Humankind’s Chances for a “Soft Landing” Re: the Environment
Here’s another piece of my conversation with a reader on the subject of government’s role vis-à-vis bringing about positive change re: the deteriorating conditions surrounding our environment: climate disruption, ocean acidification, increasing levels of toxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.
I had previously offered her a laundry list of actions that I would take in this arena if I suddenly found myself promoted to “king of the world.”
The reader comments in return:
I can’t dispute any of your points. Everything you mentioned (should be put into place). My problem is that the more government takes responsibility, the more I think we lose.
I respond:
You really nailed a key issue, i.e., corruption and inefficiency in government. Some days I wake up wondering how this civilization can possibly make the changes that are required for its survival on this planet. The outlook isn’t exactly brilliant, to paraphrase the great poem.
Here’s a brief discussion of the three major forces at play:
Government. Again, you have a very strong point here. We all talk about the stalemate in Washington, i.e., that virtually everyone there bears the responsibility to sabotage progress of any type if it comes from the other side of the aisle. As sickening as that may be, that’s the tip of the iceberg. Our 435 U.S. Representatives are elected on two-year cycles, and the process of leading us out of this mess is a long-term (several-decade-long) endeavor. Any “representative” who takes on an issue that doesn’t enhance the financial position of the masses in his district will soon be an “ex-representative.” Not only is he turning off his voters, he’s handing his opponents a lethally effective set of tools to disgrace and thus remove him.
And even that’s just the beginning; it gets far worse. Hoping for progress from government presumes that these “leaders” actually care about the wellbeing of the people they “serve,” where, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who believe they have a friend in Washington (unless it’s a paid friend) are credulous in the extreme. Politicians are elected with enormous sums of dark money, super-PACs, etc. that demand and receive huge favors in return. And how likely is it that these favors will involve laws/regulations/incentives that might slow the onslaught of destruction against the environment? Zero.
The same calculus applies at different levels and in different ways to the rest of the federal government, as well as most of state and local, except in certain specific regions that happen to have a disproportionately high number of well-educated people. (If you want an interesting exercise, compare a map of the red and blue states to the percentage of college graduates in those states.)
In any case, you’re right here: hoping for effective, competent, efficient, and honest leadership from government is akin to hoping that my dog (pictured above) will learn to speak French. I love him, but he hasn’t shown much aptitude so far.
The Private Sector. Similarly, Big Oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year in PR campaigns to convince the common idiot American voter that climate change is a hoax/fraud, that U.S. interests are best served by fossil fuels, that taking action to respect the environment will damage the economy, and that such action is meaningless folly—the dreams of idealistic hippies whose grasp of the basic math is so weak that they lack the capacity to understand the problem. Big Money (including Big Oil) also owns the media. 95% of every word you read in print or see in electronic media comes from a handful (I believe it’s five or six) mega-news organizations, whose messages to these sheep/voters are extremely tightly controlled. This makes it quite difficult for Americans, even if they are so inspired, to learn enough about the subject to join the rest of the world in terms of an understanding of the limits of industry, population growth, and shortages of energy, water, and food.
Having said that, a great number of private sector organizations really ARE making some very important contributions in terms of social responsibility. Some have experienced a lucky coincidence, and have found that they’re actually saving money by eliminating waste. Others have a customer base that is willing to pay extra for eco-friendly products, e.g., Patagonia and Whole Foods. These, however, constitute a very small minority of corporate interests. Those that really deserve our praise are the entities whose CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs represent a net loss in profit, but are in place because their stake-holders are people of true decency and character. I hope you’ll join me in applauding every single one of them.
The People. As I’ve written dozens of times, there are more than 200,000 groups on Earth whose missions are social and environmental justice. Some are quite small, (e.g., this one–the 2GreenEnergy subscriber/regular visitor base, which is measured in tens of thousands. Other are huge (e.g., The Sierra Club, 350.org, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – each with many millions of members, etc.). In any case, I think anyone, regardless of his politics, needs to admit that this represents an enormous amount of horsepower—and it’s growing by the day.
But will it be sufficient to put enough pressure on the workings of the world to make a difference while there is still time? I don’t know. It’s too soon to tell.
In fact, when I speak in public on the subject, I often encounter people in the Q&A sessions that follow who claim that humankind is screwed, that we’re looking into the abyss of the Sixth Extinction (a reference to the eponymous best-seller), etc. I smile and say, “OK, fair enough. You’re a pessimist. I totally understand that, and I’ll wager that you’re joined in this room by a considerable percentage of the audience—perhaps half, or even more.” I ask for a show of hands, which usually validates that I’m right. I then make some joke, like, “We better break out the good wine NOW, while there’s still time to savor its rich bouquet and complex character.” But then I get serious again, and explain, “Have you ever had the thought that optimists and pessimists, paradoxically, share something in common? They both think they know how this is going to come out. You should know that I spend most of my waking hours studying this subject, and I have to tell you, honest to God, I believe it’s too early to tell. So, to the question: How is this going to come out? I need to confess: I don’t know. And with all due respect, neither do you.”
Thanks again for your interest. I can’t think of a more interesting and important topic in our world today.
Mankind will inhabit the planet….Until he doesn’t….
What constitutes a soft landing?
I think it’s too late to have a truly soft landing and significant damage has already been done, with quite a bit more inevitable damage coming down the pipe.
What may be possible with significant changes in attitude and practice is a degree of damage limitation.
The climate is disrupted and will continue to be disrupted for many years – with further temperature rises and changes in weather patterns inevitable. With a low carbon future, we may keep the degree of change down to a level to which we can adapt. In the event that we continue on a high carbon path, the extent of climate change will almost certainly result in mass extinctions, and certain regions becoming uninhabitable. This scenario would also see a big rise in sea level, as well as loss of huge areas of forest, pack ice, and permafrost.
Likewise for ocean acidification – combined with rising sea temperatures, it is hard to see large scale loss of coral and certain types of phytoplankton being avoided under a high carbon path scenario – with probable collapse of large parts of the marine food chain.
In short, if we are lucky and work hard to contain the damage, we may achieve a “heavy landing” rather than a crash.
Thanks, Craig. Excellent summary of the current political and social dynamic around the environment. The situation is often disheartening, but it’s better to be realistic about what we’re up against.
Isn’t it ironic that, though some of the biggest challenges mankind faces today are environmental, the biggest impediments to solving these issues are the governments we have voted for and the businesses (and banks) we have supported … neither of which we seem to have any control over anymore, if we every truly did.
It seems a kind of social tipping point will need to take place: a conscious decision by a majority of society to change our voting, buying, and consumption habits. Awareness and acceptance of the issues is the first step, and that is starting to happen. But money is what influences governments and corporations. Radically reducing our fuel consumption and choosing green technologies are actions that oil companies and politicians will notice and hopefully respond to in the right way.
But the biggest barrier I see to inspiring such a trend are the real short-term impacts on families and quality of life. Buying green is expensive, when cost-of-living is already high for most folks. And reducing our oil consumption can equate to reduced mobility and comfort, things most people can’t afford to do or aren’t willing to give up.
I’m optimistic that human kind is smart enough to work together and come up with workable solutions for this stuff before it’s too late. I can’t believe that the majority of people are as short-sighted, self-serving, greedy, and uncaring about the world as most politicians and corporations appear to be.
PS. Cute dog!
Terrence Tobin
You seem like a gentleman with a very large heart indeed. If I may ask: Given you can’t believe how shortsighted people are…. what makes you optimistic?
And thanks for noticing the dog. I try to put at least a little bit of thought into each photo I select. It’s quick and easy, and, in some cases, it helps be communicate my message.
When I said short-sighted and self-serving, I was referring to the political and corporate infrastructures in this world. I have more faith in the general public, even when we’re being bombarded by propaganda from both camps.
Also, I suppose my optimism is further fuelled by the fact that many recent studies regarding renewables (e.g. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/) also seem to indicate that if we increase the rate of adoption of these resources, and if countries find the political will to do so, there is the possibility we can reverse the current trends. That’s a big ‘if’.
And so many of the technologies we need to find a path out of this mess are already available or currently in pilot stages: renewable generation, smart grid automation, distributed generation and microgrid, energy storage, systems that enable intelligent energy management and demand response, green building practices, more efficient loads (motors/lighting/EVs/etc.)
There’s a lot of very smart, motivated people and companies out there developing great solutions. They are either driven by their principles, or by the fact that supplying green technology represents a very viable business model, helping companies and communities successfully address their ‘triple bottom line’. Balancing profit, environmental, and social goals is simply good business. Sustainability has almost become a cliche buzzword, but it’s no less true that it’s the only road forward, for all of us.
Ultimately, I agree with garyt1963 that we can only hope to reduce the damage, not eliminate it entirely. But better that then sit around drinking our last good bottle waiting for the end, no?
Like many others, I have strong reservations about increasing the scope of government. However, there are some problems that simply cannot be solved without increasing the scope of government. Moreover, it is not inevitable that increasing the scope of government will create undo problems; in some countries, it has not.
Let us use healthcare as an example. Several countries which have universal government-funded healthcare have found that it has, for them at least, worked very well. They spend less per capita on healthcare then we do here in the U.S. and also have longer life expectancies. The people are quite happy with it. On the other hand, at least at first, government-funded healthcare was a disaster in England. Thus, experience indicates that government-run programs can work very well, or they can be a disaster.
Where the environment is concerned, it appears that strong government action is required. The challenge will be to implement the necessary regulation without having undo corruption or inappropriate regulation which causes too many problems. Whether we will succeed in doing that is yet to be determined.
Looks like our current voting system could use an update, we could reduce our government to half its size if ” we the people” could vote once a month on our cell phone , PC, or local schools PC and library PC if you have no PC . With proper I.D. This would take about 15 minuts or less and have ” the people “directly voting on the bills that are presented for that month and the most popular ones to introduce for next month.
( because our reps dropped the ball,or are playing too much with it and nothing gets done!)
51% majority makes it a law. We can do away with districts, Lobbying and all the other stuff that retards the government actually working for the people, not who is currently stuffing their pockets.
Why no updating of our voting system in 100 years? It is not so perfect.
You can win the popular vote and still lose the election, dosen’t seem fair.
We update our phones every year or two.
We update our kitchens and baths every 10 to 20 years.
We update our views, no gays in the military, don’t ask don’t tell , gay is okay.
We would have a much higher voter input and might end up with a government that is for the people with laws by the people and is in line with what the people really want.
I know, I’m just dreaming, that would make sence, something our government dosen’t!
You have made some great points here. In particular, a great many environmentalists get the basic science wrong, and wind up advocating things that will actually make matters worse. At the same time, we fail to grasp the larger issues, international shipping among them.
Your statement that politicians are people just like you and me set me to wondering: is that true? Would I sell my integrity for a huge amount of cash and prestige? Of course, I’d like to think not, but that’s an easy belief to hold on to, given that it’s never been an actual opportunity. “Power corrupts, and….” http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html.
Great point, though, as you point out, impossible given the U.S. Constitution. We fight over miniscule garbage; we’re certainly not going to uproot the whole thing.
That system would be dangerous. Do you think that slavery would have been ended and civil rights laws enacted if we had an ancient Greek type of democracy? Also, some matters of great importance are very complicated and most of us lack the time to study them adequately. Our political representatives have staves one function of which is to study matters carefully to determine what action to take. Obviously the system is greatly less than perfect, but having people vote electronically without studying or due consideration would probably be even worse.
What we really need is a way to choose political representatives who are honest and who are motivated by a desire to be fair and just. That would require better education of the populace which should include teaching people to think clearly, logically, objectively, and fairly. Obviously that would be a tall order.
“We the people”would have one month to understand the issues we are to wote on, our current reps can’t deside on anything, all they can do is say the other side is wrong, no matter what what the other side is promoting! Really? This is our Government????
edmimmo,
It can take far longer than one month to become adequately informed on some matters.
if you need more than one month to understand if something is good or bad for our enviroment( fracking?), Persistent Jet Contrails? H.A.A.R.P.? Did we vote on these projects or had them rammed down our nostrills? Look up in the sky it’s not Superman it’s chemical clouds, and wake up, we don’t need these things but our Government is spending over $ 2 billion a year on “project cloverleaf”. I’ll bet you can’t tell me what they are spraying.
Barrium salts! really!
edmimmo,
Of course the contrails are chemical clouds. Technically, a chemical is any substance that can form new compounds by acting with another chemical or by decomposing. Water is chemically active since it does engage in chemical reactions. It can be decomposed into H2 and O2; that is a chemical reaction. It can react with a number of metals, including Ca, Na, and K to form other substances. Jet engines release and H2O CO2 which are a chemicals.
Without stating exactly what chemicals are released into the atmosphere, simply asserting that chemicals are released into the atmosphere is meaningless.
Barrium salt mostly, Rosalind Peterson adressed the UN with many details on Persistant Jet Contrails, and the harm to our water supply, killing trees,etc…
@ edmimmo
Sadly edmimmo, you seem to be caught up in a long debunked conspiracy theory !
It’s especially sad, because it’s conspiracy theorists, and others armed with junk science and long discredited theories, that detract attention from really important environmental issues.
A huge amount of time an energy ( and taxpayers funds) has been wasted, on crank theories, ideological technologies that have no hope of ever working, let alone prove economic, and political point scoring.
All over the world, the public have grown tired of the tirades from extremist ‘environmentalists’, whose green rhetoric disguises other agendas.
As a result, the most important priorities, that with a minimum of disruption could be achieved, have been largely ignored, due a cacophony of strident advocates.
Forget chemtrails, concentrate on what real, and become involved in achieving positive, practical environment benefits !
Guess you’re just afraid to look up on a clear blue day with no clouds, and ask “what is it with all the lines” this stuff is real, you just won’t see it. Have your local water supply tested for Barrium, Aluminum, Strontium, Magnesium,and Manganese, safe bet it’s much higher than it naturally should be. This could be a coinsidence or it could be the lines in our skys?
@ edmimmo
Why do you assume that the barium, aluminum, etc., in our water, originate mainly from jet contrails? There are many trace elements in the earth’s crust and of course some of them end up in our water supply.
I suppose that it is possible that some jet contrail may contain tiny amounts of those elements considering that jet engines contain aluminum alloys, but I do not believe that jet contrails contain significant quantities of harmful substances except for CO2 which causes climate change.
Have you considered researching the contents of jet fuel? They do contain a few additives, such as additives to depress the temperature at which the fuel jells and will not flow. But it should be obvious that jet exhaust will not contain significant amounts of anything which is not in the jet fuel itself, and certainly the fuel not contain anything which could accelerate turbine wear and some of the substances you mention would be destructive to the engines.
For more information, check out the following link:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chemtrail-additives-in-jet-fuel-a-mathematical-analysis.4426/
Craig,
Most people, especially people dedicated to an ideology, always seek to blame the ill’s of the world on “corrupt government, and politicians”, or “greedy, short-sighted corporations” .
This sort of belief is popular, because the criticism can be kept vague, since the targeted organisations are huge, complex, and not easily comprehended.
Thus, it’s easy to invent conspiracy theories, etc, because there’ no real chance of any alternate theories being implemented. (It’s always easy to say what’s wrong, harder to answer the complex issues of alternatives).
In fact governments, and large corporations are not monolithic organisation, controlled by corrupt, evil tyrants, but made up of hundreds, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of individuals, all of whom are just like you, and me.
Thus the ardent idealistic environmentalist, can criticise and issue indulge in indignant moral outrage, because no one is ever going to entrust them with the enormously complex task of implementing practical, alternatives.
It’s easy criticising evil ” oil companies ” , until your5 loved one is involved in a situation that requires emergency vehicles, fire engines, ambulances, helicopters etc, to save to get the loved one to a hospital.
Once at the hospital, count all the myriad of oil products, from ceramics to medicines (including the computer keyboard) and then consider all the thousands of companies, and millions of people who worked in the oil industry, whose combined effort will make the difference, between life and death.
Even the hospital’s power, must be supplied by a very reliable source in industrial capacity.
All of this is not easily replaced without very complex consideration, and people willing to step up, and accept that level of responsibility.
But, there’s some good news!
The single largest source of environmental pollution, is also the most easily replaced !
Unlike most environmental issues, this pollution can be easily reduced with co-operation of a handful of governments, all of which are democratic, and the willing support of the oil industry.
I’m talking about the abolition (or phasing out) of the use of Marine grade no 6 fuel, by the world shipping fleets. Each ship using this highly toxic substance, (commonly known as ‘bunker oil’) creates more pollution than 50 million cars !
The damage done to the ocean and bio-sphere is immense and only just starting to be measured. while carcinogenic statistics attribute millions of victims per year.
Not even the oil companies support this product ! Yet very little action is undertaken, few environmental lobby groups are interested, and apart from a few token laws saying “not in my backyard”, no one is too fussed.
Most green activists would rather protest and get excited about preventing the relatively harmless effects, of ‘fracking’, technology, than tackle the vastly larger menace of ‘bunker oil’.
Btw, you’re from Australia, as I recall. What’s your take on the recent flap with Obama’s remarks on fossil fuels at the recent G-20 meeting?
Largely ignored ! In both Britain and Australia, the current US President is largely perceived as weak and ineffectual.
While the Australian government is eager to do business with the PRC, it places little credence on PRC announcements about the environment. Experience has taught that the PRC have mastered the western art of making vague, well-meaning pronouncements, that excite western ideologues, but which the PRC has no intention of implementing.
Pres. Obama’s announcement of environmental agreements with the PRC, looked like a desperate man, trying to get vague support for domestic consumption, with the co-operation of a cynical PRC.
Sad.
But, an excellent example of what I tried to emphasise in my previous comment. When it comes to environmental issues, when it’s all said and done, there’s a lot more said, than done ! 🙂
Most environment activists would rather waste time fulminating against the evils of capitalism, corporation, governments etc, than actually study, invest and prioritise to achieve real change.
Sadly, “green politics” always seems to become like a watermelon, green on the outside, but an old-fashioned red, all the way through !
In Australia my campaign to prevent shipping using bunker oil from sailing through the World heritage listed Great Barrier reef, aroused no interest from either the centre-left Labour Party, or the Green Party.
It’s curious fact that the only display of interest came from the conservative Liberal Party, Chevron oil, and three European shipping companies !
In Europe, the most influential support for the abolition of bunker oil, has come from the radical right, with individuals like the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the Danish shipping line, Maersk Group giving support.
Re: your last sentence, it’s all good, i.e., any source of progress is more than welcome. People who care about the ultimate fate of humankind don’t “look a gift-horse in the mouth,” as I tried to express here: http://2greenenergy.com/2014/11/27/environmental-progress/.
marcopolo,
I don’t know enough about bunker oil to have a valid opinion on it. If it were phased out as fuel for large ships, would it instead be dumped where it could create even greater problems, or can it be cracked into lighter fuels in an economical and environmentally safe manner? Or could advanced marine power systems make it possible to continue using it without creating pollution? Is this a problem only for marine power systems, or do countries which generate much of their power with Diesel engines also use bunker fuel?
One poster asserts that voters could so easily understand issues that with a preparation time of only one month they could prepare themselves to vote intelligently on any environmental issue. I do not share his opinion and suspect that the bunker fuel issue may be an example of a complex issue that would take considerable studying to understand adequately.
Is Oz still planning to increase its use of sea water desalination? What is the environmental impact of that?
@ Frank R. Eggers
Thank you for your reply.
Marine grade No. 6 fuel (bunker oil) is what you are left with when all the less toxic and more valuable components of oil have been removed. Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as “just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’’.
Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.
Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.
With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.
Buying an electric car is of little value, if the ship that transported it to you, polluted the bio-sphere more than the car could save in 50 years !
Ships using bunker oil, need large, swimming pool sized holding processing tanks and elaborate fuel treatment just to keep the stuff liquid enough to burn. Funnel “scrubbers ” are ineffective, and although cheap, the fuel delivers low energy efficiency.
For many years bunker oil was a waste product of the oil industry, but modern technology can refine the former waste product into useful, vastly less products.
Bunker oil is a marine problem, as most power station usage requires higher grade fuels.
The toxic effect of bunker oil, far outweigh any economic benefits . Modern ship design can also eliminate any economic advantage to the shipping industry.
Reports of death directly caused by bunker oil usage range between between 80,000 to 170,000 people a year, but is rising dramatically, as the results of newer studies are published.
The effect on the ocean is catastrophic. Not only is the carcinogenic effect starting to pass through the food chain, but the damage to the oceans ability to absorb carbon caused by bunker oil pollution , is only now staring to be measured.
Frank, if you listen to the angst ridden, handwringing, tirades by the more strident environmentalists, it becomes obvious that the rhetoric contains no practical solutions, just emotional and ideological complaints against modern civilisation.
These ‘advocates’ aren’t really motivated by a desire to accomplish any real environmental benefit, just disguising the same old failed leftist ideology, in a ‘green’ wrapper !
I couldn’t find anything positive on bunker oil, and any one point made by marcopolo of the 7 mentioned above,( assume that 5 are exaggerated, I don’t believe that they are) would be enough to have me vote No, on continued use of bunker oil for shipping. It might mean 5 cents more per gallon for gasoline, but if it reduces polution it’s worth it.
It didn’t take a month to understand that bunker oil is not worth burning and should be sent back down in spent oil cavities. I’ll give you a month to tell me the merits of continued use.
@ Frank R Eggers,
Sorry, I forgot to reply to your desalination question.
The only Australian state to invest in large scale desalination, is Victoria. The original environmental impact studies said the harmful effects would be minimal.
The plant has never actually operated ! Built in a panic by the Labour/Green government, the cost ran way over budget, and the drought ended (as droughts do), making the plant redundant. Even if another drought occurred, the plant has subsequently proved too badly planned to be useful, and is basically just a giant white elephant.
Tragically, Australia’s leading “climate” expert, Dr Tim Flannery (his academic qualifications are in palaeontology), rejected the advice of “climate denier ” Professor Ian Plimer (geology, physics, chemistry) , and persuaded the Federal Australian and Queensland state, Labour/Green governments to abandon building and maintaining river levees, in favour of a proposed desalination plant.
With great confidence, a “consensus” of Tim Flannery’s legion of “Climate Scientists”, pronounced that previously flood prone areas, were now subject to irreversible desertification.
The tragedy came when two years later, Queensland was hit by massive flooding, the neglected levees broke and many lives and a great deal of property was destroyed on an unprecedented scale. ( not surprisingly, the Queensland government was also swept away by the voters!).
Dr Flannery, was exceedingly indignant when the incoming Federal centre-right Liberal government took office, and he, and his entire taxpayer funded organisation, was disbanded !
Naturally, desalination is not a topic much discussed in Queensland.
@ marcopola,
Since reading your response to my questions about bunker fuel, I feel much better informed.
About 15 years ago, when I lived in Fiji, the Queen Elizabeth II docked at Lautoka. I was disturbed by the amount of dark smoke being emitted from the ship. Since the ship was not underway, most likely the smoke was from a power generator. Properly running Diesel engines running on normal Diesel fuel should not be emitting smoke, so it may be that the generator was running on bunker fuel.
It would be good to know what would happen if burning bunker fuel were banned. If it were just dumped, that would not be good, but perhaps there would be a way to deal with it in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Regarding sea water desalination, that is a situation where renewable power sources could be practical since their intermittent nature could be dealt with. The desalinated water could be stored in reservoirs so there would still be water available when power was not available. Of course that would require the desalination plant to have a larger capacity thereby increasing investment costs, but surely the costs could be calculated to determine the practicality of the investment.
Hi Frank, it’s good to see you don’t need more than a month to realize if something is good or not so good for our future. A search on-line had many sites all saying the same things that marcopolo claimed, it’s the worst fuel to burn. It’s only good point is that it is cheap.
After we suck out all the oil from a well, we ( our oil tycoons, not you and me) send water or saltwater, whichever is closer or cheaper to bring to the site down the well to float up the remaining oil. They could easily use these spent wells to store the remaining sludge known as bunker fuel in a safe enviromentall way, they wont leak out because the oil didn’t leak out for miillions of years.
What’s your view on Persistant Jet Contrails? I have eyes and know they are real.
edmimmo,
It’s good to see that there is a way of disposing of bunker fuel in an environmentally safe manner. It seems clear that unless a way can be found to make it safe to use, it should be disposed of.
Not all issues require the same amount of time to evaluate. For some issues, adequate information is quickly available thereby making it easy to make quick and suitable decisions. However, that is not true for all issues. Getting truly objective information can be exceedingly difficult and require much study. It seems that some people are radical environmentalists more because they believe that we should have more natural life-styles than because they are really concerned with the environment. They cannot be depended on as a source of reliable and objective information.
Regarding jet contrails, shutting down aviation following 9/11 made it possible to get information on their effects which previously would not have been possible to get, such as by how much they attenuated the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. However, I have not studied the matter. If they are found to be harmful, it is unclear what can be done about it without greatly curtailing air transportation. When I was young, we often traveled by train, but now rail transportation for passengers has been greatly reduced at least partly because rail transportation has become less desirable. Recently I checked to see whether I could travel from Albuquerque to San Diego by rail. I found that it would be shockingly expensive and slow so I went by motorcycle instead. If rail transportation were more acceptable, at least for short and moderate distances, probably fewer people would fly.
Hi Frank, There’s nothing we can do about regular jet contrails,we humans like to fly. My question was on Persistant Jet Contrails, they leave chemical man made lines in our sky,that thin out and make clouds. These jets have no passengers, just lots of 50gallon drums of chemicals that are sprayed in our upper atmasphere. Just look up on a clear day most jet tails go away in a few seconds, these leave lines that go 200 miles. more info;project cloverleaf, or see Rosaland Peterson.
@ Frank R. Eggers
Yes, the adverse effects of Bunker Oil can be best appreciated in the otherwise pristine conditions of small island nations. Like you I was appalled by the devastating effect of even a very small leakage in the Cook Islands.
The problem of waste is not really an issue, only a small percentage of waste is created by modern refining technology, and since the waste is basically the same as bitumen, it still has a relatively harmless commercial use.
The abolition is also relatively easy, if only 9 major maritime nations, all modern democracies, were to ban ships rigged for bunker oil, form their ports (after a certain date) the use of bunker oil would become uneconomic.
@edmimmo
Now here’s the thing, It really is you and me that is responsible for oil usage, not those evil “Oil Tycoons” !
The oil industry is an enormous employer, and represents 20-30% of most first world economies. The industry, like all industries, only responds to consumer demand. In addition, the oil industry underpins most of the first world’s retirement and superannuation industry.
The use of such toxic substances as Bunker Oil are not the fault of the oil industry, but of nations like the USA who have legislation requiring it’s production !
The real hypocrisy is those countries which ban it’s use inside their territorial waters, but are quite happy to allow it’s use on the ocean, as if the earth weren’t one bio-sphere.
The environmental movement, dissipates it’s effort on fighting ideological battles, with only minimal benefit. Mostly, the effort achieve little, or as in the case with corn-based ethanol, production are actually counter-productive !
Carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, international talkfests, endless condemnation of the oil industry, futuristic alternate energy schemes that will never be economic, moralising and handwringing, will not accomplish anything practical.
But here is the biggest single toxic pollutant, and climate change source, for which a practical, economic solution exists, (not even the oil companies support it’s usage), and yet far from being a number one priority, no one seems interested !
That’s why environmental concerns are no longer capturing the imagination of the general public.
@ marcopolo,
I like the way you are more concerned with practical issues than with ideological correctness. Practical solutions and approaches are more likely to yield results than finger pointing.
There are those who seem to want us to return to a more primitive existence to reduce our use of natural resources. Although using resources and energy more efficiently and not for trivial reasons is a good thing, that approach alone cannot make more than a modest contribution to solving our environmental problems.
There is no theoretical reason that would make it impossible to solve our environmental problems, but the degree of coöperation required will be almost unprecedented.
@ edmimmo
I’m afraid your eyes do deceive you ! There is no creditable evidence of any ‘chemicals’ being secretly spread in the skies.
There will always be bizarre conspiracy theories, which thank to the growth of the internet and social media, become well spread and cause alarm amongst the credulous.
From time to time, cloud seeding to create rain has been used, with varying success. Cloud seeding uses silver iodide, because of its close molecular resemblance to ice crystals, making it the most effective nucleus to spark precipitation.
The rest are just contrails, the perfectly natural result of condensation. Contrails are left behind due to the warm, moist exhaust of an aircraft’s engines meeting the extremely cold temperatures of the upper atmosphere.
The more, and larger aircraft, flying higher, the more and longer lasting contrails you will see. The length and duration of contrails, is purely dependant on the moisture content of the upper atmosphere.
The rest of these theories are straight out of the “Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper” school of logical thought ! (General Ripper was the character in the film, Dr Strangelove, who believe that fluoride was a ” Communist plot to pollute Americans’ “precious bodily fluids.” !
I work outdoors, so 8 hrs a day, I see about 150 jets in our skys. 90% is normal air traffic, the other 10% is not normal. Leaving criss crossed chemical lines in our upper atmosphere, that slowly block out the sun. I was also a jet machanic for the USMC and understand this subject better than most people. You could look up and ask “what are they spraying?” or just stick your head in the sand, because you’re afraid to look. It’s real, no theories here.
@ Marcopolo,
Your post on jet contrails is correct so far as it goes, but there is also another phenomenon.
When I lived in San Diego, airplanes would fly very low over Balboa Park on their way to land at Lindberg Field. You could see contrails immediately behind the wing tips, well away from the engines. Presumably even a glider could have left contrails. Those contrails were the result of disturbing air that was supersaturated with water vapor; a slight disturbance would cause the water vapor to condense into fine droplets thereby creating a fog. A similar, but not identical, phenomenon can be easily demonstrated in a laboratory; probably some people here have seen it or done it.
A test tube containing water and a thermometer can be chilled to way below freezing without having the water freeze. That can be done by inserting the test tube into a freezing mixture, such as into a mixture of salt, water, and ice. The thermometer will then show that the water in the test tube is well below 0C, yet no freezing has occurred. Jarring the test tube or stirring the water with the thermometer will cause the water to freeze quickly and, as it does so, its temperature will quickly increase to 0C. That phenomenon illustrates how icing can occur on airplane wings.
The above phenomenon is not identical to the phenomenon which causes wing tips to produce contrails since contrails are caused by causing water vapor in the atmosphere to change from gaseous form into liquid form, but it does show how a disturbance can cause the state to change without adding substances to it.
Contrails caused by turbulence at wing tips occur immediately behind the wingtips whereas contrails caused by jet engines occur well behind the engines because it takes a while for the exhaust gasses to cool enough to condense.
I assume that contrails produced by the engines are more significant than contrails produced by wing tip turbulence, but both exist.
As uniquely envisioned in America, the purposes of our government are to function as the enforcement and protection arms of We the People – to enforce laws enacted by our representatives, to protect us and our resources and achievements, and to do things and build things for each other and for future generations that “the market” cannot or will not do.
In the defining words of our nation’s founders…
“…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”
As is so often the case in life, a look back is needed here before taking a step forward…
As a species, we emerged from the fragile condition of nomadic hunter-gatherers into the relatively stable prosperity of agrarian societies. We did this by sharing and cooperating for mutual benefit.
In contrast, today’s self-interest and deregulation signal a return to “the law of the jungle” from which the durable human tradition of common good had escaped.
Like most creatures, we thrive best by combining our talents and resources together to achieve what self-serving motives can’t and won’t ever achieve.
The fruits of our common effort are immeasurable, the most well-known being our major dams and reservoirs, our municipal water distribution and sewage systems, our national highway system, and our national parks. There are many more that aren’t recognized in the everyday triumphs that most people now take for granted.
History has taught that private schools won’t educate the public; private armies don’t defend the nation, private firemen don’t protect the whole city, and private hospitals don’t work to heal the masses.
Indeed, in private hands, pharmaceutical research now favors more profitable pill-a-day palliatives that “manage” disease rather than permanently curing it. Private firemen once watched “unprotected” buildings burn, until the burning became a danger to a “subscriber’s” building. That lesson was glaringly obvious. Private armies defended only the interests of their paymasters (and, notably and predominantly, their own interests). Private schools exclude all but the well-off, and eject children who prove challenging to teach.
History also shows that defense of the public commons demands constant vigilance and courage against moneyed power. Our founders knew well that corporate charters are potent tools for theft and predation by the wealthy. They strictly held each corporation to creating a tangible public benefit, and limited its lifespan to twenty years. Corporations also couldn’t change their charters, or buy up other corporations. Perhaps most notably, corporations were firmly barred from exercising political influence. But as our nation grew, the robber barons soon found ways to erode these limits.
Regulations are made necessary because some people can’t restrain their passions. Greed is among the most potent of passions, and it inspires vicious and dishonest tactics.
After the misery and starvation of the Great Depression, essential limits were yet again placed on private interests – with legal barriers between insurance companies, and the savings and loan banks, and the gambling investment houses. “Too big to fail” was no longer allowed in the world of finance.
Yet, over the years, these protective barriers have been broken down again by wealthy private interests, using sock-puppet politicians – red and blue – who masquerade as public servants. Our present economy and government are the predictable outcomes.
Slavery was the old legal fiction by which people were made into property. “Corporate personhood” is the legal fiction claiming that property is a person. It’s the same lie, from the opposite direction.
It’s another perilous fiction that the use of money for the bribery we know as “campaign contributions” and “lobbying” should be regarded as Freedom of Speech. This allows the wealthy to scream into their media bullhorns, and select and pocket our leaders, while the rest of us whisper and plead for justice.
A good friend of mine has long observed that two philosophies drive ideology…
The first is the mindset currently reinforced by the corporate media – that each of us is only responsible for our own self (and our own children while they are still young).
The second approach is ancient and crosses oceans – that each person bears shared responsibility for their own well-being, as well as that of their family and community, future generations, and the biosphere.
That first attitude puts me in mind of bacteria in a Petri dish – proliferating wildly and gobbling up every resource indiscriminately, until universally lethal conditions result. Are we humans no better than that?
No my friends, this is not a laughing matter – not if you care about other people and life on Earth, and, ultimately, about yourself.
We can’t and shouldn’t hope for any carefree utopia, and I’ll always firmly support people making a fair profit manufacturing conveniences, trading in recreational services, and exchanging their labor and talent for a decent living.
But the rising control of our government by wealthy interests has created a dystopia that’s grossly unjust, blindly self-focused, and lethally materialistic. This threatens the social progress we’ve made over the centuries, and the natural world we’ll always need to survive.
Apathy is not an option.