In the last post, we discussed the time frame for the upcoming global warming disaster (40 to 90 years) and one of the three tools at our disposal to mitigate the impact - specifically the reduction of GHG emissions. This post will discuss two other tools: GHG "sinks" and engineering and technology solutions.
Carbon Dioxide Sinks
"Sinks" absorb and trap greenhouse gases. Forests, soil and oceans are three natural sinks.
A significant portion of the current higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to land use and development. The World Research Institue estimates that 18% of GHG emissions comes from land use changes. Specifically, deforestation reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed via photosynthesis. As Tim Flannery writes in his recently published Here on Earth: "By 2009, around half of the tropical forests present in 1800 had been destroyed and, at the current rate of destruction, by 2050 most of the remainder outside protected areas will be gone as well." One solution to this is sustainable forestry enforced by a global treaty (for example, certification that forest products have been harvested sustainably). Another would be a ban on logging in old growth forests.
Soil presents an even larger total sink for CO2 than vegetation. The burning and natural decomposition of trees and agricultural matter contributes a large amount of CO2 being released to the atmosphere. Biochar can potentially store this carbon in the ground, thereby making a significant reduction in atmospheric GHG levels. The carbon in CO2 can be mineralized in charcoal and "biochar" using a technology called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis involves the burning of biomass in the absence of oxygen. The mineralized carbon can then be stored stably for hundreds or thousands of years by mixing it back in to the soil. Biochar also has a beneficial effect on the soil itself. It can improve plant yields for certain types of crops, improve water quality, reduce soil emissions of GHGs, reduce leaching of nutrients, reduce soil acidity, and reduce irrigation and fertilizer requirements. The UK's Royal Society has estimated that widespread application of this technology for sequestering carbon can reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by 50 to 150 ppm.
By far, the largest CO2 sink that we have is the oceans. That's the good news. The bad news as reported in a 2009 ScienceDaily article: "The oceans are the planet's main carbon sink, but in the last ten years they have become increasingly unable to play this role, in both the northern and southern hemispheres." As atmospheric CO2 levels increase and water temperatures increase, the oceans can absorb less and less CO2. The only solution to this is to reverse the trend of increased human-indiced emissions.
Engineering and Technology
The last tool to be discussed is engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, shorelines, and food supply. Regardless of what steps we take to reduce emissions and increase the absorptive capacity of the land and oceans, there will be a signicant negative effect of the ongoing human-induced global warming. The extent to which we will need engineering solutions will depend on the extent we are able to reduce CO2 levels. If we do nothing, then the cost of the engineering solutions will be high. If we do much, then the cost of the engineering solutions will not be quite as high.
And if we do nothing at all - if we neither reduce atmospheric GHG levels nor provide mitigation by engineering solutions - the cost will be many trillions of dollars in damages and, globally, literally billions of displaced persons.
Dikes, levees and water removal systems for coastal cities will need to be constructed or improved. Improved heat-resistant crops with low water requirements will need to be developed. By 2050, the world's population will increase 50% to 9 billion. Let's hope we all do the right things to sustain these people of the future.
Global Political Will
More than anything else, the success or failure of the efforts to mitigate the effect of human-induced global warming depends on the political will of the nations of the world - the ability to think long-term and to cooperate globally. The United States, as one of the leading contributors to the current problem, must also be a leader in its solution. If the Know-Nothing's of today are really concerned about the world they will leave to their children and grandchildren, they better think about what the overwhelming scientific evidence is showing. Why not give the world an example of American exceptionalism in the best possible way by leading this effort ?
Final Note: For forecasts of the economic and human impacts, please see the Global Warming Forecasts website.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Global Warming - Part III
As we in the Northeast brace for Hurricane Irene, we are constantly being reminded by our newscasters that this may be a "big storm". Increased severe weather incidents are, of course, one of the long-term impacts of global warming. The frequency and intensity of severe weather may vary from year to year but inevitably as more heat energy stays within our atmosphere, this energy needs to be released at some point. Storms and tornadoes release this energy.
So what can be done about global warming? Is it already too late to prevent the worst case scenarios from occurring?
