Global macro trends – looking forward from 2012

I wrote the following twelve years ago. It is longer than my current posts, but is segmented into categories, so pick one or two that interest you. These global macro issues still exist, yet they are not discussed enough if at all by politicians here.

As I was watching “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday, he had as his last arriving guest, Bill McKibben, one of the planet’s foremost authorities on global warming. Not to shine spotlights, but the rest of the panel was a progressive leaning actress and two conservative talk show hosts, one on the radio and one of CNN, one a former congressman and one an attorney by trade. What I found as indicative of discussion in our country, we had two people arguing GOP talking points with a true expert. I kept thinking they need to be asking him questions about his concerns and what he thinks. When one said that he agreed with the Exxon Mobil CEO that we can just move the farmland to warmer places, McKibben retorted, “so we should just replace Iowa?”

My purpose in this post is not to only focus on the impact of global warming, but to highlight we need to have more informed discussions about the big-ticket, macro trends. We need to do so with better data and recognition for what scientists are saying and not using industry lobbyist talking points which at best are subjective. These are major concerns for the people on this planet, but also in the US. We cannot ignore these problems as we are now being impacted and we are contributing to a progression down a slippery slope.

Please note there are more trends than those mentioned here, but let me highlight four in no particular order:

1) Sustainable Population Growth

2) Aging Population

3) Water, the New Oil

4) Global Warming and our Toxic Chemical Crockpot

Sustainable Population Growth

In an earlier post, I mentioned a study conducted in Great Britain which asked the question, how many people can the Earth sustain? The key conclusion of the study was it greatly depended on consumption rates. If people on average consumed resources like one of the poorer countries in Africa, the Earth could sustain just about 15 billion people. Please know I am rounding the numbers from memory. However, if we consumed like the average North American, the planet could only sustain about 2 billion people. We are about 7 billion people as of this writing.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, if fertility stayed the same, we would be looking at over 11 billion in 2050. If it increases and people consume at a higher clip, then we would be in a heap of hurt. So, what can we do about it? Per the UN Population Fund, they suggest several things, but let me highlight a few year:

– we have to have greater awareness over this issue and concerted planning by major governmental, societal and business leaders.

– we have to increase the availability, awareness and use of contraception.

– we need to have better overall family planning and increased awareness of the correlation between poverty and larger family size.

– we have to improve access to child healthcare and overall healthcare.

– we have to be mindful of our resources and know they are not infinite in supply.

– we have to find better ways to grow food, manage water and sewage (more on water below).

– we need better data for measuring intervention outcomes and assessing needs.

Aging Population

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development partnered with global human capital consultant Mercer in 2010 to conduct a study of major issues facing countries. One of the more significant macro trends that was a premonition into the economic travails in Europe is our aging population. Why is that important? As a society ages, the ratio of retirees to active worker increases. This becomes a huge problem when more of the unfunded liabilities of an entity are out the door than can be covered by active worker funding. These are the reasons France increased its normal retirement age and why Greece has to follow suit.

Our average age has increased here in the US, but there are countries that are far worse than we are. Yet, it is and will become a greater problem here. The other key concern is the majority of healthcare expenses occur in the last two years of a person’s life. As we age, it puts more pressure on the cost of delivery of medical care. This becomes exacerbated by an overweight population as we have here in the US, which causes even more cost pressure due to unhealthy lifestyles. At some point, you have to pay the fiddler.

So, we have to take better care of ourselves and we have to make adjustments to medical care benefit coverages. We need more people included in medical coverages which is the reason some form of Obamacare needs to continue. Yet, we also need to come to grips that changes are needed to Medicare and Social Security. We also need to encourage greater savings. Before the recession, the US was one of the worst at saving. This has only been heightened by the recession where people had to dip into their savings and forego future savings.

Water, the New Oil

This has been a concern of mine which became more paramount after reading Steven Solomon’s book “Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization.” This is the best history book I have ever read about how civilizations rose and fell because of their ability to manage water for use, transport and sewage. This last point may sound very mundane, but washing away sewage has been a huge challenge in major metro population areas such as Rome, London and New York and in impoverished areas.

