I am glad to see that companies that make profits selling fossil fuels are starting to see the value of a population that understands science.
Inside the Brain Of Exxon Mobil's CEO
"Ours is an industry that is built on technology, it’s built on science, it’s built on engineering, and because we have a society that by and large is illiterate in these areas, science, math and engineering, what we do is a mystery to them and they find it scary. And because of that, it creates easy opportunities for opponents of development, activist organizations, to manufacture fear."
Because now maybe we can focus the debate on real, scientific solutions to resolve the consequence of our actions.
An Ounce Of Prevention: Congress' Charge to Protect Public Health
"The Precautionary Principle is a bedrock of public health policy and advocacy, holding in its basic form that action should be taken where there is evidence that not doing so would cause harm. It recognizes that, to quote a Congressional House Report from 1977, “decisionmaking about the risks to public health from air pollution falls on ‘the frontiers of scientific and medical knowledge,’” and so we should not remain paralyzed in the face of some uncertainty."
Such as realizing how becoming more efficient with resources actually improves our ability to give more people the opportunity to add value to society.
STUDY: More MPG = More Jobs
"The connection may not seem obvious but improving the miles per gallon of our cars spurs job creation. This is for two reasons: (1) improving automobile efficiency requires the addition of new technologies, which are designed and manufactured by adding workers in the auto industry and (2) money saved on gasoline by drivers will be spent on other goods and services, increasing jobs across the economy."
Of course, you can never really separate science from politics...even when talking about a profession that is supposed to be completely dedicated to science and the public good.
The AMA's Strange Position on GM Foods: Test But Don't Label
"Apparently, AMA delegates said they support mandatory FDA premarket safety assessments of GM foods 'as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public.' They also urge the FDA 'to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.'...'The science-based labeling policies of the FDA do not support special product labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The AMA adopted policy supporting this science-based approach, recognizing that there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods.'"
And I would be remiss, in a week dominated by the politics of health insurance reform, if I did not bring your attention to an article worth getting your hands on that talks about the science of improving health.
Beyond the Affordable Care Act: Achieving Real Improvements In Americans' Health
"The commission's report underscores the fact that reform of the nation's health care system is a critical, but insufficient, step toward greater health for all Americans. It compiles the evidence on the links between health and social factors- such as those having to do with education, housing, the environment, and transportation. It provides a blueprint for how decision makers can turn their concerns about the impact of social factors on health into action."
Happy Friday!
Friday, June 29, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Announcing the regular features!
Hopefully you have already started enjoying some of the insights of my new blog. Based upon feedback I have received, and after doing this for about a month now, I have settled into a rhythm that I think will work well, so I wanted to share with you what you can expect:
Mondays: Request Monday!
This post will weekly answer a question received from a follower or one received
at a presentation or other public forum.
Tuesday - Thursday: Regular theme posts
Ongoing stories around the three main blog themes:
"The Trouble With the World Today" - Problems associated with our approach
to resource management
"The Way It Should Be" - Great ways that communities across the world have become
better stewards of resources
"In Your Own Backyard" - Stories from my community, or those of followers who
choose to share them
Friday: Friday Five!
A presentation of five stories from the week that caught our eye.
I appreciate the feedback already received, and look forward to more joining our discussion. I hope to hear from more of you in the future. Until then,
Enjoy the journey!
Mondays: Request Monday!
This post will weekly answer a question received from a follower or one received
at a presentation or other public forum.
Tuesday - Thursday: Regular theme posts
Ongoing stories around the three main blog themes:
"The Trouble With the World Today" - Problems associated with our approach
to resource management
"The Way It Should Be" - Great ways that communities across the world have become
better stewards of resources
"In Your Own Backyard" - Stories from my community, or those of followers who
choose to share them
Friday: Friday Five!
A presentation of five stories from the week that caught our eye.
I appreciate the feedback already received, and look forward to more joining our discussion. I hope to hear from more of you in the future. Until then,
Enjoy the journey!
Request Monday (06/25/12): Which way does the wind blow?
"At a recent meeting, I heard a politician say that he didn't want his city to buy electricity from wind energy because 'Wind energy creates just as many greenhouse gas emissions as coal'. This can't be true, can it?"
- Becky from Chicago
This is an odd, although not surprising question. Generating electricity from wind energy has several questions that communities have to answer, mostly those communities where the wind turbines produce the electricity. Low level noise from the rotating turbines can disturb neighboring residences, turning blades can cause issues with migrating birds, and installing the turbines in the middle of farmland (although a great financial benefit to farmers) can cause disruption with new roads and infrastructure to build and maintain the turbines.
