Posts
![[Fig 2.; p.9]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsCfSH7164PD5KvWgwkBKENMVO1Mo63i4knFFkOK4OeQMeU6eNM382G6SLJn1ZJHQMOtAFZj7qeGAZae55ir9JOMUUZD9KwTbl38AGpKntRNZY9isTfOZyfqaBXidaL1E8b73-vusuNcA/s1600/wegfkafoocao.jpg)
(by Whacko-Gecko)
”Oh no, This is the road to hell...” (Chris Rea: The Road to Hell)
”I'm very optimistic, pessimism requires too much energy.”(A common saying)
PREWORD
Finally in this last part, we are enlargening the scope of our clairvoyances from 10 to 50 years, as promised. So, we don´t here make any limited suppositions, but try to present foresees from the likely trends defining the future and forthcoming events, like the current pressures that fall on environment, global population development, Climate Change, energy policies, as well as the more specialized fields like new inventions to be expected, etc. Probably this final part will rely more on scifistic suppositions than previous ones, which were merely focused on Internet and computers/ICT sector development. These are not excluded on last part either, but the focus will be elsewhere. In our futuristics, we hope to reach some visionary views, like some best inspiring foresees from the past. From these many have been created from the fictional basis. Think Jules Verne and Orwell as successful such authors. Or E.R.Burroughs and Philip K. Dick as some inspirational examples.
Also, this final chapter will be presented mainly as a time line. Most things will be predicted under appropriate years, a manner similar to sometimes seen traditional clairvoyances. This creates some problems, as most things happen and become meaningful during longer time periods and aren't therefore strictly tied to exact year, fx. We try to avoid the most striking simplicities resulting from this by alleging, that these present supposable timings making specific years of course just overall estimates. Where possible, the supposed wider timing(-scale) is also presented. Obviously, like any consent-minded can understand, we don't expect all of these (if most) even to take place as such, but these could still present some likely trends in the following decades.
In the beginning we mentioned a few areas and inventions that have formulated peoples lives in past 50 years, some significantly. As for the typical consumer society cultural objects, cars and television, don't actually show any signs of disappearance. On the energies part, today it wouldn't be possible to think modern life without electricity in use, which was as commonly used as ever (in the developed world if not everywhere). However, concerning the energy-sector the main current focus was around the time of writing being shifted to (soon) needed development of renewables, increasingly noteworthy question, resulting from the expected effects of Global warming. That and natures degradation are topics that will be felt at the times we suppose to predict, from 2010s onwards to around 2050s (Climate Change will likely affect further, until the end of century, and most theories are presented to reach that far, but our foresights are limited just until 2050s).
When beginning our futuristic approach the supposed rate and effects from the Climate Change were not very well generally known, and most information was received from the recent findings in IPPC Fourth Assessment Report (2007). In general, the public knowledge from the topic had started to form just recently; say, 2005-07, a lot as result from Al Gores widely presented (both cinema's and elsewhere) film The Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps noticeable, soon after films publication and reaching wider audiences, a lot of discussion was about if the film was reliable to facts(was the climate effect proven happening or not) and whether this was correctly presented1. Since that, further scientific data has been generated, and now from relatively recent report by WWF (Tin[ed], 2008) we find assumptions from that fx melting of arctic ice sheets is noticed actually happening faster than predicted in IPPC-report. That is supposed to cause major effects on climate and ecosystems sooner than earlier expected. According to report the Arctic Sea is possible to become ice free, in fact it is presumed that summer ice may completely disappear in between 2013-2040 (the case that hasn't been so in 1 million years, they say...). Because of that, even larger reduction of GHS-emissions would be needed to keep the situation at the limits estimated, since increases over 2C warming in during century are predicted anyway(Tin[ed], 2008, p. 3-4) And its been found, the fossil fuels kept in use with similar manner as today, warming might raise for even more alarming levels(greenhouse effect among its best known direct consequences).
Since the further speculation on Climate Change is still open for numerous uncertainties, we won't go any deeper on such things as environmental threats, sea level rises, the increased number of droughts in certain areas and/or other threats expected(the reader may also possibly be more aware from these beforehand). Not to be omitted though, most important negative consequence from GHS-emissions and global warming would concern the Oceans, mainly them becoming increasingly acidic as carbon dioxide is absorbed in water (forming carbonic acid). Yet recorded average reduction of pH by 0.1 per cent on worlds Oceans is expected to continue causing changes on seas, most falling on shell-forming organisms, though exact knowledge and research was still recently to develop(Parry-Canziani-Palutikof, 2008, p. 2-3). In spite of the early stage of analyses, until the latter part of the century the seawater Ph is expected to reduce from level 8.1 to 7.7. Such drop, would lead to increased acidification and is supposed to result fx in the reduced reproducibility of many species. Later this may also affect ecologically and commercially important species(such as lobsters, crabs, mussels and fish), and in the long run consequences could be even more harmful. (Jacquot, 2008) Most direct impact is mentioned to fall on fx shellfish and eccinoderms, but especially that concerns any species with long generation time (like corals); ”2070, its likely that the optimal growth conditions for warm-water coral will simply no longer exist, and about 60 percent of the environment for cold-water coral will be gone.”(Timmer 2008) Another briefing then also points out this actually happening faster than predicted in previous simulations (Gitlin 2008). We can't here make more detailed descriptions, but the area is a field of increasing studies; 'BBC's Coral-labs' mention Googleing on the subject having given some 17 hits at 2004, now the same search returns thousands (Harrabin, 2009). The page also contains presentations from the subject - perhaps also more recent knowledge about it.
