Augi World - July/August 2008 - (Page 28) On The Page Back Global Energy Systems When you begin a clean sheet design, you must find, from all possible paths that could be taken, the right path. Figuratively speaking, a foundation must be laid and pillars must be erected. These must support the yet-unknown design details that will be specified to complete the project. The unknown is less daunting if there is experience or data from similar projects on which you can build, but some projects break new trails every step of the way. Think of our global energy dilemma as a design project with no trails to follow. At no point in human history have we faced so many critical choices with so little data to support us. Like any design project, on the energy solution team there are factions with differing opinions. Some opinions are derived as accurately as possible from the facts available, others from ideals that may or may not be attainable, and let’s face it, some from power, greed, and ego. Many are slowly coming to the realization that one of the pillars of our energy portfolio, fossil fuels, presents more challenges than solutions. Europeans have been paying $5-$6 per gallon for gas for several years now and their lifestyles reflect it. Their economy has not suffered from it, as is evidenced by comparing the value of the Euro and the Dollar. Germany has been installing so many photovoltaic solar cells that they have created a material shortage on the world market. Ironically, China is emerging as the largest producer of renewable energy systems, while at the same time becoming the largest producer of greenhouse gas. Energy and pollution management will change the American lifestyle, whether we want it to or not. There is no “Silver Bullet” that will solve all of our future energy needs, though there are a few “Silver BBs.” To minimize the disruption that is inevitably coming, every method of energy production must be employed and utilized to its best advantage. Some pragmatic environmentalists are looking closely at the pillars of the green movement and some disarming opinions are starting to be voiced. There are some difficult choices to be made. Here are a few points that may cause your head to spin. Carbon trading is the act of paying for your carbon emissions by funding something to offset the pollution you create. An example would be an airline funding a reforestation project. David Kingsley lations. Many carbon trading scams have arisen because there is no mechanism to monitor or guarantee that the trees actually get planted. Add to this the facts that the USA, Australia, China, and India produce 70 percent of the world’s carbon emissions and do not participate in the Kyoto Protocol and that the treaty is designed to expire in 2012. Kyoto is considered by many to be a bold and admirable first step, but not likely to have a significant effect on emissions, and not likely to be renewed in 2013. Carbon trading on a personal level A different shade of green The government of Canada recently completed a study to determine the carbon tradeoff value of its vast old growth forests. The results revealed that as a forest ages, it consumes less CO2. If left untouched, decomposing wood and forest fires release most of what CO2 has been sequestered in the forest over its life. Young growing forests consume far more CO2 than old growth forests. That suggests that to scrub the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, old growth forests should be harvested and replaced with new growth. The Kyoto Protocol laid down a global plan for reducing carbon emissions using carbon trading among nations. Kyoto is one of those green design pillars that may have been under-designed. Many consider Kyoto quite ineffective because it does not have enough teeth to enforce its own regu- As a greenhouse gas, methane is considered to be 20-25 times more potent than CO2. Methane cannot be scrubbed and sequestered from the atmosphere by forests, like CO2. The only way to reduce methane in the atmosphere is to produce less of it. The only upside is that methane breaks down after about 10 years as opposed to CO2, which lasts 100 years. If you stop eating meat and dairy, you can drive an SUV as much as you want! Cattle produce methane, and lots of it. Clearing land for cattle grazing and growing soya to feed cattle contributes to deforestation. No, short-term growth crops like soya are no match for the cleansing effects of a forest. Producing nitrogen fertilizer to grow soya consumes a lot of natural gas. The intertwined requirements of producing beef add up to the fact that driving is less polluting than eating a burger. There are alternatives. Eat more chicken and pork, which require less land and produce less methane, or give up meat and dairy entirely. If you just can’t get your head around giving up cheeseburgers, try to get your head around (no joke here) labgrown beef, aka Meat without Feet. Now that you’re done gagging, consider these claims: no drugs or hormones, comparatively, no land or feed, no cholesterol, and no butchering. David Kingsley served from 1999-2004 on the AUGI Board of Directors and is the Director of Electrons at CADPlayer Web Courseware. He can be reached at djkingsley@cad-tv.com. w w w. A U G I . c o m 28 http://www.augi.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.