Green Energy versus The Uncivil War

Chris Hedges hosted the political writers Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton on his television program (yesterday, on the RT network/channel) for a discussion of the Syrian War, and its many current harmful impacts, as well as its possible grave future consequences for the Middle East, Europe, the United States, and the world. (That episode of Chris Hedges’ program is linked near the bottom.)

My reaction to that program follows.

The problem, as presented so compellingly by Chris Hedges, Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, is of such large scope that it is difficult to see how any one nation – even the United States – could act alone to “solve it” (forever).

However, the recommendation that the U.S. stop funding destabilization groups in the Middle East (and everywhere), and that the U.S. “pull back” from or “pull out” of the Middle East, would be a very, very helpful step for the reduction of suffering in that region: for example reducing the incidence of wars and the displacements causing huge refugee streams. Such a change in US policy would also benefit the American people by freeing public money now absorbed by covert and overt militarism, to be used instead for much more domestic socialism (like Medicare-for-all, and free college for all).

However, even were such a change in US Middle East policy to occur, there would still be many evils in the region:
– authoritarian and oppressive regimes continuing to hurt the people under them,
– the export of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
– the regional Sunni-Shia proxy wars (basically, Saudi Arabia vs. Iran),
– the war by Israel against the Palestinians (who include Muslims and Christians),
– Israel’s agitation against Syria (for regime change, and to keep the Golan Heights),
– Israel’s agitation against Iran (which helps prop up Hezbollah in Lebanon),
– Israel’s agitation includes its own covert and overt military actions, as well as lobbying for the United States to make war against Israel’s designated enemies.

As an engineer without expertise on the Middle Eastern affairs, I have believed since 1973 that the best long-term plan for the U.S. to insulate itself from Middle Eastern turmoil would have been to use the U.S.’s vast fossil fuel resources (and even the nuclear ones) as a stop-gap energy source to power the building of a national solar (“green”) energy collection and distribution system.

That national green energy system would be made of many local solar energy networks interconnected into regional systems, which in turn would be interconnected into a national system. The local power sources would include:
– direct solar-collection to electrical-output arrays (solar panels),
– solar heat collection for boilers that power steam turbines cranking electric generators,
– river hydroelectric (the dams we already have),
– ocean-tidal hydroelectric,
– land-based wind-electric,
– offshore wind-electric,
– a few sites for solar-powered desalination for potable water,
– and solar-powered hydrogen recovery from water for H2-O2 fuel-cell propulsion for civilian aircraft, and road and rail transit.

Given real energy independence, the Unites States could stop funding and supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel (arming them to the teeth so extravagantly). I realize that defunding Israel would be harder to do regardless of circumstances, because of the metastasis of the Israel Lobby within the US body politic. But, if the U.S. could shut off its massive dollar streams currently paying for Middle East petroleum (and bribes to Egypt and Jordan to not annoy expansionist Israel), then many of the Middle East oppressor regimes would be weakened and likely overthrown by more popular and democratic alternatives, and the U.S. would be immune from blackmail by oil embargoes.

Also, a green national energy system for the U.S., replacing the 19th and 20th century fossil and fissile fuel system still in use, would offer a long term, sustainable and low-(no?)-pollution energy-flow for domestic consumption: it would not accelerate climate change.

Obviously, myopic greed such as by fossil and fissile fuel companies opposes such a strategy as they prefer to make private capital gains by extractive exploitation of Nature, and by setting off “pipeline wars” at public expense. The green energy vision and strategy described here is at its core socialist (it is best for the US commons), and it is also internationalist without being belligerent and interventionist, because by sharing such green energy technology internationally the U.S. would help boost the standard of living globally: the human development index (HDI) would increase everywhere, and poverty would decrease everywhere.

The Uncivil War, with Max Blumenthal & Ben Norton
CHRIS HEDGES
16 April 2017
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/384914-uncivil-war-blumenthal-norton/

or, on YouTube:

Of all the articles I have ever written, the one I most wish had gotten wide attention and actually affected public thinking and action, is linked below.

Energy for Society in Balance with Nature
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/06/08/energy-for-society-in-balance-with-nature/

<><><><><><><>

Russian-Hacked USA, and Other Follies

Tonight (10 January 2017, President Barack H. Obama delivers his televised farewell address. In 10 days, Donald Trump will be sworn in as President of the United States of America. Below are some of my thoughts at this juncture.

<><><><><><><>

On “Russians hacked the election making the USA have Donald Trump as president, and not Hillary Clinton”:

Reading the commentary and all the comments here (on Juan Cole’s blog, “Informed Comment,” on 6-9 January 2017), I think your consensus is:

#1, that the public exposure of the Podesta (Clinton, DNC) e-mails did sway the election “to Trump,” specifically away from Clinton; and

#2, that this was a bad thing, a cause for anger, and that the perpetrators of these leaks should suffer retribution from the US Government.

On point #1: there has been no doubt cast on the veracity of the leaked e-mails, therefore if a portion of the public was swayed to vote “away from Clinton” because of these e-mails then they were swayed by truthful information that had previously been hidden from them: “transparency.” I favor transparency, and believe it serves the public interest.

On point #2: If voters being swayed by the exposure of truthful information of public interest is “a bad thing,” then those who believe this prefer voters being fooled and “guided” by powerful insiders (Orwell called them the Inner Party).

Those angry that insider (mainly DNC) plans went awry are angry at the workings of democracy with better informed voters. Why not be angry at the betrayal of fair-play and democratic principles that thwarted the Sanders campaign (the most popular option nationally)? Why not be angry that such a monumental betrayal of public trust was done for the benefit of extremely corrupt and deceitful insiders (H. Clinton and associates)?

The effort to pin blame on “the Russians” for spoiling the insider’s succession gambit is just a poor and cowardly excuse to deflect attention from the Inner Party’s colossal failures:

– to devise an economy that serves the public (the major grievance of Trump voters, also Sanders voters), and

– to maintain (not corrupt) the institutions and mechanisms of democracy (the popular will having an influence through voting, the major grievance of Bernie, 3rd party and anybody-but-Clinton voters).

If killing the messenger (Assange, “the Russians,” mystery hackers, or whoever you most want to hate) is your reaction for being shown the truth, then you are condemned to be the victim of your own follies for a long time.

Trump was elected because the public consensus is that voting now has no influence on public policy — so real people can’t get what they need and want from it — but it still can sometimes be used to throw a Molotov-cocktail-by-ballots into the cozy connivances of the Inner Party.

Who is responsible for letting it get to this point? The Russians?

<><><><><><><>

My view of the significance of President Obama’s administration (2009-20016) to American history is linked below. I wrote it in 2008.

Obama and the Psychic Auto-Shrink-Wrapping Called Race in America
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/03/20/obama-and-the-psychic-auto-shrink-wrapping-called-race-in-america/

Here is Cornel West’s summation of the Obama Administration:

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama
9 January 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/barack-obama-legacy-presidency

<><><><><><><>

It is as likely that American capitalists will preserve the Social Security Trust Fund and Publicly Funded Education, as that the Chinese will end trading in rhino horn, elephant tusk and bear liver. These are the Golden Cities of Cibola and the Fountains of Youth, which the obsessed conquistadores of temporal power can never refrain from lusting after.

Climate Change is the still wet graffiti of collective world greed pressed within the geological strata of the future.

<><><><><><><>

Climate Change Is Inevitable With Trump Or Hillary

US population distribution by states (2013)

US population distribution by states (2013)

Election 2016 by counties

Election 2016 by counties (D. Trump = red; H. Clinton = blue)

As of April 1, 2010, the date of the 2010 United States Census, the nine most populous U.S. states contain slightly more than half of the total population. The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population. California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined. (from Wikipedia)
<>

Most U.S. People Live “Near” the Big Water

The 9 most populous states (each with > 10M people): CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC, have seashore (Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf) or lakeshore on the Great Lakes.

The next 4 most populous states (MI, NJ, VA, WA, ranked 10-13) have seashore or lakeshore on the Great Lakes, and populations between 7M and 10M (each).

Ranked 14th is AZ, the first landlocked state (population between 6M and 7M).

Of the 16 states ranked 15-30, 7 have seashore (Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf) and 3 have lakeshore (Great Lakes), the remaining 6 are landlocked. All have populations between 3M and 7M.

The last 20 states have populations between 0.5M and 3M. There are 7 states with seashore (Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf), none with lakeshore (Great Lakes), and so 13 are landlocked.

Of the 37 states below rank 13:
all 20 landlocked states are included,
14 have seashore (Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf)
3 have lakeshore (Great Lakes).
<>

Whether Trump or Hillary is US president, Climate Change will continue unabated

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton won the population centers and the wealth zones; Donald Trump won the countryside (see maps). The peasants and proletarians revolted against the self-satisfied and arrogant cosmopolitans, and backed an avenging berserker they hoped (hope again!) would save them economically, and thus preserve their insular and primitive cultures. This revolt is a reaction to the supreme failure of the Democratic Party to care about the impoverished and ill-educated lives in the despairing countryside. Bernie Sanders would have swept this election. The American people lost the general election to the billionaires and the corporations on 25 July 2016, at the DP convention in Philadelphia. The Trump presidency is the direct result of Hillary Clinton’s ambition and the Democratic Party’s complicity with it.

Under a Trump presidency, billionaires and corporate bosses will openly and in full public view run the country to their personal advantage, paid for by the continuing impoverishment of the citizens and degradation of the natural environment. Many hope that by political legerdemain Hillary Clinton can be installed as the president instead, on January 20, 2017. Then, they would be relieved to know that the billionaires and corporate bosses running the country to their personal advantage, paid for by the continuing impoverishment of the citizens and degradation of the natural environment, would do so discretely out of public view.

In my view, we will never stop (let alone reverse) climate change, because the addiction to fossil fuels is universal and incurable. Basically, all the personal excuses worldwide boil down to something within the range of: “I’ve got to have it to survive,” and “I’ve got to have it to profit.” Climate change is the exhaust product of capitalism (whether of “free market” or “command economy” style), and no one is willing “to miss out” on getting more power NOW to “survive” and “profit.”

Socialistic frugality to economize and thus forestall climate change could only happen under a “dictatorship,” with a top-down enforced regimen of shared economics, as under Fidel Castro in Cuba. This is impossible globally, as well as in almost every country.

I have no doubt that essentially the same policies and trends would have occurred under a Hillary Clinton presidency as under a Trump presidency. There would be big differences of style between the two, but little differences of timing. The desperate peasants who voted for Trump simply hoped to get some economic lift by getting skilled-labor jobs in Trump’s promised America-first unleashed smokestack economy (factories and mines on the prairies and in the hills, but also Wall Street pulling the strings). There was no such hope for the peasantry in Hillary’s likely economy of outsourced smokestack industries, H-1B domestic tech industries (IT and Bio-tech) and an unleashed financial industry (high-tech along the coasts, and investment banking everywhere). It’s kind of like picking between “Ford” and “Chevrolet” economies with billionaires in the drivers’ seats either way. The gas, oil and coal will be hammered, pumped and dug up, and burned to inflate fortunes.

The one advantage of a Trump presidency and economy is that it will hit most of us with an instantaneous jab of pain and burning sensation, like the sting of a bee puncturing public consciousness, and cause an immediate mass reaction seeking to swat the offender.

In contrast, a Hillary Clinton presidency and economy would hit us like the stealthy sting of a tick, which regurgitates a highly infectious anticoagulant during its bite so it can linger draining your blood until you eventually become aware of a persistent pain and a possible enduring disease.

It was never in the public interest to support Hillary Clinton to “avoid” Donald Trump, whether before or after the November 8 election. Post-election efforts going into fantasies promoting Hillary (importuning Electoral College electors to switch their votes in favor of Hillary, while sopping up conspiracy theories aiming hatred at the Russians, and blame away from the real culprits) would be better spent on planning resistance to Trump’s policy initiatives. I suspect that within two years (mid-term elections) that disillusionment with Trump will have already become visible among the ranks of Trump’s populist supporters. Then the members of the Sanders Revolution will have the opportunity to begin combining forces with disillusioned Trump supporters, and ideally also reformed and reeducated Hillary supporters (though these are likely to be the most obdurate, i.e., brainwashed), and a second populist wave might beneficially inundate the electoral spectacle by 2020.

However the politics of the next four to eight years unfolds, two conclusions seem clear:

You cannot have capitalism without gross inequity and climate change.

You cannot have socialism with ignorant, greedy and self-centered people.

<><><><><><>

Humanity’s Timescale Forward

Guy McPherson says humans will be extinct in 10 years, while Stephen Hawking puts it at 1000 years (they each have PhD’s, but…). What’s your guess? Civilization is likely to collapse before human extinction, when would that be likely? McPherson cites the exponential rise of global average temperature (locked in by intertwined natural processes, and continuously fed by humanity’s obsessive industrialized capitalism), which we can visualize causing crop failures and oxygen depletion (mass starvation) and extreme weather catastrophes (mass displacement), which in turn would cause mass migrations with inevitable conflict (as with 5th century Rome and the Germans, and today with African and Middle Eastern diasporas aiming for Europe, and Central American and Caribbean diasporas aiming for the USA). Hawking cites climate change and the possibilities of nuclear wars and the dispersal of genetically engineered viruses. Hawking believes humanity should prepare to colonize other planets within 1000 years, while McPherson believes people should calmly pursue excellence in what they like doing, and to be loving to all the people near and dear to them, to make the best use of the remaining time before exiting with grace (not a bad plan regardless). What’s your guess about humanity’s prospects and the state of the planet over next 100 years?

HWPTRA (an author whose article is listed below) responds:

“I’ve read Guy McPherson’s work and he tends toward the catastrophic view of the various indicators. Hawking’s estimate of 1000 years I find vanishingly unlikely. Most of the mainstream climate scientists I’ve been reading are generally pointing to 2040 to 2050 as the time of severe conditions making the continuance of human civilization simply untenable with the accompanying deterioration of how people will treat each other. When a man is hungry, morality is largely irrelevant. However, I agree with McPherson’s advice on how to live with the remaining time we collectively have.”

