By John Lawrence
Ever since the Enlightenment, progress has been essential to civilization. Defined as steady improvement toward a goal, the progress of society or civilization has been synonymous with growth, inventions, growing gross domestic product.
The very US Constitution was a testament to the Enlightenment era notion of progress. Science and technology would create the conditions for the “pursuit of happiness.” Every day in every way human society would get better and better. Only now we’re at a crossroads where the very idea of progress and in particular continued progress is contributing to the destruction of the planet.
The more progress we have, the more growth of GDP, the more greenhouse gases (GHGs) are spewed into the atmosphere and the more our planetary ecology is corrupted. Progress as we’ve known it must come to a screeching halt or the planet is in jeopardy of becoming uninhabitable by the human species.
In the 1850s in Titusville, Pennsylvania oil was for the first time successfully extracted from the ground. Since then there has been steady growth and progress: the internal combustion engine, the automobile, the airplane, the AC motor, the Industrial Revolution in general. Each year machines powered by animals, the wind and water were replaced by machines and engines powered by oil or electricity which was produced by coal or oil and its derivatives. This was the essence of progress.
What went unnoticed or was disregarded was that the waste products of these oil based machines were offloaded into the atmosphere. It was thought that there was no limit to the gases that could be excreted into the atmosphere. It was a neverending sink for waste products.
But then a funny thing happened that turned the idea of progress on its head. The polar ice caps started to melt. Rivers dependent on glaciers started to dry up. All kinds of extreme weather anomalies costing billions of dollars such as Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan started to happen.
Scientists began to study the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and concluded that there would come a point at which the concentration of GHGs would change life on earth as we know it, even make it impossible for humans to continue to exist. In other words continued progress would doom civilization.
Richard Smith has written in a Truthout article entitled Green Capitalism: The God That Failed:
As soaring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions drove global CO2 concentrations past 400 parts per million in May 2013, shell-shocked climate scientists warned that unless we urgently adopt “radical” measures to suppress GHG emissions (50 percent cuts in emissions by 2020, 90 percent by 2050) we’re headed for an average temperature rise of 3 or 4 degrees Celsius before the end of the century. Four degrees might not seem like much, but make no mistake: Such an increase will be catastrophic for our species and most others. Humans have never experienced a rise of 4 degrees in average temperatures. But our ancestors experienced a four-degree cooler world. That was during the last ice age, the Wisconsin Stage (26,000 to 13,300 years ago). At that time, there were two miles of ice on top of where I’m sitting right now in New York City. In a four-degree warmer world “Heat waves of undreamt-of-ferocity will scorch the Earth’s surface as the climate becomes hotter than anything humans have ever experienced. …
There will be “no ice at either pole.” “Global warming of this magnitude would leave the whole planet without ice for the first time in nearly 40 million years.” Sea levels will rise 25 meters – submerging Florida, Bangladesh, New York, Washington DC, London, Shanghai, the coastlines and cities where nearly half the world’s people presently live. Freshwater aquifiers will dry up; snow caps and glaciers will evaporate – and with them, the rivers that feed the billions of Asia, South America and California. The “wholesale destruction of ecosystems” will bring on the collapse of agriculture around much of the world. “Russia’s harsh cold will be a distant memory” as “temperatures in Europe will resemble the Middle East. …
The Sahara will have crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and be working its way north into the heart of Spain and Portugal. …
With food supplies crashing, humanity’s grip on its future will become ever more tentative.” Yet long before the temperature increase hits four degrees, the melting will have begun thawing the permafrost of the Arctic, releasing vast quantities of methane buried under the Arctic seas and the Siberian and North American tundra, accelerating GHG concentrations beyond any human power to stop runaway warming and sealing our fate as a species.
So this is what the result of continued progress will be – essentially the end of the saga of the human species, in other words homo sapiens will go extinct if we continue along the road of progress that we are currently on and have been on since the founding of the US. All the inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries, all the technological improvements, all the labor saving devices have served to put us on the road to the demise of the human species unless we do an abrupt 180 degree shift, put the notion of progress into a full reverse, stop progress in its tracks.
In order to do this we would have to have an across the board economic contraction in the industrialized countries and this is incompatible with the deeply imbued notions of capitalism and economic progress, all those cherished notions that we and our forefathers held so dear.
Going back to the days of water and wind generated power may be what we have to do to save the human species from extinction. And the internal combustion engines measured in horsepower might have to be replaced with actual horse power. The Amish, who never adopted electricity nor the internal combustion engine, but continue to plow their fields with horses and travel by horse and buggy just might be on to something.
But yet the whole economic system of capitalism is focused on short term profit making. Corporations are rated by how well they perform in the short term. How much money they make is correlated with their stock prices and CEO compensations.
The very idea that they should focus on the long term salvaging of the planet is something that never enters the corporate mind unless there’s a profit in it, and so far there hasn’t been. Since corporations aren’t used to paying for the pollution they create, they will lobby hard against having to pay for it in the future and thereby suffer the consequences of diminished profit margins.
In particular those associated with the oil and gas industry, like the billionaire Koch brothers, are deadset and determined that there shall be no diminution of oil and gas profits. They will do everything in their considerable economic and hence political power to see that fossil fuels and the usage thereof will continue to expand. They will countenance no decrease in profit margins.
The Kochs run the massive transnational conglomerate know as Koch Industries, dealing in everything from petroleum refining and distribution to chemical processing and ranching. Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the US taking home nearly $100 billion in annual revenue. The Koch brothers occupy spot number 4 on the Forbes 400 Richest People in America list each worth $31 billion. Together they are wealthier than Warren Buffet who is number 2 on the list.
Their latest thing is the export of the dirtiest form of energy on the planet know as petcoke. Petcoke is what is left over after the oil has been extracted from the Canadian tarsands which the Kochs have an investment in. It can’t be burned for energy in this country because of EPA regulations, but elsewhere in the world the environmental controls aren’t as strict, and there is money to be made from exporting it.
