New 2000 Year Old Insight

I'm reading through a conference presentation for work and it included this great quote:

“One thing is sure: the Earth is more cultivated and developed now than ever before; there is more farming but fewer forests, swamps are drying up and cities springing up on an unprecedented scale. We have become a burden to our planet. Resources are becoming scarce and soon Nature will no longer be able to satisfy our needs.”

-Quintus Septimius Tertullianus (Roman politician) 200 BC

The presentation says 200 BC but a quick search makes it seems like 200 AD is more accurate.  Regardless, it appears that people have been concerned about the future of the plant for a long time.  Technology (and land expansion) has always come to the rescue in the past.  Hopefully technology can save the day again this time - or at least be an important part of the answer.

Adam Smith turns green

I just read an essay in VentureBeat that accurately describes my rationale for moving into the cleantech world. Thought I'd quickly share it in case others are interested.

Useless men

About two and half months ago, I read an interesting article regarding peak oil and its implications for society. The gist of the article was that men in this generation don't have the fundamental skills required to survive (and provide for their families) in a society without cheap energy.

Over the last few weeks I have been doing oral history interviews with older people ... of their memories of the 30s, 40s and 50s. They remember working with horses on the farms, raising children with gas lamps, candles, home grown vegetables and home made clothes. This is less than 2 generations ago. What emerges is an innate sense, in the generation that made it through World War Two, of what constitutes enough, of an instinctive sense of self-reliance and an almost universal ability to turn one’s hand to anything.

A couple of years ago I went to London to a peak oil conference, and the evening before it I went to the pre-event social. I was struck by the fact that everyone there (with one exception) was male, aged 25-40, and, as far as I could tell, worked in IT. They were all very pleasant, intelligent, well read on the whole peak oil issue, and as able as anyone to argue that the peak is imminent and we need to act. There were however, almost no women, no gardeners, no builders, no foresters in the room, nor at the subsequent conference as far as I can tell.

Writers such as Shepherd Bliss and Carolyn Baker have questioned why it is that women are less prominent in the peak oil community. I have a nagging suspicion that it is because what we are seeing is, in part, a generation of men awakening to the fact that they are completely ill-prepared for life beyond oil. Almost all of the peak oil writers, and the vast majority of peak oil website writers and bloggers, are men. When I have organised peak oil-related events, finding female speakers on the subject is very tricky.

From the oral history interviews I have been doing, I have seen how older men are less concerned about “going back” to the kind of lifestyles of the 40s and 50s because they still remember how to do things. They often say “well it’s not a problem, I still know how to do all that stuff”. Something happened around the 1960s and the passing-on of that knowledge just stopped. Perhaps mens’ natural instinct is to protect and to provide, and at a time when we feel on some level the need to be doing so again, we are realising that our education has left us completely incapable of doing either. The oil-based economic system has basically said “don’t worry about that, we’ll take care of that for you” for that last 50 years, but that system is now starting to look very shaky, and we realise we have been taught the wrong skills.

The skills one needs to work in the service industry, in sales, in IT, in the insurance industry, in a call centre, are of very little use when one starts thinking about what might follow that in a more localised near-future. What those of 2 generations ago had that we have lost was a practical attitude. They knew how to use the various tools around them, and had a confidence that they could turn their hands to most things. They had the core skills they would need to get through most challenges. Dig for Victory was possible because most people still knew how to garden.

It is interesting to me how specialized professions have become and how much we take for granted in terms of food supply, transportation, etc. If you begin to unravel that support infrastructure, many other aspects of society (including specialized careers) no longer make sense. Need to get going on teaching the kids some basic skills.

Nothing New Here

I read this article in the Washington Post about two months ago. It's about a group of people in San Francisco that decided they weren't going to buy anything new (aside from necessities like food) for a year. It's a little extreme but they set a good example for the rest of us. Reducing consumption is definitely key to helping solve a number of the world's challenges. The most interesting quote from the article (at least for me) was: ""I go on talk radio shows, and I'm amazed by the anger of some people, the Chamber of Commerce president who calls up and says, 'You're trying to ruin the economy' ... I think it upsets people because it seems like we're making a value judgment about them. When we're simply trying to bring less . . . into our house." During the holidays, I gave some of my in-laws checks for $10 to buy energy-efficient light bulbs for their homes. It definitely wasn't a value judgment; just trying to make a contribution to reducing electricity consumption.

Cool Christmas present

For Christmas, my brother bought me a ton of CO2 emissions through NativeEnergy. Specifically, NativeEnergy will use the money to build new wind power projects that reduce one ton of CO2 emissions (about a third of a car's annual emissions). What a thoughtful gift. Thanks! For Christmas, I gave some of my in-laws $10 each towards the purchase of compact flourescent lightbulbs (or some other energy efficiency project of their choice). It was one way to remember the environment (a gift to humanity) this holiday season.

