Even though Donald Trump has decided the U.S. will not help reduce the world’s carbon emissions, at least you can get data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, part of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Get it now because it sounds like they are going out of business in September.
Most frightening stories:
- The public today is more complacent about nuclear weapons than they were in the 1980s, even though the risk is arguably greater and leaders seem to be more ignorant and reckless.
- The NSA is trying “to identify laboratories and/or individuals who may be involved in nefarious use of genetic research”.
- We hit 410 ppm at Mauna Loa.
Most hopeful stories:
- Electric cars may be set for a boom in the next five years or so.
- The Dutch public insisted on safe streets, and got them. The Dutch are a type of human being, I think, which suggests there could be hope for the rest of us.
- Buzz Aldrin and NASA have plans for Mars colonization around the 2030s. Stephen Hawking thinks this is a good idea to hedge our bets against bad things that might happen here on Earth.
Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:
Climate Central says we have hit 410 ppm:
On Tuesday, the Mauna Loa Observatory recorded its first-ever carbon dioxide reading in excess of 410 parts per million (it was 410.28 ppm in case you want the full deal). Carbon dioxide hasn’t reached that height in millions of years. It’s a new atmosphere that humanity will have to contend with, one that’s trapping more heat and causing the climate to change at a quickening rate…
“The rate of increase will go down when emissions decrease,” Pieter Tans, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said. “But carbon dioxide will still be going up, albeit more slowly. Only when emissions are cut in half will atmospheric carbon dioxide level off initially.”
Even when concentrations of carbon dioxide level off, the impacts of climate change will extend centuries into the future. The planet has already warmed 1.8°F (1°C), including a run of 627 months in a row of above-normal heat. Sea levels have risen about a foot and oceans have acidified. Extreme heat has become more common.
All of these impacts will last longer and intensify into the future even if we cut carbon emissions. But we face a choice of just how intense they become based on when we stop polluting the atmosphere.
So things are not only not getting better. They are not even getting worse at a slower rate. They are getting worse at a faster and faster rate, and our not-too-ambitious goal is to make them get worse at the same rate. High school calculus teachers are probably the only ones enjoying this.
Most frightening stories:
- A misapplied equation might have crashed the world financial system in 2007.
- Shell was well aware of climate change science in 1991, and made a movie to educate the public about it. But nothing was done.
- The U.S. health care market is screwed up seemingly beyond repair. Why can’t we have nice things? Oh right, because our politicians represent big business, not voters. Also, we have forgotten the difference between a dialog and an argument.
Most hopeful stories:
- There are ideas for better traffic lights.
- Tesla’s market share eclipsed Ford’s. Mercedes is promising self-driving taxis within three years. I put these in the win column because creative destruction of the automobile industry status quo is long overdue. In other creative destruction news, e-commerce is starting to eat the bricks-and-mortar retail industry alive, possibly because people are realizing they can buy stuff and have time left over for things other than sitting in their cars on the way to and from stores.
- The value added tax is a boring but good idea. Why can’t the U.S. have nice things? Oh, right…
Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:
- I first heard of David Fleming, who wrote a “dictionary” that provides “deft and original analysis of how our present market-based economy is destroying the very foundations―ecological, economic, and cultural― on which it depends, and his core focus: a compelling, grounded vision for a cohesive society that might weather the consequences.”
- Judges are relying on algorithms to inform probation, parole, and sentencing decisions.
- I finished reading Rainbow’s End, a fantastic Vernor Vinge novel about augmented reality in the near future, among other things.
It wasn’t just Exxon that knew about climate change decades ago. But unlike Exxon, which not only denied it but used the foulest of propaganda tactics to confuse the public and delay progress, Shell made an accurate movie about it in 1991 to inform the public, called “Climate of Concern”.
Perhaps there is a parallel universe where Shell developed a sustainable business model, put Exxon out of business, and saved the Earth. Of course that is not the universe you and I are in right now.
Even though there haven’t been a lot of commercial nuclear reactors built in the U.S., nuclear energy research and development has progressed since the plants we are most familiar with from the 1970s. Here is Forbes talking about a new type of small modular reactor.
This nuclear reactor is something that we’ve never seen before – a small modular reactor that is economic, factory built and shippable, flexible enough to desalinate seawater, refine oil, load-follow wind, produce hydrogen, modular to make the power plant any size, and that provides something we’ve all been waiting for – a reactor that cannot meltdown.