Guy McPherson – Human Extinction within 10 years
25 November 2016
https://youtu.be/zqIt93dDG1M

How to Avoid Stephen Hawking’s Dark Prediction for Humanity
18 November 2016
http://www.livescience.com/56926-stephen-hawking-humanity-extinct-1000-years.html

How Dangerous is Climate Change?, How Much Time Do We Have?
5 December 2015
(by guest author: HWPTRA)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/12/05/how-dangerous-is-climate-change-how-much-time-do-we-have/

How soil carbon loss could accelerate global warming
29 November 2016
https://youtu.be/IrKOpPJIbXA

Global Warming Research in Danger as Trump Appoints Climate Skeptic to NASA Team
1 December 2016
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/01/global-warming-research-in-danger-as-trump-appoints-climate-skeptic-to-nasa-team/

Manuel Garcia, Jr. comment to the above news story:

“It doesn’t really matter. There will always be an excuse, regardless of what faceless suit is momentarily “in charge.” And the people overwhelmingly agree with those excuses because they prefer instant power, individually, to social responsibility. That’s why we are where we are: a runaway warming is all locked in now. It will be crazy in 2040-2050.”

The physics of, and history of human awareness about, Anthropogenic Global Warming:

Closing the Cycle: Energy and Climate Change
MG,Jr.
25 January 2014
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2014/01/25/closing-the-cycle-energy-and-climate-change/

AGW and Malthusian End Times
(by Daniel P. Wirt, M.D., and Manuel García, Jr.)
13 January 2014
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2014/01/13/agw-and-malthusian-end-times/

<><><><><><>

My CO2 Automobile Emissions

1) I have driven automobiles around the world 30 times.
2) Total distance is 750,000 miles.
3a) Speed was 2/3 of a circuit per year [1],
3b) or 16,667 miles/year (45 years),
3c) or 45.6… miles/day (45 years).
4a) Fuel used was 30,000 gallons of gasoline
4b) at 25 mpg (assumed).
5a) CO2 produced was 589,200 pounds [2],
5b) or 13,093.3… pounds/year, 45 years.
6) Number of travellers 1 to 5 (average ~2).
7) CO2/average traveller is 6,546.6… pound/year.
8) CO2/mile is 0.7856 pounds/mile.
9) Equivalent # US drivers/year, if use my rate of CO2 production = 143 million. [3]
10) Average # cars/trucks owned per Equivalent driver = 1.78. [4]

DATA:

[1] Circumference of the Earth is 24,901 miles (rounded up to 25 kmile).

[2] “About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol.” (US-EIA)

[3] US CO2 from autos and gasoline powered trucks is >50%, probably <66%, of the CO2 emissions from the entire transportation sector, which produces 26% of the total US emission of CO2 (2014, but similar since 1990). The total greenhouse gas emissions for the US (2014) is 6870 x 10^6 metric tons, and CO2 is 82% of that greenhouse gas total. (US-EPA). [1 metric ton (1000 kg) = 2204 pounds.] So:

a1) Total greenhouse gas/year = 6,870 million metric tonnes.
a2) Total greenhouse gas/year = 15,141,480 million pounds
(15.141 trillion pounds).

b1) Total CO2/year = 5633 million metric tonnes.
b2) Total CO2/year = 12,416,013 million pounds
(12.416 trillion pounds).

c1) Transportation CO2/year = 1465 million metric tonnes.
c2) Transportation CO2/year = 3,228,163 million pounds
(3.228 trillion pounds).

d1) Auto/truck CO2/year (@ 58%) = 849.5 million metric tonnes.
d2) Auto/truck CO2/year (@ 58%) = 1,872,334 million pounds
(1.872 trillion pounds).

[4] “According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2012, there were 254,639,386 registered vehicles” in the U.S. (rounded up to 255 million) (wikipedia)

Living Confidently in Times of Climate Change

An old pal of mine, HWPTRA, wrote the article:

How Dangerous is Climate Change?, How Much Time Do We Have?
5 December 2015
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/12/05/how-dangerous-is-climate-change-how-much-time-do-we-have/

in which he sought to estimate when human extinction might occur as a result of too-drastic-for-us climate change. To ponder this imponderable, he gathered the best scientifically-based information available about changing climate and environments, and about evolutionary biology and Life-on-Earth.

The resulting article is a fascinating description about Life-on-Earth over “deep time,” and about the many geophysical (climate related) processes and phenomena that have suddenly (within the last century or so) lurched into rapid transitions to very different and as yet unknown new conditions of stability. The problematic uncertainty for humanity is that the eventual climatic “new stability” may mean a world uninhabitable by our kind.

So much for the facts, now what do we — individually — do about them? That question was put to me best in a letter:

I’m in my seventies and have been feeling such sadness for the beautiful youth all around me. How do you address this? Do we share this ‘reality’ with people in their twenties with babies? Do we tell the teens? Will that destroy their desire to live at all, or will they burn more brightly?

Some people want to know, others, like my son and his wife, prefer to live in the more peaceful fantasy that everything’s gonna be OK. Too painful and scary to think otherwise. Some are living more extravagantly because the game’s over anyway. Some are getting tiny houses on wheels in the belief that they can motor to where it’s safer. Many others are pretty much frozen in place. Interesting to observe these responses sometimes in myself as well. I’d love to hear your perspectives.

This essay is my response to the gentle letter-writer I quoted above.

I can think of three types of responses to the reality of implacable climate change: denial, quietism, and activism.

DENIAL

Block out awareness of reality: live in your private feel-good bubble of happy-talk and entertainment; join in with the strident deniers of climate change; retreat into religious fantasy (“God will save me”). This is a popular mentally unhealthy response; not recommended.

QUIETISM

Do your best to enjoy life and take care of your family without allowing “the problems of the world” and “things beyond my ability to fix” to darken your remaining days and extended family circle. Don’t waste precious time and life-energy on political activism. Be a calm and peaceful presence in the here-and-now, and for those you love. In being a stillpoint of peace despite changing conditions, you contribute to the common good by not being a source of fear, but instead being a reliable source of comfort and strength. This is an absorptive awareness.

ACTIVISM

Become a political activist to counter climate change; this is a reactive awareness. Activism will bring you into companionship with other like-minded people, who will all feel psychological uplift as a result of experiencing an outburst of energetic altruism collectively. To enjoy this, you can’t allow the objective realization of the ultimate futility of such activism to overcome your motivation to remain involved. Any of your acts and activism that improves living conditions for others — however few the people, and however small and temporary the improvements — is a benefit to the common good, and an accomplishment that can make your life more fulfilling. It can be difficult to be both realistic and optimistic in order to remain an activist, and to accept that often tedious work can at best only result in modest and slow improvements, if any at all. But, the collapse of grandiose dreams of triumphal altruistic activism can fall into the deepest pit of disappointing burn-out.

The following article by Alfredo Acedo describes climate change activism in response (and protest) to the ineffectiveness of the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21), in Paris, to review the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21). The title of Acedo’s article has a hint of collapsing illusions.

The Paris Climate Accords Will Cause the Planet to Burn
10 December 2015
Alfredo Acedo
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/10/the-paris-climate-accords-will-cause-the-planet-to-burn/

THE RIGHT RESPONSE

The right type of healthy response (between quietism and activism) for any individual is a matter of their personal circumstances. What suits your particular type of personality? What fits within your range of abilities, and limits to opportunities? What is best for your physical and mental well-being, and what type of response would give you a more fulfilling life? All the right answers are unique.

I think all the right answers boil down to living consciously, and making an effort to be aware of reality; to be a thinking person appreciative of fact, logic and science; to be a tolerant person appreciative of cultural diversity; to be moral person proud of a concern to maintain good character; to be able to love without possession; and to be a comedian without unkindness.

People who expand themselves along all those dimensions will naturally help to better the human societies they are part of regardless of what geophysical changes — climate changes — occur.

The ideal response of humanity to the realization of implacable and probably fatal climate change within one to two centuries would be a revolution of personal character — “everybody” choosing to pursue the ideals of personal development just described. If such a fantasy were ever to be realized then humanity would be able to cooperate and share, to relieve the deepest forms of poverty and oppression that rob billions of meaningful lives. Then, as a cooperative and socialist (and ideally atheist) species — “we’re all in this together,” “all for one, and one for all” — we could plan for an equitable extinction, a “death with dignity” for our species, if it came to facing an implacable doom. Such a premature doom could be from climate change we brought upon ourselves, or from some other impulsive natural disaster like a solar super-flare, or the impact on Earth of a gigantic meteor.

On this idea of a planned equitable extinction (death with dignity for a human species that is terminally out-of-sync with the geophysical processes of the Earth), I will plagiarize myself from an earlier article (slightly edited).

The difficulty for most people is that we have to keep up our roles in the system (capitalism) in order to survive on a daily basis, but the system as a whole is toxic. So given a choice between voluntary immediate social suicide of the individual, and a gradual slide to the distant extinction of our whole species, perhaps past our own lifetimes, the natural choice is: I’ll burn fuel to live as I like and climb the social ladder now, and let everybody else die all together later.

I referred to the collapse of the ancient city-building Maya civilization (1000 years ago) to make the point that if the individual has the option to move out of the society — drop out, leave the rat race — and that option gives him/her a BETTER chance of preserving and propagating his/her family, as opposed to doing so within the organized social-economic system, then individuals will gladly move to “simpler” lifestyles.

Our problem is that we have not found, or been able to imagine, such individual “simplicity” options (http://www.radicalsimplicity.org/radical_simplicity.html) for ourselves that would be able to function independently despite the omnipresence of the existing industrial paradigm. That is, as individuals we can’t see how it is possible to “leave” the system; there are no isolated islands or planets for us to become Pacific Island or Star Trek pioneers. We are on a global Titanic without any lifeboats, and jammed at full-speed-ahead, with icebergs at every heading (and despite Anthropogenic Global Warming the icebergs in this metaphor won’t melt in time to save the ship).

If seeking a worldwide consensus for abandoning fossil fuels quickly and radically conserving energy to significantly reduce CO2 production does not advance, then it might be better to urge people to seek international agreement to quell political disturbances and equalize economic/human development (as measured by the Human Development Index, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/) worldwide by liberally applying the world’s fossil fuel resources for social betterment, so we can enter the end-times in as homogeneous a socio-economic condition as possible, so that our species’ extinction is minimally fraught with strife.

In other words, plan for our extinction by equalizing its experience. There were people trapped by fires in the upper stories of the doomed World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001, who jumped to their deaths holding hands. I suppose if we can’t be disciplined enough to individually and collectively change our energy-use behaviors permanently, to rein in carbon dioxide production and share out energy resources with equitable frugality, then the next best option would be to share a big bonfire of an industrialized world economy to make everybody as comfortable as possible for a while, and then hold hands all around when our time is up and it’s “lights out.”

Not being an optimist, I suspect humanity will be obdurate in sticking with the “not sharing” option, and that regardless of the specific sequence and distribution of economic developments, political entanglements and natural catastrophes, that humanity will ensure for itself the most painful, lingering and inequitable demise possible given the resources.

Gloomy. Better drink more wine tomorrow, and read Mad Magazine, to cheer up.

AGW and Malthusian End Times
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2014/01/13/agw-and-malthusian-end-times/

CONCLUSION

To my dear friend who asked me “How do you address this?” I say that my personal mantra for facing my ever-expanding awareness of reality is: Enjoy!, and Be Kind.

Being an imperfect human being, I do not always live up to my ideals, but I do try. When I learn more and get better answers, I’ll write you. But for now: enjoy!, and be kind.

<><><><><><><>

How Dangerous is Climate Change?, How Much Time Do We Have?

The following article, How Dangerous is Climate Change?, How Much Time Do We Have? was written by an old friend of mine, and is published here in its entirety. The article follows a brief set of comments (by today’s guest author) about the Climate Change Conference in Paris, now underway.

<><><><><><><>

The 2015 Climate Change Conference in Paris:

• The 2015 Paris conference, while being billed as a major effort to solve the problem, is in fact too little too late.

• All of the approximately 200 nations at the conference have submitted their voluntary (greenhouse gas) reduction targets, which are applicable for the period 2020-2030.

• There is no “binding agreement” that will come out of the conference. Thus, (US President) Obama does not have to submit any agreement (from the conference) for congressional approval — which he would not get. That, of course, means that Obama’s presidential successor may ignore the emissions reduction targets for the U.S. as he or she pleases.

• Even if all the Paris voluntary emission reduction targets are added up AND become reality, climate scientists’ calculations indicate that there will still be a rise in global temperature, above baseline, of 2.4°C – 3.9°C by 2030. That would be well above the 1.5°C – 2.0°C rise above baseline, which is the widely supported consensus of the scientific community, environmentalists and island nation governments, as the upper limit to avoid catastrophe.

• So, Paris 2015 is primarily a public relations ploy to convince increasingly agitated populations — concerned about the obviously negative effects of climate change — of the reality of what is in fact a dual illusion: that a “real solution” is being “enacted.”

• Even the drastic and politically impossible solution of an immediate cessation of Industrial Civilization, as we know it, is too little to late.

• Similar efforts, most notably Kyoto (December 1997) and Copenhagen (December 2009) had largely “kicked the can down the road.” Unfortunately, it would appear that we are at the end of the road and the next can-kicking will send the can into free-fall over the environmental cliff of irreversible catastrophe.

<><><><><><><>

How Dangerous is Climate Change?, How Much Time Do We Have?

by “He Who Prefers To Remain Anonymous”
2 December 2015

THE GENERAL PROBLEM

We are likely to make better decisions if we base them on the way the universe really is. The only advantage of delusion (which includes denial and ideology) is that it is more comfortable and requires no real thought. When you consider all the wasted time and energy involved in delusion, working with reality as it is provides a far more efficient path to problem solving. Given the enormous investment by all of us (corporate and individual, financial and lifestyle-based), it is not surprising that we would rather maintain our current profits and conveniences even if that continues creating mass extinctions, ultimately including that of our own species.