GreenDimes

A friend of mine pointed me to GreenDimes.com. The $3/month subscription service helps get you off (and keep you off) of junk-mail lists - which saves paper, eliminates clutter in your home, and reduces the chances of identity theft. The company also plants a tree for you every month. I just signed up so I can't vouch for the service yet. But it seems intriguing and potentially quite valuable.

Save the polar bear

The Bush Administration is considering adding the polar bear to the endangered species list (see this article). If it does so, there may be a ripple effect on the government's stance and policies on global climate change since federal agencies would then have a regulatory obligation to protect the polar bear (whose main threat right now is habitat loss due to global warming). Given the adminstration's past stance on climate change, it would be ironic is polar bears could accomplish what scientists have not - get the adminstration to take greenhouse gas emissions seriously.

Climate change videos

The University of Arizona put together a seminar series on climate change this past fall. There were seven talks by different U of A professors, covering almost all important aspects of the "climate change problem." I have not had a chance to watch them myself but I hear that the talks are quite good.

Ten best things about global warming

Global warming certainly isn't a laughing matter but it's important to keep a sense of humor about things. I came across this top 10 list this morning and found it amusing.

10. Why pay for tattoos when melanoma's free?
9. No more pesky weeds. In fact, no more pesky plants.
8. Nile Encephalitis: not just for Egyptians anymore.
7. Furnaces convert easily into tornado shelters.
6. Helsinki: the new Riviera.
5. Middle East oil producers feel right at home— everywhere.
4. Golfers only need a putter and a sand wedge.
3. For those who can't get enough of global warming. One word: Venus.
2. Steaks, medium rare, on the hoof.
1. Three thongs and you're dressed!

Revenge of Gaia

I received a Washington Post article in the mail today from my mom (thanks!). It was called "The End of Eden" (see online version) and it was about James Lovelock's new book The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity. The basic gist of the book and article is that we're all screwed. It reminded me of Al Gore's comment that "in the long run the earth is going to be fine. It's humans who are at risk" (see this post). Lovelock argues that the most of the world will become uninhabitable before we can do anything about it - "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." Lovelock dismisses solar cells, recycling, wind turbines, etc saying "it won't matter a damn ... [people] make the mistake of thinking we have decades. We don't."

A very gloomy outlook indeed. Here's how I see things. I think Lovelock is generally right about what's going on with the planet but I hope to God he's wrong about whether we can still do something about it and how soon the ill-effects of global warming will play out. Regardless, I'm inheriting this problem from prior generation and my children will inherit it from me. I can't do anything about that. The choice in front of me is what I do in the face of this information. On some level, it's a binary decision. I can either do something about the problem or not. Having chosen to do something about the problem, there's a spectrum of options from there - from totally realigning my whole life/career around helping solve the problem to simply recycling more and riding my bike to work. As we speak, I'm attempting the realignment option - updated my resume and trying to find a position at a solar cell company in the Bay Area. Either I'm going to make a difference or go down fighting. At least I'll be able to look my kids in the face 10 to 20 to 30 years from now and honestly say I tried my best to make the world a better place for them.

The power of advertising

I just read this post from the Cleantech blog and it reminded me why I'm so fired up at the moment about global warming. Some people may disagree regarding how severe this problem is and what needs to be done about it, but I believe it's more likely than not that this is a big problem (and not going away) and I'm personally not willing to take significant risks with the world that my kids will inherit. The sentiment is captured well in a recent TV ad by Environmental Defense. In it, the narrator stands on a railroad track with a train approaching behind him, talking about climate change coming 20-30 years from now and saying the problem is beyond his lifetime. He steps off the track just before the train is to hit him, but standing behind the narrator is a little girl, who is implied to be inevitably steamrolled by the locomotive (see ad here). The guys at Cleantech compared the Environmental Defense ad to the legendary (if not infamous) "daisy" ad that LBJ used against Goldwater in the 1964 election (see Wikipedia or PBS). I can only hope that global warming ads like this one have a similar impact on the collective consciousness as the daisy ad had on the 1964 election.

Heat waves

It's been really hot here in Mountain View recently. Temperatures over 100 degrees are relatively uncommon in the Bay Area but perhaps they'll occur more frequently in the future. There's a good discussion of this topic on the TerraBlog (see this article). Specifically, the author discusses the impact of increases in mean temperature and/or variance on the frequency of heat waves. The third scenario - with an increase in both mean and variance - is particularly scary but unfortunately likely given the results of recent climate models trying to explain the extremely improbable 2003 European heat wave.

Definitely concerning. As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what I can do about all this - both personally and professionally. My wife recently bought a clothesline (see this article) and we got some CF bulbs awhile ago. But there's more than needs to be done.

Living Homes

This is a really cool housing-related development - Living Homes. The company designs environmentally-friendly houses that include materials, technologies and building processes which make a positive impact on air, soil, water and energy standards. The company has developed a model home in Santa Monica, California — a pre-fabricated 2,500 square foot modern home built with high-performance glass and insulation, LED lighting, low-flow faucets, solar energy, solar-radiant heat, natural ventilation, gray water irrigation and green roofs planted with organic gardens. They are also developing a community near Joshua Tree National Park. But, at some point, you should be able to get one of these homes anywhere in the country. I'd definitely be interested in one. The only trick is figuring out how to afford to buy some land in the Bay Area and get the house on that land.

Global warming heating up

Activity around global warming is really heating up (pun intended). Over the weekend, I read an article from the Discovery Channel regarding a new report from the National Academy of Sciences saying that "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia" and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." No big surprise there but good to see that Congress requested such a report be generated. Today, I read an article in CNN.com regarding a case that the Supreme Court has agreed to take on - considering whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming (setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment). It will certainly be interesting to see how that case unfolds.

The perfect problem

I just read an interesting article describing global warming as the "perfect problem" for its uniquely daunting confluence of forces:

• complex and inaccessible scientific content


• a substantial (and uncertain) time lag between cause and effect


• inertia in all the key drivers of the problem, from demographic growth to long-lived energy infrastructure to ingrained daily habits at the household level


• psychological barriers that complicate apprehension and processing of the issue, due in part to its perceived remoteness in time and place


• partisan, cultural, and other filters that cause social discounting or obfuscation of the threat


• motivational obstacles, especially the futility associated with what is perhaps the quintessential "collective action problem" of our time


• mismatches between the global, cross-sectoral scope of the climate change issue and the jurisdiction, focus, and capacity of existing institutions


• a set of hard-wired incentives, career and otherwise, that inhibit focused attention and action on the issue

There is a much longer report generated by these top thinkers (see PDF) but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I guess it's a good thing that my purpose in life is solving complex problems because this one is as complex as they get.

An Inconvenient Truth: Part 2

A little over a month ago, I did a post regarding Al Gore's new movie "An Inconvient Truth". I went and saw the movie tonight. I also bought Al Gore's new book (of the same name) last weekend. The book actually parallels the movie very closely - and both are based on a presentation that Gore has been refining over a number of years in front of over 1,000 audiences. It's powerful stuff and I'd highly recommend you all check it out. We all need to solve this problem and we don't have much time to do it.

Al Gore

The more I read or hear about Al Gore, the more I like him. The latest thing was a brief interview in Men's Health magazine (PDF version here). I wonder how things would have played out differently if Gore had been elected President. Then again, perhaps the reason behind his close defeat was allowing him to focus exclusively on global warming. In the article, he offers four basic guidelines:

• When a direction feels right, go that way to find out why. Fulfillment usually follows.
• Solve one problem. You may find you're inspired to solve more.
• There are a lot of us on the planet, and we do a lot of damage. We can also fix a lot of things, if we choose.
• Everyone needs a purpose in life. Even puppies.

On the third point, Gore makes an interesting observation: "Look, in the long run the earth is going to be fine. It's humans who are at risk." On the last point, he offers this story about puppies and purpose:

When I was in my 20s, my wife and I got a little puppy at the pound. We asked a dog trainer to give us some pointers. She said, "Okay, step one: What is this puppy going to do?" I said, "What do you mean? He's going to be a puppy!" She said, "No, no, no: Is he going to get the newspaper? Be a watchdog? Herd sheep?" And she said something very simple, but to me it came off as profound: "A puppy has to have a purpose." A lot of men out there don't feel like they have a purpose.

The last interesting thing in his article is a quote from scripture that Gore says often: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might."

Nanosolar

I'm taking another online course through Foothill College. This time the topic is nanotechnology. The Wikipedia states that "nanotechnology comprises technological developments on the nanometer scale, usually 0.1 to 100 nm [1nm = one billionth of a meter or the width of approximately ten hydrogen atoms] ... Nanotechnology is any technology which exploits phenomena and structures that can only occur at the nanometer scale, which is the scale of several atoms and small molecules." The course overview defines nanotechnology as "the study, design, creation, synthesis, manipulation, and application of functional materials, devices, and systems through control of matter and energy at the nanometer scale". And the United States' National Nanotechnology Initiative (per Glenn Fishbine) defines it as follows: "Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range, to provide a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale and to create and use structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size. Nanotechnology research and development includes manipulation under control of the nanoscale structures and their integration into larger material components, systems and architectures. Within these larger scale assemblies, the control and construction of their structures and components remains at the nanometer scale."

Nanotechnology sits at the nexus of physics, chemistry, biology, material science, computer science, and many other scientific and technical disciplines - its multi-disciplinary nature is a distinguishing characteristic of nanotechnology. As Ratner points out, "the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology may explain why it took so long to develop. It is unusual for a field to require such diverse expertise. It also explains why most new nano research facilities are cooperative efforts among scientists and engineers from every part of the workforce."

At a business and economic level, the worldwide annual industrial production in the nanotech sectors is estimated to exceed $1 trillion ten to fifteen years from now and will require about 2 million nanotechnology workers (according to M.C. Roco ,Chair, WH/NSTC/Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSEC), and Senior Advisor, NSF). Nanotechnology has applications in a variety of fields including semiconductors, electronics, energy/power, and life sciences. Many people believe that nanotechnology will have an equivalent or greater impact on society in the years to come than computers and telecommunications have had in the last three decades. The NNI has even dubbed it "The Next Industrial Revolution"

My interest in nanotechnology stems from wanting to help solve the global energy crisis and save the planet from the continued effects of global warming (see this post or this one). One area of research and commercial application that is especially interesting to me is solar cells. For my midterm paper, I did a technology review of solar cell technology and a local startup company called Nanosolar (paper available for download in PDF format). Nanosolar, along with a handful of other companies, are trying to apply nanotechnology and manufacturing process innovations (such as roll-to-roll printing) to dramatically drive down the cost of solar cells while either maintaining or improving their current power efficiency. We all need Nanosolar (or some other company in this space) to succeed. By 2050, carbon dioxide levels will be roughly three times pre-industrial levels and will only level-off if we can generate approximately 15 terawatts of energy (roughly the entire worldwide energy production today!) from non-carbon sources. That's a tall order and pretty soon I suspect I'll be working more directly on making it a reality.

An Inconvenient Truth

I just read two entries on the TerraBlog regarding Al Gore and his fight against global warming (entry #1, entry #2). Gore is coming out with a movie on May 24 called "An Inconvenient Truth" (see web site and trailer). If possible, I'm going to try to see the movie on opening day. Similar to The Passion of Christ, they're trying to get as many people as possible to go on opening weekend to generate buzz for the film (and topic of global warming). I really hope this film does well. There are some really scary implications if we don't start doing something about this problem. I usually don't endorse films but, if possible, please go see the movie too when it first comes out.

Cosmic religion

Yesterday was Earth Day 2006. I didn't even realize it was Earth Day until I saw Google's logo (archived here). That lead me to look at the Earth Day Network web site and I found an interesting document regarding the inter-relationship between religion and the environment (archived here). That made me think about some of the early religions I studied in my religion course. Specifically, cosmic religion came to mind. In the lecture, the professor wrote:

It finds and expresses sacred meaning in aspects of nature and human life - seasons, sacred rocks or trees, the social order, birth and death - without linking them to historical personalities or written documents as do founder-religions. This was a religion that was closely observant of the natural world and this formed a strong belief in "animism". Animism, or belief that everything in nature - stones, trees, mountains, lakes, as well as human beings - has a soul or spirit. Indeed, the belief that nature is alive with spirits that have feelings and can be communicated with is one of the most common to human religious experience ... This world - here and now - is fundamentally sacred, and everything is alive with spirit ... Indigenous spirituality is a lifeway, a particular approach to all of life. It is not a separate experience, like meditating in the morning or going to church on Sunday. Rather, spirituality pervades all moments, from reverence in gathering clay to make a pot, to respect within tribal council meetings.

I especially like a practice of the archaic hunters in which they prayed for the souls of the animals they were about to kill for food.

It is necessary to prepare spiritually for a great hunt. There were ceremonies in which the hunters prayed to the spirits of the animals asking their permission to kill them and letting these animals know that they were needed for the hunters to survive. To take the animal requires in some sense the consent of the animal or that of its Divine masters, due propitiation for the wrong done to it, and proper magic to make anything happen at all.

This type of respect for animals and other living things largely does not exist in society now. I’m not advocating that we undo the advances of agriculture and food production but a little respect for the planet would go a long way. I know my eating choices would probably change a lot if I prayed at each meal for the spirits of the animals (and plants) that I was consuming.