The floating ice shelves holding back the rest of the ice on Greenland are in worse shape than previously thought, according to this article. The article says the ice in this area is enough to raise global sea level by about 2 m. From a quick skim, I didn’t get a sense of how long the authors think that might take to happen, other than “long term”.
As a water professional, I of course have access to cutting edge sources of news in my sector not available to the general public. I first heard about the saltwater intrusion situation in New Orleans from a random drunk guy in a bar the other day.
Because of the drought across the Mississippi River Valley, salt water is creeping upriver, where many communities, including New Orleans, draw their drinking water.
Axios
So not enough water coming from upstream to keep the saltwater from the ocean at bay. I wonder how much effect sea level rise has on this right now. In the future, it certainly will, and climate change may cause more and frequent droughts, although I don’t know what the forecast is for the U.S. Gulf region specifically.
This appears to be a short-term phenomenon. The salt will come and go. Cities will figure out how to get safe drinking water to people, they will keep the taps on so people can take showers and wash their clothes and fire fighters can fight fires, and they will assess any damage from corrosion after it passes. If it happens more frequently though, it seems like we need more of a plan than this. And groundwater salt intrusion is a longer-term, slower-onset issue but once it is there it is going to stay there in many cases.
So both flooding and drought are going to impact our coastal cities, like a one-two punch, over and over again. We might be able to deal with it for awhile, but if the recovery is not quite complete each time there is an episode, the impacts will accumulate over time until finally, there is some big event that is the one a city can’t recover from.
Most frightening and/or depressing story: “the accumulation of physical and knowledge capital to substitute natural resources cannot guarantee green growth“. Green growth, in my own words, is the state where technological innovation allows increased human activity without a corresponding increase in environmental impact. In other words, this article concludes that technological innovation may not be able to save us. This would be bad, because this is a happy story where our civilization has a “soft landing” rather than a major course correction or a major disaster. There are some signs that human population growth may turn the corner (i.e., go from slowing down to actually decreasing in absolute numbers) relatively soon. Based on this, I speculated that “by focusing on per-capital wealth and income as a metric, rather than total national wealth and income, we can try to come up with ways to improve the quality of human lives rather than just increasing total money spent, activity, and environmental impact ceaselessly. What would this mean for “markets”? I’m not sure, but if we can accelerate productivity growth, and spread the gains fairly among the shrinking pool of humans, I don’t see why it has to be so bad.”
Most hopeful story: Autonomous vehicles kill and maim far, far fewer human beings than vehicles driven by humans. I consider this a happy story no matter how matter how much the media hypes each accident autonomous vehicles are involved in while ignoring the tens of thousands of Americans and millions of human beings snuffed out each year by human drivers. I think at some point, insurance companies will start to agree with me an hike premiums on human drivers through the roof. Autonomous parking also has a huge potential to free up space in our urban areas.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Venice has completed a major storm surge barrier project.
The Italian government has completed an $8 billion coastal flood protection system. It is interesting because it is submerged under normal sea conditions and can be raised when a storm is coming in.
$8 billion sounds like a lot of money, but perhaps it is not to protect a major coastal city and international cultural treasure. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent $14 billion to protect New Orleans and is undertaking a projected $31 billion project to protect Houston (and projections have a way of running over). These are guaranteed to be far uglier projects than the Venice one. These U.S. cities may have “benefitted” from being the first to be devastated by coastal storms in the climate collapse era. Do we really think the U.S. Congress will not pony up even more enormous sums to protect New York, Washington D.C., and San Francisco when the time comes? They will. Cities with major military bases like Norfolk, Virginia and San Diego might make the cut. Smaller but still major cities with less political clout may have more trouble getting their fair share. Boston and Miami might make the cut. Major cities with less political clout, like Philadelphia and Baltimore, might not make the cut. And all this money Congress will find to protect major urban areas, while it will have some economic multiplier effect, will be money not spent on other priorities.
This article in Bloomberg gives some hard numbers on migration of U.S. population and business from the Northeast to the Southeast and Gulf states. It’s a long term trend, but it seems to have blown wide open during the pandemic. Although I actually have a soft spot for the south and the more positive aspects of its culture, I am disheartened by this trend in some other ways. People are moving into areas that sea level rise, coastal storms, inland storms, and extreme heat are expected to devastate in the coming decades. And say goodbye to the idea of walkable cities – these cities and states are the poster children for sprawl and automobile-dependence. We see in the headlines that insurance companies are starting to pull out of some of these areas, and the government may need to step in with more subsidy programs like the National Flood Insurance Program – in other words, the government may need to decide if it wants to support unsustainable development in these areas, and if so, we may need a national sea level rise and hurricane insurance program, and national thunderstorm insurance program, and a national fire insurance program. We will have to pay for this, or else go further into debt, and it will become one more reason why we can’t have nice things like health care, childcare, and equal access to high-quality education.
On the other hand, I am sitting here in Philadelphia, one of the most walkable northeastern cities and it is expensive, dangerous and just DIRTY AND BROKEN. And our voters just seemingly chose to keep it this way for at least four more years by re-electing the same if-it’s-not-invented-here-we can’t-do-it leadership that got us to this point. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and DC are all coastal cities so I can’t argue that we have a leg up over the south in this area. And the U.S. Army Corps just came through with upgraded coastal flood protection for Houston.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking a $31 billion, two decade project to build a system of flood protection levees and gates for Houston. At first I thought maybe it was designed during the Eisenhower administration and the Corps is just now getting around to building it. But no, it’s nickname comes from Hurricane Ike in 2008. According to Grist, this is “the largest project that the Corps has ever undertaken”. This is impressive, considering the size, scale, and speed (by Corps standards) of the levee construction to protect New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Both systems are being questioned as possibly under-designed for projected future climate conditions. It does tell me one thing though – the U.S. Congress will pony up to protect major coastal cities when push comes to shove. There will be more to come.
First, my heart goes out to anyone who suffered hardship or lost a loved one in 2022. People still died from Covid-19 of course, not to mention other diseases, violence, and accidents. People are living, dying, and suffering horribly in war zones from Ukraine to the Middle East to Myanmar. Having said all that, for those of us living relatively sheltered lives in relatively sheltered locations like the United States, 2022 does not seem like it will rank among the best or worst of years in history.
These are the posts I picked each month as most frightening and/or depressing, most hopeful, and most interesting.
Most frightening and/or depressing stories:
Most hopeful stories:
Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:
Technology
The last couple years, I led off with other things and came around to a technology roundup towards the end. This year, I’ll just shake things up (yes, I’m wild and crazy like that) and lead off with technology developments during the year.
Solar energy has been a long time coming, but 2022 was a year when it really started to be at the forefront of the energy conversation and hard for the skeptics to ignore. We keep hearing that it is now the cheapest form of energy to build and put into operation. That means it is now limited by the materials needed to produce the panels, by the space needed to deploy the panels, and by the transmission and temporary storage infrastructure. Building rooftops take up a lot of space and are mostly not used for other things, so this seems like an obvious place to put the panels. The oceans of pavement we use to operate and park vehicles make up another somewhat obvious place – we can toughen the panels and drive on them, or we can put cheap roofs over the pavement and cover them with panels. Materials can be an issue because many of them are mined and sold by unsavory characters and governments, and there is clearly an environmental impact. But remember that we are trading this off against today’s coal, oil, and natural gas industry, not against some socially and ecologically blameless party. This industry intentionally lied to the public for decades and in the process did immeasurable damage to a planetary biophysical system.
Metals and minerals are also just limited. But even in hard-nosed economic terms, if solar panels are the lowest-cost option as we are hearing, they are holding their own with the costs of extracting, transporting, and burning fossil fuels. We could tax social and environmental impacts at international borders if we had the courage to do so, but even without that it is hard to imagine a system more damaging and irresponsible than the one we have been dealing with for the past century or so.
People will also say we haven’t kept the distribution infrastructure up to date, and this is true. In the United States at least, we don’t keep public infrastructure in a state of good repair. But we do create infrastructure when big business demands it, and they will demand an electric grid that can support their products when it comes to electric vehicles, devices and facilities. There may be a period of pain between when big business demands it and when the U.S. government provides it, and other countries will almost certainly outdistance us.
Longer term, as Fully Automated Luxury Communism tells it, space for solar panels will not be a problem because we will put them in, well, space. And this is not a far-future fantasy. The technology to gather the energy in space and beam it to the Earth pretty much exists now and governments and companies are seriously working on practical implementation. They swear it is safe, and even if it is not totally risk-free remember again all the death, pollution, and permanent planetary destruction the fossil fuel sociopaths have wrought.
Now, what about nuclear power? If we had really focused on it decades ago, we might not be in the climate change mess we find ourselves in now. It could still be a solution to the climate change mess in the future. But given how long it takes to bring new nuclear technology online at a large scale, and how fast solar energy appears to be scaling up and how reliable it appears to be, is it time to stop working on nuclear? I’m talking about known fission technology here. As for fusion, given that it is “always 20 years away” (no matter the year we are actually in), is it time to stop working on it and just throw all our research efforts at solar?
And materials will not be a problem either because we will produce them from asteroids and bring them to Earth, ending material shortages forever. I say, good but better to just use them to build things in space because we are running out of capacity to absorb the byproducts of the materials we already have down here. Just digging things up that were already in the ground and pumping them into the atmosphere and oceans has caused enough trouble.
By the way, once we are in space and messing around with asteroids, government and private actors will be able to divert their trajectories. It is easy to imagine scenarios where this is a great thing that actually saves all life on the planet. It is also easy to imagine scenarios where industrial accidents or intentional government actions threaten life on the planet. An international treaty and some oversight of this seems like a good idea as the messing-with-asteroids industry really starts to get going.
I don’t have my pet mini-mammoth yet, but biotechnology is continuing to gain steam. The idea of treating aging as a disease to be cured seems almost too obvious, but it seems to remove some bureaucratic obstacles that have been holding science and medicine back. Covid-19 was probably, maybe, perhaps not a lab leak. But it could have been, because the technology to make something like it, or much worse, exists in labs right now. It could be made if it has not already, and it could be leaked accidentally or intentionally, if it has not been already. And like nuclear technology, it will proliferate. Compared to nuclear technology, I think it will proliferate much faster and be much easier to hide. I have trouble envisioning any solution to this that does not involve heavy-handed surveillance.
On the positive side, biotechnology may be able to feed us when there are a lot more of us. With cellular agriculture, we can theoretically make meat or just about any kind of plant or animal tissue, and then we can eat it. We may finally be on the verge of modifying plants so they can make more efficient use of the sun’s energy, which is both exciting and scary. With a combination of abundant cheap electricity (from solar energy), abundant cheap materials, and highly efficient lighting though, we might be able to grow all the food we need in high rises without needing frankenplants.
And finally, the idea of controlling the weather with windmills is pretty fascinating. If we figure this one out, we might be able to end damage from floods, droughts, and hurricanes. But obvious Bond villain Elon Musk will also be able to use this to hold the world hostage for ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. That doesn’t really matter though because he is probably already planning to crash an asteroid into us anyway.
Propaganda, Social Media, and Truth
Social media is being blamed for a lot of our social ills at the moment. When we hear “social media” discussed, it seems to mean first and foremost interactive sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. where anyone can post a short snippet of any information they want and make it available to anybody else on the platform. Youtube also seems to fit this mold to some extent, although Youtube is a mix of personal and professionally-produced content. Then, underlying all this are Google search and other algorithms or “search” engines which are searching both for content to show individuals and individuals to show content. There are bloggers using WordPress and a million other tools and sites trying to get their content out, usually not all that widely if my personal experience is any indication (to the 5 or 6 people worldwide who read this blog regularly?) Then there is the huge ecosystem of Amazon and all the other sites trying to sell us stuff. Then there is professional journalistic media and traditional publishing companies trying to have their say (and sell us stuff), and finally there is some sense of the broader internet underlying all this.
Beyond trying to sell us stuff, corporations and non-profit entities are trying to manipulate all these communication channels to get their messages into our heads. This is propaganda, with the main goal being to sell us stuff and a secondary goal being to create awareness and positive images of their brands so they can keep selling us stuff. Also so people won’t complain to politicians about whatever the corporations are doing and risk those politicians meddling in the system in ways that are averse to corporate profits. At the same time, these companies and special interest groups are paying off the politicians to support their interests behind the scenes. This works out well for them (the corporations, special interests and politicians).
Finally we have the U.S. government and governments around the world trying to influence public opinion, occasionally by providing accurate information, sometimes outright lies, and often something in between.
All this is competing for our “attention”. Personally, I strongly prefer having more information to less, and I do not want to see regulation aimed at reducing the amount of information available to me. I believe, perhaps naively, that I have some ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from opinion, and objective/honest communication from dishonest attempts to influence me. Regulation to protect children might be an exception to this – if social media sites are facilitating bullying and leading to mental health problems and even suicides, that is worth dealing with.
“Great Power Competition”, the “International Order”, and the United Nations
A major world leader of our time died in 2022. Okay, two world leaders if you really want to count Queen Victoria, but I am talking about Mikhail Gorbachev. To me, he represents a moment when optimism and visionary leadership had a chance to flower to the benefit of our civilization. He had a vision of long-term peace and stability, with powerful nation-states ceding some of their power to some form of world government. The basic vision was that no nation-state, no matter how powerful, would be able to succeed through violent means if it was opposed by all other nation-states acting together. With the threat of catastrophic war mostly behind us, humanity could have focused on solving all the other thorny problems, from food to energy to pollution to inequality. This was a beautiful vision, but unfortunately its moment passed us by, and we are back to the old cynical idea of coalitions of “great powers” arrayed against each other.
With the threat of catastrophic violence hanging over us, we are not focused on solving those other problems. The United Nations was supposed to at least be the seed of that new order that would usher in long-term peace and prosperity for our species. To be sure, the United Nations has accomplished a lot when it comes to human rights, science, agriculture, refugees, and other areas. It has also been a place where all the not-so-great powers of the world can band together and make their voices somewhat heard. But the Security Council was supposed to be the One Ring to Rule Them All and make “great power competition” obsolete. This has failed utterly, with the Security Council considered all but irrelevant at this point. Not only is “great power competition” ascendant, we seem to be proud of ourselves for bringing it back. If there is a devil, he must truly love “great power competition”.
With the threat of catastrophic violence hanging over us, we have failed utterly to solve other existential problems such as food security, global warming, sea level rise, ever-growing concentration of wealth, and the specter of a Captain Trips extinction plague whether of natural or manmade origin.
Resilience. Despite taking a gut punch, at the end of 2022 it feels as though our planetary civilization weathered the storm of Covid-19 and has more or less rebounded to something like the trend it would have been on. This is the textbook definition of resilience, and something to feel good about. If we get some time in between gut punches, we at least have an opportunity to work on our other problems while also preparing for the next gut punch. If we don’t make progress, maybe we can at least reach a state of stagnation rather than a self-actuated collapse. Can a civilization be resilient and stagnant at the same time? Maybe this is where we find ourselves, at least in the near term.
Here is one new article on U.S. climate migration modeling, but I wasn’t able to access the conclusions. Going back to this 2020 article, which at least lets you stare at the pictures, major coastal cities like greater Boston, greater New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, D.C., Jacksonville, Miami, and of course New Orleans are going to be in serious trouble by 2100. Population simulations show a lot of people just migrating inland a county or two, so maybe that is the form the evolution of our cities will take if sea level rise is relatively slow and gradual – protection of a few iconic/historical coastal areas perhaps, coupled with intensifying suburban sprawl in surrounding counties within the metro area? This sounds relatively undramatic, although bland and uninteresting and wasteful of both land and energy. Land use policies, such as zoning and green belts, could be overhauled now in anticipation, or we can just let this happen willy nilly.
It is not clear to me if these articles consider immigration, but I imagine there will be immigration pressure and we could also think about how to handle that in a smart way – which luckily our political system is just awesome at!
I have been thinking about the Great Lakes states, but Vermont and New Hampshire seem to be popular according to this Wired article. The article focuses on anecdotal accounts of people leaving western states following wildfires, and not picking Texas because it is “too hot”. I don’t know Vermont and New Hampshire well, but the Appalachian areas I am familiar with from Virginia to Pennsylvania are subject to pretty severe flooding in intense storms. So you can’t necessarily avoid all risk. But moving somewhere not too close to the coast, with reasonable water resources, farther north or at a higher elevation seems like a good idea. Or just live wherever you want, but rent and let somebody else take on the risk. One might also want to avoid major fault lines and volcanoes, another strike against the U.S. west coast.
Most frightening and/or depressing story: A collapse of the Game of Thrones ice wall holding back the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica could raise average sea levels around the world by one foot, or maybe 10 feet “if it draw the surrounding glaciers with it”. The good news is that no army of zombies would pour out.
Most hopeful story: LED lighting has gotten so efficient that it is a tossup on energy efficiency with daylight coming through a window, because no window is perfectly sealed. Windows still certainly have the psychological advantage.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: “Big history” is an Australian program that attempts to unify everything from the Big Bang through our current era of intelligent life.