Thinking about the current energy economics, the magnitude of ongoing discussion also gives some hint that there's need for 'remodelling'. Various ways to fight back the Climatic Change are being presented. Energy efficiency fx can play major role, but even if some miracles would happen in consumer and regular house-hold level its quite improbable to make a radical reduction for total amount of emissions needed to cut out. Not to mention, most remarkable amount of energy use and what makes the most from expected increase in future also, is going to come from uses of industry, factories, etc. World Energy Outlook (WEO) by International Energy Agency(IEA) assumes the world primary energy demand to expand by 45 percent between 2006 and 2030, about 1.6 percent a year. Major part of the new energy production occurs in non-OECD countries, China and India making most of new production (around half of the incremental demand in 2030). The total share of consumed energy in world cities and towns grows from two thirds to almost three quarters in 2030 (also, power generation and transport sectors will contribute over 70 percent from the projected increase of emissions to 2030). As the major part of the existing power plants will still be in use at the time, WEO states that even if all new power plants were carbon-free, CO2-emissions would still be only 25 percent lower. Emissions are expected to peak in Europe and Japan around 2020 and then decline. Globally emissions are expected to rise even after that, which makes the WEO conclude that OECD countries themselves couldn't halt the increase of emissions released in atmosphere and much more rapid development in renewables – like hydropower, biomass, wind, etc – would be needed (World Energy Outlook [Fact Sheet], 2008c).
Major part of GHS-releases consisting from coal and oil usage, solutions to reduce emissions resulting in their burning has been proposed. However, these have not always been found necessary much cleaner practices than the earlier technologies used. For example, a study from the alternatives to use if oil, the main transportation fuel, was to be replaced, presents estimates that doing so mainly with coal-based liquid substitutes would place the critical 2C degree warming of climate(as compared to pre-industrial level) around 2042, three years sooner than conventional consumption with oil in use. Using renewables as main strategy, results to a prediction from significantly slower warming, reaching same levels not until 2056. There's not general certainty from whatever the amounts of coal left for burn by societies, but the number is in any case too much, and even regular use suffices to put the climatic problem over the edge, unless the emissions are captured/stored. (Amos, 2008) According to Greenpeace [E]nergy Revolution (2007) 2o per cent of coal reserves will be consumed until 2030, 40 per cent until 2050, but these could still last at least another 100 years (2007b, p. 50). Supposed warming of 2C globally is therefore in many views seen possible to happen in such (close) future as around 2030-2050.
On the development of main transportation vehicles in future there's several alternatives for gasoline proposed currently. These could be replaced with Electric(EV) and/or Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles(HFCV) (or similar). The latter is less probable to materialize in wider consumer use soon, but electric cars have been in development far longer, though without gaining much markets. Judging on the basis of what seems most probable, one could suppose that the major part of the substitutes for fossil fuelled vehicles, would, at least in the close future (10-20 years) be hybrid vehicles powered with plug-in electricity batters (PHEV). Currently most presented solutions include hybrids of EV's and gasoline fuelled cars, but there's also alternative solutions, and the speculations based on the expected development of HFCVs. Yet, it seems that especially building a suitable refuelling network for the latter would take far longer even. Also, the development of the Hydrogen (fuelled) vehicles is also more dependable on the efficiency in development of renewables in general. In the long run such could still become cheaper than keeping an oil-fuelled transportation economy, which by rough estimate costs in 30 years at least as much. Anyway, it is expected that due to current economic change in developing countries like China, India fx, capacity of vehicles world-wide could be tripled until 2050 (now about 750 million).(Ogden 2006, p. 94, 100) It is expected that majority of cars are still running by fossil fuel for as long as at least the following 30 years. Unlucky number perhaps...
Also possible is, that some forms of cleaner substitutes for gasoline/alternative sources could be invented and used in cars and vehicles. But since such isn't yet anywhere widely advertised or even proposed, seems logical to assume that methods to generate emissions-free electricity will become as important as the reduction of fossil fuel pollution. If one is to suppose that any remarkable numbers of EV's are in traffic anytime soon, such would require that the most from the older fossil fuelled cars would fall out of use in the same time, sooner the better. Some presented models, like Googles energy plan make ambitious goals, like that major part of the energy production would be carried out by renewables and until 2030s Plug-in EVs market share from new vehicles sold could increase from virtually nothing to some 16.5 million (Clean Energy 2030). Seems we can't of course predict such fast changes (which isn't even possible in elsewhere, that is; in most parts of the world). Also, even if all the vehicles using gasoline were replaced to alternatives, it wouldn't perhaps lessen that much the actual emissions, because an amount derived for gasoline production consist only about half (50 percent) from the total of products refined from a barrel of crude oil (Bryze 2008). However, could still make an important change for the better and such transition will likely have to take place in future, sooner or later.