For those who wish to believe in a near term human extinction and near term mass extinction in general, there is enough evidence to support such beliefs. However, there is also no indisputable timetable for these events. The science-based estimates I’ve seen for human extinction due to runaway climate change range from the very alarming 15-30 years to the less immediately concerning 100-200 years. There are, of course, those who deny the problem exists at all, those who believe it is a problem that we can fix, or those who are so consumed with day-to-day survival that this issue is essentially moot to them. For such people, timetables for human extinction are irrelevant.

It is important to realize that there is a generally recognized lag period of approximately 40 years between the time greenhouse gases are injected into the atmosphere and the resulting rise in average global temperature. So even if we stopped participating in industrial civilization today, there will still be residual temperature rise occurring for the next 40 years. In the last 29 years, humans have put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than in the previous 236 years back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750).

Low-carbon alternative energy technology (solar, wind, tidal, etc.) has been developed so slowly and the effort to do so has come so late that the opportunity for it to significantly limit climate change has been lost.

FOOD PRODUCTION

Average global temperature has been remarkably steady for about the last 10,000 years. This condition supported the rise and continuation of human agricultural practices. However, the rise in global temperature in the last 50 years has been 0.76°C. For every 1°C rise in global temperature, grain crop production falls about 10%. Grains (corn/maize, rice, wheat, barley, sorghum, millet, oats, rye, triticale, fonio, quinoa) provide more food energy to humans than any other type of crop. Much of the grain crop is fed to cattle which is an inefficient way to produce food. Consequently, when cereal crops fail in significant proportions, there is a temporary solution by reducing meat production and shifting to a more fully vegetarian diet for humans instead.

Numerous scientific observations confirm the decrease in snowpack accumulation around the planet in recent decades. Ice and snow accumulations in mountainous regions of the planet are a major source of water during the non-rainy portions of the year for over 100 water basins. Snow melt from the Sierra Nevada Mountains is what provides the water for the major food producing regions of California during the summer. Snow and ice melt from the Himalayas provide similar summer water for the food crops in large areas of Asia (eight major rivers and water supplies for 1.5 billion people in the region). With declining snow/ice accumulations in the mountains, food production for human populations will inevitably decline as well. Ground water pumping can make up the difference in the short run, but ground water is not unlimited. Ground water can not be a permanent solution to declines in mountainous snow accumulations.

When humans are hungry, very few give any weight to the luxuries of principles, morality, ethics, honesty, fear, patience, loyalty, love, disgust and so on. Hunger has only one agenda item of any importance: eat, however possible, but eat.

METHANE, CARBON DIOXIDE, WATER VAPOR: GREENHOUSE GASES

Baseline global temperature is the average global temperature prior to 1750. The year 1750 is considered the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

METHANE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “underestimated” by one hundred to one thousand times the methane release associated with hydro-fracturing to extract natural gas in its 1996 report on the subject. It revised its estimates in 2009, but these estimates are probably still too conservative.

Methane is a gas with approximately 100 times the heat retaining (greenhouse) power of carbon dioxide according to NASA research.

Ignoring carbon dioxide, methane leakage into the atmosphere from the Arctic Ocean alone will take us to 6°C above baseline by 2023 and 7°C above baseline by 2033. (Paul Beckwith, Canadian climate scientist, ~2014)

The enormous drive of fracturing shale formations to release natural gas (which contains ~85% methane) results in both the capture of methane and the leakage, venting or flaring into the atmosphere, of significant quantities of ‘uncapturable’ methane. The leakage is due to the limitation of the techniques and equipment used in this extraction method and the prolonged period of time that such unconventional drilling takes before actual capture of the target gas can begin.

It has been estimated that for each degree of global temperature rise the amount of methane entering the atmosphere increases several fold. This, of course, leads to more global warming and thus more methane release.

When marine life dies, most of it eventually sinks to the bottom where it decays. Because marine life is so abundant in the continental shelf areas, there are huge amounts of decaying organic material on its surface. The cold temperatures of these depths allow the methane produced by decay to become methane hydrates which tend to remain in place on the bottom. As the oceans are warming, bottom temperatures cannot keep all the methane hydrate from converting to methane gas and bubbling to the surface. As of 2014, it appears the greatest bubbling up of oceanic methane is coming out of the Arctic Ocean sub-sea shelf and slope first, but also in the northeast Pacific Ocean and, to some extent, in the coastal sub-sea shelf and slope regions all over the planet.

Methane is entering the atmosphere mainly from the huge reserves of methane hydrate trapped in terrestrial and sub-sea Arctic permafrost areas as air and water temperatures rise. Even if just a few percent of the methane hydrate reserves boil out, an average global temperature jump of 10°C is likely to occur with an extinction rate well into the 90% or greater range.

The first of many large holes were discovered in Siberia during the summer of 2013 by a helicopter pilot. Above these holes methane concentrations were measured at more than 50,000 times normal measurements. As of 2015, there are now 30 of these holes which are now being called methane eruption vents. They are being found in the same area that was the massive Trapp volcanic eruption zone (Talymir Volcanic Arc) that is credited with setting off the Great Dying of the Permian extinction. The largest of these vents is 100 m long by 50 m wide and 60-100 meters deep (110 yards long by 55 yards wide and 66-110 yards deep). Taken by themselves, they do not represent a grave threat, but taken in the context of other positive feedback developments pushing global temperatures up, they certainly should not be ignored.

Sea-level rise causes continental sea slopes to collapse, tsunamis, and release of methane (September 2013 issue of Geology, Brothers et al.) The rate of coastal erosion in eastern Siberia has doubled in the last 40 years due largely to the melting of the permafrost.

Earthquakes trigger methane release in areas with methane hydrate deposits locked in what was once permafrost on land or in the sea. The consequent warming of the planet triggers more earthquakes. More methane is released and so on. (October 2013, Arctic News, author: Carana)

600 million tons of methane are put into the atmosphere each year including both methane originating from natural sources and from human sources.

WATER VAPOR

With a warmer planet, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Water vapor also has a greenhouse effect. Water vapor absorbs heat and thus with more water vapor in the atmosphere, more heat is absorbed rather than reflected.

CARBON DIOXIDE

During the last 170 years, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by more than 40%. During that same time period, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by approximately 250%.

ALLEGED AMELIORATING STEPS

Complete collapse of industrial civilization could save many non-human species in the short run. Industrial civilization appears to underlie the Sixth Great Extinction period on Earth. We are currently losing approximately 1,000 species a year to extinction. (For those who enjoy being alarmed, there are sources that estimate species loss at 200 species per day.) The likelihood of humans voluntarily abandoning industrial civilization is approximately zero in my opinion. The comforts it has brought have strongly “addicted” people to the much advertised “good life.” Psychologists call this “hedonic adaptation.” We get so used to the new comforts (hot water showers for instance) that we forget to cherish them. We begin to simply take them for granted as things that we can no longer conceive ever being absent again. It is yet another understandable self-serving delusion. In fairness, it should be noted that “hedonic adaptation” works in reverse as well. When things we’ve taken for granted disappear, we adapt in a relatively short time and our perception of our level of happiness appears relatively unchanged.

EXTINCTIONS

Humans like to believe that evolution is a progressive and directional process leading to more complexity (i.e. so-called higher organisms). In reality, complex organisms occur primarily to occupy available supportive niches only when such niches occasionally arise. However, for 4.0 billion years, life on Earth has maintained an overwhelming and unvarying bacterial cast to its nature. Humans are considered the pinnacle of evolution primarily because humans are the ones who write and read the books in which this thought is promulgated. Humans have named the various epochs of life’s history as the Age of Fishes, the Age of Amphibians, etc. In reality, however, the history of life is one continuous Age of Bacteria.

Because bacteria reproduce by asexual division (a form of cloning), they may be considered “immortal” in a sense. Genetic change (evolution) in bacteria occurs very slowly because they simply make exact copies of their genes as they reproduce. Once sexual reproduction was “invented,” individual and species-level genetic change occurred rapidly. Every new sexually reproduced generation had remarkably diverse results. It is the diversity of a population that allows for natural selection at a much higher rate than for bacteria — thus the Precambrian explosion of life forms (species). However, the price of sexual reproduction was mortality (death) for each unique genetic combination (individuals).

The current extinction rate (2014) is approximately 100 extinctions per million species per year, or 1,000 times the natural background rates of one extinction per million species every 10 years, for the 60 million years prior to the existence of humans.

Current estimates are that there are 8 million species of life on Earth.

Of all the species of living organisms to have existed on Earth since life began here 3.8 billion years ago, how many are now extinct? The most frequent estimates range from 98% to 99.9% extinction rate. Extinction is the overwhelming rule, not the exception.

When there have been mass extinctions, it is the smaller and less specialized species that tend to survive. It is important to remember that the average size of an animal on Earth is that of a common housefly. While the human brain is a remarkably flexible organ for the ideas it can generate, humans, as a total organism, are quite specialized. Biological specialization is the adaptation of an organism or organ to a special function or environment. The human brain has been adapted to the specialized function of imaginative thought and cognitive problem solving. The human animal has more and more been adapting to thrive in an industrial civilization for at least the last few hundred years. Were civilization to suddenly collapse, billions of human beings, who are dependent on its structure, would perish in short order. Human extinction under rapid climate change is likely because a) humans are not a small species, b) humans are a highly specialized species, and c) evolutionary change is like molasses trying to outrun an avalanche of climate change.

The Permian Extinction, 250 million years ago, wiped out 95% of all species on Earth, may have more in common with the current climate changes than is comfortable to contemplate. The best reconstruction of what caused the Permian Extinction is a three step process that took place over a period of 80,000 years.

First, the huge Siberian Traps area volcanoes went off releasing enormous amounts of dust and sulfur dioxide. The dust at first created a volcanic winter for several years, followed by clear skies.

Second, once the skies cleared of dust, the sulfur dioxide acted as a potent greenhouse gas and the Earth warmed for many years, proving to be beyond the capacity of many species to survive. These massive volcanoes erupted periodically for tens of thousands of years.

Third, after about 40,000 years of this cycle of freeze-awhile and fry-a-lot, the Earth had heated up about 5°C above baseline, and the oceans had heated up as well. As the oceans heated up, organisms could not adapt and a massive die off of marine organisms occurred. All along the world’s continental shelf margins in the oceans, organic matter from these dead organisms sank and decayed in huge quantities in bottom sediments. The decay of this organic material formed methane which froze at depth in the form of methane hydrate. When the oceans heated up even more, there was a massive release of the methane hydrate as methane gas. Methane gas is another potent greenhouse gas. That massive methane release drove another round of global heating over the next 40,000 years in the range of another 5°C. At 10°C above baseline, very few organisms can survive. Thus, in this second round of global warming, most land organisms that had survived the first 40,000 years became extinct. (The evidence for a methane burst association with the Great Dying of the Permian extinction has appeared in the March 31, 2014 issue, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.)

Therapsids had been a dominant group of mammal-like reptiles during the Permian Period. But only a handful of therapsids survived the Permian extinction and became diverse again by the late Triassic. In the late Triassic (225 million years ago), cynodont therapsids gave rise to mammals. The last of the non-mammalian therapsids became extinct in the Early Cretaceous, approximately 100 million years ago. With the rise of dinosaurs during the Cretaceous Period, mammals survived primarily by evolving to be small and nocturnal. Only when the dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago) did mammals come to dominate the land. In order for humans to evolve, their ancestors have had to survive through the bottlenecks of extinctions and predation many, many times. We are here by luck alone.

It is believed that some 70,000 years ago the Toba supervolcano almost eliminated modern humans. Toba blew up a mountain in Indonesia putting 650 cubic miles of itself into the atmosphere as volcanic dust. Prevailing westerly winds pushed these volcanic dust clouds over south Asia and into the grasslands of Africa which were home to humans at the time.

The best current guess of how the Toba supervolcano affected the environment includes a two phase scenario. Immediately following the Toba supervolcano eruption the sun was dimmed for about six years, seasonal rains were disrupted, waterways were choked with ash, and hot ash covered large areas essentially smothering or baking almost all plant and animal life. At the time, humans lived in the eastern edge of Africa. The winds brought ash fall to this area in massive quantities. With plant and animal food sources being annihilated by ash fall, it is easy to see why human populations drastically diminished during this time.

Many other primate species lived further inland in Africa, often behind mountain ranges to the east. These species (macaques, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees) felt less impact from this first phase of Toba induced affects on the environment.

In 70,000 B.C. the Earth was already experiencing an Ice Age. In phase two, the blockage of incoming solar radiation, by ash in the atmosphere, could easily have caused the cool temperatures at the time to cool much further. Again, this would reduce the amount of plant and animal life. Evidence shows that the average temperature dropped 20°C in some spots. This cooling caused more widespread devastation.

Human, macaque, orangutan, tiger, gorilla, and chimpanzee DNA all show some signs of genetic bottlenecking (decreased variation) at this time, but it was particularly severe among humans. It has been estimated that the Homo sapien population fell to less than 2,000 individuals at this time.

In the usual list of extinctions, there is one that generally does not appear, but is particularly relevant to the current sixth mass extinction that we are experiencing. That extinction was the first one to occur.

In the early Earth approximately 4 billion years ago, the first life originated in the young oceans under an atmosphere composed of water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur, chlorine, nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia and methane, which was largely the out-gassing of the massive volcanic activity of the young Earth. There was virtually no free oxygen. With the energy of ultraviolet radiation from the sun and frequent lightning bolts, the first organic molecules formed from this chemical soup. Oxygen would have made this difficult to impossible as even in small quantities it prevents such molecules as amino acids (the building blocks of all proteins) from forming. Amino acids are assembled in the cells of organisms adapted to this oxygen-rich atmosphere while sequestered from gaseous oxygen (O2) within the cell.

