Global Warming And The Problem With Technological Solutions

[Jcrowley]

The US has opted for the first category: technology. It’s easy to see why. Our present economy is geared to constantly increasing consumption, and dependence on goods and services we no longer provide for ourselves. There is a deadly combination of a sense that we are entitled to all these goods and services, and a fear that we need them and that we can’t survive without them. We don’t worry about the ultimate cost, because we haven’t the faintest idea what it is. In fact, we act as if there will be no cost. Thus, in the US most of those advocating the new energy technologies are not suggesting any reduction in overall energy consumption.

Indeed, the opposite is likely to be true – continuing low prices encourage us to use still more energy. But there are two hitches: first, even taken together, all of the new energy technologies will probably not be up to the job of replacing cheap oil in running a high-consumption, high-waste society (although – and you can see where I’m heading – they will be critically important in running a responsible-consumption, low-waste society).

The second hitch is more serious, and here is where the friendly fire idea comes into play. If we use the gains from our new energy technologies to continue to increase our consumption and waste, we will find ourselves in a vicious spiral that decreases resources and increases environmental damage – even as our energy technology improves.

Marine fisheries are a good example of this kind of friendly fire. Fossil fuels are the major energy inputs to the world’s fishing industry. In the year 2000, 50 billion litres of fuel, mostly diesel, were burned to land a little more than 80 million metric tons of marine fish and invertebrates – this amounted to 1.2% of global oil consumption, about the same as used by the Netherlands, with an annual emission of 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The energy content of the fuel is about 12.5 times the protein energy content of the catch. Fleets catching luxury species – shrimp, tuna, swordfish – for the US, Japanese and similar markets have the highest energy consumption: 2,000 litres of fuel per ton of catch. But the energy efficiency of the fishing fleet has been declining steadily over time, because every year the boats need to fish longer hours and deeper in offshore waters as the over-exploited fish populations progressively fail. So even if we improve the efficiency of diesel and gasoline engines by 10% or 20%, which is conceivable, and if our new technologies make more cheap fuel available, energy consumption will continue to rise in most fisheries until one by one they collapse, like the North Atlantic cod fishery. Abundant energy in the absence of scientifically regulated fishing strategies is killing the fisheries.

http://www.resurgence.org/2006/ehrenfeld239.htm

[leftofthedial]

1. the only solution to global warming

is a limited nuclear war to trigger a mild nuclear winter.

EPA and DOD models suggest that the optimal two locations for the nuclear bombing would be Tehran Iran and Pyongyang North Korea.

Carefully targeted nukes in these two locations would release tons of dust into the atmosphere, cooling the atmosphere and bringing a stop to the early stage greenhouse effect that causes global warming. The radiation released by this would be no greater than the background radiation at a typical London sushi bar. By repeating the cycle every 20 years or so, we could keep global warming in check without having to alter at all the lifestyles god wants us to enjoy.

[TheModernTerrorist]

26. not funny

I mean, I did laugh.
...but seriously, not funny :P

[Morgana LaFey]

31. Clever, tho, you have to admit. nt

[The2ndWheel]

2. Look at our energy demands

Have they gone down with increased efficiency?

Our entire way of life is based on consumption. So the obvious way to keep that going is to increase efficiency, allow more and more people to use more and more resources, and never stop the cycle.

We want everything. We want the cake, we want to eat it, we want to recycle it, we want to repackage it, and we want to sell it after all that for 7 times the profit.

[Gregorian]

3. It's the population "stupid".

I can't think of a better way to say it than paraphrasing Clinton's economy mantra.

There isn't anything else to say. Anything other than targeting the REAL problem is just a massage of the symptoms.

Don't talk about population, and the problem WILL remain. I don't care if we perfect photovoltaics and batteries, and turn corn into biofuel. It's like a balloon in that if we squeeze it in one place, it'll pop out in another. The pressure is the population. Energy is only a fraction of our problem. Water, food, manufacturing materials (Not to mention the fact that we still need petroleum in HUGE quantities just to make stuff.), forest products. The list is endless.

We tame population, or we accomplish nothing. And since everyone has kids, these kinds of posts offend everyone.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. So what's the solution?

It's easy to say that population is the problem. What policies should be enacted to solve a population problem?

[The2ndWheel]

10. Reduce the amount of food available

Can't do that though. We can't actually do any of the things that would be needed to actually fix anything.

But as long as we have the food, we'll keep having more people. Not talking about just the US(since nothing can be done on even a relatively small scale these days), but around the globe.

Agriculture is what created this problem. It has created many of our problems, and only increased the scale of others. Solved the food problem though, only to get us into this mess about too many people using too much. You have to take the good with the bad though. There is no perfect state to which we'll progress to, but we'll try. Pretty much no matter what.

[Gregorian]

15. Stabilize world population.

It's either we impose on people's freedom, or die. I'll take one kid per family before 9 billion, 12 billion, or however many it takes before we're all twenty feet under water from global warming. And it's more than just energy. Food, water, materials, war.

It's one or the other. And, yes, in the meantime we improve what we can. That's obvious.

[gravity]

9. It's the economy "stupid"

THe big problem is that everything in our economy depends on oil. In order to reduce greenhouse emissions we would have to make a huge sacrfice with our standard of living. Controlling the population isn't going to curb global warming much if we don't develope alternative energy sources. Less people in the world just means that oil would be cheaper, so we would still use the same amount.

[Jcrowley]

12. Not entirely true

What it comes down to is energy consumption. If a certain level of populace, Group 1, consumes half as much energy as a population twice as large, Group 2, our original study group, Group 1, even with double the population of Group 2 is more sustainable.

I don't think many people give it much thought. Most seem to think that technology will somehow find a way to provide us with all the energy we might wish to consume and it ain't gonna happen.

Example: A false notion about clean air. Look at what happens with smog control devices and so-called clean machines:

Metal and platinum (an essential ingredient for smog devices on cars) have to be mined. That takes energy. Plants and tooling will also use more mined metal and other resources and yet more energy to produce the stuff. Employees have to travel to work making that shit in cars that need yet more of everything including highways, traffic lights, cops, etc., etc. Much more energy up in smoke. All this makes more smog but produced in places other than the cities. We may have many cities but only one atmosphere.

Electric cars are really a dumb idea. The energy it takes to make them, their batteries (nasty stuff) and charging systems, usually powered by oil based fuels, and the kind of junk they eventually turn into is outrageous.

There is no free lunch where energy is concerned. Even solar and wind, probably the best so far, are only viable to a limited degree. The systems still have to be manufactured and maintained and need some place to dump them when they wear out.

The thing is, how many people are willing to think way past their lifetimes? There is no shortcut to the changes needed to save the human race. Can anyone imagine a government or United Nations sponsored program that will not meet its intended goal for one or two hundred years?

I know this, everyday, the way back gets longer.

[Gregorian]

13. Energy consumption is on the rise. And that is only a fraction of the problem.

Nothing else to say. Except China and India. They are going to live like Americans.

So we halve the amount of energy we use, but we triple the amount of consumption. That's where we're headed.

The only real solution is to stabilize the world population.

Water. Food. Materials. Wars. It's not just about energy. That was my point.

[Jcrowley]

21. Here's a related datum

30 years ago, only 4 percent of the population of the world's developing countries consumed an average of 2700 kilocalories worth of food per day. Today that number is up to 51 percent, and by 2050, it may hit 90 percent. In terms of addressing the problem of world hunger, this will be an extraordinary, unprecedented triumph. The prospects are less rosy when viewed in the context of the pressures exerted on the world's ecosystems. Because even as population stabilizes, per capita consumption will continue to rise.

These figures are drawn from the first chapter of "World agriculture: towards 2030/2050: Interim Report" from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The seven-page overview is useful reading for anyone trying to get a sense of the Big Picture. The challenges faced by humanity in the 21st century are mighty indeed: climate change, peak oil, war and terrorism...

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/12/12/nine_billion/index.html

[bloom]

4. I noticed when Oprah did her "Inconvenient Truth" show

That she encouraged people to buy different light bulbs, a programmable thermostat, some other things. Which are well and good - if they reduce energy consumption - but she didn't touch the idea that people should buy less stuff, period.

[Jcrowley]

6. I read a study

that said if all of the programs suggested in Inconvenient Truth were implemented Global greenhouse gasses would be reduced by a mere 20% at best.

And then there's the world's largest contributor, if you can call it that, to CO2 emissions the ahem Pentagon,
greatest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. 20%

Would that be enough?

What percentage reduction in greenhouse gas output is needed to stop global warming?

[Jcrowley]

11. Not nearly

The climate change panel urges 50 to 70 percent reductions.

The problem here is that all of these efforts only address future emissions. No matter how well these protocols would work, they obviously cannot effect past emissions, which are what make global warming unavoidable.

Contrary to the impression given by some news reports, global warming is not like a light switch that can be turned off if we simply stop burning so much oil, coal and gas.

There is a lag effect of about 50 to 100 years. That's how long carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere after it is emitted from auto tailpipes, home furnaces and industrial smokestacks.

So even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the planet would continue warming for decades.

[lostinacause]

23. First let me say, reading you posts, I am quite impressed with you knowlege on global

warming. There is one small technicality you missed. With the last line if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels, all other thing equal, the total levels decline. If the lag period is 50 years, if humanity had no effect on emissions the net levels would decline by the amount of CO2 that was emitted 50 years ago. Thus to break even, all other things held constant, we would have to reduce our emissions to what they were 50 years ago. If the real lag period is longer the same argument applies.

Clearly, though, all other things are not equal. Greenhouse gases in the ice of the poles of the earth also play a role in the situation.

[rman]

28. global warming is beyond stopping

Cutting greenhouse emissions 100% right now would soften the blow, but the only 'solution' is to deal with the consequences of dramatic climate change.

[lectrobyte]

14. The Pentagon is the largest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet?

Got a cite for that?

[Jcrowley]

16. Here ya' go

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world

"Military fuel consumption makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S."

"Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the DoD the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S."

According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece.

The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

http://www.army.com/blog/item/1292

I could send you some more info on details if need be later tonight.

The US Navy, for instance, uses 17% of the world's diesel fuel.

Here's another resource with links:

The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

In 1999 Almanac edition of the Defense Logistic Agency’s news magazine Dimensions it was stated that the DESC “purchases more light refined petroleum product than any other single organization or country in the world. With a $3.5 billion annual budget, DESC procures nearly 100 million barrels of petroleum products each year. That's enough fuel for 1,000 cars to drive around the world 4,620 times.�

That budget increased a lot over the years. The US DoD spent $8.2 billion on energy in fiscal year 2004.

“In fiscal 2005, DESC will buy about 128 million barrels of fuel at a cost of $8.5 billion, and Jet fuel constitutes nearly 70 percent of DoD's petroleum product purchases.� says American Forces Information Service News Article by G. J. Gilmore. <3>

For some, this is not enough though. Here is what a report from Office of Under Secretary of Defense says “Because DOD’s consumption of oil represents the highest priority of all uses, there will be no fundamental limits to DOD’s fuel supply for many, many decades.� <4>

http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/02/us-military-oil-consumption.html


The U.S. military is using between 10 million and 11 million barrels of fuel each month to sustain operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. This makes 330 000 - 360 000 barrel per day.

[lectrobyte]

19. I had no idea. Thanks.

[IDemo]

17. Another link:

The US Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of oil in the world. In 25
minutes a single seater F-15 jet can burn 625 gallons (2,840 litres) of fuel, more than
the average US motorist uses in a year. An aircraft carrier will use that much in under
seven minutes. The military consumed about 200 million barrels of oil in 1989, enough
energy to run the entire US urban mass transit system for 14 years. <14>

http://www.derekjwilson.co.nz/050420ApproachEnergyCrisis.pdf

[lectrobyte]

20. Now I'm wondering if we'd be energy self-sufficient if

we didn't have that military machine to feed. Nah, that would be too ironic for even me to contemplate. Thanks for the info, I had no idea the military used that much oil.

[rman]

30. You're never going to be energy self-sufficient as long as you rely on a finite source of energy.

Not in the long run for sure.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

5. The experts' current consensus seems to be

that it might be barely possible to save the day if all the governments in all the industrialized countries were to agree to treat it as a crisis and make changing the environmental conditions the absolute top priority. How likely is that?

[Strelnikov_]

18. Jevons Paradox

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox since it ran counter to Jevons's own intuition, but it is not a paradox at all and is well understood by modern economic theory which shows that improved resource efficiency may trigger a change in the overall consumption of that resource, but the direction of that change depends on other economic variables.

. . .

In his 1865 book The Coal Question, Jevons observed that England's consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced his coal-fired steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of Thomas Newcomen's earlier design. Watt's innovations made coal a more cost effective power source, leading to increased use of his steam engine in a wide range of industries. This in turn made total coal consumption rise, even as the amount of coal required for any particular application fell.

And for another twist on Jevons Paradox:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=74943&mesg_id=74955

Which is why we need a 'top down' (aka Government) solution to the energy consumption, environmental and resource depletion problems facing us.

[lostinacause]

24. I was thinking the same thing.

[rman]

29. mr Hubbert of Hubbert Peak (Peak Oil) fame was thinking along similar lines,

but displayed long term vision by including the other end of the graph;

consumption of a resource will decrease regardless of efficiency - once the resource starts to run out (approximately at the half-way point of depletion).


http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/

[nam78_two]

22. K&R-I agree with you

I will take the tech s0ln.s over nothing but I am dismayed by the pathological resistance this country displays towards any suggestions of conservation, frugality, and minimalism. We wouldn't have been in such a bad situation in the first place had we practiced any of those :eyes:....
Caution, you will be called a luddite on here for even suggesting this, though :eyes:.

Great post as usual :bounce:!

[GliderGuider]

25. Here are some hard truths

When I say "we" below, I mean all of us - global humanity, not just the USA.

• There are 6.5 billion of us.
  
• The excess birth rate is 75 million people per year. That's the number of extra deaths you'd need every year to stabilize the world population. WWII killed only 10 million per year.
  
• The fertility rate of the developed world is at or below 2. The rate in most of the the rest of the world is over 3. The high fertility populations are getting younger, the low fertility populations are aging.
  
• Humanity is in a 25% overshoot condition - we need 1.25 planets to keep going at this population and rate of consumption.
  
• Humanity's ecological niche has expanded to become the entire planet.
  
• This is possible because of cheap transportation.
  
• Cheap transportation is possible because of cheap oil.
  
• 75% of all oil is used for transportation, and 95% of all transportation is driven by oil.
  
• There are no substitutes for oil in its global role as a transportation fuel.
  
• We have used half the oil there is, and the rate of oil production is about to start declining.
  
• A calorie of food requires about 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce and transport to the consumer.
  
• During six of the last seven years the world has consumed more grain than it has produced.
  
• World per-capita grain production peaked in 1984, and is now down about 8% from its peak.
  
• Developing nations will pay very high energy prices to achieve a Western standard of living.
  
• Any oil the OECD nations do not use due to conservation, substitution or demand destruction will find ready buyers in other nations.
  
• Technological developments like electric cars will not reduce the global use of oil, they will merely displace that use to other economic sectors or countries.
  
• Because oil is the master resource of our civilization, we will consume all the oil we can produce, no matter what the price.
  
• If oil gets to be too expensive or scarce, we will turn increasingly to coal.
  
• China will in a new coal-fired power plant every week for the next ten years.
  
• Alternative energy sources will be added to our fossil fuel use, they will not replace it.
  
• We will use more nuclear power as time goes on.
  
• Only 20% of the original global forest cover remains.
  
• Large fish stocks are collapsing, and as a result the cost of fish protein is climbing.
  
• Water tables are dropping rapidly as we deplete the deep aquifers in places like the Australia, India and the midwestern USA.
  
• Species are going extinct at 1000 times the historic rate.
  
• We all know what's happening to the Arctic ice caps.
  
• When the Siberian permafrost starts to melt it will release enormous quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times as bad as CO2, potentially triggering a runaway positive feedback loop of global warming.
  
• There is nothing humane we can to to stop world population growth.
  
• There is nothing we can do to increase food production.
  
• There is no substitute for oil as our civilization's driving force.
  
• The people of the developing world will not agree to halt their development.
  
• The people of the developed world will not vote to make themselves voluntarily poorer.
  
• Even if the people of the developed world did vote to make themselves voluntarily poorer, it woiuld not change the final outcome. Humanity appears to have a built-in growth imperative, we have no predators, and we have filled our finite ecological niche to overflowing.
  

Folks, we are in enormous trouble.

[RedEarth]

27. Very interesting........thanks