Probably newest from currently used and largely built energies in recent times (say since 1950s), is the nuclear energy, favoured by many countries in their electricity production, though with varying amount. It feels quite probable to suppose that a lot more new nuclear will be taken in use around the world until 2030s. In spite of that it is not reasonable to expect these to solely substitute fossil fuels, since building nuclear plants is time-taking and demands costly economic efforts, as well as does the safe maintenance of plants, not to mention the noticeable risks involved (also most striking problem rises from the waste management, though some newer form of reactors, so called fusion-fission hybrids are expected to be used in reprocessing the most dangerous, high-radioactive transuranic waste)(”Nuclear Fusion-fission...”, 2009). The latter are, however, yet in developmental state and efficient usage is not expected until 10 to 20 years. Also, the general opinion towards nuclear energy isn't likely to change for positive. Another question is the problem from lasting of uranium reserves to be used2. In addition, the older plants can't remain in use too far, so new production units built in larger numbers or not, it seems clear that in time before 2030 (and afterwards) a number of other suitable alternative energy forms would be needed. Basically, invention of nuclear fusion could solve all these problems, but such is rather more uncertain still.
It can also be noted, that on basis of cleanliness of (some of the) mostly advertised 'new clean renewable energies' like carbon-capturing from coal-burning, ethanol-based (cellulose as well as corn being the main source-fuel) biofuels and also nuclear energy were found, in a comparative study cited below, at least 25 (worst even 1000 times) more polluting than the cleaner renewable methods (from which the energy generated from wind was found cleanest)("Wind, Water, and Sun...", 2008d)3. So, we could now place some concern on the renewables, and their supposable (predicted) increased usage and further development because the dependency on oil will necessary have to reduce(its lasting also becomes crucial question in during 50 years). From past histories, we learn that usually the development of renewables hasn't ever been as fast than often expected/hoped.
Our main information from possibilities in the use of renewables comes from Greenpeace [E]nergy Revolution scenarios(2007, 2009), a plan suggesting that in 2050s half and in 2090s all the energy could come from renewables. This is of course also ambitious plan, and important to notice, it also places concern on getting completely rid from coal, which has been noticed as most drastic single factor pushing global warming further. Even Greenpeace's scenario doesn't supposes that coal could be removed from use in any near future, but presents the reasonable conclusion from all conventional coal-fired energy plants to be phased out by 2050s. It also suggests that the new ones built in developing world currently should be replaced with alternative renewable production like photovoltaics, on- and offshore wind and concentrated solar power plants:
”It is important to highlight that in the [E]nergy revolution Scenario the majority of remaining coal power plants – which will be replaced 20 years before their technical lifetime – are in China and India. This means that in practice all coal power plants built between 2005 and 2020 will be replaced by renewable energy sources. To support the building of capacity in developing countries significant new public financing, especially from industrialized countries, will be needed.” ([E]nergy Revolution, 2008a, p. 12-13).
Though more globally concerned than some other 'energy models', Greenpeace's [E]nergy revolution plan is naturally too complicated to be presented in detail(actually most futuristic scenarios are, and we're just referring to those here). Nevertheless, it is also quite clear that the efficiency in cutting emissions still depends a lot from the role of the richer countries in the world. Another futuristic (energy) scenario (say, Socolow-Pacala model from 2004) also notions the same thing. As well, it states an equally logical assumption (not withstanding the previous remarks on coal) that the developing world probably won't afford to let off from trying to keep their economic growth on track until half the century, so forth the OECD countries should be able to cut out emissions by greater numbers until that. Also, in the long term, the more fast reduction in amounts of fossil fuels burned appears as necessary and unavoidable, because now released amounts are likely to remain affecting for the climatic development far longer than current momentum. Socolow-Pacala-model then states that still after the 2050s 'both runners' (the current and following generations) are interlaced in a 'race' which has yet just started, and remarks that:
”Intergenerational equity requires that two runners have roughly equally difficult tasks. It seems to us that the tasks we have given the second runner (to cut the emissions rate in half between 2056 and 2106) will not be harder than the task of the first runner (to keep the global emissions in 2056 at present levels) – provided that between now and 2056 the world invests in research and development to get ready. A vigorous effort can prepare the revolutionary technologies that will give the second half of the century a running start. Those options could include scrubbing CO2 directly from the air, carbon storage in minerals, nuclear fusion, nuclear thermal hydrogen, and artificial photosynthesis.”(Socolow-Pacala, 2006, p. 57)
However, it remains of course less certain whether and how carefully these targets are kept in sight in the times of increasing economic competition, and fx therefore it may be also argued that any slip from these objections easily misses the overall targets. On the basis of previously said, it seems also quite logical that so called Plan B would be needed (meaning completely new non-polluting sources of energy production and ways for cutting the CO2 from atmosphere) in the period future, because even if succeeding to keep emissions on the level of 'Kyoto Protocol', the race will still remain but half won and the baton will just pass to next generation (Gibbs, 2006, p.103-105). (Not to mention, the easiest slip which leads to failure from targets, is a more predictable scenario than any other, that is; business as usual.)
Probably some of those prospective futuristic inventions and technologies available could be expected to arrive and taken for use in time-scales of our futuristics here. These (as presented in S.A. 9/2006) could include nuclear fusion, space-based solar, solar cells improved with nanotechnologies, more efficient uses of wave and tide, 'designer microbes' (a synthetic life-forms producing energy)... However, since further examination (and speculation on their possible uses) here would require yet more length, we'll leave those just for mention and hopefully some of them can be found effective times on-coming. In the latter part of century, almost universally accepted is the view that environment will have become much more warmer. Some apparent threats predicted fall then fx on the agricultural farming and other similar activities crucial for human health, fx. But, in spite of the cautious reservations we've given, one can still conclude that at least there's possible paths to take (the renewables in use), if political will and decisions are made in time. However, the world population growth is one major factor that easily raises more uncertainties...
A main area of development in the next decades (partly related to previously said), will concern the urbanization of cities, mainly in the developing world. This will have impacts on the environment too. We can fx think the new urbanization going on in China as some sort of model. This process can appear in many different paths, one possible example according eco-housing models (as presented on the article cited). Whatever the solutions or the rate of this trend, millions of people will be moving to cities during the period 2020-2030. (Adams, 2008) This is not temporary developmental trend but will continue even if times of economic downturn slow the process. According to Sassen, the growth in cities and even in the different areas inside them can remain as forceful even in periods when the economy would not overally grow by similar speed (Sassen 2006). The trend is taking place in countries around the developing world and increases (ao) stress on food production:
”Virtually all global population growth between 2007 and 2050 will occur in the cities of the developing world. Indeed the net increase in urban population during that period will exceed the net growth in overall population, as cities will also absorb migrants from rural areas. The world's urban population will nearly double during this period, rising from 3.3 billion to 6.4 billion people. By 2019, a majority of the developing world's populace will live in cities and towns (UN Population Division, 2008). These trends have implications for food demand and nutrition.”(Cohen et al. 2008, p. 25)4
In general cities are also creating more waste and pollution than rural settlements. As for the other consequences, urbanization probably drives towards more centralized and complex food economies because shift is going to be away from self-supporting house-hold economy. In general, one could also suppose that more land for crops and fields will be needed.
Forests cuts are a major effect increasing Climate Change, though clearing hectares for fields is not even main such reason. Clearing for uses of forest industries and cattle's grazing area probably causing more of that. Anyway, it is estimated, that about 515 million hectares of land (from which main part will be from tropical forests), be needed in uses for agriculture until 2030, just to fulfill the demands of human food production (until 2050s it is predicted even more increased demand of cultivated land)(McDermott, 2008). The areas where land usage needs are mostly expected to increase are mainly the same as where most of the world population growth in the future will occur, most apparently Africa. At the same time, land degradation will probably increase, most currently concerning the areas of equatorial Africa (18 per cent of lost global NPP5), Far East countries (Indo-China, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia) counting 14 per cent, and Southern China (5 per cent), etc (Bai, et al. 2008, p. 23-24). If one is to suppose that situation would remain likewise and knowing that large parts of the worlds remaining rainforests exist on areas mentioned, any usage additional to the basic needs like food production easily worsens the climatic development, especially if (industrial) loggings are not sustainably watched (practices vary in between countries, but hopefully the change is being for the better...)
