RANT: CLIMATE CHANGE: "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" YES. SOMEDAY.

 

CLIMATE CHANGE is a big topic for an average schmo like me to take on. I usually don’t know where to start. Do I begin with history: who, what, where, when, and so on? Do I crack-on about what our collective future may look like and how we’ll cope (or not) with the effects global warming will have on our weather, and on our lands and waters, and on ourselves? Musing thusly for any length of time makes me want to stick my head in front of a passing train. That said, here are a few points to consider:

SINCE the first Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, there have been global efforts, endless meetings,* studies, and countless resources thrown at the environmental project, all of which have failed to slow the release of CO₂ into the atmosphere one iota.  Since the late 1950s, when measurements of GHGs (Green House Gases) first began, carbon dioxide has gone from about 280 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere to 420 ppm, blowing well past the 350-ppm limit thought to keep average global temperature rise stable at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and no higher. (The more CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the warmer global temperatures get due to the “Greenhouse Effect”.) Point being is that decades later, all that effort and money put towards solving the climate “crisis” has come to naught. Something needs to change.

 

IN THE FUTURE, we can anticipate more same-such solutions that produced indifferent outcomes at best, some better than others—solutions such as build-outs for solar and wind power, electric vehicle (EV) production, improvements in battery technology, fusion reactors, land banks, agricultural reforms, diet, mass transit initiatives, new models for urban living and housing construction, etc. Some of these ideas strike me as reasonable things to explore to gauge their impact on GHG emissions, and whether they can scale-up in any meaningful fashion. But proposals such as “sun blocking” technology and other climate mitigation regimes—carbon capture and storage (CCS) comes to mind—seem like closing the barn door after the horses have gone. And sun blocking (also known as “solar radiation modification”) seems particularly problematic. Essentially, this technology would attempt to replicate the effects of a volcano when it ejects particulate matter high into the atmosphere after an eruption. The material is light enough to remain for some time in the stratosphere where it acts as a “shield” repelling the sun’s rays and lowering temperatures. The “Year Without a Summer” in 1816 is thought to have been caused by a massive eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia) the previous year. 

 

THE TECHNOLOGY is yet to be tested, but I question whether it could be done at scale to make a difference. In addition, what side effects would occur? Would a dimming of sunlight not affect agriculture in a major way, for example? Or weather patterns? And, what happens if you stop spraying the upper atmosphere? Won’t the sun come back with a vengeance unless you’ve dealt with rising CO₂ emissions in the meanwhile? Questions, questions….

 

ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EV) are another problematic response to climate change. If EVs take to the roads in significant numbers, such a mode of transportation that does not emit carbon dioxide gas seems like a positive outcome. However, there is the issue of the type of electricity generation used to power all those shiny-new green machines. If it’s from coal, oil, or natural gas, then those carbon emissions must be added to the equation, in addition to the rest of society’s electrical needs. So, there’s that.

 

And my thoughts on hydrogen fuel-cell technology replacing internal combustion engines for cars and trucks. One word: "Bang!"

 

PROPOSALS to sequester carbon from the air by hoovering it through millions of filtration machines or by ‘scrubbing’ coal-fired emissions and depositing them underground in geologically 'stable' rock layers (CSS), or else by chemically treating the captured carbon and turning it into a cement which could then be used as building material, again begs the question—can enough CO₂ be sequestered to make a difference? And how much CO₂ goes into building and maintaining green schemes like these? ANOTHER touted ‘green’ technology—NUCLEAR POWER—is seeing something of a resurgence after years of debate following the Fukushima disaster of 2011. China has plans to build a staggering 150 domestic-use reactors in the next fifteen years, according to Bloomberg. In 2023 there were 436 reactors in operation globally, with fifty-seven under construction (twenty-one in China with the remaining new-builds shared among a dozen other countries). Different configurations of nuclear power plants using "fast-breeder” technology, thorium fuel, “fourth-generation” designs, “modular” systems, and the holy grail, “fusion-power,"⁺ are variations on a theme that I suggest will prove neither green nor sustainable, nor attainable as far as grid-scale fusion power is concerned. Huge amounts of CO₂ are emitted in the construction and maintenance of these budget-busting multi-billion-dollar nuclear facilities, each of which takes 5-7 years to build on average and come with the additional problem of nuclear waste disposal, not-to-mention the complex and expensive de-commissioning process that must be followed as the plants age out. 

