no other option, not if you want these species to survive.

DDT, Gone but Still Persisting…

Fifty years ago the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior used broad spectrum pesticides to try to eliminate pests that damaged crops and were hurting our forests. They sprayed tons of DDT from aircraft deployed systems. It did little to defeat the targeted species…as they were already at work and had laid their eggs before being exposed, but the environmental destruction was wide spread.

DDT was considered valuable because it was inexpensive to manufacture, could be deployed easily, and had an extended life in the field, which meant that it would work well over extended seasons and support reducing target populations over longer periods than other pesticides.

Today DDT is not allowed to be used in the United States, and most developed nations have banned it as well. It is, however, still used in South America, Africa, and Asia to combat different infestations and to reduce disease carrying pests that spread malaria and other infections.The US EPA removed DDT from service in the early 70s when it was classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S. and international authorities. Specifically, DDT is:

• known to be very persistent* in the environment
• will accumulate in fatty tissues, and
• can travel long distances in the upper atmosphere.

The half-life* of DDT is projected at 15 years, that means that it persists in the environment, slowly losing power over time. And today, 45 years after it was taken off of our shelves, it can still be found in our soil and our water.

Using toxins for mass elimination of one or two insect species proved foolish. There was no protection for the thousands of other lifeforms exposed to these poisons, and many animals died along with the bugs. Fish were effected, too, as the sprays blanked streams and lakes, along with the land. Research today has found that there are DDT deposits in the beds below our ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers.

And though we can’t use DDT in the United States, we are allowed to manufacture it for international shipments, which means that it is being used in developing nations. Air deployed systems spray into the atmosphere, and the result is that the fine spray often lifts to the clouds, delivering it to far away regions the world over.

DDT isn't the only persistent organic pesticide of concern, there are many more being distributed and sprayed today in the USA and throughout the world. These products are primarily developed by the petrochemical industry, and they represent a major part of their market, and their profit. The necessary changes to regulations, for production and use, need to be enacted to counter the impact these toxins continue to have and the damage they are doing to our home (planet Earth).

Joni Mitchell may have said it best in her song "Yellow Taxi",   "...give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees!..."

Global Warming and Climate Change...our Green Earth is Waning

North America will look like this in decades ahead.

We are at the edge, as I have mentioned in my Facebook articles. And we are at fault for it...caused mostly by our greed, and made worse by our inability to assume responsibility for our actions.

The United States, contrary to Congress, is the primary cause of Global warming...with our excessive use of resources, upwards of 25% of the world's resources are employed in our lifestyle...and we are the largest carbon emitter of all nations.

First place in this dangerous category...what an honor.

Due to our uncontrolled growth in human population, and our out of control use of our natural resources, we have doomed our planet to ruin, and we have started---as effectively presented in the Sixth Extinction, an impressive research based volume by Elizabeth Kolbert, we have entered the next planetary extinction, one that we have caused and one that we will have to suffer over the next few centuries.

Though only a minority of world leaders are listening, Kolbert isn't the only one raising the alarm. Others have been telling us for more than half a century. In her world awakening "Silent Spring', Rachel Carson pointed to the toxins we were indiscriminately spreading over croplands and forests, without control and without concern...which began the destruction of many species, and which may have taken Carson herself, as she died of cancer before her book raised her warning. Rachel died, but the American EPA was formed from her work.

Today Congress, backed by industrial forces like the petrochemical giants (Koch, Dow, and DuPont among them), is working to take the enlightened power away from EPA to reduce the Clean Air and Water regulations that have made our best dent into our non-sustainable practises.

It is in our hands...and there are active forces afoot. The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), The Earth Institute (Columbia University), and the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation are leaders among them. And though some of their challenges call for the elimination of the use of fossil fuels within the next 30 years (RMI), and the dedication of half of our planet under the Half-Earth Project in a call to conserve half the Earth for the rest of life (E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation), when closely reviewed we find they are both achievable and truly sustainable, with both economic and environmental protection engaged to ensure that they succeed.

Now it is time for us to use that backbone that evolution gave us, and stand against the greed that has lead us into extremis.