PART IX

2006

 

INERTIA OR CHANGE (Is there hope?)

To be or not to be that is the question

William Shakespeare

 

            It has taken the Catholic Church 1500 years to exonerate the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. It has taken Islam more years to forgive the Christians for the Crusades – and they many never forget. It has taken women in the great United States 130 years to secure voting rights, and they are still struggling for equal pay at work.

            Our four overviews of the worlds’ present situation leave us with a lot of problems but with hope for the future. The Meadows Group tends to put most of the blame on the financial sector of the U.S. Economy. Perhaps the belief that we must always have growth and in so doing we are rapidly destroying our collective environment. National Geographic scientists point to no one culprit. They seem to imply that no one is in charge; that no one is listening attentively or that we are confused as to how to act. Jared Diamond implies that like the Dutch we must realize we are all in a serious situation together and that we must work together to solve our problems.

            All of these three see the problem as multiplicity of factors caused by our misuse and abuse of natural resources. The Odums by contrast, view, what in the past, was our natural ecological reaction to our discovery and harvesting of fossil fuel energy. Now that we have reached the possible peak of available fossil fuel supplies (their assumption) and by necessity we must recede to society with much less energy, i.e., there may not be any comparable source of power to fuel our present society. The Odums believe this to be true based on known alternate possibilities. They also are counting remaining fossil fuels to allow us a slow descent. This also is dubious considering global temperature predictions and rapid climate change.

 

* * * * * * *

 

            The latest reports are not reassuring. Scientists suggest that we do not have too much time to act, that global temperature is climbing steadily with our use of fossil fuels.* If it increases by 3o Celsius or higher they think we will be unable to retrace our way back to a stable world environment. When this will occur is unsure: if we do nothing it is sure to happen soon.

            This answers one quandary. We need to stop using fossil fuels or find a way to sequester CO2. It also suggests that the Odums’ plan for a comfortable way down using our remaining supplies of fossil fuels is not wise: in particular with the use of coal.

            It is now apparent (2006) that global warming is a fact. Even the Bush Administration is reluctantly facing up to this reality (though it attempts to throttle its own scientists (NASA) by rewriting their briefs).

            Let’s look at the up-to-date figures as scientists have recorded them. The earth has warmed .8o Celsius in the last century with the most occurring since 1970 and if it continues to do so in the near future, in ten years it will increase by 1.19o Celsius. This of course will vary with the use of fossil fuels, and the mix of same. With more countries using fossil fuels than ever before it will be difficult to assess. What the scientists do know from observation of the current temperatures is disturbing, some would add catastrophic. 30 Celsius increase they feel might be a point of no return (Prescott’s “Fear Of” sudden breakdown on the heels of continued stress) some estimate we could reach that point in a decade, others maybe 30 years. James Hansen with NASA is adamant. He gives us ten years from 2006.

* * * * * * * *

Besides needing that human component, events loom scariest when they pose a threat next week, not next decade or beyond. Climate change is already here, but the worst of it would arrive if the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt, which is decades away. "The brain is adapted to deal with the here and now," says Gilbert.[1]

            “Perhaps paradoxically, the power of fear to move voters can be most easily understood when it fails to—that is, when an issue lacks the ability to strike terror in citizens' hearts. Global warming is such an issue. Yes, Hurricane Katrina was a terrifying example of what a greenhouse world would be like, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" scared some people into changing their light bulbs to energy-miserly models. But barely 5 percent of voters rank global warming as the issue that most concerns them. There is little public clamor to spend the kind of money that would be needed to change our energy mix to one with a smaller carbon footprint, or to make any real personal sacrafices.

A big reason is that global warming, as an issue, lacks the characteristics that trigger fear, says Gilbert. The human brain has evolved to fear humans and human actions (such as airplane bombers), not accidents and impersonal forces (carbon dioxide, even when it is the product of human activities). If global warming were caused by the nefarious deeds of an evil empire—lofting military satellites that deliver carbon dioxide into the stratosphere, say, rather than the "innocent" actions of people heating their homes and driving their children to school—"the war on warming would be this nation's top priority," Harvard University psychology researcher.

 

A FEEDING FRENZY

 

            There is a feeding frenzy in the oil market. When the price of oil topped 60 dollars a barrel investors woke up, and so did the oil industry. Suddenly they discovered there was plenty of oil to be had at 30 dollars and at 60 they could also harvest the more expensive types and  process them, i.e., sand oil, ethanol, liquid natural gas.

Here is an example of inertia at work because it is the easiest path – because the dollars are there – because the demand is obvious, and because that is what oil and gas corporations do best. One further observation – as world competition for oil/gas increases the limited supply will shrink and prices will escalate. At this stage private investors will be ecstatic but automobile users and producers may be out of business.

