Standing at the Crossroads of the End of Nature

     We live in a world of immense, almost unfathomable change: the changing of world economies, the hope of a political change in the United States, the changing views of racism and sexism, and perhaps the greatest change that the human civilization may witness, the change of our climate.  For many people, including myself, the latter of these changes represents a tipping point, of sorts.   No longer will I fly fish for native trout on a wild, mountainous stream without some sort of resonance from mankind's presence on this planet.  I may not see an empty bag of potato chips on the river bank, and would surely not come across a bike lock holding on the stream bottom, as seen in my backyard, urban creek, but nevertheless, I could not escape the air pollution from some distant factory nor the unusually warm temperatures of the air around me or the water at my feet.  

     The natural world, once mysterious, feared, and certainly separate from the everyday activities of humans, now faces an inseparable connection with a civilization, growing so fast and consuming so many resources, that it can change the atmospheric processes.  While the blossoms of spring will continue to bloom and the winter winds will continue to howl, this independence from man, that nature enjoyed for billions of years, now finds itself becoming extinct like the dinosaurs that roamed the planet millions of years before us.   Author Bill McKibben explores this disappearance of nature's interdependence from humans, the root of its causes, how this loss affects us, and what the future of a managed world might look like in his thought-provoking book, The End of Nature.

Back to our Roots: The Science of Biomimicry

In a society increasingly alienated from nature, in which human civilization views the natural world in terms of the resources it possesses rather than a guide to our own existence, mankind stands on the brink of a global, economic and environmental collapse. At this unprecedented crossroads in our history, the lessons learned from nature may prove to be a key to unlocking a peaceful and sustainable future. A diverse and growing group of scientists and businessman, biologists and engineers, farmers and designers, now look to the natural processes of the planet to lead them in revolutionizing their respective fields. This new and intriguing science, known as Biomimicry, requires a deep understanding and complete reverence of the plants and animals that formed productive and sustainable communities billions of years before humans stood on their own two feet. By learning from these complex systems, students of Biomimicry hope to redesign how we grow our food, how we power our lives, how we manufacture products, how we cure ourselves, and even how we conduct the financial business of the world. The following account details just a few pursuits from some of the individuals who look to nature to show them, and ultimately the world, the path to sustainability.

Over the relatively short time of human existence, mankind always faces the question of “How will I feed myself?”. Since the days of hunting and gathering, humans find more ways to harvest larger crop yields. Unfortunately, this ever-increasing harvest requires more and more land to feed the ever-growing population, resulting in the destruction of natural eco-systems by methods such as burning and clear-cutting. Simultaneously, mankind grows less and less of what previously inhabited these bio-regions and increasingly tends to arbitrarily decide what the land should grow, forcing native species out while inputting great amounts of resources to produce non-native crops. In America, the inherent problems of this system reared their heads in the form of the Dust Bowl of the thirties when, after years of uprooting the native prairie for farming, topsoil from the Midwest began showing up on the decks of ships hundreds of miles off the Atlantic coast (16). Rather than learn from their mistakes, Americans embraced the “Green Revolution”, and began farming the land with great amounts of petrochemicals. Ironically, while the use of pesticides grew 3,300% since 1945, the amount of crops lost to pests actually increased 20% during the same time period (18). An input of $1.00 in 1900 resulted in $4.00 worth of produce, while it takes $2.70 worth of input to get $4.00 of output now, due to increased costs of oil-based products (19). As we spray more and more chemicals on our food and pests develop stronger resistances to them, many people are asking, “Could there be a better way?”.

Wes Jackson and his team of colleagues at The Land Institute think a better option exists, but to get there he says, “We have to farm the way nature farms” (21). By observing the way a natural system functions, Jackson and his team find themselves redefining the tenets of modern agriculture. “Our goal at The Land Institute is to design a domestic plant community that behaves like a prairie, but that is predictable enough in terms of seed yield to be feasible for agriculture”, says Jon Piper, an ecologist and colleague of Jackson's at the institute. Through their research of native plants and their levels of productivity, Jackson and Piper hope to find a “sweet spot”, somewhere between the high-input monoculture of the Kansas wheat field and the low-input polyculture of the native prairie. To Jackson and many other agronomists, polyculture plots represent the future of agriculture. While their monoculture counterparts fall prey to pests and disease much easier, polyculture models resist these marauders through the sheer diversity of their inhabitants. While observing the prairie in its natural state, Jackson also quickly realized the additional benefits offered by perennial species, as opposed to the annual varieties planted by most farmers. For Jackson and his colleagues, a marriage between high-yielding perennials and the benefits of polyculture represents the “Holy Grail” of agriculture, a new way of farming that emulates nature, respects the “sense of place” of a region, and offers promise to feed the planet.

In addition to feeding the people of the world, biomimics imitate nature to find out better ways to power our planet. While engineers develop new ways to harness the energy of the sun, blue-green algae and photosynthetic bacteria, such as purple bacterium, continue to harvest solar rays at an amazing efficiency of 95%, many times greater than our best solar panels (59). By studying the photosynthetic processes of organisms like the purple bacterium, scientists like Tom and Ana Moore and their colleague Devens Gust hope to recreate the reactions that these micro-organisms so easily perform. The applications of their research could make the modern solar panel look rather outdated and pave the way towards a clean-energy future. Understanding how photosynthesis works could lead to a way of storing energy from the sun as a combustible fuel, such as hydrogen, from a chemical reaction similar to the one found in green plants. Since photosynthesis efficiently produces huge amounts of energy each year, in the form of 300 billion tons of sugar, a knowledge of the sun-harvesting properties in plants could revolutionize the ways in which we power our lives (69).

Perhaps no other facet of society uses as much of this energy as our industrial processes. Additionally, industry accounts for much of the pollution world-wide and in America. The production of paper, plastic, chemicals, and metals alone produce 71% of the toxic emissions in the United States (95). In America especially, the adoption of a cradle-to-grave approach towards manufactured goods requires a continuous flow of resources to make products that end up in a landfill almost immediately. Nature, on the other hand, uses only the energy and resources it needs and constantly recycles its wastes back into a closed-loop system, all the while producing materials far superior to those made by humans. Abalones in the San Juan Islands off the coast of Washington create shells incredibly stronger than our toughest ceramics, while mussels in the Atlantic ocean manufacture an underwater glue that the adhesive industry would love to patent. Meanwhile, the golden orb weaver spider makes a silk five times lighter than steel, yet five times as strong (132). By mimicking these natural systems and the materials they produce, humans may be able to create lightweight and incredibly strong building materials without the use of harsh chemicals and incredible amounts of pollution.

Observing and imitating nature can also lead to great advances in the field of medicine. In fact, a time existed when all of our new drugs came from plants and animals, resulting in 40% of our prescription medicines (172). Recently, scientists such as Kenneth Glander at Duke University became interested in the behavior of our ancestors, the primates, to help discover the various medicinal properties of plants. By noting the plants that a healthy lemur monkey avoids and observing which succulents they seek out in times of sickness, scientists like Glander figure out what flora might offer clues to cures for intestinal diseases such as giardia. Stifled by the high costs of chemical synthesis, large pharmaceutical companies increasingly look to nature for the next “wonder drug”. A 1992 report by the Office of Technology Assessment listed over 200 companies world-wide looking into plants as sources of pharmaceuticals or pesticides (174). For the pharmaceutical chemist seeking the knowledge stored in our ancient plants or the college professor looking to animals for their next clue in the hunt for a cure, endless possibilities exist, for now. At current rates of extinction, upwards of 25% of animal and plant species may disappear by the middle of this century.

The idea that business must harm nature to reach the highest, possible profit margin also finds itself disappearing, in part because of the work of biomimics. By structuring their companies like nature's eco-systems, CEOs around the world find that productivity increases while the impact on the environment lessens. Our current trends in business and industry cannot continue to prosper by maintaining and promoting such an extractive economy, the depleting resources and oil reserves simply won't allow it. Leaders in the business world know this and began consulting with biomimics to learn about “industrial ecology”, which author Janine Benyus calls “biomimicry's most oxymoronic term” (239). The biggest concern of business executives stems from how to make a shift to what writer Paul Hawken calls, the “ecology of commerce” (239). “The Industrial Revolution as we know it is not sustainable. But how do we land softly?”, questions Braden Allenby, the research vice-president for the Technology and Environment Department of the world's fifth largest company, AT&T (238). For biomimics and an increasing number of multi-national corporations, the answer lies within nature. While both natural and economic systems bring in materials and energy to manufacture products, business and industry models generally fail to recycle wastes and return nutrients back to the earth.

In Kalundborg, Denmark, however, one of the first examples of this no-waste economy offers a glimpse into the future of industrial ecology. By using the wastes created by neighboring companies, four separate businesses now coexist in a symbiotic relationship that increases profits through energy savings and helps the environment through reduced emissions. Waste steam from the Asnaesverket Power Company helps power the neighboring Statoil Refinery and Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical plant, while a pipeline delivers the remaining steam to about 3,500 homes for heat (255). Waste from Novo Nordisk, in the form a nitrogen-rich slurry, fertilizes the plants of local farmers and in return, Novo receives some of the harvest to feed bacteria-filled tanks used in their manufacturing process. Waste gas from the refinery now gets purified into usable fuel and sent back to the power company, as well as Gyproc, a wallboard manufacturer next door. This “ecopark” represents just the tip of the iceberg in the shift towards a more sustainable, ecological commerce.

Nature clearly possesses the answers to many of mankind's most pressing questions. Some of the ideas germinating within the fields of biomimicry may come to fruition in time to give us a chance at planting a sustainable future. Ultimately, humans need to humble themselves in order to harvest the knowledge that the natural world has to offer and co-exist with our planet and its processes. In any case, our civilization will reap the effects from the seeds that it sows.

What will you plant?

Bibliography

Benyus, Janine. Biomimicry. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1997.

Warning of the Warming: A Global Response or Business as Usual

A policy of inaction seems to be the reaction by the U.S. government since the warnings of global warming first started resounding in the late 1970's. Despite a long history of climatology and mounting scientific evidence of rising temperatures and levels of CO₂, the interests of corporations influenced the White House instead of the American people. As our glaciers melt and the hottest years on record occur, U.S. auto manufacturers continue to produce cars with lower MPG requirements than 30 years ago! Other growing, industrialized nations such as China and India look at this lack of action and see no reason to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, U.S. municipalities and states continue to show that change is possible, as well as economically beneficial. Ultimately, the U.S. must find the political and moral resolve to lead the world in solving the climate crisis.

The warning that global warming could raise the average temperature of the earth and possibly pose a serious threat to human existence first surfaced in the 1970's, but the science behind the warning dates back much further. In the late 1850's, a British scientist named John Tyndall decided to study the absorptive properties of different atmospheric gases (Kolbert, 36). To do this, he built a device called a ratio spectrophotometer, the first of its kind, which allowed him to compare the ways that various gases transmitted and absorbed heat. Essentially, Tyndall's findings showed that some gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, water vapor, and carbon dioxide, absorbed infrared radiation and then re-emitted the heat energy, while other gases, like oxygen and nitrogen did not. The discovery made by Tyndall became known as the “natural greenhouse effect”. When Tyndall died in 1893, a Swedish chemist named Svante Arrhenius picked up where he left off and climatology found its next student.

Although many before him contributed to the study of climate science, Svante Arrhenius decided to actually calculate how the earth's temperatures relate to the levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere (Kolbert, 40). In December of 1895, Arrhenius presented his findings to the Swedish Academy. He concluded that if the CO₂ levels on earth doubled, average temperatures would rise between nine and eleven degrees, a result quite comparative to the estimates of today's most modern computer models (Kolbert,41). Arrhenius also noticed a relationship between industry and climate change, inferring that the use of fossil fuels must, over time, lead to a warming of the planet. However, Arrhenius pictured this buildup of CO₂ occurring slowly, possibly as much as 3,000 years to double, since he believed the earth's oceans would act as a giant sponge and soak up extra CO₂ (Kolbert, 41). Arrhenius died in 1927, and with him, an interest in the study of climate change. Almost thirty years later, a college professor named Roger Revelle and a chemist named Charles David Keeling decided to figure out a way to more precisely measure atmospheric CO₂, little did they know that their findings would change the landscape of climatology forever.

