More Bright Green Lies - MEER

 

We are now all familiar with the strategy of most of the industries surrounding the topic of climate change (or any other environmental predicament which can be utilized as a force to provide an income stream through slick PR work, propaganda, marketing, and advertising). Find what is called a "problem" (halitosis, for instance) and provide an "answer" or "solution" (mouthwash) that is within the reach of a large number of consumers or within the reach of government or shareholders (for large scale purchases or subsidies). This tactic works time and again and has made many of the investors in such schemes rich beyond belief and/or provided jobs and benefits for those employed in such schemes. Of course, schemes are mostly precisely what they are because most of them were not truly needed in the first place. There ARE SOME ideas which have provided quite serious benefits for society, but a rather large portion of these "solutions" target human emotion and vanity and are entirely or mostly useless in the quest for survival. Many others are excellent examples of "kicking the can down the road" where a short-term "quick fix" provides what is marketed as a "solution" which does nothing but exacerbate the original predicament by causing a worse predicament or predicaments in its wake. In other words, these examples use obfuscation as a means to keep the casual observer from comprehending the fact that not only are said examples not "solutions" but they actually make the original predicaments they were supposed to solve worse over the long haul. Most all technology fits this bill by requiring extraction of resources and energy to build some sort of device or contraption or product or service, maintain said product or service, and then dispose of or decommission said product or service and as a result of those requirements also requires the presence of industrial civilization and the infrastructural layers that support industrial civilization. This requires technology to require the same destruction that it is often marketed to "solve" making such "solutions" the very cause of the predicaments they are marketed to work to "solve."

It is easy to utilize these infrastructural layers without the general public realizing the overall energetical and environmental costs, which is why so many people are generally instantly attracted to new technology and devices which supposedly solve some sort of "problem" as seen by the person using said technology or devices. If people actually understood these costs and the damage done to the environment and the biosphere in which we live, most people would probably abandon a large number of devices, products, and services that are used today (without much thought given to the consequences today and further down the road in the future as a result of these energetical and environmental costs). 

As such, yet another of these proposed "solutions" has caught my eye which needs to be shown to be yet another new bogus form of hubris. As is true with most ALL forms of technological mitigation to climate change, products and services all require the same extraction, resources, energy, and industrial civilization (ALL of which are UNSUSTAINABLE). Civilization itself is unsustainable as is demonstrated here. It needs to be pointed out that the system that we are all a part of (anyone who can read this is participating in this system) is unsustainable and is supported by a form of technology called "agriculture." Other systems of infrastructure also support civilization such as water supply systems, irrigation systems, sewer systems, trash collection and disposal systems, recycling systems, government systems, etc., etc. These systems CANNOT be made sustainable because technology itself is inherently unsustainable (see this post). 

Now that I have established these facts, there is far more evidence contained within this post which also delves into the topic of civilization and precisely what causes civilizations to collapse. Establishing this basic framework so that everyone can understand the FACTS surrounding this scenario is important to comprehending the myths that generally circulate about civilization and technology in particular. We all hear the constant talk of human "progress" and "advancement" and "development" and "growth" and these words all are generally positive spin put onto what in reality amounts to destruction of the biosphere and environment which supports our existence. Once one understands these facts, he or she is then able to discern when "greenwashing" is being presented. This is a fine example of greenwashing and hubris, quote: 

"We envision a new role for Homo sapiens: stabilizer of the natural world and steward of its ecosystems. This new role requires appreciation for Earth’s dynamic and delicate climate system, deep-rooted respect for the finiteness of her abiotic physical resources, high awareness of our interconnectedness with other species, and the simultaneous emergence of efficient fabrication technologies and universal social values that are transformative. It is a role that can lead to a future of hope and plenty, for us and for the other creatures, with whom we share this radiant blue, swirling white, planet of life."

Wait, say WHAT?!! "Stabilizer of the natural world and steward of its ecosystems"?!! LOL, this is crazy talk that only a complete moron would buy into once he or she understands the principles of how most all of us live today, encapsulated into industrial civilization along with modern agriculture. I'm sorry, but we cannot be the stabilizer of the natural world OR a steward of the ecosystems as long as we indulge in these systems and as long as we promote the very systems that are destroying these ecosystems. This is just the FIRST sign of hypocrisy that this so-called "solution" presents. (Note: this passage was in the original website which has now been taken down.)

The second fault of logic this idea presents is that it is 100% renewable. Glass is a product which, despite claims to the contrary, is NOT 100% renewable. Glass is made from sand, which is a finite resource ALREADY causing trouble globally (for more info, see the following articles):

• Uncovering sand mining's impacts on the world's rivers
• Hurricanes remind us sand is not a renewable resource
• The world needs a global agenda for sand
• Unsustainable sand mining is threatening lives along the Mekong River in Cambodia
• Roving bandits and looted coastlines: How the global appetite for sand is fueling a crisis

As one can see, sand isn't any different than any other mineral or metal or other limited resource. It requires fossil fuels and the fossil fuel platform to be mined (extracted), refined, shipped, manufactured into glass, shipped again to the location of installation, and maintained once installed. At the end of its useful life, it requires further energy use to be transported and heated once again and refined into a new piece of glass if it is to be recycled, or transported to a crushing facility for some other use if it is to be downcycled. The other option is to be transported to a landfill for permanent disposal. The only things that are 100% renewable are natural items, plants, and animals which either are non-polluting or, if biological, become usable by the next generation of plants and animals. NO TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICE IS 100% RENEWABLE, PERIOD.

The next item up is its claim of "sustainable agriculture" which I already pointed out is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as sustainable agriculture. Agriculture by its very nature destroys what nature provided on the land by clearing that land to plant crops. This destroys habitat for the flora and fauna which existed on the land before it was cleared of trees and plants and creates habitat fragmentation for the plants and animals which weren't killed off by the process. To add to the mix, agriculture is the bedrock technology that civilization, which we already know to be unsustainable, is based upon. So, this claim is false. That is three strikes right there; but wait...there's MORE!

Obviously, basing this discussion upon a simple picture would be crazy. Still, before I get into further details, there is the claim of ecological restoration. How one plans to restore the ecology of the planet when we are in a mass extinction and so far into ecological overshoot that we are passing tipping points in system after system seems pretty far-fetched to start with; however, as the simple manufacturing process and transportation of glass was demonstrated above to be unsustainable no different than any other technological process requiring extraction, energy use, and industrial civilization, this idea also cannot be built, maintained, and decommissioned without those same unsustainable practices. I think it is more than fair to therefore label this as another false claim. 

Now, into the nitty gritty details I go with further analysis into this ridiculous idea and precisely why it is nothing more than the same bright green lies as all the other technology-based ideas out there that Nate Hagens, Tim Garrett, William Rees, Jean-Marc Jancovici, and many other scientists and professors already have pointed out will not solve or reverse climate change or ecological overshoot. First of all, it is yet another reductionist idea from yet another engineer who foolishly thinks he has a solution nobody else has thought of. This is just another "command and control nature" idea and routine that most engineers utilize which doesn't take seriously the idea that we are a PART of nature and not separate from it. Perhaps we can simply come to the realization that optimism bias rules the day with most if not all of these ideas.

Going to various pages on the website doesn't produce much more than the same recycled hype contained on the home page thus far, so I have resorted to watching the video to garner more info to see if there is any redeeming qualities of this idea. The first couple of minutes didn't give me much confidence that these "new tools" he discusses are any better than all the "old tools" we've been using all along. The engineering challenges he speaks of points to the denial of reality I see with regard to his refusal to accept that this is a predicament with an outcome, not a problem with a solution.

The first 30 minutes focuses almost exclusively on climate change and biodiversity destruction caused by it leading to more extinctions of plants and animals, causing our own extinction in the near term which I have already highlighted in this post here. Ye is correct about climate change AND he is also correct about technological rebuildable energy devices that most people recognize as "renewables" (which aren't renewable), that they are nothing but a distraction and actually take us in the wrong direction. Ye provides plenty of proof of this; but for more, please see this post which was highlighted a few paragraphs back in discussion regarding civilization. But where Ye gets it wrong is with regard to Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), which does not provide enough energy return on energy invested to make the cut. The study shows that CSP doesn't even provide the EROEI that tar sands in Canada provide, and it has already been proven that tar sands do not provide enough EROEI to keep civilization running. Of course, minimum EROEI to keep today's society running is around 9:1-10:1 and tar sands provide around 3:1; CSP provides 1.3:1-2.4:1. Anyone familiar with CSP knows the story of the Crescent Dunes Project, which was mothballed due to a variety of issues; but the Ivanpah Facility is still running despite a number of concerning issues. 

Moving on; between 25 minutes and 30 minutes, Ye explains the effect aerosols caused by fossil fuel burning are actually keeping us rather cool and that once we stop burning coal, aerosol loading will stop and we will gain about +1.6C in very short order. For more info on this phenomenon, please see this file on what is known as global dimming.

His ideas for dealing with CO2 is to heat limestone (which contains calcium carbonate) to drive off CO2 and then bury it; of course, the same strategy for this in CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) has never been successful mainly due to costs and no real place to store it. Human construction has never really found a way to make buildings or any other modern infrastructure last (properly intact) more than a few hundred years, and storing CO2 would be similar to storing nuclear radioactive waste; needing to be safely stored for thousands of years. Another main issue that his idea doesn't appear to address is the moving of limestone, which is quite heavy and would require mining equipment to extract, haul, and then trucks and/or trains to move to the location of these solar plants. In the process, he wants to use the calcium oxide left over to spread in the oceans to reduce ocean acidification. This all SOUNDS good, but the devil is in the details. I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but this idea might garner support and actually be attempted on a small scale. That is probably where it will end - once it is discovered not to be what it was cracked up to be (IF it garners support in the first place). 

From my perspective, this idea isn't much different than all the other ones to geoengineer the climate. It automatically assumes that we can control nature rather than the other way around. It assumes that we already know the long-term outcome of these changes (which I think is highly questionable). It doesn't provide a working explanation of how this would all be put together and leaves way too many loopholes open (such as ecological restoration). He is correct about OTHER companies using DAC (Direct Air Capture) that doing so will never be able to scale up to the challenge and recommends not to invest in them (36:10 in the video). But he doesn't realize that his ideas will be seen with the same skepticism (rightfully so) and that his claim that his project is "obviously feasible" doesn't impress upon me to invest in it, so others may think the same thing and have the same questions. Perhaps if everything I have already pointed out isn't enough, maybe this study will point out the errors in judgment and the hubris involved. 

One mistake I see in the video is the constant mentioning of costs and/or prices for specific ideas. Price is a mistake because of the externalities involved in economics and the simple fact that one cannot really put a price on life on this planet. Seriously, how can one determine a price for biodiversity, clean air and water, nutritious crops and food without poisons and toxins, and a mutual existence with all the other plants and animals the biosphere supports? Developing a price is foolhardy at best. The other item I think is foolhardy is proposing a solution for a predicament. This is NOT a problem, so there is ultimately no solution for it. So far, all the things that humans have devised to attempt to "solve" these predicaments have actually taken us in the wrong direction with emissions continuing to rise almost every year with few exceptions. As is the case with all these so-called "solutions", all of them are designed and devised with civilization in mind and to continue our current systems. Most are designed NOT for solving or reducing climate change, ecological overshoot, pollution loading, or other predicaments, but for providing profit streams for wealthy companies and individuals. These systems CANNOT be sustained, so this is one of the biggest errors in each and every one of them. There is another facet of civilization which also needs to be taken into consideration that very few engineers ever consider: human behavior. Terrorist activities, war-mongering nations, disagreements between nations, and many other questions come into play here that none of these ideas generally consider. This study provides a view of these questions which would affect the outcome of any geoengineering idea undertaken and demonstrates how certain scenarios might actually make the overall situation far worse (counter-geoengineering interventions) than had no geoengineering been attempted in the first place.

One side note about the video which might be an issue is the topic of oysters. There was discussion about scaling up oyster farming, but this may not be as easy as depicted in the video either. This article goes into detail regarding just one disease and it is apparent after another article that oyster consumption isn't safe for everyone, making this idea far from being any sort of "slam dunk" that is presented repeatedly in the video.

Update 7-29-21: A new study points out precisely why ideas like this one cannot solve anything in isolation from the difficult work of degrowth and contraction:

"Long-standing calls from ecologists and informed environmentalists for society to adopt a systems perspective and employ a multi-disciplinary approach to anthropogenic climate change have largely fallen on deaf ears. Most people have succumbed to the mechanistic–reductionist paradigm that has dominated Cartesian science, as is evident by the isolation of climate from its broader ecological context and its treatment as a discrete, independent variable. The reality is that climate change is only one symptom of systems destabilization as the human enterprise has come to overwhelm the ecosphere.

To recalibrate our focal lens, consider the following accelerating changes. The population of H. sapiens is nearly eight times larger than it was at the beginning of the fossil-fueled Industrial Age a mere 200 years ago, and it has been growing nearly 20 times faster [8]. To accommodate the explosion of humanity, over half the land surface of Earth has been substantially modified, particularly for agriculture (that most ecologically destructive of technologies). One consequence of this is the competitive displacement of non-human species from their habitats and food sources. Prior to the dawn of agriculture eight to ten millennia ago, humans accounted for less than 1%, and wild mammals 99%, of mammalian biomass on Earth. Today, H. sapiens constitute 36%, and our domestic livestock another 60%, of a much-expanded mammalian biomass, compared with only 4% for all wild species combined [9,10,11]. McRae et al. [12] estimate that the populations of non-human vertebrate species declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012 alone. Freshwater, marine, and terrestrial vertebrate populations declined by 81%, 36%, and 38%, respectively, and invertebrate populations fell by about 50%.

While fossil fuels (FFs)—coal and later oil and natural gas—have been humanity’s major source of energy over the past two centuries, 50% of all FFs ever burned have been consumed in just the past 30 years (as much as 90% since the early 1940s) as super-exponential growth has taken hold [13,14]. It should be no surprise, therefore, that carbon dioxide emissions—the major material by-product of FF combustion and principal anthropogenic driver of climate change—have long exceeded photosynthetic uptake by green plants. By 1997 (when annual consumption was 40% less than in 2021), humanity was already burning FFs containing about 422 times the net amount of carbon fixed by photosynthesis globally each year [15]. Between 1800 and 2021, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 48%, from 280 ppm to approximately 415 ppm.

These data show that plunging biodiversity and climate change, along with air/land/ocean pollution, deforestation, desertification, incipient resources scarcity, etc., are the inevitable consequences—indeed, parallel symptoms—of the same root phenomenon: the spectacular and continuing growth of the human enterprise on a finite planet. H. sapiens is in overshoot, exploiting ecosystems beyond their regenerative and assimilative capacities.

Overshoot is possible only because of: (a) the short-term availability of prodigious stocks of both renewable (fish, forest, soil, etc.) and non-renewable (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) forms of so-called “natural capital”; and (b) the enormous, but finite, natural waste assimilation and recycling processes of the ecosphere. However, a reckoning is at hand. In just a few decades of geometric population and economic growth, humans have exploited (often to collapse) natural capital stocks that took millennia to accumulate and have impeded natural life-support processes through excessive, often toxic, waste discharges. The human enterprise now uses the bio-productive and assimilative capacities of 1.75 Earth equivalents [16]. In simple terms, the industrial world’s ecological predicament is the result of too many people consuming too much and over-polluting the ecosphere.

Clearly, the climate crisis cannot be solved in isolation from the macro-problem of overshoot—certainly not by using technologies that are reliant on the same FFs and ecologically destructive processes that created the problem in the first place."

In conclusion, this article took much longer and became far more comprehensive in detail than I originally figured it would; but I am glad that I tackled it after a post appeared asking questions about it. Strike another idea up veering into the fantasies, myths, and fairy tales category. Hopefully this post answers all the questions revolving around this particular idea!