The Future of the Future Introduction Just an ordinary guy delighted to be around to observe the world around me. From one optic I see an America moving inexorably toward great achievement in science and technology. Drawing the people of this nation into a tighter bond by reducing life’s’ inefficiencies, inspiring more minds to join the S&T revolution, and gently, ever so gently weaning us from the fears of ignorance and naiveté, both of which constrain the pace of progress. From another optic I view our socio-political environment and applaud the strides taken to imbue a nation with a sense of freedom supported by democratic processes. Yet, from the corner of my eye I also see the impending threat to freedom and democracy from within more so than from without. Over the past 35 years a not so democratic ideology has grown within the body politic which has gradually stolen from Americans essential parts of the dream. This blog delves into many of the footprints created by the anti-democratic ideologues. It discusses issues and presents recommendation/solutions that could, if we have brave hearts, Restore America. How ironic is it that modern man will be saved by the elements through which we evolved and emerged on this planet. Alastair Fothergill, demonstrates in his magnificent production,” Planet Earth / The Blue Planet: Seas of Life”, that indeed the oceans were the beginning and will likely be the terminus for life and mankind, particularly in the “long run.” His BBC Production defines without equivocation, the creative and destructive power and awesome kinetic energy of our oceans and seas. Their currents are predictable, while flows vary they are constant, and comparatively pristine, yet, for the most part we ignore their energy, savoring as we should their beauty and the mirage of their infiniteness. Would that former Vice President Al Gore could have included ocean energy/ocean kinetics in his mix of renewable energy forms (solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, etc.) when he challenged (7/17/2008) Americans to become energy independent or, at least, shed a large share of dependence on imported petroleum within the next ten years. By excluding ocean energy he implicitly signals to the investment community that it is a lower priority. While the opposite may be true, he must hasten to correct the oversight. The British Government made the overt decision to defund ocean energy research and demonstration projects in the early nineties; partly due to pressure from oil and fossil fuel interests. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to fund ocean energy projects for the same reasons. The single most powerful source of renewable energy on this planet was discarded and laid dormant for almost 7 years. Now, however, venture capital and a few progressive governments, the EC, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, and individual states within the U.S. are pursuing ocean energy projects from tidal wave to hydrokinetics. What makes ocean kinetics the solution to not only our energy problem but a host of other problems? Simply put, the oceans will always be there night or day fair or foul. Moreover, their energy is the most efficient source of power on the basis of per kilowatt hour delivered to your coffee maker. Yet, as we legislate, authorize, organize and finance a myriad of commercially acceptable win-win solutions to ameliorate the known factors which are destroying the fundamental building blocks of life, we pay only lip service to the ultimate solutions contained in the power of the oceans. We don’t hesitate to announce, subsidize, and champion new technologies to squeeze fossil fuels from tar sands, deep ocean recesses, and the bowels of the earth. At a point not too distant in the future, reality will take a different turn. Because we are already far behind the knowledge curve, we have only a short while before we are overwhelmed with systemic environmental collapse in the West and social and economic collapse in the East. Western consumptive capitalism, pandemic now in China and India, forces significant inefficiencies in national production functions. For emerging nations this emulation creates a dependence on fossil fuels to maintain comparative wage/price advantages not wholly provided by currency manipulation. Public opinion on climate change is at or just past a tipping point. In my view, the standard for effectiveness of any policy solution has five parts. The policy should aim to solve problems, not just switch them. The metric must be carbon eliminated per dollar spent. The solutions must be effective immediately, not, say, 50 years from now. They should be repairable, redundant, and cheap. Overall, the policy must “solve for pattern,” in Wendell Berry’s words: It must become the linchpin for security, economy, equity, and environmental quality. The cheapest, fastest, and smartest approach in the near term is energy efficiency. Next we need a distributed energy system based on renewable energy — not coal and nuclear. We do not know yet how to sequester carbon from coal-fired power plants or how to deal with the toxic byproducts of burning coal; nuclear amplifies the danger of terrorism and requires massive subsidies, and we still don’t know what to do with the radioactive waste. Coal and nuclear are problem switching, not problem solving. Behind the scenes, however, well-funded lobbies are pushing hard for them, while the public interest in smarter choices is more diffuse and far less organized. Global warming is a rich person’s problem. If you’re poor, you have more to worry about than melting ice caps or weird weather. You have transportation problems, health problems, food problems, educational problems, etc. Do you really need an energy tax on top of that to assuage the worries of wealthy elites who are so well-off that all they worry about is Arctic ice melts in 70 years? A carbon tax, as currently framed, really is a call for sacrifice to benefit rich people. Real solutions will require a combination of all of these. On taxes, Oliver Wendell Holmes once said they are the price we pay for civilization. Taxes have been made into a phony issue while the administration off-loads the enormous national debt onto our kids. This is morally wrong and economically stupid. We need politicians courageous enough to discuss this honestly. While they’re at it, they could explain why income distribution now is roughly as unequal as it was in the late 1920s. As Les Blumenthal recently reported for McClatchy Newspapers, “The oceans are already 30 percent more acidic than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as they absorb 22 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By the end of the century, they could be 150 percent more acidic.” And unlike atmospheric temperature changes, which can be modulated by decreases in carbon emissions and other methods, ocean acidification is for humanity’s intents and purposes, a relatively permanent vacation to hell. Sure, acidification can be reversed or repaired, but only after thousands if not millions of years have passed. In other words, not in your lifetime, or your great-great-great grandchildren’s lifetimes either. Which begs the deeper question: Have global desalination efforts, already compromised by technological inefficiencies and overt waste, taken into account the dramatic rise in oceanic acidity? The answer is, not really. “I do not believe desalination advocates have taken into account the resulting acidification of the ocean that will take place as intensive amounts of salt brine are returned to the seas,” Barlow answered. “For every unit of freshwater derived from the process, an equal unit of poisonous salt brine is dumped back into the oceans. Currently, desalination plants produce 5 billion gallons of waste every day. Production of desalination plants is expected to triple by 2015, tripling brine waste dumping and the acidification of the oceans.” And that’s just the desalination process itself: Forget about the naturally occurring processes that the climate crisis has introduced into our quickly drying lives. As the planet heats up, the oceans absorb more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, causing the seas to summarily heat and expel those gases skyward, creating a destructive feedback loop. When all is said and done, we may be left with not much more than acid after desalinating what we can get our cracked hands on. As Seattle-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oceanographer Richard Feely told Blumenthal, “Everything points to dramatic effects. There are suggestions the entire ecosystem could change over time.” “As a serious answer to the global water crisis, desalination is not the answer,” Barlow concluded. “The plants are polluting behemoths, use an incredible amount of energy, add to our climate crisis, and produce toxic brine that kills aquatic life for miles.” Hauter agrees. “Rather than solving water scarcity issues, desalination is an expensive technology that has the potential to cause many unintended consequences. Instead, we should be taking the proactive steps to stop polluting, diverting and wasting water.” And while conservation and more efficient, conscientious management of the water we have left may not be as sexy an option for capitalists and technologists, it is so far the most inexpensive and least dangerous proposition on the table. “We are actually destroying the hydrologic cycle with our mismanagement” Barlow warned. And you can add desalination, at least in the near term, to that very long list of bad management plans. Let’s just hope the seas stay balanced in time for us to realize it. I mean, look at current gas prices in the U.S. With oil prices at record levels, why aren’t prices at the pumps going through the roof? It’s simple: the price is fixed, and the international oil corporations, the IOCs, want to keep it high enough to earn a fat profit, but low enough that the alternatives (i.e. renewable energy) don’t take off and capture all their market share.