 

SINCE 1987, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain has been the proposed site for the disposal and storage of nuclear waste from the 93 nuclear reactors operating in 54 nuclear power plants in the United States.  Recent attempts to develop the desert facility have failed due to push-back from the Nevada state government and environmentalists. Canada has 22 reactors sited in 5 NP plants. Currently, there are two proposed storage sites for our country’s nuclear wastes. One, in Bruce Township, Ontario, is thirty miles from the shores of Lake Huron. Interestingly, its most vociferous opponents are Americans who share the Great Lakes watershed and fear contamination of their drinking water from such a nearby facility. There are currently 150,000 metric tonnes of radioactive waste in North America. Worldwide, that figure is estimated to be 370,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste. Ed.

AND recycling nuclear waste to use as fuel for standard and fast-breeder reactors is an imperfect solution, not only cost-wise, but also because the process creates a greater volume of lower-level radioactive waste that also requires safe storage facilities. Regardless of the drawbacks, nuke power is getting a lot of look-see from governments around the world these days for a variety of reasons….

  

I COULD go on and on discussing the pros and cons of the latest “green new deal” coming down the pike, and no doubt there will be many ideas and proposals coming out of Dubai’s COP28 climate summit, some good and worthy of consideration. But most of the proposals, and the new or old ones we’ll see down the road, are premised on business as usual. By this I mean that attendees overall assume that a North American lifestyle for everyone on the planet is the way to go. And it’s hard to argue that developing countries, striving to lift their populations out of poverty, like China has, shouldn’t use Western models of economic growth, even though their growing carbon footprints would raise global CO₂ levels significantly. Trying to stop developing countries from using fossil fuels to jump start their economies will be met with stiff resistance. Who are we to tell them no?  

ADDITIONALLY, no matter how many renewable energy sources you employ—wind and solar basically—their output just doesn’t scale. Such diffuse sources of energy simply can’t compete with the dense, embodied energy available from fossil fuels. Not even close. And 'green' nuclear power comes with a heavy cost, both environmentally, with uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal, as well as construction and maintenance costs needing to be heavily subsidized by increasingly scarce federal dollars. Thus, depending on renewables to power our electric grids and fuel hundreds of millions of EVs on our roads is doomed to fail.  And mitigation schemes such as CCS, solar shields and DAC (Direct Air Capture) are still on the drawing board. Carbon levels in the atmosphere will continue to grow for decades, affecting our climate, our waters, and lands in ways we’ve yet to fully comprehend. Renewables won’t save our fossil-fuel dependent civilization, as it is currently configured, no matter how many windmills and solar panels we may build.

WE can no longer have our cake and eat it too.

 

BUT don’t put your head in an oven (especially if it’s electric) just yet. While there will be hardships aplenty in the coming decades and centuries, there will also be opportunities for those willing to change and adapt. I’ll mention some in a later post. For now, this one has been glum to write and, I’m sure, equally glum to read. ‘Nuff said.¹

 

Cheers, Jake.

______________________________________

 

* Currently COP28 is being held in Dubai, capital city of the oil-drenched kingdom of the United Arab Emirates. Among the many factoids that will no doubt emerge over the two-week gathering in the Gulf oiligarchy country is the fact that there are currently 97,000 politicians, diplomats, journalists, and campaigners registered. There are also 2,456 lobbyists for the oil, gas, coal, and related industries attending—four times the number found at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021. That’s progress for ya!

 

+ China is building a “fission-fusion” reactor demonstration plant. They are not alone. Several governments have their own experimental reactors. Fusion is the process of compressing together two atoms (unlike nuclear fission which breaks atoms apart) until they release vast amounts of energy. It is something that occurs naturally in the sun because of star's immense gravitational pull. Fusion reactors here on earth attempt to duplicate the pressure and temperature of the sun to get a similar result. So far, more energy goes into creating the fusion reaction than is emitted, so I'm not holding my breath for such schemes being viable beyond the demonstration stage any time soon. If ever. Fuggedaboutit.....

[CCS, DAC technologies, geological repositories for radioactive waste? It's almost like humans need to return to Mam Gaia's body things they probably shouldn't have dug up in the first place or used so profligately. It's like they're offering Her a kind of atonement or apology.  Two words: monkey trap. Just sayin' Ed.]  

 

1. SAVE some time and read John Michael Greer’s recent blog post, as I will be plagiarizing borrowing his ideas extensively. 

 

👉FOR an interesting article about the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site, and assorted problems therein, click the following link: 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/welcome-to-yucca-mountain

 

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE!