Category Archives: fossil fuels

A woman holding a sign that says 'We are better than this!' at a protest or rally with a crowd in the background.

Politics In Science

Categories, climate change, fossil fuels, Political, , , ,

Many of us would like to believe that science is the search for truth as it relates to the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. However, that belief is only partially true.

Scientific research is often driven by government grants and contracts, whether you’re in a university or Fortune 500 company. While the research itself may follow the scientific method and lead to unbiased results, politics determines the fate of those results. For example, the carbon dioxide level is currently about 400 parts per million (ppm). For the last 650,000 to about 1950, the carbon dioxide level never cross the 300 ppm level. However, with the increased use of fossil fuel, such as coal and gasoline, the carbon dioxide level began climbing to its current level. The bad news, it is still climbing. At 500 ppm it is a health hazard to humans.

Well over 90% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is related to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas that traps heat. As a result, we are seeing the sea level rise and the Gulf of Mexico become a catcher’s mitt for the increased frequency of hurricanes. In addition to the human suffering caused by climate change, there is a financial impact. According to the US Government Accountability Office’s Website, their report “Information on Potential Economic Effects Could Help Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Fiscal Exposure” projects climate change will cost the US Government “between $4 billion and $6 billion in annual coastal property damages from sea level rise and more frequent and intense storms,” between 2020 and 2039. However, the reality of climate change is being treated as a political issue. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, kept three scientists from speaking at the October 23rd Narragansett Bay Estuary Program workshop on the 2017 State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed report.

The government has the ability to politicize science by directing research via:

  • University grants
  • Military industrial complex programs
  • Government laboratories/agencies programs
  • Censorship of government scientists

Obviously, science is no longer the pure search for truth regarding natural phenomena. Today’s science follows the government’s roadmap. Acting on results is a political decision, even when life and death are in the balance.

What does all this mean? Science is riddled with politics. Scientists working on government programs have two choices, follow the government roadmap or quit. Let me be clear. I am not talking about defense contract research, which for security reasons must be kept secret. I am talking about fundamental science, such as climate change research, which should proceed without censorship or political agendas.

Unfortunately, the EPA’s mission of “protecting human health and the environment” is now politicized to the point that they will censor government scientists and deny the reality of climate change. Although the World Health Organization estimates that “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress,” the EPA director, Scott Pruitt, told CNBC that “ “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” Pruitt is an attorney, not a scientist. However, he apparently feels comfortable challenging the mass of scientific evidence that contradicts his viewpoint.

Human endeavors tend to always be inherently political, including scientific research. However, politics in science should be confined to interpreting the results, not refuting results that have been widely established via the scientific method. For example, are these irrefutable facts or results open to interpretation:

  1. Greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, trap heat.
  2. Carbon dioxide is increasing dramatically to the point that the amount of heat trapped is causing sea levels to rise and weather extremes, such as droughts and hurricanes.
  3. The increase in carbon dioxide is due to human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels like coal and gasoline.

The bulk of the scientific community would argue they are facts. Is it possible they are wrong? Yes, it is possible. However, government censorship and policies will not set the truth free. As Einstein stated, “ Truth is what stands the test of experience.” If we examine our current experience, we are seeing unprecedented carbon dioxide levels associated with unprecedented climate change. We need to embrace the facts and work on solutions. Governments can censor scientists or deny reality, but Mother Nature will have the final say.

 

A surreal image of ocean waves crashing onto a road with yellow dividing lines under a cloudy sky.

Record Scorching Temperatures Are Result of Global Warming

Categories, climate change, fossil fuels, , ,

When many people hear about global warming, it conjures images of the world’s temperature getting just a little warmer. NASA’s website asserts, “the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.”

An increase of 1.4° Fahrenheit does not seem extreme. Actually, it seems relatively mild. Unfortunately, that is not how global warming works. We do not experience a slightly mild increase in temperature worldwide. We experience, instead, extremes in climate change. However, when added together they result in an average temperature increase of only 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) across the Earth’s surface.

Cyclical events, such as night, day, change of seasons, precipitation patterns, can fluctuate significantly on a local basis. However, the global temperature depends on how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun, minus the amount it radiates back into space. The amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is almost constant over the course of a single year, but does vary significantly with the 11-year sunspot solar cycle. For the most part, the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is predictable. However, the amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and that is what is causing global warming. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing, particularly the increasing amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). It is the increase in greenhouse gases that is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Some refer to this phenomenon as the “greenhouse effect.”   

One or two degrees (Fahrenheit) average temperature change may not appear like a big deal, but historically a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. Likewise, a one to two degrees increase is now causing the sea level to rise. The sustained increase in temperature between 1880 and 2009 caused the sea level to increase an average of eight inches. The measured sea level increase on the United States East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico is even higher by several inches. Since 1993, the average annual rate of global sea level rise is accelerating. This increase in the average sea level is largely due to melting ice at the polar caps and the thermal expansion (i.e., expansion due to heat) of the ocean. If the current trend continues, recent studies project sea level increases from six to twenty feet by 2100. While six feet sounds manageable, it would represent a loss of land mass for the United States equal to Massachusetts. If the sea level increase is twenty feet, the United States coastline would be unrecognizable and the land loss would equal 48,000 square miles, displacing five percent of the United States population. The same would be true of all countries that border the world’s oceans. While there is still debate regarding how much the sea will rise, none argues the contrary.

In addition, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), seven million people die each year from prolonged exposure to air pollution directly caused by burning fossil fuels. In highly industrialized urban areas, each breath could be equivalent to puffing on a cigarette. We humans may find a way to engineer around this toxic environment by using special air and water filters in our homes, cars, and workplaces. However, numerous species will not be as fortunate. In fact, experts predict that one-fourth of Earth’s species will be heading toward extinction by 2050. By 2100, those same experts warn that humanity may face extinction.

There is little doubt that human activity is playing a significant role in global warming. NASA reports carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent since the 1750 Industrial Revolution. Indeed, for most of the 20th century, atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged in the mid 200 parts per million (ppm). Today, NASA reports it is over 400 ppm and it is on a trajectory that continues to increase.  

Where does all this carbon dioxide come from? The preponderance of evidence argues climate change, air pollution, and acid rain results from burning fossil fuels to power the machines of modern civilization. If you live in modern society, everything you use relies on fossil fuels, in one form or another. For example, consider any product. Fossil fuels may be essential for powering the machines that make the product, be a critical ingredient in the product, and/or be necessary to ship the product to market.

Unless we change the current trajectory of increasing greenhouse gasses, expect climatic disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. Currently, California and Arizona are experiencing scorching temperatures. Tomorrow, wherever you are, it may be your turn to experience a climatic disaster.

Fixing global warming first requires we recognize it is a reality and attributable to human activity. Although many fossil fuel phase-out initiatives are taking place at the state and local levels, in reality, we are a nation unprepared for the inevitable. Some nations, like Sweden, do have a plan to fade out fossil fuels. Most, though, ignore the risks. However, we all share the same planet. When the climate passes the tipping point, it will affect everyone. When air pollution becomes an even more potent killer, it will not discriminate. It will affect everyone.

This is not a political issue or a matter of opinion. It is a scientific issue and a matter of life and death.

A weathered yellow road sign with the word 'Insolvenz' crossed out, symbolizing the end of insolvency and free market economy.

The Threat of Economic Collapse

alternate energy sources, Categories, critical energy crisis, economic collapse, fossil fuels, peak oil, , , ,

This article examines the relationship between fossil fuels and world economies. It asserts that as fossil fuels become scarce toward the end of the 21st century, world economies will face collapse. Let’s begin by discussing world currencies.

All currencies today are “fiat money,” meaning they are not backed by a commodity or anything of intrinsic value. Instead, governments back fiat currency by declaring it a “legal tender.” This means the money has no intrinsic value, but depends on the trust people place in the nation’s economy and their implicit agreement that the nation’s “money” is valuable.

Let us examine the concept of “value.” It is obvious that if confidence is lost in a nation’s economy (i.e., its ability to produce valuable products and services), the value of it fiat current decreases. This is generally measure against some internationally agreed to “standard,” such as gold. Interestingly, gold is also a fiat currency, since its intrinsic value, mainly industrial and commercial uses, is marginal relative to its universal appeal. Gold is valuable because historically we have all agreed it is valuable.

If a nation is unable to produce or procure the fossil fuels it requires, its economy will decline. This means its “gross domestic product,” the amount of goods and services with intrinsic value, will decline. Concurrently, the nation’s fiat currency will decline, which is termed “inflation.” In some cases, as demonstrated in post-World War I Germany, a nation’s fiat currency can experience hyperinflation and completely collapse.

During dire times, such as world wars, people have traded suitcases filled with gold and silver for suitcases filled with meat and potatoes. The point is that the “value” of fiat currencies, including precious metals, depends on “trust,” not intrinsic value.