The following excerpts are but an example of what is driving the search for, the extraction of, refining, and shipment of oil and gas and modified derivatives of same for both developing and developed countries throughout the world.

However, resource supplying countries in Latin America and elsewhere are waking up to the fact that they are not getting a fair share for their non-renewable resources. Profits for corporations and investors may shrink some but on the good side, poor countries may get some needed relief. See quotes 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Some of these oil prospecting projects which are taking place on foreign soil are costing more than just the cost of oil. In Sudan, Iraq and Burma the cost has been human lives and those were the innocent. See quotes, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and 1.

            The following are quotes from various sources which are listed at the bottom of each page:

 

1)         Oil passed the $75 – a – barrel mark last week, largely because of concerns that geopolitical tensions over Iran’s nuclear program could interrupt exports from that country, the world’s No. 2 exporter. Traders operating in a continuous state of what they call “petronoia” are worried as well about political turmoil from key suppliers such as Nigeria, Chad or Venezuela.[2]

 

2)         With oil prices and global oil consumption at near-record levels, the radical Islamist government in Tehran is raking in more than $68.4 billion a year in oil revenues, helping it finance its nuclear program and underwrite terrorists operations. And with global oil markets sucked dry of excess by growing consumption worldwide, even a small disruption in the flow of oil would drive prices through the roof and stagger the world’s economics.[3]

 

3)         Orde Kittrie, a former State Department official who teaches economics and international law at Arizona State University says, “America’s enemies literally have us over a barrel,” America’s unchecked appetite for oil is seriously jeopardizing U.S. security, despite the billions of dollars the U.S. spends to safeguard steady access to cheap oil.[4]

 

4)         America’s demand for oil makes it rely on such U.S. antagonists as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and leaves the U.S. economy vulnerable to terrorist attacks on oil facilities – such as have recently occurred in Nigeria and Audi Arabia – that disrupt supply and send prices skyward.[5]

 

5)         With intensifying international demand for oil – especially in China and India – Americans have little choice about where their oil comes from. Galloping increases in global consumption are running ahead of conventional production. So far the gap is being filled with more costly oil production from shale and coal, for instance. . . In a recent study of oil markets at Stanford University, experts concluded there is an 80 percent chance of a significant oil shock within a decade, spreading recession and unemployment across the nation. A prolonged disruption of the West’s oil supplies is a key goal of al-Qaida, according to manifestos from Sept. 11 master-mind Osama bin Laden. Just two months ag, al-Qaida terrorists struck at the world’s largest oil-processing facility at Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia.[6]

6)         In the early 1990s, the Chinese government projected that it could have a shortfall of about 50 million tons of crude oil (30 percent of its oil needs) in 2000, while domestic crude output remained static at 160 million tons. China therefore had to rely on its ability to stake out oil reserves abroad. Oil analysts projected that China would become an oil importer—at the mercy of non-Chinese oil producing states and companies—within five years. China set about becoming a global player in the oil industry. Chinese officials wanted “to have a 10-million-ton-oil supply from overseas a year by 2000 and 50 million tons of oil and 50 billion cubic meters of gas by 2010.”[7]

7)         CNPC, a government-owned corporation, acting through a wholly-owned subsidiary, took the largest share, 40 percent, in the GNPOC consortium on December 6, 1996, when Arakis sold 75 percent of its interest in the project to three other companies to form that consortium. The Sudanese project was expected to produce up to ten million tons of oil a year for China by 2000, which would by itself help meet China’s projected oil import target for 2000.[8]

8)         In 1998, CNPC’s construction arm, China Petroleum Engineering & Construction (Group) Corporation (CPECC), participated in the construction of the 1,500-kilometer-long GNPOC pipeline from Blocks 1 and 2 to the Red Sea. It also built a refinery near Khartoum with a 2.5 million-ton processing capacity. It further engaged in “10 million tons oilfield surface engineering.” The Sudan project became “the first overseas large oilfield operated by China,” according to the Chinese.[9]

9)         Russian gas giant Gazprom plans to obtain 23 licenses by 2010 as it aims to develop and explore Russia`s sea shelf, Arkady Lakhov, Gazprom`s director for sea shelf development, told a conference Monday.[10]

10)       Under Gazprom`s strategy, the licenses are part of a program for the development of the shelf in 2006-2010 as the company`s gas reserves are expected to grow by 2.5 trillion cubic meters, while oil reserves to rise by 90 million tons by 2010, Lakhov said.[11]

11)       The oil stock market, which could come on-line soon despite delays, is expected to boost Iran`s oil revenues to $10 billion, Kamal Daneshyar, head of the Majlis Energy, said Saturday. . . Oil will be traded in euros rather than U.S. dollars, Iranian state-run television reported.[12]

12)       'Iran has registered an oil bourse on the Persian Gulf island of Kish in which oil would be sold in euros,' the broadcast said. Kish, located off the coast of southern Iran, houses the offices of some 100 Iranian and foreign oil companies.[13]

 

13)       Bolivia's state-owned oil company to installations and fields tapped by foreign companies -- including Britain's BG Group PLC and BP PLC, Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF SA, France's Total SA and Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. The companies have six months to agree to new contracts or leave Bolivia, he said.[14]

 

14)       Bolivia has South America's second-largest natural gas reserves after Venezuela.[15]

 

15)       The announcement follows a trend by oil- and gas-rich Latin American nations to exact a larger share of profits from extraction of the fossil fuels.[16]

16)       The move comes as Ecuador argues with Washington over a new oil royalties law and less than a month after Chavez ordered the seizure of oil fields from Total and Italy's Eni SpA when the companies failed to comply with a government demand that operations be turned over to Venezuela's state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA.[17]

17)       Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere…[18]

 

18)       …  new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.[19]

 

19)       Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon, but no contracts can be signed until after elections, when a new government takes office. . . Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.[20]

 

20)       "As oil prices have gone up, you get this increased desire to get out onto the new frontiers of oil," says Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Calgary-based Pembina Institute, an energy and environment think tank. "We're now getting into the dirtiest sources of oil anywhere." To be sure, rising energy prices have spawned more interest in renewable fuel sources, but those investments pale in comparison to what's going on here.[21]

 

21)       Canada's northern forest contains at least 174 billion barrels of recoverable heavy oil, equivalent to five years' supply for the planet, according to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Venezuela has perhaps even more in the Orinoco River delta. By comparison, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of more traditional crude, or 8½ years' global supply, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the federal Department of Energy. Heavy oil also is being produced in the Middle East, the Caspian Sea, Brazil and even in California's San Joaquin Valley.[22]

 

22)       Alberta's energy minister, Greg Melchin, says oil-sands development creates a minimal  environmental disturbance that is outweighed by the opportunities and jobs created. "It's worth it. There is a cost to it, but the benefits are substantially greater," he said. Environmental groups are increasingly critical of the government's reluctance to regulate the oil sands. "The pace of development is outstripping our ability to manage the environmental issue," says Mr. Raynolds of the Pembina Institute. "Our unwritten energy policy is dig it up and sell it as fast as possible."[23]

 

23)       Total's first foray into heavy oil was in Venezuela's Orinoco belt. In 1997, the company's giant $4.2 billion Sincor project there began producing market-grade crude. Sincor, which Total owns with Norway's Statoil ASA and Petróleos de Venezuela SA, now produces 180,000 barrels of oil a day.[24]

 

24)       … there is a strong economic incentive for Alberta's free-market-oriented government to let oil-sands development gallop ahead. Alberta added nearly 26,000 jobs in resource extraction in the past two years. That 25% jump helped drive the province's unemployment rate down to 3.1%, a 30-year low, according to the government. For the first time, every Albertan received a 400 Canadian-dollar ($340) check from the government earlier this year from an unexpected fiscal surplus.

 

25)       Chevron Corp. said it planned to spend "billions" to turn 75,000 acres into a 100,000-barrel-a day field. And last week, Royal Dutch Shell PLC said it had spent nearly $400 million to lease 219,000 acres west of Fort McMurray, shattering records for public-land leases.

 

26)       US Department of Energy analyses seen by Newsnight show that at $50 a barrel Venezuela – not Saudi Arabia – will have the biggest oil reserves in OPEC. Venezuela has vast deposits of extra heavy oil in the Orinoco. Traditionally these have not been counted because at $20 a barrel they were too expensive to exploit – but at $50 a barrel melting them into liquid petroleum becomes extremely profitable.[25]

 

28)       The US DoE report shows that at today’s prices Venezuela oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iran and Iraq. The US DoE also identifies Canada as another future oil superpower. Venezuela’s deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years . . . The US DoE estimates that Chavez controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil – more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet. Hugo Chavez told Newsnight’s Greg Palast that “Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. In the future Venezuela won’t have any more oil – but that’s in the 22nd century. Venezuela has oil for 200 years “Chavez will ask the OPEC meeting in June to formally accept that Venezuela’s reserves are now bigger than Saudi Arabia’s. [26]

28)       In 1993, California-based Unocal, France's Total Fina Elf SA and the Burmese government formed a joint venture to build the US$ 1.3 billion pipeline, which slices through tropical forests in Burma (now known as Myanmar) for 39 miles. The partners agreed to allow Burmese troops to clear the forest and level the ground, as well as provide labor and security. The troops did that and more. . . Along the pipeline route, they went on a rampage - raping, beating and executing villagers, as well as forcing many into slave labor.[27]

29)       "There is no way that anyone in our management would stand for that," says Dennis P. R. Codon, Unocal's general counsel. "It's inconceivable to me that we would never engage in a project that would violate human rights."[28]

