Sustainable Fossil Fuels

Here’s a link to a summary of an interesting new book: Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy (scroll down if there’s no image there). Admittedly, I only gave it a quick scan (gimme a break, I’m in the middle of a thesis here), but it looks like a decent read.

Despite the controversial sounding tone of the title, it seems to say that fossil fuels can play a role in a sustainable future, and that they will have to play a role in the interim. From our perspective, that’s certainly not hard to imagine – as long as SP 1 isn’t violated (substances from the Earth’s crust aren’t systematically increasing in concentration), then we’re all good in terms of CO₂ (not counting the increases in concentration we’ve already created, but I’m just talking about looking forward right now) – the author points to CO₂ capture and sequestration to take care of that. He says coal will last 800 years, before that I’d only heard 200, but the point is the same – not a short-term concern on the supply side for fossil fuels. Of course the sustainable use of fossils would have to be done in a way that doesn’t violate SP 3 (degradation by physical means) and he addresses this fact.

So the main point – that fossil fuels shouldn’t be forced out prematurely – is well taken. First, I would say I don’t think that’s much of a concern at this stage in the game. Second, it seems to follow the old “either / or” mentality, implying that we need to predict if fossils, or renewables, or nuclear will be the answer. Third, the perspective still seems a bit narrow – and ironically so – as the summary states…

Deliberately diverting from this lowest cost path by prematurely forcing fossil fuels out of the energy supply mix may not mean as much for wealthy countries, but for the poorer people on this planet this arbitrary requirement would divert critical resources that could otherwise be devoted to essential investments in clean water, health care, disease prevention, education, basic infrastructure, security, improved governance and biodiversity preservation.

... but fails to acknowledge that many of these SP 4 (capacity to meet basic needs) violations stem from the extraction and use of fossil fuels. Anyway, I just wanted to throw it out there – it highlights some of the confusion and trade-offs, controversy and challenges of the transition to a sustainable future – and I’m not contradicting it, but just trying to show how a whole-system perspective can help make some sense of it all. Stay going…

Peer Review # 2

We had our 2^nd Peer Review session last week, and it went really well. We spent a couple of minutes reviewing what we were doing – focusing on the Sustainable Development aspect of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under Kyoto – and then walked our advisors and colleagues through the tool that we have developed.

The “tool” is a 4-step process that we developed in Excel that uses ‘trigger questions’ to get project developers thinking in a different way – to take a whole system view of their project, and to engage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders to ensure that projects are the most effective and appropriate way to synergistically satisfy people’s needs in a way that not only reduces or avoids GHG emissions but also avoids other negative socio-ecological impacts by designing them out of projects.

We got some great feedback from the group, and some positive encouragement on how user-friendly the tool is – we’re becoming intimately familiar with Excel these days, just can’t get enough. So, I don’t want to bore you all with the details – but of course, if you’re interested throw in some comments, and I’d be happy to elaborate. I hope you’re all doing well… Stay going.

The 'sleeping giant' starts to wake up...

It was another big week for business and sustainability. This interesting commentary from MarketWatch.com following the Time cover story, discusses how climate change is finally a serious business concern, and how companies are tripping over themselves trying to figure out how to address it.

The article points out that “Over the past week alone, Wells Fargo (WFC), UPS (UPS), BP (BP), Nike (NKE), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Dell (DELL), and GM (GM) have put out press releases about their environmental initiatives.”

Maryland became the 8^th state to join RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), California introduced legislation that would set a cap on GHG emissions, and utilities and energy intensive industry at a US Senate hearing Tuesday gave broad approval for a federal cap and trade system.

It’s great to see the US finally addressing the issue (unfortunately almost 10 years behind the rest of the world), as it certainly is a prerequisite for the kind of sea-change necessary to tackle the problem.

The late response will make the problem more expensive to deal with – as every long term capital investment in fossil fuel power plants and urban / sub-urban infrastructure that reinforces the need for car travel is essentially throwing money down the drain, hurting our competitive advantage.

But my hope is that there is a silver lining to this – and that would be that because the slow and stubborn response will cost us collectively a lot of money, we will be less likely to continue to push off problems as long as possible, particularly when they are problems we know little about.

In other words, hopefully all of us in the US – our businesses and governments included – will start taking a more holistic approach to assessing the impacts of how we go about meeting our needs. We can start taking a pro-active, upstream, strategic approach to Sustainable Development at home – and I think only in that way can the US hope to hang on to its position as a global leader, and regain its reputation as a respected one.

Back to Basics...

I've been meaning to put up some brief posts on core-concepts, so I have some clear, concise posts to reference to. As you'll see below with 'the funnel,' I'm finally getting around to it. Just wanted to explain why these general conceptual posts will start coming from nowhere. Stay going...

Burma and the Karen People

Sustainability is composed into two inseparable, interrelated parts – ecological and social. We cannot have one without the other. The first 3 Sustainability Principles deal with the former, and the 4^th with the latter. The systematic undermining of people’s capacity to meet their needs comes in many forms – and stems in one way or another from abuses of power, whether it be economic, political or environmental. It can be subtle and removed or blatant and direct.

The most horrific violations of the 4^th Principle come in the form of dictatorships and genocide. A systems perspective is vital in looking at these terrible situations, as the contexts, historical events, direct and indirect impacts of globalization, etc all play into the equation. There are no easy answers, but awareness is certainly a prerequisite for understanding and action.

To that end, I wanted to offer some information on a terrible situation that I was just recently made aware of by a friend of mine here from Burma, where a military dictatorship has been waging a campaign of violent oppression on his ethnic minority, the Karen People.

Here is a link to a concise paper he wrote on the subject that gives a good overview of the situation. For more information check out these links:

Karen Humans Rights Group - http://www.khrg.org/index.html

Free Burma - http://www.ibiblio.org/freeburma/

KarenPeople.og - http://www.karenpeople.org/

A couple of important things to remember in terms of human rights issues and sustainability –

First, diversity is an inherent characteristic of living systems (all systems in nature, including global human society). A system lacking diversity, lacks resilience, (whether you’re talking about farming systems, stock portfolios or global society), and is therefore more vulnerable to outside pressures (e.g. a drought, a market crash, climate change). So whether it's through the atrocities of genocide or the seemingly benign spread of a homogenous form of Western ‘culture’, the loss of heritage, language, tradition anywhere is a serious problem for us all, everywhere.

Second, as we are each individuals in society in the biosphere, we each contribute to the current unsustainable reality, and are interconnected (another inherent characteristic of complex systems), no matter how far away and separate these events may seem. And as such, we cannot externalize responsibility for them -

To end on a positive note, it is inspiring to see the dedication and commitment of people like Weldone, who are working to bring peace and justice to these areas. As he said, “I am just a small person, need more help from others.” We all have a vested interest to do just that. Stay going.

Venture Cap finally thinks it’s time

Venture Cap finally thinks it’s time

On the flip side of the Time article, here’s some good news:

At the Cleantech Venture Network conference in San Francisco this week, Doerr was bullish on the prospect of green energy and put some focus on the money to be made in the space. He also highlighted the need for good policy as well, including the use of emissions trading schemes – it’s starting to really seem imminent that the US will in some way step up its leadership role, take some responsibility and sign Kyoto. Hopefully this will push the post-2012 negotiations with some stronger targets. Here’s a recap of the Venture Cap take on the issue:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/14185196.htm

Doomsday goes mainstream

We’re pretty short on English-language newsstands here in Karlskrona, so I hadn’t seen the most recent Time cover story until just now, but it looks to be fairly comprehensive (here’s a summary from CNN.com). It’s one of few I’ve seen in the popular press to talk about systems, time delays and feedbacks. The article touches on the melting tundra and consequent release of methane; the melting ice and the decreasing albedo effect; and the warming oceans adding heat to the atmosphere – all effects that feed on each other in positive feedback loops.

It gives pretty good perspective on the relative vulnerability of different species – but it does little to highlight the vast differences in vulnerability between groups of people, with the toughest burden falling on the world’s poor in drought-ridden and low-lying coastal areas.

The article does touch on the breakdown of the US in taking responsibility as 5% of the world’s population emitting 25% of the world’s CO₂ emissions, we have thus far exhibited a tremendous failure in leadership. As we’ve discussed some action is being taken at the local and state levels and encouraging signs are showing up, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative trading scheme in the Northeast. Still, hopefully this will act as a wake-up call for all of us to realize how drastically we really do have to change our behavior and lifestyle – not only for the sake of our children’s generation – but for our own.

To me this article seems to sound the final nail in the coffin of the “is climate change happening?” debate, and gives hope that all of that energy can now be focused on working together to enact the solutions we have and creating a sustainable future. The article sums it up nicely:

That goal should be attainable. Curbing global warming may be an order of magnitude harder than, say, eradicating smallpox or putting a man on the moon. But is it moral not to try? We did not so much march toward the environmental precipice as drunkenly reel there, snapping at the scientific scolds who told us we had a problem.

The scolds, however, knew what they were talking about. In a solar system crowded with sister worlds that either emerged stillborn like Mercury and Venus or died in infancy like Mars, we're finally coming to appreciate the knife-blade margins within which life can thrive. For more than a century we've been monkeying with those margins. It's long past time we set them right.

Stay going…