Before that question can be answered, a very brief history of how human civilization got to this point.

Today the Earth contains nearly 7 billion human inhabitants, most of whom are interconnected via the internet, free trade agreements, and an economic model that requires infinite growth. All of these facts are extremely recent developments on the geological time scale of the planet's history. The industrial revolution that enabled technological innovation in the extraction and use of energy, which, while drastically increasing the health and living standards for a very small portion of the 7 billion - has also brought with it a human population explosion. This population explosion is currently testing the resiliency of the ecosystems on the one planet that we have. While climate change may be a major problem, it simply a symptom of an economic system that cannot stop consuming until it inevitably collapses on itself.

We are now likely living during that major turning point in human history. This post will mainly pertain to the incompatibility of the current dominant economic model and the reality of living on a planet with finite resources. We may not be near the immediate end of economic growth - but we are rapidly heading there. Since my own history begins with the 1980's, that is where this brief history continues.

The Global Dominance of U.S. State Directed Capitalism

Throughout post-agricultural revolution human history, a common theme exists, that between any two nations in conflict, the nation with the most advanced military technology and abundant natural resources will prevail. The post WWII battle for ideological world control between the United States and the Soviet Union was no different.

In the late 80′s/early 90′s, the end of the Cold War signaled the triumph of the U.S. state directed capitalism economic model over the Soviet’s state directed communist model. This triumph was due to many factors, but to greatly oversimplify the issue, it can be primarily attributed to the superior efficiency and the resulting economic advantage of “free” markets versus a top-down state-planned economic model. The efficiency of the “free market” capitalist model, combined with America’s more abundant domestic natural resources was the right recipe for the technological innovations that powered our nation past the Soviets and into a few decades of global economic dominance.

During the Reagan Era of the 1980′s, globalization took off. The financial markets were allowed to run wild, and with the Soviet Union slowly internally crumbling, the U.S. was able to maintain its dominance of world markets with its newly gained unrivaled military power, achieved though the competitive arms race of the Cold War. Armed with the threat, trade, and use of that military power, the U.S. and often the World Bank and the IMF covertly (as well as overtly) continued to spread the ideals of free market efficiency throughout the developing world.  The words “Democracy,” have been attached as a moral underpinning – but an underpinning that has too often served more as a marketing ploy than a reality.

More recently, the unchallenged international power that the U.S. has enjoyed for several decades has begun to wane, triggered by years of large trade deficits, the loss of manufacturing jobs to globalized markets, and two unpaid-for wars.

Development of “Turbo-Capitalism”

Meanwhile, China, with a rapidly urbanizing population, has pursued a slightly different model of state directed capitalism – one without “democracy” attached. This model has allowed the Chinese economy to grow at unprecedented rates. Without the “burdens” of Democracy such as due process, expansive individual rights, and environmental protections; the Chinese turbo-charged economic model has quickly risen past the U.S.. In their newly created “totalitarian capitalism” model, the Chinese have a process even more readily equipped to rapidly exploit natural capital.

However, in this global race for rapid growth to fuel international economic and political dominance, a key piece of the economic puzzle has been discarded. The simple fact that the planet is a finite system; more importantly, one with a finite amount of easy to access, cheap fossil fuels. The previous centuries’ unprecedented growth had been “fueled” mostly by the technical innovation in the exploitation of these natural energy resources. This tremendous economic growth has allowed a significant portion of the 21^st century humans to live with amenities that only royalty of past centuries could have dreamed of.

In the U.S., our “free market” created super-corporations have left our country’s citizens victims of our own market design success. Laissez-faire capitalism has eroded our own Democracy and left our country with wealth and income distribution as unequal as many “developing” countries. This disparity has placed the U.S. political system in the grips of the few dominant economic interests that can continue our sputtering GDP growth, in what is now a diminishing empire. Moreover, in other countries in the world, those who were either late to the “free market” game, or those who had the “free market” imposed on them – the conditions are much worse. For billions of humans, life on this planet today consists of living without access to simple Western luxuries such as clean water or electricity, two of the key ingredients for basic health and education. When the growth engine slows, these are the who are the most vulnerable. In a world whose economic fate is currently intertwined with fossil fuel use, when supply does not meet demand, our fossil fuel dependent agricultural system suffers, people start going hungry and Arab uprisings start happening.


The Imminent Collapse of Economics as We Know It?

As we stand here at the beginning of the 21^st century, the cracks in the success of this economic system have begun to be more readily apparent. When the removal of 2 mb/d of crude from the world oil markets can cause prices to skyrocket; politicians begin pointing fingers about speculation, and bombs get dropped. Eventually, when the world markets cannot react to provide additional supply, strategic oil reserves are tapped, and everyone just tries to move on like everything is just fine.

Except, we have a big problem. Absent a huge leap forward in nuclear power, no amount of technical innovation can solve diminishing return on energy investment. Simply put, the remaining hard to reach energy sources are expensive to extract, both in terms of energy and dollars.

This is not a new story. Starting in 2006, global production of conventional oil peaked and leveled off, as previously discovered oil beds began to steeply decline in production, while new discoveries were unable to replace them. The energy inputs required for extraction, both in terms of physical energy and in terms of  the fiscal markers that represent the energy inputs, began to exponentially increase. However, the markets, population pressure, and therefore the government, demand continued full-steam economic growth. This remains true today, despite the fact that ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels is altering the very atmospheric  conditions on the planet that have allowed for our unprecedented expansion in the first place.

The main problem underlying everything is that the modern world has been built on a false premise of infinite economic growth in a finite system. The economy is only composed of our natural resources, used and altered to be traded amongst ourselves. Yet the powers that be in the world want, even need, to ignore this basic fact. Our debt based market economies require the political push for increased growth to continue; to create new jobs for the ever-increasing population and to simply generate more capital to service these debts. This model, the one that had allowed for  the global economic dominance by the U.S., is one that comes with no “golden parachute.” As the U.S. government debates debt ceilings, regulation, and market bubbles, the underlying reality is that the era of cheap energy is over, and with it the limits to growth are staring us in the face, whether we would like to see them or not.

As a result, the debate has become whether our decades old environmental regulations are too stringent; and thus should resource protection and human health be abandoned to continue our growth structures at any cost. This is where we are today.  How we proceed from here is undetermined, but when resources  can  not meet demand and there is no market substitute (as is the case with oil), when the externalities of coal use and nuclear waste are continually passed on to future generations; when government cannot “fuel” the growth necessary for the capital markets to continue growing – what will take its place?

The answer to that question will be the start of the next chapter in the human story and it is likely that you and I will be living through it.

Sphere: Related Content Labels: Capitalism, China, free markets, growth, peak oil, Soviet Union, U.S.

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

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

***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