Let's start with the last question first. According to a 2009 MIT report, if little changes from the current situation - i.e., same emissions pattern as today, we can expect a 5 to 7 degree Centigrade (9 to 16 degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature by the end of this century. The results would be absolutely disastrous. Sea levels would be 20 feet above where they are now causing widespread destruction to some of the world's largest cities and most beautiful coastlines. In addition, a greater portion of the world will become unsuitable for crops because of temperature increases, increased desertification in some areas, and increased crop loss caused by storms and floods in others. The result: up to 3 billion people will have to migrate from the increased drier, warmer regions or starve. And this is the scenario for GHG emission patterns getting no worse than today. Higher emissions are a significant possibility as more developing nations achieve higher standards of living and the corresponding increase in energy use.
If you want to think shorter term - say to 2050, then just halve the numbers above - it's still a global disaster.
What can be done to prevent this disaster in the 40 to 90 years we have before it hits? Well, we have three tools at our disposal:
(1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(2) Increase the "sinks" that can trap carbon dioxide and other GHG's
(3) Use engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, food supply and the shoreline
(Note to certain budget-cutting Republican presidential candidates and their supporters: shutting down the EPA as you have been suggesting will not help the situation. I've left it off the list. Call me if you'd like to discuss further.)
The primary action we can take is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the rest of today's blog will discuss this subject. Reducing emissions has been the focus of the climate change conferences held over the past 15 years or so. It has been estimated that, to stabilize the climate, the nations of the world must reduce their GHG emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.
In the US, 94 to 95% of CO2 emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Of this, 42% of the emissions come from electricity generation and 33% from transportation. Any plan to reduce US CO2 emissions should concentrate on these.
Coal for electricity production is a major source of emissions. As GHG emitters go, it is the worst. Natural gas used for electricty generation emits about half the amount of CO2 per kilowatt as coal does. So replacing coal plants with natural gas plants would go a long way to reducing the amount of CO2 the country releases. Alternative electricity generation sources that emit zero CO2 such as wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear must be considered. This conversion of course will take time and should be started now.
More efficient automobiles, trucks and busses combined with improved rail and mass transit projects offer a way to get at transportation, the second major source in the US. Mandatory increases in the fuel efficency of automobiles is essential. Fuel cell technology and hybrids that generate their own electricity may help as would using natural gas instead of gasoline and diesel. Two notes: (1) ethanol does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions and we are basically converting food into fuel; (2) smarter management of the energy grid and the power plant conversion described above are essential if plug-in electric cars are ever expected to help. Gasoline emits CO2 in amounts about midway between natural gas and coal. So if we are just replacing gasoline with coal as the ultimate source of transportation energy, we will do little to solve the GHG problem.
To be continued and concluded in the next blog
So what can be done about global warming? Is it already too late to prevent the worst case scenarios from occurring?
Let's start with the last question first. According to a 2009 MIT report, if little changes from the current situation - i.e., same emissions pattern as today, we can expect a 5 to 7 degree Centigrade (9 to 16 degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature by the end of this century. The results would be absolutely disastrous. Sea levels would be 20 feet above where they are now causing widespread destruction to some of the world's largest cities and most beautiful coastlines. In addition, a greater portion of the world will become unsuitable for crops because of temperature increases, increased desertification in some areas, and increased crop loss caused by storms and floods in others. The result: up to 3 billion people will have to migrate from the increased drier, warmer regions or starve. And this is the scenario for GHG emission patterns getting no worse than today. Higher emissions are a significant possibility as more developing nations achieve higher standards of living and the corresponding increase in energy use.
If you want to think shorter term - say to 2050, then just halve the numbers above - it's still a global disaster.
What can be done to prevent this disaster in the 40 to 90 years we have before it hits? Well, we have three tools at our disposal:
(1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(2) Increase the "sinks" that can trap carbon dioxide and other GHG's
(3) Use engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, food supply and the shoreline
(Note to certain budget-cutting Republican presidential candidates and their supporters: shutting down the EPA as you have been suggesting will not help the situation. I've left it off the list. Call me if you'd like to discuss further.)
The primary action we can take is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the rest of today's blog will discuss this subject. Reducing emissions has been the focus of the climate change conferences held over the past 15 years or so. It has been estimated that, to stabilize the climate, the nations of the world must reduce their GHG emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.
In the US, 94 to 95% of CO2 emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Of this, 42% of the emissions come from electricity generation and 33% from transportation. Any plan to reduce US CO2 emissions should concentrate on these.
Coal for electricity production is a major source of emissions. As GHG emitters go, it is the worst. Natural gas used for electricty generation emits about half the amount of CO2 per kilowatt as coal does. So replacing coal plants with natural gas plants would go a long way to reducing the amount of CO2 the country releases. Alternative electricity generation sources that emit zero CO2 such as wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear must be considered. This conversion of course will take time and should be started now.