The claim made by the politician stems from one of two additional issues, or perceived issues depending on your point of view: the need for reserve energy should the wind stop blowing, and the lifetime energy intensity of building, operating, and decommissioning the turbines. I will deal with the latter question first.
According to a 1990 study by the Solar Energy Research Institute, an at-the-time, state-of-the-art coal power plant generated 1,041 metric tons of CO2 per GWhe (giga-watt hours of electricity generated), mostly coming from the burning of the fossil fuel (96.8%), with the remainder coming from ongoing operation and maintenance (2.7%) and initial construction (0.5%). As a comparison, a natural gas turbine electricity generating plant, according to a 2000 report by the Energy Center of Wisconsin, has a lifetime CO2 emissions of 464 metric tons per GWhe. In 2009, an Australian research team looking to improve upon previous studies that underestimated the embodied energy (and therefore emissions) associated with constructing wind turbines, calculated that the life cycle emissions for a wind turbine fell in the range of about 8-10 metric tons per GWhe. Admittedly, the study did not focus on quantifying the decommissioning of the plant for the case of the study, but even at a level equivalent to construction, wind power appears to reduce electricity-related CO2 emissions by 98% relative to late 20th century technology for electricity generation from coal and by 95.5% relative to modern natural gas generation.
Since the embodied energy theory does not make sense, that leaves the case of reserves.
This will require a (hopefully) straightforward analogy to explain the difference between the two types of reserves: spinning and non-spinning reserves. As the name implies, spinning reserves are already in motion, ready to go, and non-spinning reserves stay dormant until called into action. Like any machine, a generator producing electricity has a level at which it likes to run to efficiently produce electricity. Above or below that level, the unit still works, but produces less energy output per level of input. Also, when starting a generator "cold", it takes significantly more energy to get running than during normal operation.
Since the human body acts as a machine as well, the best analogy I can come up with relates electricity generation to a relay team. Each team member contributes to the overall goal of completing the distance in the best time possible. Consider electricity generated by coal, nuclear, natural gas, and wind as the four relay team members. Nuclear has strong efficiencies, but must get going as soon as it has warmed up and must run at a constant rate...a good lead runner. Coal should run next, as its plants also run large and requires a relatively constant load. Wind runs in the third leg of the relay, and when running at peak form, it generates a significant amount of electricity very efficiently and puts the team in great position to finish. Currently, natural gas runs as the anchor because it can get up to speed quickly and increase speed if necessary to bring the team to the finish line.
The problem with wind comes from variability...it does not always produce as forecasted, and on some rare days, does not show up at all. Reserves, in the electricity generation realm, help to cover for this in one of two ways. Spinning reserves increase the output of other generation already online. In the analogy, this takes the form of other runners running faster (and less efficiently) to make up for a dip in wind's contribution. Non-spinning reserves act like a substitute runner who takes wind's place in the event at the last minute. They do not get optimal time to warmup, and cannot perform at their best, but fill in as best they can.
A 2011 study by a team of researchers from Argonne National Labs, the University of Illinois and the Georgia Institute of Technology looked at the implication to emissions reduction from the need for fossil-fuel-based generation to be brought on during times when wind forecasts failed to meet expectations. They found two interesting results. First, the amount of "base load" wind (meaning the amount of possible wind generation available as a percentage of total generation) heavily influenced the type of reserves available, and therefore, the total emissions. When new wind generation reached a high level of base load, it allowed nuclear plants (which normally run full out) to act as spinning reserve and enabled more natural gas plants to transition to non-spinning reserve. Under lower levels of wind base load (or none at all), nuclear and natural gas run at capacity leaving inefficient coal plants to provide most of the spinning and non-spinning reserves. In the relay race, under the low base-load scenario, the variability of wind gets covered by the coal leg running faster but less efficient, and if wind cannot run at all, it gets replaced by a less efficient coal runner, reducing the overall efficiency of the team. When wind has a larger base load, the nuclear and natural gas team members have more capacity to cover for wind, thus enabling better overall team performance, even when wind cannot perform. The second observation answers the question fully: under every possible scenario, the presence of wind generation reduced the overall emissions of the electricity generation relative to a "no wind" baseline.
Every new technology displaces an established way of life or business practice. Those that profit from the status quo will always find reason to question the validity of the new technology's supposed performance. This skepticism provides a healthy check against getting "ripped off" by new ideas that do not really deliver. In this case, relative to carbon emissions, the new technology completely betters the old. Additionally, as wind generation increases penetration, we will find more efficient ways to handle the variability, and will reduce the risk of variability through the citing of generation facilities in a wider area of service. As the grid becomes "smarter", this area of service can expand to include large areas of the country, thereby decreasing the risk further.
Thanks for the question.
Enjoy the journey!
- Becky from Chicago
This is an odd, although not surprising question. Generating electricity from wind energy has several questions that communities have to answer, mostly those communities where the wind turbines produce the electricity. Low level noise from the rotating turbines can disturb neighboring residences, turning blades can cause issues with migrating birds, and installing the turbines in the middle of farmland (although a great financial benefit to farmers) can cause disruption with new roads and infrastructure to build and maintain the turbines.
The claim made by the politician stems from one of two additional issues, or perceived issues depending on your point of view: the need for reserve energy should the wind stop blowing, and the lifetime energy intensity of building, operating, and decommissioning the turbines. I will deal with the latter question first.
According to a 1990 study by the Solar Energy Research Institute, an at-the-time, state-of-the-art coal power plant generated 1,041 metric tons of CO2 per GWhe (giga-watt hours of electricity generated), mostly coming from the burning of the fossil fuel (96.8%), with the remainder coming from ongoing operation and maintenance (2.7%) and initial construction (0.5%). As a comparison, a natural gas turbine electricity generating plant, according to a 2000 report by the Energy Center of Wisconsin, has a lifetime CO2 emissions of 464 metric tons per GWhe. In 2009, an Australian research team looking to improve upon previous studies that underestimated the embodied energy (and therefore emissions) associated with constructing wind turbines, calculated that the life cycle emissions for a wind turbine fell in the range of about 8-10 metric tons per GWhe. Admittedly, the study did not focus on quantifying the decommissioning of the plant for the case of the study, but even at a level equivalent to construction, wind power appears to reduce electricity-related CO2 emissions by 98% relative to late 20th century technology for electricity generation from coal and by 95.5% relative to modern natural gas generation.
Since the embodied energy theory does not make sense, that leaves the case of reserves.
This will require a (hopefully) straightforward analogy to explain the difference between the two types of reserves: spinning and non-spinning reserves. As the name implies, spinning reserves are already in motion, ready to go, and non-spinning reserves stay dormant until called into action. Like any machine, a generator producing electricity has a level at which it likes to run to efficiently produce electricity. Above or below that level, the unit still works, but produces less energy output per level of input. Also, when starting a generator "cold", it takes significantly more energy to get running than during normal operation.
Since the human body acts as a machine as well, the best analogy I can come up with relates electricity generation to a relay team. Each team member contributes to the overall goal of completing the distance in the best time possible. Consider electricity generated by coal, nuclear, natural gas, and wind as the four relay team members. Nuclear has strong efficiencies, but must get going as soon as it has warmed up and must run at a constant rate...a good lead runner. Coal should run next, as its plants also run large and requires a relatively constant load. Wind runs in the third leg of the relay, and when running at peak form, it generates a significant amount of electricity very efficiently and puts the team in great position to finish. Currently, natural gas runs as the anchor because it can get up to speed quickly and increase speed if necessary to bring the team to the finish line.
The problem with wind comes from variability...it does not always produce as forecasted, and on some rare days, does not show up at all. Reserves, in the electricity generation realm, help to cover for this in one of two ways. Spinning reserves increase the output of other generation already online. In the analogy, this takes the form of other runners running faster (and less efficiently) to make up for a dip in wind's contribution. Non-spinning reserves act like a substitute runner who takes wind's place in the event at the last minute. They do not get optimal time to warmup, and cannot perform at their best, but fill in as best they can.
A 2011 study by a team of researchers from Argonne National Labs, the University of Illinois and the Georgia Institute of Technology looked at the implication to emissions reduction from the need for fossil-fuel-based generation to be brought on during times when wind forecasts failed to meet expectations. They found two interesting results. First, the amount of "base load" wind (meaning the amount of possible wind generation available as a percentage of total generation) heavily influenced the type of reserves available, and therefore, the total emissions. When new wind generation reached a high level of base load, it allowed nuclear plants (which normally run full out) to act as spinning reserve and enabled more natural gas plants to transition to non-spinning reserve. Under lower levels of wind base load (or none at all), nuclear and natural gas run at capacity leaving inefficient coal plants to provide most of the spinning and non-spinning reserves. In the relay race, under the low base-load scenario, the variability of wind gets covered by the coal leg running faster but less efficient, and if wind cannot run at all, it gets replaced by a less efficient coal runner, reducing the overall efficiency of the team. When wind has a larger base load, the nuclear and natural gas team members have more capacity to cover for wind, thus enabling better overall team performance, even when wind cannot perform. The second observation answers the question fully: under every possible scenario, the presence of wind generation reduced the overall emissions of the electricity generation relative to a "no wind" baseline.
Every new technology displaces an established way of life or business practice. Those that profit from the status quo will always find reason to question the validity of the new technology's supposed performance. This skepticism provides a healthy check against getting "ripped off" by new ideas that do not really deliver. In this case, relative to carbon emissions, the new technology completely betters the old. Additionally, as wind generation increases penetration, we will find more efficient ways to handle the variability, and will reduce the risk of variability through the citing of generation facilities in a wider area of service. As the grid becomes "smarter", this area of service can expand to include large areas of the country, thereby decreasing the risk further.
Thanks for the question.
Enjoy the journey!
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The trouble with resources: Water (Part 1)
Image courtesy of US Geological Survey
Water is life.
An old rule of thumb says you could last three months without food, three days without water, and three minutes without air. I deal with water first even though we need air more urgently because of air's ubiquitous nature. Obtaining water requires conscious choice, and lacks the sense of urgency of air, so we may tend to put it off if we do not have a strong and immediate sense of thirst. This leads to varying levels of dehydration that create anything from mild memory loss and fever to death, and this just covers the water needed within our bodies to maintain function. We also use water to grow crops and maintain human health through waste conveyance. To understand whether or not we have enough water to support our life, we need to know how much we have available to us, how fast we use it, and how quickly nature makes it available to us again.
Water is a finite resource. Most of us learn about the water cycle (or hydrologic cycle) in school, but do not pay attention to the most interesting consequence of the use of the word "cycle". It reminds us that we do not create water or destroy it through our existence; water merely changes form, and sometimes location, then becomes available to us again, and again. The table below lists data that the image below does a great job of making visual:
The visual only tells part of the story. As we can see in the table, of that 27,000 cubic miles of surface-available freshwater, almost 25% is either in the atmosphere, in swamps or in us, making it immediately unavailable for use. That leaves about 22,000 cubic miles of surface water. According to the American Water Works Association, the average daily direct water use for Americans is 69.3 gallons inside and an additional 280 gallons per day outside. That use covers daily water intake and personal health. Add to that between 2,500 gallons per day of virtual water that goes into the energy, food, and resources we require each day including construction and production of goods. (Remember, that although equivalent daily, per capita water draws for the US are around 1,350 gallons per day, many of the crops and products we consume come from overseas, so we are not limited to our borders when considering the water needed to support our lifestyle.) If 9 billion people used water at that rate, that would total 25 cubic miles of water a day or about 0.1% of our available surface water. Allowing for water in transit (both to us for our use and to wastewater treatment) and for water in the treatment process for return to the surface water stores, we would have 0.3% of our world surface water supply withdrawn each day for our use.
Assuming we can keep up with the treatment of the water - a task that would require construction of thousands of water treatment facilities across the world - we can make choices that allow us to recharge our sources of freshwater at the same rate we use them. With this, and taking into account the fact that several areas of the world have the ability to tap into the 2.5 million cubic miles of ground water, it would appear that our planet has more than enough water to supply 9 billion people living the American lifestyle. So why does water present such a huge challenge, with 2.7 billion people currently short of water and some calling water the "oil of the 21st century".
The answer to that question is availability and quality...location, location, location.
Next week - water availability and quality.
Basic Products Virtual Water
The table below details the embedded (or virtual) water for several crops and products consumed by the typical American on a daily basis.
Source for water data: Water Footprint.org
Key: USDA United States Department of Agriculture
FADS Food Availability Data System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EIA Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
ERS Economic Research Service
DOC Department of Commerce
EAFD Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink
CBFTD Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division
OCY Oil Crops Yearbook
Notes:
* USDA via http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/USGoatProductionFinal_E1367962C32D1.pdf
** Through EPA Sector Programs
Source for water data: Water Footprint.org
Key: USDA United States Department of Agriculture
FADS Food Availability Data System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EIA Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
ERS Economic Research Service
DOC Department of Commerce
EAFD Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink
CBFTD Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division
OCY Oil Crops Yearbook
Notes:
* USDA via http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/USGoatProductionFinal_E1367962C32D1.pdf
** Through EPA Sector Programs
Friday, June 22, 2012
Friday Five: June 22, 2012
Do we have the right to make the choice to be unhealthy?
If Every Country Were As Heavy As Ours the World Would Have 1 Billion Extra Mouths to Feed
"Until now, we've generally thought of overpopulation in terms of numbers of people on earth, with milestones for 5 billion, 6 billion, and so on. But one of the paper's authors suggests that measure may soon be superseded -- or at least rivalled -- by the sustainability of our growing waistlines."
Do the manufacturers bear any responsibility?
Pop Goes the Weasel: Can Good Deeds Help Keep the Soda Industry Super Sized
"These companies are not afraid to push the boundaries. In fact, if there’s a particularly disconcerting element to soda company CSR campaigns, it’s that many seem designed to get around restrictions on selling soda in schools. As the report observes: 'While soda companies agreed to remove full-calorie drinks from U.S. schools, CSR programs like the Refresh Project keep the brand in front of young people with promises of grants for children’s schools, parks, or other programs.'”
Should a person speaking a common sense truth have to defend themselves?
In defense of walking
"And you emailed and commented and tweeted that I had it all wrong and I wasn’t thinking about the disabled, or that I was discounting every transportation advancement since we learned to ride horses. But I was considerate of genuine use cases (read: disabilities) and I maintained that my main point was valid: we should walk!"
Can we make other decisions that help us to engage in more healthy behavior?
Urban Renaissance Driven By Thinking Small
"In a way, thinking small is the next logical step in America’s urban renaissance. When cities really started changing 10 or 15 years ago, the economy was booming and the Internet was a newfangled gizmo. Today, cities have less money but more ways to communicate, two conditions perfectly suited to more focused, low-cost planning."
Or will changing our relationship with food be the answer?
What Farms Can Do For Cities
"Gardens are becoming a more integrated piece of what it is to responsibly build a single-family residence, or an apartment building, or even a mall. More people are seeing gardening as a public health solution because you get both healthy food and physical activity out of it."
Happy Friday!
If Every Country Were As Heavy As Ours the World Would Have 1 Billion Extra Mouths to Feed
"Until now, we've generally thought of overpopulation in terms of numbers of people on earth, with milestones for 5 billion, 6 billion, and so on. But one of the paper's authors suggests that measure may soon be superseded -- or at least rivalled -- by the sustainability of our growing waistlines."
Do the manufacturers bear any responsibility?
Pop Goes the Weasel: Can Good Deeds Help Keep the Soda Industry Super Sized
"These companies are not afraid to push the boundaries. In fact, if there’s a particularly disconcerting element to soda company CSR campaigns, it’s that many seem designed to get around restrictions on selling soda in schools. As the report observes: 'While soda companies agreed to remove full-calorie drinks from U.S. schools, CSR programs like the Refresh Project keep the brand in front of young people with promises of grants for children’s schools, parks, or other programs.'”
Should a person speaking a common sense truth have to defend themselves?
In defense of walking
"And you emailed and commented and tweeted that I had it all wrong and I wasn’t thinking about the disabled, or that I was discounting every transportation advancement since we learned to ride horses. But I was considerate of genuine use cases (read: disabilities) and I maintained that my main point was valid: we should walk!"
Can we make other decisions that help us to engage in more healthy behavior?
Urban Renaissance Driven By Thinking Small
"In a way, thinking small is the next logical step in America’s urban renaissance. When cities really started changing 10 or 15 years ago, the economy was booming and the Internet was a newfangled gizmo. Today, cities have less money but more ways to communicate, two conditions perfectly suited to more focused, low-cost planning."
Or will changing our relationship with food be the answer?
What Farms Can Do For Cities
"Gardens are becoming a more integrated piece of what it is to responsibly build a single-family residence, or an apartment building, or even a mall. More people are seeing gardening as a public health solution because you get both healthy food and physical activity out of it."
Happy Friday!
Friday, June 15, 2012
Friday Five for June 15, 2012:
See a problem that needs fixing? First, get someone to finally admit we have a problem:
Diesel exhaust fumes cause cancer, WHO says
"'People are exposed not only to motor vehicle exhausts but also to exhausts from other diesel engines...(such as diesel trains and ships) and from power generators,' it said."
Or if no one will do it officially, just take matters into your own hands:
Baby steps to a BPA ban
"The market shift away from using BPA in baby bottles and infant formula happened because parents were rightly concerned about safety of this chemical in their children’s products."
If you can't do it through your own personal choices, then maybe take the leap and start your own business:
Lessons In Sustainability From India's Entrepreneurs
"Those principles include self-reliance, looking to people instead of machines for solutions, thinking in whole systems, and embracing the Indian spirit of “jugaad,” a Hindi word that means overcoming limited resources by improvising like crazy."
Like this guy:
Got food scraps? Hail a 'Compost Cab'
“Composting is not just about waste reduction,” he explains. “It’s about food production, education, jobs, and creating social benefits in communities beyond the environmental benefits of composting.”
Or these folks:
Auction yer roof! And other ways of streamlining distributed energy
"These are problems of organization, economics, and governance, to be solved by social entrepreneurs, not tech nerds. (No offense to tech nerds.)"