As Tim Dickenson says in his Rolling Stone article, How the US Exports Global Warming:
When the winds kicked up over the Detroit river last spring, city residents confronted a new toxic hazard: swirling clouds of soot taking flight from a mysterious black dune piled high along the city’s industrial waterfront. By fall, similar dark clouds were settling over Chicago’s South Side – this time from heaping piles along the Calumet River. The pollution in both cities made national headlines – and created a dubious coming-out party for petroleum coke, or “petcoke,” a filthy byproduct of refining gasoline and diesel from Canadian tar-sands crude. Despite the controversy over Keystone XL – the stalled pipeline project that would move diluted tar-sands bitumen to refineries on the Gulf Coast – the Canadian crude is already a large and growing part of our energy mix. American refineries, primarily in the Midwest, processed 1.65 million barrels a day in 2012 – up 40 percent from 2010.
When there is money to be made by increasing US exports which drive up GDP, no politician is against it even if, or should I say particularly if, the money all goes into a very few pockets. So is democracy essential for saving the planet? Not when billionaires, and not the people, control the democratic process.
So we can’t look to our politicians or our corporations or our inventors and technologists to lobby for decreased economic performance. They all want a piece of the pie, and controlling or regulating externalities such as atmospheric pollution detracts from the bottom line. Besides there are good jobs to be had as petroleum engineers. A four year college degree in petroleum engineering brings job offers over $100,000. the first year out of school.
The black gunk that’s refined out of the crude tarsands oil ends up as petroleum coke. Petcoke is like concentrated coal – denser and dirtier than anything that comes out of a mine. It can be burned just like coal to produce power, and it is considerably cheaper than coal, but petcoke emits up to 15 percent more climate pollution.
In Canada, the stuff is largely treated like a waste product; the country has stockpiled nearly 80 million tons of it. Here in the U.S., petcoke is sometimes burned in coal plants, but it’s so filthy that the EPA has stopped issuing any new licenses for its use as fuel. In terms of climate change it represents the dirtiest fuel on the planet. But there is money to be made by exporting it and the Koch brothers want to do just that.
A third Koch brother, Billy, is the petcoke king. William Koch is the CEO of Oxbow Carbon, which describes itself as “the worldwide leader in fuel-grade petcoke sourcing and sales” – trading 11 million tons per year. And most of this goes to China where it’s even cheaper than Chinese coal. The Big Guns of petcoke refining are located on the Gulf Coast.
This is why Big Oil wants so badly to complete the Keystone XL pipeline. The crude would be piped down there to be processed by Texas and Louisiana refineries which are capable of producing enormous piles of petcoke, which, when burned, will produce millions of tons of carbon pollution per year. And more profits would go into Billy Koch’s pocket. Global Warming be damned.
By the way the Kochs have funded think tanks, universities media outlets and various other ventures all aimed at encouraging global warming deniers. Koch Industries itself has spent more than $50 million lobbying since 1998. Their goal is to cultivate public doubt about the reality of human caused global warming. As long as the debate continues, there is no public mandate to do anything about it. At least that is their hope while they continue to profit and pollute. Their efforts helped to trashcan the relatively mild cap and trade carbon control legislation.
Energy independence is a wonderful thing. After being dependent on Saudia Arabia for oil for so many years the US is finally not only producing enough oil for its own needs but oil for export as well. However, just as this progress is finally being manifested, it becomes necessary to rain on the parade and say – wait a minute – do we want progress and economic well-being for three decades or do we want the planet to be habitable by human beings indefinitely. We can’t have it both ways.
In fact the US is now awash in oil, so much so that US refineries cannot refine it all. That’s why they want to export not only refined oil products but crude from Canada as well. Although there are laws against exporting US crude products, the tar sands crude is considered a “Canadian” product so they intend to skirt those laws.
So what difference do US environmental laws make if all the dirty coal and oil products can be exported to other countries which can then pollute the atmosphere by burning them? It’s one atmosphere, one planet. It doesn’t matter where the pollution is emitted. We all belong to the same atmospheric commons. Wherever it is emitted, it affects us all.
As Bill McKibben of 350.org says, the best thing we can do is to leave the oil and coal in the ground. Fossil fuels, the basis of all progress since the Industrial Revolution, now threaten the continuous existence of humankind. He wants President Obama to stand up to the oil industry and say no to the Keystone pipeline. But given capitalism, cuts in oil exports or oil consumption means a loss of jobs and diminished GDP.
In fact imposing big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions means imposing big job cuts across industrialized economies around the world. That’s why, regardless of protests, no capitalist government on the planet will accept mandatory cuts in GHG emissions. After all, we have to compete with other countries, and we don’t want to give them an economic advantage. Concerns about global warming don’t have the urgency that increasing GDP does and maintainng the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
Richard Smith says very articulately and eloquently:
As our locomotive races toward the cliff of ecological collapse, the only thoughts on the minds of our CEOs, capitalist economists, politicians and most labor leaders is how to stoke the locomotive to get us there faster. Corporations aren’t necessarily evil. They just can’t help themselves. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do for the benefit of their owners. But this means that, so long as the global economy is based on capitalism and private property and corporate property and competitive production for market, we’re doomed to a collective social suicide – and no amount of tinkering with the market can brake the drive to global ecological collapse.
We can’t shop our way to sustainability, because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. They require collective democratic control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment. And they require local, regional, national and international economic planning to reorganize the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends. I conclude, therefore, that if humanity is to save itself, we have no choice but to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a democratically planned eco-socialist economy.
Extreme weather events will eventually take such a toll that governments will experience a state of paralysis trying to keep up with and pay for them. Great cities near oceans will probably go under. Paris and Berlin will probably be OK because they’re far enough inland. New york City and New Orleans not so much. The Thames Valley is already experiencing the greatest rainfall and flooding in UK history. The prognosis for London is not good. There is already approximately one billion dollar weather event per month. As global warming increases that will probably become one per week.
