Perpetual Innovation

Category: global warming

  • Internet will be underwater sooner than you might think

    Found this on the Weather Channel, where it discusses a study that discusses the impacts on rising oceans on… The Internet.
    It makes sense. Population centers are, what, 80% within a few miles of oceans. All the phone and Inet cables would run along roads through population areas…
    Business Insider discusses so called Sunny Day Flooding from high tied and kind tide.
    As the sea levels rise there will be more flooding. Flooding will start to hit lots of underground cables (including Internet cables) that are water resistant, but not waterproof.

    With all the analysis of Global Warming, most of the scenarios assume that we take some action to avoid the worst cases. Also, there had been expectations for 20-30 years that we would start to run out (or at least low) on the fossil fuels, and thereby increase costs from shortages would result in “conservation” efforts. But Fracking and horizontal drilling has changed all that. Ten years ago, noone, not even the oil baron Boone Pickens, could expect that the world would reach 100m barrels of oil per day. It was not conceivable. But we have made it. Happily burning away, even with generally more fuel-efficient vehicles.

    But the Business as Usual (BAU) models that were considered the absolute worst case in climate models, seems to be where we find ourselves. The general thinking was that we probably had about another 50 years before big problems from global warming come home to roost. Well, this study figures otherwise. Within 10-15 years these problems, and the associated plethora of costs, should start showing up with a vengeance.

    The water issues will be massive and devastating. Salt water intrusion will become really expensive. Imagine entire cities moving from lots of fresh water and fresh water wells, to no fresh water. Desalinization is obviously possible, but requires lots of energy, plus massive amounts of plant and infrastructure.

    And, we have not even begun to talk about the devastating impacts of hurricanes when the sea levels are a couple more feet above “normal”.

    No pretty pictures on the waterfront here!

  • Time to DrawDown and Look at All the Sky, not just Half

    In the US, we often
    characterize women hitting the Glass Ceiling where men are in the highest
    positions of companies – executives and board rooms. Interestingly, men don’t
    see much of a glass ceiling, maybe because they are usually upstairs and not
    looking down. Old white men may be complicit and complacent in women knocking
    at the other side of the glass, but world-wide the imperative to give women
    respect and opportunity is critical, with profound implications for the world
    population and sustainable economic development. It’s a human and a humanity
    issue for everyone everywhere.
    Let’s talk about Drawdown and Half
    the Sky     (Wikipedia contributors, 2018). Both are bestselling books and
    global initiatives.
    Everyone should be
    familiar with each of these.
    Half the Sky is a bestselling book by Kristof and
    WuDunn (2009), a movie, and an activist movement. See Half the Sky
    movement:     http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
    Women are not allowed to
    do many things in many countries. The limitations on women in many cases mean
    that only half of the human resources in a country/area are utilized. It’s a
    lot like seeing only half of the sky!
    Women are often not encouraged
    to go to school. In many cultures girls are expected to drop out of school very
    early, say age 11 to 13, so they can get married and/or work. (Or worse,
    funneled into sex slavery.) Encouraging women to stay in school longer solve
    many problems simultaneously. At an older age, with education, they are better
    able to do family planning and more productive work. This is key to population
    control. Educating women is key to reaching a global population of 9B or less,
    instead of 11B or more.
    In terms of economic
    development, a better use of women resources is a critical asset to the work
    economy. In fact, women are absolutely critical to sustainability efforts:
    lower population, higher GDP, higher per capita GDP, and reduced environmental
    impacts on the planet.
    There’s an effort call
    DrawDown (    www.DrawDown.org) that looks for the best initiatives, using the current
    technology that will make the biggest difference in CO2 emissions and global
    warming. Groups use the best, peer-reviewed, information available to analyze
    each initiative. Initiatives are evaluated on the emissions savings as well as
    the actual cost saving on a world-wide bases. When taken together, two women’s
    initiatives, ranked #6 and #7, would move up to #1 position. The two categories
    are: educating women and family planning.
    Note that the three
    women/girl initiatives are ranked 6, 7 and 62; however, combined, they
    represent arguably the best single initative to address in terms of impact on
    global warming reduction. And, oh, by the way, they will contribute massively
    to world GDP and assist dramatically with cost savings compared to business as
    usual.
    The book Drawdown and
    the web site Drawdown.org are edited by Paul Hawken (2017).
    The first table shows
    the summary by sector the top 80 Drawdown initiatives. These
    initiatives are all things that we should do, no matter how aggressively you
    think our action toward Global Warming might be. It would be simply
    irresponsible not to address these issues. Note that an initiative related to
    utilities is ranked 77 but has 3 parts; therefore, there the top 80 lists is
    actually 82 items (see the Top 80 list below).
    We need to be more
    proactively regarding women and girl’s rights; or, we could continue to see
    only half the sky.
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and
    Projected Savings)
    Summary by Sectors of the top 80 Initiatives
    Sector
    Initatives
    CO2e GT Reduction
    Net Costs (US$B)
    Savings (US$B)
    Buildings and Cities
                  15
                                       55
                            4,927
                     17,906
    Electricity Generation
                  20
                                     246
                            4,896
                     21,447
    Food
                  17
                                     322
                               777
                     10,017
    Land Use
                    9
                                     150
                               131
                       1,199
    Materials
                    7
                                     112
                            1,125
                       1,040
    Transport
                  11
                                       46
                         17,753
                     22,666
    Women and Girls
                    3
                                     121
                                   –  
                             88
    TOTAL
                  82
                                 1,051
                         29,609
                     74,362
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.
    See
    the top 80 table below.
    References
    Kristof,
    N., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the
    sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide.     New York, NY:
    Alfred A. Knopf.
    Hawken,
    P. (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan every proposed to reverse
    global warming    . (P. Hawken, Ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    Wikipedia
    contributors. (2018, April 9). Half the Sky. In Wikipedia, The Free
    Encyclopedia    . Retrieved 15:55, April 10, 2018, from     https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half_the_Sky&oldid=835610476
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and Projected Savings)
    Total CO2e (GT)
     Atmospheric
    Net Costs
    Savings
    Rank
    Solution
    Sector
     reduction
    US $B
    US $B
    1
    Refrigerant Management
    Materials
    89.74
    N/A
    ($902.77)
    2
    Wind Turbines
    (Onshore)
    Electricity Generation
    84.6
    $1,225.37
    $7,425.00
    3
    Reduced Food Waste
    Food
    70.53
    N/A
    N/A
    4
    Plant-Rich Diet
    Food
    66.11
    N/A
    N/A
    5
    Tropical Forests
    Land Use
    61.23
    N/A
    N/A
    6
    Educating Girls
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    7
    Family Planning
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    8
    Solar Farms
    Electricity Generation
    36.9
    ($80.60)
    $5,023.84
    9
    Silvopasture
    Food
    31.19
    $41.59
    $699.37
    10
    Rooftop Solar
    Electricity Generation
    24.6
    $453.14
    $3,457.63
    11
    Regenerative
    Agriculture
    Food
    23.15
    $57.22
    $1,928.10
    12
    Temperate Forests
    Land Use
    22.61
    N/A
    N/A
    13
    Peatlands
    Land Use
    21.57
    N/A
    N/A
    14
    Tropical Staple Trees
    Food
    20.19
    $120.07
    $626.97
    15
    Afforestation
    Land Use
    18.06
    $29.44
    $392.33
    16
    Conservation
    Agriculture
    Food
    17.35
    $37.53
    $2,119.07
    17
    Tree Intercropping
    Food
    17.2
    $146.99
    $22.10
    18
    Geothermal
    Electricity Generation
    16.6
    ($155.48)
    $1,024.34
    19
    Managed Grazing
    Food
    16.34
    $50.48
    $735.27
    20
    Nuclear
    Electricity Generation
    16.09
    $0.88
    $1,713.40
    21
    Clean Cookstoves
    Food
    15.81
    $72.16
    $166.28
    22
    Wind Turbines
    (Offshore)
    Electricity Generation
    14.1
    $545.30
    $762.50
    23
    Farmland Restoration
    Food
    14.08
    $72.24
    $1,342.47
    24
    Improved Rice
    Cultivation
    Food
    11.34
    N/A
    $519.06
    25
    Concentrated Solar
    Electricity Generation
    10.9
    $1,319.70
    $413.85
    26
    Electric Vehicles
    Transport
    10.8
    $14,148.00
    $9,726.40
    27
    District Heating
    Buildings and Cities
    9.38
    $457.10
    $3,543.50
    28
    Multistrata
    Agroforestry
    Food
    9.28
    $26.76
    $709.75
    29
    Wave and Tidal
    Electricity Generation
    9.2
    $411.84
    ($1,004.70)
    30
    Methane Digesters
    (Large)
    Electricity Generation
    8.4
    $201.41
    $148.83
    31
    Insulation
    Buildings and Cities
    8.27
    $3,655.92
    $2,513.33
    32
    Ships
    Transport
    7.87
    $915.93
    $424.38
    33
    LED Lighting
    (Household)
    Buildings and Cities
    7.81
    $323.52
    $1,729.54
    34
    Biomass
    Electricity Generation
    7.5
    $402.31
    $519.35
    35
    Bamboo
    Land Use
    7.22
    $23.79
    $264.80
    36
    Alternative Cement
    Materials
    6.69
    ($273.90)
    N/A
    37
    Mass Transit
    Transport
    6.57
    N/A
    $2,379.73
    38
    Forest Protection
    Land Use
    6.2
    N/A
    N/A
    39
    Indigenous Peoples’
    Land Management
    Land Use
    6.19
    N/A
    N/A
    40
    Trucks
    Transport
    6.18
    $543.54
    $2,781.63
    41
    Solar Water
    Electricity Generation
    6.08
    $2.99
    $773.65
    42
    Heat Pumps
    Buildings and Cities
    5.2
    $118.71
    $1,546.66
    43
    Airplanes
    Transport
    5.05
    $662.42
    $3,187.80
    44
    LED Lighting
    (Commercial)
    Buildings and Cities
    5.04
    ($205.05)
    $1,089.63
    45
    Building Automation
    Buildings and Cities
    4.62
    $68.12
    $880.55
    46
    Water Saving – Home
    Materials
    4.61
    $72.44
    $1,800.12
    47
    Bioplastic
    Materials
    4.3
    $19.15
    N/A
    48
    In-Stream Hydro
    Electricity Generation
    4
    $202.53
    $568.36
    49
    Cars
    Transport
    4
    ($598.69)
    $1,761.72
    50
    Cogeneration
    Electricity Generation
    3.97
    $279.25
    $566.93
    51
    Perennial Biomass
    Land Use
    3.33
    $77.94
    $541.89
    52
    Coastal Wetlands
    Land Use
    3.19
    N/A
    N/A
    53
    System of Rice
    Intensification
    Food
    3.13
    N/A
    $677.83
    54
    Walkable Cities
    Buildings and Cities
    2.92
    N/A
    $3,278.24
    55
    Household Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    56
    Industrial Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    57
    Smart Thermostats
    Buildings and Cities
    2.62
    $74.16
    $640.10
    58
    Landfill Methane
    Buildings and Cities
    2.5
    ($1.82)
    $67.57
    59
    Bike Infrastructure
    Buildings and Cities
    2.31
    ($2,026.97)
    $400.47
    60
    Composting
    Food
    2.28
    ($63.72)
    ($60.82)
    61
    Smart Glass
    Buildings and Cities
    2.19
    $932.30
    $325.10
    62
    Women Smallholders
    Women and Girls
    2.06
    N/A
    $87.60
    63
    Telepresence
    Transport
    1.99
    $127.72
    $1,310.59
    64
    Methane Digesters
    (Small)
    Electricity Generation
    1.9
    $15.50
    $13.90
    65
    Nutrient Management
    Food
    1.81
    N/A
    $102.32
    66
    High-speed Rail
    Transport
    1.52
    $1,038.42
    $368.10
    67
    Farmland Irrigation
    Food
    1.33
    $216.16
    $429.67
    68
    Waste-to-Energy
    Electricity Generation
    1.1
    $36.00
    $19.82
    69
    Electric Bikes
    Transport
    0.96
    $106.75
    $226.07
    70
    Recycled Paper
    Materials
    0.9
    $573.48
    N/A
    71
    Water Distribution
    Buildings and Cities
    0.87
    $137.37
    $903.11
    72
    Biochar
    Food
    0.81
    N/A
    N/A
    73
    Green Roofs
    Buildings and Cities
    0.77
    $1,393.29
    $988.46
    74
    Trains
    Transport
    0.52
    $808.64
    $313.86
    75
    Ridesharing
    Transport
    0.32
    N/A
    $185.56
    76
    Micro Wind
    Electricity Generation
    0.2
    $36.12
    $19.90
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Distributed)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Utilities)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Grid Flexibility*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    78
    Microgrids
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    79
    Net Zero Buildings
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    80
    Retrofitting
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    Sum of top initiatives
                  1,050.99
        29,609.30
        74,362.37
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.

  • Finally, a great GOP plan to address climate change. Who’s Who

    The unbelievable list of Who’s-Who from the GOP world have joined together (Climate Leadership Council) to come up with a very workable, market-based, approach to address climate change. Schultz and Baker have been around since the Reagan era. One of their crowning achievements was related to getting the world to reduce all of fluorocarbons (like Freon) which was wiping out the protective ozone layer of our atmosphere. You rarely hear the discuss on the ozone layer, right? Schultz and Baker are a big part of the reason why. The world-wide agreement on fluorocarbons is know as the Montreal Protocol.

    Here is a great article by Schultz and Baker, both from Ronald Reagan era Republicans. A Conservative Answer to Climate Change.

    First, to address climate change, has some scary implications. It really is unnerving if there is no energy policy in the US. In this report, we may have the only energy policy forming since the attempt by President Carter to have an energy policy. Obama tried to use the EPA to regulate fossil fuels and more, which is no substitute for an actual energy policy that is congress/legislative based.

    For decades, economists have linked a market based approach to address the non-sustainable use of energy in the US and globally. One approach is to build a more complicated approach for putting a price on carbon, cap and trade (Emissions trading). A simple tax is so much more straight forward. In this case, they want to take the carbon tax and rebate it back to the population in the form of dividend rebates. The estimate is that the bottom 70% of the population, income-wise, will have a net benefit from this plan. Revenue neutral.

    From an international security issue, it reduces the money we send to other countries in order to use more fossil fuels ($1T over every couple years). The large producers of the world are not necessarily friendly to us: Russia, Venezuela, Saudi, Iran. Much of the terrorism of the world is also paid from from oil moneys (ISIS and the renegades in Nigeria).

    The beauty of this approach — above and beyond environmental benefits — is that people can take that dividend money and pay even more for gas and gas-guzzling vehicles. Or, even better, use if for something they value more.

    I’ve been very disappointed in the GOP; they have let the deniers drown out the engagement of addressing such the critical issue of the non-sustainability of fossil fuels. A smart market approach will work nicely and solve lots of problems simultaneously. This approach will apparently reduce carbon emissions by 2x from  Obama’s EPA approach to “clean energy”, and 3x what dumping the plan an reverting to business as usual (BAU).  As one of the authors and economist Greg Mankiw says, “this is pretty close to a panacea in the way that it solves lots of problems as once”. No need to subsidize renewable; let the best solutions rise and the worst dwindle.

    Consider this dividend-tax as insurance. You buy insurance to reduce future risks and costs. This plan starts to steadily reduce carbon emissions.

    Everyone wins with this plan. Well, except maybe coal, oil and gas companies and countries.

    Now these guys need to go convince Pres Trump and his merry band of fossil burners. Surprisingly, it might just work.

    Also see Amy Harder Feb 8 blog on the topic in WSJ. She discusses the meeting of the Climate Leadership Council with Pres Trump where they voiced that they were “cautiously optimistic”.

  • Trump of Sustainability – Paul Bunyan tromps again!

    Sustainability efforts take a big hit with the Trump election to president.
    Some forces are bigger than he, however.
    Congress didn’t act on most things sustainable-ish, so much of the Obama efforts have been by executive order and by regulations. The EPA on coal, for example. The right way to regulate emissions in general — and fossil fuels specifically — is by a carbon tax (or cap n trade). With a carbon tax, then all subsidies of all kinds can be readily removed and let the markets take care of resource allocation. New power and retirement of existing production takes care of itself.
    So now, we can expect the EPA restrictions to be systematically eroded.
    But, even if the EPA is removed from the picture, we should never expect to see another coal power plant. NatGas is so much cheaper — in all the spellings of the word — and dirt cheap. See our blog post on coal here.
    One would hope, however, that Trump would take on bigger and more immediate issues before attacking the Paris agreement on climate change (COP21, and COP22 starting as we speak in Marrakesh). That is taking on a big segment of the US population and the will of the entire world that, up until Paris a year ago, has never agreed on many thing since the Montreal agreement on reducing fluorocarbons (and the recent extension of this in Oct-Nov 2016).
    When we saw Virginia coming in all red, and only flipping blue based on metro areas (DC), you knew that Trumps message had really grabbed traction with the blue collar coal miners and such.
    Sadly, the idea of putting coal back to work, is a painful lie to the mining community. Coal is never going to come back. Countries like Germany have totally retired the coal power. Even China may not put any more coal power plants to work; they’re trying to get the air clean enough for people to breath.
    The idea from Hillary was that she would make efforts to transition the “dead and dying back in my little [coal] town”. The promise from Trump to put coal miners back to work is sadly a very cruel promise. Wishing it were true, does not make it so.
    You have to feel for the miners though.
    First we backed out of the Kyoto protocol, now we will back out of Paris. You have to really feel for those countries 200 countries that have been pushing so hard to address the huge footprint we are having on the planet, while the US, the Paul Bunyan of footprints, is putting on his BIG boots to go tromping again.
    An added note is the horror story of a team that has been advising Trump on Energy and Environment, aka the agency formerly know as the EPA. This Scientific America article was in Sept 26th.

  • 2015 Earth fails another annual physical. Ugly Temp Rise!:-(

    BAMS State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):

    State of the Climate: Earth fails another annual physical. Or, maybe better stated, human activity resulted in another horrible annual reading of Earths temps. Beyond time to move Earth from a Private room to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

    Unfortunately, 2015 blasted past all records set in 2014. The El Nino effect help somewhat, and looks like it will assist somewhat with 2016 setting even more records. Although el Nino is a natural occurrence, the effects can be removed statistically; plus, it should have less of an effect on 2016 which is on pace to shoot past the monthly and annual records of 2015.

    Ouch!

    The word used to describe the report was “Grim”.

    “Ugly”, would be descriptive too.

    Of the 50 or so metrics used, only Antarctica showed a few positive signs, mixed with some serious negatives. Highlights include:

    • Greenhouse gases hit records, passing the 400ppm of CO2, to blast past all modern records.
    • Surface temps set records by a mile, breaking the record set in 2014.
    • Sea surface temps set a record, breaking the record set in 2014. (Part of the El Nino effect as it pertains to the Pacific.)
    • Globally, upper ocean heat content exceeded the record set in 2014, “reflecting the continuing accumulation of thermal energy in the upper layer of the oceans. Oceans absorb over 90 percent of Earth’s excess heat from global warming.”  Which brings us to thermal expansion, as water heats it expands. If average depths of oceans are 2 miles, that thermal expansion eventually adds up as temps permeate throughout the oceans.
    • Global Seal Levels highest on record. (Especially precises since the use of satellites over the last 20 years.) 
    • Extremes in water cycles and precipitation. 
    • And extreme weather. Thousands of people dies from heat in India/Pakistan, for example. 
    • In North America we don’t realize what an ugly year 2015 was for cyclones because it was very tame for hurricanes. “There were 101 tropical cyclones across all ocean basins in 2015, well above the 1981–2010 average of 82 storms. The eastern/central Pacific had 26 named storms, the most since 1992.” 

    The main report site (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams) said this:

    “The report, led by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, is based on contributions from more than 450 scientists from 62 countries around the world and reflects tens of thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets (highlights, full report (link is external)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice and in space.”

    Lots of good places to go view more details about any and all discussions, statistics and assertions.

    You choose the word: Ugly? Grim? @#$@#$@ ???

    ‘via Blog this’