Let's stop hiding our heads in the sand and start making choices to have the kind of life we ALL deserve to have.
Happy Friday!
Diesel exhaust fumes cause cancer, WHO says
"'People are exposed not only to motor vehicle exhausts but also to exhausts from other diesel engines...(such as diesel trains and ships) and from power generators,' it said."
Or if no one will do it officially, just take matters into your own hands:
Baby steps to a BPA ban
"The market shift away from using BPA in baby bottles and infant formula happened because parents were rightly concerned about safety of this chemical in their children’s products."
If you can't do it through your own personal choices, then maybe take the leap and start your own business:
Lessons In Sustainability From India's Entrepreneurs
"Those principles include self-reliance, looking to people instead of machines for solutions, thinking in whole systems, and embracing the Indian spirit of “jugaad,” a Hindi word that means overcoming limited resources by improvising like crazy."
Like this guy:
Got food scraps? Hail a 'Compost Cab'
“Composting is not just about waste reduction,” he explains. “It’s about food production, education, jobs, and creating social benefits in communities beyond the environmental benefits of composting.”
Or these folks:
Auction yer roof! And other ways of streamlining distributed energy
"These are problems of organization, economics, and governance, to be solved by social entrepreneurs, not tech nerds. (No offense to tech nerds.)"
Let's stop hiding our heads in the sand and start making choices to have the kind of life we ALL deserve to have.
Happy Friday!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The trouble with resources
Humans require resources in order to maintain our existence, namely water, air, and a consumable energy source. Without these, we die. In addition, because of our size and fragility relative to other creatures in nature, and in some cases, nature itself, we need resources to maintain shelter from threats. These shelters includes the physical (housing) and the virtual (healthcare). Lastly, we need resources to transport other resources to us, or us to them, and to maintain the quality of the resources we have.
Everything in our economy supports (or should support) the allocation of resources in a manner consistent with the values of the population. We need this allocation because almost all of our resources have limits. By definition, an economy manages resources of a community with a view towards maintaining members of the community so they can add value back to that community, i.e. maintain a quality of life. The toughest questions within that management center around how much of an obligation any community owes toward other groups of people, and how much of an obligation any community owes towards the future generations of its own members. A community that manages resources only for itself and only for the present will have a very different approach to its economy than a community that seeks to live in cooperation with others and wishes future generations to have access to a similar level of resources to support a similar quality of life.
As I just mentioned, almost all resources have limits. Sunlight and ingenuity stand as the only two limitless resources. Although the sun does not shine all day for everyone, it remains an infinitely continuing resource from our frame of reference; the minute it goes, we go. We cannot measure human ingenuity in a quantifiable manner, so to say it has no limit has somewhat of a ring of semantics, but in the resource discussion, this refers to our ability to make choices, adapt, and replace failing or disappearing resources with others that can maintain our quality of life with the same level of efficacy. For example, an area flush with apple trees that experiences a fire that decimates the tree population can shift to the growing of a lower-level crop to survive.
Within this framework of limited resources, I want to examine the effectiveness of our ability to manage resources, and the impact of our present course of management. Over the coming weeks, I will look at several of the necessary resources to our lives, our current management, and the impact of maintaining that method over the coming years. The analysis will have three main assumptions:
1. The American way of life should stand as a goal for the quality of life that any population on the planet should hope to attain.
2. We want future generations to have, at minimum, the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.
3. People will act in a rational manner that promotes equity of opportunity, as long as that action does not threaten their immediate survival.
Assumptions 2. and 3. address the questions of obligation raised in the discussion of economy, and assume that as long as our immediate existence remains in tact, we will hold ourselves to make sure that other communities and our future generations have access to the resources they need. Assumption 1. will cause consternation for some, and I do not throw it out there as a stumbling block to the discussion, but just as the starting point for the frame of reference. Advocates on all sides of the environmental debate spend energy fighting over what to do or not do, but I think they agree that we currently have, in general, a high quality of life in this country. Going into this analysis, I accept that one of three possibilities may result:
* We can support a high quality of life for all people in this country and the rest of the world on the resources currently available to us and in the way we currently manage them,
* We can support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available but we need to adapt the way we currently manage them, or
* We cannot support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available to us and we have to adapt our expectations or our behaviors to ensure continued survival.
In the weeks ahead, we will start the discussion with the basic resources of water, food, and air as (excluding a major scientific breakthrough) these currently stand as irreplaceable resources to our existence. After this, I will look at stored chemical energy and other physical resources. Although possible, an exhaustive discussion of every resource would overstate the point, so I will focus on a total of eight reasonably ubiquitous resources: water, food, air, fossil fuels (stored chemical energy), structural metals (copper, aluminum, iron, steel), technology metals (eg. platinum, gallium, cadmium), silicon, and wood.
First up...next week - Water.
Everything in our economy supports (or should support) the allocation of resources in a manner consistent with the values of the population. We need this allocation because almost all of our resources have limits. By definition, an economy manages resources of a community with a view towards maintaining members of the community so they can add value back to that community, i.e. maintain a quality of life. The toughest questions within that management center around how much of an obligation any community owes toward other groups of people, and how much of an obligation any community owes towards the future generations of its own members. A community that manages resources only for itself and only for the present will have a very different approach to its economy than a community that seeks to live in cooperation with others and wishes future generations to have access to a similar level of resources to support a similar quality of life.
As I just mentioned, almost all resources have limits. Sunlight and ingenuity stand as the only two limitless resources. Although the sun does not shine all day for everyone, it remains an infinitely continuing resource from our frame of reference; the minute it goes, we go. We cannot measure human ingenuity in a quantifiable manner, so to say it has no limit has somewhat of a ring of semantics, but in the resource discussion, this refers to our ability to make choices, adapt, and replace failing or disappearing resources with others that can maintain our quality of life with the same level of efficacy. For example, an area flush with apple trees that experiences a fire that decimates the tree population can shift to the growing of a lower-level crop to survive.
Within this framework of limited resources, I want to examine the effectiveness of our ability to manage resources, and the impact of our present course of management. Over the coming weeks, I will look at several of the necessary resources to our lives, our current management, and the impact of maintaining that method over the coming years. The analysis will have three main assumptions:
1. The American way of life should stand as a goal for the quality of life that any population on the planet should hope to attain.
2. We want future generations to have, at minimum, the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.
3. People will act in a rational manner that promotes equity of opportunity, as long as that action does not threaten their immediate survival.
Assumptions 2. and 3. address the questions of obligation raised in the discussion of economy, and assume that as long as our immediate existence remains in tact, we will hold ourselves to make sure that other communities and our future generations have access to the resources they need. Assumption 1. will cause consternation for some, and I do not throw it out there as a stumbling block to the discussion, but just as the starting point for the frame of reference. Advocates on all sides of the environmental debate spend energy fighting over what to do or not do, but I think they agree that we currently have, in general, a high quality of life in this country. Going into this analysis, I accept that one of three possibilities may result:
* We can support a high quality of life for all people in this country and the rest of the world on the resources currently available to us and in the way we currently manage them,
* We can support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available but we need to adapt the way we currently manage them, or
* We cannot support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available to us and we have to adapt our expectations or our behaviors to ensure continued survival.
In the weeks ahead, we will start the discussion with the basic resources of water, food, and air as (excluding a major scientific breakthrough) these currently stand as irreplaceable resources to our existence. After this, I will look at stored chemical energy and other physical resources. Although possible, an exhaustive discussion of every resource would overstate the point, so I will focus on a total of eight reasonably ubiquitous resources: water, food, air, fossil fuels (stored chemical energy), structural metals (copper, aluminum, iron, steel), technology metals (eg. platinum, gallium, cadmium), silicon, and wood.
First up...next week - Water.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
It's our choice
"Nine billion people cannot live the 'American way of life' with the resources currently available on this planet. That means one of two things: either we accept the disparity that must occur, or we must find ways to maintain the value of our standard of living without the resource intensity and environmental degradation that accompanies it. I choose the latter, and recognize that this cannot be a slow, gradual, and conservative change; it requires a sense of urgency because the issues we face grow exponentially in intensity as more people inhabit the planet and look to achieve the stability, comfort, and quality of our way of life."
That statement drives everything I will do in my career until I die. As long as I am able, I will work, speak, write, and even play with the mentality that we can and must find a way to make a high quality of life possible for all people. Whether an individual makes the choice to attain that quality of life should be up to them, but the possibility must be the responsibility of all of us. This blog will serve as one medium through which I try to inspire, advocate, and highlight the opportunities and possibilities available to us. Frequent readers will notice a couple of different threads running through my writing:
1. Humble - Surprising for those who know me, but ownership of ideas and focus on individual inurement stifle progress more than they aid it.
2. Apolitical - Another surprise, but although I welcome and enjoy a great debate on the politics, we too often focus on politics as an end instead of a means. I will focus on the solutions the political arena can pursue, but will not get wrapped up in the blame/antagonism/party politics that too often distracts from the real issue.
3. Scientific - I hope that my work and ideas reach many people - especially those with contrary ideologies and approaches. One area on which I cannot, and will not, abide a discussion is on the matter of science. True science asks a question and observes in order to reach a conclusion on the answer to the question. When pursued correctly, a jury of peers can validate the conclusion and the methods, and another can repeat the science to obtain similar results. Over the course of time, more and more validation and testing will refine the answer...sometimes well beyond the original scope of the question, and sometimes finding a very different understanding of the conclusion. In NO CIRCUMSTANCE, does science desire an outcome and tailor the data to fit that conclusion. I leave that to lawyers and politicians. When I talk of science, I will hold myself and the cited sources to this definition, and ask all others to do the same. Before parroting the words of an "expert", we all need to take the time to evaluate the veracity of their credentials and statements. This does not mean that we cannot reference statements made by others as part of discourse, we just cannot call them science unless they meet that definition.
4. Balanced - This blog will sometimes focus on the arts, or sports, or teaching...or any number of elements of our daily lives. We have grown into a society of specialists, and have far too few people who appreciate the entire palate that society and civilization have to offer. I hope that those who follow will follow will stick with me if something in the blog does not fall into their normal tastes...I promise, to the greatest extent possible, that everything I post will circle back to one of the three themes listed below.
Most blog entries will fall into one of three broad themes:
"The trouble with the world today..." - posts that identify issues of concern including the impact, timing, and source.
"That's the way it should be..." - posts that shed light on solutions that communities have pursued to overcome obstacles.
"In your own backyard..." - stories from our community (the 19th Ward) and the City of Chicago
I hope you enjoy the blog. I welcome any and all feedback that adds value to the discussion and helps to shape our vision for a collective future with high quality of life and low level of fear. Please let your friends and relatives (and even the occasional nemesis) know about the blog. The more voices in the discussion, the better our chances of survival. Remember, it's our choice whether we ignore or address the problem, and it's our choice whether we want a world of equal opportunity.
It's time to make your choice.
Thank you!
Enjoy the journey!
JFC
That statement drives everything I will do in my career until I die. As long as I am able, I will work, speak, write, and even play with the mentality that we can and must find a way to make a high quality of life possible for all people. Whether an individual makes the choice to attain that quality of life should be up to them, but the possibility must be the responsibility of all of us. This blog will serve as one medium through which I try to inspire, advocate, and highlight the opportunities and possibilities available to us. Frequent readers will notice a couple of different threads running through my writing:
1. Humble - Surprising for those who know me, but ownership of ideas and focus on individual inurement stifle progress more than they aid it.
2. Apolitical - Another surprise, but although I welcome and enjoy a great debate on the politics, we too often focus on politics as an end instead of a means. I will focus on the solutions the political arena can pursue, but will not get wrapped up in the blame/antagonism/party politics that too often distracts from the real issue.
3. Scientific - I hope that my work and ideas reach many people - especially those with contrary ideologies and approaches. One area on which I cannot, and will not, abide a discussion is on the matter of science. True science asks a question and observes in order to reach a conclusion on the answer to the question. When pursued correctly, a jury of peers can validate the conclusion and the methods, and another can repeat the science to obtain similar results. Over the course of time, more and more validation and testing will refine the answer...sometimes well beyond the original scope of the question, and sometimes finding a very different understanding of the conclusion. In NO CIRCUMSTANCE, does science desire an outcome and tailor the data to fit that conclusion. I leave that to lawyers and politicians. When I talk of science, I will hold myself and the cited sources to this definition, and ask all others to do the same. Before parroting the words of an "expert", we all need to take the time to evaluate the veracity of their credentials and statements. This does not mean that we cannot reference statements made by others as part of discourse, we just cannot call them science unless they meet that definition.
4. Balanced - This blog will sometimes focus on the arts, or sports, or teaching...or any number of elements of our daily lives. We have grown into a society of specialists, and have far too few people who appreciate the entire palate that society and civilization have to offer. I hope that those who follow will follow will stick with me if something in the blog does not fall into their normal tastes...I promise, to the greatest extent possible, that everything I post will circle back to one of the three themes listed below.
Most blog entries will fall into one of three broad themes:
"The trouble with the world today..." - posts that identify issues of concern including the impact, timing, and source.
"That's the way it should be..." - posts that shed light on solutions that communities have pursued to overcome obstacles.
"In your own backyard..." - stories from our community (the 19th Ward) and the City of Chicago
I hope you enjoy the blog. I welcome any and all feedback that adds value to the discussion and helps to shape our vision for a collective future with high quality of life and low level of fear. Please let your friends and relatives (and even the occasional nemesis) know about the blog. The more voices in the discussion, the better our chances of survival. Remember, it's our choice whether we ignore or address the problem, and it's our choice whether we want a world of equal opportunity.
It's time to make your choice.
Thank you!
Enjoy the journey!
JFC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)