More efficient automobiles, trucks and busses combined with improved rail and mass transit projects offer a way to get at transportation, the second major source in the US. Mandatory increases in the fuel efficency of automobiles is essential. Fuel cell technology and hybrids that generate their own electricity may help as would using natural gas instead of gasoline and diesel. Two notes: (1) ethanol does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions and we are basically converting food into fuel; (2) smarter management of the energy grid and the power plant conversion described above are essential if plug-in electric cars are ever expected to help. Gasoline emits CO2 in amounts about midway between natural gas and coal. So if we are just replacing gasoline with coal as the ultimate source of transportation energy, we will do little to solve the GHG problem.
To be continued and concluded in the next blog
Monday, August 22, 2011
Global Warming 101 - Part II
The Carbon Dioxide Balance - why the relatively low amount of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is doing so much damage
Although the amount of human-caused CO2 emissions (~30 billion tons/yr) is small compared to naturally occurring emissions (750 billion tons/yr), the natural CO2 emissions were, for thousands of years, in balance with the Earth's ability to absorb them in land and water. Once the balance was upset (primarily) by the burning of fossil fuels starting in the second half of the 18th century, the carbon dioxide that cannot be absorbed naturally enters the atmosphere and stays for a very long time. It is estimated that about 40% of human-induced CO2 emissions are absorbed - so we are adding 18 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.
Other Effects and Complications - why things could be even worse than you thought
There are other more immediate, shorter term effects of global warming besides the potential destruction caused by rising sea levels. In particular, more intense storms, greater incidences of flooding and the destruction of wildlife habitats are even now becoming evident.
Before turning to possible solutions, we unfortuantely need to add some more bad news to the mix. Key to this discussion is the boot strapping effect that occurs as the global temperature increases.
The first complication is that the ability of water to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) decreases as temperature increases. A five degree Fahrenheit increase in water temperature would result roughly in a 10% decrease in the solubility of CO2 in water. This will decrease the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and more CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.
The second complication comes from the release of methane currently trapped in ice and ocean sediment in arctic regions. Geologist John Atcheson, among others, have warned of this effect. A temperature increase of a few degrees in the Earth's annual temperature would cause some methane to volatilize and get into the atmosphere. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas and this increased concentration in the atmosphere would further raise temperatures, leading to a runaway effect. There are 400 billion tons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - more than enough to start this chain reaction.
Alternate Worst Case Scenario - why you really need to hope this doesn't happen
Finally, there is an alternate worst-case scenario to the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. This involves the shutdown of the ocean conveyor belt that distributes heat through the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream, which warms Western Europe, for example, is part of this system.
The scientific term for the ocean conveyor belt is thermohaline circulation. Temperature (thermo) and salt (haline) content determine the density of ocean water. Differences in ocean water density drive this (literally) world-scale conveyor belt. If this conveyor belt receives a big enough shock - for example, large amounts of fresh water from melting glaciers or increased precipitation - the northern oceans will experience a decrease in salt content and density. This will interfere with or shutdown the ocean conveyor belt. The result would be somewhere between the Younger Dryas event (10-20 degree F. temperature drop) and a return to a full-blown glacial period. If this catastrophe does occur, the change will be very quick - not quite as quick as in the movie The Day After - but on the order of a decade. In any case, it will be difficult to do anything about it once it begins.
To be continued
Although the amount of human-caused CO2 emissions (~30 billion tons/yr) is small compared to naturally occurring emissions (750 billion tons/yr), the natural CO2 emissions were, for thousands of years, in balance with the Earth's ability to absorb them in land and water. Once the balance was upset (primarily) by the burning of fossil fuels starting in the second half of the 18th century, the carbon dioxide that cannot be absorbed naturally enters the atmosphere and stays for a very long time. It is estimated that about 40% of human-induced CO2 emissions are absorbed - so we are adding 18 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.
Other Effects and Complications - why things could be even worse than you thought
There are other more immediate, shorter term effects of global warming besides the potential destruction caused by rising sea levels. In particular, more intense storms, greater incidences of flooding and the destruction of wildlife habitats are even now becoming evident.
Before turning to possible solutions, we unfortuantely need to add some more bad news to the mix. Key to this discussion is the boot strapping effect that occurs as the global temperature increases.
The first complication is that the ability of water to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) decreases as temperature increases. A five degree Fahrenheit increase in water temperature would result roughly in a 10% decrease in the solubility of CO2 in water. This will decrease the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and more CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.
The second complication comes from the release of methane currently trapped in ice and ocean sediment in arctic regions. Geologist John Atcheson, among others, have warned of this effect. A temperature increase of a few degrees in the Earth's annual temperature would cause some methane to volatilize and get into the atmosphere. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas and this increased concentration in the atmosphere would further raise temperatures, leading to a runaway effect. There are 400 billion tons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - more than enough to start this chain reaction.
Alternate Worst Case Scenario - why you really need to hope this doesn't happen
Finally, there is an alternate worst-case scenario to the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. This involves the shutdown of the ocean conveyor belt that distributes heat through the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream, which warms Western Europe, for example, is part of this system.
The scientific term for the ocean conveyor belt is thermohaline circulation. Temperature (thermo) and salt (haline) content determine the density of ocean water. Differences in ocean water density drive this (literally) world-scale conveyor belt. If this conveyor belt receives a big enough shock - for example, large amounts of fresh water from melting glaciers or increased precipitation - the northern oceans will experience a decrease in salt content and density. This will interfere with or shutdown the ocean conveyor belt. The result would be somewhere between the Younger Dryas event (10-20 degree F. temperature drop) and a return to a full-blown glacial period. If this catastrophe does occur, the change will be very quick - not quite as quick as in the movie The Day After - but on the order of a decade. In any case, it will be difficult to do anything about it once it begins.
To be continued
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Global Warming 101 - Part I
Human-induced global warming is taking the planet into a zone of no return. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The only questions now are: how bad will the damage be, when will it come, and what can we do to mitigate it?
So what exactly is happening with atmospheric greenhouse gases and why should it be of concern? The three most prevalent greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor comes and goes quickly. It's in the atmosphere for a matter of days before condensing into rain or snow. Methane lasts 10-15 years breaking down in time to water vapor and carbon dioxide. A good portion of the carbon dioxide is removed naturally by being absorbed in plants and forests and dissolved in oceans and lakes. However, what carbon dioxide cannot be removed persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And that is the heart of the problem.
Before the start of the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution, the Earth was more or less in carbon dioxide "balance". What was being emitted by natural sources was being absorbed by natural "sinks" such as plants and oceans. As we burned more and more fossil fuels and simultaneously cleared forests and jungles for development, we created an imbalance. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels (determined from ice core samples) held at 260-280 parts per million (ppm) for the previous 10,000 years. The July 2011 reading at the Mauna Lua (Hawaii) Earth System Research Laboratory was 392 ppm - an increase of 30-35%. Coincidence? I think not.
These atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have not been seen for at least 650,000 years according to a 2008 report. The same report also noted that the rate at which carbon dioxide is accumulating is faster than had been estimated by the computer models. Scientists at UCLA then applied the ice core sampling technique to study the period from 800,000 to 20 million years ago. Science Daily reported on the research in a 2009 article. The researchers concluded that the last time carbon dioxide was sustained at this level for a long period was 15 million years ago. Temperatures back then were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today. This would result, among other things, in a melting of the polar ice caps, a dramatic rise in the level of the oceans, and the complete destruction of sea level cities globally - from New York to London to Singapore. And that's the good news...some scientists believe the carbon dioxide levels will rise to 600-900 ppm if nothing is done now to reverse the disturbing trend.
(to be continued)
So what exactly is happening with atmospheric greenhouse gases and why should it be of concern? The three most prevalent greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor comes and goes quickly. It's in the atmosphere for a matter of days before condensing into rain or snow. Methane lasts 10-15 years breaking down in time to water vapor and carbon dioxide. A good portion of the carbon dioxide is removed naturally by being absorbed in plants and forests and dissolved in oceans and lakes. However, what carbon dioxide cannot be removed persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And that is the heart of the problem.
Before the start of the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution, the Earth was more or less in carbon dioxide "balance". What was being emitted by natural sources was being absorbed by natural "sinks" such as plants and oceans. As we burned more and more fossil fuels and simultaneously cleared forests and jungles for development, we created an imbalance. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels (determined from ice core samples) held at 260-280 parts per million (ppm) for the previous 10,000 years. The July 2011 reading at the Mauna Lua (Hawaii) Earth System Research Laboratory was 392 ppm - an increase of 30-35%. Coincidence? I think not.
These atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have not been seen for at least 650,000 years according to a 2008 report. The same report also noted that the rate at which carbon dioxide is accumulating is faster than had been estimated by the computer models. Scientists at UCLA then applied the ice core sampling technique to study the period from 800,000 to 20 million years ago. Science Daily reported on the research in a 2009 article. The researchers concluded that the last time carbon dioxide was sustained at this level for a long period was 15 million years ago. Temperatures back then were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today. This would result, among other things, in a melting of the polar ice caps, a dramatic rise in the level of the oceans, and the complete destruction of sea level cities globally - from New York to London to Singapore. And that's the good news...some scientists believe the carbon dioxide levels will rise to 600-900 ppm if nothing is done now to reverse the disturbing trend.
(to be continued)
Friday, August 19, 2011
Turning the Clock Back
An aol-care blogger recently wrote that she couldn't believe we were again talking about fighting for clean air and water. Republican politicians, always on the lookout for ways to help their corporate sponsors, have been making loud noises about cutting funds for the EPA. The average Republican voter (including manyTea-Partiers) is in favor of funding but for most of them this is not a core issue that will cause them to cast their vote for the Democrats. Same is true of independents...even though they may strongly support the EPA, this is not the issue that will tip the scales toward the Democrats.
Make no mistake about it - if the Republicans take the White House and/or the Senate in 2012, there will be a severe rollback in the funds for the EPA. We lost eight years in the fight to reduce carbon emissions in the Bush years. The country and the world cannot afford the further weakening of environmental laws that will occur if the Republicans prevail.
Rick Perry, the latest Republican 2012 presidential wunderkind, won his first state-wide office when he opposed Democrat Jim Hightower as Texas Agriculture Commissioner. Evidently the Republican right-wing thought Hightower had been too aggressive in asking for visible warnings against pesticide sprayings that would alert workers and citizens when pesticides were being applied to Texas farms so that they could take appropriate protective measures. That was years ago...but in case you think he's changed check out this youtube video where he denies global warming is a result of human activity.
Well, he's also questioned evolution as a theory that "has a few holes in it". Hey - maybe Perry and Bachmann can out-nut each other, split the extremist vote and then a moderate Republican (i.e., Romney) can win the Republican presidential nomination. But don't hold your breath now - you may have to after the 2012 elections. Perry has huge corporate backing and massively wealthy individual donors. He has never lost an election. Then again he's been nowhere but Texas and we saw what that great state served up the last time they sent their governor to the White House.
Make no mistake about it - if the Republicans take the White House and/or the Senate in 2012, there will be a severe rollback in the funds for the EPA. We lost eight years in the fight to reduce carbon emissions in the Bush years. The country and the world cannot afford the further weakening of environmental laws that will occur if the Republicans prevail.
Rick Perry, the latest Republican 2012 presidential wunderkind, won his first state-wide office when he opposed Democrat Jim Hightower as Texas Agriculture Commissioner. Evidently the Republican right-wing thought Hightower had been too aggressive in asking for visible warnings against pesticide sprayings that would alert workers and citizens when pesticides were being applied to Texas farms so that they could take appropriate protective measures. That was years ago...but in case you think he's changed check out this youtube video where he denies global warming is a result of human activity.
Well, he's also questioned evolution as a theory that "has a few holes in it". Hey - maybe Perry and Bachmann can out-nut each other, split the extremist vote and then a moderate Republican (i.e., Romney) can win the Republican presidential nomination. But don't hold your breath now - you may have to after the 2012 elections. Perry has huge corporate backing and massively wealthy individual donors. He has never lost an election. Then again he's been nowhere but Texas and we saw what that great state served up the last time they sent their governor to the White House.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Silent Spring, Nuclear Winter, Gaia and Medea
2012 will mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, an event that launched the modern environmental movement and altered human history.
The late 18th and early 19th century environmental efforts were primarily concerned with conservation and protection of wild areas, prompted by the Romantic era's idealization of nature and the growing awareness that "the frontier" was rapidly disappearing around the world. There was also a growing awareness of the health impact of the most obvious pollutants of the Industrial Revolution.
But it was Rachel Carson who first opened our eyes to the damage being done to the environment by the toxic chemicals being released daily to the land, sea and air. Pesticide chemicals based on World War II chemical weapons and nerve gas technology (chemical weapons and nerve gases modified to act as pesticides) were sprayed across the globe trying to eradicate insect pests. Silent Spring documented the far-reaching impacts of this war on nature. Governments began to put environmental protection agencies in place and the poisoning was reduced. People began to understand the inter-relatedness of all creatures and their environment. Indeed, the term ecology is derived from Greek words meaning "study (or knowledge) of the house". Mankind took the first steps towards putting its house in order.
As science progressed in the second half of the 20th century, we became aware of subtler, but no less potentially devastating, environmental issues - the impact of radiation from mid-century nuclear testing, the hole in the ozone layer, mercury in the air and in the sea, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, species extinctions, and the pending disaster due to human-induced global warming.
James Lovelock published Gaia in 1979 and took inter-relatedness to the next level. Tim Flannery summarized Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis nicely: "...[as] cooperation at the highest level - the sum of unconscious cooperation of all life that...[gives] form to our living Earth." Gaia is a self-regulating mechanism that moves to correct imbalances. However, Flannery in his 2011 book, Here On Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, also describes and warns against a competing view. The Medea hypothesis, a term coined by paleontologist Peter Ward, is rooted in the ruthless selfishness of Darwinian competitiveness - a nature "red in tooth and claw". Ward argues that, if left unchecked, species will destroy themselves by "exploiting their resources to the point of ecosytem collapse." If a species competes too successfully, it will inevitably go extinct.
So where are we 50 years after Silent Spring? Will we be led to our extinction by a ruthless and ignorant selfishness? Or will we build on what we've been learning for the past 100 years about the interconnectedness of all things? The time to choose is now.
The late 18th and early 19th century environmental efforts were primarily concerned with conservation and protection of wild areas, prompted by the Romantic era's idealization of nature and the growing awareness that "the frontier" was rapidly disappearing around the world. There was also a growing awareness of the health impact of the most obvious pollutants of the Industrial Revolution.
But it was Rachel Carson who first opened our eyes to the damage being done to the environment by the toxic chemicals being released daily to the land, sea and air. Pesticide chemicals based on World War II chemical weapons and nerve gas technology (chemical weapons and nerve gases modified to act as pesticides) were sprayed across the globe trying to eradicate insect pests. Silent Spring documented the far-reaching impacts of this war on nature. Governments began to put environmental protection agencies in place and the poisoning was reduced. People began to understand the inter-relatedness of all creatures and their environment. Indeed, the term ecology is derived from Greek words meaning "study (or knowledge) of the house". Mankind took the first steps towards putting its house in order.
As science progressed in the second half of the 20th century, we became aware of subtler, but no less potentially devastating, environmental issues - the impact of radiation from mid-century nuclear testing, the hole in the ozone layer, mercury in the air and in the sea, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, species extinctions, and the pending disaster due to human-induced global warming.
James Lovelock published Gaia in 1979 and took inter-relatedness to the next level. Tim Flannery summarized Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis nicely: "...[as] cooperation at the highest level - the sum of unconscious cooperation of all life that...[gives] form to our living Earth." Gaia is a self-regulating mechanism that moves to correct imbalances. However, Flannery in his 2011 book, Here On Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, also describes and warns against a competing view. The Medea hypothesis, a term coined by paleontologist Peter Ward, is rooted in the ruthless selfishness of Darwinian competitiveness - a nature "red in tooth and claw". Ward argues that, if left unchecked, species will destroy themselves by "exploiting their resources to the point of ecosytem collapse." If a species competes too successfully, it will inevitably go extinct.
So where are we 50 years after Silent Spring? Will we be led to our extinction by a ruthless and ignorant selfishness? Or will we build on what we've been learning for the past 100 years about the interconnectedness of all things? The time to choose is now.
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Tea Party Recession
How to create a double-dip recession:
1. Manufacture a totally false and unnecessary crisis by threatening to default on the US debt unless your demands are met. This will create instability and uncertainty in global markets, threatening retirement funds, pension plans, and 401k accounts as well as large stock-holders.
2. As part of the solution, demand that the government take money out of the economy while unemployment is at high levels. This will ensure that job creation will be minimal, the recession will continue, and recovery will be slow. Without jobs, there is no increase in consumer demand and thus no recovery.
3. As part of the solution, demand that no new taxes be raised even on the wealthiest individuals and the most profitable of corporations. This will ensure that no possible solution to the deficit will ever exist since cuts alone cannot solve it.
4. Blame it on President Obama. Keep lying about the cause of this recession until people forget that it was your blackmailing and discredited policies that led to the current mess.
It's especially important that you succeed with item 4. You can count on about 30% of the American public to be ideologically blind enough, willfully ignorant, fearful, hateful, or racist enough to believe you without any question. And if you can suppress the vote enough in the 2012 elections, you can control Congress and the Presidency in 2013.
Was this economic chaos the Tea-Party plan all along? After all, the aim of the extremist ideologues that dominate current Republican Party "thinking" is, in the words of Grover Norquist, "to reduce [government] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Threatening to default on the country's debt, getting its credit rating reduced, and hamstringing its ability to deal with the jobs crisis go a long, long way to accomplish this.
1. Manufacture a totally false and unnecessary crisis by threatening to default on the US debt unless your demands are met. This will create instability and uncertainty in global markets, threatening retirement funds, pension plans, and 401k accounts as well as large stock-holders.
2. As part of the solution, demand that the government take money out of the economy while unemployment is at high levels. This will ensure that job creation will be minimal, the recession will continue, and recovery will be slow. Without jobs, there is no increase in consumer demand and thus no recovery.
3. As part of the solution, demand that no new taxes be raised even on the wealthiest individuals and the most profitable of corporations. This will ensure that no possible solution to the deficit will ever exist since cuts alone cannot solve it.
4. Blame it on President Obama. Keep lying about the cause of this recession until people forget that it was your blackmailing and discredited policies that led to the current mess.
It's especially important that you succeed with item 4. You can count on about 30% of the American public to be ideologically blind enough, willfully ignorant, fearful, hateful, or racist enough to believe you without any question. And if you can suppress the vote enough in the 2012 elections, you can control Congress and the Presidency in 2013.
Was this economic chaos the Tea-Party plan all along? After all, the aim of the extremist ideologues that dominate current Republican Party "thinking" is, in the words of Grover Norquist, "to reduce [government] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Threatening to default on the country's debt, getting its credit rating reduced, and hamstringing its ability to deal with the jobs crisis go a long, long way to accomplish this.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Two Competing Memes
"If we believe in a dog-eat-dog world where only the fittest survive, we're likely to propagate very different memes from those that arise from a fundamental understanding of the interconnectedness of things. In large part, our future as a species will be determined by which of these memes win."
- Tim Flannery, Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2010
Primacy of a deregulated market, denial of benefits to the many to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few, the tepid effort to create jobs...which of these views on life do you think is dominant in America today?
Joseph Marie de Maistre (1753-1821) wrote: "Every country has the government it deserves." Elections are generally decided based on whether voters are fearful or hopeful. The 2010 elections, like most in the previous decade, were won based on the stirred-up fears of the electorate. Elect tea-partiers and you have the kind of economic blackmail that occurred most recently in the debt ceiling debate.
We need to work to restore the hope that glimmered briefly in 2008. I remember one of the progressive radio talk show hosts saying just before that election that the country was in such bad shape after Bush that he almost hoped Obama would lose. Or the Presidency would crush him when he saw how little could be changed. I don't think Obama is quite there yet but time is running out. The extremist right-wing now controls the debate in this country and they are winning the battle of the memes.
- Tim Flannery, Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2010
Primacy of a deregulated market, denial of benefits to the many to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few, the tepid effort to create jobs...which of these views on life do you think is dominant in America today?
Joseph Marie de Maistre (1753-1821) wrote: "Every country has the government it deserves." Elections are generally decided based on whether voters are fearful or hopeful. The 2010 elections, like most in the previous decade, were won based on the stirred-up fears of the electorate. Elect tea-partiers and you have the kind of economic blackmail that occurred most recently in the debt ceiling debate.
We need to work to restore the hope that glimmered briefly in 2008. I remember one of the progressive radio talk show hosts saying just before that election that the country was in such bad shape after Bush that he almost hoped Obama would lose. Or the Presidency would crush him when he saw how little could be changed. I don't think Obama is quite there yet but time is running out. The extremist right-wing now controls the debate in this country and they are winning the battle of the memes.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Worst of Both Worlds
Well, the global stock markets have responded to the "debt deal" with a quick downward slide. The Dow is continuing its plunge - now down 850 points over the past 8 days.
The basic fact in all this is that the US debt was never really the problem. This totally unnecessary crisis was created in whole cloth by Republicans. While the Republicans, led by their extremist right-wing, held the country hostage over the debt ceiling, no action was taken to solve the real economic problem - jobs. And now with "The Deal" taking huge amounts of government money out of the economy, there is little hope that jobs will be created any time soon. And until jobs increase, there will be no growth in the US economy. Enter the double-dip recession.
Obama's encouraging Business to create jobs and Congress to send him a jobs bill is a little like asking the burglars for whom you just opened the door to your home to help you with your gardening. Fat effin' chance. Let's face it - supply-side economics is in the driver's seat and it just doesn't work. Politically, Republicans will win both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve. There is absolutely no political incentive for them to cooperate. So much for the effectiveness of the the Compromiser-in-Chief.
As usual Paul Krugman provided some excellent insight into The Deal in an August 1 NY Times article. After analyzing how The Deal fails on so many levels and is bound to lead the country into further economic problems, he concludes: "What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t."
The basic fact in all this is that the US debt was never really the problem. This totally unnecessary crisis was created in whole cloth by Republicans. While the Republicans, led by their extremist right-wing, held the country hostage over the debt ceiling, no action was taken to solve the real economic problem - jobs. And now with "The Deal" taking huge amounts of government money out of the economy, there is little hope that jobs will be created any time soon. And until jobs increase, there will be no growth in the US economy. Enter the double-dip recession.
Obama's encouraging Business to create jobs and Congress to send him a jobs bill is a little like asking the burglars for whom you just opened the door to your home to help you with your gardening. Fat effin' chance. Let's face it - supply-side economics is in the driver's seat and it just doesn't work. Politically, Republicans will win both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve. There is absolutely no political incentive for them to cooperate. So much for the effectiveness of the the Compromiser-in-Chief.
As usual Paul Krugman provided some excellent insight into The Deal in an August 1 NY Times article. After analyzing how The Deal fails on so many levels and is bound to lead the country into further economic problems, he concludes: "What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t."
Monday, August 1, 2011
They Just Don't Get It
The bargain struck by Obama and the Republicans averted a financial market disaster but at a price to the nation's well-being.
Once again the compromiser-in-chief was outmaneuvered by the right wing and came away with nothing other than a debt ceiling increase that will keep the country running through the 2012 elections. Good for Obama and the Republicans. Good for the wealthy and corporations.
Not good for the working class, the middle class, seniors, the unemployed, women and children who will be asked to shoulder the burden of the deficit reduction.
Not good for the economy as Obama will have no ability to grow jobs by public works programs. Not good for the economy because the totally discredited supply-side economics which haven't worked in 30 years continue not to work: manufacturing level is now at its lowest level in two years and the Dow is down 46 points as I write this. Basically the manufacturing data trumped the debt agreement.
It didn't have to be this way. Obama could have invoked the 14th amendment and gotten a "clean" debt ceiling increase - just has been done for the past four decades. Or he could have taken the trickle-down theorists to task - why not raise the income taxes on the wealthy and corporations and then provide income tax credits and payroll tax holidays to those who actually create jobs in the USA? If trickle down/ supply side economics works then surely they should have no objection. In the meantime we could use the increased tax revenues to provide more to those in our country who really need it and stop the continuing redistribution of national income to the wealthiest. Half of our income goes to the wealthiest 10 percent. Believe me - they can afford the increased taxes and still not go "mansionless".
Once again the compromiser-in-chief was outmaneuvered by the right wing and came away with nothing other than a debt ceiling increase that will keep the country running through the 2012 elections. Good for Obama and the Republicans. Good for the wealthy and corporations.
Not good for the working class, the middle class, seniors, the unemployed, women and children who will be asked to shoulder the burden of the deficit reduction.
Not good for the economy as Obama will have no ability to grow jobs by public works programs. Not good for the economy because the totally discredited supply-side economics which haven't worked in 30 years continue not to work: manufacturing level is now at its lowest level in two years and the Dow is down 46 points as I write this. Basically the manufacturing data trumped the debt agreement.
It didn't have to be this way. Obama could have invoked the 14th amendment and gotten a "clean" debt ceiling increase - just has been done for the past four decades. Or he could have taken the trickle-down theorists to task - why not raise the income taxes on the wealthy and corporations and then provide income tax credits and payroll tax holidays to those who actually create jobs in the USA? If trickle down/ supply side economics works then surely they should have no objection. In the meantime we could use the increased tax revenues to provide more to those in our country who really need it and stop the continuing redistribution of national income to the wealthiest. Half of our income goes to the wealthiest 10 percent. Believe me - they can afford the increased taxes and still not go "mansionless".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)