Yet, the book is more than a history lesson. It shows how dear water has become even in some of the richest places on the planet. Oil rich Saudi Arabia has a major catastrophe in the foreseeable future due to the significant decline in their aquifers. China had a major problem when they built a dam that impacted the water supply to others to such an extent they had to cease energy production until they figured out a better solution. And, we are seeing it in the US as well. We have always had droughts, but they are greater in number and severity and per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have worsened because of global warming.

Any food, water, sewage and energy production exercise has to figure water usage in its calculations. This is probably my biggest concern with fracking, e.g. Fracking takes 4 to 6 million gallons of water per fracking well that cannot go back into the water supply. And, if you do not think this is a problem, the frackers and farmers were fighting over water in Kansas this summer during the droughts. On the sewage side, Bill Gates is running a global contest for the purpose of developing a scalable, waterless toilet that can be used in impoverished, arid areas. Dysentery and cholera are in abundance in these areas as the raw sewage goes directly into the water supply. Since water is so dear, we need to use it less for sewage. I would add in Orange County, CA they are using multiple filter devices (and I mean multiple) to reuse sewage water as drinking water. They have been doing this for a couple of years now.

We need to have concerted effort around the needs and uses of water and plan accordingly. I believe that a robust eco-energy plan has to factor in the use of water in all energy, water, food and sewage planning.

Global Warming and our Toxic Chemical Crockpot

The impact of global warming is being witnessed on a daily basis. It is no longer a futuristic event. Like the birthers, the deniers should not have a place at the adult table. Yet, we need all reasonable parties to have a voice in what we do next as we develop holistic eco-energy plans. I have said this multiple times, but Germany is ten years ahead of the US and plans to be 80% alternative energy powered by 2030. By my count, that is in 18 years. We need multiple parties at the table as we have to make a concerted effort to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and not double down on them. We know we cannot quit cold turkey, but we better get moving. Any plan has to endure beyond the terms of political incumbents, so it cannot be shelved when a new political party comes into power.

The part that does not get enough attention is the toxic chemical crockpot that is simmering. As the planet turns the heat up on the crockpot, a relatively misunderstood and vastly underestimated problem will become increasingly worse. Like a broken record, the best books on this subject are written by Dr. Sandra Steingraber – “Living Downstream” and “Raising Elijah.” As a biologist, ecologist, cancer survivor and mother, she is garnering bi-partisan support about these issues. The problem is her voice is drowned out by the petro-chemical industry who is leading a cause to defang the EPA. The Koch Brothers make their money here, e.g, and they are the most significant contributors to the Tea Party success. They also have about 100 pending violations in front of the EPA.

The dilemma is with people moving around it is harder to prove causality of illnesses with toxic chemical creation, disposal or use. This has been the industry’s principal defense and they can throw vast sums of money to confuse and diffuse their opponents’ efforts. Yet, they toxic chemical are present and they do impact people living in various areas for more than a few years. Migrant farm workers exposed to pesticides have much greater cancers, lung and mental health issues. The increase in autism and premature births can be traceable to larger traces of toxic chemicals in the environment. And, as Dr. Steingraber has noted, a very relevant factor in family history is not considered in medical diagnosis as much as it should be – where the family grew up can actually be more important than the genes. Her case in point, her family (siblings, cousins nearby, etc.) had a significant number of cancers, including multiple cases of bladder cancer which is what she had. The key to all of this story – Dr. Steingraber was adopted. Note, bladder cancer is a bellweather cancer. If someone gets it in your family especially at a relatively young age, it is likely environmentally caused.

Dealing more effectively with toxic chemicals also has to be a key part of addressing a holistic eco-energy solution. And, let me shout this from the rooftops one more time – doing away or gutting the EPA is the most irresponsible recommendation that could be made, which is precisely what is being recommended by one of our major political parties in the US. And, I have highlighted the word irresponsible with purpose as a true independent voter and business person. For someone to frame an argument against this by calling anyone a “tree hugger” is poor form and stewardship. Creating the EPA may actually be GOP President Richard Nixon’s greatest contribution as president.