30)       Ultimately, a jury will decide what Unocal did or didn't know. After an unsuccessful attempt at getting their case tried in federal court, lawyers for the villagers filed suit in a California venue. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled in June that Unocal can stand trial for the human rights violations committed by its partners in Burma under the legal doctrine known as "vicarious liability."[29]

31)       “Just a few years ago, Chad was held up as a model for how a developing nation could avoid the curse of oil and ensure that money did not disappear into bureaucrats’ bank accounts, as seen in Nigeria, Sudan and Gabon… After decades of internal strife and with its reputation as one of the world’s most corrupt countries, this former French colony was unable to attract investment partners to develop it’s oil fields until the World Bank agreed in 2000 to back a $4 billion deal to build a pipeline from Chad to the Atlantic coastline of neighboring Cameroon… In return for its participation, the World Bank secured strict conditions on how the Chad government’s share of the profit could be spent. Some 10 percent would be set aside in a “future generations” fund; 72 percent was earmarked to fight poverty by spending on health, education and roads; 13.5 percent would go to government coffers and the remaining 4.5 percent to local communities affected by the development.[30]

32)       “Chad’s oil riches represent both opportunity and peril for Deby, experts say. If Deby survives another year in office, he’ll control assets worth billions of dollars. On the other hand, oil money has made the once-obscure African nation a much more attractive target, to both rebels and other countries… Chadian officials accuse Sudan and China of backing its rebels. The U.S., which gets about 18 percent of its imported oil from Africa, also is taking a more active interest… “”The oil war in Chad is beginning,” said Chadian economist Ali A. Haggar, a former adviser to Deby.”[31]

33)       “In some ways, rising oil prices have weakened the World Bank’s hand in negotiations…The oil consortium, including ExxonMobil, Chevron and Petronas of Malaysia, originally predicted that profit would not flow until 2008, based on projected oil prices of $15 a barrel for crude. With prices above $70 a barrel, the consortium began reporting a profit this year…By taxing the consortium’s earnings, the government now stands to receive a windfall next year that officials in Chad say could total $1 billion, far exceeding the royalties they’ve been receiving. There are no laws or World Bank provisions that restrict the use of such tax revenue, though World Bank officials hope to include that money in the new agreement… Executives at ExxonMobil and its Esso Exploration and Production Chad subsidiary declined to comment.[32]

34)       Asian bloc that is taking shape, with growing ties to Middle East oil producers. In a series of informative commentaries, the deputy editor of the Hindu observes that “if the 21st century is to be an ‘Asian century,” Asia’s passivity in the energy sector has to end.” Though it “hosts the world’s largest producers and fastest growing consumers of energy.” Asia still relies “on institutions, trading frameworks and armed forces from outside the region in order to trade with itself,” a devitalizing heritage from the imperial era. The key is India-China cooperation. In 2005, he points out, India and China “managed to confound analysts around the world by turning their much-vaunted rivalry for the acquisition of oil and gas assets in third countries into a nascent partnership that could alter the basic dynamics of the global energy market.” A January 2006 agreement signed in Beijing “cleared the way for India and China to collaborate not only in technology but also in hydrocarbon exploration and production, a partnership that eventually could alter fundamental equations in the world’s oil and natural gas sector.” At a meeting in New Delhi of Asian energy producers and consumers a few months earlier, India had “unveiled an ambitious $22.4 billion pan-Asian gas grid and oil security pipeline system” extending throughout all of Asia, from Siberian fields through central Asia and to the Middle East energy giants, also integrating the consumer states.[33]

The cause of this oil feeding frenzy and its attendant profit taking by OPEC, which set the price at $60 dollars/barrel, and the major oil companies that benefited from the Arabs’ monopoly were substantial. The losses to the public everywhere were equally substantial. Here is but a sampling of profits from a few of the major players.

ExxonMobil, $666 billion; British Petrolum $558 billion; Royal Dutch Shell, $606 billion; Chevron, $390 billion; Conoco, $243 billion; Saudi Arabia, $7,920 trillion (profits for the first three years of the war in Iraq (2003 – 2005)

This incentive was enough for prospectors to find new sources, as noted, and, inadvertently to change everyone’s prognostication about ‘peak oil.’ It also reinforced the oil rich Arabs ability to supply arms to their brothers in the ongoing war with the U.S., and Israel.

            Here are two last notes from our country which speaks both of our own oil frenzy and concurrently the destruction of our last great wilderness areas. It is taken from an editorial by Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times columnist, 2006.

            First, we are all too familiar with our preemptive war in Iraq. One conceived by the neocons to acquire Iraq oil.

 

                                    In some parts of the country, Bush in effect has adopted a “no more wilderness” policy. In 2003, the administration announced that millions of acres of land in Utah and elsewhere in the West would never again be considered for designation as wilderness.

                                    The administration has offered oil and gas leases on 70,000 acres of proposed wilderness in Colorado and 190,000 acres in Utah. Once oil or gas development occurs, the land is lost – no longer eligible to be included in the wilderness system.

                                    Bush is trying to turn vast, pristine parts of Alaska into oil wells; some oil and mineral development is essential, but the past bipartisan sense of balance is lost. Bush is pushing to drill in many Alaskan lands that had been protected by past Republican presidents.

 

* * * * * * *

            Vocal and active abolitionists plus a small group of intellectuals were not sufficient to end slavery. It took several years plus a Civil War. Even then resentment and violence frustrated equality for another 100 years, during which time no anti-lynching law was ever passed. Southern Senators argued – ‘such a law would infringe upon ‘States Rights’’. It is now 2005 and the South is still bitter about the 1965 Civil Rights Law.[34] Are we today sufficiently enlightened to avoid that kind of violence, or the healing time? I hope so.

We have embraced corporate sponsored technology instead of science. We have embraced greed instead of justice. We have embraced the status quo instead of change: and it is all beginning to haunt us. Our government is busy privatizing everything in sight and some out of sight, dreaming manifest destiny and building the greatest war machine in the world to accomplish it. Meanwhile we are driven by a corporate mantra of ‘growth’ we must consume more and more to feed the beast. Never mind that we are going into debt doing it, and it is not just we citizens. The government is in big debt. Meanwhile in many parts of the world people are starving. Many governments have lost control unable to serve their own citizens.

            Is all this inevitable? Haven’t we faced other situations which forced us to make hard decisions, even fought wars – for justice, independence, human rights and against fascism? At times we have had to deal with our own failed constructs – stock market crashes, dust bowls, depleted fish stocks, and pandemics. We mustered our scientists to focus on beating the Russians to the moon, and later collaborated with them and others to build an international space station.

            Yes, I think it is possible. We can face up to the present crisis, but it is not necessarily probable. This time we must co-operate with every nation because we all inhabit the same planet and it is the whole planet which is in trouble, and it is ourselves who are by far the worst environmental offenders. Can Sherrington’s altruism prevail?

In 1982 Jonathan Schell wrote “Fate of the Earth” (pg. 22) in which he basically concluded that preparing for nuclear war was M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), and that was only when the U.S. and Russia were in the race. Since then China, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Israel have joined the club and Egypt, Libya, North Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Serbia and Monte Negro want to be next. Tamurim Ansary collected the data for Encarta Magazine. His estimate of tactical and strategic nuclear and thermonuclear weapons came to 20,400 bombs and 10,455 belong to us (the U.S.) and the stockpile is growing! Perhaps we need not be too concerned about the population problem?

 

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

 

            The 1997 Kyoto Protocol commits the 163 countries who have signed and will be bound by its commitments. All 163 countries have ratified the protocol to date. Of these 35 countries and the E.E.C. are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below levels specified for each of them by the treaty. The individual targets for the parties are listed in the Kyoto Protocol’s Annex B. These add up to a total cut in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 5% below 1990 levels by the commitment period 2008 through 2012.

            The European Union Nations are active in bloc’s emissions trading scheme, which puts limits on the amount of CO2 industries emit but allows them to buy or sell pollution permits, if they are over or under their quotas.

            Developing countries are included in the treaty but excluded from emission quotas on economic grounds. An inaugural meeting of 34 environment ministers of the Americas ended in Montreal on Friday, March 2001 with U.S., Canada and Australia alone refusing to sign the document saying that advancing the Kyoto Accord was in their priority for action – but they chose not to be bound by any rules.

            All of which leaves one wondering whether this is a serious attempt to deal with the problem. 5% below 1990 levels is hardly a substantial amount, and leaving developing countries like China and India out of required emission quotas likewise. The Bush Administration with a war in progress, its growth mantra, and it’s thirst for oil not satiated, meeting the commitments of Kyoto Protocol were impossible. President Bush said “signing the accord would hurt our economy.” Canada and Australia agreed with the U. S. Thus crippled the Kyoto Accord is far from a serious solution to a real problem, but is a start.

            The protocol has focused on a technological solution – how to reduce emissions – refuses to discuss population and omits probably the two biggest polluters of this century – China and India

            More Serious is the question of population and its impact on energy needs. And what of the under developed nations?

 

IS THERE ANOTHER PATH?

 

            The Kyoto Protocol has focused on a narrow aspect of our collective dilemma, i.e., reducing greenhouse gas emissions via government mandates. Instead let us try to include all of the contributing factors. Let us also acknowledge that we have been operating with an incomplete understanding of earth’s ecology and man’s place within it. Technology with fossil fuels has outpaced pure science. Belatedly scientists are catching up, and none too soon.

            Let me attempt a brief list of the major factors which are seriously endangering humans and other living things (1) systemic pollution, which among other things includes Global Warming, Ozone depletion, Dimming the Sun, El Niño, oceanic hot spots, and more extreme weather patterns, all resulting from human activity, plus pollution of oceans, seas, harbors, rivers, lakes, aquifers, forests, and soils, caused mainly by man’s industrial activities. These began with a mechanical revolution and proceed to a chemical, electrical, nuclear and finally to a genetic one. All brought positive advances however, the unintended side effects are currently adversely harming us, and the biosphere. (2) exponential population growth accompanied by increased consumption, the poor through overuse of resources out of necessity; the rich by conspicuous consumption with the help of fossil fuels and technology. None will survive an anticipated 8 to 12 billion population projected by year 3000.* (3) Biodiversity is shrinking caused by the issues just mentioned. We are loosing parts of our ecological heritage which may be critical to our survival, as with fish when part of the food chain is missing the next in line may also be endangered or when forests are stripped the habitats of several species may become threatened. (4) Competition and conflict between tribes, racial, and ethnic groups, theocracies, kingdoms, dictators, communists, democracies, et al. These conflicts often lead to wars, migrations, genocide, and the collapse of order. Stability and cooperation are seldom the norm. Lastly, there is (5) Inertia, the tendency to go on doing whatever one has been doing in spite of a new reality, i.e., climate change.

 

* * * * * * *

 

            I was ten years old when I first learned about pollution. I was raised in Cleveland Ohio where Cuyahoga River ran through industrial flat lands on its way to Lake Erie. The river caught on fire! Thus ensued much finger pointing and finally action. Dumping of all toxic wastes was forbidden. The lake and river were quarantined for all swimming and fishing as the great clean-up began. Twenty years later the lake and river were declared safe for swimming and fish. This process continues elsewhere wherever the commons was available to industry for disposal of their unwanted side affects, and governments wink while people get sick and die.

            Finally, it is time to clean up our act. I have attempted a brief summary of what this entails on pages 43 through 45 called “A Restoration Scenario: A Partnership with Nature.” It is similar to the 1930’s which dealt with a stock market crash and the dust bowl calamity. This time the situation is even more serious because it is worldwide in scale, and Global Warming is only one part of the problem.

            The second serious problem which we collectively face is population explosion and consumption. It is complicated by the disparity of incomes both within countries and between countries, by the exploiters and the exploited, and by the technologically advanced and others. Finally it is complicated by those who have fossil fuels and need to sell them and those who want to use them.

            The United Nations has clearly delineated those disparities but not the answers, i.e., how to stop population growth and rectify the great disparities in consumption. What they do know is that we humans have gone beyond a stable eco footprint. This translates to ‘we must stop growing or suffer both reduced consumption and habitat for other species.’ Fuel resource experts suggest that we will need to reduce many present population numbers radically based on anticipated fossil fuel depletion. However, this may not be the case. There is plenty of coal available for at least this century. Also, from our recent survey (page 36 through 141) there is ample oil, although some is second grade, i.e. more expensive to process. This path leads to continuing atmospheric pollution or, we can opt to rely on nuclear power, hydroelectric, renewable sources and some gas. We can also adopt an austerity program with tight controls on both procreation and consumption: a government mandate for one child per family.

            The third issue is that of shrinking Biodiversity. It is a question of extinction; what other species can we get along without. We already know that some have disappeared and others are seriously endangered, still others are all but gone. We may miss the polar bears or the great apes, however, we may be seriously handicapped at the loss of our pollinators – the bees. Can we save those we need or only miss them when they’ve gone? Will we realize they are gone when we have consumed their habitat or polluted it?

            All three of the issues discussed are closely interrelated. However the major fault must fall to those advanced technologically both for pollution and procreation. They have used and abused the commons consistently – land, forests, lakes, rivers, seas and the atmosphere, i.e., the whole biosphere and parts of the geosphere.

            The fourth, and probably the most difficult to analyze is that of countries and their unique circumstances. Instead of exploitation by the developed nations or Islamic genocide (Darfur) these poor countries need help and protection. They need a degree of technology which will supply them with water, food, health, education and birth control. Those basic needs are necessary to stabilize African nations and most poor nations to stop genocide, pandemics, and population growth. The U.N., with the support of all the developed nations could succeed at this task but first they must realize that their present path is doomed to failure. Succeeding they might be able to save Africa and others from breakdown and chaos, reduce population, and stop the destruction of the environment.

The developing countries including Venezuela, Bolivia, Turkey, India, China, Mexico and Indonesia are attempting to join the developed nations. Some currently have 3 to 3.9 children average per family. They have been targeted by the World Trade Organization for economic exploitation, i.e., for oil, minerals, timber and cheap labor. However, some of these developing countries are nationalizing their resources for a bigger share of the gross similar to O.P.E.C.

The U.N. world map** of present world population noting family sizes, has clearly shown two quite different patterns. In the temperate zones families have 1.9 children per family average while those in the tropical zones range from 3 to 5 per family. Those families living in developed countries have realized that large families hinder their economic goals and their children’s. Those in under developed countries need many children to support a family. To accomplish this they hire their children out as farm and factory laborers.

Those living with advanced technologies have been able to exploit their poor neighbor’s natural resources and even their people – slavery still exists in some parts of Africa. Between WWI and WWII the Europeans did the exploiting and after WWII the Americans and the Russians joined the others. These were recently joined by the oil-rich Islamic countries of Somalia, Sudan, and Ethiopia with even more disastrous results.

 

* * * * * * *

 

All five of the central problems will require co-operation of both sectors – private and public; not competition! First, we in the developed countries must have a comprehensive discussion in the media by knowledgeable experts, not “talking heads” or P.R. people. We will need to preempt prime time media to provide public awareness and feedback. Our main thrust will be the why and how we must act to save our environment and ourselves. Yes, it will be a major struggle but we will be fighting it, hopefully, before the full impact of a global tragedy is upon us. Can we count on other countries to join us or even our own current administration? Those who are aware of the problems and the urgency will hopefully find a way to participate in various ways, if not the same as ours. Again, we must have dialogue; an international one, bypassing political and economic ideologies for urgent realities.

We will need to shrink greenhouse gas emissions by a substantial amount as designated by the atmospheric scientists, if this proves unrealistic by any firm date we will need to sharply reduce consumption in order to compensate. Reducing population will prove much slower, however we need to seriously try using both carrot and stick techniques.

To reduce other pollution we will need to act aggressively against corporate violators and government procrastinators. Both legally defunct corporations and others whose legal staffs have stalled clean-ups for years need be brought to justice, government procrastinators likewise. War time nuclear site cleanups are still a hazard in 2007. Many of these restoration projects will need to be done through government. Pollution and depletion of major resources will require experts in various fields, forests, soils, lakes, rivers, mountains, harbors, etc., wherever industry or government has been responsible. The same holds true where other species are endangered.

We will be entering a period of conservation. Everyone must become a steward of the earth. Cooperation will replace competition. Natural gas will replace coal and oil. The use of electricity will shrink; nuclear, wind and hydroelectric will be of some help. Many experts also suspect that we will be running out of fossil fuels* soon which, as noted, does not seem to be the case. Corporations will shrink to regional size. Urban infrastructure will shrink along with transportation. The private car will become obsolete, replaced by foot, bike, bus, train and airplane: foot, bike, and hybrid bus for urban and interurban, the train for interregional and the plane for intercontinental travel. Factory jobs will return home from overseas, the horse and cow to their small farm. Grocery stores will return to the neighborhood. Communication will replace much of world trade saving much energy and pollution via shipping by air and sea! Finally, governments will redefine its mission to stay within the bounds of the ecological imperative, treating the bio and geo-spheres as a commons and providing equal rights and responsibilities to all citizens alike. The U. S. Supreme Court will be augmented by EPA, FDA and other specialized agencies who’s focus will be to look ahead instead of back. Unlike today’s courts they will all be free of political control, appointed by their fellow experts. It will be a future with less anthropro mechanic technology but more efficiency, and perhaps with Schumacher’s Buddist Economics, or as Bucky[35] would have put it “doing more with less”.

Arms industries and relief intervention will be controlled by the U.N. joined by the developed countries to forestall conflicts and aid for those in distress. This assumes these countries can restrain their ideological preferences to respond to this urgent environmental reality. It also assumes they will act rationally faced with substantial scientific evidence. The U.N. will become a truly global organization to protect us from ourselves, and the rest of life also from us. It will also stop an arms race which could end with an equally disastrous conclusion as the current environmental one we already are facing. It will also reduce that part of national consumption which supports war and the preparations for same. Here is a report from Eric Rosenberg from the Hearst News Chain which clarifies the issue.

           

Factoring in the Energy Department’s national security programs, the total request climbs to about $640 billion.

Annual world-wide defense spending is about $1 trillion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks military expenditures. This means Bush’s request adds up to more than half of the globe’s tally.

The closest competitor is China, which spends somewhere between $70 billion and $100 billion annually on its armed forces, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm.

Russia comes in third at about $50 billion, followed by France at $45 billion, Japan at $44 billion, the United Kingdom at $42 billion, Germany at $35 billion and Italy at $28 billion.

The pentagon argues that current defense spending is a relative bargain, when viewed as a percentage of the country’s total economic output.

                        Our children will pay for it one way or another.

 

* * * * * * *

 

I am not sure whether this outlined scenario is possible or even probable, can be accomplished in the time allotted and will resonate with enough humans to produce action. The Odums’, who were optimistic about the future, painted a “comfortable way down:”[36] but they assumed there was time to adjust with remaining fossil fuels. They did not foresee an imminent atmospheric breakdown caused by greenhouse gases. They did nevertheless give us a view of the future in some detail[37], a civilization without fossil fuels and much reduced population yet one with hope awaiting another period of renewal.

All of the forgoing analysis brings us again to each government with it’s various opinions, outlooks, ideologies, religions and ethnic, racial, and tribal groups which make up it’s population and leaders. We would be surprised to find any universal agreement among some of them let alone all of them, save one: they would all like to go on living and dyeing peacefully.

            This is the most difficult problem, given the existing mix of outlooks and because those outlooks are not benign, often leading to violence. The concept of their being one overriding reality does not occur to those who are desperately pursuing their own specific goals: some with worldly goals like securing oil, some with religious ones such as eliminating those who disagree. Others simply want to gain power or share power by various means. Lastly, there are those who, through necessity, are only focused only on survival.

 

* * * * * * *

            Global Warming with its greenhouse effect was first discovered by two oceanographers in 1957. Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, co-authored the first paper on climate change. It was not until 1997 that the first step was taken to address any of the causes. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 163 Nations. Atmospheric temperatures continue to rise. Population growth continues beyond a stable eco footprint and as noted before, is expected to reach 8 or 10 billion by the century’s end. The political will to act is seemingly thwarted by other urgent needs like securing energy, the economy, terrorism.

            Today’s glaciers are shrinking faster than our collective ability to act in the face of a reality which is more than conjecture. A United Nations was and is a utopian dream. The prospect of the United Nations leading an un-united group of nations seems even more unreal. Most likely it will be overwhelmed by an even greater task; trying to help refugees of failed states, the sick, the lost and the hungry.

            Ideology will have prevailed over science. Stock piles of lethal weapons will increase. The search for energy will continue to escalate. Both buyers and sellers will fight and die for a share of whatever and wherever they find it. Walls and fences will not keep refugees out and seas will not deter them where there seems to be hope elsewhere. And the earth will get warmer – and we will be praying that 1,000 scientists are dead wrong.

            It is now June 2007, President Bush has just announced that he is ready to lead the war against Global Warming. Is there hope?

            An update December 14, 2007 an international conference on Global Warming took place in Bali, Indonesia. The European nations threatened to boycott U.S. sponsored climate change talks unless the U.S. agrees to a “Roadmap” for reducing greenhouse gasses. Al Gore[38] said that the U.S. was principally responsible for blocking progress here toward an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

            Bush set his own conference on climate change for January 30 – 31, 2008 in Honolulu: a continuation of September talks at the Whitehouse called “the major economics meeting on energy security and climate change.”

 

HOPE NO HOPE?

 

I don’t expect to be around for the results of our current collective decision or indecisions. I was there in Europe (E.T.O.) through the end of WWII. I’m sure we (U.S. made the right but painful decision that time.

Many are not sure, think the odds are against it. Simon Tett at Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in London was interviewed by National Geographic  and had this to say:

“We need to get a zero emissions to stabilize the CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere, and that’s not the path we as a society, have chosen. Even if we were to stop CO2 emissions now, we are committed to warming. Ultimately there will be an effect on the ocean thermohaline circulation – the belt ….* We’ll have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years, because some of us will have lived through them. But it’s going to be a different world.”

 

I do not have a road map for this trip. Needless to say no one else does. Perhaps we are at the end of technological solutions? Henry Adams was worried, and that was in 1900. Odum was hoping we could use dwindling supplies of fossil fuel allowing ourselves time to adjust to a renewable energy economy plus some hydroelectric power but that option seems to have been eliminated.

Given the current mind sets of those in charge and the life styles of most others, inertia seems most likely to prevail. The complications are many. We cannot support present global population. Migrations confirm it. Pandemics are out of control threatening the stability of countries. Water shortages are increasing. Terrorists emerge when hopelessness sets in. rights are replaced by security mandates.

We may have bought into Faust’s Deal with the Devil, have had a great orgy with technology and fossil fuels, and now it is payback time? We may be drowning in the sorcerer’s apprentice soup without any magic words to reverse the process. Or we may be participants in a great convoluted tragedy centered on black gold, greed, growth, and conflict wherein we the protagonists are consumed by our own excesses and omissions and wherein the weak inherit an uninhabitable earth courtesy of the rich. And where Noah’s Ark does not arrive in time to save what was left of our biodiversity. We have lost the operating manual for Boulding’s spaceship earth, and are being gassed within by our own sequestered waste. Sherrington’s great religions bringing their altruism has no