We have all the technology we need to make homes that produce their own energy. We know how to build high-efficiency rail and sailing ships. We know how to grow food organically and sustainably. We have the science to create economic systems that internalize all effects and operate in a beneficial manner. We've had the quantitative knowledge for decades that we would eventually go into resource and environmental overshoot.
We certainly have the technology to build an all-electric infrastructure entirely powered by renewables. We will crack the storage problem and all the other technical problems. I have no doubt that the technology also exists to build an all-nuclear solution, or even an all-hydrogen solution.
We have the technology to recycle all our water and reclaim all our waste. We could even control our population. . . if we had the will.
We also know what real sustainability means. I don't think I have ever seen it better put than by my friend Paul Hawken in his book, The Ecology of Commerce:
Sustainability is an economic state where the demands placed upon the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations. It can also be expressed in the simple terms of an economic golden rule for the restorative economy: Leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make amends if you do.
The real problem is we don't want to act that way. Virtually no business in existence meets that standard.
Technology and knowledge simply aren't the issue.
9 Billion Barrels of Light, Sweet Crude the Saudis Will Never Get Their Hands On...
If Bakken boom stocks can see their prices increase 300%, 400%... even 500% with oil discoveries of one or two billion barrels... just imagine what a discovery of up to nine billion barrels of oil would do to a stock's price.
Sure, we're already sitting on gains of 195% and 153% on just one of these plays already... but the run is far from over.
Isn't it time you made gains like this? Click here for more.
We don't want to think about having to put CO2 back in the ground after we burn fuels. We don't want to worry about the waste from our consumption. We don't like to hear about limits to anything we want to do. We don't want to rearrange our stuff, our lifestyles, so that they are truly sustainable. And we certainly don't like anybody telling us we can't have more kids.
In fact we don't even like to think about it. . . so when the subject comes up, we dismiss it with a flip comment like, "So I suppose you want us all to be living in caves and working by candlelight?"
The upwelling of emotions that this topic inspires — especially fear — usually makes a neutral and scientific discussion out of the question.
And from fear, most people leap to faith: faith in the perfect wisdom of free markets, faith in technology, faith in human ingenuity. No rational discussion needed.
Nor is this aspect of human nature a news flash. ‘Twas ever so. At the suggestion of a smart hedge fund manager buddy, I recently put Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War in my reading queue for clues on how humanity actually performs when presented with serious fiscal and resource challenges.
I know some very smart people who are fully armed with the data on resource depletion and peak oil, and who still choose to believe in a cornucopian future where humanity acts wisely, humanely, justly, and in concert with a view toward long-term planning, solving all of our problems without any serious hardship.
This time, they contend, it will be different. After all, aren't we entering the Age of Aquarius, when humanity finally embraces unity and understanding?
Well, forgive me for being skeptical. The degree of cooperation they envisage has no precedent whatsoever in human history, and there are thousands of examples to the contrary.
In fact I was a bit shocked today when I looked back on my first opus on sustainability ("Envisioning a Sustainable Future"), published in my online magazine Better World 13 years ago, and realized that all of the problems are the same now as they were then, only worse: population, energy, water, extinction, environmental destruction, flawed economic theory, global warming, and humanity's problem with long-term planning.
It gave me pause. A long pause. Are all my efforts, and those of my fellow agitators for sustainability, simply battling human nature? And if so, what good is it?
Tantalizing Technologies and Hard Questions
At this point, 13 years later, the questions are even less tangible: How will people respond to the coming changes? Can the political support for truly sustainable solutions be marshaled? Will the economy hold out long enough to accomplish the transformation? And how will declining energy supply impede our efforts?
Certainly, in theory, we could replace 220 million light ICE cars and trucks with electric models, and heavy transport trucks with a combination of biofuels, natural gas, and hydraulic storage technologies. The technology exists. But will we have the investment and primary energy supply to build them, if we simply let the market and politics guide us?
Consider "Cash for Clunkers." Using data and estimates from the New York Times, I calculate that the program pays off in nine years at $70 oil, and in five years at $120 oil. In terms of effective investment in the future, that's really not too bad. (The photovoltaic systems I designed and sold in my previous career typically paid off in more like 20 years, before incentives.)
Even so, Cash for Clunkers was reviled for swapping out over a quarter-million cars for more efficient ones at a mere cost of $1 billion. What are the chances we'll have the political support to do 220 million vehicles that way? Especially if oil gets more expensive and we start having shortages and more heavy industry failures when oil goes into decline a mere two years from now?