Animal species loss is one of the better known proven facts resulting from increased cutting of forests (by human activity). Especially this concerns the tropical rainforests, where the diversity of existing species is also most numerous. There's many known co-threats as well as the forest cuttings; some severe (mentioned in WWF's Living Planet Report) for the biodiversity are: habitat loss, overexploitation, invasible alien species, Climate Change. The plain statistical numbers in the report state that since 1970, in about 35 years there has been -28 decrease globally in observed 1648 species populations, this consisting from: -33 per cent decrease in terrestrial populations listed (887 diff. species, most change having happened in tropics because of forest loggings); -14 per cent loss in marine species (in 341 different counted, fx overfishing among the main causes); and -35 per cent decrease in freshwater species populations (in 458 species counted, main reason being 50 per cent decrease in wetland areas during the 20th century). (Living Planet 2008, p. 6-12) So, most recently forests clearances was found as most significant direct cause, noticeable also because the greatest decline in period observed had happened at the so called neotropical area, where also loggings have been the largest.6
Concerning the continuing deforestation of recent years in tropical area, report also gives some other numbers related to issue: Just during 5 years (after the turn of millenium) the disappearance of forest from an area of 3.5 M ha in Brazil and 1.5 M ha in Indonesia was noted, each year. This was noticed as the main cause for disappearance of some 60 per cent in animal populations. (Living Planet 2008, p. 9) Knowing that during this century co-effects of Climate Change are expected to further increase the extinction rates among animal species - conservative estimate gives a prediction of 100 times faster rate than earlier in events of similar kind(Whitty, 2007) - makes this even more alarming thing. No matter how urgent one sees the climatic threats in future, the wild animal species and populations are among its most direct victims, since their habitat is already stressed by several other human caused factors. These include, in addition to previously mentioned also fx drainage of marshes and wet-lands, degradation of soil (and other forms of stress resulting fx from agricultural causes), hunting and collecting of wild animals, pesticides, pollution. Besides, the latter mentioned is not limited to the industrial pollution but includes as well such common every-day habits as human throw-away waste:
”The careless disposal of everyday domestic refuse leads to gradual accumulation in the environment. The main problem is that plastics and much other modern litter do not rot away as does natural waste. Plastic shopping bags and other plastic packaging, bottles and tape kill about 100,000 whales, seals, sea otters and turtles every year and up to 2 million birds. [...]” (Beer-Morris et al. 2005, p. 28)
(Of course, accidents oil tanker wreckages have the ability to singularly cause in scale comparable annihilations in animal populations.) So forth, even with conservation efforts and practices maintained in wider areas globally, if the above presented trends are likely to continue all this will create increasingly problems. An often presented estimation is about 25 per cent extinction rates in animal and plant species until just mid-century, mostly due to reasons related for climate change. Doesn't necessary would have to be so and also many species are capable to moving away if their living area becomes non-suitable (not all, though) so the warming also means changes in the range of many species habitat area. Much of the resulting consequences still depend on people's will to change their behaviour and uses of the now more vulnerable ecosystems. Also, likely is, surveillance of animal species will vary in between species, some may see an increase in numbers while of some diminish, fx because of their better adaptability. How and which kind the effects on the whole ecosystems (and the side-consequences) are not known for sure.
Also, on current manner of global resources use, a possible consequence could even be the collapse of ecosystem(s), a possibility sometimes raised forth. Most don´t dare to predict the crucial tipping point (various disastrous scenarios have been presented, some mentioned also in the text above), but we do; it's placed in our time line by exact year supposed. However, it would be erraneous to think this as a recent trend, without considering such practices having their backgrounds in past histories and developments. (The degradation of nature) has by no means been happening in limited period, it actually just seems more apparent these days when (so far limited) side-effects have become more visible, fx affecting the human food production chain. Of course, that's again a more complicated question that we have time neither intention to discuss here.
Anyway, this brief view (at past histories) show that if similar trend continues the forest ecosystems and animals have been/are likely to face the double-axed threat; that of loggings (described above) and Climate Change. Even though, some relatively recent news (here) give us some idea that the latter mentioned wouldn't probably turn Amazon to dry-lands and muds in very rapid future, it is not the only rainforest area affected by process of large changes and loggings (see fx here). (If not halted), the deforestation development is expected to worsen things further, and the previous newsbrief fx mentions it to currently add some 25 per cent increases in GHS-problem as well. Depends on how the issue is globally dealt with, more that will be harvested for short-sighted use and not with sustainable maintenance, more disastrous consequences are easy to predict. Similarly, the more economic global equality increases, the more direct overexploitation of resources one can as well predict. The Living Planet-report (2008) also raises attention to other important aspects (in concerns of this text, fx the statistics from global biocapacity usage in between different countries) but for now we'll have to go on to some final remarks here...
FORE!WORDS...
Sum total, we've now presented brief introduction to our clairvoyances. This was originally supposed to include a few sentences, but now it seems to have enlarged for more detailed discussion. So we're cutting it short now and leave the rest of our futuristics (2010-2050s) to the subsequent post.
In conclusion, most of this is comprised from brief excerpts to things currently happening and aims to outline the scope of the warming problem. There's far more (common and less common) inventions and topics researched currently/expected/foresighted and we've but mentioned some related energy-sources (say, fx high-altitude wind, wind in general, geothermal, solar - a few more words on that below - and in spite of the much discussed negative co-effects, fast emerging biofuels). Also more scifistic solutions to current climate problem have been proposed; fx giant towers absorbing the CO2 straight from atmosphere and/or genetically modified mass-scale trees to carry out the same job. As we've learned from all this, seems that the world is going to be struggling with these questions for some time.
From the supposable singular inventions and factors that basically could happen in close future, we can of course make expectations from the invention of (nuclear) fusion or A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) - Opposite to Roszaks early cautious comments presented in the first part of our futuristics, relatively many researches seem to suppose that some sort of real 'human-like' A.I., could be created (sometime during this century say). Continuing from the possible energy-sources of the future, similarly 'scifistic' sounding, but anyway another new field of research seems to be fx artificial photosynthesis, described in principle to offer possibilities for generating enough energy from couple litres of water to fulfi single house-holds daily needs(Gitlin, 2009). Also remembering that Sun is the single inexhaustible energy-source available for use on Earth(for practically unlimited period of time), one gets the impression this could hold some promise. However, it feels also quite uncertain if any practical solutions would be available but in the more distant days.
