The last two posts have attempted to lay the foundation of the scientific study and "debate" of global warming, while this post will focus on the state of the planet as it is today. This post will break down the current state of affairs on the planet into two main sections. First, a discussion on the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the source of the major contributors to the problem. Second, the effects that the increase has already caused and how close are we to the "dam" breaking and semi-permanent catastrophic change occurring. The goal of this part of the series is to provide insight into the reasons why global action is already being taken and why these efforts need to be accelerated if the world is going to be able to mitigate the most severe effects that will inevitably occur if we simply maintain a "business as usual" attitude.

What We Are Emitting Today

According to the latest report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as of March 2009, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume. Currently it is increasing at a rate of about 2 ppm every year, however, this rate has been gradually increasing as China and India are scrambling to power their emerging economies with the cheapest (and consequently dirtiest) power sources possible. As of 2006 the U.S. and China are the two countries producing the most greenhouse gases, accounting for nearly half of the worlds total CO2 emissions.


To narrow the focus to our own country, in the U.S. as of 2006, the main source of our CO2 emissions were from our electricity generation and our transportation, as the chart below shows.




As the chart above shows, basically all of our energy used for transportation comes from oil, which is a major problem in its own right, due to the complexities of peak oil, which will be discussed in the next series of posts. The chart below shows that the overwhelming majority of our electricity production comes from our coal plants, which unfortunately emit the most greenhouse gas of any form of electricity production, but since they are currently the cheapest way to produce energy, they subsequently dominate our electricity market.




This is a result of coal still being fairly abundant and the health risks that are associated with its extraction, transportation, storage and burning not being factored into the cost of construction of the plants or their continued operation. These costs are considered "externalities", and although they are very important in determining the true cost of our energy choices, they have yet to be factored into the operation of these plants. This is due to the fact that quantifying these costs is such a complex issue that has to account for so many different factors, that it is has thus far been impossible to find experts that can put an accurate dollar figure on the long term health care costs that our country will incur from pursuing the cheapest short term energy option. However, currently there is pending legislation in the form of the Waxman-Markey bill that is proposing a "cap and trade" system on greenhouse gas emissions. This bill along with other proposed solutions will be discussed in more detail in the next post, but in brief, it has been hotly debated thus far as to how effective it will be in addressing climate change.

Current Effects of Global Warming

Already we are seeing rising sea levels, glacier retreat, shrinkage of the Arctic circles and negative impacts on agriculture. Of these problems, perhaps the most immediate and most severe impacts have come in the form of glacier retreat and rising sea levels.

Many of the world's glaciers are melting at unprecendented rates, causing flooding and eventually will lead to freshwater shortages as glaciers are responsible for 70% of all the freshwater sources on the planet.


In many parts of the world glaciers are the only source of fresh water supply throughout the year. In the dry season in China and India the Gangotri Glacier in the Himalaya Mountains feeds the Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze Rivers which in turn supplies 100's of millions of people with fresh water to be used as irrigation water for their rice and wheat crops. China and India together produce more than half the world's wheat and rice, and the three river basins supply much of it. A major disruption in the water supply for this region would have a major effect on food prices around the world.

Sea level rise, another potentially damaging effect of global warming, is an issue that will be on the immediate horizon if nothing is changed. In a climate conference in Copenhagen this past March, scientists warn that if CO2 emissions continue to rise unabated, that by 2100, sea levels would rise about 3 feet and would completely submerge islands such as the Maldives, the Sunderbans in the Bay of Bengal, and Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific. The US, with roughly 12,400 miles of coastline and more than 19,900 square miles of coastal wetlands, would face a bill of hundreds of billions of dollars to protect this land. Additionally, rising oceans will also contaminate both surface and underground fresh water supplies, worsening the world's existing fresh-water shortage. Underground water sources in Thailand, Israel, China and Vietnam are already experiencing salt-water contamination.


Where We Are Headed

Blomstrandbreen Glacier, Norway, March 1928 v. March 2002
Due to the complexity of the issue, with the consequences of the continuing increase in CO2 levels unknown, it is often hypothesized that there is a "tipping point" where the earth cannot handle and process (via trees recycling CO2 and oceans storing it) the CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet will simply start to shut down, and rather than trees and oceans being carbon "sinks" that hold CO2, they will begin releasing more than normal and will begin to accelerate temperature rise regardless of whether or not we continue to increase our CO2 emissions. This is the scenario on the "doomsday" end of the spectrum, and although it does not seem likely, it is unfortunately firmly in the realm of possibilities. While no one can say for sure where these type of effects would start occurring, the current number that scientists and politicians are generally looking towards as a line not to cross, is an atmosphere concentration of over 450 ppm (which would cause a worldwide temperature increase of about 2 degrees). In order to do this, a recent study estimated that humans would need to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 30-50% of 1990 levels by 2050.

It is at this point that drastic effects such as ocean acidification, further desertification as the tropic lines expand and more severe tropical storms (an increase in ocean temperatures in theory would cause more powerful hurricanes), are hypothesized to occur.

So, to extrapolate the current data, even if there is no growth in CO2 emissions (which would mean no economic growth for the next 30 years, which would be counter to the last few hundred years of human existence), we will reach the 450 ppm number within 30 years. However, I do at this point need to again bring up the issue of peak oil. It is an issue that most global warming studies are not considering in regards to the projected outcomes of our fossil fuel consumption, but it is a huge corollary problem and is intrinsically related to the issue and subsequently will be the subject of my next series of posts. To summarize the concept as briefly as possible, there is a finite amount of oil in the earth; we have already extracted the "easiest" reserves to reach, and the remaining reserves will get increasingly costly to extract while the demand from developing third world countries as their populations continue to boom and they chase the western ideal of capitalist success ratchet up their demand for oil. Oil is literally the lifeline that powers the world economy, so much so that it has recently been suggested that oil (or energy) replace the U.S. dollar as the main form of exchange on the world markets.

Regardless of whether or not this takes effect, the reality is simple, the world has either reached peak production of oil or will do so in the next few years. This is a fact not in debate. Therefore, there will not be as much CO2 released into the atmosphere from emissions from cars and machinery over the next decade or so as increase in demand with the diminishing supply will cause prices to continue to rise. This issue will undoubtedly cause economic and social disruption as well, as the world is simply not currently set up to smoothly transition from an oil based economy to renewable energy sources. The bright side of this is however, that it is very unlikely that we will continue rising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at the same rate, is it will be likely be financially impossible to consume as much oil and thus produce CO2 at the same rate (unless in switching to electric cars or hybrids we continue to produce the majority of our electricity from fossil fuel). So although it is likely that CO2 emissions will either remain constant or rise in the near future, fortunately the constraints of the planet (ie. there simply will not be enough fuel to burn) will eventually limit the increase. Hopefully this will occur before we get too close to planetary shutdown, as thus far the political response has been slow and not very encouraging, especially in the U.S.. Due to this reality, I am not particularly worried about the most severe catastrophic effects of global warming, as it looks like it will not even be feasible to continue releasing CO2 at the same rates as we were previously. However, this does not mean we can delay the transition of our economy and the structure of our society towards renewable power any longer, as oil shortages will severely effect this country sooner or later and the less reliant we are on oil as a transportation method the better off we will be.

To summarize, it is granted that nothing on this planet is static; global climate conditions can and do change as a result of natural processes that are out of our control. However, in this case, in our lifetimes, we are rapidly changing the planet's climate at an unprecedented rate and although these changes will certainly lead to innovation, migration, and transformation of how the world is organized, as with any large scale change in climate conditions, it is best if we either slow or mitigate these changes as much as possible to avoid economic and social unrest in the areas most directly affected. Water shortages and scarcity can and will lead to armed conflict if it is not dealt with proactively, as today we are already beginning to see the world degrade into energy driven warfare (ie. our current occupation of Iraq, which gives our country and corporations access to the worlds 4th largest oil reserves).

As I have stated before, there are already solutions to these problems, with new ideas and innovations emerging on a daily basis. This is an exciting yet frustrating time to be alive, as the answers to these major problems are available, but they will only happen if somehow the average citizen wakes up to these issues before they actually start affecting our day to day lives. Politicians are generally only as good as those that are pressuring/financing them and we currently live in a world where corporate interests are dominating the coffers, and thus the control of political decisions. An unengaged, uneducated population will remain at the whims of these interests unless they do something to mobilize, make their voices and opinions heard and literally force politicians to do things in their long term best interests rather than for corporate short term profits. The next and final post in this series will discuss some of the energy solutions already available that show promise and how you can get involved to make your voice heard, actually using the benefits of living in a democracy where it is still possible to make a difference if you want it enough.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: climate change, global warming, peak oil

It’s a misinformation battle of literally epic proportions, that is still somehow currently raging on the internet and even in mainstream media. The “debate” over whether global warming is anthropogenic (man made), simply part of a natural planetary cycle, or if the idea that the planet is actually warming at all, is still a hotly contested topic and unfortunately the scientific reality is not currently winning.

According to a Rasmussen survey taken last month, only 34% or one in three Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. The rest either think that there is no global warming or that it is simply a naturally occurring long-term trend in the planets history. After weeks of trying to sift through the mass of contradicting and conflicting articles that are being quoted and misquoted on the internet (often in what are considered “legitimate” or mainstream news sources), eventually I just stopped, as I had learned enough about the origins of where the conflicting opinions were coming from. Many of these conflicting articles seemed to cite reputable sources and often make seemingly plausible claims, enough so that I certainly paused more than once to question my own set of beliefs and understanding about the topic. However, by the time I was finished conducting the necessary research, it turned out that there was really no debate at all. The issue is settled and has been for some time. The answer is simple. Rising co2 levels in the atmosphere are conclusively the result of human’s burning of fossil fuels, and outcome from this is that we are headed down a path that will lead to a drastic alteration of the planets climate.

The main purpose of this post will be to discuss the basics of global warming, broken up into 3 main sections;

1) How long the scientific community has known about it’s anthropogenic origin
2) Why there is still the idea in the American public that the issue is not settled 3) Why this issue should even matter to you (if it isn’t already obvious)




The Prequel;
The Science Behind the Debate

As I mentioned earlier, only 1/3 of Americans believe that humans have caused the current warming trend that the planet is experiencing. The reasons behind the global warming “debate”, and why the often used phrases of the “science is not all in” or that “there is not a scientific consensus” exist in the public discourse about the topic, is the starting point for this discussion, and to get there, it is important to understand how we have come to our current position today.

To begin, I will try as briefly as possible, to highlight the history of the scientific inquiry into global warming, and the surprising facts about how long not only the scientific community has known about the problem, but our government as well.

The science behind the effect of global warming begins in the early 1900s with the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, a chemist who was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. His estimate in 1908 that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the temperature to rise between 3.5-4.5 degrees C, is practically dead on with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (known as the IPCC) (which will be explained later) prediction in 2007, of a 2-4 degree rise in temperature by the doubling of CO2.

In 1938 Guy Callendar published the first paper studying the actual effects of increased CO2 on temperatures, using world wide data sets to already show the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

In 1957 oceanographers Revelle and Suess studying the increased CO2 levels, determined that the increase would not be absorbed by the oceans. It was in this paper that Revelle famously wrote, “"Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

In a 1965 report from the US Dept. of Environmental Quality, Revelle first warned then President Lyndon Johnson of the potential of global climate change its potential impacts.

In 1979, JASON, an independent group of elite scientists was requested by the U.S. Government to prepare a report predicting the output of greenhouse gases and their effects on world temperatures. They predicted a doubling of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 2035, with a temperature increase of 2-3 degrees C, which is in line with current projections (which will be discussed later). Additionally, that same year in what is known as the Charney report, issued by the National Academy of Sciences (which is comprised of 2,100 of the scientists in the U.S. with 200 Nobel Prize Winners), JASON's results were confirmed, and both reports expressed concern about rising sea levels, and the effects of this temperature change on the world's crop producing capacity. So in 1979 there already was a consensus!

Then in 1988, Congress finally got in on the act as three separate bills were introduced under the name of a National Energy Policy Act set out to try and establish a framework for attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by our country. Scientific evidence was presented, expert testimony was brought in, but there was no movement on any of the bills, and although one version was re-introduced the next year, nothing was passed.

Also in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations and tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. This panel has issued seperate reports in 1990, 1995, 2001, and most recently in 2007.

The 1995 report was the first to suggest that "the balance of the evidence" supported global warming was caused by human influence on global climate.

The 2001 report was worded even more strongly, stating that "most of the warming associated with the past 50 years is directly attributable to human activity".

Lastly, the 2007 report concluded that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal", and that "anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century. Additionally stating that"the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 percent."

Basically, the science of global warming has been “settled” for what one could argue has been 100 years now, with our own government being aware of the problem for 40 years after a direct report to the president. Which leads to the next big question. Why? Why hasn’t this issue been in the public consciousness for decades, and why haven’t we been working to re-arrange our economy and energy sector to meet these challenges for years?? Basically it boils down to two issues. Avoidance and intentional misinformation.




Our Current State of Affairs;
Avoidance and Misinformation

To address how we are where we are today, that is, living with the majority of the public in the world's highest greenhouse gas emitting nation being completely ignorant of the current precarious state of what we accept as "normal" planetary conditions continuing to exist, it is important to address the why, as the science behind the debate has been available to all parties involved for decades. I believe it to be attributable to two main sources, and will start by addressing the less sinister of the two, avoidance. The main problem with the issue of global warming is that it is an issue that has such immense implications to the way humans are currently work, live and play that simply discussing its realities creates an immediate sense of fear, followed by either suspicion of its truth and then the innate reflexive human reaction, which is denial. There is no easy band-aid solution, and nothing really that one individual can do to change its progress. Human’s simply are not wired to want to comprehend a potential disaster of this sort, and in a country where our generation has grown up mortgaging the future on credit, the idea that things will not continue to consistently get bigger, better, faster and more wonderful for us, is a reality that no one would like to face.

The best example of this psychological phenomena that I can use comes from one of my favorite authors Jared Diamond and has been also used by Charles Munger, the VP of Bershire Hathaway (Warren Buffet's investment company), as a demonstration of the human tendency towards denial.

"Consider a narrow deep river valley below a high dam, such that if the dam burst, the resulting flood of water would drown people for a long distance downstream. When attitude pollsters ask people downstream of the dam how concerned they are about the dam's bursting, it's not surprising that fear of a dam burst is lowest far downstream, and increases among residents increasingly close to the dam.

Surprisingly, though, when one gets within a few miles of the dam, where fear of the dam's breaking is highest, as you then get closer to the dam the concern falls off to zero! That is, the people living immediately under the dam who are certain to be drowned in a dam burst profess unconcern. That is because of psychological denial: the only way of preserving one's sanity while living immediately under the high dam is to deny the finite possibility that it could burst."

The looming specter that the engine that drives our economy (which consists of the unprecedented burning of fossil fuels that took hundreds of millions of years to create through geological pressure in the Earth’s layers) and powers our modern luxuries, is creating a disturbance in the processes of the planet that is potentially so severe as to displace 100’s of millions of people, (according research by the World Bank) by rising sea levels and cause droughts and more severe storms is a thought far worse than the usual realities that an ordinary American faces on a daily basis. Making it is easy to understand why people would prefer not to think about it, or outright deny the strong possibility of this occurring. Obviously many politicians have been aware of this "dam" problem for awhile, and it has either been put off or denied by people with vested financial interests in current use of fossil fuels to generate our energy for simply too long. Which leads to the next section, the misinformation that has saturated the media and its sinister source.

It is said that we are currently living in an information age, as the internet generally and Google specifically, have provided the unbridled access to unprecedented amounts of information on virtually any topic, and all at one's keystroke. However, with this comes a large amount of distorted factual information, masquerading as truth in the form of conspiracy theories, secret plots, and general nonsense that seems to pervade any internet search for any topic where there are strong vested financial interests, or at least where there is a market to exploit peoples less logical tendencies to support their pre-conceived notions of how the world works, such as racial bigotry, fear of big government and secret governmental plots. Feeding the "debate" in this case, is the George C. Marshall Institute, which has previously provided misinformation for the tobacco industry and on the issue of CFC's and ozone depletion, and is referred to by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine". A conservative think tank founded in 1984, it has been extremely successful in its tactic of creating an illusion of "the science not all being in" and that there is still "scientific debate" when there simply is none. Their goal is to simply proffer enough contrarian opinion that the public becomes confused to what the truth is. When this occurs, they have met their goal, which is keeping the industries that fund them (tobacco, coal etc.) in business a little longer, by keeping the public from demanding action from their politicians on the issue. They are successful in doing this by recruiting scientists that previously done reputable work such as Fredrick Seitz, Richard Linzen, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg. These decorated scientists were successful in promoting the idea to the various media outlets that the science was not "settled" on the anthropogenic origins of global warming and therefore it was not necessary to change our energy policy, but rather to take a "wait and see approach" until we had more conclusive results. While I am not opposed to contrarian opinion, as a healthy amount of skepticism is necessary to fuel any good debate, and is certainly necessary in a debate where the ultimate solution will be the vast re-arrangement of society, differing opinions should be heard.

However, when the only real scientific "debate" is essentially coming from one source, and that source is funded by the very industries that these opinions succeed in protecting the economic interests of (in this case the fossil fuel industries, our #1 energy source and most polluting), then there is a major problem. Now, I don't want to make it seem like the George C. Marshall Institute is the only place that is pushing the debate, that would over simplify the issue, and it is unrealistic to think that they alone could sway public opinion. Other groups have also been successful in stirring up controversy where there should be none, but none have had the backing of such reputable scientists. Some of these other groups funded by ExxonMobil (the worlds largest oil producer, and therefore the largest vested interest in maintaining the status quo) can be viewed here. I chose to focus on the Marshall group because the fact that they were able to actually grab reputable scientists and have them stir up a debate that had already been settled, makes them the hardest to debunk, and therefore the most effective.

Additionally, I must also mention not only is there illogical dissent in the face of the overwhelming facts coming from independent groups, but unfortunately from our own Congress as well. Members of Congress, rather than debating the science of the issue at this point are now resorting to tactics such as quoting the Bible in order to debate the issue, despite the reality that today even the most ardent Christian (outside of the Evangelicals) would not consider the Bible a science book. In one recent example, John Shimkus, an Illinois republican in this video opens the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meeting just last month, by stating that the Bible is the word of God, perfect and infallible, and that God will not destroy the earth by a flood. He then follows this up by commenting on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere in the "time of the dinosaurs" stating that there were more flora and fauna in this period, and that perhaps the earth is carbon starved. Well, he is a) contradicting himself inherently as the Bible if interpreted as perfect and infallible, implicitly states that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and b) I would hope he would be more concerned about humans being able to live on the planet than "flora and fauna".

I also want to make clear that I am not suggesting that these people are all simply "bought out" by special interest groups. No doubt many of them honestly believe that laissez-faire capitalism will take care of the problem, that regulation of industry will not solve the issue, that the market will dictate what the people want and that the market will provide all of the necessary answers. I simply happen to disagree. To begin with, free market capitalism only exists in theory, not in practice, as there has been regulation of markets since the industrial revolution. The other inherent problem is that the market does not factor in the "externalities" or long term economic costs that burning fossil fuel causes. But that is a whole separate topic, for another day and would require its own series of posts to discuss fully.

In summary, thanks to the efforts of the Marshall Institute, Congressmen like Shimkus (who received the largest share of his 2007 campaign contributions from oil & gas and electric utility companies) and many others, we stand where we are today, a nation of confused, over informed, yet misinformed citizens, who are either frozen in fear, ignorance or denial, as the world gets hotter, new coal plants are proposed and funded, and the question now, is why should YOU care?





Why This Issue Should Matter to You


Well, if you made it this far in reading the blog, congrats, this post turned out much longer than I originally intended, so pat yourself on the back. Hopefully you have learned something or cleared up some of the questions in your own mind about the issue. So the question is why should you care? And the answer is simple. Economics. Do you value your current luxuries, your current lifestyle or your current job? If you do, then this issue should be of utmost importance to you because it will adversely impact all of those. I am sure that the current economic downturn has hurt most of our incomes or savings in one form or another, but this economic struggle could be a blip on the radar compared to what the future could hold for us if we continue along our current greenhouse gas emitting path. Although there can be no accurate prediction of exactly what will be the magnitude of the economic impact of displacing over 100 million people around the world as rising sea levels would make many coastal areas uninhabitable, one can be sure that the effects would not be positive. While undoubtedly some areas will be allowed to simply sink into the ocean, others such as Manhattan (pictured above) are simply too valuable to our current economy to let this happen. Which would mean potentially wasting billions of dollars in an effort to come up with some sort of levee system to keep back the rising waters. The most adversely affected areas will be those in countries without the capital to protect their lands from rising sea level, while others such as our own will be extremely financially burdened by trying to fight a losing battle against nature that we altered by our own hand. Additionally, it is also theorized that tropical storms similar to Katrina would become more common, as well as harsher droughts in certain areas, all with the effect of disrupting our food production and ultimately our economic system. But the reality is no one knows for sure exactly what will happen, other than our lives will be affected and altered by this change in climate, and no one is suggesting that it is "good" for the way humans are currently organized. This is why it should matter, and this is why you should continue to educate and inform yourself about these issues.

Current and future energy policy will determine the way society will proceed during our lifetime, and although cheap abundant energy was a luxury that was taken for granted thus far, it will take a major re-investment in alternative energies to continue this trend into the future. To avoid the societal collapse that has occurred throughout history to many a great civilization when their natural resources were depleted, we must be proactive in coming up with solutions before the true costs of shortages and human induced climate change take effect. There is no longer new lands for us to explore and pillage, the world has been conquered, and now it is time for us to figure out how to manage and use the resources we have left while transitioning to all renewable energy sources.

In the Next Post...

Now that hopefully the question of how we got here has been settled for you, in the next post I will discuss what "here" is, in terms of our energy consumption, what is being done in various fields to promote alternative energy, and evaluate current proposals to determine if they will be effective in slowing the effects of global warming. So stay tuned...

editors note: a big debt is owed to University of California history professor Naomi Oreskes, who's excellent video provided much of the historical information for this post. Additionally if you have any questions regarding the factual items in this post, or suggestions on how to tighten the argument or other things to consider, please do not hesitate to email me at keorourke80@gmail.com, thanks.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: climate change, energy, fossil fuels, George C. Marshall Institute, global warming, IPCC, Jared Diamond, renewable energy, sustainability

No single environmental issue has received more media attention over the last decade than global warming. The scope and debate of this issue is much more massive than any single blog post could possibly contain, which is why I have decided to divide this into a four part series, (and even in four parts, it will only scratch the surface). Literally hundreds of books and thousands of news articles have already exhaustively covered the topic from virtually every angle and perspective, so perhaps the first question that this post should address, is why even talk about it all? Well, despite all of this attention, unfortunately we still live in a country where misinformation, avoidance, and general ignorance reign supreme (I will address this later in part 2 of the series). The lack of awareness to the irrefutable scientific evidence and likely outcomes of global warming is shocking and frankly a little depressing, given the time frame that is left for this country to take a leadership role in combating climate change. The effects of global warming combined with the possibility of peak oil being reached in our near future (the next 2-10 years) could possibly make this current recession/depression a slight economic dip compared to what can happen if we do not take serious steps to reducing greenhouse emissions (carbon/methane being the two main culprits) and our dependence on fossil fuels. The solutions to this problem will not only be necessary in our own country but it will be vital that we use what little economic and military leverage that we have left to influence the rest of the world to do the same.

Due to the severity of the possible outcomes of global warming, and the potential for disbelief that these outcomes may cause for some people who read these series of posts and are not currently informed on the issue, I would first like to make a few things clear about myself and my personality. If you already know me, then hopefully you know that I am not some environmental alarmist, or an alarmist in general, any opinion that I hold on any topic is based solidly in fact and is only formed after I have done enough research to satisfy my own high standards. Additionally, people who know me understand that in no way am I the "tree-hugger" type that would like to see everyone "return to nature" to "live off the land" while wearing Birkenstock's dancing around a fire singing Kumbayah. I consider myself first and foremost a humanist, and my concern for the planet is founded in the realization that we are as dependent on the health of the planet as any other creature on it. We have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, whether we choose to realize it or not and if we too drastically alter the planet's condition, we will inevitably be altering our own. I like the creature comforts that modern civilization has provided for us, and although some of the luxuries currently afforded to us are unsustainable, most of them can be sustained (with re-arrangement of course), if wise policy decisions are made and investment is made in the right industries. Creating an environmentally sound future will mean a lot of short term economic sacrifice, sacrifice that no one seems to want to make, but the alternative of not doing enough to halt our effect on global temperature is so severe, that it has become imperative that we rework a large part of current social and economic structure as soon as possible. It is after coming to these conclusions that I felt compelled enter law school to pursue a career in environmental law, as I had realized that humanity is at a turning point in its history, and I simply could not sit on the sidelines and just watch as shortsightedness and corporate greed potentially destroyed our planet and future.

It is against this stark backdrop that I will try to condense this issue into several summaries in order to create a brief background, explain where global temperatures and current emissions currently stand and what should be the goals for the future. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this issue, and almost all environmental issues, is that there are solutions to these problems, they are either already available or just within our reach, yet there is not enough public or political pressure to push them through, mainly because it would mean a great diversion of economic resources that we claim we cannot afford despite our high standard of living compared to the rest of the world’s population. Although there is little debate in the actual scientific community to the effects of human contributions to global warming, there is a serious amount of pseudo science and propaganda that circulates the internet and sometimes the mainstream media that either disputes human’s contribution to global warming or that global warming exists at all. Since these views are a severe minority (at least in the scientific community and usually only held by those that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in our current lifestyle, i.e. they are associated with an industry non compatible with the changes necessary to halt global warming), I will only briefly address those viewpoints. Over the course of the next few weeks (hopefully, although it may take longer as I am heading into my finals), I will be providing answers to the following questions.

Part 2. (The Issue) Why there is still the idea in the American public that the issue is not settled? How long the scientific community has known about it’s anthropogenic origin? Why this issue should even matter to you (if it isn’t already obvious)?

Part 3. (Current Perspective) What is the current U.S./World output of greenhouse gases? When will the most serious effects of global warming happen? What are effects of global warming are we already seeing?

Part 4. (Solutions) What solutions are being worked on? How can we live in a world without fossil fuel? What you can do to make a difference.

The goal of this series of posts is simple, if the issue of global warming has somehow previously escaped your attention, to give you fair and balanced insight into where the world stands today, and if you already know the gravity of the issue, to provide an overview and give you a place to refer friends that might not be as informed as yourself. Stayed tuned...

Sphere: Related Content Labels: climate change, economy, global warming, peak oil, sustainability

When I was in grade school, the highlight of any semester would be when the teacher would somehow work a movie into the curriculum. It really didn't matter what it was on, just as long as I was in class watching t.v., I was excited. So, in that vein, and in lieu of the global warming post (since I have been busy lately working with the Michigan Environmental Council and as my semester is now in full swing, I haven't been able to finish working on what will be a very long post about global warming), for your viewing pleasure a "Clean Coal" commercial by the Coen Brothers (directors of Fargo, No Country for Old Men, etc. etc.), and a really important, informative clip that does a great job explaining what "peak oil" is and its repercussions on the world economy. I would add however, that the recent economic downturn, and subsequent decrease in oil/energy consumption has given a little buffer zone to the effects of peak oil. Regardless, the perception of oil shortage will happen, probably within the next 5 years and if we haven't moved away from oil as our major energy source by then, some wild things will likely ensue.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: Clean Coal, energy, peak oil, video

In exciting news for the alternative energy industry, Brightsource Energy, a solar thermal power plant maker, signed a deal with California last week to construct a series of seven installations in the California Mojave Desert. Upon completion, the project will generate more than 1,300 megawatts of power, which would be enough energy to power a city the size of San Francisco. You can read about the deal here. The deal will be the largest solar installation in history, and is a great sign that states are actively pursuing clean energy alternatives. This follows a plan enacted in November of last year by Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, which pledged development of 1.3 gigawatts of solar power to be in use by 2020 (which will power 10% of L.A.), so there has been good news all around with solar energy and California lately.

To give a brief overview of solar thermal energy, it is different from solar photovoltaics cells in that mirrors are used to reflect the suns rays to a central tower that then uses that heat generated to create steam in a boiler which in turn spins a turbine, which generates electricity. Solar thermal energy has been used in various forms since 600 b.c. and there is an interesting history of its use here.

The only downside to solar thermal plants is that they take up massive amounts of land (the Brightsource project will span over 10,000 acres in the Mojave) and therefore are only viable in areas where there is enough sun and space to make them work (which for the U.S. is mostly in the Southwest). Additionally, since there these plants require such a large amount of land they will be invariably located some distance from major cities. This will require the U.S. to upgrade its energy infrastructure to transport the newly generated electricity long distances to the cities without losing some of the power in the process. However, thanks to the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which will be signed into law on Tuesday, there is $4.5 billion appropriated to modernize the nations electricity grid in order to "enhance reliability of the energy infrastructure" (its on pg. 60 of the report if you are interested enough to read through it), so hopefully that should put a major dent in that problem. Unfortunately there also is a provision in there for $3.4 billion for "fossil fuel research and development" as well (see pg 62 of the bill). So its a bit of a mixed bag for environmentalists. Basically, it has a lot of funding for electric infrastructure development, some for environmental cleanup (around $800 million), grants for development of hybrid electric car batteries ($2 billion) and is too heavy on the fossil fuel research and development. Although our country will have to ease itself off of fossil fuel, climatologists feel that it is urgent that we get there sooner than later, and although this bill will help, we shall see if it fast enough. Curbing global warming will require us to decrease emissions more quickly than anything in this bill could provide for. Next post will be discussing where we currently stand with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as possible solutions for restructuring our country to try and meet this challenge.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: ARRA Act, solar energy, solar thermal

Editors Note: Having jumped right into blogging without really doing an introductory statement, I wanted to take a step back and write about the big picture. Why I am interested in the environment, and how I view our place as humans in it. It is from this starting point, that all my future environmental discussions go forward from, so this post essentially acts as a broad mission statement for the blog.

---------------

Sustainability. Perhaps no one word is more relevant, more important, and more vital to the future of the human race. It is a word that is easily defined, yet achieving it in practice will require a vast rearranging of how we as humans interact with our planet and our fellow inhabitants. This blog was created to explore this simple, yet the same time almost incomprehensibly complex idea and the immense implications that it has for our way of life and our future.

As the dominant organism on this planet, we have been able to use our intelligence to conquer the highest mountain peaks and deepest oceans, yet we still have been unable to recognize our true place in the context of the planet on which we live. As the human population continues to increase and resources are exploited at the cost of the environment, this understanding will be a requirement to our survival. While our intelligence has previously given us free reign of this planet and all its resources, we have yet to decide that with this knowledge we must be stewards rather than pillagers. As humans, we are simply another tenant on this planets surface, and our continued evolution as a species is as much dependent on the survival of the other organisms on this planet as they are on us being responsible caretakers. There is no longer any time to wait to exercise this responsibility, as human caused environmental change nears the tipping point of catastrophic effects for all organisms, ourselves included, it has become absolutely critical to alter the course of how we interact with the resources of our planet.

The 21st century will undoubtedly be one of great change, as the fossil fuels that lead us through an industrial revolution dwindle and continue to create a greenhouse heating effect on our planet; as our fresh water sources become more scare and polluted, and industrial agriculture, deforestation and overfishing simultaneously contribute to global warming and create food shortages. These are not doomsday scenarios, they are simple facts. The only question is, will the human species rise to meet these challenges, and create a world that humans can live in balance with nature, or will the short term goals of the masses drive us all over the cliff to disaster? Solutions to all of these problems are either already available or developing, but the time frame to put these solutions into practice is short, and there will be many tough choices along the way. Hopefully, through this countries leadership, the world will be able to put aside political, ideological, religious and racial differences and unite behind this common goal.

This blog is dedicated to my journey through this mass of interconnected issues regarding our relationship with our environment, our place on the plant, and how to reach a sustainable future, while analyzing the current problems and solutions that are available, and trying to fit them into the context of what is a very complex and often short sighted world.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: climate change, deforestation, fossil fuels, intro, mission statement, sustainability

Last post took a look at the state of nuclear energy and nuclear waste in the U.S., as we enter into a new administration with a new hope for investment in clean, renewable energy. The last eight years have shown that our country is long overdue for a shift in how and where we obtain our country’s energy from, as it is simply not economically feasible for us as a nation to engage in future energy/resource driven conflict. This post will take a look at thus far the least used of the renewable energy sources, solar power.



With only .1% of our nation's energy production, (as of 2006) solar power remains an untapped part of the solution to reworking our nation's energy needs. Although current solar energy technology lags behind all other sources in terms of cost efficiency per kilowatt hour of power generated, it offers many advantages to the current leading energy sources (fossil fuels generate a whopping 85% of our energy needs with nuclear second at a distant 8% of total energy production) in the U.S..

As a starting point, solar power is an unlimited renewable resource that once it is online contributes zero greenhouse gas emissions (there are greenhouse gases produced in the production of solar cells, but this amount is 1/10 th as much as conventional fossil fuels produce, per unit of energy). The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. A typical solar or photovoltaic cell, currently lasts about 20 years before there is any decrease in production capacity. So then the inevitable question is why is only .1% of our nations energy generated by solar? Currently, the cost of building solar power plants relative to the amount of energy (or lack thereof) that they generate, the amount of land necessary to build a cost effective plant, and the energy needed to build solar cells are the three main hurdles to overcome. Due to the complexity of each of these problems, this post will focus mainly on the cost/efficiency issue.

The first problem is the cost of manufacturing, which can be solved through tax incentives that will make solar energy more appealing to energy investors. As a country that is consistently losing its manufacturing base, the U.S. must make itself more appealing for companies to build manufacturing plants, if it hopes to right itself from our current trade deficit. Our nation is simply too large to have shifted its entire economy to the service sector, and our recent financial collapse is a testament to that fact. As our manufacturing jobs decrease, outsourced to other developing nations where the labor is cheaper and there is more tax incentive to do business, our trade deficit continues to swell, and our economy continues to suffer, as the world's service demands are not rising at a pace consistent with the demand for manufactured goods. Consequently, it is the average American that suffers, as the dollar drops in value, and the government continues to try to plug holes in a sinking economy by bailing out failing financial institutions, not addressing our trade deficit and by simply borrowing or printing more money. Unfortunately this is the current state of our nation's economy, and as now President Obama has correctly identified, it is critical that we re-invest in our own country, start creating green jobs and in the high tech manufacturing sector (solar energy included), is an excellent place to start.

With recent developments in solar cell technology that allow solar cells to harness sunlight from any angle, it is possible that we could see an unprecedented boost in solar efficiency and energy output. What it will take however, is government investment in these technologies. Other countries such as Japan, Germany and even the Philippines have a head start on us as their governments have already recognized the potential in solar and other renewable energies and already many American companies have simply moved overseas to take advantage of tax breaks. In order for the U.S. to compete in the alternative energy sector, they will have to make it economically attractive for American business to stay here. Additionally, through setting new standards for the generation of renewable energy by existing companies, the legislature needs to take a leadership role in positively effecting the direction of our new "green economy".

One such example was instituted in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, when the state of California, already a leader in environmental regulation, created the Renewables Portfolio Standard which required 20% of its power to be generated by renewable sources by 2010. Subsequently Pacific Gas and Electric has responded by working on construction of the world's largest solar power plant (pictured above). This example shows that it is necessary to have an forward thinking legislature that will drive business towards a sustainable future. Although I do not agree that 20% is nearly enough to have a significant impact on our economy and foreign relations, it is at least a step in the right direction, and one that other states will hopefully follow.

When it comes to the long term financial and environmental health of a nation, renewable energy is one area where government intervention through tax breaks and credits is necessary. Anyone that still believes that we live in a free market capitalist society after the latest round of government bailouts is simply delusional. The short term financial windfalls of fossil fuels for energy companies only exist because government has yet to calculate the actual "cost" that they incur on the health of the population and our environment. It is time that the U.S. invests in itself, its industry and its future, and with the recent developments in efficiency (panels now pay back their investment in 1-3 years), solar is a good a place to start as any.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: Barrack Obama, economy, energy, manufacturing, renewable energy, solar cells, solar energy

***Over the next series of posts, I will be addressing some of the important issues that set a backdrop for determining our nation's energy future.***

An energy crisis? Yes, our nation is currently in an energy crisis state, despite the lack of headlines attesting to this issue. It is a crisis state when our country feels forced to engage in forcibly occupying other countries halfway around the world in order to try an secure its energy future. It is a crisis state when the major source of our energy (oil) that supports our massive infrastructure has reached its max production capacity yet the demand continues to rise exponentially. It is a crisis state when we are seriously considering building new nuclear power plants when there is still no way to dispose of the radioactive waste that we have already generated, 25 years after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a timetable for permanent underground waste repositories and billions of dollars trying to address the issue have been spent, yet there is no resolution in sight. It is this infrequently discussed issue of nuclear waste disposal that this post will attempt to give a background on.



Due to its reputation as a "clean" alternative relative to fossil fuels (extraction of uranium necessary to produce nuclear power still contributes greenhouse gas or co2 to the atmosphere, just much less than burning fossil fuels), nuclear power has recently seen a resurgence in the energy debate in the political arena as our nation continues to look for alternative sources of energy outside the Middle East. Nuclear power however, like all our current energy options, is not a silver bullet for our energy concerns, and comes with a severe list of negatives along with its advantages. The extreme cost of construction of new plants, the diminishing supply of uranium, the threat of nuclear meltdown (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl) and time to plan, design and construct a new plant are all major issues with nuclear power. However, the most immediate issue is the disposal of the nuclear waste that has already been generated; how to store it, where it should go, and how to safely transport it are all major logistical issues that need to be addressed before the next administration throws their support behind new nuclear power plants.

President elect Obama has made it clear during his campaign that new nuclear power plants are on the table as an option to try and address our energy needs, and while I agree there will not be a simple solution to our energy issues, the issue of what to do with the waste we currently have needs to be addressed simultaneously as we proceed addressing our future energy concerns. Currently, although other options such as shooting nuclear waste into space and burying it beneath moving tectonic plates in the ocean floor have been explored, the only feasible solution that could be executed in the short term is the use of Yucca Mountain as a storage site. The government has been studying this site since 1978 as a possible long term storage for nuclear waste, and there have been many pitfalls along the way. First, the logistics of trying to plan for what will happen tens of thousands of years (the time expected for the radiation levels, from the spent rods to be stored there, to drop to harmless levels) in the future are daunting to say the least. There are also issues with the stability of the site since it is located on a fault line and the possibility that the eventual corrosion of the containment tanks that the waste is stored in could leak into the water table, thus contaminating the entire surrounding region. The study and partial construction of the site have already cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and there is no immediate end in sight as there is still dispute over the safety of the site. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the 10,000 year regulatory time frame was not consistent with National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations and was too short. The NAS report had recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years. By limiting the compliance time to 10,000 years, EPA did not respect a statutory requirement that it develop standards consistent with NAS recommendations.

So, as it currently stands, Yucca Mountain still has not been approved for storage of nuclear waste 30 years after studies on the location began, and nuclear waste around the country continues to pile up in on site containment tanks that were not designed for long term storage, and are either at or near capacity. Taking the "not in my backyard" stance that is a constant when it comes to waste disposal, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada (where Yucca Mountain is located), is committed to killing the project. However, if he is successful, the question still remains, what do we do with the waste? This is an important issue, that like the energy shortage, does not have any easy answers or quick fixes, but as a corollary to the energy discussion it must be addressed before our country decides to build any future nuclear power plants.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: 3 Mile Island, Barrack Obama, energy, nuclear power, Nuclear Waste Policy, peak oil, Yucca Mountain

My previous post about this incident was mainly an overview of what happened, and a brief overview of the lack of "clean coal" plants despite a massive marketing and advertising campaign. As a followup to that, news is out today that lawsuits are beginning to be filed against the Tennessee Valley Authority. You can read about the first of what should be many at Democracynow.org .

Unfortunately however, the $165 million lawsuit was filed by land developers, who are claiming that the land was devalued by the coal ash spill. While it is good that such a lawsuit is filed to hopefully influence the Tennessee Valley Authority to rethink their waste containment and treatment, there will certainly be more people affected and injured by this spill than 4 land developers. I would much prefer to see the people's homes that were affected by the disaster as well the fisherman and surrounding communities that use the now contaminated water source to take part in the lawsuit, hopefully their day in court that will come later.

So far the lack of mainstream media coverage has lead to conflicting reports on the toxicity of the water and the air quality (TVA is claiming that water and air quality is safe, while the EPA has found arsenic levels in the water to be 149 times the safe level, which is not at all surprising). However, if indeed the water quality of the Emory River (which the spill dumped into, and as a main tributary to the Tennessee River could affect fish populations and water quality for a massive amount of people), is as toxic the EPA thinks, there will be a lot more people effected than just the 4 real estate developers by this massive spill.



Regardless of who profits from a lawsuit, the bottom line remains the same. If our country is going to solve our energy problems, coal is simply not the answer. The threat of similar accidents combined with the inherent environmental damage caused by extraction and the non existence of plants that can recycle their emissions (thus making them "clean") will hopefully be enough for the new administration to say no to the further construction of coal plants.

To join in to support the United Mountain Defense (a local volunteer environmental group that is on the scene assisting with clean up) go here , and join in petition of a complete and restitutive cleanup by the TVA.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: Clean Coal, Tennesse Valley Authority, TVA