Sure, we can run airplanes on "renewable" synthetic diesel fuel made from green waste such as yard clippings, and early investors in such technologies will make a bundle. Rentech's (AMEX: RTK) recent announcement that it had signed a deal to provide as much as 1.5 million gallons per year of the stuff to eight major airlines sent the stock soaring over 360% in two weeks.
But 1.5 million gallons per year is nothing, and thanks to the transport and handling cost of green waste, it doesn't scale. If it requires transporting massive amounts of the feedstock with diesel-powered trucks, it isn't sustainable either. Need we even discuss recycled fryer oil?
Similar problems bedevil the alcohol fuels and biofuels, including algae. There are many interesting approaches to both in the lab, but for a long list of reasons (including water availability and the net energy of the processes), they don't scale well. I don't see any of the biofuels making more than a 50% gain from their current paltry levels for a good many years yet — and then we'll be having so many other problems with energy, water, food, and the economy, that the long-term outlook gets very murky.
Sure, we can try to turn to Canada's tar sands and deepwater heavy oil as the good cheap stuff runs out, but a cursory look at their net energy tells us that doing so is an attempt to play the oil game into overtime, not an attempt to do something sustainable. Thinking otherwise is simply denial.
A straightforward analysis of the data suggest that once we take peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal into account, there may not be enough time left to use cheap fossil fuels for the decades it would take to accomplish a transformation to true sustainability, let alone the human will to do it. And the experience of the last year gives me no confidence at all that the world can smoothly transit this inflection point in economics.
Yet I want to foster inspiration, not desperation. For most people, hope is as essential to survival as food, water, and air. And there is hope — not for business as usual, but for a much better kind of business. Not for endless growth, but for a more sustainable future.
But I am not one for false hope. I have endeavored to bring a dose of realism to this column for three years now, and I will soldier on. The opportunities to create sustainable solutions and profit from them are probably greater now than they have ever been. It's our task to find them, promote them, invest in them. . . and beyond that, hope for the best.
Until next time,
Chris
Energy and Capital
P.S. My colleague, Nick Hodge, is finding, promoting, and recommending winning sustainable solutions to his community of green investors. Thousands of readers of the Alternative Energy Speculator have closed more than one winning position per week so far in 2009. That's profiting in the right direction! Click here to learn how Nick's readers will cash in on their next sustainable winner.
Subscribe to
Did you know that when Jets started flying a few decades ago their existence was immediately seen on the surface of the Ice from Antarctica?
The air pollution by Jets can not be combatted any other way.
:-)
Dear Chris,
Always enjoy your articles ... today's hit right on the button with a view I've held and shared with my students and others for many years.
It's human nature, rather than the formal facts of economics or the vague notions of politics.
As a retired professor of economics, I tried to get that concept across to my students for decades.
Kudos ...
Stephan Zimmermann
The price of food stuffs has dropped so dramatically than less and less of our earnings goes to food.
As prices encourage shifts, we will change, but few bureaucrats are prescient, so governments usually fail in allocation of resources.
Dean McAdoo
Thank you for the heartfelt comment.
I think you have absolutely nailed two points; the existence of an inflection point beyond which we have lost our opportunity to plan and change, and the true issue being human behavior, not technology. WRT to this latter the driving force is the population increase and the aspiration for a better life at the cheapest possible price. Unfortunately, shortages will soon alter peoples aspirations.
But underneath this are the laws of thermodynamics, which are the ultimate determiner of price. The 'inflection point' comes about because of ever increasing energy costs for producing something. I am not sure I agree that unconventionals such as tar sands, oil shale or coal liquids are ultimate losers, or a doomed attempt to support economy. They all have the capability of being energy selfsufficient; that is, they can produce net energy from their own resource without competing for outside resources. Ultimately, we will have no choice but to use unconventionals in substantial quantities.
To me, the drive toward sustainability (true sustainability is impossible with 7 billion people on earth) is to endeavor to control population (the best way is to empower women) and strive for improved energy efficiency in our production and use. A two parameter equation.
Thanks of your insight.
Jim Bunger, Ph.D.
We are going all electric, or nearly so. Twenty (20) years from now how many EVs will there be? We have 132 million commuters; we cant get there fast enough.
Losing weight, canard design, and a different engine setup, and big airliners can get 250 PMPG with very long-range capability. This new type airliner would leave the so-called new (that looks like all the others) bloated overweight overly luxurious xxx in the dustbin, where it belongs.
We will have an elevated 100 MPH electric elevated rail system for remote controlled streamlined freight modules alongside our Interstates. That road design rating is 100 mph, so may as well stick with that.
Where to invest? Alternative energy, and that doen't include new nukes. New nukes need new tariffs at 10 cents/KWH wholesale. That sets the bar what wind should be paid on a 20-year contract basis. Assuming their technology is any good, wind can sign those contacts because wind is free.
We need to let the old companies go out of business when they fail to get the new that we need.
I'm working to raise meat sustainably and the model provided by nature (holistic, optimal, not maximal) works so perfectly I wish everyone could farm. Plus, I put one bull and one cow together and every 9 months get a 50% return on my investment. The vagaries of the stock market convinced me to pull out 2 years ago and concentrate on "real stock"--something I could eat.
And I can tell you that after seeing relatives lose their entire pensions I wouldn't trade the sustainable life of farming for any one of theirs.
Now if we can just get the lies, lies and more damned lies about the future of "clean coal" to stop....
Without being too sanctimonious, remember that even in Scripture usually only 1 in 10 "got" it. I've had to come to terms with the impending doom by trying to realize that sufficient unto the day is the beauty thereof.
Thanks,
Marshall
As Einstein asked "Do we live in a friendly universe?", you need to expect that we will do what is necessary to evolve into living more responsibly on this planet. If we do not expect to change then we CAN NOT. It is the Law of Attraction. Consider the possibility of franchising a successful biofuel process so that it can be made locally - ANYWHERE. Then transportation and scaling up are not issues. And employment is stimulated locally too. Believe in inspiration and it will come.
Timely and very relevant article. Well done, as usual.
Americans do care and they are willing to change their lives for sustainability. The shadow government that has had us hamstrung for 100 years now simply will not allow progress. See link below
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195&hl=en
I find the "air car" interesting. Google that and you'll be there. Compressed air (from renewable electricity) powers engines directly. Simple and the air isn't even altered. No pollution, no spills and you can fill up at home safely or at any gas station with high pressure capacity.
Specifically about photovoltaics, the problem is that when you've recouped about half of your costs for the system, the system needs to be replaced. When compared to alternative investments it is a true disaster. Works best for people off the grid.
With regard to population, the American caucasian population, has somewhat controlled his numbers. The third world is another story. China (even with one child per family) gives birth to a baby everyone and one half seconds. India, even worse gives birth every second. Without population control all will be lost. Any effort we make will be futile against onrushing demand and subsequent pollution.
Lastly we need to accept the fact that the human is an animal, just like all the rest that have populated this planet forever, and that he will have his day and then it will be over, for whatever reason. No one is getting out of this life alive!
Lew
Your article is great right up to the absent part where you forget to say I am looking at only portion of reality. If you had said that your view does not take into account the possibility that scarcity, caused by total human footprint crashing into global carrying capacity, (besides creating some short term potential for making money) also has the potential of causing so much social conflict, and diverting so much of the supporting resources to defense or aggression, as to begin successive rounds of increasing scarcity driving increasing conflict --that civilization will collapse.
Jack Alpert
(more) http://www.skil.org/Notes/SKILdinnerPIE.html
Thank you...well-written overview. Your article is accurate and informative...keep up the good writing.
Barry
The idea of taking grass cuttings and leave rakings from an entire ecosystem, such as from all the yards in a neighborhood, and sucking them into a centralized fuelsynthesizer is as destructive to the local ecology as a monopoly store such as Walmart is to the local economy...it strips it clean, causing impoverishment as all the life-giving (economy building) biota is sapped away.
And for what? To keep gas cheap, not because we need it cheap to run our industrial processes, but so that we can drive to the store when we need to shop, and have the 1/2 hour it'd take to walk there and back left to sit and stuff ourselves comatose while watching "I Dream of Jeannie" reruns.
That this ill-conceived theft is being seriously considered is another sign that there are no adults left in America,only parasitic slugs.
Perhaps Neo was wrong....it does seem that the prospect of a fetal-like existence where no effort's required, and our life-processes are used to fuel a system that keeps us in a perpetual state of inertia is actually the desired outcome...the dystopia we all secretly crave and are demanding by our own actions (or inaction).
But your larger question was about human nature and why people would continue to ignore the 'red lights flashing on the dashboard' and my reference to Scripture wasn't meant to be proselytizing or sanctimonious--just another reference from ancient literature to say the problem has been with us a long time.
The larger question is what would it take to change a person's mind about climate change/limited resources/etc. enough to make them do something?
As for the population concerns, etc., they are nonsense. Elimination of poverty anywhere stabilizes population.
Energy: within about 7 years, electric power will well cost 5-10% of current levels for new plant and output. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc., will then be dropped like fetid economic corpses. Existing plant would be replaced at maximum feasible speed. The fuel for the above is abundant enough locally to last until the first wave of solar expansion towards red giant status sterilizes the Earth.
Check focusfusion.org to follow the project that is now pushing for the above.