Nevertheless and whatever the most probable from the renewable energies to be taken in wider uses first, it also can be mentioned that in spite of its slow development solar is expected to become one of the main energy sources in the 21st century. Optimistic as we are, we feel that the one great invention of our times could as well be taking the solar potential from Sahara to effective use. Basically, wide areas of deserts are in some plans supposed to be turning sunlight for energies with concentrated panels, collected energy then distributed with efficient super grid network. This possibly could, we also think, balance the global economic inequality. Not the less significant could then fx also be the further development of Photovoltaics (from which it is mentioned in the Greenpeace scenario: ”Its importance derives from its great flexibility and its enormous technical potential for rural electrification for the 2 billion people currently having no access to electricity.”)([E]nergy Revolution 2007b, p.31) Although, similar to most (new) renewable energy-sources, the development of the more effective uses of solar and PVs will still take time. Nevertheless, also often supposed is that around the end of century most energy (about 90 per cent) could be produced with renewables.
Our following futuristics are not offering a too strickly serious presights but not too lighthearted taken views either and from this perspective it's quite reasonable to predict much not considered (in them) to happen and probably will. We've not fx given any expectations from the forthcoming political and human societal/economical changes, which will likely have their impact on many things predicted. That could mean positive development as well as negative. Not to mention, in addition to all the possible inventions expected there's as well a list of global problems but referred in this brief article: fx malnourishment, illiteracy, (expected) water scarcity, inadequate waste management/recycling practices, overexploitation of resources. Also, the number of refugees and people forced to move from their current home-grounds is often expected to increase in future.
But, none of the previous is anything very much anew, only that the consequences and co-effects of these probably would be felt more globally in the future. What seems then also logical to expect, the climatic development will (in the future) have effect also on the people in OECD-countries (though, the largest extent is expected to fall on those being born at the moment =the next generation). Considering that it also makes sense to say that whatever the amount of increase in energy needs, the most effective plan would be to slow the economic growth and unnecessary excess production. Also to say, of course, as usual we're possibly here not having the most recent knowledge to present, so (much from the) discussed above is probably little bit from behind the current state of things.
SOURCES:
2003. The Future Of Nuclear Power. An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. (PDF). Available at: "http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf"
2006. "Global Uranium Resources to meet the Projected Demand" IAEA. News (2.6.2006). Available at: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html2007a. Agricultural Outlook 2007-2018. OECD-FAO. (PDF). Available at: http://www.fao.org [Accessed July 17, 2008].
2007b. [E]nergy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook 2007 - Greenpeace International / European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).
2008. Living Planet. Word Wide Fund. (WWF 2008 Report) (PDF). Available www.wwf.org
2008a. [E]nergy Revolution: a Sustainable World Energy Outlook 2009 - Greenpeace International / European Renewable Energy Council (EREC). Available at: http://www.energyblueprint.info/ [Accessed April 10, 2008].
2008b. "The changing face of Africa." BBC NEWS | Africa | Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7445706.stm [Accessed February 22, 2009].
2008c. World Energy Outlook 2008 (WEO Fact Sheet). Available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ [Accessed January 2, 2009].
2008d."Wind, Water And Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear And Coal For Clean Energy". ScienceDaily. Science News. Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210171908.htm [Accessed February 5, 2009].
2009. "Nuclear Fusion-fission Hybrid Could Contribute To Carbon-free Energy Future". ScienceDaily. Science News. Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127131654.htm [Accessed February 5, 2009].
Adams, J., 2008. "Can sustainable construction help China meet its environmental goals? China's green race against urban surge." Available at: http://12degreesoffreedom.blogspot.com [Accessed November 5, 2008].
Amos, J., 2008. "Climate outcome 'hangs on coal'". BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7789249.stm [Accessed December 23, 2008].Bai, Z. (et al.), 2008. Global assessment of land degradation and improvement 1: Identification by remote sensing. Report 2008/01 .(PDF). Available at: [Accessed October 17, 2008].
Beer, A., Morris, P. (et al.), 2005. Encyclopedia of Endangered Animals, Kent: Grange Books.
Bryze, R., 2008." What Kind of fuel Am I". Slate (via 12 Degrees of Freedom / November, 14. 2008). Available at: http://12degreesoffreedom.blogspot.com [Accessed November 17, 2008].
Clean Energy 2030. Google's Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, 2008. Available at: http://knol.google.com (Under: Clean Energy 2030) [Accessed January 2, 2009].
Cohen, M.J. et al., Impact of Climate Change and Bioenergy on Nutrition (PDF). Available from www.ifpri.org [Accessed November 15, 2008].
Gibbs, W.W., Plan B for Energy. Scientific American , 2006(Vol 295 Number 3).
Gitlin, Jonathan M., 2008."Acidic oceans: worse than we thought". Available at: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081125-acidic-oceans-faster-than-we-thought.html [Accessed January 14, 2009].
