How Feasible Is a Sustainable World by 2050?
Tuna
Here’s an interview that British environmentalist and author Jonathon Porritt did with the good people at Eco-Business.com. Porritt‘s book The World We Made foretells of a world in 2050 in which humankind has worked through the existential threats facing it today–at least the environmental ones. He believes that some of the features of such a future world would be: criminal penalties for damage to the environment, malaria eradicated, the world consumption of oil at 4 million barrels of oil a day (down from the 96 million barrels used daily in 2016, and consumers only eating plants and sustainably sourced fish.
But how hopeful is Porritt now, in the era of the United States’ environment-trampling Trump administration, carbon emissions that keep on rising, and plastic in our drinking water? Here’s the interview, along with a few of my own comments.
EcoBusiness: Are we on the right track to meeting the predictions made in your book?
Jonathon Porritt: It’s a mixed picture. Some things have moved in the right direction. The shift to a circular economy has started to bite, and the adoption of electric vehicles has moved from private ownership to mobility-as-a-service in many cities.
Craig Shields: The circular economy means one in which materials are continually used, recycled, remanufactured, re-used, etc. I would be surprised to learn that 1% of the total world economy is operating in this fashion, so I’m not sure that’s “biting.” This is not to say that there have been improvements in the eco-sensibilities of the world’s people; there most certainly have been, and the trend is actually accelerating.
There are actually numerous bright spots, at the top of the list of which I would put the market-driven replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy, which is currently happening in the generation of electricity, and soon to take over in transportation, e.g, EVs powered by solar and wind.
EB: What isn’t going according to plan?
JP: What has been happening in the United States is deeply unhelpful. The last cry of the fossil fuel world is being shouted out loud and clear there, not just in terms of President Trump’s advocacy for coal, but the resurgence of the oil and gas business. By the end of 2018, the US will be producing 10 million barrels of oil a day. This is as high as it produced in recent history, and could make it the world’s biggest producer.
CS: Correct. This is a severe setback–at the precise time when we really couldn’t afford one. However, we need to keep this in perspective, i.e., Trump and his civilization-wreckers will be gone soon, via one means or another.
JP: Also, the shift to sustainable regenerative agriculture is moving slower than I’d hoped. One issue is the concentration of businesses—there are a few big global companies that control a huge amount of the total value chain. These companies are stuck in the old productivist mindset; they look at the number of people on the planet, look at population growth projections, and work out the amount of food they think is required. They are not factoring in issues that affect production, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water availability, biodiversity impact, and soil degradation. And they’re not thinking about nutrition. There are billions of people living on bad diets; rich in fat, salt and sugar that come from US-led industrialised processed food. It’s now a global phenomenon that can be seen in the rise of diabetes.
CS: Yes. And where Big Energy is being forced to move to renewables because of market forces, there are no analogous conditions in food/nutrition.
EB: What’s the one environmental issue that worries you the most?
JP: Excessive meat consumption. It’s only in the last four years that the full impact of eating too much meat has been well understood. The amount of land used to produce the feed needed to rear animals that are then slaughtered and fed to human beings is staggering. And the contribution that intensive livestock rearing and dairy is making to climate change is unbelievable—bigger than energy production.
CS: I’m glad to hear him say this; it’s precisely on target.
As I mentioned above, there are no market-driven forces that are driving people away from meat; in fact, factory farming has made beef, pork and chicken quite affordable to most people in the developed world. For that reason, we need to rely on the world’s people, especially its heavy-duty meat-eaters like Australia and the U.S., to make a change on their own, for reasons of personal health, animal ethics, or planetary sustainability. No one need tell me that this is going to be quite a slog.
There are a few trends here that are extremely positive, however, including the shift towards more sustainably sourced fish and seafood in our diets, as well as the prospect of synthetic beef that is almost indistinguishable from animal meat.
EB: You are an advisor to Malaysian palm oil giant Sime Darby. How do you move the sustainability needle in a company like that?
JP: Sime Darby has been working through a sustainability plan for about eight years. They were one of the first companies to appoint a chief sustainability officer, and you can now see huge changes in how they do business. They have made a NDPE [no deforestation, no peat, no exploitation] pledge, and a Responsible Agriculture Charter which—when you’re a company with a land bank in Malaysia and Indonesia as big as Sime Darby’s—is a massive challenge. It also has a human rights charter, which is the best I have seen from an agribusiness firm.
They are still transitioning, and would not claim to have all the answers. But they sell more sustainable palm oil than any company in the world and want to get to 100 per cent [sustainable palm oil].
What they want to see is a better understanding in Western markets of the value in companies committing to sustainability. At the moment, a growing number of companies in Europe are claiming their products are better because they are palm oil free. This is scientifically illiterate. These products, which contain an equivalent amount of edible oil, are not higher quality, healthier or less environmentally damaging.
What is happening in Europe [for instance, the proposed ban on palm oil for biodiesel] is detrimental to efforts to persuade more of the industry to take on sustainability commitments. Palm oil companies in Malaysia and Indonesia ask themselves, what the point is of going to this extra effort and taking on the extra cost [to cultivate sustainable palm oil]?
Compared with the soybean industry, which is by and large unregulated and still causing massive environmental damage in South America, palm oil is an industry that has listened to its critics and incorporated concerns about deforestation and damaged peatlands into better business practices.
EB: Does it take a catastrophic event, like the effect the haze of 2015 had on agribusiness in Indonesia, to shift an industry?
JP: Unfortunately, history tells us that it does. Take the automotive industry. Not long ago, diesel was considered the darling fuel for the internal combustion engine because it had better environmental credentials than petrol. But in the last three years, it has become clear that diesel is a big air polluter and contributor to emissions, a story that was compounded by the disgraceful behaviour of Volkswagen. Now, diesel faces an existential threat.
Sales of diesel cars in the UK dropped by 17 per cent in a year, and cities such as Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens have announced that diesel cars will be phased out to curb air pollution in city centres. If you’re in the market for a car now, you probably wouldn’t buy a diesel.
The car industry has now accepted the inevitable transition from the internal combustion engine to electric, but all of the information they are using on research and development on greenhouse gases and air quality was available 15-20 years ago, but it wasn’t sufficient to change the industry.
CS: I wouldn’t call anything that has happened, or even could happen, in the car industry a “catastrophic event” in the sense of a suddenly occurring disaster; the current direction of the industry, i.e. a significant increase in the production of cars to meet the needs of industrializing countries in Asia, is more like the proverbial “train wreck in slow motion.”
However, there are certainly a great number of cataclysmic environmental events that could get the attention of the world’s population in a heck of a hurry. I actually thought the 2017 hurricanes and wildfires in the U.S. might have gotten the job done, or at least gotten us somewhere, and I think that probably would have happened if we didn’t have a president who dominates the news cycle virtually every hour of every day with some outrageous tweet, speech, cabinet appointment or firing, indictment against an important advisor (or perhaps son-in-law?) or whatever.
It’s probable that there will be a galvanizing event in our future, though I don’t know what it will be, and I certainly wish it didn’t have to come to that.
EB: The latest industry to be hit with an existential wake up call is plastic. What’s your take on the issue?
JP: We have known for a very long time that there would be damaging consequences from the huge increase in the manufacture of plastics. But we didn’t have the research that has emerged in the last five years showing the impact of microbeads and microplastic to give policymakers compelling evidence against plastic.
So now, every company involved in plastic packaging is having a panic attack. They are thinking to themselves, how do we come up with a formula for using less plastic, or substitutes for plastic? I think these challenges are going to unleash incredible innovation in the industry.
CS: I’m sure they are having a panic attack. I had a client not too long ago with a set of biodegradable plastics whose characteristics paralleled the material it was designed to contain. When we met, he asked me: “Milk lasts two weeks in your refrigerator. Do you really want it contained in something that will last 500 years?” The issue of plastic waste has come to head recently.
EB: While coal is in decline globally, the opposite is true in Asia. How do you respond to people in Indonesia or Vietnam who say coal is needed to provide reliable energy for their people, and should not be judged for going down the fossil fuels route as they industrialise?
JP: It is a strong argument. We are never going to create a sustainable world if the starting premise is that half of the population is going to have to stay poor—that is morally unacceptable. We cannot deny any country the right to provide energy access as a basic condition for improving living standards for their people.
In Indonesia [one of the world’s biggest coal producers and builders of new coal capability], providing energy to a country separated by thousands of islands is difficult, and coal may look like the only viable option. But once you build a coal plant, you’ve still got to transport it and not all of Indonesia’s islands are coal-rich.
There is a danger that Indonesia and Malaysia, where there is less solar activity than in the UK, are misreading what is happening in the global energy markets. Policies on renewables in Southeast Asia are completely off the pace.
Affordability is no longer the issue. Over the last decade, the average price of solar has dropped by 7 per cent every year and cost reductions will continue significantly over the next decade. That the World Bank has said it will not fund any new fossil fuel plants after 2019 is an indication of the speed the market is changing.
The coal-fired power stations being built now will become wasted assets. Providers of capital have not done their due diligence. Banks employ some very smart people, but sometimes you have to say they’re the stupidest people on the planet. It disturbs me when countries say they have no option but to invest in past technology when the technology of the future is already with us.
CS: He nailed it. There is no reason for developing countries to invest in 100-year-old technology that is poisoning the planet and is soon to become obsolete on market grounds alone. The only real solution has two components:
Move forward with the Paris Accord, and get every country on Earth doing its best to limit emissions, and
Create a coordinated effort on the part of the OECD nations to invest heavily in the R&D that surrounds renewable energy, efficiency solutions, smart grid, electric transportation, sustainable agriculture, and energy storage–and then to transfer this technology to the developing world.
FWIW, I would call the bankers that support investment in fossil-fuel plants “amoral” rather than “stupid.” There is a short-term financial case to be made for coal, and that’s all some despicable people care about.
EB: What’s your view in the role of religions in driving the sustainability conversation?
JP: There is a valuable opportunity in a faith-based approach to sustainability. In the religious context, sustainability is about personal responsibility, and a commitment to protecting God’s work—the natural environment. The Quran, for instance, is full of inspirational exhortations to look after nature.
But there are also difficulties with religious teachings, for example the Catholic church’s views on family planning. I visited a refuge for women who have had illegal abortions in the Philippines. It was shocking to see the impact that the Catholic church’s opposition to contraception and abortion has had on tens of thousands of women, who visit backstreet clinics for operations.
CS: I’ll make no other comment except to say that Voltaire went a great deal further with his famous line, “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities.” Take that for what it’s worth.
EB: How hopeful or optimistic are you for the future?
JP: I am not an optimist because I think optimists tend not to look at the world as it really is. But I am full of hope that this is a transition that we can achieve—because we don’t have any choice.
What is going to save us comes down to application and innovation. We have got a lot of the technology we need already, but we need to apply it faster and better.
CS: For sure. I’m reminded of the article by author Rebecca Solnit that I cited in my post Hope, Activism and Climate Change, which I closed as follows:
The most striking aspect of Solnit’s work here is a kind of intellectual humility that defines good thinking. Our position needs to be: we really don’t know how all this is going to turn out. Optimists think everything will be fine; pessimists don’t see a way out. Solnit concludes: “Will we get there? I don’t know. And neither do you.”
Thanks for the invitation to comment Craig but I just don’t get it.
The world’s most pressing scientific issue – and Jonathon Porritt has said nothing in this interview that leads anybody anywhere in such a critical subject as global greenhouse gas mitigation. This is a lost opportunity for relevance.
How can JP present as being so unknowledgeable about this subject? The science is irrefutable. The global demographics are irrefutable. Jonathon Porritt like you, need a short course in maths and Excel to help add some scientific dimension to the global energy and GHG imperatives future focus.
That makes this interview no more than a self-indulgent and contemptuous hotch-potch and irrelevant to ordinary people, who demand and deserve practical scientific solutions based vision from public commentators. This interview does not define pathways to practical quality outcomes for all people moving forward together in the future and how they will get there over time via practical and enduring ways and means.
I suspect that the whole interview was a concoction between two commentators that actually believe they are extending limitless compassion to the underprivileged global masses with no prospects to advance their lives beyond bleak at best; with some gobbledygook nonsense trotted out such as JP: . Policies on renewables in Southeast Asia are completely off the pace!
Q. What the hell has renewables policy in SE Asia got to do with global GHG mitigation and the global energy future? Please explain gentlemen.
JP and Craig can you please go back to your Excel spreadsheet and do a bit more work on your mega-formulas and educate the masses with professional analysis on all this stuff?
What a mish-mash of do nothing go anywhere nonsense, masquerading as professional and visionary understanding on an important global topic.
If these quotes from JP don’t constitute an oxymoron worth calling out, I give up.
1. JP: “We are never going to create a sustainable world if the starting premise is that half of the population is going to have to stay poor – that is morally unacceptable. We cannot deny any country the right to provide energy access as a basic condition for improving living standards for their people.”
2. JP: “There is a danger that Indonesia and Malaysia, where there is less solar activity than in the UK, are misreading what is happening in the global energy markets. Policies on renewables in Southeast Asia are completely off the pace.”
Unfortunately – two back slapping commentators in denial and stuck in reverse gear it seems is my take on it Craig.
Lawrence Coomber
Ok Lawrence, Mr Smarty pants. Now that you given all of us a bunch of your own verbal gobbeldy-gook, what’s your solution?
Lawrence is into what I call “verbosity for its own sake.” He’s been around here for years with these quasi-comprehensible diatribes. No one knows why.
Mark,
I’m sure when Lawrence finds time, he could be persuaded drop by your grade school and give you and your fellow classmates a short talk.
Seeing the mention of Sime Darby I reached out to them with the following message.
The reason I’m attempting to communicate with Sime Darby is that I have noticed that Sime Darby’s policy statement states Sime Darby wishes to; “Encourage the development and use of environmentally friendly designs and technologies” and as Advanced Alternative Energy Corp. has developed such technology, and as we desire to work with Sine Darby in this regard AAEC would like to communicate with Sine Darby’s sustainable technology department, or Sine Darby’s business development department in order to disclose how we believe our novel new biomass and waste-to-energy technology can be efficiently and economically used to convert bulky low-value biomass wastes (such as palm oil production waste) to a valuable range of energy products.
I am still waiting for someone on this blog to realize the novel new concept technology I’ve invented, patented and tested is the only viable approach that can fill all the needs of all the many issues that have been brought up so far in this space. Craig you once said your biomass expert was not impressed with my system. I don’t recall you ever saying why and I can only think there is no reason why he is a skeptic other than it isn’t his invention.
For example Lawrence said “We are never going to create a sustainable world if the starting premise is that half of the population is going to have to stay poor – that is morally unacceptable. We cannot deny any country the right to provide energy access as a basic condition for improving living standards for their people” and I agree and suggest that my innovation would (once it is demonstrated) make the kinds of changes that would bring higher energy efficiency to any town or village or city of any size anywhere in the world.
Craig I don’t understand your position that what Lawrence poses amounts to “quasi-comprehensible diatribes” I see his posting as understandable even if he doesn’t get what the new technology I’m offering can do to satisfy his issues and his thinking.
To change the world, we need to combine Ancient Wisdom with New Technologies ~ Paulo Coelheo (Warrior of the light)
Les: He writes:
“Jonathon Porritt has said nothing in this interview that leads anybody anywhere in such a critical subject as global greenhouse gas mitigation.” True, but that’s not what the interview was about. He didn’t say anything about major league baseball or franks and beans either.
“The global demographics (greenhouse gas emissions) are irrefutable.” What on Earth does “global demographics” mean?
“Jonathon Porritt … needs a short course in maths and Excel to help add some scientific dimension…” I’ll be sure to tell the publishers of all the books he’s written over the last 30+ years and all the top organizations that have bestowed his awards that they’re dealing with some whom Lawrence Coomber thinks needs a refresher in math. THAT should get them to take notice.
“If these quotes from JP don’t constitute an oxymoron worth calling out, I give up.” What does that mean? An oxymoron?
It’s a joke. This is the first time I’ve ever dignified this garbage with a response, and I only did it because you asked.
Is anyone interested in becoming business partners, board members, strategic partners, investors, etc. for a much cleaner repowering technology project? Asked By Les Blevins from Advanced Alternative Energy Lawrence, KS
AAECorp. is offering a new 3E technology concept that offers new solutions because we need to be innovative if we are to pass on a tenable condition to future generations. I’m hoping to put this new technology into production and license it to firms internationally that can put energy conversion projects based on this innovation into production in countries all around the world, and in that way spread its application quickly and widely enough to have a positive effect on human induced global warming before it becomes too late to make any difference. Unlike solar, hydro, nuclear and wind energy, renewable energy from diverse biomass and wastes can be dispatchable and even carbon negative and therefore help the whole world resolve the global warming problem through adding new concept innovations in stand-alone, distributed, microgrid and grid-tied energy delivery systems that serve humanity’s long term interests much better.
Our position is; to win an epic battle, humanity needs new, modern and innovative tools of battle just as America needed advanced new tools of battle (ships, planes, tanks etc.) to win victory in Europe and in the Pacific during World War Two. My small firm, – Advanced Alternative Energy – has developed and patented negative emissions technology and therefore I’m inviting requests for more information from all interested in helping humanity move quickly forward on a much saner pathway. Please call or email me if you would like information on my novel, new concept technology, a technology designed for the epic battle ahead, and designed to help us win the fight for humanity’s long term survival.
I believe we will do far better and be far safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power whole economies on extraction of greenhouse emissions that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also greatly reducing ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting communities and electric power grids much better. I’m claiming to be the inventor of one of weapons we need to fight global warming and climate change and one of the repowering “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in North America and elsewhere, and to help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity boxed up in. I believe we can do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at residential, community and county scale and we should do so because good paying infrastructure construction jobs are much needed worldwide. AAEC is now seeking support from any and all that may care to support this grass roots – trickle up – project.
The following is a notice I’ve posted on Facebook and elsewhere.
COLLABORATORS, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND/OR INVESTMENT IS NEEDED FOR NOVEL NEW CONCEPT CLEANER GLOBAL REPOWERING TECHNOLOGY. AAEC WILL GLADLY ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE MORE DETAILS ON REQUEST.
AAEC’s CEO invented, patented, tested and further developed a novel new concept low-carbon energy technology we’ve designed for serving as the core technology for a range of much cleaner alternative/renewable energy production systems and energy efficiency improvements across the American landscape and around the world. AAEC’s novel new concept technology consists of a biomass, fossil fuel, and waste combustion, gasification and pyrolysis conversion technology that can provide low-carbon, scalable, heat and power requirements as well as both biofuel and biochar production. AAEC’s technology is designed for both stand-alone use or as backup for alternative energy systems that depend on solar, wind or other intermittent sources of energy, and in this way it will help enable a doubling of the deployment of alternative energy projects around the world in coming decades.
AAEC developed this novel new concept energy technology to enable homeowners, businesses, towns, cities and even counties to convert completely to cleaner energy. AAEC is for all those who understand that distributed alternative / renewable energy derived from solar, wind, biomass and waste is a viable pathway to stall global warming and produce a much better future for our descendants, and ultimately for all humanity. AAEC offers a viable and affordable way to move to a future where people are better at controlling global warming. Fossil fuel firms and utilities may at first oppose what AAEC offers, preferring to continue passing on the high costs in cleaning up their operations to their customers, even if far better options are available that would benefit them as well.
Les Blevins says my small energy technology development firm is seeking collaboration or support from any and all that may care to support our novel new trickle up distributed energy technology development project. With a small amount of financial support AAEC will enable bringing localized clean low-carbon energy production to the people of the world much as the PC brought computing to the people of the world.
Les BlevinsPresident at Advanced Alternative Energy
1207 N 1800 Rd. Lawrence, KS 66049
Ph: 785-842-1943 Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
https://www.facebook.com/Advanced-Alternative-Energy-277213435730720/?fref=ts
http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html ;
“Humanity has pushed the world’s climate system to the brink, leaving itself only scant time to act. We are at about five minutes before midnight.” — Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013
As I understand it; to get a ride aboard the Russian Soyuz may be possible if you have something like $50M to spare.
On the other hand (for the financially challenged) I hear a ride on Musk’s Falcon Heavy may become available for around $10M to $12M.
See it here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7LJIuB2CHE
So it seems if you think you might one day want to climb aboard the Falcon you will very likely need to find a way to get your hands on some big bucks.
Any ideas?
If not consider this tidbit;
$7.8 trillion will likely be invested globally in renewables by 2040 – but trillions more will be required to bring world emissions onto a track compatible with the United Nations 20C climate target.
A new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance on the future of energy not only points to solar as the technology that will have the most invested in it, but that costs will fall dramatically over the next 25 years, making it the cheapest energy source for most of the world by 2040.
The New Energy Outlook 2016 by the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) has presented an optimistic outlook for the solar PV industry, as the energy source that will have the most invested in it and the one whose costs will drop the lowest. The extensive report, which looks at all sources of energy, also forecasted drops in prices for fossil fuels, but that renewable energies will lead a fundamental transformation of the world electricity system.
Biomass Could Reach 60% of Total Global Renewable Energy Use by 2030
Biomass has an auspicious future in the world’s supply of renewable energy. REmap 2030, the global roadmap developed by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), foresees a major role for modern, sustainable biomass technologies in efforts to double the share of renewables in the global energy mix. A new report, “Global Bioenergy Supply and Demand Projections for the Year 2030,” examines the biomass potential in world regions and with different technologies for rapid and sustainable scale-up of this vital renewable energy resource.
If all the technology options envisaged in the REmap analysis are deployed, total biomass demand could reach 108 exajoules worldwide by 2030, representing 60% of total global renewable energy use. That would be equal to 20% of the total primary energy supply. “Sustainable bioenergy has the potential to be a game-changer in the global energy mix,” said IRENA Director of Innovation and Technology Dolf Gielen. “Sustainably sourced biomass, such as residues, and the use of more efficient technology and processes can shift biomass energy production from traditional to modern and sustainable forms, simultaneously reducing air pollution and saving lives.”
The new IRENA report shows that approximately 40% of the total global biomass supply potential would originate from agricultural residues and waste, with another 30% originating from sustainable forestry products.
These biomass sources do not compete with the resources that are required for food production such as land and water, and can make a significant contribution to reducing the global CO2 emission on 450ppm path, the widely accepted threshold to limit global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The full REmap 2030 analysis, published in June by IRENA, shows that scaling-up renewable energy to 36% of the global energy mix by 2030 is possible, affordable and will keep the world on a trajectory consistent with a CO2 level of 450 ppm.
To download the new bioenergy report or learn more about IRENA’s REmap 2030 project, visit http://www.irena.org/remap
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
http://www.irena.org
Craig,
It’s disappointing to read your gratuitously churlish response to Lawrence.
Lawrence is correct when he describes your discussion with Jonathon Porritt and Eco-Business.com. as a meeting of back-slappers. Obviously, Lawrence expected an objective and insightful interview during which JP idea’s and predictions would be tested and subject to rigorous critique.
Clearly that wasn’t the case and the purpose of the interview was a discussion between fellow travelers reinforcing shared beliefs.
Lawrence also confuses author-advocates such Jonathon Porritt who deal in philosophic-ideological concepts and predictions, with pragmatic, realistic policy makers or those with practical clean tech solutions.
I’m not a fan of Jonathon Porritt, but he’s certainly entitled to express his contribution to public debate and not every interview needs to be contentious. .
After reading many contributions by Lawrence to this forum, he strikes me as practical individual seeking practical and viable solutions to environmental problems.
Like so many who have grown weary with philosophic jibber-jabber, he seems frustrated and disappointed with environmentalists whose behaviour is increasingly reminiscent of the “rescue” scene from Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’.
I’m not sure why you seem condescendingly baffled by Lawrence using the term “global demographics”.
You sneer, “What on Earth does “global demographics” mean?” Lawrence’s meaning is quite clear, his conclusions may be disputed, but the phrase itself is easily ascertained by reference to a dictionary.
You may find Lawrence at times muddled in his terminology or “verbose”, but does he really deserve such contemptuous and caustic treatment ?
Lawrence seems genuinely interested in many environmentally beneficial projects, and is alarmed by the prospect of adverse global climate change, surely he deserves a little more tolerance and consideration.
Craig JP would have scored a bucket load of brownie points if he for once recognised that the GHG crisis is one that can only be solved by new generation technology being developed that fundamentally must satisfy three crises simultaneously, and it is this imperative alone that will predicate the direction that the global research and development for an appropriate technological outcome to follow. These three key points are:-
1. A new generation technology with MASSIVE generation potential, well beyond those technologies known and used for generation globally hitherto;
2. Scalable, safe, clean (must reverse and eliminate current GHG trends); low cost through scale, and able to provide LOW cost power to (A) rebuild nations infrastructure as required which is an ongoing and permanent cyclic requirement (B) build national infrastructure for all undeveloped nation states to a high global standard of living potential for all citizens, and power new era energy intensive industries waiting in the wings to come into focus such as natural agriculture processes replacement technologies, new age food manufacturing technologies, efficient human mobility technologies etc; and;
3. It follows from 1 and 2 that the global technology development pathway to achieve these imperatives should be seen as the worlds enduring generation technology going forward. Not an intermediate one.
But equally importantly JP should recognise that to achieve these lofty but achievable technical ambitions (by today’s standards also) is in the hands of (and the responsibility of) the developed nations; not the undeveloped nations and their peoples. JP simply is not capable of connecting the dots (globally moving forward). Neither are you Craig.
What JP meant to say was:-
“It is up to the affluent and developed nations to show global leadership by taking up the challenge to break through any technological barriers (real or perceived through political incompetencies) and resolutely and collectively master new energy generation technology for posterity and within a practical time period”.
Instead he chose to effectively single out the least developed and affluent people on earth for blunt criticism because they do not endorse his silly “miniscule powered vision” of a world filled with short term, high cost to deploy, low power, renewable energy solutions in everybody’s back yard or rooftop. What a visionary! and he should be ashamed of himself for putting all this self-indulgent mumbo jumbo into the public domain. You also.
Craig take a long look at yourself please. How about putting in a call to the Energy Minister of Malaysia and get his perspective on the relevance of JP’s comments from the eyes of “the other side” to JP’s privileged and cocooned existence. Have you got his cell number? I have if you want it – and he is smarter than you think.
As it transpired I went very soft in my criticism of JP’s interview; only because I am a gentleman.
PS: You need to get out more Craig and explore beyond your shores. “Global demographics” are everything to the GHG crisis. Case in point: the global population will double before the end of this century. And guess what, that means what you see around you “globally” including Santa Barbara and Miami as well as Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro and Beijing, will need to be at least 2 times what is standing around everywhere now. That underscores “global demographics”.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence you spoke of needed and necessary key things the new 3E paradigm requirements and said These three key points are:
–
1. A new generation technology with MASSIVE generation potential, well beyond those technologies known and used for generation globally hitherto;
My response is the technology I’ve developed is able to fill that need and if you doubt that and want more information I’ll gladly clarify.
2. Scalable, safe, clean (must reverse and eliminate current GHG trends); low cost through scale, and able to provide LOW cost power to (A) rebuild nations infrastructure as required which is an ongoing and permanent cyclic requirement (B) build national infrastructure for all undeveloped nation states to a high global standard of living potential for all citizens, and power new era energy intensive industries waiting in the wings to come into focus such as natural agriculture processes replacement technologies, new age food manufacturing technologies, efficient human mobility technologies etc; and;
My response is the technology I’ve developed is able to fill that need and if you doubt that and want more information I’ll gladly clarify.
3. It follows from 1 and 2 that the global technology development pathway to achieve these imperatives should be seen as the worlds enduring generation technology going forward. Not an intermediate one.
My response is the technology I’ve developed is able to fill that need and if you doubt that and want more information I’ll gladly clarify.
To this blog/group I ask;
If we could; why would we not want to move more aggressively to the circular economy model and power our energy needs on extraction of carbon from the Earth’s atmosphere instead of powering our energy needs by pumping more carbon into it? Due to global warming I think that’s the primary question we now face, and as an inventor and renewable energy technology developer I would like to offer a big, bold and obvious solution to many diverse problems that threatens life on planet earth. Over the next 20-30 years we know we will see major changes in where our energy comes from and how we produce, store and use it as we try to tackle the big trilemma of energy affordability, availability and sustainability. We also know big changes are being driven by many and diverse environmental and social pressures, and we know the choices we make now will affect us far into the future.
For my position paper end email to LBlevins@aaecorp.com with position paper in subject line to be sent by attachment to reply email.
It is healthy to agree to disagree but please don’t stoop to degrading behaviors because we are all on the same team. We are concerned citizens who realize that positive change is needed in the world. So let’s work together to accomplish the goals and accept the fact that we may not agree with every detail presented. Also, remember the world is changing because people care and let’s not forget the accomplishments to date which are creating a healthier environment for this and future generations.
How is the Trump Administration responsible for the environmental sins of the men and women who held positions of authority for decades prior to his arrival in DC? It is amazing to me that humans tend to have selective memory when it is convenient and fits the theme. Coal was the primary fuel used to produce electricity long before the last election. Petroleum based fuels have powered our vehicles for decades and no one was concerned. Cow manure has introduced harmful methane into the atmosphere since the beginning of recorded history. And minor changes in the in the GHG and CAFE standards today will have minor effects on fuel consumption and emissions.
And to think that the actions taken over the past decade to move away from conventional power and fuels to alternatives has had no lasting effects on the global environment is ludicrous. Wake up people. Today more than ever before, we are witnessing significant changes which are having lasting effects on the global environmental and the positive effects will continue regardless of the decisions made by people in positions of authority.
Today in the US, over 1 million children are transported safely to school and home aboard clean alternative fuel vehicles and this population is continuing to grow every day. Thanks to changes in the clean air standards, tailpipe emissions are reduced to miniscule levels. EV’s are becoming common place forms of transportation in most major cities and metropolitan areas. Solar and wind are playing a bigger role in power generation. Petroleum based fuel consumption has decreased and will continue to do so.
And while we are at it, let’s expand the education of all who read and respond. Not all fossil fuels are bad and dirty. Propane Autogas is a clean fossil fuel which is non-toxic and a non-contaminant of air, soil and water resources. Propane Autogas is available in renewable form and is a good motor fuel for the environment and the people who live on planet Earth. Approximately 27 million vehicles globally operate on this fuel today and it is making a difference in the world.
While I do not agree with all points and concerns made by JP, I applaud his drive to ask questions and educate the world about the consequences of traditional behaviors with no plans for change. Please remember the old Proverb……men reap what they sow. Positive change yields positive results and we need more positives in the world today.