Let’s examine how humanity will likely react to fiat currencies during the critical energy crisis, a point in time when fossil fuels become scarce. Let’s begin by discussing the world’s oil, coal, and natural gas reserves?

BP, one of the seven “supermajor” oil and gas companies, predicts that the world has only about 50 years of oil left. Often, such predictions come from an alarmist environmental group. This prediction comes from the highly respected BP, the sixth largest company in the 2015 Fortune Global 500. Some experts argue our large natural gas and coal reserves will address the oil shortage. However, the remaining petroleum resources, natural gas and coal, are also limited resources. The United States Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates at our current use rate, recoverable reserves of natural gas should last 84 years and coal 261 years. These projections may provide a degree of comfort, but note the important phase “at our current use rate.” Unfortunately, our use rate of fossil fuels has been increasing since 1970, with the exception of the “The Great Recession (December 2007 – June 2009).” For example, in 2013, the EIA projected energy consumption would rise by 56% by 2040. Based on the CIA World Fact Book, when natural gas and coal shoulder the burden to supplement the diminishing oil reserves, they too will become scarce within just decades. The preponderance of scientific estimates argues humanity will face a severe shortage of all fossil fuels toward the end of 21st century, which by definition is the critical energy crisis.

Currently, modern civilizations run on fossil fuels. Alternative energy sources, like nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydro, and solar, only account for about 20% of the energy consumed. Without fossil fuels, almost everything stops. If we continue our reliance on fossil fuels, the outlook is bleak. By the end of the 21st century, the severe energy shortage will make it extremely difficult to mine natural resources, build factories, produce products, or provide sufficient food for the estimated 11 billion-world population.

Unfortunately, the critical energy crisis garners little prime time media coverage. With regard to energy, the media focuses its attention on OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and our involvement in the Middle East, marked by “gulf wars” and counter insurgency. Experts, including their numerous books and articles, focus their attention on the post-peak oil challenges that the world will face within a decade or two. I agree that post-peak oil challenges will be exceptionally difficult, in the early stages similar to the “1973 oil embargo.” Initially, the average person will again experience long lines at the pump, gas prices doubling, inflation in double digits, and unemployment nearing 10%. Although, many will judge these issues severe, they will pale in comparison to the critical energy crisis.

As serious as the critical energy crisis threatens to be, its inevitable existence seems relegated to a footnote. Media coverage of it is thin to non-existent. We do not have a concerted worldwide effort to address it. Our best scientists are not working the problem. There is literally no master plan, let alone a “plan B.”

On our current course, during the fourth quarter of the 21st century the cost of the scant remaining fossil fuels will rise to unprecedented highs, which in turn will:

  1. Usher in a depression that will surpass the “Great Depression”
  2. Cause hyperinflation, since the cost of almost everything is tied to the price of fossil fuels
  3. Cause severe product and food shortages

Factually, our global efforts to phase out fossil fuels and switch to alternative energy sources have us on a critical energy crisis collision course. Despite the evidence of a looming critical energy crisis, there is no worldwide initiative to address it. Even the United States, the strongest world economy, lacks a plan. Although, many fossil fuel phase-out initiatives are taking place at the state and local levels, in reality, we are a nation unprepared for the inevitable. Some nations, like Sweden, do have a plan to fade out fossil fuels. Most, though, ignore the risks, like China and Japan. However, we all share the same planet. When the fossil fuels are gone, they will be gone for everyone.

Given this understanding, let us fast-forward about 50 years. If BP is correct, the world oil supply is nearly gone. The price of oil in United States dollars will reach unprecedented highs. Even “hard currencies,” like gold and silver, will depreciate relative to oil. The reason is that dollars, gold, and silver do not have an intrinsic value. Oil does. The intrinsic value of oil, and other fossil fuels, lies in their use as an energy source. Based on this line of reasoning, one can argue that the only real currency is energy.

The end of the Petroleum Age is now within the lifetime of many, approximately half a century out. The end of coal and gas will follow within decades. Modern humans, as a species, have walked the Earth for 200,000 years. A half century, in the scheme of human civilization, is like a “blink of the eye.” As discussed above, there is a fundamental relationship between fossil fuels and national economies. For Earth’s civilizations to continue, we urgently need a worldwide plan, combined with an international effort, to phase out fossil fuels in favor of alternative, clean energy sources. It saddens me to say, it’s now a political issue and it is not clear world leaders understand the problem.