Gitlin, Jonathan M., 2009. "Storing solar energy by turning over a new leaf" - Ars Technica. Ars Technica. Available at: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/storing-solar-energy-by-turning-over-a-new-leaf.ars [Accessed February 20, 2009].
Harrabin, Roger, 2009. "Acidic seas fuel extinction fears." BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm [Accessed March 18, 2009].
Jacquot, J., 2008. "Ocean Acidification: 100 years in the Future". Treehugger. Available at: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/ocean-acidification-hundred-years.php [Accessed February 19, 2008].
Klein, N., 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Metropolitan Books.
McDermott, M., 2008. "Biofuels, Food, Population Growth to put Increasing Pressure on Forests". Treehugger. Available at: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/biofuels-food-population-increase-deforestation.php [Accessed July 24, 2008].
Ogden, J., High Hopes for Hydrogen. Scientific American, 2006(Vol 295 Number 3).
Painter, J., 2009. "Amazon dieback 'overstated'". BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7892066.stm [Accessed February 22, 2009].
Parry, M., Canziani, O. & Palutikof, J., 2008. Key IPPC conclusions on climate change impacts and adaptations. WMO Bulletin, April/2008. (PDF). Available from WMO. [Accessed October 25, 2008].
[R.J]., 2007. "Myths and falsehoods about global warming". MediaMatters for America. Available at: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007 [Accessed November 9, 2008].
Safina, C., The world's Imperiled Fish . Scientific American (Special Issue - The Oceans), 1998(Vol 9, Number 3).
Sassen, S., 2006. Cities in a World Economy.(3rd ed.), Pine Forge Press.
Scientific American. (Special Issue - Energy's Future: Beyond Carbon) September(09) / 2006. Vol 295 Number 3., N.Y.
Socolow, R.H. ; Pacala, S.W., A Plan to keep Carbon in check. Scientific American, 2006(Vol 295 Number 3).
Timmer, John, 2008. AAAS: "That other carbon problem, ocean acidification". Available at: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/02/15/aaas-that-other-carbon-problem-ocean-acidification [Accessed January 14, 2009].
Tin (ed), T., Climate Change: Faster, Sooner, Stronger. An overview of the climate science published since the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF). Available at: http://www.wwf.org/ [Accessed November 12, 2008].
Whitty, J., 2007. "Animal Extinction - the greatest threat to mankind" - Environment - The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-extinction--the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html [Accessed November 3, 2008].
Wikjman, A. & Afifi, M., 2002. Technology leapfrogging and the digital divide. In Sustainability at the speed of light. Opportunities and challenges for tomorrows societies. (ed. Dennis Pamlin). World Wide Fund (WWF). (PDF) Available at: http://www.wwf.org [Accessed October 22, 2008].
Endnotes:
2. In addition to concerns on lastability of uranium, its mining is often mentioned causing various environmental damage and therefore also usually raises opposition. Compared to fossil fuels worlds uranium reserves are limited, though estimates differ: Greenpeace (2007) Energy Outlook mentions that ”...in the light of various scenarios for the worldwide development of nuclear power, it is likely that the uranium supplies will be exhausted sometime between 2026 and 2070 […]realistic estimates indicate that supplies will be enough for only few countries by 2050.”([E]nergy Revolution 2007b, p. 51) IAEAs(International Atomic Energy Agency) estimates are known to be more optimistic, though varying. A 2006 briefing based on annually published 'Red Book' information gives an estimate that worlds uranium resources would be enough for 85 years demand and expects the technological improvements in reactors efficiency to lenghten this for far longer times in future; in addition IAEA supposes larger unused uranium reserves to exist; "[...]world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation." ("Global Uranium Resources to meet...", 2006) Also, some estimates mention the techniques for extracting uranium from sea-water as possible source. In a bit older base-study for future nuclear energy usage in US it is stated that (concerning the US plants, apparently?): ”...the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of deployment over 40 year lifetime of this fleet.”(The Future of Nuclear Power 2003, p. 4).
3. Also worth noticing, in that study it is mentioned that ethanol may also emit more pollutants than fossil fuels. Cleanest methods for electricity production (according to it) were, counting from the best:
I. Wind II. Concentrated solar power (CSP) III. Geothermal power IV. Tidal power […] ; As ecologically cleanest combinations to transportation vehicles on this basis were found (in similar order):
1. Wind-BEVs 2. Wind-HFCVs 3. CSP-BEVs 4. Geothermal-BEVs 5. Tidal-BEVs 6. Solar PV-BEVs 7. Wave-BEVs 8. Hydroelectric-BEVs 9. A tie between nuclear-BEVs and Coal-CCS-BEVs 10. Coal-CCS-BEVs (tied with nuclear-BEVs) 11. Corn-E85 12. Cellulosic-E85.
