It's Official: We have ONE Earth and ONE big problem

"...the world does not face separate crises - the "environmental crisis", "development crisis", and "energy crisis" are all one"

This statement was quoted in Thursday's press release for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s latest Global Environment Outlook, or GEO4.

As you may know, OT has been researching the latest, most respected international reports to get an idea of what our future holds - what type of world we are set to inherit from our parents. The GEO4 report is the most comprehensive study available, and it does an excellent job of highlighting our biggest global challenges and showing how challenges in each sector are related.

While we (humanity) have successfully addressed many global issues such as ozone layer depletion, protection of many natural areas, and regional health improvements, many greater challenges threaten to undo to the progress we have achieved. The study reveals that current trends in most major areas (climate change, consumption levels, food production, water demand, biodiversity, etc.) are highly unfavorable. If current trends continue, we will likely face many large-scale, interrelated disasters.

As the report emphasizes, major problems are highly interrelated so it's important to focus on holistic solutions that address the bigger problem. For example, it is short-sighted to try to eradicate poverty (improve economic growth) through the continued use of fossil-powered energy. Gasoline cars and coal-fired power plants would greatly improve the standard of living for many people in the world - for a short period of time. However, the compounded impacts of increased pollution, rising fossil energy prices and climate change would likely counteract the previous efforts to combat poverty. In fact, climate change (caused by increase in use of fossil fuels) is projected to lead to water shortages, land changes, floods, and other consequences that will be disastrous for the world's poorest people because they lack the capital to adapt to these changes. (Recall the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the poor populations along the Gulf Coast and the tsunami's impact on the poor populations around Indonesia.)

Instead, true poverty eradication will come from holistic solutions that emphasize building economic growth on education, clean energies, high efficiency, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness. In fact, global shifts towards these holistic solutions are necessary, not just for poverty eradication, but for prevention of major disasters in the upcoming century. Humanity has faced many great disasters such as major world wars, plagues, food shortages, and the fall of many civilizations. But these events have primarily led to regional disasters. With our growing population and global interdependence, we are now more vulnerable than ever to global disasters - wars involving WMDs, global epidemics, global food shortages, and the fall of our global civilization.

Luckily, we have global communications and improved global diplomacy that will help us utilize and develop the many tools we need to address the challenges we face. But everyone must immediately focus on holistic, sustainable solutions in our pursuits of economic growth and well-being. As stated in the GEO4 report,
"while governments are expected to take the lead, other stakeholders are just as important to ensure success in achieving sustainable development. The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations"

How can you personally take real steps towards addressing these challenges? How can our government and social institutions take real steps toward addressing these challenges?

Good News, Bad News on Climate Change Policy in the U.S.

In a story in the Washington Post, President Bush's top science advisor, John Marburger III, admits that human activity is producing too much carbon dioxide and that it could induce disasters even before the Earth is warmed by two more degrees C.

From the article:
The IPCC outlined a range of environmental impacts that could transpire if temperatures rise 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above 1980 levels. These include placing between 20 and 30 percent of all species "at increasing risk of extinction" damaging most coral reefs; and
"increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts."

Yet Margburger and the Bush administration refuse to join other leaders of the world community in their commitment to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. What is his excuse? It "is going to be a very difficult one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that affect people's lives."

He's right about the first part of his statement - it will be very difficult to achieve, but the second part of his statement is completely illogical. Global climate is simply the sum of all the regional climates, so global climate change is inherently defined by the collection of changes to regional climates.

Maybe what he was trying to say is that he isn't concerned about climate change because wealthier people (and wealthier countries like the U.S.) are expected to be less devastated by climate change. Many people agree that the poorest people of the world are going to suffer the most from climate change (though the wealthiest people of the world are largely responsible for climate change.)

So maybe the real reason the Bush administration is dodging commitment to prevent or even mitigate climate change is: "It is going to be very difficult to achieve, and we don't care about the global effects of climate change - only the effects it will have on the U.S; and we'll just deal with those when they come." Well, even if you agree with this globally irresponsible, tyrannically isolationist view, do you really trust the Bush administration to be able to deal with it's own domestic climate disasters (think: hurricane Katrina)?


Finally, the title of this blog promised some good news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802452.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Unlike the Bush administration, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment has acknowledged the importance of addressing climate change. On the grounds that coal-fired power plants emit carbon dioxide, they refused to offer a permit for the construction of a new power plant. In contrast to the Bush administration, the Kansas state government made a bold statement to the energy industry that the people want clean energy, not just cheap energy.

Oils That Don't Pollute

The pesticide industry is the biggest scapegoat (and rightly so) for many of the toxins that are accumulating in our environment and in our bodies. Before the Stockholm Convention banned them, most pesticides and many chemicals used in pesticide production were persistent organic pollutants (POPs) or persistent bioaccumulative chemicals (PBTs). Substances are considered persistent toxins if they don't degrade naturally and/or our bodies cannot process them; thus, they persist and accumulate in the environment and in our bodies. As they build up in living tissues, they can reach toxic levels.

While POPs and PBCs are regulated in industries in developed countries, they are still produced in some developing countries. And though modern pesticides may not be produced from the most dangerous POPs and PBCs, they are still produced from toxic substances, and their production often involves other toxic substances.

The pesticide companies may have convinced you that their chemical is the only effective way to manage pests. But, a scientist at Vanderbilt University may have evidence to the contrary. In this press release, the scientists describes that he realized the insect-repellent powers of essential oils and set out to understand the molecular mechanisms that made them effective. He then used his molecular understanding to create mixtures of oils that provided non-toxic alternatives to pesticides.

Unfortunately, most modern companies seem more concerned with perpetuating their best-seling products rather than phasing out harmful products and investing in new alternatives. (The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a perfect example of this behavior.)
Usually a company's budget includes funding to deal with problems created by their products, rather than funding for research, development, and transition to safer/better alternatives.

As noted in "Who Killed the Electric Car", the consumer is, in part, to blame. Unless we show concern and demand safer products, companies will not produce them. Businesses exist to make money, and as long as we give our money to the businesses that don't look out for our best interests, they will thrive, beating out smaller, socially responsible businesses. So do your homework - be an informed consumer. You are what you buy.

Hard Truths About Energy

In a report titled Hard Truths: Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an advisory board to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, reports on the future of the energy, and specifically the oil and gas industry, to the year 2030. The major findings were called "hard truths" and are listed below.

Hard Truths about Demand: Energy demands are expected to increase 50-60% by 2030. Energy demand is driven by rise in population and income; since population is exploding and global GDP is expected to double by 2030, energy demand is rising. Oil and gas are indispensable energy sources if this demand is to be met.

Hard Truths about Supply: We are not running out of fossil fuel, but the risk associated with fossil fuel use is increasing. It will be more difficult and more expensive to expand the infrastructure that is needed to process and transport the larger quantities of fuels that will be necessary to meet rising demands. All sources of energy, including nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, and unconventional liquids, will be needed to meet the increasing demand.

Hard Truths about Energy Security: Energy security should not be confused with energy independence; energy independence is not realistic in the foreseeable future because we are part of an interdependent global economy. Instead we must moderate our energy demand, expand and diversify domestic energy sources, and strengthen global energy trade and investment. "There can be no U.S. energy security without global energy security."

Hard Truths about the Energy Workforce: A majority of the U.S. energy workforce, including skilled scientists and engineers, is eligible to retire within the next decade. A new workforce must be replenished and trained. But the industry faces a shortage of science and engineering graduates, coupled with poor image and competition from other industries.

Hard Truths about Carbon Emissions: Policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions will alter the energy mix, increase energy-related costs, and require reductions in demand growth. To address these issues, the NPC recommends we moderate demand by improving efficiency, developing low-carbon energy sources, and investing in carbon sequestration.

What do I think about the Hard Truths?

This study points out that many driving factors are contributing to the "hard truth" that energy costs are projected to increase (closer to the "real" cost and value of energy) in the near future. Clearly we need to prepare for these increased costs so they don't devastate our economy. This report emphasizes the role of oil and gas in meeting future demands, so it focuses on improving energy efficiency and developing other fossil-based technologies. Simultaneously, it deemphasizes the issue of carbon emissions and ignores the "hard truth" that we need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels if we want to prevent serious climate change that could lead to much bigger problems than energy shortages. But the NPC isn't worried about climate change (even if they admit it is happening, they don't think it is a problem) so they didn't consider that we need to actually REDUCE our current consumption of fossil fuels.

Adding that variable to mix, I would change the recommendations to include:

- Invest in industry- and business-wide energy conservation efforts

- Redirect government subsidies and funding from the petroleum industry to non-fossil based energy providers/developers

- Invest in energy conservation and climate change education

- Develop a plan and a timeline that quantifies what is needed to transition the country (and the world) to lower energy demand and increased non-fossil energy supply.

What do you think about the Hard Truths?

Disclaimer:
While one might be skeptical of a study that involved petroleum companies, this particular study integrated data and results from 100 different reports/studies and included 350 participants, including individuals from other fields, not associated with the petroleum industry. So while you might raise your eyebrow or flat-out disagree with some of the conclusions that are drawn, the data that is presented is still very useful.

Click here for an easy-to-follow ppt presentation of the report:
http://downloadcenter.connectlive.com/events/npc071807/pdf-downloads/Report_Slide_Presentation/NPC_Pres_71807_Notes.pdf

Scientific Community Addresses Inequality of Wealth

“Nearly 90 percent of research and development dollars are spent on creating technologies that serve the wealthiest 10 percent of the world’s population”

Could this be why the gap between the global rich and poor is only getting bigger every day?
How can we narrow the gap without destroying the cultures on either end of the spectrum?

One attempt to tackle this problem is taking place at D-Lab, a research center at MIT that focuses on developing "low tech" technologies designed for specific communities that have shortages of clean water, electricity, cooking fuels, or mechanical power. Students and professionals work together to learn about the lifestyle and culture of a particular community, and then they work to develop a useful technology, using locally available resources.

“What you try to do in virtually every situation is make their lives more efficient,” [Mr. Brandis] said. “That’s what the big revolution in America was between 1860 and 1960 — that a person doing a day’s work can produce a lot more product. And that means time is more valuable and that means he has more time to do other things.”

Development (in rich and poor countries) must incorporate principles of minimizing waste, especially GHG emissions. The article didn't mention if emissions minimization was one of their many guiding principles, but it should be- especially since they hope to proliferate their technologies to many developing communities.

Rather than sending money to the government of a developing country, I agree that this is this program is a much better way to spend "development" money. (See http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1156479183 to hear a talk on problems with foreign aid in Africa.)

Do you think programs like this be profitable for both the rich and the poor?