PART VIII
1998
THE GATHERING STORM
all but wreck the societies in which
they occur.”
Alfred
North Whitehead
This
has been a strenuous task for me. I have said what I set out to say, perhaps
not as clearly or beautifully as I would have liked, but hopefully, sufficiently
clear for others to understand. That is as much as I can do.
Having
started this quest for a meaningful architectural vision in lieu of the many
romantic visions I inherited, it is only fair that I should revisit that goal
before I sign off. I have some trepidation about this task, but I shall not be
in bad company if I fail.
I
have spent all of my life thus far in what those in charge termed "the
century of progress," a century in which commerce coupled with science and
technology were to lead us to the promised land. The curtain is soon to close
on this drama, but we seem to be no closer to the Promised Land. In fact, the
land we see has been much abused since the curtain first opened, the goal still
somewhere far off.
We
have been building bigger cities (Mumford called them megalopolises) with
bigger buildings, with higher speed automobiles, and infinitely better
communication systems. Our cathedrals have been corporate headquarters, our
engineering feats the great dams and bridges, our agora the shopping mall, and
our contribution to better living, the suburbs and the slums. Much of this has
been accomplished with the help of our battleships, our automobiles, and the
resources of others.
But
our contemporary cathedrals speak mainly to corporate profits and externalized
costs. Too many dams speak to a shortsighted view of nature versus modern
infrastructure. Our bridges are big and beautiful, but they are products of the
automobile's rationale to decentralize and have helped spawn untold miles of
asphalt and ubiquitous suburbs, not to mention shopping malls and strip
shopping centers with their expansive parking lots. We have helped create vast
slums and industrial wastelands, some too toxic to correct. Our communication
systems are miraculous, but what we communicate is hardly worth the
environmental cost. Looking back, of course, it is easier to see our mistakes.
Looking ahead and attempting to correct them is much harder.
Few
countries today are at the same place politically, industrially, educationally
or socially. None have all the answers, let alone those who are currently
leading us into the new millennium. From the earliest prehistoric swap, trade
and commerce have always led the way to further integration and assimilation.
Today is no different. With the help of science and technology, this
integration is happening much faster than ever before. But scientists are also
currently focusing on the bigger picture and are beginning to discover what we
are doing right and what we are doing wrong. It is this picture which will soon
hopefully dominate our actions, for these have to do with whether we
collectively will continue to be earth's dominant specie.
I
believe it will become apparent to even the most recalcitrant ideologists, who
only change course in the face of overwhelming calamity, that indeed we are
approaching such a calamity. The symptoms are already here. It is only a
question of which symptoms will manifest themselves first and with sufficient
impact to change those hard-core mindsets.
As the
20th century draws to a close, we are discovering all the flaws, which our
"progress" brought along with its great accomplishments. Most of
these side effects were ignored or downgraded as of minor import. It is only
recently that we have been forced to face some of their impacts: the ozone
hole, global warming, polluted lakes and streams, disappearing forests,
depleted aquifers, the rapid extinction of species, et. al.
Nor
was it clear to most that while progress was bringing material success to a few
rich nations, it was concurrently increasing poverty in others. Nor was it
clear that once poor countries opted for our material progress, the increasing
side effects of their efforts would accelerate the deterioration of everyone's
mutual environment while concurrently increasing the spread between have and
have-nots within nations. Such were and are the current realities that drive
events.
It
has also become increasingly clear that while official colonialism is at an
end, economic colonialism is alive and well. Nor have human rights or democracy
taken hold in much of the world where petty dictators, leftover colonialists,
and religious fundamentalists still hold power. These, in turn, are courted and
supported by the democracies and their transnational corporations for the
mutual exploitation of the former’s citizens and/or natural resources.
The
disservices of our acts are beginning to exceed the services. Trouble is coming
out of the closet. If there is little or no basic change in our directions,
attitudes or mindsets, we are collectively in for disasters. But the realistic
potential for major institutional changes to happen in the near future is slim.
Therefore, we are going to suffer a period of painful readjustment in which the
incipient failure of our current mindsets and actions will force us to seek new
answers. The longer this process takes, the more painful it will be.