This last point is the really big deal with SMRs. The small size of each module changes the surface-area-to-volume ratio such that heat can be siphoned off easily so that the reactor can’t melt down…
Refueling of SMRs do not require the nuclear plant to shut down. The small size and large surface area-to-volume ratio of NuScale’s reactor core, that sits below ground in a super seismic-resistant heat sink, allows natural processes to cool it indefinitely in the case of complete power blackout, with no humans needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling.
I support nuclear energy provided the risks of past designs can be mitigated, and it sounds like there is progress in that direction. Uranium still has to be mined, enriched, transported, and disposed of safely, of course, and safer reactors do not address that issue. There is also the proliferation issue, coupled with the fairness issue of who gets to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear technology and which are not. But there are no zero-risk options. With the health and climate risks of continuing to burn fossil fuels on a massive scale becoming more obvious every day, we should be giving nuclear a cautious look.
Mongabay explains why draining peatlands to grow oil palms is not a great idea.
Peat is a type of soil composed of partially decayed organic material such as vegetation that accumulates over time in a water-saturated environment lacking in oxygen. Peatlands are characterized by a thick layer of peat, often several meters deep that can take thousands of years to form.
Peat swamp forests act as massive carbon sinks, and when they are drained, carbon that has been slowly captured over the centuries it takes the peat to form is suddenly released into the atmosphere. A group of scientists recently uncovered the world’s largest tropical peatland in the Congo basin, thought to store the equivalent of three years’ worth of the world’s total fossil fuel emissions. The draining of peatlands can also lead to widespread subsidence, or sinking, as the organic matter rapidly decompresses and decomposes, ultimately rendering land unsuitable for agricultural or community development, according to NGO Wetlands International.
Across Southeast Asia, peat swamp forests have been cleared, drained, and burned away, often replaced by monocrop plantations or construction projects. Malaysia and Indonesia’s vast peatlands have been significantly reduced by large-scale draining and drying, leading to huge forest and peat fires across the region – such as the 2015 haze crisis that scientists say may have led to the premature deaths of 100,000 people. The event subsequently led Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo to ban the clearance and conversion of peat swamps.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has released its annual energy outlook 2017. In their economic modeling exercises, some of the interesting things that happen are that oil demand stays relatively flat, natural gas demand continues to grow, coal continues to fall, and renewables continue to grow through 2040 although they don’t reach a higher share of the total supply than natural gas or oil. Carbon emissions fall or stay relatively flat in most scenarios, which is interesting but remember that flat emissions that are still too high will cause atmospheric greenhouse gases to continue growing at a steady rate. Some of the most interesting graphs are emissions intensity per dollar of economic output and emissions per unit of energy used, which both fall over time but again this does not guarantee that the atmosphere is healing itself, only becoming sicker at a slower rate.
Each month this year, I picked three scary, three hopeful, and three interesting posts or groups of post from the month. Now I’m going to pick one of those three to represent each of the months. The choices are fairly arbitrary and the main point is just to review what the media was saying and what I was thinking about over the course of the year. Then I’ll see if I can identify any trends or come up with any insights.
Most Frightening Stories of the Year
- JANUARY: Paul Ehrlich is still worried about population. 82% of scientists agree.
- FEBRUARY: 77% of jobs in China may be threatened by automation.
- MARCH: An IMF official uttered the words “economic derailment“. That sounds like it could be a real train wreck. Meanwhile Robert Gordon has expanded his pessimistic article on future growth into a book.
- APRIL: Robert Paxton says Trump is pretty much a fascist. Although conditions are different and he doesn’t believe everything the fascists believed. Umberto Eco once said that fascists don’t believe anything, they will say anything and then what they do once in office has nothing to do with what they said.
- MAY: The situation in Venezuela may be a preview of what the collapse of a modern country looks like.
- JUNE: Trump may very well have organized crime links. And Moody’s says that if he gets elected and manages to do the things he says, it could crash the economy.
- JULY: The CIA is just not that good at spying.
- AUGUST: A former U.S. secretary of defense thinks the risk of nuclear war is higher now than during the cold war. The Republic Party platform appears to be outright in favor of nuclear weapons, while the Democratic Party platform includes a tepid commitment to maybe “reducing reliance” and spending on nuclear weapons. Jeffrey Sachs says the Syria War has become essentially a U.S.-Russia proxy war.
- SEPTEMBER: The ecological footprint situation is not looking too promising: “from 1993 to 2009…while the human population has increased by 23% and the world economy has grown 153%, the human footprint has increased by just 9%. Still, 75% the planet’s land surface is experiencing measurable human pressures. Moreover, pressures are perversely intense, widespread and rapidly intensifying in places with high biodiversity.” Meanwhile, as of 2002 “we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green material) produced on Earth each year (Vitousek et al. 1986, Rojstaczer et al. 2001). We consume 35% of the productivity of the oceanic shelf (Pauly and Christensen 1995), and we use 60% of freshwater run-off (Postel et al. 1996). The unprecedented escalation in both human population and consumption in the 20th century has resulted in environmental crises never before encountered in the history of humankind and the world (McNeill 2000). E. O. Wilson (2002) claims it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US inhabitant.” And finally, 30% of African elephants have been lost in the last 7 years.
- OCTOBER: According to James Hansen, the world needs “negative” greenhouse gas emissions right away, meaning an end to fossil fuel burning and improvements to agriculture, forestry, and soil conservation practices to absorb carbon. Part of the current problem is unexpected and unexplained increases in methane concentrations in the atmosphere.
- NOVEMBER: Is there really any doubt what the most frightening story of November 2016 was? The United Nations Environment Program says we are on a track for 3 degrees C over pre-industrial temperatures, not the “less than 2” almost all serious people (a category that excludes 46% of U.S. voters, apparently) agree is needed. This story was released before the U.S. elected an immoral science denier as its leader. One theory is that our culture has lost all ability to separate fact from fiction. Perhaps states could take on more of a leadership role if the federal government is going to be immoral? Washington State voters considered a carbon tax that could have been a model for other states, and voted it down, in part because environmental groups didn’t like that it was revenue neutral. Adding insult to injury, WWF released its 2016 Living Planet Report, which along with more fun climate change info includes fun facts like 58% of all wild animals have disappeared. There is a 70-99% chance of a U.S. Southwest “mega-drought” lasting 35 years or longer this century. But don’t worry, this is only “if emissions of greenhouse gases remain unchecked”. Oh, and climate change is going to begin to strain the food supply worldwide, which is already strained by population, demand growth, and water resources depletion even without it.
- DECEMBER: The geopolitical situation is not good. If Russia did hack the U.S. election, it wouldn’t be the first election they have hacked. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not over, and the rest of the greater Middle East is increasingly a mess.
Most Hopeful Stories of the Year
- JANUARY: The new Michael Moore visits other countries and collects their best ideas on policies that work well and we just don’t know about.
- FEBRUARY: There are some practical ideas for how to develop potentially dangerous technologies more safely.
- MARCH: There are some serious proposals to produce carbon nanotubes from sequestered carbon dioxide.
- APRIL: Better management of agricultural soil might be able to play a big role in carbon sequestration.
- MAY: Maybe the clean energy miracle is here!
- JUNE: There is still some hope for a technology-driven pick-up in productivity growth.
- JULY: Uber Pool could be a game changing technology that ushers in a new kind of flexible transportation system.
- AUGUST: There is new financial technology out there that may disrupt the traditional financial industry. Meanwhile, ride sharing has torpedoed the traditional taxi industry, with the value of Philadelphia taxi medallions dropping from a peak of $545,000 in July 2014 to $50,000 in March 2015.
- SEPTEMBER: There is still hope for fusion power.
- OCTOBER: New technology can read your heartbeat by bouncing a wireless signal off you. Mark Zuckerberg has decided to end disease.
- NOVEMBER: There is some research progress on new ways to combat antibiotic resistance.
- DECEMBER: There’s no clear evidence that genetically modified crops are bad for you.
Most Interesting Stories of the Year
- JANUARY: The World Economic Forum focused on technology: “The possibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and access to knowledge, are unlimited. And these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.”
- FEBRUARY: Titanium dioxide is the reason Oreo filling is so white.
- MARCH: Michael Pollan urged us to eat food. not too much. mostly psychedelic mushrooms.
- APRIL: Genes can now be programmed just like circuits.
- MAY: The world has about a billion dogs.
- JUNE: Switzerland finished an enormous tunnel through the Alps that took 20 years to build.
- JULY: I was a little side-tracked by U.S. Presidential politics. Nate Silver launched his general election site, putting the odds about 80-20 in favor of Hillary at the beginning of the month. The odds swung toward Trump over the course of the month as the two major party conventions took place (one in my backyard), but by the end of the month they were back to about 70-30 in favor of Hillary. During the month I mused about NAFTA, the fall of the Republic, the banana republic, The Art of the Deal, how to debate Trump, and Jon Stewart.
- AUGUST: Here is a short video explaining the Fermi Paradox, which asks why there are no aliens. Meanwhile Russian astronomers are saying there might be aliens.
- SEPTEMBER: Monsanto is trying to help honeybees (which seems good) by monkeying with RNA (which seems a little frightening). Yes, biotech is coming.
- OCTOBER: Neil deGrasse Tyson says “we might expect to find as many as 100 alien civilizations in our galaxy communicating with radio waves right now.”
- NOVEMBER: New technology can survey and create a 3D model of a room in seconds.
- DECEMBER: According to Bill Gates, “new genome technologies are at the cusp of affecting us all in profound ways”. But an article in Nature says we should not be too hopeful about living much past 100.
And now for trends and insights…
Serious long-term threats related to population, food, water resources, natural capital depletion, biodiversity loss, and climate change. These are all inter-related. In past years I probably would have suggested that these threats are so likely and so consequential that we should focus nearly all our efforts on them. But things have changed a bit over the past year. Now it appears that we face dire short term threats as well in the form of serious geopolitical instability, risk of war and global economic stagnation. If you don’t deal with short term threats you might not be around to deal with the long term ones. And voters have chosen leaders in the past year who have no intention of dealing with the long term threats. They make no serious attempt to understand their nature or root causes. In fact, they don’t even acknowledge that the threats exist in many cases.
War. The possibility of war is certainly the biggest short-term threat we face. If we get through the next 4-8 years without a war between major powers or any sort of nuclear detonation, we will have to consider that a win. The greater Middle East from North Africa to Afghanistan is dangerously unstable, and the U.S. has already been drawn into a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and its allies on one side and Iran and Russia on the other side. And it appears that Russia may have played a direct role in influencing the U.S. election. An accidental clash between U.S. and Russian forces in Syria, Eastern Europe, or over the world’s oceans could be enough to set off a series of escalations and miscalculations that leads to a war nobody wants or stands to gain anything from. A naval confrontation between the U.S. and China could be a similar risk.
The Great Recession. Although the U.S. economy has picked up, the overall global growth and employment situation is deeply concerning. Rather than just a cyclical downturn, it may be a long term trend driven by demographics, debt, and underemployment caused by automation. The automation trend is going to be relentless. The 2007-8 financial crisis caused by excessive risk taking in the U.S. finance industry may just have been the straw that broke the camel’s back and made the long-term trends obvious, and another financial crisis that severe at a time of weakness might be the one the world doesn’t recover from. Our new U.S. leaders are already working with big business to roll back the necessary but still inadequate protections put in place after the ’07-8 crisis. Costs and risks imposed by climate change are not going to make the economy any better.
Technology. Technology brings us grave concern over the employment situation, but also great hope that we could see a long-term pickup in productivity, and therefore our overall wealth and quality of life. Of course, an increase in overall wealth and quality of life may help only a small slice of society if that society is structured to concentrate rather than share the wealth, and the leaders we have chosen in the U.S. for the next few years are clearly committed to the former. Extreme concentration of wealth could lead us eventually to a situation of such instability that the only outcomes are armed revolution in the streets or else absolute authoritarian control.
But let’s optimistically assume that our political system eventually comes up with a consensus on sharing the wealth. Now a higher rate of productivity growth (within ecological limits) would be good for everyone. In this world, people whose jobs are displaced by automation would be quickly retrained for new jobs, and they would be educated in the first place so that they are very flexible and adaptable to changing conditions. Over time, we could become so rich that we simply don’t have to work so much, and we could devote more of our time to leisure activities, learning for the sake of learning, the arts, civic and social activities, etc.
This might seem like a utopian vision, but it has happened in the past. People used to work incredibly long, hard hours to grow just enough food to survive, and they didn’t live all that long at that. Later people used to work long, hard hours in factories and sweat shops. Technology, cheap energy, and the wealth they have brought have made huge changes in working hours and life expectancy for most of us. With technology seemingly advancing all around us, the puzzle is why we aren’t seeing similarly spectacular advances today as we have seen in the past.
Advances like the tractor and electricity were enormous changes at the time of course. Maybe today’s technological advances, even though they seem impressive to us, simply aren’t as dramatic as these advances were in their time. That is the basic thesis of Robert Gordon, who I mention above. The World Economic Forum and Nouriel Roubini articles I mention above have good summaries of the advances we are seeing. Roubini categorizes them as:
- ET (energy technologies, including new forms of fossil fuels such as shale gas and oil and alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, storage technologies, clean tech, and smart electric grids).
- BT (biotechnologies, including genetic therapy, stem cell research, and the use of big data to reduce health-care costs radically and allow individuals to live much longer and healthier lives).
- IT (information technologies, such as Web 2.0/3.0, social media, new apps, the Internet of Things, big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality devices).
- MT (manufacturing technologies, such as robotics, automation, 3D printing, and personalized manufacturing).
- FT (financial technologies that promise to revolutionize everything from payment systems to lending, insurance services and asset allocation).
- DT (defense technologies, including the development of drones and other advanced weapon systems).
Roubini acknowledges the argument that these advances are not the equivalent of past advances, but also suggests that we may be in the lag phase between when technological advances happen and when they begin to have obvious effects on productivity. I think I said it pretty well in my post so I’ll repeat what I said:
Although the plow, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, etc. were game changing, the game didn’t change as soon as they were invented. They had to catch on, infrastructure had to be built, resistance to change had to be overcome, and it took awhile. Each successive revolution happened faster though, which is why I am skeptical that this time is different… I think there is a lag, and it just hasn’t hit yet. If and when there is a sharp technology-driven surge in productivity, it doesn’t mean everything is going to instantly be great for everybody. As we produce more with less effort, there will be winners and losers, haves and have nots. And there will be a lag between when that starts and when it gets resolved. And just to beat a dead horse, we can’t just keep producing and consuming more forever unless we figure out a way to do that without growing our ecological footprint. And, we need to watch out for those defense technologies.
The information technology is all around us now, and the biotechnology is just starting to take off. 2017 could be the year when we have the same excitement in the popular imagination about biotech as we saw with the internet in the mid-1990s. Or maybe it will take a few years.
It is possible that our technology could advance so fast that ecological limits will cease to be relevant before they begin to exert a major drag force on our global economy and society. I don’t think it is safe to put all our eggs in that basket though. I am also saddened by the extreme and seemingly accelerating destruction of our planet’s ecosystems as we have known them throughout human history. We can try to preserve some of what is left, but even if we are successful it will be more like a museum or zoo recording what we used to have than a real, large-scale functioning planetary ecosystem.
There, I ended on a pretty pessimistic note. That’s how I feel at the moment. Not all stories have to have a happy ending. (This is exactly why King Lear is my favorite Shakespeare play, because the bad guys do bad things and get away with it, and sometimes real life is like that.) I just don’t want to get my hopes up about 2017. Come on 2017, maybe you will pleasantly surprise me.
Restoring tropical peat swamps might not seem like such an important thing, until you realize the extent of clearing and burning that occurs in places like Indonesia each year. The amount of carbon emitted is staggering even in comparison to that of the economic activities of a major developed country like Japan.
Tropical peat swamp forests (TPSFs) are found mainly in Southeast Asia and especially Indonesia. A total of 61% were lost between 1990 and 2015 and 6% remained in a pristine condition by 2015. Tropical peat swamps store vast amounts of carbon in their peat, but peat degradation, through drainage and fire, leads to high greenhouse gas emissions. This is gaining much international attention and, with it, policy initiatives and funding for restoration from local to landscape scales are being promoted. Unfortunately, although there is a now strong desire and need for TPSF restoration, methods are lacking. Ecological understanding is still at an early stage, and, even more so, in its applied use. There is an imbalance between the activities of TPSF restoration and sound ecological application. Furthermore, while many activities are underway and knowledge is being gained, these techniques are yet to be published. This article has been written to provide a common-sense, practical guide to tropical peatland forest restoration which summarizes what we know to date, while acknowledging the gaps in our understanding. Topics covered include species selection, land assessment, land selection, and appropriate nursery, transplanting, and monitoring methods. The authors make no apologies that in places this reads like a manual as, given the importance of tropical peatland recovery and the recent attention and funding opportunities available, it is essential we now provide techniques to restoration practitioners working on the ground, and a basic common-sense approach must be the starting point.
I actually did my masters research on subtropical peat wetlands, so I know a little bit about this. Peat is formed by organic matter decomposing slowly under anaerobic conditions under shallow standing water for long periods of time. Bacteria and other biological processes that turn carbon into carbon dioxide operate slowly under anaerobic conditions, and new organic matter is able to build up faster than it can be broken down and liberated into the atmosphere. The same plants that decompose into peat grow in the decomposing remains of their predecessors, so that new layers get added gradually over time. When you drain the water, conditions in the soil become aerobic, and especially under warm conditions the organic matter gets mineralized (turned into carbon dioxide gas) faster than it can form. This happens even outside the tropics and in the absence of fire (the Everglades for example have seen a lot of soil loss), but catch the organic matter on fire and you get a triple threat – a smoky mess that is very bad for human health, habitat loss, and liberation of enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Do this on an enormous scale and it is truly a catastrophe. The world is not making a whole lot of progress in slowing this situation down, let alone stopping it, let alone beginning to restore what is being lost.