Semi-continent-wide weather systems are already effecting millions of people at a time. Power crews struggle to repair downed power lines. Travelers spend nights at the airport due to an avalanche of canceled flights. But still the pursuit of corporate profits uber alles continues unabated.
West coast cities like Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego will eventually be under water. In San Diego and San Francisco the Embarcaderos will be flooded. Downtown San Diego including the Convention Center, the new library, Petco Park, Civic Center, Mission Valley all will be under water if the predicted sea rises occur. Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Cortez Hill and Sherman Heights will probably survive. The downtown high rises will have to be relocated there.
So progress as we know it must come to a screeching halt if human habitability on planet earth for future generations is at all a value for the present occupants. Gradualism is not an option. The good news, however, is that there is much work to be done in getting the planet in shape to power up without using fossil fuels. If only the economic system could be reconfigured to support that.
All the skyscrapers and large buildings with their donors’ names on them will not represent a lasting legacy if human civilization has only a limited number of decades left. They will just be colossal underwater wrecks. Like Ozymandias, the last humans will look on these mighty works and despair. Round the decay of those colossal wrecks, the lone seas will stretch away.
We who mock Mother Nature will get our just desserts. She will survive but will we?
John Lawrence
Latest posts by John Lawrence (see all)
- Economist Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate, Dead at 95 - March 22, 2017
- Container Ships Burn Dirtiest Fuel: the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Could Change That - March 15, 2017
- Cities and States Prefer Public Banks To Wall Street - March 7, 2017
John, thank you very much for writing this article.
Many scientists are saying the world will be uninhabitable for humans by 2030. As if that isn’t bad enough, we are probably taking the rest of the world down with us. As you say, nature will survive, but I find myself wondering just how much of it will survive. And how long it will take to correct our errors.
I hope that people will let themselves feel the enormity of this situation. Let it sink in. Listen to what your says about the destruction of the world.
And then ask yourself, “What am I going to do about it?”
If you follow this logic, you must reduce the population of the earth while abandoning all “fossil fuels.” Projected to peak at 10 billion, the earth can realistically support less than 2 billion people. Shall we call for volunteers to die so the rest of us can continue to live in the style we are accustomed to?
China mandated a one child policy. Maybe it’s about time for other countries to do the same. There’s a direct correlation between the number of human beings on earth and the use of energy, but that energy doesn’t have to be fossil fuels.
We (meaning people in the US and other so-called first world countries) are the ones that need to die.
One of the most effective ways of curbing the human population is working for the rights of women. Increase access to birth control. Stop patriarchy from raping (close to 1 in 3 women will be raped in her lifetime) and terrorizing women.
The earth will reduce population for us dramatically and violently. We have the resources to voluntarily soften the reduction. So, the question becomes: Will we do it ourselves, or will the land have to do it for us?
John:
Loved the way you tarred and coked and coaled the Kohl brothers, but I was hoping for more of an alternative to those dinosaurs than the Amish. Do you think it’s possible that capitalism could redeem ( compensate for the defects of) capitalism?
I refer, of course, to electric cars (Tesla (TSLA)), solar power (SolarCity (SCTY)), and cheap reusable rocket ships (SpaceX), all three of these enterprises (actual money making corporations) envisioned by Elon Musk (another billionaire (of PayPal fame)) who, I suspect, is diametrically opposed to the Kohl political agenda.
Imagine a world in which the internal combustion engine disappears, replaced by electric vehicles that run on batteries. Imagine a world where all the surfaces of every house, every garage, every apartment building, every skyscraper (perhaps every road surface) are covered with ‘self-cleaning’ solar collectors whose excess energy output is stored in batteries, eliminating every gas, oil, or coal burning furnace (and stove) on the planet. While we’re at it, we could also eliminate charcoal from the grilles, replacing the charcoal with a plug-in reusable lithium-ion battery pack.
I could go on and on about reusable rockets, colonies on Mars, space elevators, space cities, an emergent solar civilization by 2050, all of it fueled by solar collectors and storage batteries, but I’ll stop now.
You write an excellent sentence, John. And you’ve got the right-wing dinosaurs nailed, but it’s going to take them a long time to die. In the meantime, what’s your take on left-wing capitalism? Is there such a thing?
Chuck
The problem with techno-fixes like the ones offered by the so-called green industries is that they still require the entire global industrial infrastructure to operate.
How much fossil fuel is burned to create a Tesla car? Where do the minerals come from to form the photovoltaics necessary for solar power?
Capitalism only works on perpetual growth. Put another way: Capitalism is based on the infinite use of finite resources. Obviously, in a finite world this cannot and will not work.
Any proposed solution to the crisis we live in that takes industrial capitalism as a given is doomed to fail.
Chuck, I dealt with most of your points in an email, when I thought comments had been closed, except for the question about left wing capitalism. I think left wing capitalism is simply government incentives. Incentives are an important part of capitalism, but government needs to shape the economy by providing the right kind of incentives. Right now corporations shape the government to provide them with incentives which increase their profits irregardless of whether or not said corporations’ activities are beneficial to the environment or even to the human race.
An example of positive left wing capitalism is Germany’s feed-in tariffs which incentivized German families and businesses to install solar panels and sell energy back onto the grid thus making a profit for themselves in the course of doing something positive for the environment. Not only has Germany solarized very quickly but many average families have profited albeit at some expense to the oil corporations. The profits have been well distributed rather than being concentrated on a few corporations. Many dairy farms have been turned into solar farms. Family incomes have increased without the necessity of milking cows every day.
If the US government stopped incentivizing the military industrial complex and started incentivizing rebuilding infrastructure and getting off of fossil fuel, we would turn from right wing capitalism to left wing capitalism. Right now we’re spending half a billion dollars for each copy of a worthless airplane, the F-35. Lockheed Martin’s profits are soaring, but the rest of us are worse off because of the opportunity cost of not doing something more beneficial to the human race.
I think even Tesla had some government grants. That’s a step in the right direction.
