Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

The sporadic nature of renewable energy, wind and solar in particular, poses a great challenge to wider adoption. Storage systems, even in stationary applications, are not sufficently developed. But rather than depending on creating a massive battery industry to facilitate a decentralized electricity grid reliant on wind and solar sources, why not develop thermal storage? Check out “Gigawatt-Hours per Million Commuters” for more on why we need to store more decentralized energy, even if the sun shone 24 hours per day.

The science of exploiting the temperature differential between thermal masses to manage temperature and generate power is well understood, but to-date applications are usually at the utility scale, such as with geothermal power plants, or co-generation units at utilities with high power consumption. Why not engineer a thermal circulation system into a building, and store hot and cold thermal mass in the basement and in the core of the building?

The notion of engineering intelligent thermal circulation into server farms is just beginning to take off, and the nature of this application can be used for temperature management at a building scale using the same concepts. By circulating a thermal transfer fluid through machinery that requires cooling, their heat can be harvested. A building with a thermal fluid circulation system would have each section of the building routing transfer fluid through rooftop collection units, with distribution routes to heat and cool the envelope of the building, interior climate control, collection routes through stationary energy consuming fixtures, all programmed and automatically monitored and activated by sensor, and centrally managed via cell phone or website.

Thermal circulation – the process of keeping every element in a building functioning at an optimal temperature – would simultaneously harvest solar heat as well as heat from all electricity consumers in the building. A building with a comprehensive solar-thermal circulation system could also harvest cold, in a dual storage system designed to concentrate and store hot and cold thermal mass. By regulating the input in and out of these two thermal extremes, power could be generated and climate control could be provided to the entire building, while harvesting excess hot and cold mass anywhere in the building as needed.

At the end of the day, it is probably cheaper to use one system for energy storage, and more-comprehensive thermal systems may be launched as basic next-generation water heating and space heating systems. But the future of thermal circulation could also embody energy storage solutions that don’t necessarily include batteries.

We had a comment a few days ago from someone taking us to task for letting up on Biofuel. Yet haven’t we been beating the drum the loudest? In our post “Reforesting vs. Biofuel” the reader will see links to just a few among dozens of reports posted here, warning how carbon credits fund rainforest destruction which causes climate change. Here is an excerpt:

Our concern for what we consider to be a global catastrophe is well documented, in posts such as:

• Deforestation Diesel
• Brazilian vs. Californian Ethanol
• Biofuel Monocultures
• Biofueled Global Warming
• Biofuel is NOT Carbon Neutral
• Biofueled Deforestation
• Ethanol & Water
• Biofuel or Biohazard
• When Green is Brown
• Is Biofuel Water Positive

Check all our posts in the Biofuel category, or the posts in our Global Warming category. We haven’t wavered.

Reforest the tropics, and scrub soot & aerosols from smokestacks. A feasible agenda for the global greens.

So in our post “Clean Energy Acts,” replete with a large format photo of a Condor in full flight above the green shadings of insanely beautiful chaparrel on California’s central coast, the irate reader lets loose with outrage that strikes deep:

“…you can not really be falling for this astroturfed CRAP, can you? these guys are proposing to kill off billions of acres of healthy ecosystems to site their “cradle to cradle clean” killing fields…,” and “…it is incredibly serious to advocate killing huge, huge, huge sections of wilderness in a senseless stampede from coal to “renewables.”

Perhaps the moderate tone we’ve recently adopted was based on honest math – as you can see in the online interactive calculator “How Much Land Does Biofuel Require,” or as we report in “Biofuel’s Potential,” if you are able to get biofuel yields up to 10x what is currently our best case – from 5,000+ barrels per square mile per year to 50,000+ barrels per square mile per year, then all the petroleum currently used each year worldwide could be grown in an area of only about 650,000 square miles. That is only about 6% of the arable farmland in the world. But is this honest math based on realistic estimates?

The problem is biofuel yields like this are only projections, and meanwhile land throughout the world, especially in equatorial regions, is being turned over to biofuel crops at 1/10th that yield. It is undeniable that biofuel can make economic sense. What is incredible however is the notion that biofuel is any “greener” than petroleum. At least petroleum emissions are only guilty of possibly causing global warming. Equatorial deforestation causes climate change – global warming from thermal and gasseous alterations on a massive scale, and droughts, and extreme weather. And the link between equatorial deforestation and all of these phenomena is well settled science – unlike the allegedly catastrophic potential of anthropogenic CO2.

One may say this is denial – but the point has more to do with what is green. Whether you want to be green because of global warming concerns, or simply because you want to be green – you should be willing to debate what constitutes the most effective global green policies. Climate change is definitely being caused by equatorial deforestation – and we can afford to reverse that now, unlike replacing petroleum. Climate change is definitely being caused by aerosols & soot from unscrubbed smokestacks – and we can afford to retrofit them all right now, unlike replacing coal. And who takes the biofuel denialists to task? Maybe biofuel can be grown in refineries located on marginal industrial or agricultural land, or even from surplus Iowa corn. watered by summer rains. But biofuel crops don’t belong on equatorial plantations that eat our mother earth’s rainforest lungs like a cancer. Put the forests back.

Environment has a profound effect on health. Of course it is nice to be spoiled by a home that protects us from the cold, pipes steaming hot water into our baths, and allows easy access to electricity to power up the TVs, fridges, microwaves, and massage chairs we just can’t live without. It is also true that many families travel for hours to spend a few nights in the woods to appreciate the scenery. A natural environment is rejuvenating. Nature has a profound effect on health: It is even assumed that people who have a tree in view from their hospital windows recover faster!

With natural beauty in mind, Michelle Kaufmann Designs, an amazingly innovative architectural design firm, has found a way to balance nature and function to design homes that are beautiful and eco-friendly.

Michelle Kaufmann founded the company in 2002 after noticing the lack of sustainable homes available. As stated in their website, Kaufmann “believes that how we develop our landscape is such an integral part of our culture and that what we build, and how we build, should improve the environment rather than harm it.”

The homes designed by Michelle Kaufmann are beautiful. Wooden patios, huge windows and simple decorations make these homes feel more like resorts than homes. And who doesn’t want to rest up at a resort after a hard day at work? Michelle Kaufmann lives in a GlideHouse herself. This is one of the home designs offered by the company.

“The Glidehouse meets the EnergyStar program standards for energy efficient homes and meets the performance standards of the American Lung Association program.This high performance home is insulated with an air-barrier, open cell foam insulation, and all wood-to-wood framing joints are caulked, which makes the home airtight, energy efficient, and less likely to produce mold. The Glidehouse also uses water-saving plumbing fixtures, on-demand water heaters, and a mechanical ventilation system that is 30% more efficient than typical forced-air systems.”

The MKLotus is the most recent design and is meant to look and feel like an oasis. Of course the next question is how expensive is it to live in paradise? Predesigned homes are priced at $250-275 per square foot, while a custom made home will cost upwards of $400 per square foot.

The nice thing about the company is that they specialize in community homes as well. These are less expensive ranging from $100-200 per square foot.

In the end, you are investing in a healthier environment, more beautiful community and get a gorgeous home to relax in.

There is a 9 minute video on YouTube entitled “Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See,” posted in Sept. 2007, and had already been viewed by over 3.3 million people.

A spectre of rising seas can awaken primal fears in even the most rational among us.

In the video, a very articulate man with a white board presents a clever argument based on the precautionary principle, applied to a discussion on Global Warming.

The gentleman politely makes his case, claiming that nobody has been able to dispute his reasoning. Comments are disabled on the video.

He sets up two dichotomies:

1. Climate change is real and we can do something about it – true or false?
2. Humanity takes urgent action in an attempt to prevent climate change – yes or no. He then dissects each case, using a box divided into four squares.

Working clockwise from upper right, here are his cases:

• Climate change is not happening – it is false to think so, and yes, we attempt to do something about it. The worst case outcome here is the actions taken cause the worst depression in the history of the human race, and it was all for nothing.
• Climate change is not happening, it is false to think so, and no, we don’t do anything about it. In this case everyone is happy.
• Climate change is happening – it is true to think so, and no, we don’t do anything about it. In this case our inaction results in the worst environmental catastrophe in the history of the human race, and we could have avoided it.
• Climate change is happening – it is true to think so, and yes, we do something about it. In this case everyone is happy.

There are huge problems with this analysis – here are three that immediately come to mind:

First, if action to avert climate change causes a global economic depression in the case where there wasn’t any climate change after all, it will also do so in the case where climate change is real. So the case assumes we save the environment, but it is misleading to think we avoid economic catastrophe in the attempt – and the loss of civil liberties.

Second, it is misleading to think any action on the part of humanity to change the climate is going to be effective. If we stopped burning all carbon-based fuels tomorrow – which is precisely how we can guarantee a global economic meltdown and catastrophic war – it is not certain it would have any positive effect on the global climate.

Third, it is even possible that actions we take could have the opposite effect – what if CO2 emissions are the only thing preventing the planet from slipping into an ice age? The point is we don’t know. We don’t understand the role of water vapor, solar cycles, or why the holocene period has lasted 2x as long as any interglacial period in the last 500,000 years. There’s a lot we don’t know.

The presenter in this video encourages the viewer to see shades of grey. The problem is the precautionary principle makes shades of grey difficult to discern. Before any newcomer to this website dismisses this rebuttal as biased nonsense, please read “Global Warming Questions,” or our interview with noted climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Read other posts in the Global Warming section of this blog, or review our feature articles for in-depth reports on the topic of global warming. We’ve done our homework, and there are shades of grey galore.

To say “the risk of not acting outweighs the risk of acting” after presenting an argument based on a permutation of the precautionary principle as beyond debate – when it clearly merits vigorous and ongoing debate – is not advancing the dialogue on what do do about the global climate, or for that matter, how to constructively channel global warming activism.

The recent launch of Tata’s “Nano,” along with the high interest in the Smart “Fortwo” micro-hybrid car, indicate rapid steps towards a scenario where hundreds of millions of affordable, gas-sipping vehicles are sold over the next 10-20 years – a most welcome development. After all, the independently owned automobile is probably one of the most liberating innovations in the history of the world. So how will the world adapt to 1.0 billion more automobiles on the roads?

Per acre, almighty Redwoods are among the greatest carbon sinks.

In our latest interactive online spreadsheet, “Can Forests Offset Automotive CO2″ we evaluate the impact of 1.0 billion new cars on the road in terms of the ability of reforestation to absorb their CO2 emissions. In our metric-friendly spreadsheet (you can view all variables in both imperial and metric units) we assume 1.0 billion cars, averaging 10,000 miles per year each, averaging 50 miles to the gallon. We further assume, based on excellent data from the U.S. Government’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), that 50 tons of carbon can be sequestered per acre of forest in a 75 year cycle. Input your own assumptions!

The table “Major Ecosystem Complexes Ranked by Carbon in Live Vegetation” from CDIAC is interesting in that it shows the most productive forests for sequestering carbon are the temperate coniferous rainforests of North America, at around 15 kilograms of carbon per square meter, with tropical equatorial rainforests coming in second at around 10 kg per square meter.

Overall, our spreadsheet indicates that under these assumptions, it would take about 1.1 million square miles of new forest to sequester the CO2 emissions from 1.0 billion new cars – and these new forests would retain the capacity to absorb CO2 at this rate throughout their growth cycle of 75 years.

There are a lot of conclusions to draw from this. Reforestation is clearly not going to offset all automobile emissions – everyone knows that – but during the transition from cars powered by fossil fuel to zero-emission cars, forests hold surprising potential. If we are going to start treating carbon as currency, it appears that the emissions from the 1.0 billion additional cars destined to be on our roads, at the least, could be offset by planting slightly more than 1.0 million square miles of new forests – a desirable amount of worldwide reforestation.

Even if one is skeptical regarding CO2′s role in climate change, there are many benefits to treating carbon as currency. Exposing the chicanery of the CO2 opportunists – and the attendant dangers improper implementation poses both to the environment and to individual freedoms – should not blind anyone to the utility of the concept.

Jin Hua Gong Mine, Datong, Shanxi, China (Photo: Peter Van den Bossche)

COAL CONSUMPTION IN CHINA BY SECTOR 2004, 2015, and 2030

Sources: 2004: Energy Information Admin. (EIA), 2015 and 2030: EIA, “System for the Analysis of Global Energy Markets” (2006).

China is the second largest energy consumer in the world and most of its energy consumption is coal. This dominance of coal is not expected to fall significantly even as China’s energy demand grows.

China’s Development Research Center of the State Council estimates that coal will account for 66 percent of primary energy consumption in 2010. Coal-based power generation will account for 65 to 70 percent of total generation for the next decades. Industry is the other major consumer of coal.

While China’s coal resources are deemed sufficient for its needs in the coming two decades, the environmental cost of coal use is already beginning to take its toll, particularly through SO2 and NOX emissions which are the leading causes of acid rain. In 2002, about 34 percent (or 6.6 million tons) of China’s SO2 emissions were released from power plants. Acid rain falls on an estimated 30 percent of China’s land mass and can become a threat to agricultural output. China’s CO2 emissions, now even surpassing those from the United States, are also a threat to the global environment. A combination of clean-coal technologies at the input, processing and output stages of the power generation process, the enforcement of emission control regulation, and sector policies (such as pricing) have the potential to mitigate the environmental impact of coal use. Significant reductions in environmental impact in the long-term will require a major effort.

The World Bank’s recent analytical work on China’s coal sector found that coal mining is in desperate need of restructuring and modernization. Overall, coal is far behind China’s power and oil/gas sub-sectors in economic efficiency, modern management, and technology. There are more than 30,000 coal mines in the country, most of them small mines producing a third of the country’s coal even after widespread mine closures. The small mines are a major source of the sector’s problems including lack of safety (some two-thirds of the reported 6,000 coal mining fatalities per year occur in small coal mines), environmental damage (small mines are the least equipped to address the environmental impacts of coal – only a small fraction of small mines wash their raw coal), and sub-optimal exploitation or, at worst, waste of resources. At the same time, small-scale mining is a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed in the wider context of the economic and social priorities of the town and village governments which most often operate them.

From mine to market, a fully laden coal barge floats its way down the Yangtzee River.

China is the second largest producer of electricity in the world and its power demand growth is also among the world’s highest. With rapid economic growth continuing to drive energy demand, China faces supply reliability concerns across the energy sector. These concerns are particularly acute for power and oil. The key priorities and challenges facing China’s energy sector in the medium-term are:

(1) Ensuring Energy Supply Reliability to Meet Demand Growth:

With rapid economic growth continuing to drive energy demand growth, China faces supply reliability concerns across the energy sector. These concerns are particularly acute for power and oil.

(2) Ensuring power supply reliability:

China is the second largest producer of electricity in the world and its power demand growth is also among the world’s highest. By the end of 2000, China’s total installed capacity reached about 320 gigawatts and was expected to grow to about 400GW by 2005, about 500 gigawatts in 2010 and between 850 gigawatts and 950 gigawatts in 2020. But electricity consumption has jumped by much higher rates annually than are implicit in the above 2000-2005 estimate with power shortages first affecting the provinces responsible for the country’s export boom (Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Shanghai) along the eastern sea-board. In 2004, 19 out of 31 provinces had to ration electricity. The reliability of the power supply system, particularly, the transmission grid has also become an issue. The government forecasts a power shortage of 10 to 15 percent in the key manufacturing areas estimating that about $108 billion of new generation capacity will be needed in the coming five years to close the gap.

Despite progress in power sector reform, the sector has suffered from systemic problems such as a piecemeal approach to restructuring, slow development of a regulatory framework leading to inefficiencies and abuses of monopoly/monopsony power, mismatch between loan maturities and economic lives of power projects, inadequate wholesale electricity and transmission pricing regimes, and low efficiency of electricity supply and use.

To guide the sector’s evolution, the national government of China released a comprehensive reform program for the power sector in April 2002 whose ultimate objective is to provide customers the best service at the lowest possible cost through continued break-up of the monopolistic industry structure and gradual expansion of competition to improve sector efficiency.

(3) Managing the security of oil supply:

China’s oil consumption accounted for nearly a quarter of primary energy in 2002. With a growing passenger vehicle fleet, greater inland freight transportation, and the high growth rate of industrial output, oil consumption is expected to retain this share of primary energy till 2010 even as China’s total primary energy consumption will more than double between 2000 and 2020. In 1993, China became a net importer of oil. And the proportion of imports in oil consumption has risen from 7.3 percent in 1995 to 31 percent in 2000. The government estimates that oil imports will account for 60 percent of total oil consumption by 2020. The government is responding to the vulnerability to oil price volatility and supply risk through a mix of measures including the development of a strategic oil reserve, acquisition of upstream oil assets, and fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. The government has sought the World Bank’s advice in developing a coherent and comprehensive policy response to the question of oil supply security under the wider rubric of a policy report on long-term energy security.

(4) Managing the Environmental Impact of Coal:

China is the second largest energy consumer in the world and most of its energy consumption is coal, 67 percent of primary energy consumption in 2002. This dominance of coal is not expected to fall significantly even as China’s energy demand grows. The Development Research Center of the State Council estimates that coal will account for 66 percent of primary energy consumption in 2010. Coal-based power generation will account for 65 to 70 percent of total generation for the next decades. Industry is the other major consumer of coal.

While China’s coal resources are deemed sufficient for its needs in the coming two decades, the environmental cost of coal use is already beginning to take its toll, particularly through SO2 and NOx emissions which are the leading causes of acid rain. In 2002, about 34 percent (or 6.6 million tons) of China’s SO2 emissions were released from power plants. Acid rain falls on an estimated 30 percent of China’s land mass and can become a threat to agricultural output. China’s CO2 emissions, second only to the United States, are also a threat to the global environment. A combination of clean-coal technologies at the input, processing and output stages of the power generation process, the enforcement of emission control regulation, and sector policies (such as pricing) have the potential to mitigate the environmental impact of coal use. Significant reductions in environmental impact in the long-term will require a major effort.

Old and new mingle as human-powered coal carts deliver energy to fuel China’s industrial boom. (Photo: USGS)

Overall, coal is far behind China’s power and oil/gas sub-sectors in economic efficiency, modern management, and technology. There are more than 30,000 coal mines in the country, most of them small mines producing a third of the country’s coal even after widespread mine closures. The small mines are a major source of the sector’s problems including lack of safety (some two-thirds of the reported 6,000 coal mining fatalities per year occur in small coal mines), environmental damage (small mines are the least equipped to address the environmental impacts of coal – only a small fraction of small mines wash their raw coal), and sub-optimal exploitation or, at worst, waste of resources. At the same time, small-scale mining is a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed in the wider context of the economic and social priorities of the town- and village-level governments which most often operate them.

(5) Reducing Environmental Damage by Increasing the Proportion of Gas and Renewables in the Energy Mix:

China’s gas consumption is low (at 2.7 percent of primary energy in 2002). But gas is beginning to gain momentum and substantial growth is expected with the share of gas in final consumption anticipated to more than double during the next decade.

Renewables accounted for less than 10 percent of China’s primary energy consumption in 2002. With respect to renewable sources of electricity, China is one of the most well-endowed countries in the world estimated to include 160 gigawatts of wind power, over 75 gigawatts of commercially exploitable small hydropower, about 125 gigawatts of biomass energy, 6.7 gigawatts of known geothermal energy and high levels of insulation in many parts of the country. Analyses indicate that the greatest potential for displacing coal by renewable energy is in the power sector. Even so, renewable sources accounted for only 7.8% of primary energy in 2002 with large hydropower plants as the dominant source.

Recognizing this potential, the government seeks to begin use of the resources which are economically feasible. The government has decided to adopt a policy aimed at building demand by mandating electricity suppliers to meet some of their needs from renewable resources, often known as a mandated market policy. The policy is to be implemented through the enactment of a Renewable Energy Promotion Law (REPL) which has been ratified by the People’s Assembly in February, 2005. In addition to the development of the law, regulations need to be introduced. Rather than introduce a law that requires all provinces to comply immediately, the government intends to try out the approach in four provinces (Fujian, Inner Mongolia, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang) which have all volunteered to participate as pilot provinces. These provinces have agreed to adopt the law and to take the actions necessary to comply with it over the period 2005-2008.

(6) Increasing Efficiency of Energy Use Including Heating Services:

The energy consumed to produce every one thousand dollars of GDP (or energy intensity) reduced from 2.49 tons of oil equivalent in 1980 to 0.84 by 2002. The reduction of waste since 1980 has been significant but it means that the easier gains have already been made. In an increasingly market-based economy, government-mandated programs are unlikely to succeed and stronger regulatory oversight will be needed. Despite the progress so far, a greater energy efficiency challenge lies in the future as China currently has a comparatively low per capita energy consumption level (1.1 tce per person in 2001 compared to 6.16 for South Korea, 6.2 for Japan, and 12.04 for the United States). Energy intensity reductions will be heavily influenced by the speed at which China’s major energy-consuming industries move closer to international efficiency standards. Economic growth, rising incomes and the spread of a modern, technology-based way of life – al of these mean that energy efficiency needs to remain a major priority for energy policy.

(7) Efficiency in the heating sector:

Roughly half of China’s population lives in northern regions where temperatures fall below 5oC for over 90 days every year. China currently consumes about 180 million tons of raw coal per year for space heating in urban residential and commercial buildings in its cold and severe cold regions. During winter, emissions from coal-fired central heating facilities are the primary cause of the serious air pollution that is prevalent in northern Chinese cities, and are a major public health concern of the Government. And energy use per unit floor area is at least double that of buildings in similar cold climates in Western Europe or North America, yet far lower levels of comfort are achieved. Due to its major cost advantage, and shortages of alternatives, coal is expected to remain the dominant fuel for central heating systems for the foreseeable future. To address these problems, it is critical to drastically improve the efficiency of coal-fired heating systems in residential buildings.

Air pollution from China can easily be seen from outer space as a plume of smoke thousands of miles long (Photo: NASA)

China’s urban residential building stock is expected to more than double in the next 20 years. The Government estimates that energy use per unit floor area in new residential buildings can be cut in half, compared with the existing building stock, if compliance with the current energy code is ensured. But China’s construction boom is already overwhelming efforts to enforce the country’s new building energy codes. The housing development industry in general has little incentive to adopt energy-efficient building designs, materials and practices. Similarly, the central heating sector currently provides no incentives for consumers to respond to market-based energy costs. The heating systems are based on Soviet technologies that do not allow consumers to control their heating. Heat metering is non-existent. Billing is based on a flat per square meter price. Chinese leadership has made it clear that urban heating sector reform must proceed.

China’s growth and development has been achieved at the expense of its natural resource base. For example:

- Land degradation is widespread and increasing. China has huge tracts of rapidly degrading grasslands, some of the worst water erosion problems and the highest ratio of actual to potential desertified land in the world.

- Thanks to large investments in tree plantation and shelterbelt development and a natural forest-logging ban, China has successfully turned the tide of formerly rapid deforestation. However, the country’s natural forests had been in a continuous decline for over 50 years and the return of many forest ecosystems to a sustainable condition is still a long way off.

- Despite the establishment of a national system of nature reserves, the stresses on them have put the country’s unique and globally significant biodiversity under serious pressure.

Water availability and quality continues to be a critical problem, particularly in northern China, and the situation is likely to deteriorate over the next decade, especially in the rivers north of the Yangtze. In order to equitably resolve the conflicting claims for water and other natural resources there is a need for both technical progress and improvements in institutional, administrative and regulatory arrangements.

China’s rapid growth is now a driving force in the global economy and is achieving unprecedented rates of poverty reduction. However, growth is also seriously damaging the natural resource base and generating major environmental liabilities. The country’s environmental problems include land degradation, deteriorating water quality and water scarcity, severe air pollution and declining natural forest cover. These problems threaten the health and prospects of current and future generations and are undermining the sustainability of long-term growth.

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld..

Additional EcoWorld reports on China:

- Cleaning Up China

- China’s Energy Demand

- China’s Renewable Energy

- Wind Power in China

- China’s Energy Outlook

- Fuel Cell Development in China

- China, Canals & Coal

One year old Acacia and Teak, “pioneer trees” begin the process of transforming cattle rangeland back into forest.

Fred & Amy Morgan – pioneers of a business model that profitably restores forests.

A new revolution has begun. As with all changes of great magnitude, the status quo is resisting for as long as it can, but inevitably, the Resource Revolution will push aside the old way of life and bring in the new.

When the world stopped having to rely on manual power and animal power, the result was the Industrial Revolution. Until that time, if you wanted a horseshoe, you would ask a blacksmith to make one for you and he would custom make it to fit your horse. When industry could make thousands of horseshoes per day, the price dropped and often the quality increased, helping create a market for the thousands of horseshoes. Much of the affluence of the modern world is due to the efficiency of industry.

Each revolution sows the seeds for the next. For example, without the Industrial Revolution, the Microchip Revolution would have been impossible, because manufacturing at the micro level cannot be done by hand. And without cheap computers and the microchip, the Information Revolution or Information Superhighway would never have happened, with its profound impact on the world. Now a smaller company can compete effectively against large companies because of the efficiencies brought about by computers and the Internet.

There are people left behind in the Information Revolution, as in any revolution. There are jobs that have gone away, just as blacksmithing became nearly an extinct occupation as a result of the industrial revolution. No longer does someone dictate to a secretary who takes shorthand. Draftsmen who did not learn to use CAD systems lost their jobs. In the publishing industry, in the early days, computers helped tremendously by replacing old typesetting processes. But now, because of the Internet, most old-style publishing companies are feeling the pressure. No longer do you need a publisher to get your ideas out, just a website. I can be sitting in Costa Rica typing this while those who will read it can be anywhere. The amount of time invested for me to write and disseminate this is very little compared to the time and cost of publishing it.

The Information Revolution has permitted us to have a global perspective like we’ve never experienced before, helping bring us into the Resource Revolution, wherein for the first time we are starting to view the earth as a closed system.

Now that we can see the world as a closed system, we have to learn how to treat it like one. With few exceptions, man has removed the easily available resources, and when those were depleted, we moved on to the next place. Land was left fallow to recover from the wastes. Our species always migrates toward resources. In the USA there is a grave problem with illegal immigration. In truth, there may not be a political solution. This is because we are dealing with the fact that it is always easier to migrate toward resources than to create them. It is the perception in many countries that the USA has an abundance of resources still remaining and all that is necessary to have a better life is to get there. You might as well try to hold back the waves with your hands as to try to stop a migration to easily available resources.

Much of the tropics have been deforested in recent years due to slash-and-burn farming (). A farmer stakes out land and removes the forest. After a few years, the soils and fertility have been used up and so he moves to the next section of land. It angers the average farmer when I try to explain why this is a problem, because I’m attacking what they perceive as their only means of earning a living. Besides, if it was good enough for dear old dad, it’s good enough for them.

I can remember a time when it was considered okay to dump your trash in the nearest stream. The ability for the streams and rivers to accept it seemed inexhaustible until rivers started to catch fire and fish started dying.

In many ways, we as a species have functioned like children. Leave children with no training alone in a home, and they will eat whatever is in the refrigerator and the pantry and, if you are lucky, fill up the trash baskets. We have been doing the same; we have been consuming all the resources of the planet without being worried that someday we would run out. The magic refrigerator and pantry were filled with all manner of good things and we have eaten like there was no tomorrow. We didn’t think about the need to deal with the trash pile growing up around our ears. Mother Earth has been like the adult who comes home to replenish the larder and tell the kids to take out the trash, but we are rapidly running out of easily available resources, untapped frontiers, and places to dump the garbage.

Cradle to Cradle Remaking the Way We Make Things

Those who do not learn how to treat the world as a closed system will be left behind in the Resource Revolution.

Much of the profitability of old-style companies is based on resources whose only cost is that of extraction. This has left other costs not calculated. For example, to be healthy, a company needs to calculate the cost of resource replacement and the cost of cleanup of any unwanted byproducts of using the resource or creating products with the resource.

As resources become more and more dear, the nature of business is changing. Since I am in the business of wood and reforestation and it is a subject I know well, I’ll use it as my example.

Before the Industrial Revolution, if you wanted to use wood, you went out and cut the tree down yourself. Since you literally created your home from the sweat of your brow with the power of your body, you built small unless you were very rich. Log cabins required very little wood processing. The only planks that were necessary were for the floor, if you didn’t just have a dirt floor. The roof was made by splitting wood for shakes.

It was a challenge to make much of a dent in the forest. The population was relatively small, and the time involved to take a tree and make wood from it was long. In truth, most of the time the forest recuperated faster than trees could be removed. Most of the clearing for farms was done with fire, not with ax.

When the Industrial Revolution came about, not only did saws and axes become of better quality and cheaper, but motorized means of cutting trees came into play. Sawmills were invented that could process thousands of board feet of wood a day. If you wished to build a home, you could merely go and buy the processed wood. About this time the USA moved away from post and beam construction that produced homes and barns that lasted for hundreds of years to homes built using framing construction that do not last nearly as long. But it was faster to build with precut framing wood than to build post and beam, and if the homes didn’t last as long, at least they were easier to repair or replace, since there was always more wood available down at the sawmill or lumber store.

Now we have machinery such that a single crew can clearcut a square mile of forest per day. In the past, for a person to drop ten large trees in a day would be a good day’s work; now tens of thousands is more normal. This is considered progress.

But now we are seeing something: All of this great productivity has destroyed streams, rivers, and the land itself in runoff, degradation of soil, and erosion. Where before was an ecosystem that could easily regenerate itself, now it gets harder and harder to regrow the forest. We’ve tried replacing trees in monocrop plantations, but this has created very serious disease and pest problems in many areas.

Not only that, as the supply dwindles, there is not enough wood to keep the very expensive sawmills and harvest equipment busy. The nature of a large capital investment in equipment is that it only makes sense if it is used at nearly full capacity. It is hard to pay the bills on a million dollar piece of equipment if it is sitting idle because there are no trees to cut. Yet as sawmills are closing, for example, in many parts of the USA, there are people elsewhere who are doing very well in wood today.

Finca Leola’s woodshop – because they own their own sawmill, they can harvest nearly all of the tree

They are revolutionary thinkers who have taken the long view, treating the world as a closed system and buying land with trees on it that had very little value because others had already taken all the good trees.

These people have gone out and selectively harvested just the bad trees. Instead of only taking the best, they took the worst. Even though it is not as profitable to process poor quality wood, when you do it with smaller equipment and use it to make flooring, moldings, and such, you can make more than enough to survive while you allow the forest to recover. Instead of year by year the forest being worse off, it actually improves. This means the owner, instead of being poorer every year, actually is getting wealthier. It is like having a magic pantry that every time you open it, the amount of food as well as the quality increases.

The secret to this business model is to always have a view to the future, because if you destroy the resource, you will destroy your business and your livelihood. You also have to be careful of your waste, because no more can we assume that there is yet another frontier to exploit just over the hill. If you poison your environment, it will be you that you poison, not your neighbors. The good part is that if you have your own source of resources, your business is not held hostage by availability of the resource nor by price fluctuations of that resource.

There is a book worth reading called Collapse by Jared Diamond. Diamond shows how civilizations have collapsed due to various factors, often including abuse of their environment. The author might agree with me that in the coming years, no longer can we view a society as civilized that plunders resources. After all, do we think of societies that are based on robbing and plundering as being civilizations? No, we think of them as barbaric forces against civilization. Now has come a time that if we are not to suffer a collapse of the civilization we have, we must understand that exploitation of anything is not civilization because such action is not sustainable. In the future, we may view companies who exploit resources as no different from a thief who supports himself by stealing. It is not producing to merely take from a common pool of resources. The resources of the world belong to all of us, and those who take and do not replenish are enriching themselves by making all of us poorer. This is not being civilized.

You will notice that those who are against the Kyoto agreement often state that adopting it would wreck our economy. Think about what they are saying: If we have to pay for the damage we cause, our businesses will not be profitable. In reality, since we know that there is no “magic pantry” and no “magic trash can,” businesses like that are showing themselves profitable only because they are not calculating the full costs and are leaving the rest of them for all of us to pay. It’s like transferring your expenses to another department to appear profitable. This is considered fraud in business, and we should consider it fraud in civilization as well.

Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution

When we think of the businesses that have taken resources without putting back and have left the trash for the public to deal with, we need to understand that we are really the culprits.

Any time we buy their products, we are benefiting from their short-term gains, and when we place our money in their companies via investments, we are granting them our agreement with their practices. Unfortunately, it will not be them who pay the piper at the end, but all of us.

We are starting to see new companies that not only do not rape the planet for resources, but manage to actually turn a profit while turning back the clock on resource consumption. We at Finca Leola believe we have managed to create such a company. The reason, I think, is simple: We were never driven by a need for short-term profit and so were able to take the long view, the revolutionary view.

In much of Latin America, the way people outside of the cities earn a living is often by raising cattle. They have chopped down or burned the rainforest, planted grass, and put cattle on the land. Much of the meat is purchased in order to supply cheap beef for the northern markets. There is a problem with this model. First of all, if you have to buy the land, you cannot survive this way – it is better to put the money in the bank and receive the interest. So, raising cattle in Latin America is based on having a free resource: land. Secondly, the longer you have cattle on the land, the poorer becomes the land. I constantly hear stories of how rich the land here in Costa Rica was in the past. When the forest was first removed, all that was needed to raise corn or beans was to cast the seeds on the ground and you would have a great harvest! But after a few years of doing this, you have to start adding fertilizer or you will not have a harvest at all.

Finca Leola buys cattle farms and plants trees on them. You can own trees on Finca Leola plantations, and your money will bring back rainforest, improving the world and your bottom line. We raise trees that are pioneer species in order to quickly protect the land and produce a return for the tree owners. After a while, we plant the permanent rainforest trees among the pioneer trees, using them like a nursery. As the forest returns, its products will sustain its protection as well as provide work for the locals so that they value the forest. The forest will be considered a partner, not a free resource to be robbed.

This creates many very good and permanent jobs, because the permanent forest is productive, whereas raising cattle in the tropics is a cycle of poverty for all except a few large landowners.

Every year our lands are more productive and the future looks brighter. The streams and rivers on our land are cleaner and flow with more water. The wildlife is much more abundant, and amazingly, much more comfortable around people. All our workers have health insurance and retirement, uncommon among rural Costa Rican laborers. They have better jobs that pay better than average in the area.

We now have a woodshop that is producing products from the plantations. Since we own the woodshop and sawmill, we use nearly all the tree, not just the easiest part to process. This is because we take the closed-system view that no resource is to be wasted. It takes a lot of effort to grow a tree, and we don’t want to throw away any of it. True, it would be more profitable in the short term if we took the best of the tree and left the rest as waste, but in the long run, it is better to use as much as we can. And since we don’t have many layers (loggers, sawmills, wood brokers, lumber yards, etc.) we can use wood that normally would not be considered profitable.

Sheep: natural weed control & fertilizing.

We also use sheep, small cattle, and horses to keep down the grass between the trees. This produces revenue while reducing our cost to care for the trees. When we have to create a bridge for access, at times we create a pond for fish as well. This produces food for our workers and for ourselves and perhaps some for market.

We don’t run like an assembly line but as a complete system. We try to use all resources efficiently while producing more if at all possible.

No more can industry use up the resources in one location and move on to where there are more. We have finally realized that resources are not inexhaustible. People who have decided to invest in diminishing resources such as trees instead of investing in old-fashioned businesses not only understand that many of the old-style businesses are facing very serious challenges in the future, but that companies such as ours are allowing investors to benefit in the new way of business. They are finding that the returns from the efficient way we grow trees exceed what they would have received from an old-style plantation.

We are entering into a new kind of world where holistic companies are the profitable ones. Green investing is a movement that recognizes this as a market force. Instead of investing in businesses that rape and pillage and are therefore doomed to only short-term success, the smart investor places his money in businesses that work in harmony with the earth and help replenish life.

Success in business and in investing is usually due to recognizing emerging trends. Buy low; sell high, because no one thinks what you are investing in is worth much, but when the trend catches on, your initial investment is worth many times more. Sometimes the trend is so large, it becomes a revolution. These are times when the fundamentals of business changes radically, and during such times there are always winners and losers, the losers being those who either do not or will not accept the change.

Don’t be left behind in this revolution – invest in companies that treat the earth as a closed system. If we are going to advance civilization, our money needs to do more than just earn more money; it needs to buy back the health of our planet.

About the Author: Fred Morgan, entrepreneur and former computer systems developer, turned to planting valuable tropical hardwoods in 2001 as a means to secure his own retirement. Acquaintances asked Fred and his wife, Amy, to grow trees for them alongside their own. By 2007, Finca Leola was growing trees for more than 100 clients from all over the world. Their model is to use plantation trees as a first step to permanent reforestation, with all of the Finca Leola tree farms placed under ecological easements so that the land use can never be changed from forest use.

Driving is not as fun as it could be. Gas prices, congested roads and the pollution that constantly sputters from the engine all put a damper on the weekend road trip or commute to work. Electric cars might be able to solve many of these problems. Imagine quietly rolling by a gas station in car that reduces pollution by 98% and smiling to yourself comforted by the fact that you don’t need to shell out almost 70 dollars to fill the tank. It is funny to think that watching TV can cost more than running an electric car.

The first electric cars date back to the 1830s! Unfortunately they didn’t catch on with a range of about 10 miles and a huge price tag. Electric cars used to be up to three times more expensive than the internal combustion engine vehicles that came along later. This is definitely no longer the case: In fact, with the tremendous increase in gas prices, an electric vehicle can pay for itself within a year.

ZAP or ‘Zero Air Pollution’ Vehicles, based in Santa Rosa, California, distributes a variety of electric vehicles that fit everyone’s needs. Trucks, scooters, motorcycles, off-road vehicles and cars are all available through http://www.zapworld.com Prices for these vehicles range from 500-50,000 dollars and these cars and bikes come in every color imaginable-There is even a vehicle available that has the option of painted zebra stripes!

Don’t think that you are restricted to driving to your neighborhood grocery store before you need to recharge your electric car. The range of these vehicles is constantly rising. A typical electric vehicle has a range of 100 miles which is perfect for the daily commute to work or running errands and the price of running an electric car can be compared to about 600 miles/gallon, which is an incentive in itself.

Many people assume that you have to give up power and luxury when buying an electric car. This is not the case. Like with anything else, you get what you pay for. The higher end Zap-X, for example, boasts 644 horsepower, gets 350 miles per charge (which averages to about 1 cent per mile), comes with an electric touch screen and GPS system and can seat up to 7. A car like this is not going to be mistaken for an inferior vehicle on the road. (http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-x )

There is a demand for cars that are efficient and environmentally friendly. Who doesn’t want a car that just needs to be plugged in to run? It is more complicated to run an electric razor (maybe even more expensive.)

Nine European partners (including BMW) representing the industrial and research sectors have done something clever. Working with the University of Bath, the collaboration has given birth to a new kind of vehicle for crowded, polluted, urban driving environments. At one-meter wide, incorporating the maneuverability of a toyota or a motorcycle – including the ability to tilt – and featuring the high safety rating of a Smart car, the three-wheeled prototype they developed is indeed “CLEVER,” i.e., “Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport.” The vehicle runs on compressed natural gas putting out about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions of the good old family sedan. The project cost £1.5 million and could easily change the face of city driving forever.

Three wheelers with cabs that tilt on corners, such as the CLEVER (pictured), and the Carver One, should be on the road by 2009.

For the past three years the designers and engineers have worked on CLEVER, which has seats for a driver and passenger (one behind the other) in a fully enclosed cabin with a strengthened frame and full roll cage for crash protection. Top speed is 60 mph with acceleration from zero to 40 in seven seconds. In width, CLEVER comes in three feet slimmer than a mid-size sedan and 20 inches less than a micro car, making it one of the most potentially parking-efficient vehicles the driving public has ever seen.

The metal skeleton of the CLEVER tilts, with the twin rear wheels remaining upright. The hydraulic active tilt system knows what degree of lean is needed around curves and keeps the vehicle balanced and stable at all times. The driver just steers normally and the car does the rest. Power is derived from a modified BMW C1 scooter engine by Rotax upped to 218 cc. The selection of compressed natural gas as the fuel frees CLEVER from congestion charges in cities like London while returning about 108 miles per gallon fuel efficiency. The natural gas is stored in two, six-liter, carbon fiber, removable tanks that combined give the car a range of 125 miles.

Direct competition for the CLEVER, which may become commercially available later this year, is represented by the gasoline-powered Carver One, already on sale in the UK and powered by a 600 cc, turbocharged, four cylinder. Also featuring an enclosed cabin, the Carver One banks around curves in the same fashion, does zero to 60 in 8.2 seconds, and has a top speed of 115 mph. It’s just a shade larger than the CLEVER with a width of 1.3 meters. The price tag at your new car dealer for the Carver reads £27,654.

Both the CLEVER and the Carver represent a significant change in thinking for what constitutes urban transport. And both are indicative of the increasing momentum behind the move toward personal transportation as represented by a “city” car; smaller, more efficient vehicles with a limited driving range designed specifically for crowded urban conditions. For example, some 30,000 Americans immediately stepped forward and put down their deposit on the country’s first Smart cars to be delivered early in 2008. Can a vehicle like CLEVER, with its condensed natural gas fuel system and small profile be far behind? While some legal authorities may be confused (is it a car or is it a motorcycle?) drivers aren’t confused in the least. Fuel costs too much. Parking is a nightmare. The environment is endangered. The time is ripe for something different and if nothing else, CLEVER is different.

by Gordon Feller, Urban Age Institute, January 18, 2008

Bangladesh has made impressive economic and social strides over the last two decades. It has achieved steady economic growth of around 5% annually, with relatively low inflation and a stable fiscal situation. Population growth and infant mortality rates have declined and primary school enrollment rates, particularly of girls, have improved dramatically. The rate of growth of per capita GDP has improved from less than 2% during the 1980s to over 5% during 1995-05.

Despite these substantial gains, a large unfinished agenda remains in terms of attaining the MDGs, which would require an acceleration of the economic growth rate to 6-7% per annum. Accelerating growth would also require substantially higher levels of investments in infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on the rural areas where the vast majority of the Bangladeshi population lives.

While infrastructure in the rural areas has improved, particularly for water supply and roads, Bangladesh has a particularly high demand for expansion of rural electrification services. Factors such as remoteness, inadequate load demand and resource constraints for expanding the power infrastructure are major barriers to electrification in the rural areas. These areas currently use kerosene and diesel for their lighting and electricity requirements.

At present, about 38% of the Bangladeshi population has access to electricity and per capita electricity consumption is about 133 kWh which is one of the lowest in the world. Nearly 75% of the population is rural and only about 30% of the rural households have access to grid electricity. The current rate of expansion in electrification is only about 400,000 new households gaining access every year and at such rate it would take more than 40 years to reach all households. Rural electricity access rates have to increase dramatically to accomplish the Government’s stated goal of providing universal electricity access by 2020. Government has encouraged implementing off-grid renewable energy technologies, such as solar home systems (SHS) and micro-wind power systems in coastal areas, and mini-hydro projects in the mountainous regions as a priority.

Presently, three state-owned utilities under the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources are responsible for electricity development in the country. These are:

i) Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), responsible for generation and transmission of power in the country and distribution in urban areas, except the area under Greater Dhaka,

ii) Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA), responsible for distribution of electricity in the greater Dhaka area including the metropolitan city of Dhaka; and,

iii) Rural Electrification Board (REB), responsible for distribution of electricity in rural areas through a network of more than 60 Palli Bidyut Samitis (PBSs) or rural electricity cooperatives.

Government strategy emphasizes promoting off-grid options in areas that are unsuitable for grid expansion. It has made a good start by eliminating import duty on SHS in April 2000. The strategy emphasizes the pivotal role of well functioning rural systems for the Government’s off grid promotion strategy and endorses the approach to use well-functioning rural community based organizations (CBOs) to leverage grass-roots reach and establish credibility to improve electricity provision significantly.

The objective of this Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project is to contribute to sustainable development through the provision of renewable solar electricity to households not connected to the electricity grid and thereby reduce the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by displacing kerosene and diesel use for lighting and off-grid electricity generation.

The project will contribute to the sustainable development of Bangladesh with a particular emphasis on the rural population, which is generally poorer. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, the project would have significant other social, economic and environmental benefits. Bank’s involvement in supporting this project is therefore considered highly appropriate.

The project envisages installing 929,169 SHSs all across Bangladesh between 2007 and 2015. The SHS will provide facilities for lighting, TV and radio and comprise of: (a) a Solar Module (10 to 120wp); (b) battery ( 47 Ah to 130 Ah); (c) Charge Controller; (d) fluorescent tube lights with special electronic ballasts; (e) mounting structure; (f) installation kit; and (g) cables and connecting devices. The capacity of individual SHS will vary according to consumer choice and demand. The cost of SHS would be recovered through monthly instalments over a period of up to 4 years which will be within the affordable capacity of the targeted consumers. Upon full implementation in year 2015, the project activity will replace 20,075 kilo litres per annum of kerosene usage, equivalent to an emissions reduction of 48,380.75 tonnes CO2 per annum and 16,600,500 KWh/ year of electricity generation using diesel generators.

The project will be implemented by Grameen Shakti (GS) which develops, introduces and popularizes renewable energy technologies for sustainable energy solutions, particularly Solar PV systems, aiming to reduce poverty, improve living standards and protect the environment. Over the last decade GS has installed about 77,000 SHS with combined capacities of 15.8 MW and more than 1,650 SHSs are installed each month. It has also set up 120 offices for service delivery and performance monitoring, and has a research unit for improvement of the overall efficiency of the system and ancillaries. GS is currently serving more than 275,000 beneficiaries through its 120 offices spread over 58 districts of Bangladesh.

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.