In the 1950's, Revelle formed a hypothesis that the growth of population, fueled by coal and oil, might increase levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, possibly to dangerous levels (Gore, 38). To test his theory, Revelle decided to sample atmospheric concentrations of CO₂. In 1957, he put together funding to hire a researcher and soon found Keeling. In 1958, Keeling convinced the U.S. Weather Bureau to allow them to take their measurements at its new observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Kolbert, 42). The spot in the middle of the Pacific Ocean seemed ideal because of its great distance from any industrial pollution and the two set about launching weather balloons and recording the results of their measurements. In 1959, after the first full year of recording CO₂ levels, Keeling discovered an average of 316 parts per million (ppm) in the earth's atmosphere (Kolbert, 43). The following year found the figure up to 317 ppm, leading Keeling to believe Arrhenius' theory on the absorptive power of the oceans might be incorrect, or at least much less. By 1970, the figure reached 325 ppm, and by 2005, the CO₂ level reached 378 ppm, continuing an alarming, upward trend of CO₂ levels, now known as the “Keeling Curve” (Kolbert, 44).

The work of Arrhenius, Tyndall, Revelle, and Keeling, showed the earth's average temperature might be rising, since increasing carbon dioxide levels meant more heat being held in the atmosphere. However, little evidence existed in terms of the earth's recent and not so recent temperatures, from which the new findings could be compared to, hence showing how dire or negligible the rising CO₂ levels might really be. Scientists found their answer in the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers of the world. These structures contain tiny bubbles of air which become trapped in the snow that falls each year. Much like the rings on a tree, each year's snowfall shows up as a compressed layer. More important to scientists though, the captured air bubbles contain the data needed to measure both the CO₂ levels from years past, as well as the temperature from that same year. Scientists extract long cylinders of ice by drilling deep into these structures with core drills. Then they simply count backwards, observing and testing each ring and recording their results. Ice cores drilled in the Greenland Ice Sheets provide accurate data to about 100,000 years ago while samples taken from Antarctica go back as far as 650,000 years ago. In this manner, scientists calculated that pre-industrial concentration of CO₂ measured around 280 ppm meaning in about 150 years the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere rose by 100 ppm (Gore, 37). Additionally and even more alarming, scientists found that the CO₂ levels never broke the 300 ppm barrier at any point in the last 650,000 years (Gore, 66). Given Tyndall's findings on the heat-absorbing qualities of carbon dioxide, it seemed logical that a natural correlation between the rising CO₂ levels and rising temperatures might exist.

A study completed in 1998 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the peer-reviewed journal, Geophysical Research Letters, confirmed temperatures on earth to be rising, and fast (Gelbspan, 28). The group basically recreated the history of global climate over the last 1,000 years through observing and recording measurements of ice cores, tree rings, and various sediment deposits (Gelbspan, 28). Their findings became known as the “hockey stick” graph and show that since the year 1000 A.D., the earth's average temperature actually cooled until about 150 years ago, at the start of the Industrial Age (Gelbspan, 28)). Since then, temperatures rose at a rate unseen in the last 10,000 years, with the 1990's being the hottest decade in the 1,000 year period, and 1998 being the hottest year in the millennium (Gelbspan, 28). Other researchers, such as Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his team of scientists, found similar results from ice cores drilled in other parts of the world (Gore, 63). In fact, since temperature measurements first started being recorded, 20 of the 21 hottest years occurred from 1980 to 2005 (Gore, 72).

Despite the rising CO₂ levels, mounting scientific evidence on the existence of global warming, and record-high temperatures, U.S. policy on climate change remains largely unchanged since President Jimmy Carter appointed a panel to investigate the issue in 1979. Although President George H.W. Bush signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and later passed it through Congress with unanimous consent, the language of the treaty only calls for industrialized nations, like the U.S and Japan, to “aim” to return their CO₂ emission levels to 1990 levels (Kolbert, 152). On Earth Day 1993, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saying, “Unless we act now, we face a future in which the sun may scorch us, not warm us” (Kolbert, 152). Meanwhile, the U.S. and most other countries' emissions continued to rise and more discussions on climate change occurred in Berlin in 1995, Geneva in 1996, and in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. Although the agreement resulting from the discussions in Kyoto, known as the Kyoto Protocol, only adds to the ideas of the U.N. Framework convention, it replaces the vagaries like “aim” with mandatory commitments towards reducing emissions. For example, the Protocol calls for the U.S. to reduce emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2012 (Kolbert, 153). From the onset of the Kyoto negotiations, the U.S. Senate expressed strong, bilateral dissent towards the new language, as shown in a 95-0 vote for a resolution stating the U.S. should reject any legislation mandating reduced emissions, unless other developing countries faced the same restrictions (Kolbert, 154). The vote reflected the Senate's economic concerns of competing with countries without emission restrictions, but also showed the influence of lobbying by the auto and oil industry. A group called the Global Climate Coalition received funding from the likes of Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Exxon, Shell, Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco and spent an estimated $13 million on an anti-Kyoto Protocol ad campaign (Kolbert, 154). The Clinton administration continued to support the Kyoto Protocol in theory, sending the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. to sign the treaty in November of 1998, but not in practice, as U.S. CO₂ emissions rose 15% from 1990 to 2001,when Clinton left the presidential office (Kolbert, 157).

America seemed poised to finally tackle the issue of climate change and lead the world in finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when Clinton's vice-president, Al Gore, announced his intention to run for the presidency. Perhaps no other politician in America, and possibly the world, gets associated with global warming more than Gore. However, climate change failed to be a major issue in the 2000 election, in part because Gore's opponent, George W. Bush, also claimed interest in climate change, and went so far as to promise federal regulations limiting CO₂ emissions. After a dubious and highly disputed election, America ushered in Bush as the new U.S. President, as well as a new era of inaction in regards to global warming. Shortly after his inauguration, Bush repealed his promise of regulating emissions, saying he “changed his mind”, and also announced a complete withdrawal from the ongoing Kyoto negotiations (Kolbert, 158). In response to criticism over these and other, successive decisions regarding climate change policy, the Bush administration usually attacks the scientific uncertainties of global warming, while ignoring the broad consensus among scientists and the public that climate change represents a clear and present danger. In a study of more than 900, peer-reviewed articles on climate change conducted by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science at UC-San Diego, not a single article disputed that anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming presently exists (Kolbert, 162).

During a speech in 2002, announcing a “new approach” to global warming, the president said, “When we make decisions, we want to make sure we do so on sound science” (Kolbert, 163). Ironically and only months later, Bush dismissed a 266 page report from the Environmental Protection Agency that concluded a rise in U.S. temperature of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (from greenhouse gas emissions) is likely in the 21st century, and called the years of work by the federal researchers as something “put out by the bureaucracy” (Kolbert, 164). In another EPA report on the state of the environment in 2003, the Bush administration insisted on inserting excerpts from a study partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute into the global warming chapter, changing the section so much that an internal memo within the EPA complained it “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus” (Kolbert, 164). The alterations by the White House on the report included editing out any and all references to the dangerous impacts of climate change to the U.S. In total, only one paragraph on global warming made it into the 600 page report, while at least four others were deleted by the White House (Gelbspan, 42). In June of 2005, the New York Times announced that Philip Cooney, an official in the Bush administration, repeatedly edited government reports on climate change to make the findings less alarming. Cooney resigned shortly thereafter and conveniently took a job with Exxon-Mobil (Kolbert, 165).

The “new approach” to global warming offered by Bush in 2002 centered on a voluntary effort by industries to reduce their “greenhouse gas intensity” 18% by 2012 (Kolbert, 159). Rather than a measurable quantity, greenhouse gas intensity relates emissions to economic output and comes in the form of a ratio. This misleading method of monitoring emissions allows industries to continue releasing increased levels of greenhouse gases, as long as the dollar value on the output of their goods or services increases by a higher percentage than the percent of their emissions output. In fact, groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association, among others, helped to draft the plan (Gelbspan, 103). Given the voluntary nature of the program, involvement by companies focused on the bottom line seems doubtful. The use of greenhouse gas intensity, as a method of reducing greenhouse gases, results in the continued rise of emissions, even with 100% commitment by all American industries. Furthermore, prior to Bush's new plan, projections of the intensity of carbon, based on economic output, estimated a drop of 14% by the year 2012 anyways, due to expected increases in energy efficiency (Gelbspan, 39). A report by the U.S. General Accounting Office summed up the ineffectiveness of Bush's proposed “greenhouse gas intensity” program, saying, “It is therefore unclear to what extent the plan will contribute to the goal of reducing emissions and thus lowering emissions intensity by 2012.” (Gelbspan, 39)

By denying the existence of global warming and backing out of the Kyoto negotiations, the Bush Administration effectively isolated the U.S. from the rest of the world, and angered leaders from countries already awash in anti-American sentiment. There exists virtually no debate in any other country in the world, with the possible exception of Russia, on whether or not global warming represents a serious moral and economic issue (Gelbspan, 11, 102). While the U.S. remains stagnant on the issue of climate change, virtually every other government on the planet pursues strategies to shift to a renewable energy future while maintaining economic growth. The United Kingdom's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, pledged to reduce the countries carbon emissions by 60% in fifty years. Similarly, Germany committed to cuts of 50% and Holland recently completed a plan to cut its emissions by 80% in forty years. Even with its economy growing by 36% from 1995 to 2000, the Chinese cut their emissions by 19% during this tremendous period of growth (Gelbspan, 38).

Despite the increasing evidence of global warming and an overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community and the rest of the world of the existence of climate change, the American public seemed rather unconcerned about the issue in the late nineties and early parts of 2000. In fact, the oil and coal industries launched an extremely effective campaign of misinformation and deceit in the early 90's that persuaded the public, the nation's policy-makers, and even the press to believe the science behind global warming possessed many uncertainties. Subsequent efforts of the campaign involved misrepresenting the economic figures of a transition to a clean-energy future, and more recently, influenced the disintegration of the global talks on climate change. A poll in 1991 administered by Newsweek magazine showed that 35% of people surveyed viewed global warming as a very serious problem. In striking contrast, a poll by Newsweek in 1996 asking the same question found only 22% of those surveyed felt the same way about global warming, despite increasing scientific evidence and a warning from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declaring a link between humans and rising temperatures (Gelbspan, 53).

While the current Bush administration dismissed extensive, scientific studies and even changed the language in some reports to frame climate change as a less alarming issue, municipal and state governments took the reports on global warming much more seriously. In February 2005, the mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, began circulating a draft of emission-reducing principles meeting or exceeding the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. Within four months, over a hundred and seventy mayors including Manuel Diaz of Miami, John Hickenhooper of Denver, and Michael Bloomberg of New York, signed on to the agreement known as the “U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement”, representing some thirty-six million American voices (Kolbert, 175). The strong support of the document showed the interest to respond to the issue of climate change by citizens and local policy-makers alike, despite the lack on any federal support or involvement. Around the same time, several northeastern states including Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont reached an agreement to keep power plant emissions at their current levels and then work together to begin reducing them. In response to the uncertainty of global warming, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger exclaimed, “I say the debate is over”, before signing an order calling for California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Kolbert, 175).

On a more local level, cities and towns across America echoed the sentiments of the U.S. mayors and began doing their part to reduce emissions. Voters in Burlington, Vermont decided to use less power rather than authorize the local utility company to buy more (Kolbert, 171). While electricity usage in the state on Vermont increased by nearly 15%, Burlington's usage declined during the same time period, mostly through voluntary action (Kolbert, 175). The local electric utility might be the only such power company in the country that includes mountain bikes in their fleet of vehicles. Even the local McDonald's restaurants feature tray liners depicting a climate-conscious dinosaur called, aptly enough, Climo Dino. “While our climate was changed by a giant asteroid, you humans are changing your own climate by emitting six billion tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere each year”, exclaims Climo Dino. According to Burlington's Mayor, Peter Clavelle, “You can either bemoan federal policies or you can take control of your own destiny” (Kolbert, 172).

Despite the conservation efforts and adoption of energy-efficient technology by cities and states in the U.S., the global issue of climate change requires discussing the future energy paths of some potentially bigger players, most notably China. By the year 2020, most projections show the economy of the world's most populated country to double from its current level. A more alarming aspect stems from how China plans to fuel this projected growth: coal, by far the most polluting source of energy on the planet. China's future energy plans call for the construction of 150 new, 1,000 megawatt coal plants by 2010, and an additional 168 new plants expected by 2020 (Kolbert, 177). Although current technology provides options of coal gasification and carbon sequestration, both providing substantially lower emissions, the plants currently built in China lean towards more conventional models, which pollute heavily. According to David Hawkins, the Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate program, China's current industrialization follows models from the U.S., but from forty to fifty years ago. On a positive note he says, “China is in the takeoff stage, so there's an opportunity to build things there using modern technology rather than to build them using pickup technology” (Kolbert, 178).

Unfortunately, China's rapid growth often gives pessimists and climate change skeptics some justification for inaction in America. A real possibility exists that no matter what changes are made in America, the energy demands of China's large and rapidly growing population may negate any reductions in emissions made in the U.S. In response to this, Hawkins postures that China historically follows the U.S. lead, pointing to pollution controls adopted in the states, such as those for automobile industry and power plants, now used by the Chinese. By showcasing emission control technologies in the U.S., the demand increases and the price goes down, ultimately showing other countries the possibility of such changes, as well as the benefits. Hawkins elaborates on this issue saying, “If we can get policies adopted that prevent the U.S. from building new coal plants that don't capture their emissions, and create incentives for the Chinese to build new coal plants that will capture their emissions, then it doesn't matter if there is an international treaty or not...we've bought time.” (Kolbert, 180) By bringing China's factories up to date and encouraging just a modest amount of investment in renewable energy, estimates for the amount of new coal-fired plants drops by a third (Kolbert, 179). As the number one contributor to greenhouse gases worldwide, it seems the U.S. should take the lead in dealing with the climate crisis, “And that's the challenge for us: to do things that convince the Chinese that that's (using modern technology) the better strategy for them,” Hawkins concludes (Kolbert, 178).

The issue of climate change often overwhelms people since its scope is so vast and no one, single solution exists to solve the problem. Other issues such as national security and the economy often take precedent over global warming, but the rising temperatures of the earth pose the greatest threat of all to human civilization. However, within the actions needed to reduce the effects of global warming, lie solutions to many other domestic and global issues. In the case of protecting our country against terrorism, a shift to renewable energy would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and eliminate the connection between the U.S. and politically unstable countries in the Middle East (Gelbspan, 176). Since poorer, developing countries feel the effects of global warming sooner and with greater force, reducing our emissions would show an interest in resolution and avoid potential conflicts from countries angered by U.S. indifference to the problem. In terms of the U.S. and global economies, a shift to renewable energy would provide millions of jobs and stimulate markets on a level never seen before. Although solutions abound to the problem of climate change, a unified plan must take shape and reach a global scope. One such plan involves three interacting strategies, as shown in Ross Gelbspan's book, Boiling Point. Under this plan, the first step involves a shift of energy subsidies in industrialized countries from oil and coal to renewable energies, such as wind and solar. The second step would create a large fund to facilitate the transfer of renewable energy technology to developing countries. The third step, which brings unity to the whole plan, calls for countries to reduce their emissions by 5% a year until attaining a global reduction of 70% (Gelbspan, 191). A program of this magnitude would require the cooperation of every country on the planet, but the positive communication involved in such a plan could lead to great improvements in social and economic justice, as well as improving the standards of life across the globe.

Despite its lack of action on the subject of climate change, the U.S. can still lead the way on finding solutions to global warming. In an era of anti-American sentiment and growing frustration with the current Bush administration, the U.S. could regain its position of world-wide leadership by coordinating a global effort to curb emissions and transition to a renewable energy future. Simultaneously, the U.S. could improve national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improve the economy by creating jobs from a switch to clean power.

There really exist only two paths to travel when considering the imminent dangers of global warming. One involves a rapidly disintegrating environment, in which rising sea levels and increasingly powerful storms wreak havoc on the planet and political chaos results in unimaginable world wars. The other involves a path of immediate action, in which leaders from around the world unite their people in finding solutions to the issue of climate change. A cooperative effort of this scale, although never seen in the modern age, could bring about an age of peace and prosperity never before imagined. Which path will you choose?

Bibliography

1.Gelbspan, Ross. Boiling Point. New York: Basic Books, 2004.

2.Gore, Albert. An Inconvenient Truth. New York: Rodale, 2006.

3.Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes from a Catastrophe. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006.

The Problem of Climate Change: Uniting to Find Solutions

In a rapidly changing planet where global warming represents the biggest challenge ever faced by the civilization of mankind, humans across the globe must unite to find solutions by using their creativity and ingenuity. As the leader of the free world, and the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States inherits a great responsibility to lead the way in finding resolutions to the climate crisis. Unfortunately, the last three decades offered little in the way of U.S. government action on the subject. The interests of big oil and coal took precedent over the increasing scientific evidence and growing, world-wide consensus of the existence and dangers of global warming. Conversely, local and state governments took the lead on working to find solutions to climate change by investing in their communities and renewable energy. During the same time, developing countries around the world showed the possibility of a transition to clean power sources and that by empowering their people, economies can prosper without sacrificing the environment in which they live. Meanwhile, design professionals from all over the world continue to show brilliance in the creation of sustainable spaces in which to work and live. The following work details some of the projects and ideas helping to make the world a more sustainable place.
People often call energy the “Achilles Heel” of America and the pursuit of clean and renewable forms of energy becomes more important everyday. The midwestern United States possesses the potential to supply 150% of the power demands in America through wind energy, a fact not taken lightly by small-town governments across the area (2). The farming-based midwest suffered economically in recent decades as corporate farms bought out local farmers and big cities lured away the younger generations, but the communities of the region found a new cash crop: harvesting the wind. As state governments offered tax incentives, citizens organized groups of people to support locally- owned, wind farms. The concept took off so fast that major wind turbine companies opened factories in the region, further stimulating the economy. The program exemplifies a trifecta of environmental protection, economic development, and clean, low-cost, long-term energy. Communities across the country should use this success story in developing their own energy and economic plans.
Other communities recognize the importance of energy in improving their standards of life. In developing countries, though, this energy often comes from sources that compromise the environments in which its users live. For the people of Bangladesh, what started as a simple idea from one man became a thriving “economic tree”, from which many offshoots and branches provide renewable energy and improved living standards. Dr. Mahammud Yunus felt the potential of his countrymen could grow exponentially if they only possessed the means by which to empower themselves. Yunus applied the concept of micro-lending, in which smaller amounts of money are loaned to start businesses and then paid back over time at very low interest rates, and opened a lending institution called the Grameen Bank (2). The success of the venture exceeded anything Yunus ever imagined, empowering citizens, stimulating businesses, and eventually bringing him a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. The work of Dr. Yunus shows that investing in people offers an infinite return on the original loan.
In addition to pollution and emissions from energy sources, buildings and automobiles also contribute huge amounts of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. In America, buildings consume 40% of our energy, release 50% of our emissions, and take up about 25% of our landfill space from their construction and consequent waste (1). The need for energy-efficient and sustainably designed buildings becomes more important everyday. Architects like Ken Yeang and Werner Sobek respond to this demand and show that building greener allows for healthier environments, as well as monetary savings. Through his work with lightweight and recyclable building materials, Sobek proves the possibility of human progress without damage to the natural environment. By spending more time on the design phase of a project, Yeang's buildings save up to 80% on energy costs through intelligent design ideas, such as elevators that only run when they sense a person approaching (1). The interconnected relationship between man and nature provides the foundation from which Yeang's work builds upon. Another designer pushing the limits of how we create things, William McDonough, also focuses on integration with the natural world. His co-authored book, Cradle to Cradle, revolutionized the way industries make their products. Rather than viewing the manufacturing process with the current “cradle to grave” mentality, in which resources become products and end up in the landfill, McDonough prefers a closed cycle, in which products either assimilate safely back into the earth or find new life within the industrial loop. He constantly asks himself and others, “How do we love the children of all species for all time?”(1).
The automobile industry would do themselves a favor by asking McDonough's question. After a century of technological advancements and great scientific discoveries in many fields, the average car in America gets less miles per gallon than Henry Ford's Model T in 1908 (2). In fact, more electric vehicles than their gas-powered counterparts roamed the roads of the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century(2). While practically every other industry moved progressively forward in the 1900's, the automobile manufacturers seemed to take a step back. Although most of this stagnation results from the lobbying power of the oil and auto industries, the American public shows little interest in demanding more efficient cars. The rising cost of petroleum stimulates demand for possible alternatives to today's gas-guzzling SUV's. The technology for electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles already exists, but the incentive for automakers to build them does not. American voters must pressure their government officials to pursue more efficient cars that release much less, if any, carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We must also take steps to reduce our carbon footprints by driving less and changing our patterns of such extreme consumption. A grim, polluted future awaits us if we fail to make such changes.
Of course, the real problem may not be the cars themselves, but rather the oil they run on. The country of Brazil realized, after the oil and energy crisis of the 1970's, that using oil to fuel their cars and economy provided some obvious drawbacks. The first deals with depleting reserves and rising prices of oil worldwide, while the second stems from the political instability of many oil-producing countries. Brazil made a connection with a resource already growing in many parts of the country: the sugarcane plant. In a process similar to making beer or wine, Brazilians began fermenting huge amounts of sugarcane to produce ethanol, a bio-fuel. Meanwhile, the Brazilian government worked with automakers to design and build engines to run on ethanol instead of gas. The result of these efforts provides one of the greatest stories of sustainability in modern times, and one that could benefit the U.S. tremendously. You would be hard-pressed to try to buy gasoline in Brazil; the entire country runs off either ethanol or a gasoline-ethanol mix (2). More importantly, Brazil grows their own fuel and relies on zero oil imports from unstable countries.
The current climate crisis poses many challenges but also offers the chance for resolution and cooperation on a global level. While other countries invested in the research and development of alternative energies during the last decade, the current administration in Washington, D.C. chose to sit back and continue to subsidize the oil industry. In response to the lack of federal support, states, businesses, and individuals in America seized the opportunity to show that eco-friendly choices offer economic rewards. On a global level, the embrace of new technology and a focus on empowering the people within communities provides hope for the future. In the U.S. and abroad, small-scale projects continue to show promise for large-scale applications. Great minds from all over the world continue to push the limits of design and prove that our greatest, renewable resource may be our ingenuity.
Bibliography: 1.Design e²: The Economies of Being Environmentally Conscious. Dir. Tad Fettig. DVD. PBS Home Video, 2006.
2.E₂ Energy: The Economies of Being Environmentally Conscious. Dir. Tad Fettig. Narr. Morgan Freeman. DVD. PBS Home Video, 2007.

Coming Down the Mountain: the Fall of Peak Oil

In Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack's film, A Crude Awakening: the Oil Crash, the producer and director team presents the harsh reality of the looming peak oil crisis. The film explores the economic fallout and political conflict that may result from this ominous event. Through extensive research and interviews with some of the world's leading energy analysts, a dark vision of the future takes shape. Suggesting a different path, the film alludes to a humbler and more sustainable way of life. “The world has exceeded sustainable, peak supply” of oil according to Matt Simmons, an energy advisor to the Bush administration (1). An argument exists that modern technology and ingenuity offer hope in finding new oil fields. However, the high-tech equipment used today projects miniscule changes in the earth's crusts and thermal sensors allow humans to peer deep below the surface of the planet. Such cutting-edge technology failed to produce any significant sources of oil in almost 40 years, when the North Sea produced the last “great discovery” in 1969 (1). Oil geologist Colin Cambell, who consults to Exxon, Fina, Mobil, and Shell, says, “to imagine that there is anywhere missed as big as the North Sea, is just implausible” (1). He goes on to say that at least 58 countries world-wide now produce less oil than in the past and that the “world has now been sufficiently explored” for the oil industry to know “that all of the promising areas have been identified” (1). When U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, the ensuing energy crisis shattered the economy. To imagine a similar event on a global level brings shivers to the spine, contemplating even the best-case scenario. Oil fuels the global economy much like it fuels our cars. Without it, America and the rest of the world face impossible challenges and many unforeseen obstacles. Our only hope relies on immediate action and a focus on a real, renewable resource, our creativity. Perhaps an alternative energy source can replace our depleting reserves of oil. Hydrogen receives a lot of attention as the future of energy, but the infrastructure required for such a shift is years away, perhaps to late. Biomass and its related fuels present another option, yet these energy sources often demand more petroleum input than the net energy they produce. The possibility of nuclear power alarms many due to its safety risks. Additionally, it would take upwards of “10,000 of the largest, possible plants” to power the world (1). The intermittent nature of wind power precludes this technology from making a big difference in the global energy picture. Our best option, aside from drastic changes in every aspect of our lives, comes from the sun. Each day on earth offers 20,000 times as much energy from sunlight than we currently use in fossil fuels (1). The challenge of solar power lies in the costs of producing the panels, but its improving technology and rising demand lowers these costs everyday. The dilemma of peak oil requires an open mind in addition to extensive volumes of research and development for alternative energy. The subject of peak oil also arouses an interesting question: “What can the earth support without the energy we depend on from petroleum?”. The answer is as debatable as the alternatives mentioned to replace the huge amount of cheap energy oil offers today. What we really need to ask ourselves is, “Do we want to find out?”. Bibliography 1. A Crude Awakening: the Oil Crash. Prod./ Dir. Basil Gelpke, Ray McCormack. DVD. Lava Productions. 2006.

Solar Power: the Answer to America's Energy Future?

Global warming, national security, rolling blackouts, and depleting reserves of fossil fuels stimulate interest in solar power as a new energy source for America and the rest of the world. Improved technology, lower costs, and government rebates for solar panels all add appeal to this energy alternative every day. Unfortunately, solar power possesses some of the faults of current energy technologies. The possibility of solar energy providing all of the world's power needs includes its own set of drawbacks. However, several countries lead the revolution in solar technology and model to the rest of the world the tremendous potential of solar power. In addition, American businesses offer hope that the United States remains a key player in the quest for energy independence.
America's lack of interest in solar power stems mostly from the sheer cost of the technology, as well as the upfront investment for installation. Cheap production costs and government subsidies of energy from coal and oil keep the competing alternatives at bay, for now. Another obvious problem with solar power results from its dependability, or lack there of! We all know that clouds roll through even the sunniest of locales, decreasing the efficiency of solar panels. Speaking of efficiency, typical solar panels offer an efficiency of 12%, with higher-end models peaking at 20% (1). Estimates vary on the large amounts of raw land needed for solar arrays to provide the earth's power needs. Additionally, the extraction of the raw materials to make the panels for such an installation could disrupt the world economy and devastate an environment already on the brink. At a conservative estimate of 8% efficiency for the panels, the conductor wire alone for an installation to power the earth would require 91 million metric tons of copper (2). World copper production in 2006 offered up 15 million metric tons, which still fell behind demand worldwide (3). Obviously, the technology of solar panels requires more improvement before a large-scale transition to solar power would make sense. However, the recent advancements in panel design and the continuously dropping prices of photovoltaics make the possibility of our planet running on clean, solar energy more of a reality everyday.
Already in 2008, two international companies announced new designs in solar harvesting that more than double previous, average efficiencies. The Australian energy company, Green and Gold Energy, launched a world-wide campaign in February for their SunCube model, which operates at greater than 35% efficiency (4). In America, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that Spectrolab, a subsidiary of Boeing, recently achieved the highest efficiency ever for a solar cell at 40.7% (5)! This type of efficiency allows for installations costing around $3 a watt, offers electricity at 8-10 cents per kilowatt hour, and makes solar energy quite competitive with fossil fuels (5). (Substituting the figure of 40% efficiency for the 8% used above, reduces the amount of copper needed for an installation to power the earth to 18.2 million metric tons.) The increased demand for solar power also helps bring the overall cost of panels and installations down. Sales of photovoltaics increased by 600% from 2000 to 2007 (6). Both federal and state rebates in America allow homeowners to invest in solar power and reduce their carbon footprint. Germany is even offering cash incentives to go solar and become less dependent on oil and gas (6)! All of this momentum makes solar more practical on a larger scale.
It is apparent that interest in solar energy is rising. There is enough solar energy hitting the earth in one minute to power the planet for a year(7). The vision of a solar-powered planet gains clarity everyday through rapid improvement in solar technology and the sales of increasingly cost-competitive, solar cells. As these developments continue, we must pressure governments into pursuing clean power, and not only solar. The U.S. government continues to subsidize petroleum-based energy and allows these companies to pollute the earth and destroy our land. The system needs change and the public has the power to make it happen. Although recent elections show differently, our votes do count, and voting with where you spend your dollars always gets tallied. We live in a day and age that requires sacrifice, at least a little, on the part of everyone on the planet. The generations to come, our children and our grandchildren, will remember us as the ones that either saved the planet or gave them a world they might rather not embrace. What's your choice?
Bibliography 1. Wikipedia. “Photovoltaic array.” Feb. 25, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_array. 2. “Solar Power.” Feb. 24, 2008. http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=301#comment-787. 3. “Copper, gold, and silver markets.” Feb. 24. 2008. http://www.dailyfutures.com/metals/. 4. “About Green and Gold Energy.” Feb. 25, 2008. http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ 5. “New World Record Achieved in Solar Cell Technology.” Feb. 25, 2008. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm. 6. Solar Energy: Saved by the Sun. Prod. Steven Lantham. 2007. DVD. WGBH Educational Foundation. 7. “Solar Energy Market Overview.” Feb. 24, 2008. http://www.mmarenewableventures.com/Programs/Solar.html.

The Future of our Food System Depends on Us

The responsibility of shaping the food system in the United States falls on the American consumer. It became clear in recent years that the U.S. Government shows more interest in supporting big business, rather than the well-being of the American public. The effects of GMO foods and monoculture agriculture are not only dangerous to our health, but also to our environment and communities. American consumers must educate themselves on the origin of their food and the methods used to grow it since the government fails to mandate the labeling of genetically modified foods. The decisions made at the grocery store today will affect the food choices of tomorrow. The U.S. food system has become increasingly unsafe and unstable since the beginning of the 20th century. The use of nitrogen-based pesticides and fertilizers, developed from left-over WWII bombs, has degraded the environment and disrupted ecosystems by introducing chemicals such as DDT. The industrialization of agriculture has resulted in monoculture farming that is highly susceptible to infestation, as well as invasion by noxious weeds. A vicious and dangerous cycle has resulted since the typical response to these problems has been to use more chemicals. Monoculture farming has actually decreased the produce choices at the local market by focusing on specific crop strains. Of all the varietals grown at the start of the 20th century, an astounding 97% are now extinct or not being farmed! More recently, the introduction of genetically modified foods, or GMOs, has increased the dangers lurking in the aisles of grocery stores. Despite laboratory tests showing direct links between GMO foods and cancer, the U.S. government has allowed, and even encouraged, the distribution of these dangerous substances. In 2001, a widespread outbreak of illness and allergic reaction was blamed on a strain of genetically modified corn known as Star Link. These GMO crops are increasingly being found on farms where they are not wanted. As the pollen and seeds from these GMO crops spreads, so does the possibility for cross-breeding and contamination of both conventional and organic farms. Since some of these GMO strains contain a genetically altered “terminator gene”, which destroys the reproduction capabilities of the plant, the possibility of breeding with other crops is a scary one, at best. So why would the U.S. government allow such dangerous and unpredictable farming methods? The answer, as it usually does, comes down to money. As the idea of GMO foods grew larger, so to did the dollar signs in the eyes of the first Bush administration. The possibility of marketing these patent-owned crops to the rest of the world provided a financial opportunity never before seen in the world of agriculture. In fact, even as lead scientists from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned the government about the dangers of GMOs, the Bush Administration pushed the issue. But wouldn't this possible revenue go to the companies that owned the patents on the GMO crops, and not the U.S. government? To answer this question, the eerie connection between the U.S. government and the largest producer of GMO seeds, Monsanto, must be scrutinized. Monsanto has been a major player in the industrialization of agriculture, and hence, the destruction of our environment and the small, American farm. The big money and political influence of this corporation has driven the average farmer to the brink of extinction and shaped government policy on the use of GMOs. As genetically modified crops showed up on non-GMO farms from the air-borne spread of seeds and pollen, Monsanto threatened those farmers with lawsuits, saying that the farmers were illegally growing crops that Monsanto owned. In fact, Monsanto now owns over 11,000 patents on seeds and other agriculture products. Even more alarming however, is the direct connection between Monsanto and the U.S. government. When the FDA warned the government about the possible dangers of genetically modified foods in the early 90's, the Bush administration faced resistance in pushing their agenda. To combat this “threat”, the administration hired a new Deputy Commissioner of Policy for the Food and Drug Administration. Ironically, the new hire, Michael Taylor, was a Senior Counsel Member of the law firm that represented Monsanto at the time. Taylor was instrumental in developing the litigation for the lawsuits against American farmers. However, the connections between Monsanto and branches of the U.S. government do not stop there. Linda Fisher flip-flopped back and forth between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Monsanto three times over a period of twenty years in high-profile roles such as Executive Vice President (Monsanto) and Deputy Administrator (EPA). The current Vice President, Dick Cheney, acted as President of a subsidiary company of Monsanto known as Searle. Even our nation's highest court could not escape the grasp of Monsanto when Clarence Thomas, a Monsanto Lawyer for Regulatory Affairs, was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice! The control Monsanto exerts over the U.S. government can be summed up in the following quote: “Agricultural biotech will find a supporter occupying the White House next year regardless of which candidate wins the election in November.” (Monsanto in-house newsletter, October 6, 2000) Given this egregious disregard for public well-being and obvious connection to Monsanto, the U.S. government cannot be counted on to safeguard the nation's food supply. Therefore, this responsibility falls on the shoulders of the American consumer and the best way to vote is often with our dollar. Positive change is happening as seen in the tremendous growth of organic foods. Sales in this sector have gone from 1 billion dollars in 1990 to an astounding 13 billion in 2003. America has seen a 79% increase in local farmer's markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) from 1994 to 2002. Lacking federal support, 10 states including South Dakota and Nebraska have passed their own legislation banning large, corporate farms. Many local groups and non-profit organizations have taken it upon themselves to educate the public on these important food issues. By learning about the dangers of GMOs, supporting local farms, and buying organic foods we can begin to take back what is rightfully ours. After all, this is our food...and our future! Bibliography The Future of Food. Dir. Deborah Koons Garcia. 2004. DVD. Lily Films, 2004.