Study also finds that HFCVs may be more useful in trips longer than 250 miles, BEVs in less than 250 miles travel distances. ('Wind, Water and Sun...', 2008d) [BEV=Battery Electric Vehicle ; HFCV=Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle ; PV=Photovoltaic ; CCS=Carbon Capture and Sequestering ; E85=a combination from gasoline and ethanol (85/15 per cent)]
4. The IFPRI-report also states (ao plenty of other things) that people in towns and cities have generally fewer opportunities than rural people to produce their own food and must rely more on purchases and cash economy to eat. Any sharp increase on food prices can have large impacts on especially the poor. The report mentions the raising reliance from so called street foods in cities, and places concern on safety and food hygiene that are becoming aspects of increasing importance as well. Also is mentioned the productivity decline in cereals production in many countries agriculture in 1990s. Another aspect that then raises aforth is that the buying power in food markets has become concentrated and global markets dominated by supermarket groups and corporations, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, China. In global food markets the governing trend has been concentration and consolidation which characterize the system; about ”[...]the 10 leading food retailers enjoy a 24 percent share of the $3.5 billion global market and grocery stores have expanded their operations in developing countries at a rapid pace.” (Cohen et al., 2006, p. 25-26) As consequence (partly) from the world food markets recent development, in many countries, has resulted to mass demonstrations seen (protests against the food price raises). Not surprising, because at the same time the large profits are made in the food market, which as downright result affects most directly the poorest. However in general food prices are expected still to remain in higher level, because recent new demands on the market (fx recent emerging of the biofuels-sector) ,as FAO's Agricultural Outlook summarizes. It also mentions (though published at the time of most peaking in global food prices) that the prices were expected to remain so, though further strict peak wasn't expected in the during current period(Agricultural Outlook 2007-2018. OECD-FAO, 2007a).
Also noteworthy, if only in subordinate sentence, is another thing related to world food market; the overfishing of the seas, which has been supposed at some point result to the collapse of the worlds fisheries and nevertheless still largely had long time remained the same – a Status quo. As pointed out often, modern technics can take the advantage out of the oceans to a level where fx successful reproduction of fishes has become limited. Also, according to Safina between 1970 and 1990 the worlds industrial fishing fleet grew far more than oceans could be expected to sustain, doubling in total the number of used vessels and tonnage. In spite of that, global catch didn't much raise. He even remarks that the annual profits from fx yellowtail flounder fishery could have remarkably increased by removing more than 100 boats.(Safina 1998, p.61) As for the following decades, one could suppose that the worlds population growing will create more pressures on the seas and fisheries.
5. The factor (NPP), can be defined as ”a long-term loss of eco-system function and productivity caused by disturbances that the land cannot recover unaided. It may be measured by change in net primary productivity (NPP – the rate at which vegetation fixes CO2 from the atmosphere less losses through respiration); deviation from the norm may be taken as an indicator of land degradation or improvement.” Also, it is said: ”Land degradation means a loss of NPP, but a decrease in NPP is not necessarily land degradation.” (Bai, et al. 2008, p. 1, 23) This (the latter sentence) means mostly temporary decline in productivity which can be result from other factors. On the basis for the estimating happening land degradation various other factors are used in report (whatever their exact meanings) fx Rain-use efficiency and Energy use efficiency, combined with normalized difference vegetation index(NDVI), the data collected by satellite metering. Also is mentioned the base data used being gathered from 1983-2003.
6. Especially Amazonas rainforests has seen fastest decline in species populations (-76 per cent loss, in the area consisting the total of 40 per cent of species on planet). On some other geographical zones the statistics appear as follows; Also Aftropical (-14) and the Indo-Pacific (-35) index show loss in populations. At Nearctic area no overall change was noticed and in the Palearctic there was actually an increase (+30) in populations noticed (but, mainly due to conservation successes in habitat protection and prevention of pollution, also greatest decline in this hemisphere is noticed to having already happened during some past 300 years, when fx 50 per cent of the land was cleared for the uses of agriculture and leaving no room for any increases of land usage.)
Single species examples is no use to present here, but it can be noticed that global birds index in report shows decrease of -20 per cent in populations of 895 species, in mammals -19 percent decrease was found in 395 species populations. To underline these views more, the report states, that noticing fx the existence of some 10000 birds species would perhaps give some hope these calculations being isolated examples, but: ”The decline of 20 per cent decline in the bird index masks a more serious decline of 50 per cent experienced by surveyed populations of tropical and marine birds.” And, from 5400 mammal species that have been described ”...20 per cent are classified as threatened by the IUCN Red list of endangered Species.” Also, in mammal index most serious declines counted was noticed on tropical realms. (Living Planet 2008, p. 6-12) To the contrary, there are also sometimes arguments on behalf that the so called secondary forests (growing fx on the earlier plantations in Middle/South-america where new fast growing forests have started to gain ground back) are expected to make new areas of wilderness where animal species can survive. In spite of that this may be happening, it is difficult to estimate if this will have a real comparable effects, because these areas are often remote from original forests and no unquestionable evidence from many wild species survival in them is clearly presented. Opinions from their significance seem to vary. Even less we are in knowledge if such could be helped fx with conservation efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment