Clean Energy and the Challenge of Technology

Stephen Ziri | Jul 01, 2010

Share/Save  

One of the major challenges facing the realization of clean energy is technology. Since the mid 19th Century, scientists noted that the earth's temperature was rising as a result of the high concentration of Green House Gases (GHG) in the earth's atmosphere. Green House Gases are those gases that prevent the reflection of the heat generated by the sun back into space after hitting earth. This traps the heat in the earth's atmosphere by creating what has been described in simple terms as the greenhouse effect. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, among others. As a consequence of what is arguably, human activity, the earth's glaciers were then beginning to melt. Scientific data has shown that this phenomenon was accelerated in the last couple of decades, resulting in the stampede to stabilize and eventually reverse the global warming and associated climate change as well as the danger it portends to the planet earth and its inhabitants. Consequently, global warming and climate change have taken center stage in shaping policy and discourse as it affects things as all encompassing as energy generation, natural resources and industrial production, and things even as otherwise mundane as beef production or even the chemicals emitted by ants. The sector that was hardest hit however was the energy sector (fossils and electricity) which are both, capital and technology intensive. This sector and deforestation are the center of attention in the bid to reduce global warming and climate change.

 

It is with these challenges in mind that the negotiators of the Kyoto Protocol made provision for emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).These two programs are designed to enhance clean development. They have also since inception, acted as guide and inspiration for both policy makers and operators in the energy industry in their collective bid to generate clean and affordable energy. The Kyoto Protocol also makes further provisions requiring other sectors of the international economy to meet specified targets in a collective effort to help stabilize and eventually reduce the atmospheric concentration of the green house gases responsible for global warming. The energy industry is under more pressure to effect this transition than any other industry because it is the industry that provides the power that drives the global economy. Energy plants and production facilities of different shapes and sizes are also spread around the world; some clean, and others not so clean. Moreover, new technologies have to be developed at huge costs to reduce emissions associated with fossil fuel production and usage; and also be able to generate and transmit clean energy through a more efficient grid system.

 

Emission trading is a scheme designed to persuade polluters to reduce the emissions of green house gases by placing a price tag on each unit of emission. This is based on the long established international natural resources law of `the polluter pays'. The goal is for a polluter to think twice before polluting. Under the emerging system of emissions trading, polluters buy credit from the market which is depleted when they pollute. Enough emission credit has to be purchased therefore to pay for a specified amount of pollution. On the other hand, unused emission credit can also be sold on the emissions market. Even though money will change hands on the emission trading market, the objective is not necessarily to generate wealth, but to discourage the reckless pollution that the world witnessed post industrial revolution, especially from the mid 19th Century to the early 20th Century. This reckless industrial revolution era polution has remained a major haggling point at climate talks; on the extent of responsibility to be taken to cut emissions by both developed and developing economies like China, India and Brazil.

 

The Clean Development Mechanism, on the other hand, is a program by which corporations from developed countries are encouraged to undertake clean projects in developing countries after which the CDM Executive Board issues such corporations with Certified Emission Reduction (CER) certificates for clean development. These CER certificates can also be used as emissions credit.

 

The CDM is designed to aid the transfer of technology and capital to poorer countries which are both necessary to enable these countries cope with the challenges of climate change and the demands of clean energy and other environmentally friendly development and production activities. This transfer is made even more pressing because most of these countries have neither the technology and capital nor the expertise required to fulfill the urgent need and desire for clean and environmentally responsible development. Through the CDM process, an energy company can therefore invest in a hydropower plant, in Africa, for example, and, earn CER emission credit to run its coal fired plant in Frankfurt or London. These two international frameworks under the Kyoto Protocol bring together three critical components of clean energy in a world faced with an uncertain future in view of the yet unfolding science of climate change. These components are: A) Emission reduction which is the ultimate goal; B) Technology, and; C) Capital, which are the tools required to achieve the first.

 

The biggest challenge facing the realization of clean energy yet is technology, and this discourse will dwell on that. The euphoria that followed the mass production of first generation biofuels appeared to be misplaced when the carbon footprint of its production was discovered to be in the same league with fossil fuels, if not worse, in addition to its impact on global food security. The second and third generations however remain largely at the level of R & D because they are technology intensive and not cost effective. They succeeded, however in eliminating the threat to global food security. Solar panels are also a clean energy source but it is still not being harnessed on a large scale despite reduction in the cost of its technology over time. It is to be noted that solar power generation, especially at a large scale, require a lot of space because a compact technology has not been achieved yet. Nuclear energy, another clean energy source, is still plagued by security and safety concerns. Hydro, as a source of clean energy on the other hand is plagued by its effect on the marine environment and the communities close to dam sites. There have also been international squabbles because of the receding supplies of fresh water around the world. We are also still light years away from being able to harness the potentials of fuel cells on a large and commercially viable scale. The technology in geothermal and wind are also becoming more widespread but not at their optimum yet.

 

With many of these sources of clean energy facing one challenge or the other, that leaves the sweet old fossil fuels, especially coal and gas as the cheapest and most popular energy source for firing power plants. This situation creates the need to develop the technology and the capacity to reduce to a tolerable level, if not completely eliminate the emission of the greenhouse gases associated with their use. Scientists have thus come up with carbon sequestration or carbon capture and storage (CCS) which is still not yet commercially available. But that still does not mean all the issues are being resolved, because we are still trapped in the vicious cycle of cost-technology-global warming. Apart from the fact that the capacity to capture, compress and inject the carbon dioxide into the ground is still being developed on a commercially viable scale. A massive infrastructure also has to be developed from the ground up; including a pipeline network to connect the power plants to designated injection sites after the appropriate geologic structures are identified and prepared for the purpose.

 

Underlying all these challenges is the uncertainty of the injection itself because of the uncertainty of its chemistry, thereby, raising concerns as to how the injection will impact the underground geologic structures of the injection site. What will therefore, be the impact of the storage in the medium and long term and even the impacts of accidents involving concentrated carbon dioxide. This is certainly not going to be anywhere near the impact of major oil spills, but it is still a cause for concern. After all, it is to curb the release of this gas into the atmosphere that all the trouble is being taken in the first place. This further makes glaring the gaping hole where the appropriate legal and policy framework that should guide the whole process is supposed to be. These challenges are related to the scope of permitting and licensing and even monitoring. Another one is the extent of and responsibility for the infrastructure required for the effective running of the CCS system, in addition to the fact that standards are required for its operation. All these cannot be adequately articulated until the boundaries of the science and technology are adequately defined. Still unclear is also the extent of the impact of the cost of the technology itself and the required infrastructure on the consumer, whom it is certain, will have to pay more for clean energy, but how much more, remains any one's guess.

 

While the issue of energy efficiency was one of the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol for the energy sector, and it continues to remain on the front burner of both operators in the energy industry and policy makers; it will only make more sense if, and when the generation of clean and affordable energy is achieved. While there exists very persuasive proof that clean energy is achievable, the questions still linger as to how soon and how affordable especially for the developing world.

 

If the developed world is still facing the challenges discussed above, the case of the developing world is hopeless for now, because, it is not only that they do not have the expertise, the technology too might be beyond their meager resources. The most viable means of accessing and using these technologies for the developing countries of the world even when these technologies become commercially available is for corporations in the developed parts of the world is to use the CDM scheme under the Kyoto Protocol and the multilateral institutions under the World Bank, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Carbon Finance Unit (CFU) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). These agencies, except MIGA, were set up to enhance clean development and mitigate the impact of climate change by mobilizing and channeling funds appropriately. Using these multilateral agencies will provide the needed capital as well as a safety net against the prevalent political instability that many of these developing nations are known for. This way, a lot of barriers will be broken, while societies which would otherwise not be able to afford clean energy will have it. Also, in addition to having done business abroad, the corporations from the North can also earn carbon credit to use on the domestic market.

 

These are some of the reasons why the fear of the Kyoto Protocol by a section of the captains of the American industry and economy is, at best, misplaced. The major challenges that will be associated with the transition to clean energy are the capital and the technology required to upgrade the technology and infrastructure currently in use. This is required in every sector every now and then, including the public sector, and with proper planning and execution, this transition can be achieved over time with minimal disruptions in operations and consumer adjustments. If we weigh the benefit against the cost, especially in the long run, it is clearly a journey worth undertaking.

 

While we have made enough advances that show clean energy to be attainable, the biggest challenge that appears to stand between us and that goal is the development of appropriate technology and its proliferation by the resources available to us.

Comments

Since the Kyoto Protocol, based on 1990 emissions, the rate of CO2 generation has increased dramatically. At the time we were told we were already at the tipping point beyond which we were doomed as being too little and too late. Well I have not run the numbers for some time but would make an educated guess that we are now emitting more than twice the CO2 that was deemed passed the tipping point, beyond the point of no return..

Today coal-burning power plants are being built at perhaps the greatest rate in history. (Wasn't the Kyoto Protocol about shutting them down?) Nobody wants to talk about these numbers. They want to talk about their new wind farms. New coal mines are being opened all over the world. Coal usage in China and India is surely to increase to at least 2050.

Overall there are only about one, maybe two billion people with base load electricity service with some slack. US, Canada in NA, the countries of western Europe, Japan, Australia plus pockets throughout the world. That leaves about 5 or 6 billion with barely adequate to zero service. And it is getting worse. While population is stable among the "haves" it is increasing among the "have-nots", mostly in the far east and Africa. Already at least 1 to 2 billion people go to bed hungry, if not starving..

Few of these 5 or 6 billion are concerned about CO2 emissions - and why should they be? After all the amount of C02 they emit per capita is very small. And they have no interest in getting electric service in 2050.

Politicians (and lawyers?) still think they can legislate and regulate thermodynamics and geology.

We're doomed.
AGW is with us, peak oil is with us or soon will be, other commodoties such as certain metals are getting in short supply, and existing and increasing populations across the world are going to want things the world can't provide in sufficient quantities. Meanwhile a resurgence of irrational religious beliefs fuel irrational behavioiurs.
But there is a question about how badly and how soon we are to be doomed. I want to look at my two children in their eyes and tell them I did the best I reasonably could, so I work in the renewable energy sector and support things like Kyoto in the full knowledge that they are not enough, and some of them might be futile. There is no moral case for saying that because others are bad, I can be bad too.

This quote of Mackay's below may be a little over the top for some to understand, but we must be cautious of the sheep mentality and ensure that we have the science right. It is NOT that because others may be bad, that I can also be bad; if others are not bad but stupid, would you choose to be stupid too, or would you rather be a lone voice of reason.

“In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.

... Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Mackay.

Kyoto, should spring to mind and the whole AGW bandwagon.

John: I prefer the input of scientists over philosophers on this issue, thanks anyway.

"The average global temperature for land and ocean surfaces combined (based on preliminary data) was 1.39 F (0.77 C) above the 1880-2001 long-term mean, 0.16 F (0.09 C) higher than the previous record warm March, which occurred in 1998 during the latter stages of the last El Niño episode. Global temperatures have increased approximately 1 F (0.6 C) since 1900, but the rate of warming during the past 25 years is almost three times higher."

U.S. EXPERIENCES FIRST COOLER-THAN-AVERAGE MONTH SINCE MARCH 2001;
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE FOR MARCH WARMEST ON RECORD

Also useful, esp. see graphs of historical temperatures near bottom indicating both increasing and accelerating temperature rise trends. State of the Climate - Global Analysis May 2009 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Why didn't the people on the Titanic try bailing? 1) They didn't need the exercise, 2) They were bad people. 3) It was obvious that the arithmetic was against them. 4) They had already dressed for dinner. Whether you actually do the calculations or not it's still all about numbers. If the numbers say NO then no amount of do-goodism and philosophy and religion furnish solutions, unless you will settle for solutions in the eye of the beholder.

The Titanic disaster was a one-shot deal. There were all kinds of ways it could have been avoided. It was a harsh lesson but we learned and recovered from it. Our present dilemma is also a one-shot deal (our ship is our planet) bur what we have learned will never be applied - there wouldn't be that chance. When you are in free-fall it doesn't matter that you knew all along how to make a parachute.

Cats do not know where babies come from and will breed til limited by starvation. We know where babies come from yet we are doing the same thing.

Mr. Ziri,

Please excuse my ignorance - I am but just a simple engineer. But when you say;

Green House Gases are those gases that prevent the reflection of the heat generated by the sun back into space after hitting earth. This traps the heat in the earth's atmosphere by creating what has been described in simple terms as the greenhouse effect.- - end quote,

My question is - if the Green House Gases permit the heat from the sun to reach the earth - how is it possible that they then prevent the heat radiating back through the same so called greanhouse barrier?

Peter Mason.

Peter, different wave lengths.

Paul,

Cheer up my friend - we are not doomed. Your kids have a very bright future. The world is not running out of anything. How can it be. The eminent Albert Einstein who had more wisdom that all of us put together showed us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The aluminium made from Bauxite 50 years ago is still around somewhere. Probably in a garbage dump. When Bauxite becomes harder to find and more expensive to mine economics will dictate that the price of the already mined aluminium in the form of the waste pop container will be higher and we will see an end to the indiscriminate dumping of this valuable material on our streets.

While you are likely not a supporter of nuclear energy the fact is that fission power plants are quite capable of meeting all of our energy needs for hundreds if not thousands of years.If the oil runs out it is technologically feasible to make methane. Not economic right now but it CAN be done. Economics is an artificial construct of the human race and when it comes to survival (which we are VERY good at) economics goes out the window and physics and engineering are what really matters. So don't fret - with 60 or so nuclear plants under construction and another 130 on the books we'll be able to supply all the energy needed for your kids.

The dooms dayers trot out the line that there is not enough U235 to fuel all these reactors.But the qualifier is always economics which becomes irrelevant when survival is at stake. U235 is very plentiful on earth. Right now it does not make economic sense to remove it from sea water where it exists at about 0.03%. But it IS possible to do it.

Many of the minerals we need exist on the moon. Sure it is not economic to get at them but the fact is they ARE there. Economics will dictate when and how we will access them.

Technology exists to operate nuclear plants on Thorium (233). Not economic right now but physics tells us that it is possible. When we move to the more plentiful Thorium will depend on the price of Uranium.

By way of a non-nuclear example consider Rhodium. It is a very rare metal - much rarer than gold. Mined in South Africa and Russia primarily. The main use is in auto catalytic converters. Up until about three years ago demand was outstripping supply and the price shot through the roof to over $10,000 an ounce. I did very well financially out of predicting that particular shortage....not very hard to do really. So when the price went up it became economic to recycle old exhaust systems which increased supply. The Rhodium did not disappear it was there all the time.

Also alternative metals such as palladium were used for some applications. So one could argue that if all the people in the world operated cars that used Rhodium in their exhaust systems there we would run out. But what is likely to happen is that gasoline will be displaced by methane which does not require catalytic conversion or electric cars will be deployed more widely. Then the Rhodium problem goes away.

As economist Paul Zane Pilzer notes - the world is not short of materials - it is only short of technology.

Suggest you rethink the doomsday philosophy and look your kids in the eye and tell them they have got a bright and wonderful future - which of course they have.

Malcolm

Peter, Don is right. Incoming infra red radiation from the Sun is at short wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum and will readily pass through the atmosphere where it is absorbed by the earth and all things on it. When the energy is re-radiated from those bodies it is emitted at longer wavelength which cannot pass through the atmosphere as easily. That is the theory of how greenhouses work - except that a greenhouse uses glass to prevent the escape of longer wavelength heat and the climate people argue that CO2 does the same thing as the glass does.

Of course the bigger question which the climate folks appear to ignore is that clouds of water vapour have a far bigger effect on temperature at the surface of the earth. IF the earth gets warmer - as they say - then there will be greater evaporation of water from the sea and other bodies of water. That will increase cloud cover and infra red radiation will be reflected back into space. The earth will cool down.

I just returned from a vacation in the Caribbean. When clouds cover the Sun the temperature drops rapidly by this process. CO2 content of the air did not change just the level of cloud cover. You will often hear the climate change cronies talk of the disappearing ice caps and the loss of the reflective capability of the ice. You never hear them talk of exactly the same reflectivity effect from clouds which are also white. The climate models I have seen do not include any of the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere - only the effects that make matters worse....which is why it is mostly garbage "science".

Any way believe what you will but beware of the "science" of those that stand to benefit from large Government grants. The truth always found in the money trails.

Malcolm

Malcolm

"Cats do not know where babies come from and will breed til limited by starvation. We know where babies come from yet we are doing the same thing." -- Actually the population doomers are just as wrong as the resource doomers which Malcolm points out. Predictions for the population of Europe for 2050 indicate a <200 million drop, using a births-per-female figure of 1.6 In fact, European births-per-female have dropped to 1.4, Russia even lower. Ditto most well-run nations worldwide except US at 2.1, which still doesn't enable population growth. IF equality for women and some economic development can happen for the rest of the world, population will not be a problem. Forecasts are stability and beginnings of a decline by 2050.

Concentrate on the wise and efficient production and use of energy. The "greenhouse gas" problem (whether real or imagined) will take care of itself.

Spending our resources on greenhouse gas trading schemes (designed to benefit the government and Wall Street) and forced use of renewable energy only saps the strength out of the economy and makes the average person's life worse.

Malcolm: I highly doubt you've observed anything which the professional scientists are unaware. And "follow the money" works both ways.

Len, over the months and years I have often dealt with the population problem here. I have often said those such as the Danes and the Italians and Germans are not the population problem. They are a small fraction of world population - the yearly increase in world population is about the same as adding a Germany every year. The population of Denmark, Sweden and Norway combined is about the population of one Mexico City.

These countries already have their electric service and nobody is starving. Obesity is a greater problem than malnutrition. Sure, we all know birth rates go down when the population gets like Europeans, But there are only one to two billion in this salubrious situation worldwide - which leaves 5 - 6 billion with very little prospect of becoming like Europeans, about zero prospect in their lifetime.

Only a thousand or so years ago there were 0.3 billion people There had never been more. Today there are more than 0.3 billion poor in India alone - so guess what country has the highest annual population growth. And it swamps the European decrease.

I should have made a distinction between what we think of as poor (who nearly all have cars, color TV, automatic hot water, freezers, etc.) and the poor of India who have no electricity and cook with gathered twigs. On our standards perhaps as many as a billion Indians would be poor.

I was a professional scientist Len - they are most definitely NOT infallible. and are quite capable of missing the obvious. And collectively missing the obvious at that. History is littered with so-called professional scientists who got it completely wrong. Many professional scientists mocked Einstein - we now know he was right and the professionals were wrong. Einstein never thought of himself that way - too modest and driven by a passion for the truth.

You give them far too much credibility. You should question everything they say and every line they write and every power point slide they produce. I read some of the links you provided previously - some of it utter nonsense wrapped in long words (a sure sign of a lack of professionalism because they are unable to explain their work any other way).

It was professional scientists who for years and years told us that stomach ulcers were caused by worry and anxiety - only to be proven completely wrong by some worthy Australian scientists who wondered why some people on antibiotics did not get them. The true scientists determined it was a bacteria in the stomach and proved their case. How many "scientific" papers were written on that I wonder.

If that was an isolated incident I too would have the blind faith you do. But I spent some years in the scientific community and it is NOT an isolated incident. You need to wake up and realize that science these days is nothing like you think it is. You need to question every data source - every measurement.

When periods of history are removed from data (the Hockey stick fiasco) to "fit" the desired outcome you should be very alarmed. And it should cause you to question everything as I do.

So Len - send me a link to show where your professional climate scientists have analysed the reflectivity of increased cloud cover.

I would also enjoy reading your calculations and analysis on thermal solar panels.

As I have said before you seem to have convinced yourself by reading pseudo-scientific papers written by questionable people with questionable motives.

You need to read more Einstein and less UN gobbledegook.

Malcolm

Don,

You make some solid points but in doing so illustrate one of the major problems the world faces today which is highly lop sided distribution of wealth. I read an staggering statistic yesterday that 2% of the worlds population owns 90% of its wealth. Also that the poorest 5% of the US population is amongst the richest 5% of people on Earth. A few have plenty while most have nothing. That is what is not sustainable.

In your post you note that in European countries obesity is a greater problem than malnutrition. It is far worse in North America - an epidemic. While many starve through poor access to food the rich gorge themselves to death. That is NOT a shortage of food. That is a distribution problem.

I believe that is going to fundamentally change and soon. It occurs because almost every commodity is priced in US dollars.(Called US dollar hegemoney) which essentially means the US obtains any commodity in the world for free. Well for rectangular pieces of green paper we call dollars.

Quite a neat system - for the US and the west. How long China will allow it to continue is anyones guess. But they are buying up commodities all around the world with US paper. Recently and quietly the Chinese doubled their gold holdings getting rid of more US paper in the process. They recently purchased a chunk of the tar sands.....with US dollars.

So my guess is the Chinese will continue to grow their economy using the world resources bought with US paper and then they will act to collapse the dollar when they have no further use for it.

It is my view that there is no shortage of any commodity or resource and there is plenty to provide all of the worlds population with a good standard of living. It is not going to be easy but it is quite doable as long as politicians are not involved.

Malcolm

Malcolm, it seems that on the really big stuff we have very little in common. What you seem to ignore is that man has never solved a big problem. Never, Perhaps WW II could be cited - except that Germans and Japanese are now about as peace-loving peoples as you could hope to find. Butter will not melt in the mouths of the millions of sons and grandchildren of those who committed unspeakable horrors. It a crime to even talk about Nazi Germany in Germany. This bothers me -that's exactly where people should be free to talk about it.

Education as an answer? Germans were perhaps the best educated people on the planet in the 1930's. Literacy among the Japanese was then near 100%. Only Iowans were more literate.

I had a neighbor who was a rare survivor of the Bataan Death March. The Japanese soldiers and their officers (showing it was policy) were beyond any reasonable belief evil people. But almost overnight General MacArthur became their new God and what they did in China, Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere just faded away. I understand this is not even in school books.

Now you are suggesting somehow the people of the world are going to agree on solving problems. We can't even solve the Palestinian problem in 60? years. What has been the progress in generations. I was in Jordan in the fifties to start a refinery in Zarca (couldn't cross into the Israel part of Jerusalem) and visited the UN Refugee Camp near Jerico. The people there had not done a day's work for over a generation and Jordan existed on US aid. Solve problems?

We (US) has not the foggiest solution as to how to cope with illegal immigrants. I'm afraid I have committed a hate crime - I should have said undocumented workers.

I don't think people have changed since Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Mao and many others. I am unaware of a scintilla of evidence.

Redistribution of wealth? Sounds like Marx. But It sounds a whole lot better if we associate it with Robin Hood. In any event it means taking from Joe to give to John. and just who decides?.

The Marshall Plan following WW II was the grandest act of charity, but nothing like the problems we face today have ever existed before. History offers no guide.

Malcolm: I read everything, not "just" IPCC reports or whatever it was you were suggesting. For a link to a study on you "cloudiness" hypothesis, try Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? - Geophysical Research Letters - 2009

Carnegie Mellon University's Peter Adams along with Jeff Pierce from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, have developed a model to test a controversial hypothesis that says changes in the sun are causing global warming.

[QUOTE]Although controversial, many observations have suggested that low-level cloud cover correlates with the cosmic ray flux. Because galactic cosmic rays have likely decreased in intensity over the last century, this hypothesis, if true, could partly explain 20th century warming, thereby upsetting the consensus view that greenhouse-gas forcing has caused most of the warming. The “ion-aerosol clear-air” hypothesis suggests that increased cosmic rays cause increases in new-particle formation, cloud condensation nuclei concentrations (CCN), and cloud cover. In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.[/QUOTE]

"In any event it means taking from Joe to give to John. and just who decides?. " Completely wrong. What is needed is systemic changes to STOP John from exploiting Joe's productivity unfairly. One excellent example of an activity to stop would be the invasion of Haiti to chuck out their new democracy and prop up the old system where 6 families own over 90% of all productive land, as exists today. Another would be attempts to assasinate a popularly elected Venezuelan president whose only real "sin" appears to be requiring that foreign "investors" should treat the local people just a tiny bit more like they are required to do the people of their home country.

There are a huge amount of sins committed worldwide by transnational interests, enough to make me hold my nose and promote socialist politics for working-class people everywhere. If you're an investor in such companies, even a small one sevaral times removed via mutual funds etc., you're part of the problem.

Don, I did not say that the US would agree to any redistribution of wealth. This is not about agreement. They will have no choice in the matter. It is going to be forced by 1 billion people in India and 1.3 billion people in China. Collectively 2.3 billion people is about 7 times the size of the US. When their rapidly growing middle classes start consuming at the rate of the current (dwindling) US middle class they will leave the US in the dust - unless US policy changes. Currently the US consumes 40% of the world GDP. Let me repeat that number - a mere 300 million consuming 40%. The Chinese and Indian middle classes will be each larger than the entire US population. You are about to see whether you agree or not or whether you like it or not a massive redistrubution of wealth from the west to the east.

Unfortunately many Americans and Canadians believe they have wealth - which on paper they do. Most rate their largest asset as their house. As you have seen trillions of dollars have been wiped of the North American wealth slate due to the realization (too late by many) that houses are an asset - they are in fact a liability. Few Americans have any hard assets and the middle class is being decimated as we speak. Exactly the reverse of what is happening in China and India and other countries in the world.

So while I agree that the human race has a limited capability to solve problems (lets neglect curing polio, smallpox, and most other infectious diseases) there is no particular agreement required. China and India will do what they need to do to wipe out their poverty irrespective of the US.

Malcolm

Thanks for the information Len. I will take a read of it. Pleased you read more widely. Not sure what the link has to do with cloud formation due to increase evaporation but still it touches on another subject of interest to me.

Well Len - I think we agree on some things here. Large oil fields have been discovered off the coast of Ghana - a desperately poor country. You would think that the discovery would lift many of those people out of the misery of being poor and at least afford them a reasonable standard of living. No. Almost none of the wealth is going to Ghanaians. They stay poor while the multinationals reap all the rewards. While Ghana is a poor country and its people relatively powerless to change that China and India are not. Their people are saying enough is enough. They are buying up assets all over the world. Tata Motors (Indian Company) now owns Jaguar Motors the once prestigious auto company in the UK. This trend is not slowing down and I think it is unstoppable now. The direct result will be the inability of the debt ridden North American Middle Class to compete with the low to no debt middle classes of India and China. Not only will they physically outnumber the US they will have vastly greater buying power and they will pay in cash not IOU's.

As I said to Don earlier....whether the US agrees or disagrees Joe US is not going to give to John China. John China is going to take what Joe US has been denying John China for years and they will not be very forgiving of Joe US in the process.

It will be a sorry state of affairs in a few years if you are a North American but it is entirely of our own making.

Malcolm

Mr. Mason,
Though I did not write this article from a scientific perspective, but from a legal policy standpoint, your comment is instructive. I will therefore explain only the basics. I hope you are not confusing ozone depleting gases with global warming. While both have negative impacts on the earth, the processes involved are different, but with the sun as a basis in both cases. In the case of global warming, the culprit gases trap the heat from the sun by absorbing it which raises the mean ambien temperature of the earth's atmosphere. In the case of ozone depleting gases, they destroy the ozone layer that protects the earth from the harmful rays of the sun which also include heat. This is why the two phenomena are covered by two different international instruments. The Montreal Protocol deals with ozone depleting substances, while the Kyoto Protocol deals with global warming and climate change. Meanwhile, scientists have confirmed that the hole in the ozone layer is shrinking, which is attributable to global action.

Sure. maybe I would have qualified my statement about man solving big problems if I had known sharp-shooters would bring up polio, small pox and more.Perhaps I should have said explicitly individual men, not mankind, quite different. I had assumed we on this site are not enemies. The distorted effect was to make me, me, a Luddite! A mere handful of people: Aristotle, Plato Galilee, Newton, have advanced human knowledge greatly. These, and a another and a tiny handful of enlightened European and (future) Americans, not teeining masses made the difference.

It seems eminently logical that IQ x population is a measure of accomplishment. If this is true all previous advances are absolutely swamped by the prowess of China and India today.

Incidently, from a number of posts I suspect some do not realize that North America includes many countries, not merely US and Canada. It extends to Columbia.

Don, Not my intention to make you appear a Luddite - if that is how I came across - my sincere apologies.I was just pointing out that we humans can do some amazing things when we want to and we have been quite successful in increasing our lifespan over the last hundred or so years (it is what is creating many of our problems right now which you have very credibly underlined in your posts).

What simply blows my mind here is that we have already solved the energy "crisis"....well Albert Einstein did that for us - but we choose collectively not to deploy the solution. Even intelligent persons posting here cannot agree that turning useless lumps of rock into energy with no emissions is not the best solution we have to get those billions a decent standard of living.

It is a bit like finding the cure for polio and then deciding not to use it because one in a billion doses causes warts.

It is irrefutable that only nuclear power has the ability to provide electricity on a scale large enough to supply not only those of us fortunate to live in the west but also those who don't have any access to it at all.

Sure it is going to be quite a task to build that number but I think Chinese and Indian industry is up to the job. But even in the US Obama has kick started the industry by announcing two new plants in Burke Georgia. Maybe the US industrial sleeping giants will get back into it and show us what they can do. Looks like they will have 45 - 50 to build soon. If they apply the Henry Ford methods of mass production and build them all the same the price will plummet.

While I tend to agree with you that a few special thinking people have changed the way the world thinks it is all the many millions of minions who take these concepts and turn them into something that works. While Einstein gave us the theories about mass to energy it took a lot of other scientists and engineers to turn the ideas into something practical. Theories don't feed people. I don't think Einstein would have a clue how to build a nuclear power plant or Galileo a space rocket.

But could we have done it without them - of course not.

All the best Don

Malc