Too late! We all died two years ago:
To summarize, human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw; peat and soil microbial activity will dramatically increase; and, finally, vast oceanic clathrates will melt. This global warming chain reaction has happened in the past.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelerates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
John Stokes | “The Canadian” | January 8th, 2007
200 species a day go extinct.
Over 95% of the world’s old growth forests have been cut down.
If you weighed all the fish in the ocean today and compared the weight to all the fish in 1890, the fish today stand 90% lighter.
So some failed predictions about what COULD happen were wrong? No matter, the world is still being murdered at a staggering rate.
What you’re doing, CapitalistRoader, is like telling someone who has been raped 100 times – and who says predicts in despair that she will be raped 100 more times – to get over it because she’ll actually only be raped a dozen more times.
It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way.
Karl Marx, Letter to Engels, 15 August 1857
Socialism is also unselfishness embraced as an axiom: the gratifying emotion of unselfishness, experienced alternately as resentment against others and titillating satisfaction with oneself.
Roger Kimball, The death of Socialism, April 2002
Are you calling me a “socialist”, Roger? Is that your point? Is that all you have? Please clarify.
If you are calling me that bad, bad name, then I know I’m on the right track. Medicare, Civil Rights, worker protection (remember the Triangle Shirtwaist fire) and Voting Rights were called “socialistic,” as well.
Are we all supposed to run in wide-eyed terror at the very mention of the term?
John,
You quote,
“But then a funny thing happened that turned the idea of progress on its head. The polar ice caps started to melt.”.
That in itself would make one suspect of the rest. The polar caps have been melting & freezing for millions of years without human help. This year the Antarctic has one of the highest minimum ice coverage in decades:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
Well let’s see if this actually gets posted.
A beautiful and restrained article.
Just one second of delay/debate adds extra energy equal to 4 Hiroshima bombs retained by our air, land and seas. So, we must ignore the inactivists who profit from debate and delay and look to solutions.
Once we replace the fossil tools in Congress we might be able to put a price on carbon. All proceeds from coal/oil paying asked to pony up for their pollution would be returned as lowered taxes or simply as a rebate check to taxpayers. The will more than compensate for higher energy prices.
This rebate is preferred by Citizens Climate Lobby (citizensclimatelobby.org) that has a full explanation of the “carbon fee and dividend” on its site.
Such a carbon fee has lowered emissions in BC by 10%, lowered income taxes with the proceeds, and has contributed to economic growth, quite strong in BC
Of course the paranoid will scream “taxes” in proper knee jerk fashion, ignoring the fact that it is the carbon corporations paying the fees, not the taxpayer.
This article is a wonderful example of the strong religious form of the AGW movement. It talks about science to promote very unscientific goals for a very political movement. Join us or the world will end. They even have their demons to hate, the Koch brothers.
I have no doubt however misguided the author is that he is speaking honestly about his and the movement’s goals. If they get their way there will be a horrific drop in the standard of living for billions of people and not to mention most of those billions will have to die. Ah small detail.
I propose that the author voluntarily go to the front of that exit line, or is that for all the others to suffer for on his behalf to leave him in his restored Eden?
The situation continues to get worse, but some people are trying, we won’t accept it until it’s staring us in the face
via email:
COMMENT: “Must Progress Come to a Screeching Halt to Save the Planet From Global Warming?”
Compliments for a thought provoking and penetrating analysis, John. I admire Richard Smith but find his radical diagnosis and cure a difficult ‘sell to the general public.’ For what it’s worth, here is my response.
It’s considered ‘blasphemy’ to suggest our U.S. form of capitalism needs to be completely reformed. But when capitalism is captured by greedy special interest money that promotes the idea that humans are in no way responsible for climate warming, you know we have a problem. The whole system gets corrupted and bought by the highest bidders. It is no surprise we live in a world where ecological concerns take second place to growth and jobs … on the false premise the two are mutually exclusive, i.e., responsible innovative environmental investments vs. economic growth and jobs don’t mix.
Unsustainable growth, nurtured by multinational firms and even governments, drives excessive demand and over-consumption. Corporations are naturally not about to subordinate profit making and shareholder returns to environmental goals. And people want to go on doing what they are doing until leadership convinces them to do otherwise. This has intensified the pathetic governance disease of ‘incrementalism’ or half measures to solve structurally serious problems … like a potentially irreversible human-induced climate change that leads to extinction of planet life.
In the words of Kevin Moore, (see: “ For Sale Baby Shoes Never Worn,” Dec. 2013:
“Are we telling our children their future is not as important as the short-term profits to be had by ripping up the Earth’s last remaining resources and fouling up the biosphere? If politicians and corporate heads cannot be truthful to their own offspring, how could we expect them to be forthright and unbiased to us?’
Like you, John, I’m with Bill McKibben when he says that we need to embrace the small-scale and local and not just with regards to energy, but also to agriculture and production. And even if we were to reach a world operating on 80% ‘green energy’ by 2050, it would not deter an eventual ecological collapse if that energy (and technology behind it) were used to power more growth and consume ever more natural resources and disposable crap.
What’s the likelihood the vast majority of the world’s population will be forward-looking enough, for example like Germany, to make sacrifices of going green given the fear of some near-term negative economic results … which by the way have been modest for Germany so far. If we stop or slow down over-consumption, we are out of work – so goes the propagated conventional wisdom. Of course, this flies in the face of independent studies including recent EIA study clearly showing that cumulative job growth in the green industry in recent years now actually exceeds that in the petroleum industry – when the correct, not manipulated, comparative direct job growth data is used. I believe the figures are 2.7 million jobs in the green industry vs. 2.4 million in the petroleum industry. And the ‘green’ industry is only in its ‘cradle’ stage of business growth.
Concerning low consumption and GDP growth, European consumption as a % of GDP has long been about 58% versus a high 70% in the U.S. And yet, after living and working in different parts of Europe for over 33 years now, I certainly haven’t seen evidence that the quality-of-life experience for the average European in mature EU countries is inferior to that of the average American – despite Europe’s somewhat lower average annual GDP growth rates in past years. There are many reasons for this which I shall not get into here. Suffice it to say that the European lifestyle of less consuming and more saving is built into the European DNA – and has served the general public well and fairly under social-economic models that are devoid of obscenely extreme after tax income inequality gaps, unlike America where the middle class is in a stagnant and impoverishing downward spiral.
So Europeans are for the most in unity about the challenge of global warming and know the stakes are very high. They recognize and accept the science that recent climate changes and the buildup of energy heat content in the atmosphere cannot be explained by natural causes alone. That is why Europe has been for some time adjusting to the reality of climate change much more seriously and successfully than most U.S. states with exceptions of states like California, Colorado, Vermont.
Preventing runaway and irreversible global warming is the world’s 21st century Problem. We know what’s wrong. Why gamble by waiting for 100% perfect information as that would be too late anyway. That leaves the question what must be done? How can we do what must be done in cooperation with or in no cooperation with the petroleum industry?
I feel the same as many others in the scientific community that “game changing technology” at an acceptable price to the average person is The Way to avoid a global ecological catastrophe of the speed and scale facing us. Contrary to what some say, out primary chance of survival – along with consumption and lifestyle changes – depends on More, not Less technology. I’m referring to technology that is applied to more sustainable systems and not using it to live an excessively high energy lifestyle .
The following are some critically important innovative actions – some in progress and some rather fresh – to stabilize CO2 emissions at no more than 450 ppm by 2050 (with 2020 and 2030 as key tipping points) and to avoid an increasingly dangerous release of Arctic methane (CH4) as warming continues with rising GHG emissions and the related treacherous positive feedbacks.
Finalize as quickly as possible state-of-the-art capture and sequestration of CO2 and exact knowhow to capture CH4 leakages during hydrolic fracturing and use same for burning in power stations; develop a ZERO carbon release policy for coal-fired power generation and strictly enforced with severe penalties for violations; sharply reduce extensive CO2 and other toxic emissions coming from the chemical industry; measure and control that extracted natural gas displaces, rather than adds to, consumption of dirtier fuels.
Gradually begin eliminating gas guzzeling, CO2 pollutive SUVs; strengthen very weak CAFÉ standards which are a joke compared to EU standards and a scam whereby lower standards are allowed for bigger vehicles; switch fast and extensively to smaller, economy vehicles as Europe has done over the years.
Set as a top priority for vehicles the development of effective, safe alternate green fuels (or one basic fuel) with an outstanding EROEI (energy return on energy invested) performance – green fuel options include the electric battery (which may be poorly EROEI efficient based on recent studies), a hydrogen or ammonia fuel system now at an advanced stage of prototype testing and improving.
Get serious on finally determining the potential of Algae as a green fuel – another fuel option that captures twice as much CO2 per one part of oxygen and can be used as a drop-in fuel to eventually substitute for any fossil fuel.
Transition far more aggressively to solar for heat and cooling of homes and commercial buildings; thermally insulate homes; develop smart rotor blade technology to optimize the power generation of single wind turbines; technically assess benefits of natural photosynthesis versus artificial photosynthesis for producing clean energy.
Plant millions of fast-growing trees in a program of massive reforestation; stop the slashing of forests (e.g., IKEA wiping out forests to make cheap furniture).
Transition as quickly as possible to organic grain agricultural systems (‘biochar’ farming) where CO2 can be sequestered in the soil organic matter; finds ways that absorb GHGs while growing more food – similar to idea noted in point X below – and improving the lives of poor farmers by, for example, raising the quality of degraded soils so that they can absorb more carbon and, if possible, by planting valuable trees among the crops.
Examine feasibility and pros-cons of harvesting phytoplankton in mass to re-oxgenate seas where needed and neutralize carbolic acid in seas.
Redesign and make products that are truly durable (e.g., away with the 3 or 4 years toaster culture), easily repairable, and as long-lasting as feasible; phase out of disposable industries, especially plastic bags.
Look into a technically new greenhouse food production system now in prototype testing in Africa using piped in salt water that is simply converted to natural water for planting in a process that also captures and recycles CO2 providing a very rapid growth of food products with little need for fertilizers.
SUMMARY
Exxon-Mobil has laid down the typical international oil giant challenge. In my research papers, I found a note in which Exxon admits to climate change and the role of CO2. See:
In another statement, Exxon was reported as saying the following:
“Exxon Mobil predicts that carbon tax or no carbon tax, by 2040 global demand for energy is going to grow by 35%, 65% in the developing world (includes China and India) and ALL of this is going to be supplied by fossil fuels.”
So don’t worry about violent climate changes and 95% chance of Earth warming to 2 -4 degrees Celsius by 2050 or sooner if CO2 concentrations exceed 500 ppm … thereby increasing the chance of a massive Arctic CH4 release to an almost certainty.
Looks like, as you have said John, we will have to absorb another climate calamity to Wake UP to the environmental planet threat building up fast before everyone’s eyes … except the Exxons!
Frank Thomas /The Netherlands
Frank,
Thank you for your very astute comments. I don’t think capitalism needs to be completely reformed. It just needs to be put in its place and that is manufacturing products. Corporations should be subservient to the government. Right now corporations and their lobbyists practically run the government. It should be the other way around. We need a new paradigm where underconsumption and local production of life’s essentials does not mean that the economy is going to hell in a hack.
You point to the fact that Europe has changed many of the economic assumptions of American capitalism without suffering any drastic consequences. In fact the European quality of life is arguably superior to the American and the largesse is most certainly more equitably distributed.
Case in point: the German feed-in tariff for solar installation. Many German families and businesses are now making a living from selling energy back onto the grid. Instead of lowering GDP, some oil corporation profits have been replaced by well distributed profits to families and local businesses. Americans have the mindset that anything that hurts corporations is going to lower GDP. The German example proves this is not true.
All the things you suggest can only be implemented by a strong government, one that will shape the economy by providing the right incentives. Right now corporations control the US government in their own interests through their lobbying activities.
So what are the chances democracies around the the world are going enact the drastic changes in commerce and lifestyle required to cut emissions by 50% in the next six years? Negligible.
Take the United States, for example. A Pew poll about a year ago found that although “Protecting the environment” ranked 11th out of 18 issues for Americans, “Dealing with global warming” came in last. Only 28% of those surveyed said they think it should be among the nation’s top priorities.
28% ? It could be worse. If the Pentagon spent 28% of their budget on emissions mitigation (e.g. building wind/solar energy systems) it would be a step in the right direction. The DOD has repeatedly warned us that climate change is one of our greatest national security challenges). The income from these power plants could be used to reduce taxes, in addition.
Also, 28% – may describe the percentage of the public that has any understanding of science.
At any rate, time is running short; no time for playing ping-pong with the road apples that deniers delight in and that has kept the percentage of the informed so low.
Those concerned about a livable climate might join Citizens Climate Lobby, citizensclimatelobby.org.
OK, but…
It’s all well and good to say, “Action must be taken!” but when only about a quarter of the electorate agrees, bemoaning the ignorance of the citizenry won’t help. The real questions is, how can minds be changed?
I think one big step forward would be a clear and comprehensive plan to get from here to there. But here again, environmentalists come up short. It was a few years ago, but I still have this quote from George Monbiot in my files: “All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this.”
I used to feel as you do Watt. But, I think some environmental groups have a laser like focus on what needs to be done.
Recently, I joined Citizens Climate Lobby. I learned about the carbon fee and dividend. All sources of carbon (e.g. Exxon) are charged a small offset or fee. The fees are rebated back to citizens to defray higher gas prices, for example.
In BC, Canada, this has dropped emissions by 10 % AND lowered income taxes. Their economy is strong and the carbon fees are popular.
Watt,
In 2012, the EU 27’s total CO2 emissions per capita was 7.2 tons per year vs. 16.4 tons per capita for the U.S. All other world nations were well below the EU average except China which now already matches Europe’s per capota emissions level. This is very scary because at least 90% of China’s 1.3 billion population earn less than $400 per month but at low standard of living development China’s CO2 emissions have been increasing at the phenominal rate of over 9% a year up to 2012 when the increase suddenly dropped to a little less than 4%.
If China could stay at a 4% annual increase for next 37 years up to 2050, the country would be emitting more than 70 billion tons of CO2 … or more than TWICE 2012 global emissions of 34.5 billion tons! And I haven’t added in India which has 1.2 billion people and is at an even more infant phase of consumerism and industrial development than China.
There’s some small hopeful notes about China. Despite their extraordinarily extreme 70% reliance on dirty coal today and the resulting massive CO2 emissions going into the atmosphere worldwide daily, they are building almost 30 nuclear power plants (safety of this from waste storage standpoint ???) to be all on line by 2035-40, and they are moving heavily into clean hydropower. But this clean strategy won’t be effectively implemented with any important CO2 mitigating effect until 2040-50. A bit late I would say!
This is the “Big Picture” … emphasizing why drastic changes along lines noted must take place preferably TOMORROW by all industrial-developed nations or else … ??
The ghost of Paul Erhlich lives on! Or rather he just refuses to die?
Very riveting perspective on the demise of the world. Will we ever learn to listen to the scientific data?
from Charles Stack via Email:
Dear John, thanks so much for this insightful and well-thought-out article:
We, as a society, can have our cake and eat it too. Research is proving that low-carbon or carbon-free sources of energy can make a rapid impact, so our task is to push corporate America in that direction. It is like trying to turn a boat in the Panama Canal, but it can, and must, be done.
San Diego is the center of the universe for research and development into new petroleum substitutes made from algae, so you are likely familiar with this technology. At the University of Illinois, we have developed a new way of growing algae that generates hundreds of times the oil produced by competing processes, and our projections show that we will be able to produce diesel fuel at $2.00 per gallon while harvesting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or power plant exhaust. In other words, we capture the value of carbon dioxide in a cost-effective manner.
Please visit my startup website: http://www.neochloris.com
Articles such as yours do a great deal of good, please keep writing! I’m very focused upon the problem of ocean acidification, and we are seeing rapid results of this effect in many parts of the world. I consider this to be at least as serious as warming, as it is happening much more quickly, and it imperils the phytoplankton of the seas, which produce most of our oxygen.
If we turn off this vital source of oxygen, it is game over. I’d enjoy corresponding with you about this.
Thanks and best, Chuck
Charles Stack, MPH
DrPH Candidate
Estelle Goldstein Memorial Scholar
UIC School of Public Health
http://www.uic.edu/sph/
Climate Reality Leadership Corps Graduate
August 1, 2013
http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/
Vice-President, Neochloris Inc.
http://www.neochloris.com
from David Martin via Email:
I read your article with fascination. I agree with the consensus that the earth has warmed in the last century and a half and that humanity has caused some of that rise in temperature.
You make an eloquent case. But allow me to point out a few facts.
1. Our modern 20th-21st century era marks the confluence of 5 key events related to climate:
a. The Industrial revolution
b. The end of the little ice age.
c. The first extensive records of actual temperatures measured.
d. Population growth to the point where isolated areas are hard to find.
e. 24 Hour news cycles with instant reporting around the globe
I fear that you may be focusing on point a (anthropogenic GHG emissions) to the exclusion of b thru e.
Of course it’s warmer now than it was 150 years ago. We emerged from an ice age, for crying out loud.
Our temperature records (actual readings, not proxies like tree rings and coral growth) were very spotty up till perhaps the 1970’s when the data was compiled on computers.
The news shows us hurricanes, tsunamis and all sorts of extreme weather now that may have been happening for millenia–we just don’t know because we don’t have the records.
As a chemical engineer who has studied complex processes and looked at thousands of statistical charts, it strains my credulity to think that of all the hundreds of variables that go into climate (everything from solar activity to rainfall amounts to ocean currents to ground cover–that of all these factors, a trace gas at a concentration of 400 ppm is so prominent that it completely swamps out the effects of all the other factors.