The first organisms to evolve around 4 billion years ago were prokaryote bacteria (no defined nucleus) that used chemosynthesis (sulfur, iron, methane, etc.) and thermosynthesis (heat) as the basis of their metabolic activity. As with all anaerobic bacteria, oxygen is a poison and kills them. Had oxygen been a part of the early atmosphere, these organism could never have evolved. Prokaryote chemosynthesizing bacteria dominated the biosphere for about a billion years.

Around 3 billion years ago, a new variety of bacteria evolved. These bacteria had defined borders around their genetic material, a true nucleus in their cells. They are called the eukaryotes. These included the cyanobacteria (also called blue green algae) which had evolved chlorophyll with its capacity to harness energy from the sun for the production of metabolically useful chemicals. However, the waste product of this new metabolic process was free oxygen.

For millions of years, this free (very reactive) oxygen was immediately bound up in the oxidation of iron among the surface minerals of the early Earth. Eventually all the exposed iron had combined with oxygen, and concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere began to increase. By 2.3 billion years ago, oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere had risen to 10% and a massive die-off of the anaerobic Archean bacteria occurred. In essence, the evolving organisms had caused their own extinction by poisoning themselves in the accumulating concentrations of their own waste. From a biological point of view, that extinction scenario is quite similar to the current extinction, which has been in large part triggered by the accumulation in the atmosphere of the waste products of animal respiration and the massive burning of fossil fuels (‘industrial respiration’).

The current level of oxygen in the atmosphere (20%) was probably not achieved until about 400 million years ago.

While oxygen proved fatal to anaerobic life forms of the aquatic environment, its accumulation in the atmosphere made terrestrial survival for DNA- and RNA-based life possible. Until the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth was bombarded by high levels of UV-B from the sun and other forms of radiation that caused very high rates of mutation in DNA and RNA. This high rate of mutation, almost universally harmful to the organisms, prevented life from colonizing the terrestrial surface of the planet. After permanent oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere created a layer of radiation-absorbing ozone, life on the surface of the planet became possible.

Human wastes of halocarbons such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) react in the atmosphere and dissociate. The free halogen atoms then react with ozone molecules altering them into other forms. Thus human waste is also reducing the protective ozone layer which has allowed life on land to flourish.

LIFE ON EARTH, TIMELINE

Life on Earth Table - Version 2It is not unreasonable to consider the Earth as a very large spherical Petri dish in relation to the first and this last period of extinction. The growth of organisms in a Petri dish follows a very predictable pattern. Organisms expand from the initial inoculation point by extensions or by leaps. Eventually the entire surface of the nutrient is occupied with the organism. Then they all die from the toxic effect of living in its own accumulating waste as well as the exhaustion of available nutrients.

NUCLEAR RADIATION DANGERS

When human industrial civilization collapses and people are scrambling for survival on an individual basis, there will only be the automatic systems left in place to keep the approximately 400+ nuclear power stations around the world from melt-downs. Those automatic systems have only enough fuel to stave off melt downs for about a month. With 400+ Fukushima melt-downs happening simultaneously, spewing enormous amounts of ionizing radiation into the atmosphere, humans are unlikely to survive this exposure for any appreciable period of time.

As of 2015, the numbers and locations of the 435 operating nuclear power plants are approximately as follows:

European Union (128)
U.S. (99)
Japan (43)
Russia (34)
China (27)
South Korea (24)
India (21)
Canada (19)
Ukraine (15)
Taiwan, China (6)
Switzerland (5)
Argentina (3)
Pakistan (3)
Brazil (2)
Mexico (2)
South Africa (2)
Armenia (1)
Iran (1)

There are another 67 reactors currently under construction, the majority of them in China (24), Russia (9), India (6), and South Korea (4).

One of the unintended consequences of continually shifting to new technologies is that, were these new technologies to fail, we have long since passed the point of generally knowing how to use the simpler, earlier technologies to solve human survival problems. Who among us can make flint arrowheads or even recognize flint as opposed to granite? Who among us know how to smelt metals to make wire for motors or generators? Our societies have become highly specialized, and specialization is one of the key features of animals that go extinct when the environment significantly changes.

ICE MELTING, BOTH SEA AND LAND

The U.S. Navy predicts a sea-ice free Arctic by 2016. The United Kingdom parliament predicts it for 2015.

Areas of Peruvian ice, which required 1,600 years for accumulation, melted completely in the last 25 years. (April 4, 2013 issue, Science, author: Gillis)

A new phenomena called dark snow was first observed in Greenland. It now can be found in much of the northern hemisphere. (November 25, 2014 issue, Journal of Geophysical Research, author: Doherty et al.) Dark snow does not seem to be included in recent climate models. Dark snow absorbs heat instead of reflecting it, thus increasing the Earth’s temperature.

Because the Arctic is showing the greatest change in climate as the planet warms, it is considered “the canary in the coal mine” for the fate of the rest of the Earth. (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, author: Miller, 2013).

Average summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic are higher than in about the last 50,000 years. (October 23, 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, author: Miller et al.)

The rates projected for climate change are much greater than the fossil record indication of how quickly vertebrate species can successfully adapt to changing conditions of their niche. (August 2013 Ecology Letters, Quintero and Wiens). In other words, vertebrates cannot evolve or adapt rapidly enough to keep up with ongoing and projected changes in climate.

As ice cover is reduced at the poles during the warmer parts of the year, there is more wave action which further erode the remaining sea ice. Glacier ice retreat is also accelerated by these new seasonally warmer temperatures. (May 5, 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, authors: Thomson and Rogers).

SEA LEVEL RISE

Glaciologist Jason Box is an expert on Greenland’s ice. In January 2013, he concluded that we can expect at least a 21 meter (69 foot) rise in sea level as inevitable due to the many “amplifying feedback mechanisms” now in real time play.

Satellite-based observations from 1993 to 2012 indicate an annual average sea-level rise of approximately 3 millimeters per year. During 2013 and 2014, sea-level has risen 10 millimeters more each year. The rate of rise in sea-level appears to be accelerating.

If all ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, high mountains, glaciers and Greenland were to melt, the expected rise in sea-level would be around 216 feet (65.8 meters). There are currently more than 5,000,000 cubic miles of ice on Earth. Some scientists predict that it will take 5,000 years for this to happen.

EVOLUTION V. CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is proceeding at a pace that is 10,000 times faster than the general rate of evolutionary change. Thus the idea of humanity (and other species) simply adapting to the new conditions is only wishful thinking. (Quintero, August 2013, Ecology Letters)

TIMETABLES AND ACCELERATING FORECASTS

Every year, the timetable for climate change is accelerating. As models improve and more data is collected, we are constantly having to revise the pace of climate change upwards.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections have been too conservative, regularly compared with actual measurements taken during the periods of the projections. The impacts of emissions on climate change have been consistently greater than the IPCC’s projections. (March 9, 2014, Nature Climate Change, author: Shindell)

Generally, climate forecasts are all too conservative. The changes necessary to mitigate the coming residual climate changes are not politically viable. The only true step to minimize the ultimate climate change progression is the end of industrial civilization. I doubt any politician could be electable on a platform of returning to an exclusively agrarian and subsistence lifestyle for all of humanity. (See Tim Garrett’s classic paper published in 2009.)

Consider the following progression of estimates of how soon average global temperature will rise:

In 2007, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report forecast an average temperature rise above 1.8°C by 2100. Other emissions scenarios predict a year 2100 rise of up to 4.5°C above baseline.

In early 2008, the UK Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research projected about a 2°C rise in global average temperature by 2100.

Late in 2008, the Hadley Centre’s head of climate change prediction, Dr. Vicky Pope, stated that a worst-case scenario predicted more than 5°C above baseline temperatures by 2100.

By mid-2009, more actual data and more sophisticated models enabled the United Nations Environment Programme to project a 3.5°C rise by 2100.

By October 2009, the Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research forecast 4°C by 2060.

In November 2009, the Global Carbon Project projected 6°C increase in temperature by 2100.

In November 2009, the Copenhagen Diagnosis projected 7°C increase in temperature by 2100.

In its December 2010 analysis, the United Nations Environment Programme projected up to 5°C by 2050.

In May 2014, the international Energy Agency projected up to 6°C by 2050.

All these assessments largely fail to consider the self-reinforcing feedback loops. Example: when snow melts, it exposes darker soil and vegetation underneath. The darker material absorbs more heat than the white snow. This contributes to more snow melting and more dark surfaces being exposed. Without accounting for such positive feedback loops, projections are necessarily and inaccurately low.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves in ocean water it forms carbonic acid. The absorption of CO2 by water is why the atmosphere has not attained the concentration that human waste volumes would have otherwise caused. The marine acidification appears to be occurring at a rate not seen in 300 million years (March 2, 2012, Science, authors: Honisch et al.). It is believed by some scientists that this acidification, along with rising water temperatures, have caused half the life in the Great Barrier Reef to disappear during the last three decades. Because plankton (the base of the marine food pyramid) are threatened by these changing conditions with extinction, the entire marine food web is threatened. Changes in ocean acidity and temperature lag well behind alterations in atmospheric CO2. Even if atmospheric CO2 increased no further, the oceans would still be absorbing CO2 and becoming increasingly acidified for many decades to come.

Ocean acidification diminishes the normal planktonic release of dimethyl sulfide. DMS helps shield the Earth from various forms of destructive radiation. (August 25, 2013, Nature Climate Change, authors: Six et al.)

Phytoplankton and zooplankton are the basis of the food web in the oceans. All plankton are sensitive to temperature increases in varying degrees depending on species involved. In general, greater temperatures slows reproduction rates. All plankton are sensitive to greater acidification of marine water. Greater acidification is more corrosive to the calcium carbonate shells that plankton create to house themselves. As the basis of the marine food web, the disappearance of phytoplankton and zooplankton imply the coming collapse of the marine food web (October 17, 2013, Global Change Biology, Hinder et al.). Acidification of the marine environment appears to be occurring rapidly (March 26, 2014, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Sutton et al.).

Current conditions are creating a world in which jellyfish are increasingly dominating the seas (Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean, Lisa-Ann Gershwin, 2013). Organisms with shells are in decline. We are creating a world in which the ocean as a food source for humanity may come to an end. Jellyfish contribute to climate change via (1) release of carbon-rich feces and mucus used by bacteria for respiration, thereby converting bacteria into carbon dioxide factories and (2) consumption of vast numbers of copepods and other plankton, further contributing to the decline in population of the base of the oceanic food chain.

REFLECTIVE CLOUD COVER

As temperatures in the atmosphere warm, fewer clouds are formed and more transparent water vapor will exist. With fewer white clouds, less sunlight will be reflected back into space and more heat will be directly absorbed by the Earth (January 2, 2014, Nature, Sherwood et al.).

Clouds form up to an altitude of 45,000 feet (13.7 km). This includes the lower stratosphere, but well below the ozone layer. With altitude, temperatures drop. In the stratosphere temperatures have been in the range of -58°C (-72°F). Halfway up in the troposphere temperatures are often in the range -10°C (14°F) to -65°C (-85°F) range. It is the coldness that causes water vapor to form minute water droplets or minute ice crystals. It is billions of these droplets or ice crystals that form the white clouds we can see.

As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, less clouds form from the greater amounts of water vapor held in the atmosphere. Less clouds means less solar radiation reflected back into space. More water vapor concentrations means more greenhouse effects from that component of the atmosphere. Because the atmosphere is thinner at the poles, these effects will be greatest in the polar regions.

OCEAN CURRENTS

Deep ocean currents are apparently slowing according to some researchers. [The concern here is over the potential collapse of the thermohaline cycle, of which the Gulf Stream is a part. One effect of such a collapse would be the end of the oceanic conveyor belt carrying tropical warmth north to the western shores of Europe.]

OCEAN WARMING

Initially, when carbon dioxide began increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, much of it was absorbed in the cold waters of the oceans. Cold water generally absorbs greater amounts of gases than warm water. For instance, there is more dissolved oxygen in cold water than in warm water. Thus there is more biomass of living organisms in cold water than in warm water. As the oceans have warmed, their capacity to absorb and dissolve more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has diminished significantly. If the oceans warm enough, they will start returning dissolved carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere.

As the ocean warms, and oxygen levels fall, the amount of life that the oceans can support will fall as well. This means less food from this source for the support of human populations.

It seems that from 1998-2013, 90% of global warming occurred in the oceans. This rate of warming hasn’t been seen for 10,000 years. Warmer ocean temperature will eventually cause rapid atmospheric temperature rises. The oceans are currently acting as a heat sink, absorbing a lot of heat that would otherwise warm the atmosphere directly (February 9, 2014, Nature Climate Change, authors: England et al.).

CONCLUSION

The prediction by some that the human species, and many if not most other species, will be driven to extinction in a 15-30 year time-frame by abrupt climate change may be alarmist. Even the most generous scientific estimates of impending human extinction are in the 100- to 200-year range. However, there appears to be little doubt that climate change is proceeding at an accelerating pace. Every time a new assessment is made of the various processes contributing to climate change, they appear to be occurring faster than the models were predicting.

Tipping points may soon be reached in which, for instance, methane release becomes sudden and enormous compared to today. These sorts of things are real possibilities. This is often the nature of positive feedback systems (non-linear dynamics).

The chances of reversing the on-going process of climate change do appear to be remote. Even the complete cessation of human production of greenhouse gases will not change the fact that there is about a 40-year lag time between what is put into the atmosphere today and its ultimate effects on climate change. A substantial reduction of human contributions of further greenhouse gases would require the virtual cessation of industrial economies, elimination of the vast domestic herds of methane producing ruminants (goats, sheep, cows, camels) and horses, and a voluntary and significant reduction of the human population itself. Even if these changes could be accomplished instantly, another 40 years of accelerating climate change is already in the pipeline. It boils down to a lot of unknowns within a framework of inevitable profound increases in atmospheric heat, ocean water heat, acidification of the oceans, collapse of the oceanic food chain, the release of methane from the ocean floor, the substantial melting of sea ice and land-based ice sheets, the substantial rise in sea level, and the consequent decrease in human agricultural production.

The only real question is how fast will the acceleration of all these processes turn out to be when all is said and done. Governments have a vested interest in preventing unbridled panic in human populations. You can imagine how human behavior would change if everyone were aware of an impending collapse of all systems that support human life. Thus, what seems to be a systemic erring on the side of overly conservative projections concerning the climate change process are, in reality, a political and social self-protective response.

Climate is complex. Climate change is much more complex. Ultimately, exact predictions of when human extinction will occur due to climate change are guesses based on trends. When that extinction will occur is what is in debate. And we are likely to discover the answer to “when?” only as it’s undeniably happening.

Climate change deniers epitomize, in my view, the statement by 1950s Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger:

“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”

As Chris Mooney noted in a recent article (“The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science”):

“When we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing.”

David Pollard is a long-time environmental activist. His blog (How to Save the World) offers a piece called “In Defense of Inaction” in which he states:

“No one is in control. The enemy, if there is one, is not a cabal of elites, but a set of co-dependent collapsing systems that every one of us has a vested interest in trying to perpetuate. Systems we have all helped co-create and are almost all dependent on.”

WHAT DOES ALL THIS CHANGE MEAN?

How should we live our brief time on Earth? The bottom-line answer to this question has not changed. Humans will continue to maximize their pleasures and minimize their pains. They will continue to reproduce, eat, drink, respire, eliminate metabolic waste products, grow, decay and die. This is the script written deep in our DNA. Everything else is optional window-dressing. Even within the larger idea of species this holds true — beginning, duration and extinction, with a relentless gathering and use of natural life-supporting resources along the way.

[H.W.P.T.R.A.]

Enjoy!, and Be Kind. [MG,Jr.]

<><><><><><><>

References not explicitly noted above:

BBC documentary: “The Day the Earth Nearly Died”

McPherson, Guy and Baker, Carolyn; Extinction Dialogs, How to Live with Death in Mind, Next Revelation Press, Imprint of Tayen Lane, ©2015

Kean, Sam; The Violinist’s Thumb, and Other Lost Tales of Love, War, and Genius, as Written by our Genetic Code, Little, Brown, and Co., © 2012

Malcolm Light posts in the website, Arctic News. Malcolm Light has been working on arctic methane research since 2000.

Malcolm Light, Harold Hensel and Sam Carana, Arctic News, “North Siberian Arctic Permafrost Methane Eruption Vents” (mantle methane leakage via late Permian deep penetrating fault and shear fracture systems rejuvenated by carbon dioxide and methane induced global warming), April 10, 2015.

Numerous fact verifications through Internet science articles including many from Wikipedia.

<><><><><><><>

ADDENDUM (23 January 2017): Outline History of Awareness of Climate Change
by Manuel García, Jr.

The clock for a public policy response to the “energy crisis” (now enlarged to “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”) started ticking in October 1973 with the First Arab Oil Embargo (1973 Oil Crisis), and we’ve yet to get off our asses in response to the alarm (40+ years later).

Four years later, the energy problem was serious enough for President Jimmy Carter to address the nation about it on the 202nd anniversary of Paul Revere’s ride (18 April 1977). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA

Peak Oil was the fear in 1977, not Global Warming, even though science had been certain about Global Warming since 1955-1957.

What follows is a very brief synopsis of the scientific development of knowledge about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW, which is human-caused, CO2 driven Climate Change), along with incidents of the parallel world energy crisis. Quotes are noted as from one of:

(HCCS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
(HS): http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156308/
(JEA): John E. Allen, Aerodynamics, Hutchinson & Co. LTD, London, 1963.

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5-6 degrees Celsius. Meanwhile, another Swedish scientist, Arvid Högbom, had been attempting to quantify natural sources of emissions of CO2 for purposes of understanding the global carbon cycle. Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources. (HCCS)

In 1938 a British engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, attempted to revive Arrhenius’s greenhouse-effect theory. Callendar presented evidence that both temperature and the CO2 level in the atmosphere had been rising over the past half-century, and he argued that newer spectroscopic measurements showed that the gas was effective in absorbing infrared in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most scientific opinion continued to dispute or ignore the theory. (HCCS)

In 1955 Hans Suess’s carbon-14 isotope analysis showed that CO2 released from fossil fuels was not immediately absorbed by the ocean. (HCCS)

In 1957, better understanding of ocean chemistry led Roger Revelle to a realization that the ocean surface layer had limited ability to absorb carbon dioxide. (HCCS)

In a seminal paper published in 1957, Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, **, argued that humankind was performing “a great geophysical experiment,” calling on the scientific community to monitor changes in the carbon dioxide content of waters and the atmosphere, as well as production rates of plants and animals. (HS)

** Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, “Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades.” Tellus 9, 18-27 (1957)

AGW became common knowledge among aerodynamicists and atmospheric scientists by the 1960s, as witnessed by the following passage from John E. Allen’s 1963 book surveying the field of aerodynamics “for the non-specialist, the young student, the scholar leaving school and seeking an interest for his life’s work, and for the intelligent member of the public.”

Scientists are interested in the long-term effects on our atmosphere from the combustion of coal, oil and petrol and the generation of carbon dioxide. It has been estimated that 360,000 million tons of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere by man’s burning of fossil fuels, increasing the concentration by 13%. This progressive rise in the CO2 content of the air has influenced the heat balance between the sun, air and oceans, thus leading to small but definite changes in surface temperature. At Uppsala in Sweden, for example, the mean temperature has risen 2° in 60 years. (JEA)

22 April 1970: On this first Earth Day, MG,Jr decides to aim for a career in energy research, for a brave new future.

October 1973 – March 1974: The first Arab Oil Embargo (formally known as the 1973 Oil Crisis) erupts in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War (1973 Arab-Israeli War, October 6–25, 1973).

Evidence for warming accumulated. By 1975, Manabe and Wetherald had developed a three-dimensional Global Climate Model that gave a roughly accurate representation of the current climate. Doubling CO2 in the model’s atmosphere gave a roughly 2°C rise in global temperature. Several other kinds of computer models gave similar results: it was impossible to make a model that gave something resembling the actual climate and not have the temperature rise when the CO2 concentration was increased. (HCCS)

18 April 1977: President Jimmy Carter’s Address to the Nation on Energy.

The 1979 World Climate Conference of the World Meteorological Organization concluded “it appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at higher latitudes….It is possible that some effects on a regional and global scale may be detectable before the end of this century and become significant before the middle of the next century.” (HCCS)

1979-1980: The 1979 (or Second) Oil Crisis erupts from the turmoil of the Iranian Revolution, and the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980.

March 28, 1979: A nuclear reactor meltdown occurs at the Three Mile Island power station in Pennsylvania.

July 15, 1979: President Jimmy Carter addresses the nation on its “crisis of confidence” during its 1979 energy crisis (oil and gasoline shortages and high prices). This address would become known as the “malaise speech,” though Carter never mentioned “malaise.” See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kakFDUeoJKM. Have you seen as honest an American presidential speech since? “Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation.”

November 4, 1980: Ronald Reagan is elected president and the “big plunge” (the neo-liberal shredding of the 1945 postwar social contract) begins. Poof went all my illusions about an American energy revolution.

April 26, 1986: A nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power station in the Ukraine explodes, spewing radioactivity far and wide, and the fuel core melts down. The Chernobyl disaster was the worst nuclear power plant accident until the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of March 11, 2011.

1986: Ronald Reagan has the solar hot water system removed, which had been installed on the roof of the White House during the Carter Administration. The official US energy policy was obvious to me: solar energy and conservation are dead.

In June 1988, James E. Hansen made one of the first assessments that human-caused warming had already measurably affected global climate. Shortly after, a “World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security” gathered hundreds of scientists and others in Toronto. They concluded that the changes in the atmosphere due to human pollution “represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe,” and declared that by 2005 the world should push its emissions some 20% below the 1988 level. (HCCS)

All that AGW scientific research has done since 1988 has been to add more decimal places to the numbers characterizing the physical effects. That was a quarter century ago. So, I take it as a given that the American and even World consensus is in favor of probable extinction sooner (by waste heat triggered climate change) rather than later (by expansion of the Sun into a red giant). And, yes, the course of the extinction will proceed inequitably. Not what I want, but what I see as the logical consequences of what is.

<><><>

The addendum above is an excerpt from the following:

AGW and Malthusian End Times
(by Daniel P. Wirt, M.D., and Manuel García, Jr.)
13 January 2014
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2014/01/13/agw-and-malthusian-end-times/

<><><>

Addendum, 4 June 2017

No country on Earth is taking the 2 degree climate target seriously
David Roberts
29 April 2017
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels

<><><>

Addendum, 6 July 2017

Hopes of mild climate change dashed by new research.
Damian Carrington
5 July 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/05/hopes-of-mild-climate-change-dashed-by-new-research

<><><>

Energy for Society in Balance with Nature

“Solar power at 1% conversion efficiency on 2% of the land area of the United States of America would produce the total electrical energy use of the nation, 4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (4T kWh/y).”

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<> The Economic Function Of Energy <>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Economics is the consumption of energy to process matter and produce action for the maintenance and renovation of society. Just as form follows function, the right choice of an energy technology for any society is a function of its economic model and socio-economic goals. Politics is the process of determining the allocation of costs and the distribution of benefits for an economy. Therefore, the selection of the energy technologies to power a society is based on political consensus and political power.

Industrialization is a synchronized and mechanized form of economics. For example, suburbia and exurbia are industrializations of the concepts of village, town, and city. They are the stretching of human settlements into 2D space with a compensatory time contraction provided by an energy-intensive kinetic network of unitary transport vehicles.

Public debates on the influence of industrialization on the global heat balance (the average temperature of much of the biosphere), and the sensitivity of climate change to inputs of industrial waste heat and waste matter (e.g., CO2, methane, soot), are political debates on economic forms couched in terms of the relative convenience, profitability and environmental impact of different energy technologies.

Energy For Human Development

The United Nations uses an economic parameter called the Human Development Index (HDI) to characterize the typical standard of living of every nation. It is observed that affluent nations have high HDI scores (HDI ranges from 0 to 1) and a high use of electrical energy per year per person (in kilowatt-hours/year/person the range is from 0 to 30,000), while poor nations have relatively low values for both quantities. (1)

Data from 2005 include the following:

1. The range of annual per capita electrical energy use among 177 nations was between 40 kWh/year/person and 29,247 kWh/year/person. The range of HDI was from 0.281 to 0.963.

2. The United States of America ranked 10th in HDI, at 0.944, with 13,456 kWh/y/p for 4.5% of the world’s population, which produced 24.4% of the CO2 emissions from human activity.

3. The People’s Republic of China ranked 85th in HDI, at 0.755, with 1,484 kWh/y/p for 21% of the world’s population, which produced 12.1% of the CO2 emissions from human activity.

China is racing to develop, and a momentary digression is necessary on account of its rapidly changing data. Between 2004 and 2009, China’s primary energy use grew by 40%, electricity use by 70%, energy imports by a factor of three, population by 2.7%, and CO2 emissions by 44%. (2) After 2007, China’s CO2 emissions exceeded those of the United States (though per capita emission remains far below the US level). Between 2008 and 2010, world CO2 emissions rose 12.1%, US CO2 emissions by only 0.57% because of the economic slowdown during 2009, and Chinese CO2 emissions rose by 17.2%. In 2010, China’s CO2 emissions were 24.6% of the world total, and the US share was 16.4%. (3)

The United Nations calls the striving of each nation to elevate the standard of living of its population its economic development, and a fundamental part of such development is a greater availability of electrical power.

We can visualize the sequential stages of economic development as an HDI climb up an energy ladder. People who burn matter to generate heat, and have a pre-industrial society, advance their economic development by shifting to fuels of higher chemical energy content: from crop waste and dung, to wood, charcoal, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas, and then ethanol and methanol.

The higher stages of economic development are those experienced over the last two centuries by the now highly industrialized nations. Coal was the fuel of 19th century industrialization. Oil and natural gas are the fuels of rapid mass mobility and heating, and power the hyper-animated form of industrial society we know simply as “the 20th century.” Civilian nuclear power became available near the middle of that century, and remains our most concentrated source of energy for producing electricity.

In 2005, the world average HDI was 0.741, and the world average electrical energy use was 2,465 kWh/y/p. People whose lives are characterized by the low end of the HDI scale (near 0.3) can be said to remain, for the most part, in the 18th century. Those in mid-range HDI conditions (0.5-0.6) experience 19th to early 20th century living with some sprinkles of the 21st century, perhaps occasional encounters with consumer electronics like cellular telephones, or militarized police with all too modern automatic guns. Nations with HDI near the world average (0.7-0.8) are clearly modern, though they will still experience many austerities. The plateau of affluence is defined by those nations with HDI above 0.9, and energy use above 6,000 kWh/y/p.

The different levels of economic development existing today mean that no single strategy for advancement is appropriate worldwide, even though it is clear that every national strategy for development must include an effort to improve the reliable availability of energy broadly.

Several nations in the affluence plateau, like Germany, are seeking to make a transition to a post-nuclear, post-fossil fuel economy without a loss of HDI. Energy sources being explored include: solar (photovoltaic and thermal), wind, ocean (wave and tidal), hydroelectric (river power), biomass (agriculture for fuel), and conservation, perhaps the richest though least popular source.

Nations that are industrializing now, like China, and are heavily reliant on coal and oil, could decide to skip the atomic age of mid-20th century America and Europe, and leap-frog to a post-nuclear, post-fossil fuel and ultimately high HDI economy by the middle to late 21st century. A recent report in Spiegel Online International notes: “In 2004, Germany held a 69 percent share of the global solar panel business. By 2011, it had declined to 20 percent” because “Chinese competitors offer systems of equivalent quality at significantly lower prices.” (4)

Nations that remain largely pre-industrial and struggle to meet the basic needs of their people, as outlined by the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG), (5) might conclude that duplicating the 19th and 20th century developmental path of America and Europe is just not possible today, nor conscionable since the raising of their people’s HDI cannot wait two centuries. They might decide to leap-frog from the 18th to 21st centuries, bypassing the intense industrialization of the coal through nuclear economies, and instead invest in the low capital development of many local sources of renewable energy, which would be distributed near its generation sites through low-power micro grids. Such a ubiquitous, frugal, renewable-source and essentially “gridless” power system is in contrast to the concept of a few capital-intensive technologically complex and large coal, oil and nuclear power plants feeding electricity through massive regional and long-distance transmission line systems, to eventually fan out to each particular home. Just getting enough electricity to illuminate homes (enabling reading and study at night) and to power simple machines like water pumps and refrigerators (and hand tools, and perhaps even recharge cellular telephones) everywhere in a currently low HDI nation would be a revolutionary improvement.

At this point we can pose a multitude of questions with one simple query: what are the best energy technologies to power our economy into the future?

Energy Choices For An Uncertain Future

Consider the selection of energy technologies to be: renewables (R), coal (C), oil and natural gas (O), and nuclear (N). Under renewables we group the technologies that harvest energy without resorting to burning (solar, wind, ocean, hydroelectric, geothermal and conservation), and may include some biomass schemes, like methane-generating digesters of farm, household, and municipal wastes, despite the fact that they produce a fuel for burning, which produces carbon dioxide gas. Under renewables, we exclude schemes for the industrial scale agriculture of crops intended to be processed into liquid fuels and methane; this is just the depletion of soil that could be producing food to instead fuel automobiles, farmed oil.

If we think of economic development as a process of concentrating technological complexity and capital for the purposes of improving a society’s well being, then the right fuel to power that society is one whose degree of energy concentration is compatible with the technological concentration of the society. Here, we are referring as much to E. F. Schumacher’s concept of “appropriate technology” as to the earlier description of the energy ladder. (6)

Forms Of Energy In Our Quests For Power

The appropriate choice of an energy technology for any given society will usually be some mixture of the major technologies, labeled here as R, C, O, and N. Let us identify the major attraction of each of our four technologies as follows:

R: achieve MDG, power to end poverty (social power).

C: commercial power.

O: military power.

N: political power.

Renewables can be deployed locally with little capital and are thus the first choice for moving pre-industrial people out of poverty and into the upper half of the HDI range, which corresponds to lives in humane and secure conditions that Americans and Europeans would see as elementary 20th century life.

Coal is abundant, it can fuel the great furnaces of heavy industry, and it can provide the heat to generate electricity for billions of people. This is why China burns so much coal, and why also America and Europe continue to use it. Coal is the fuel of commercial power gained through heavy industrialization, a 19th and early 20th century technique of development that is perfectly suited to countries whose typical experience of life is of a comparable time, and who have much greater ambitions.

Oil is the “liquid gold” that is refined into the fuels that make the automobile culture, the airline industry, and the highly mobile global reach of the United States military possible. The many large, heavy, complex, low-mileage, high-power vehicles of the US military could not exist without jet fuels, high-octane gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil; the Air Force would be grounded, the Navy tied up at port, and the Army reduced to marching or horse-drawn wagons, since their trucks, tanks, and helicopters would be immobilized.

Civilian America could probably live quite well with only renewable energy, but it would be impossible to maintain today’s military capabilities without petroleum-based fuels. Renewables are low concentration technologies, they require large collection areas, and are completely unsuited to military mobility. If very high energy density batteries were available, perhaps the US military could maintain solar energy farms (probably all of Arizona), that constantly charged them up, to power its electrified vehicles. However, electric battery technology has not achieved anything near the energy concentration of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Electric cars remain rare because their batteries take up more space than the gas tank, which they are far heavier than, and they provide less range before being exhausted and requiring a lengthy recharge.

Nuclear reactors can power large ships like aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines, as well as large static bases, but are far too cumbersome for most military tasks. Coal can be liquefied into a fuel (producing more CO2 than the extraction of crude oil and its refinement to liquid fuels) and is probably what the US military would turn to in the event that petroleum ceased being available.

The many liabilities of nuclear power are well known, and today are being highlighted by the Fukushima disaster. But, nuclear power always has one irresistible draw: it is the source of nuclear weapons. The fascination here is entirely that of political power, the belief that in possessing nuclear weapons one possesses the ability to make the ultimate threat: to obliterate an enemy. What is often forgotten is that in order to carry out the threat one needs a reliable and accurate delivery system, usually missiles. As more nations acquire nuclear weapons and missile systems, another consideration becomes the ability to survive retaliation. As purely war-fighting tools, nuclear weapons have become obsolete because Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) guided chemical high explosives conveyed by missiles and drone aircraft can destroy targets with an accuracy of meters, eliminating the need for large-area blasts to compensate for the targeting inaccuracy of unguided gravity bombs and ballistic missiles. However, possession of nuclear weapons certainly gets their keeper the attention of other nations.

A Simple Model Of Energy Choices

So, the first method we might try for prioritizing a society’s investments in energy technologies would be to rank the four types of power the decision-makers might want (political, military, commercial, to end poverty), and then by the corresponding code letters shown earlier, we arrive at a preference ranking of energy choices. We might guess at the following two examples, and then compare them to reality:

United States:
military, commercial, political, social; (O, C, N, R).

China:
commercial, social, military, political; (C, R, O, N).

In 2009, the United States produced 37% of its energy from petroleum, 25% from natural gas, 21% from coal, 9% from nuclear power, and 8% from renewables, the bulk of which was hydroelectric. Grouping petroleum and natural gas together, these portions become: O at 62%, C at 21%, N at 9%, and R at 8%. (7)

In 2005, China produced 81% of its electricity from coal-fired plants (C), 17% was hydroelectric (R), and 2% from nuclear power (N). Petroleum is refined for the liquid fuels used for transportation. China is the world’s leading producer of renewable energy, the bulk of which is hydroelectric. With an eye to the future, China is also the largest producer of wind turbines, solar panels and solar water heaters. At the UN climate summit in 2009, China pledged to have 15% of its energy generated from solar power within a decade. (8)

An Improved Model Of Energy Choices

The previous type of analysis is too simple — we want greater insight into the politics of energy. Decision making in most countries is a blending of competitive interests, how do we account for the many possibilities of this? My response was to devise a detailed model based on the decision theory of Richard C. Jeffrey. Decision theory combines ideas from statistics, probability theory, and logic, and is the result of work by philosophers, mathematicians, economists, and logicians. (9)

The essential points of my improved model are as follows. The agent making the decisions about national investments in energy technologies is assumed to be a composite of several characters. Each of these characters represents a major constituency or interest as regards national energy policy. I considered three single-minded characters: “no nuclear,” “stop global warming,” and “maximum energy now.” The deciding agent is a weighted sum of these three characters. For example, if all three characters had equal political power, then the agent’s preferences would be an equal blending of “no nuclear,” “stop global warming,” and “max energy now.” If the portions of political power for the three characters happened to be 1/7 for “no nuclear,” 4/7 for “stop global warming,” and 2/7 for “max energy now,” then the preferences of the deciding agent would be a composite of the single-minded preferences in these same proportions. Five case studies, each with a different set of political weights, were calculated from the model and are described below.

When the deciding agent is entirely the single-minded character “stop global warming,” the ranking of investment choices is R, N, O, C (renewables, nuclear, oil and gas, coal). Clearly, this character holds off on burning as much as possible, and only reluctantly agrees to it when there is no other source of energy. Notice that a single-minded concern for global warming leads to a preference for nuclear power over combustion power.

A deciding agent that is equally split between “no nuclear” and “max energy now” (and does not care about global warming) is most likely to rank investment choices as C, O, R, N. The numerical results show that this agent is equally comfortable choosing coal or oil, so the ranking could just as easily be O, C, R, N. If this deciding agent had less of the “no nuclear” character, so that its preference ranking placed R last, then this agent would mirror the actual character the US energy mix: O, C, N, R.

A deciding agent that is equally split between “stop global warming” and “max energy now” (and does not care about avoiding nuclear) is most likely to rank investment choices as R, C, and then N and O equally. The numerical results show that the single most preferred technology is coal, but the concern over global warming boosts the incentive to invest in renewables. If this deciding agent had less “stop global warming” character, so that C was first in its ranking of investment choices, then this agent would mirror the actual character of the Chinese energy mix: C, R, N, for the generation of electricity (O is used for transportation fuels).

A deciding agent that is equally split three ways between “no nuclear,” “stop global warming,” and “max energy now” is most likely to rank investment choices as not-N, R, O, C. This agent’s first priority is to stop, end, and prevent funding for nuclear power. The next priorities are positive investments in energy sources, ranked as R, O, C.

Because of its natural preference for nuclear power, the “stop global warming” character is directly opposed to the “no nuclear” character. A deciding agent that is one part “no nuclear” and two parts “stop global warming” (and has none of the “max energy now” character) will most likely rank investment choices as R, N, O, C. This is the same ranking as that of a single-minded “stop global warming” agent. However, because there is a minor portion of the agent with the “no nuclear” character, another ranking that is nearly as probable is R, O, N, C.

While it is possible to elaborate models of this type into systems of great complexity to capture many types of opinions on energy policy and their relative political weights, and to use computers to calculate projections on the possible directions of a society’s energy politics, I think it’s better to keep the models reasonably simple and to use them as guides that help the mind organize the information from which decisions are to be drawn, and then to bring out the most important points. John von Neumann (1903-1957) said: “The purpose of computation is insight, not numbers.”

International Energy Politics

Based on what has been presented up to this point, we can propose the following as six points of probable conflict [1-6].

High HDI environmentalists, whose major concerns are the consequences of global warming (R, N, O, C), are:

[1] at odds domestically with their military and commercial sectors (O, C, N, R), which are interested in immediate power and profits,

[2] at odds with high HDI anti-capitalists, whose major concerns are political opposition to war, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power (R, O, C, N).

Low HDI economic developers, whose major concern is the immediate raising of living standards (C, R, O, N), find themselves:

[3] at odds with high HDI environmentalists on the issue of economic development (coal),

[4] they find high HDI anti-capitalists disinterested in low HDI economic development (interest is opposition to high HDI power),

[5] they find high HDI commercial sectors competitive with and thus hostile to their industrialization.

Low HDI economic developers are aware of and concerned about global warming, which is why they seek to develop R technology (C, R, O, N).

[6] They find themselves at odds with high HDI commercial sectors, who are disinterested to pay the cost of reducing their CO2 emissions (O, C, N, R), or of developing R technology suitable to low HDI conditions.

If we imagine that each of these conflicts is a simplified reflection of reality, then it is easy to see why the 2011 UN Convention on Climate Change, in Durban, South Africa, resulted in setting to 2015 the completion of an international agreement to limit carbon emissions, and waiting till 2020 for that agreement to take effect.

Now for a change of focus. Instead of trying to answer how societal choices on energy have been and will be made, we give free rein to realistic imagination and ask: what could we do to produce and use energy if there were no political barriers?

The Energy Systems Of Two Imaginary Futures

Let us sweep away all the conceptual restraints placed on the imagination by the fractious politics and societal indecision of our times, and instead visualize energy systems that are physically possible, to power economies that feed some subset of enduring human desires.

US National Solar Electricity System

Solar power at 1% conversion efficiency on 2% of the land area of the United States of America would produce the total electrical energy use of the nation, 4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (4T kWh/y).

We could imagine a single site in the American southwest that was a square with sides 427 km (265 miles) long; or 100 sites of 43 km (26 mi) square sides; or 1000 sites of 14 km (8.4 mi) square sides. If the conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity is increased to 10%, then only 18,232 square km (7040 sq. mi) of collection area are needed; this could be one site of 135 km (84 mi) square sides. The combined land areas of the White Sands Missile Range, Fort Hood Texas, Yuma Proving Grounds and Twentynine Palms Base is 18,435 square km (7118 sq. mi); imagine them being used to host a national (publicly owned) solar electricity system, US NSES.

The conversion efficiency of solar (photovoltaic) cells varies with type, age, and conditions, the extreme range being 2% to 43%, where efficiencies beyond about 20% are for specialized devices in research laboratories. One expects 15% to 19% efficiency of solar cells in the field. (10)

Solar-thermal systems convert sunlight to heat, and are of many different types. (11) A solar-thermal-electric system captures sunlight as heat in a transfer fluid (synthetic oil, pressurized steam, molten salt), which is used to generate steam that powers conventional turbine-generators of electricity. One such system, Nevada Solar One, nominally produces 64 MW of electricity from a collection area of 1.2 square km (300 acres), an efficiency of 5.3%. (12)

With a combination of photovoltaic and solar-thermal-electric systems, the United States could use 18,400 square km (7,100 sq. mi) of publicly owned land (converted military bases) to provide 4T kWh/y of socialized electricity, converted from sunlight with 10% efficiency (sunlight at 1000 Watts per square meter is assumed for only 25% of the time to account for nights and cloudy days).

The obvious difficulties with solar energy are nighttime, clouds, and dust on the reflectors or their glass covers. A solar power system can supply electricity steadily if it is paired with an energy storage system that is filled during daylight hours, and discharged during darkness. We could imagine half the electricity generated during daylight being stored for use at night.

The form of storage could be electrical, in batteries, or mechanical, as the spinning masses of large flywheels, or gravitational, as the pumping of water into elevated tanks or uphill reservoirs. At night, the batteries would be discharged, the flywheels spin down by rotating the shafts of electric generators, and the pumped storage recovered hydroelectrically. We can imagine the US NSES pumping water into Lake Mead (Nevada) during the day, for hydroelectric recovery at Hoover Dam during dark times.

As for the dust, it seems we will always need people to clean windows.

Carbon Neutral Free Market Economy

Americans reached a four-fold consensus: carbon emissions must be reduced drastically, it was absolutely essential that anyone be able to own a 13 mile-per-gallon two ton, four wheel drive SUV (a truck-based automobile), the US military required enough fuel to move all its vehicles all the time, and civilian nuclear power was acceptable if the reactors were well sealed, and the radioactive wastes were moved permanently offshore.

The Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada, (13) a vast sludgy deposit of mixed crude bitumen, sand, clay, and water, with a viscosity like cold molasses, is strip mined and softened by high temperature steam into a pressurized oily slurry that is piped to US synthetic fuel plants along the Canadian border. The large amount of viscosity-reducing heat needed along the entire length of the pipeline is supplied by electric heaters, which are powered from Canadian nuclear reactors dedicated to this purpose.

The large amounts of carbon dioxide gas released by the production of synthetic gasoline is contained at the synfuels plants and piped to the National Carbon Sequestration Portal, by the Pacific Ocean at the Oregon coast. This site has large underground tanks for the temporary storage of pressurized CO2, and its own nuclear power plant, which generates the energy needed for pumping CO2 into the National Carbon Sequestration Site at the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate.

The CO2 is pumped offshore 300 km (186 mi) and down into undersea basalt below a depth of 2,700 m (8900 ft), where it reacts to form stable carbonate minerals. (14) That these accumulating carbonate deposits may lead to an acidification of the local oceanic environment, and adversely affect marine life, is not seen as likely by the designers of this scheme.

Coal is still mined in the U.S., but it is all processed into synthetic liquid fuels for civilian and military transport. Electricity is generated primarily from nuclear power, with a small portion being hydroelectric. To compensate for the loss of coal as a fuel for producing industrial process heat (blast furnaces and such) a much larger quantity of electricity is generated than in the past, to provide industrial heat electrically.

The nation’s 531 nuclear reactors (up from 104 in 2008) are now of a new modular design. When the reactor core has been used up, the control rods are fully inserted into it, the containment vessel is filled with coolant and sealed, and the entire assembly is removed for disposal; a fresh replacement is installed. The spent sealed vessels are shipped to the National Nuclear Embarkation Facility in South Carolina. These sealed vessels, called “plugs,” are carried by specialized container ships to sites along the Mid-Atlantic Bathymetric Disposal Line. This line runs along the ocean floor about 4,000 meters below the surface, parallel and to the west of the rift valley in the middle of the tectonic spreading zone known as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

The plugs are unloaded through the bottom of the container ship’s hull, and guided by robotic submersibles to prepared emplacement holes, which have been drilled into the ocean floor. The rate of tectonic spreading is about 2.5 cm (1 in) a year, so the Mid-Atlantic Bathymetric Disposal Line moves west, along with the rest of North America, at a rate of 25 km (15.5 mi) every million years.

By these means, Americans are able to continue with their preference for luxury truck-like road vehicles, suburban sprawl, air travel, and a high HDI lifestyle, without increasing the carbon emissions of the nation. However, these emissions remain high on a per capita basis, and global warming continues.

Parting Thoughts And A Fantasy

Life is effort, and effort is energy in use. As a society, the types of energy we use and seek to acquire are reflections of who we are. Our political conflicts are like the squabbles of scavengers assembled around a fallen carcass on the Serengeti Plain, and they have their echoes as conflicts over national and international energy policy. Regardless of whether we choose to tear our earth apart by competitive selfishness, or to nurture it communally, we will have to do a great deal of work to maintain reliable cycles of energy use that sustain our many nations. I believe that working cooperatively releases more energy for improving the HDI for everybody.

An African Fantasy

The Sahara Solar Energy Consortium includes the countries Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara. With technical experts from Germany and Spain, and armies of workers from the host countries, the SSEC has built many solar energy farms across the Sahara, transmitting low-cost electrical power to all of Africa, and easily paying for itself (and the African development it enables) by exporting electrical power to Europe via the undersea Trans-Mediterranean Conduit. The SSEC is the world’s leading supplier of hydrogen gas produced by the electrolysis of water. Hydrogen gas is used to power fuel cells used as back-up generators of SSEC electricity. A hydrogen fuel cell is a device that converts the heat released by oxidizing hydrogen (burning it into steam) into electricity. (15) The steam is captured for reuse, naturally.

Notes

1.  M. García, Jr., Energy For Human Development, (a series of reports from 2006),

Energy for Human Development

2. “Energy Policy of The People’s Republic of China,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

3. “List of Countries by Carbon Dioxide Emissions,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

4.  Alexander Neubacher, “Solar Subsidy Sinkhole: Re-Evaluating Germany’s Blind Faith in the Sun,” Spiegel Online International, 18 January 2012,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/solar-subsidy-sinkhole-re-evaluating-germany-s-blind-faith-in-the-sun-a-809439.html

5. “Millennium Development Goals,” United Nations,
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

6. “E. F. Schumacher” (1911-1977),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher

7. “Energy in The United States,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

8. “Renewable Energy in The People’s Republic of China,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

9.  Richard C. Jeffrey, The Logic of Decision, 1965, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

10. “Solar Cell Efficiency,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency

11. “Solar Thermal Energy,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

12. “Nevada Solar One,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

13. “Oil Sands,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

14. “Carbon Sequestration,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

15. “Fuel Cell,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Originally published at Swans.com on 27 February 2012
http://www.swans.com/library/art18/mgarci41.html

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

How “The Economic Function of Energy” came to be written.

As part of my professional technical work in 2006, I devised an improved analytical fit (a curve) to the correlation between national HDI and average electrical energy use per capita, for 177 nations. My employer (Livermore Lab) hoped to use this result in grant applications seeking funds for nuclear energy research, arguing it was a social benefit (this was for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, a program thankfully now dead). I continued in this job effort by applying the decision theory of Richard C. Jeffrey to devise simple models of how an agent (such as a government policy-making body) might rationally select what type of energy technology to invest in for the best results in raising a nation’s HDI.

Given that raising HDI was my stated goal, and not maximizing profits to a group of speculators (such as corporations), my decision theory models always pointed to renewable energy technologies as better than gas, oil and coal. It is obvious that climate change and environmental improvement or degradation have significant impacts on HDI. So, I combined my technical work on HDI curves and decision theory to justify my recommendation that my employer instead focus on the improvement of solar and renewable energy systems. This was my last project before retiring in 2007. I found much of the data quoted in “The Economic Function of Energy” during 2006-2007.

In 2007, I was urged (by two academics) to write a clear explanation of climate change science, aimed at convincing Alexander Cockburn (1941-2012), the political journalist, and the publisher-editor of Counterpunch (along with Jeffrey St. Clair), that his climate change skepticism was misplaced. That article is

Climate and Carbon, Consensus and Contention
4 June 2007

Climate and Carbon, Consensus and Contention

and it did not change minds one way or the other. Also, it is a very good article.

In 2011, I thought I would write a book on energy and climate change politics based on all I had learned in my investigations into

Energy for Human Development

Energy for Human Development

, HDI, energy policy decision theory models, and climate change science.

In December 2011, I completed an outline for this planned book, and that outline is now published on this blog.

Closing the Cycle: Energy and Climate Change

Closing The Cycle: Energy and Climate Change

Once I had the outline, I realized that my imagined book would be encyclopedic, which is to say impractical for me to write. I decided that the best way to make use of all that I had learned was to write reasonably-sized articles for a general readership, articles that were informative and clear without diluting the technical insights, and which provoked thought (I hoped).

“The Economic Function of Energy” is the result of that focus. It is my favorite of my essays to date, I think it is my best work of synthesis. It won’t change minds one way or the other, but I am very happy I developed to the point where I could and did produce it.

Enjoy!

<><><><><><><>

Environmentalism, Maslow Needs and Civilization’s Power Cycle

“The relationship between society and nature and the need to provide a decent standard of living for every human being under conditions of nonstop population growth present themselves as quandaries defying pat responses.” (Louis Proyect, “The Life, Loves, Wars and Foibles of Edward Abbey,” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/15/the-life-loves-wars-and-foibles-of-edward-abbey/)

Louis Proyect’s article is very good because it is so thoughtful, rather than polemical, in presenting the conundrum of achieving naturally sustainable prosperity and advanced social development worldwide. Among the conflicting attitudes he points out are that between anarchist “Abbeyists” (after Edward Abbey) intent to prevent the industrialized exploitation of the wilderness lands of the American West (e.g., by sabotaging road building and logging equipment, and protesting dam construction) versus the zeal for rapid economic growth through gargantuan projects (e.g., hydroelectric dams, mines, metal refining plants, atomic power) in the New Deal ideology of socially regulated capitalism during the Franklin Roosevelt administration, as well as under the Stalinist Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in Russia (the Soviet Union), and the Communist Party in China to this very day.

How do we strike a balance between the elevation of impoverished masses versus the despoliation of vast wilderness?; the satisfying of dire human needs and enduring popular desires versus preserving an abundance of unaltered nature for future appreciation?

Can we better understand the concern by any person or group for preserving the environment and regulating, transforming (to “green”), reducing or even eliminating industrialization (a.k.a. “development”) so as to preserve wilderness and minimize further global warming, by seeking to locate their concerns within Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs? Let’s try.

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) devised a hierarchical classification of human needs, which can be summarized by the following five tiers, from most basic to most elevated:

1. Physiological
Meeting the physical requirements allowing the human body to function and human life to survive.

2. Safety
Having personal security, good health and well-being, financial security, and social security and insurance against accidents, illness, ill fortune and traumas.

3. Love and belonging
Belonging to and being accepted by a social group: an intimately bonded pair, a family, friendships, worker solidarity crews, religious groups, professional organizations, sports and enthusiast associations, gangs.

4. Esteem
Possessing two levels of esteem: first, that achieved by being held in high regard by others generally, or at least being respected or recognized for having gained social status, fame or notoriety; and, secondly, self-respect achieved by having met the challenges of one’s personal life — experience.

5. Self-actualization
The desire to become all that one believes one could be, and the desire to understand all that one believes one could know. Ultimately, this is self-transcendence, the giving of oneself into a higher goal, purpose, state-of-being or consciousness.

Human beings are sufficiently complex that most of these five types of needs are being addressed simultaneously in every individual at every stage of their lives, and regardless of their culture. However, the stage of one’s development (e.g., infancy, childhood, the teens, maturity, old age) as well as one’s culture and external circumstances (e.g., prosperity and peace, devastation and war) will strongly influence the weighting each of the five needs receives in any individual’s psychological processing of the moment.

People who live close to the land and which may be threatened by immediate despoliation, such as Amazonians witnessing clear-cutting of their tropical forests, and river pollution caused by the dumping of wastes from mines, drill sites for fossil fuel extraction, and industrialized meat-producing farms, would have an environmentalism grounded in Maslow’s basement tier of the physiological need for survival.

People in the poorer urban and rural neighborhoods of the developed world who are concerned about their exposure to dumped toxic chemicals, such as in the notorious Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, New York, in the 1970s, and the many rural areas in Appalachia poisoned by toxic mine wastes, and American communities today dealing with the poisoning of their water supplies by the dumped effluents from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) wells for the extraction of geologically trapped natural gas, will have an environmentalism based on Maslow’s second tier, the need to achieve personal security and ensure personal good health and well-being, and avoid experiencing catastrophic ill fortune through illness and financial ruin (as with the collapse of property values).

Some environmentalists whose personal circumstances leave them secure as regards Maslow’s physiological and safety needs are motivated by a need for inclusion in a supportive social group, and they participate in organized environmental activism. Their roles in such groups might be quite low-profile and ordinary, but they are rewarded by a sense of worthy purpose and the camaraderie of others similarly dedicated.

For some secure individuals (regrading the first three levels of needs) environmental activism is a way to achieve esteem in the eyes of the larger society. Such individuals might be scientists, academics, authors, celebrities and policy-makers who work to inform, alert and motivate larger public audiences to the immediate moral imperatives and more distant social benefits of a concerted national effort to preserve environments, stop antiquated though still profitable (and/or subsidized) extractive industries and industrialized carbon-dioxide producing practices, and to begin now to transform the entire paradigm of how humanity concentrates and uses energy. It is a simple fact of human nature that being seen as a hero is a very strong motivator, even among people who seek that recognition in work for the public good.

A higher level of esteem-fulfillment is achieved by individuals whose environmental activism becomes a personal challenge through which they seek to fully develop their own potential as creative and productive individuals, in a way that maximizes their personal contributions to the public good. The need fulfilled here is that of gaining a self-respect that withstands critical self-scrutiny.

The first four levels of needs as defined by Maslow are called “deficiency needs” because if they are not met the individual will feel anxious and tense — their experience of life will be deficient. Once the deficiency needs are satisfied, the individual will be psychologically freed to focus on the highest level need, which is for self-actualization.

Self-actualization is a need that is beyond any concern of gaining esteem in the eyes of society, or even of emerging triumphantly from rigorous self-criticism. This is a self-respect beyond ego-gratification, gained through the knowledge that one has made good use of the unique opportunities life has offered you, with results that have made a positive difference whether such an effect is noticed in your lifetime or not. Self-actualization is the transcendence of consciousness beyond the stratum of social convention and ego — spirituality if you will — in this case achieved though a dedication to environmentalism.

It is easy to see that when lower tier needs are unfulfilled it is difficult if not impossible to focus on higher tier needs. The mental tranquility of self-actualization is more easily achieved in a safe place and with a full stomach.

A broad environmental movement would include a wide variety of people, from those close to the land and in poverty, to the bureaucrats, consumers, careerists and celebrities of the movement, and on up to the spiritual environmentalists. A successful movement will include a wide spectrum of personal motivations that all focus on a unified social purpose.

Louis Proyect describes three other examples of clashes between human needs (pursued traditionally) and modern environmentalism. The subjects of these clashes are poverty relief financed by oil revenues, whaling, and undocumented Mexican immigration into the U.S.

The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is banking on the country’s vast oil reserves to pay for popular economic and social uplift, and this scheme is currently weakened by low prices on the global oil market. Northern Hemisphere environmentalists (in secure personal circumstances) would prefer Venezuela to formulate development plans not based on oil extraction, but it is economically and psychologically impossible for a conscientious nation with many poor people to cease exploiting a toxic resource it has in abundance and which the rest of the world lusts for, regardless of the environmental consequences. This is a clash between tier 1 and 2 needs in Venezuela, and the upper tier needs of environmentalists from the wealth zones of the Northern Hemisphere.

It is obvious that industrialized whaling (today by Japan, Norway and Iceland) has been economically unnecessary for over a century, and is morally and environmentally indefensible now. Its perpetrators claim they are preserving cultural and occupational traditions, but all industrialized nations are sufficiently advanced and sufficiently wealthy to quickly end the practice and occupationally rehabilitate, or pension off, their whalers, without damage to their national economies. Basically, the appeal to “tradition” is an excuse without merit. Whaling is part of a past that industrialized humanity has evolved far beyond.

However, it might seem unkind to oppose the whaling from long canoes and small boats by the 1,200 member Makah Indian band of Washington State, who kill their whales with hand-launched harpoons followed by rifle shots. The Makah’s whaling is a kinship ritual of ancient tradition, the whale meat being shared out in a communal ceremony, a potlatch.

The first whaling clash here is between environmentalists from some of the Northern wealth zones who are operating from their upper tier needs, and non-environmentalists from different Northern wealth zones who are fanatically focused (as in Santayana’s epigram) on their mid-tier needs for belonging and esteem, which they cannot imagine achieving in new non-whaling ways.

The second whaling clash here is between environmentalists from the Northern wealth zones who are operating from their higher tier needs, and impoverished North American survivalists (81% of Makah live on a reservation with 51% unemployment) who are operating from their mid-tier needs for belonging and esteem, which they wish to continue finding through ancient traditional practices of communal labor-intensive whaling and the dividing of the spoils.

Industrialized (commercial high-tech high-power artillery) whaling is completely inexcusable and we should ban it without further consideration. What about Makah whaling? I would end this practice also.

One can and should have sympathy for American Indians and other aboriginal people whose populations and cultures were destroyed, or severely eroded, by colonialism and expansionism (e.g., Manifest Destiny). The enlightened attitude toward such cultures today is to allow them to organize their own affairs on the lands they retain, and to exercise their cultural practices with minimal interference. That said, I do not believe that an appeal to tradition, as a sacrosanct form of social inertia, is justified as an excuse to resist transitioning to healthier and more intelligent social norms. All human societies have evolved as they have gained more knowledge about the workings of their environments, and all the human societies of today have moved beyond many of their ancient practices, some of which were barbaric. There is no reason why the Makah cannot devise a communal labor-intensive activity that produces an abundance of food without killing a whale, for a special occasion in which it is shared out. They can continue affirming their cultural ties of belonging and mutual esteem by evolving their communal ritual to fit the expanded environmental understanding humanity now has globally. A living culture evolves in response to environmental change and increased knowledge.

Some American environmentalists are opposed to the large influx of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Latin American, and they advocate for effective barriers to illegal border crossings, because they see this human tidal wave as a social phenomenon that degrades the quality of the environment in the American Southwest. The combination of masses of people tramping through fragile desert terrain, the accumulation of garbage dropped by migrants, and the increased vehicular and air traffic associated with border patrol operations, all degrade the wilderness areas of the American Southwest. The migrants are simply desperate to walk out of a failed economy and into relatively better circumstances, and then to be able to wire money back home to their families. The impact on the environment of this mass migration is just collateral damage in a class and cultural war for economic survival. Anti-immigrant American environmentalists are operating from their upper tier needs, in opposition to the migrants who are operating from their basement needs.

Everything is intertwined in the real world, and it will never be possible to solve one problem, such as “climate change” or “environmental degradation,” in isolation from all the other factors that combine to produce the cycle that powers civilization. The four grand links of that cycle are: economics, environmental stewardship, energy development, and industrialization.

Economics: the personal need by billions of laboring people for economic security.

Environmental stewardship: the preservation or degradation of natural environments, sustaining habitability and harvesting resources.

Energy Development: how energy is extracted from nature and made available for powering civilization: electricity and fuel.

Industrialization: how the work performed by industrialized civilization meets the economic needs of humanity’s billions (and so on around the cycle).

“Fixing” an environmental problem (like global warming) is impossible without making adjustments in economics, energy development, and industrialization (energy use and political economy); you have to straighten out the whole wheel.

Problems in the economic dimension, such as poverty and mass illegal immigration, are linked to choices made about energy development, such as the burning of fossil fuels which causes global warming and in turn leads to the problem of degraded environments desperate migrants flee from; and those economic problems are also linked to choices made about how the benefits of industrialization are to be shared out with the laboring masses: politics.

It is much easier for activists to think one-dimensionally about the link in civilization’s power cycle that is their special concern, such as environmentalism, and to hammer away at society on that note. But, the nature of our world is such that enduring improvements along any one of civilization’s four fundamental dimensions will result from a linked evolution of all of them.

Those activists who seek to advance their vision of society multi-dimensionally, though their particular concerns are narrowly focused (such as in environmentalism), will have a more complicated job of advocacy, but the results of their work are less likely to be futile.

<><><><><><><>

The following two web-links lead to articles that contain the technical “back story” to what I call “civilization’s power cycle.”

The Economic Function Of Energy
27 February 2012
http://www.swans.com/library/art18/mgarci41.html

Closing the Cycle: Energy and Climate Change
25 January 2014
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2014/01/25/closing-the-cycle-energy-and-climate-change/

<><><><><><><>

“The Economic Function Of Energy” is now also posted on this blog at:

Energy for Society in Balance with Nature
8 June 2015
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/06/08/energy-for-society-in-balance-with-nature/

<><><><><><><>

Addendum, 8 November 2019: Articles Related to the Above

Global Energy, Population and Warming by Manuel García, Jr., http://manuelgarciajr.com
what they are, what will happen, and what we should do;

<><> Complete Overview (Parts I, II & III; 3 links):

Our Globally Warming Civilization (2 June 2019)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2019/06/02/our-globally-warming-civilization/

Oil, Population, Temperature, What Causes What? (9 June 2019)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2019/06/09/oil-population-temperature-what-causes-what/

Ye Cannot Swerve Me: Moby-Dick and Climate Change (15 July 2019)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2019/07/15/ye-cannot-swerve-me-moby-dick-and-climate-change/

<><> Science Explained (energy, physics, computer models described; 2 links):

Closing The Cycle: Energy and Climate Change [25 January 2014 (7 December 2011)]
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2014/01/25/closing-the-cycle-energy-and-climate-change/

Climate and Carbon, Consensus and Contention [18 September 2017 (4 July 2007)]
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2017/09/18/climate-and-carbon-consensus-and-contention/

<><> Technicalities (green energy, HDI, physics, math, numbers, possibilities; 3 links):

Linking Energy Use And Human Development [9 June 2019 (28 April 2006)]
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2019/06/09/linking-energy-use-and-human-development/

Energy for Society in Balance with Nature [8 June 2015 (27 February 2012)]
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/06/08/energy-for-society-in-balance-with-nature/

Energy for Human Development (9 November 2011)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2011/11/09/energy-for-human-development/

<><> Sociology of Global Energy, Warming, and Human Extinction (3 links):

Environmentalism, Maslow Needs and Civilization’s Power Cycle (20 May 2015)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/05/20/environmentalism-maslow-needs-and-civilizations-power-cycle/

Choosing Dignity During Climapocalypse (26 May 2018)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2018/05/26/choosing-dignity-during-climapocalypse/

Black Gold, Maximum Entropy (Redux)
21 June 2019 (21 October 2013)
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2019/06/21/black-gold-maximum-entropy-redux/

<><><><><><><>

Technical Fixes For Climate Change?

The idea of technological fixes for climate change (undoing global warming and its undesirable consequences) is as perennially popular as the hunger for diet pills and fat reduction skin creams without side effects, instead of the strictures of a change of diet and an increase of exercise. Like all weight-loss-without-effort pills and creams, proposed technological fixes for climate change, without any change in civilization’s energy diet and exertions for conservation, are (and will be) just as effective. It may well be that the consensus in favor of human stupidity is Nature’s way of saving the planet — from us.

Despite my present belief that commenting on the human comedy is pointless (at least for me), I could not resist saying a bit about some proposed technological fixes to climate change described in a recent article posted on a popular web site for social and political commentary. While I don’t “do physics” anymore, I still find it interesting, especially when it is about natural phenomena. Following is my recent note, which is a gloss on the cited article, by Robert Hunziker.

Hope in technology springs eternal. I enjoy Robert Hunziker’s articles on climate change, which appear in Counter Punch. His current article “Climate Change Meets High Tech,” http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/18/climate-change-meets-high-tech/, is really about energy technology research ideas proposed as solutions to the global warming problem, and I want to offer some words of caution about them.

My comments follow on three technologies: a new fuel cell that extracts CO2 from seawater, space-based solar energy beamed to Earth via microwaves, and controlled thermonuclear fusion energy on Earth.

The Naval Research Lab’s proof-of-concept experiment to extract CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2 (hydrogen) from seawater, and combine these two gases into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is aimed at a purely military objective and is not a “game changer” to solve our CO2-emissions global warming problem. The NRL research project (and advertisement for more funding) is described at http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept

The NRL apparatus is a new and innovative fuel cell. In general, fuel cells are vaguely like the heating of an old-fashioned liquid-cell battery by an electric hot plate or a natural gas burner. Fuel cells run “forward” to convert input energy/heat into chemical reactions that produce/extract new species from an existing fluid/media; or they run “backwards” beginning with chemical reactions between fed-in species of fluids, to extract energy that is then output in the form of electricity.

One example of a forward mode fuel cell (as I described it above) is a reverse osmosis desalination unit: electrical energy is supplied to extract salt from seawater, and to produce fresh water. Examples of fuel cells operating in the chemistry-to-electricity mode are units that use heat from oxidizing natural gas (oxidized within the specialized membranes of the fuel cells, not burned as open flames) to produce electric power (e.g., for propulsion motors in city buses) with exhaust gases of CO2 and H2O. When hydrogen gas (from a pressurized tank) is oxidized instead of natural gas then the exhaust is pure H2O (steam).

As always, the result (whether output electricity or a chemical change) is of less stored/delivered energy as compared with the energy supplied (whether as electricity, heat or chemical potential energy).

Thus, the NRL apparatus uses energy to extract CO2 and H2 from seawater, and then further combines them into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, specifically aviation fuel. By the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the chemical potential energy of the aviation fuel produced will be less than the electrical energy supplied to produce the av-gas. Why do this? Because the Navy intends to use this technology on aircraft carriers for the production of aviation fuel directly from seawater, powering the process with the ships’ on-board nuclear reactors. The military objective is to eliminate the cumbersome fuel resupply chains from ports (Navy bases) to aircraft carriers at sea (on long and distant deployments).

There is less reason to use this technology on land. Perhaps, if one wished to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels from seawater (at coastal installations) with electricity supplied entirely from solar technology, then this would be a less ‘global-warming harmful’ way of producing hydrocarbon fuels than via conventional fossil fuel technology, or the even dirtier synfuels processing of coal. In all cases the energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI) will be less than 100%.

Now, for a few words about space-based power generation. Yes, capturing solar energy in space is much more effective: no clouds, and no night with properly sited solar collectors (once lofted into position by rockets and perhaps assembled by astronauts). But, how to get the power back down to Earth? The usual proposal is to send it down as beamed microwave power. Power transmission as laser light is much less efficient (the conversion efficiency of electrical energy to laser light is quite low), and the atmosphere will scatter some of the laser energy. The frequency of microwave transmission can be selected for minimal (but never zero) atmospheric scattering (little interaction between atmospheric molecules and these electromagnetic waves).

To convey reasonable power, the microwave beams would have to be intense since they would be of modest diameter (perhaps meters to 1 km). Otherwise, a wide beam would have to be captured with a large ground antenna; and probably many beams would be needed to power our industrialized civilization. The difficulty with sustained and intense microwave beams from outer space would be that they could cook holes in the atmosphere, and prove harmful to any creatures and organisms, or ships and airplanes, that might inadvertently cross their paths. These problems with microwave-beamed space-based power have been known since the 1970s, when the space-based (microwave-transmitted) power schemes were first proposed. Basically, this scheme is like the operation of unshielded (i.e., open) megawatt to gigawatt microwave ovens aimed down on us. It’s almost like H. G. Wells’ heat ray from “The War Of The Worlds.”

Now, about fusion. I fell in love with controlled terrestrial fusion energy in my boyhood, and went into science and energy research to be a part of the fusion energy future. That future is still in the future, and I suspect it will always be. Actually, we already have civilization-powering fusion energy, it’s called the Sun. It is just that we have yet to fully accommodate ourselves to the efficient uses of it.

Any controlled terrestrial fusion reactor (likely based on hydrogen and/or deuterium, and producing helium) will necessarily generate fusion neutrons and gamma rays in its core. That is the fusion energy that must be captured and converted into usable electricity (and heat). The materials that interact with this hard radiation, both to absorb the energy (like molten/fluid lithium blankets coating the inner walls of the reactor) and to contain the radioactivity (like the layered walls of the reactor vessel and its surrounding containment vessels and shields) will unavoidably become activated, that is to say radioactive. The “first wall” in particular will degrade and need periodic replacement. Hence, there will be a steady production of radioactive waste at any fusion energy electrical generation facility.

The only fusion reactor we know of today that does not produce a radioactive waste disposal problem on Earth is the Sun. Not only does it produce copious amounts of energy by fusion, while keeping the radioactive wastes 93 million miles from us, but it beams its energy to all points on Earth with admirable reliability, magnanimous equity and benign transmission.

Solar power at 1% conversion efficiency on 2% of the land area of the United States of America would produce the total electrical energy use of the nation, 4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (4T kWh/y).

We have what we need and only lack the vision to realize it.