Science
and technology will need to focus on eliminating the dangerous side effects of
all services. Primary among these is the need to replace fossil fuels or
prepare to do without. I suspect that Amory Lovins' "soft energies"
will not alone suffice, nor will organic farming solve the world's food needs
until population stabilizes and consumption abates. The democracies, though currently
flawed, will need to focus on undoing the damage left over from colonialism,
the Cold War, and current economic colonialism, by reining in their own
predatory corporations, dismantling WTO, and joining with the U.N. to initiate
an international plan for eco-stability.
There are no magic words. We are not at the center of
any universe or even of our very own solar system. We are not even of primary
importance here. We are but bit players in an ongoing complex drama and we must
learn our part or be eliminated from the play. Let us hope somehow we will
muddle through.
REPORTS OF THE STORM
“Carbon
dioxide levels rise. Mercury climbs. Ocean warms. Glaciers melt. Sea levels
rise. Sea ice thins. Permafrost thaws. Wildfires increase. Lakes shrink. Lakes freeze
up later. Ice shelves collapse. Droughts linger. Precipitation increases.
Mountain streams run dry. Winter loses its bite. Spring arrives earlier. Autumn
comes later. What in the world is going on?”
National Geographic, Sept. 2004
Let
me briefly review some of the current reports on ‘the state of the world’ which
will highlight my urgent comments. Here are three in some detail. The Meadows
Group, whose first ‘Limits to Growth’ study (1972) was sponsored by the Club of
Rome, has just completed an update; ‘Limits to Growth – a 30 year update’ by
Donela Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Dennis Meadows. With the help of other U.S.
and foreign scientists, and using system dynamics theory and a computer model
called ‘World 3’, they present 10 different scenarios from 2004 to 2100. While
the first study 30 years ago was both misunderstood and maligned, their
projections have stood the test of time. This gives their current projections
much credence. What makes this study unique is that “it presents the underlying
economic structure that leads to these problems”. And what does it find these
problems are? … “We are drawing on the world’s resources faster than they can
be restored, and we are releasing wastes and pollutants faster than the earth
can absorb them or render them harmless. They are leading us toward global and
economic collapse – but there may be time to address these problems and
soften the impact.”
That’s
the big picture. The particulars are presented on graphs and charts, most of
which describe a story of ‘overshoot’, which translated means we are living
unsustainably, driven by economic exponential growth. The Meadows Group
concludes on this note:
From
this computer modeling analysis let us go to a straight forward photo/narrative
approach via the ‘National Geographic’s Magazine in their September 2004 issue.
The article is entitled ‘Global Warming- Bulletins from a Warmer World’, which
consists of 75 pages of pictures and type vividly describing our changing
biosphere and the direct impact it is having on us. National Geographic has
targeted climate, both historic and current, to detail what is transpiring
today and what it portends for tomorrow.
The
first signs of trouble occurred in the 1990’s as greenhouse warming became
apparent. Tropical seas increased water vapor energy going into the atmospheric
system with temperature increase. As a result, storms increased and droughts
lasted longer. Scientist named these climate changes “el Niño” and “la Niña”
and their impact was made worse through deforestation, loss of wetlands, and
urban infrastructure.
“What do we get when we compare hundreds of thousands
of years of climate data from glaciers, caves and coral reefs with projections
modeled by the world’s most powerful supercomputers? Factor in a heavy dose of
greenhouse gasses, and you get a harrowing forecast.”
What
you get, according to National Geographic are many drastic events from melting
glaciers to new deserts, to dying species, dead forests and displaced humans.
It is not a pretty picture. It pinpoints how human activity, even beyond the
burning of fossil fuels, is hastening warming. Finally, National Geographic
confesses, “even our scientists can not accurately predict what may happen in
the future. There are too many random factors”.
Next
let us look at a recent best seller, a book by Jared Diamond, an internationally
respected author and scientist in evolutionary biology and biogeography, holder
of several scientific awards. The book is titled ‘Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.’
He
begins by listing eight critical categories which, in each specific case, have
had major/minor roles in the failure or success of the society; deforestation
and habitat destruction, soil problems, over hunting or fishing, water
management problems, effects of introduced species on native species, human population
growth, and increased per capita impact of people.
Using
several examples from past societies, he diagnoses how some failed while others
prevailed. Looking at his list of eight it is not too difficult to imagine why
present day societies in Africa or the Middle East have already (or are in the
process of ) collapse. Although, we need to add the adverse impact our more
complex societies have had on theirs, e.g. colonialism, slavery and resource
extraction.
He
also adds four additional categories which are critical today; energy, the
photosynthetic ceiling, toxic chemicals, atmospheric changes. These focus on
today’s energy sources (fossil fuels and nuclear), maximizing photosynthesis
for plants and forests, utilizing toxic chemicals in spite of their known ill
effects, the resulting atmospheric and oceanic changes resulting from past and
present human acts. His analysis is thorough and professional. His outlook is
not too optimistic, here’s an example.
“Even if the human populations of the third world did
not exist, it would be impossible for the first world alone to maintain its
present course, because it is not in a steady state but is depleting its own
resources as well as those imported from the third world… What will happen when
it finally dawns on all those people in the third world that the first world
standards are unreachable for them, and that the first world refuses to abandon
those standards for itself?”
Diamond
does not leave us with this bleak outlook alone. He pictures the world as a polder,
a great interdependent community, and points to the Dutch whose precarious
country (below sea level) has made cooperative citizens of everyone. He points
to other countries which have made decisions for critical change, saving
themselves from collapse. He admonishes others, ourselves included; “We don’t
need new technologies to solve our problems; while they can make some
contribution, for the most part we just need the political will to apply
solutions already available”. And adds, “We must supplement typical short term
political thinking with long term planning”. Finally, he leaves us with this
quote by Winston Churchill.
“It has been
said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other
forms that have been tried from time to time”.
I must also include Howard and Elizabeth Odum’s last
book, A Prosperous Way Down, before
closing this discussion. With their eco macroscopes and sound science they
present the big picture, one of ever repeating cycles of growth, climax and
decline, of universal pulsing from microscopic organisms to stars and galaxies.
They see our current fossil fuel economy already beyond
its peak and heading down, its fuels becoming scarce and more costly to
retrieve. They outline 4 stages of growth/anti-growth: (1) growth, (2) climax
and transition, (3) descending, and (4) low energy and restoration.
At stage (2) “diversity and complexity increase.
Species with symbiotic, co-operative relationships develop. There is more
organization. Organisms divide their tasks rather than compete…. A mature urban
economy is similar to a mature eco system with many kinds of occupations,
specialties and organizations…. Regulations helps eliminate destructive
competition.”
At stage (3) “assets decrease, either because the pulse
of growth has used up the storage of available resources or because there is a
surge of destruction by the pulse of a larger scale. By one means or another,
the developed system has to adapt to coming down…. From the chronicles of
history coming down can be gradual or catastrophic.”
The
Odums hope for the gradual option and spend the latter part of their book
focused on the how of it. Briefly, they tell us, it leads to a return to a
solar energy dominated society, stage (4), but with a wiser understanding of
our relationship to our bio and geo spheres to assist us… and a long wait for
the next growth cycle. While the authors don’t point to that ‘pulse of a larger
scale’, global warming with its macro impacts appear to fit the description. It
is also clear that many parts of our world are already in stage (3) and their
descent can best be described as catastrophic.
Finally,
the Odums do not find sufficient energy sources to prevent stage (4). They
concede some soft energies will provide local help, e.g., geo thermal, wind,
biomass;, but they are skeptical regarding the potential net energy from some
sources like hydrogen and solar technologies.
“The trend of substitution of one fuel for another
continues toward more use of natural gas, but the proven fuel reserves are not
increasing. Because 71% of the whole earth empower (the energy of one kind used
up to create a product or service) comes from fossil fuels, global consumption
eventually has to be reduced to less than one-third of its current level. The developed
nations that depend on non-renewable resources for 80 – 90% of their energy
will eventually have to reduce their populations and/or their living standards
by 80-90%. However, with reduced populations we can look forward to a new but
smaller agrarian economy. Green again, enriched with knowledge developed in the
(past) fuel=rich century of complexity.”
“Net energy* evaluation of alternative energy sources show the
fallacies in many alternative energy sources claimed capable of replacing
fossil fuels. Solar technology, hydrogen technology, and fusion do not yield as
much energy as they use. Other sources are too limited in quantity. They
offer some hope for hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind power locally.
The
Meadows Group does not agree with the Odums conclusions regarding the lack of
energy. They leave us with the hope of redesigning our current inefficient and
polluting industries, but retaining the need to reduce population and
consumption to avoid ‘overshoot’.
Current
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than they have been for 160,000
years. Whatever the consequences
might be, there is no question that humanity’s emissions of greenhouse
gases are filling up the atmospheric sinks much faster than the planet can
empty them. There is a significant disequilibrium in the global atmosphere, and
it is getting exponentially worse. The processes set in motion by this
disequilibrium move slowly, as measured by human time scales. It may take
decades for the consequences to be revealed in melting ice, rising seas,
changing currents, shifting rainfall, greater storms, and migrating insects or
birds or mammals. If human beings decide they do not like these consequences,
it may take centuries to undo them.
The
pollution emissions we have discussed in this chapter are not necessary.
Pollution emissions we have discussed in this chapter are not a sign of
progress. It is a sign of inefficiency and carelessness. As industries realize
that, they are finding ways to reduce pollution emissions by rethinking
manufacturing processes from beginning to end, using “clean technology” and
precautionary pollution prevention”.
The
Odums are concerned about the coming short supply of energy and our need to
adjust by shrinking population/consumption to fit circumstances. The Meadows
Group believes we can accomplish this and avoid overshoot by efficiently
designing industry, saving energy in the process and also reduce population.
They see no shortage of energy. Neither group seems too concerned about the
rest of the world.
THE OZONE HOLE
I was
about to finalize what I considered a definitive look at the future by some of
the best scientific minds when I ran across and article in “In Context” #32. it was a ‘multilogue’ between several scientists
on the subject of hope against a background of dire predictions of global
disaster entitled “Hope and the Ozone”
by William Prescott, formerly associated with the Climate Protection Institute
and guest editor for the last edition of “In
Context”. He has written an article titled “Global Climate Change”. What follows is Prescott’s reply to
Donella H. Meadows, David Korten, and others. He paints a pessimistic picture
indeed and throws it out for the others to counter.
My understanding is
that most CFCs haven’t even reached the stratosphere yet, and that their
chlorine will later be active for 80-120 years. The 5 – 8% loss above our heads
in the last decade does NOT include those CFCs (the majority) still migrating
upwards. At 5 – 8% per decade, 50% to 80% of the ozone layer would be gone in a
century. Probably making life unlivable on this planet. But you won’t have to
wait: since most of the real danger hasn’t even arrived in the shooting zone,
the process of deterioration will most likely be rapid and non-linear –
something like the non-linear breakdowns we’ve already seen in some
acid-rain-soaked forests, or in the bleaching of coral reefs, or in many types
of desertification. Or somewhat like what’s expected with climate change. These
systems seemed like they might survive for awhile; then they fell apart. Sudden
breakdowns on the heels of continued stress.
Systems
thinking is a double-edged sword. Along with appreciating interconnectedness
and order comes an appreciation for interconnectedness and chaos,
disequilibrium. Starting from this assumption – that the stability of natural
processes can no longer be depended upon for planning our future – means that
the building of humane, sustainable culture becomes a very different, and much
less charted, adventure.
Latest
reports (2006) on the status of the ozone layer comes from University of
Alabama scientist Michael Newchurch after analyzing data from three NASA
satellites. He says “We’re not gaining
ozone but we’re losing it less quickly and the amount of chlorine in that layer
of the stratosphere has not yet peaked, but has slowed down significantly, so
we should start to see some ozone improvement in the coming years”. The findings do not put the ozone layer in
the clear, however. For one, improvements were seen only in the upper
stratosphere. “We don’t see compelling evidence that the destruction of ozone
is slowing the lower stratosphere, where 80 percent of the protective ozone
layer exists,” Newchurch says. That’s because factors in addition to chlorine,
such as greenhouse gases and changing wind currents, alter the ozone layer at
lower altitudes. But Newchurch notes that the results are a promising beginning
for an ozone layer recovery.[1] I take this to mean that we shouldn’t join Prescott
in his hopeless state just yet.
DIMMING THE SUN
There is another factor. Recently
scientists have discovered that ‘Dimming of the Sun’ is lowering projected
global warming temperatures, but not uniformly geographically. Atmospheric
aerosols, mostly sulfates are products of fossil fuel burning and other human
activities reflect sunlight back into space, thus creating a cooling effect.
They form in clouds as droplets and partially evaporate leaving concentrated
submicron aerosol droplets. They hover in clouds up to 25,000 feet reflecting
sunlight outwards. They were turning the clouds into mirrors. As scientists
started to investigate the effects of global dimming they made the most
disturbing discovery of all; those more reflective clouds could alter the pattern
of the world’s rainfall with tragic consequences. They also found that water
was evaporating more slowly than 40 years ago. When this was translated into
solar energy it amounted to 10 percent less sunlight in some locations and as
much as 30 percent in others. Why? Global dimming was the culprit. The loss of
sunlight was discovered after the 9/11 attack when airline flights were
suspended for three days.
BIODIVERSITY
We
have heard many reports from those studying the atmosphere; about global
warming and how it is impacting our lives*. Now let’s hear about biodiversity and how human
populations are causing “a runaway Malthusian exclusion” according to
conservation biologists. It appears that both temperature rise and population
growth are major factors. All are a result of fossil fuel technologies.
We
are destroying other species and their habitat for our own specie’s use both
directly through consumption and indirectly through our pollution of the
atmosphere, land and sea. . Quotes are from an article by Sarah in World Watch
Magazine, August 2006.
… species that are lost, or nearly so,
are increasingly common because human activities are driving them to extinction
a thousand times faster than the normal rate, according to the just – released Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. The
report echoes the United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published
last year, and proclaims that a “sixth mass extinction” is under way, the worst
loss of species since the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
A
group of researchers presented perhaps the most comprehensive effort to date to
quantify these possible effects in a 2004 paper in Nature.
Led
by biologist Chris Thomas (then at the University of Leeds in the United
Kingdom), the group assessed the present distributions of 1,103 animal and
plant species and projected how the habitat available to them would change
under conditions predicted by the most commonly used computer model of climate
change. As the Earth warms, boreal forest is expected to shrink towards the
poles, for example, and alpine habitat will retreat up the sides of the
mountains.
Reasoning
the habitat loss whether it’s caused by chainsaws or the greenhouse effect,
Thomas’s team calculated the proportion of habitat that species are likely to
lose as the climate warms, then used the species – area relation to predict the
number of extinctions likely to result. They found that, depending on the
assumptions of the model, 15 – 37 percent of the species would be on their way
to extinction by 2050.
It
appears that most species will be affected: plants, animals, birds, fish…. They
are all interdependent. If William Prescott is right (page 128), “That the
stability of natural processes can no longer be depended on for planning our
future – means that the building of a sustainable culture becomes very
difficult, and much less chartered, adventure.”
One
article I read recently in our local Bellingham Herald is perhaps an
illustration of Prescott’s observation. I cannot quote it directly but il will
try to summarize it. A mother seal and her pup were found by naturalists in an
inexplicable state of confusion when brought to a shelter for observation. The
two were briefly left alone. When the naturalists returned to their horror they
found the pup torn to pieces which could have only been caused by its mother.
Through subsequent analysis it was determined that the mother seal had ingested
poisoned algae. And how was the algae poisoned? It had been overheated by the
sun. The seal had become a victim of global warming.
Oceans
were the last to be explored in depth until this century. Here is a brief
digest from the experts of what is happening down below, edited from a New York
Times Article February 26, 2008. See Appendix A for world maps of commercial
shipping and human impact.
The most widespread human
fingerprint is a slow drop in the pH of surface waters around the world as a
portion of the billions of tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere from
fuel and forest burning each year is absorbed in water, where it forms carbonic
acid.
That progressive shift in
ocean chemistry could eventually disrupt shell-forming plankton and
reef-building species, particularly where other impacts, including rising
temperatures from human-caused global warming, create simultaneous stresses,
many marine biologists say.
“I study this stuff all the
time and didn’t expect the impacts to be as pervasive as we found,” Dr. Halpern
said.
The review provides a
baseline necessary for tracking further shifts, he said. It also identifies
some unanticipated trouble spots, similar to terrestrial biodiversity “hot
spots” that environmental groups have identified over the years.
Such an analysis is long
overdue, many marine biologists said in interviews. People’s conservation
concerns have mainly focused on land, even though the seas cover two-thirds of
the planet and are a vital source of food and pleasure.
Sylvia Earle, an
oceanographer and National Geographic
Society “explorer in residence,” said people care only about what
they know. A big question now is whether such surveys are providing too little
knowledge, too late.
“We learned more about the
nature of the ocean in the latter part of the 20th century than during all
preceding human history,” Dr. Earle said. “But we also lost more.”
A separate mapping effort
published this month focused on introduced
invasive species and found that 84 percent of the world’s coastal
waters were affected, with Arctic waters next in line as shipping there grows
in a warming world.
More than half the
introduced species that take hold are having deleterious effects, said Jennifer
Molnar, a conservation scientist at the Nature Conservancy who led
that study, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment.
The House of Representatives
is considering legislation
aimed at tightening controls on the ballast water that stabilizes freighters
when they are not full. Ballast water and organisms clinging to hulls and
anchors have been the source of many costly marine invasions, including the
introduction of zebra mussels to American waters and the comb jelly, a small
jellyfish, to the Black Sea.
That species exploded after
its accidental introduction in 1993, vacuuming up plankton until it made up 90
percent of the sea’s life by weight, causing fisheries to collapse. Its
population there has since crashed, partly because of the arrival of a species
of jellyfish that eats the established invader.
Among the needed steps, Dr.
Lubchenco said, are expanding protected marine areas and curbing pollution,
including carbon dioxide.
“We cannot go back in time
to some past system,” Dr. Lubchenco said. “But we can protect and restore the
functioning of today’s ecosystems so they can be as healthy, productive and
resilient as possible.”
SEQUESTERING
Rachel Carson was among the first to
alert us to the “unintended side effects” of DDT, a chemical insect spray. Her
book ‘Silent Spring’ was the first
warning shot in an increasing war against other chemicals whose side effects
were also unintentional; eg, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s); thence to
medications, acid rain, smog, nuclear radiation, ozone depletion, global
warming, and genetically modified organisms. The economists had a polite word
for what was happening,. They called it ‘externalizing costs,’ which translated
meant we, the tax paying citizens, would be paying in dollars or in our poor
health for corporate oversights. We might also be jeopardizing our collective
biodiversity.
Let me introduce a cautionary note here to the
technologists. At first our mistakes were termed “unintended side effects,”
those things which the technologists forgot to take into account or perhaps
their corporate masters were pushing too hard to get the product to market. You
might call it corporate negligence, something which their lawyers could handle
later. Sometimes it proved too much for the lawyers: a recall of all cars for some major defect or oil spills that
stopped fishing at certain locations for several years. Even in the worst
circumstance the lawyers might be able to stall a settlement in the courts for
years.
Today there is a new term for those
‘unintended effects,’ those heat sinks which fall outside the usable results
sought after. The term is ‘sequestering’ meaning ‘to set aside’ or ‘to hide.’
To date the technologists, looking to the future have suggested this solution
for all their proposed technologies to combat global warming. For coal they
propose coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC), which uses extremely high
pressures to turn coal into liquid before it is burned, resulting in less
pollution than other coal processes. That (less pollution than … etc.)
doesn’t do much to solve our problem so we must also sequester that nasty CO2.
This is big coal’s answer for generating electricity. For transportation the
technologists offer us Hydrogen Fuel Cells. These fuel cells operate like a
battery, but unlike a battery they do not run down or require recharging. They
will produce energy in the form of electricity as long as fuel is supplied; and
what is the fuel – natural gas, methanol, or gasoline. But, to get the hydrogen
necessary to operate the fuel cells they must separate out the H2 from
the carbon in the gasoline (Cx). And what to do with the carbon?
Sequester it! So much for electric generation and oil technology for industry
which requires more of the same. Natural gas and liquid natural gas (LGN) are
the cleanest of the fossil fuels but limited in supply except in
Russia*. They can be burned for heating/cooling with efficient existing
technology. Finally nuclear power. We are already sequestering our spent fuel
rods in Yucca Mountain with much subsidy and prayer.
Is sequestering a serious
possibility? Listen to Jeff Goodell discussing one sequestering field which is
currently the largest in the world. In his recent book ‘Big Coal’.
“…widespread deployment of geologic sequestration
would be a huge engineering project. To make any significant dent in the amount
of CO2 released into the atmosphere, hundreds of underground CO2
reservoirs would have to be drilled and maintained. For example, the Weyburn
field, which is currently the largest sequestration project in the world,
during the project’s twenty-five year life span, 25 million tons of CO2
will be stored underground. That sounds like a lot, but it’s only about as much
CO2 as Georgia Power’s Plant Scherer releases in a single year. Each
CO2 reservoir would spread out fifty or so square miles underground,
which means that if carbon sequestration does indeed become widespread, tens of
thousands of people will be living above giant bubbles of CO2.
I would suggest an answer but better
yet I will mention one other sequestering project that isn’t working. We tried
the atmosphere and it has only taken about 50 years of heavy use to get where
we are today! We must make a serious attempt to solve our problems. Is it worth
doing? It’s only our entire civilization that’s at stake. Is it doable? I’m not
sure but it’s worth a try. We have nothing more to lose.
POPULATION
AND CONSUMPTION
The
story of population growth from Antiquity has been summarized and analyzed by
NOVA recently:
Successive cultural revolutions, such as the
agricultural revolution, have led to the surges in population. Figure 1
summarizes again the historical record, typical of a “J-shaped” growth*, with humans filling new niches and (perhaps) not yet reaching a
limiting “carrying capacity”. One feature to note in this plot is the
lack of huge fluctuations associated with famines or wars. In fact, the nature
of J-shaped (exponential) growth is such that episodic reductions due to such
catastrophes usually do not affect the inexorable and overpowering upward
acceleration in population size. An exception is the period of the "black death" in Europe, which produced
a noticeable but small downward spike in the curve. The wholesale loss of life
due to world wars of the 20th century produced only small perturbations to the
upward trend.
The human population growth of the last century has
been truly phenomenal. It required only 40 years after 1950 for the population
to double from 2.5 billion to 5 billion. This doubling time is less than the
average human lifetime. The world population passed 6 billion just before the
end of the 20th century. Present estimates are for the population to
reach 8-12 billion before the end of the 21st century. During each hour, more
than 10,000 new people enter the world, a rate of – 1.3 per second!
Of the 6 billion people, about half live in poverty and
at least one fifth are severely undernourished. The rest live out their lives
in comparative comfort and health.
The factors affecting global human population are very
simple. They are fertility, mortality, initial population, and time. The current growth
rate of – 1.3% per year is
smaller than the peak which occurred a few decades ago (- 2.1% per year in
1965-1970), but since this rate acts on a much larger population base, the
absolute number of new people per year (- 90 million) is at an all time high.
The stabilization of population will require a reduction in fertility globally.
In the most optimistic view, this will take some time.
How might the steep rise in population growth since 1950
intersect with global warming and biodiversity? As biodiversity decreases you
might expect population growth to slow. First for the same reasons that
biodiversity is already shrinking. Habitats change due to climate
unpredictability – droughts last longer, floods occur more frequently,
temperatures increase, ice shelves collapse, wild fires increase. Population
growth itself is the obvious second cause. The needs and desires of humans,
augmented by fossil fuels and technology, are consuming resources while
concurrently diminishing habitat for other species and themselves. But there is
an overriding problem which appears intractable; the slow reaction to change in
population numbers to wars, famine, plague, (even the “black death”
hardly slowed the growth pattern).
There
is another factor which NOVA points to in its analysis of the current
population of 6 billion. About half live in poverty and at least one fifth are
severely under-nourished. The rest live out their lives in comparative comfort
and health. The former 50% live near the equator and have had no urgent need to
develop technologies or conquer nature as did those who migrated north some
eons ago.
As a
result those in the north have been able, over the centuries, to plunder their
brethren to the south of their resources, both human (slaves) and non-human,
but the situation is changing. Many in the south in particular those with
resources like fossil fuels and minerals are cognizant of the north’s urgent
need, and have organized (e.g. OPEC) to secure a fair share for their
non-renewable resources as a result they are accumulating great wealth which in
turn they have channeled into technology, not the least of which is war making
technology.
While
all this is true for the middle east Islamic countries it is not yet true for
Africa which is still being plundered by the wealthy north and the newly
wealthy Islamics. As Africa lies prostrate before this onslaught from outsiders
so too are all the primitives around the world who have or may have resources
that their rich neighbors want. They are all an endangered species – the
Mongols, the Inuit, the Maori, the Tutsi, the Mayans, the Chippewa et. al. Most
of these so called primitives have lived for centuries within the boundaries of
their original habitat without destroying or polluting it. We may miss their
survival skills once they are gone.
It is
evident that we in the north are currently dominating the homo-sapiens specie
and on an ascending population trajectory that is not expected to slow until we
reach some 10-12 billion population. It is debatable that we will be able to
survive such an increase given the known resources for food, shelter and energy
which a population that size will require, and the resultant greenhouse gases
they will generate. It is more reasonable to assume that we will reach an
impasse caused by population growth and a breakdown caused by an increase of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in say 30 years with an expected population
of 8 billion. Along the way to this impasse we can also expect the unexpected –
wars, genocide, plagues, and the breakdown of other countries, beyond those in
Africa.
* * * * * * * *
The
U.N. population division which relates population growth to energy consumption
in both rich and poor countries makes it clear that consumption and population
are major factors in energy usage.
“… it would be a mistake to think of population growth
as a challenge facing only poor nations. When population growth and high levels
of consumption mix, as they do in the United States, the significance of the
later balloons. For example, although the U.S. population increases by roughly
3 million a year, whereas India’s increases by nearly 16 million, the
additional Americans have greater environmental impact. They are responsible
for 15.7 million tons of additional carbon to the atmosphere, compared with
only 4.9 million tons in India. Wealthy countries with expanding populations
need to look at the impact of both their consumption and their population
policies.
What we are talking about, regardless of how the
scientists and technologists resolve the energy crisis, is how we must restore
our global environment with less energy. To date we have over used and misused
it. Some things are clear and urgent – restoration of lands, forests, rivers
and lakes, stopping our shrinking biodiversity is another. Population, with its
increasing Eco footprint and augmented by our fossil fuel technologies are the
main cause. Consumption per capita of consumer goods and government production
of goods and services for the general public make up the Eco footprint. Here
are two quotes from World Watch’s state of the world book for 2004, quotes are
from Tawni Tidwell. They focus on two modern giants.
Although more than a third of the world’s people live
in China and India, they now account for only 13 percent of global energy
consumption. But their energy use is rising rapidly, and these two nations both
rely heavily on coal – China for more than70 percent of its commercial energy
and India for over 50 percent. The International Energy Agency projects that
rising energy demand in China and India will account for more than two thirds
of the expected global increase in coal use between now and 2030. These
population giants will thus have enormous impacts on the global energy market
and the environment in the decades ahead.
China’s economy has more than quadrupled in size since
1980. During the 1980s, electricity demand in China increased more than 400
percent because of appliance purchases. In India, the number of “affluent”
households – grew six fold in just five years, while the number of low-income
families decline significantly. Such trends promise to accelerate, feeding a
growing consumer class that wants access to the conveniences of home appliances,
light, gas-powered cooking, and increased mobility.
* * * * * *
*
Paul
B. Sears wrote “Deserts on the March” in 1940. He continued to expand on his
thesis through the 4th edition in 1980. What he had to say was
probably the most insightful view of man’s husbandry, population growth, and
the growth of deserts.
Here
is a brief quote by Sears from his 4th edition:
There is not much in the
story of China, India, and Egypt to suggest that an entire continent can be
exploited with the efficiency of the machine age while its inhabitants multiply
and enjoy what the politicians speak of as the “American standard of living.”
In short, there is not much
in the record of lands occupied by man before he crossed the Bering Strait into
America to show that he has been able by hard toil and trial – and – error
cleverness to preserve the ability of his environment to support him while
increasing his own numbers indefinitely. This is not to say that environmental
damage is a simple function of population growth. Vast damage to North America
was done by a population less than half what it is now while some of the
densely populated parts of western Europe have husbanded their resources well…
…Meanwhile famines continue
to occur and deserts to spread, generally where population is otherwise
unchecked. Estimates of deaths through starvation are appalling, running into
more than one hundred thousand in the region south of the Sahara between 1973
and 1976. Here the desert margin has been advancing at an average rate of three
miles a year, while in northern Africa a million acres of crop and grazing land
are lost to desert in four years. With the exception of Europe, desert is still
expanding on every major continent…
Most ominous for the
environment, and therefore for ourselves, is the same kind of phenomenon that
lead to the disappearance of gigantic reptiles in the past. Like dinosaur
bodies, our vast political, military, and industrial units have grown faster
than the means of coordination and control.