Natural climate forcings due to changes in: winds, sunlight hitting earth, currents and global ocean conveyor, volcanic eruptions, earth’s orbit, etc., have always existed. The difference now from prior ice ages and interglacials — when natural phenomina dominated climate change cycles lasting tens of thousands of years — is the “human and industrial effect” on climate change since 1750 that’s in overdrive. We now have 7 billion people increasing to 9 billion by 2050 and thousands of industries injecting gigantic amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere at a SPEED unheard of.
The difference from prior ages is the we are in a world of anthroprogenic climate change occurring at a fast rate and intensifying natural climate change processes through feedbacks. The problem isn’t just the climate change, but the rate at which it is now happening may exceed the ability of nature and human beings to adapt in time.
Average land temperature on a 10-year moving basis was 8 degrees Celsius in 1750, modestly rising to 8.7 degrees in 1960, accelerating to 10.2 degrees in 2010. The last 50-year global land surface temperature has been in direct correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 280 ppm in 1750, 310 ppm in 1960, 400 ppm now and rising. This is a number the public can more easily lock into but of course it’s not the whole story by far.
Not only has the planet been gaining trapped heat at a rapid pace but research indicates the vast majority of that heat gain since 1971 has been going into the ocean. The acidification of the oceans is proceeding FAST! This has a large effect on oxygen generating phytoplankton and atmospheric temperature because heat sloshes back and forth between the oceans and the atmosphere.
As noted, prior ice ages and interglacials before civilization were primarily determined
by natural forces. Today the ‘greenhouse effect’ has taken the lead role, but equally important is the warming impact of a complex series of treacherous FEEDBACKS.
For example, here are a few key GHG-induced natural feedbacks that are contributing or potentially can contribute to an intense amplification of the greenhouse warming effect :
(1) Warming of the atmosphere tends to increase the saturation vapor pressure and amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a GHG. This in turn makes the atmosphere warmer which in turn causes the atmosphere to hold ever more water vapor.
(2) Research suggests that in the last 60 years the Pacific’s depths have warmed 15 times as fast as any time in the previous 10,000 years. Besides unleashing added warming, warming oceans pump more moisture into the air leading to unheard of rainfalls.
(3) Arctic ice melting in shallow waters of East Siberian sector is causing CH4 clathrate on the sea floor to release. Also, as the Arctic warms, vegetation is replacing snow and ice but dark vegetation soaks up the sun’s heat which accelerates Arctic warming.
(4) Warming increases risk of drought that in turn causes more frequent, larger fires, thereby releasing more stored carbon into the atmosphere than the carbon cycle can naturally re-absorb as well as reducing overall forest area.
(5) Warming of tropical rain forests results in drier vegetation and the release of stored carbon into the air contributing to more warming.
(6) GHGs cause changes in the stratosphere greatly speeding up stratospheric winds that produce a positive feedback to warming in the polar regions and mid-latitudes. Two natural fluctuations, the Arctic Oscillation and SAM Oscillation in Antartica, are considered tightly linked to the warming up of the polar regions. Studies show that over half of the Northern Hemisphere warming is due to the Arctic Oscillation. The stratospheric feedback effect intensifies the natural Arctic Oscillation when latter is in a positive mode — thus bringing additional warming to this region that can further melt ice, release CO2 trapped in the permafrost and huge stores of CH4 beneath the Siberian permafrost and Barents See. (Dr. Drew Shindell, et al of Goddard Institute for Space Studies).
One could go on and on, but it’s obvious. Climate change in our times is driven by GHGs which also unleash some huge, dangerous natural FEEDBACKS … making the ecological and human threat of going well above 2 degrees Celsius “extremely likely” by 2050. And the SPEED in which this is happening is new territory for mankind.
FOOTNOTE:
Accelerated heating up of the Earth and CO2 atmospheric concentrations since 1950 (noted above) correlate very closely with absolute population growth 1950 to 2013:
___________________________________________________________
Data in Millions:
……………………….World Population……..Increase……………..% Increase
1850……………………….1,171………………….+421…………..+56% over 100 years
1950………………………2,406……………….+1,235…………+105% over 100 years
2013………………………7,100………………+4,694………….+185% over 63 years
2050……………………..9,850………………+7,444………….+309% 0ver 100 years
Source: World Population Growth History by Vaughn Aubach, Revised 2013
___________________________________________________________
Pretty shocking! Imagine the future CO2 emissions from just global vehicles registered which were 250 million in 1970, tripling to 1 billion in 2010 and expected to be in excess of 2 billion by 2050! Little wonder that vehicle transportation today accounts for plus 30% of global CO2 emissions.
I would change the title of the article to “Progress is Possible Only When We Decrease Global Warming”
Why? We cannot “halt” global warming, we can only mitigate it. Our current level of CO2 is 400 ppm, and CO2 remains for hundreds of years.
Our geologic history shows that 400 ppm CO2 has baked in greater negative impacts than we are now experiencing. For example, sea level rise of 30 -90 feet higher than today
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/06/11/400-ppm-world-part-1-large-changes-still-to-come/
How many billion of people, trillions of dollars, would “go under” with this increase?
How is progress consistent with increasing emissions? We will blithely cruise bast 400 ppm in addition.
I believe the world may be incapable to turning this tide.
I just saw Senator Bill Nelson of Florida on the Senate floor. He spoke of just a 3 foot (3 feet not 30-90 feet!) sea level rise expected by 2100 .
Even without a growth in Florida’s population, that would force 16 million people to re-locate, destroy hundreds of miles of roads, flood power plants, hospitals, ports, businesses, schools, etc.
This will happen. The melting ice and thermal expansion of water is already happening, in fact, increasing, and sea level rise is accelerating.
All the billion dollar denier style Stink Tanks cannot refute or prevent it, nor can the scoffers, the armchair scientists, the half-truthers that troll these articles.
FOOTNOTE:
In my review of FEEDBACKS, I neglected to mention that IPCC’s recent report concludes that methane (CH4) is 86 times stronger as a heat trapping gas — called the
‘global warming potential’ value or GWP — than CO2 over a 20 year time frame. This is a 20% increase over IPCC’s previous GWP estimate of 72. Over a 100 year time frame, the IPCC has increased the GWP of methane to 34, an increase of 35% over its previous estimate of 25.
This means fracking of natural gas gives a much lower GHG emission benefit versus coal than previously reported, although coal production should still be markedly reduced and made technically emission free given its high toxicity. Making matters worse, the IPCC also found that methane leakage levels of 6% to 12% are often taking place in the larger U.S. gas fields. And it is well known that Arctic methane emissions are on the rise, especially in East Siberian shallow waters as a result of decomposing sea-floor clathrates that sequester over 1 trillion tons of deadly methane.
The 20 year GWP of 86 for methane (i.e., one molecule of CH4 = 86 molecules of CO2) is the key figure because the next 2-3 decades will clarify whether global temperatures and GHG concentrations can be can stabilized at 450 ppm and 2 degree Celsius, respectively. Methane’s ultra-toxic effect and follow-on feedbacks are 86 times greater than CO2 and as such will be a major factor in determining whether warming irreversibility or stabilization is possible within the next 30 years. Lastly, not to be forgotten is that natural gas is mostly methane and is a climate destructive fossil fuel under the best of fracking conditions.
CH4 emissions from the Arctic permafrost radiate back to melt more of the permafrost. When IPCC’s new higher methane GWP values are taken together with the ongoing thermal warming up of the Arctic ocean as result of sea ice meltdown and the Arctic Oscillation, then one has all the ingrediants of a multiple compounding FEEDBACK effect potentially leading to an even more rapid Arctic warming than is already being experienced, This could in turn lead to rather sudden catastrophic climate changes with an immediate global impact.
This is one of the worst candidates in a future death spiral – the melting of the permafrost which acts as a postitive feedback, melting more permafrost,etc..
Other feedbacks that are real, not imagined, are the killing of forests through drought, overwintering insects, and fire. The dead or missing forests cannot pull in CO2 but, in fact, release it.
Also, as sea ice disappears (on the whole it is rapidly decreasing), the ability to reflect sunlight decreases, the oceans warm faster and so, more ice melt.
This is not Al Gores fault. The deniers who risk a 6th extinction are complicit, and the survivors will have nothing but contempt for them.
Readers:
Another example of extraordinary “breakthrough” clean energy technology on the scale desperately needed (besides a hydrogen or ammonia fuel system for vehicles) — to effectively turn the tide against accelerating atmospheric climate warming by CO2 proliferation and made ever worse by powerful positive feedbacks — is illustrated by OTEC, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.”
This is an incredible development to obtain almost unlimited electricity through the difference in ocean temperatures at different water levels. The system is now in advanced prototype testing stages in selected suitable locations, including a 500-kilowatt plant being planned for Curacao by Bluerise, a spin-off from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (see: New Scientist, March 1, 2014 and Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, vol. 135, p 42302).
The following summarizes, hopefully without getting too technical, this exciting new clean energy source that might come close to the unlimited possibilities of solar energy:
I. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion : (OTEC power plants that can feed ocean energy directly into onshore electrical grids)
An OTEC system uses 1000 meter pipes to exploit the temperature difference between warm shallow and cold deep ocean water layers to generate steam energy. The ocean is a massive storage sink for solar energy where heat is generally stored in the first 100 meters of shallow water while cold waters at a constant 4 to 5 degrees Celsius are at 1000 meters. The OTEC system works in spots where the temperature difference is at least 20 degrees between the top and deep water levels. Such spots exist near tropical countries located around the Earth’s equator. As oceans warm due to climate change, the system could be extended further north or south of the equator.
An stated, the pollution and GHG free OTEC system works by producing energy from the temperature difference. Warm surface water is pumped past pipes that contain ammonia which has a low boiling point. The ammonia boils, producing a steam that runs a turbine, thereby generating electricity. The ammonia is condensed back into a liquid by piping cold ocean water from a deep level through the steam so the cycle can begin again. An OTEC plant can operate 24 hours a day and thus can simply be plugged directly into a municipal grid. There are no intermittent electricity shortcomings as with solar and wind when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
OTEC plants become more costly the further they are away from the shoreline. Ships are less costly to build and can explore the oceans for the best spots with the right shallow and deep water temperature differences. Enter SBM Offshore of the Netherlands. Back in the 70s, I helped SBM in the startup development/promotion of an innovative “offshore floating drilling and production system” utilizing drill ships for deep waters — hence avoiding need for platforms at sea or pipelines to the shore.
Now 38 years later, SBM Offshore is testing designs of a 1o-megawatt OTEC ship. Such
ships could reach a 100 megawatt-producing capacity and higher. The submarine cable problem to deliver electricity to shore can be eliminated by taking the electricity generated and using it to split sea water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can be stored in fuel cells before delivering it for use in world markets.
AMAZING! Just the kind of breakthrough innovative technology that must be explored to sharply mitigate climate warming!
I have heard a lot of schemes, some outlandish, some promising. This is one of the best. As far as I can tell, the science is realistic and feasible. I cheer the progress made in this direction.
I think that energy storage might be a problem, though. Your proposed hydrogen fuel cells should be instead compressed liquid hydrogen delivered TO the fuel cells on shore, thence to electricity. Safety issues need to be addressed.
But why not undersea power cables, directly transmitting the electricity?? We have the trans-Atlantic cable, right, or used to have it?
Jan,
Your point about compressed liquid hydrogen being delivered to fuel cells onshore is well-taken and should be evaluated. Yes, safety is always a first priority design condition in any offshore operation.
Of course, undersea power cables can be very expensive installing and maintaining depending on water depth, water currents and wave height conditions, distance from shore, etc. I’m sure these and other factors will be thoroughly technically model tested before deciding which electricity transmission option to shore is the most appropriate way to go.