If you agree with me, please help get the word out on these issues. These are local problems, these are state problems, these are US problems and these are global problems. We have to solve them in a concerted way and build upon a confederation of good ideas being done all around the country. With wind energy in 38 states, someone is doing something right. Let’s build on that.

Climate change -denial to doublespeak

The US Senate  is looking at a report that is meaningful per an article by Dharna Noor in The Guardian called “Big oil spent decades sowing doubt about fossil fuel dangers, experts testify.” The subtitle adds more concern: “US Senate hearing reviewed report showing sector’s shift from climate denial to ‘deception, disinformation and doublespeak.’”

The term “doublespeak” is of course borrowed from George Orwell’s “1984.” Here are the first few paragraphs:

”The fossil fuel industry spent decades sowing doubt about the dangers of burning oil and gas, experts and Democratic lawmakers testified on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

The Senate budget committee held a hearing to review a report published on Tuesday with the House oversight and accountability committee that they said demonstrates the sector’s shift from explicit climate denial to a more sophisticated strategy of ‘deception, disinformation and doublespeak.’

‘Time and again, the biggest oil and gas corporations say one thing for the purposes of public consumption but do something completely different to protect their profits,’ Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, testified. ‘Company officials will admit the terrifying reality of their business model behind closed doors but say something entirely different, false and soothing to the public.’

The findings build on years of investigative reporting and scholarly research showing that the sector was for decades aware of the dangers of the climate crisis, yet hid that from the public.

In the absence of decisive government action to curb planet-warming emissions, the impacts of the climate crisis have gotten worse, committee Democrats said. Several senators said the industry should have to pay damages for fueling the crisis.”

I have long believed this assertion as the industry makes far too much money and has put money in the pockets of legislators to just remain silent. After waning for a few years, the efforts to deceive have been stepped as renewable energy advancements continue. We hear the focus on all the hiccups and challenges, but the continuing increase in market share on electricity production of the renewable energy is still an undertold story.

So, is the story that shareholders have voted management at several fossil fuel companies like Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, eg. must report on what they are doing about climate change intervention. When I hear pushback that the activist shareholder groups are forcing this, I chuckle as the fossil fuel industry is the most subsidized industry in history. It is a key reason they can afford to sponsor so many climate change denial websites to overwhelm the far fewer peer reviewed scientific websites.

I fully recognize change cannot turn on a dime. But, we must be even more active in demonstrative climate change interventions. Renewable energy is just one large component. But, more trees, more mangrove buffers next to the ocean, more kelp farms, more moving traffic patterns, less meat eating, etc. must be part of the equation.

I must add that a key reason I left the Republican Party in 2008-ish is the party’s stance on climate change denial. That was 16 years ago. And, it continues today. I am reminded of the lyric from “Cabaret” which says it all “money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.” Money can fund a lot of things – even denial.

G7 Target 2035 – shut down coal

An article in Reuters called “G7 reaches deal to exit from coal by 2035” by  Francesca Landini caught my eye. Here are the first two paragraphs.

“TURIN, April 29 (Reuters) – Energy ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) wealthy countries reached a deal to shut down their coal-fired power plants by 2035 at the latest, in a significant step towards the transition away from fossil fuels.

‘We have an agreement to stop using coal in the first half of 2030’s… it is an historical agreement,’ Britain’s minister for Energy Security and Net Zero Andrew Bowie told Class CNBC according to a video posted on X.”

Coal has been on the demise for awhile. The cost of competitive and cleaner energy sources have fallen to levels that take away a distant advantage for the production of coal. Truth be told, when all costs are factored in – litigation, retrieval, transport, production, maintenance, healthcare – coal is even more expensive.

I read a few years ago, building a new coal plant will become obsolete before it is finished. That is a powerful observation. Yet, one thing to know, the two last major spills of coal ash came from plants that were no longer burning coal. So coal is the gift that keeps giving even after production stops.

Tuesday afternoon – let me ponder

Using the title of an excellent Moody Blues’ song, allow me to do a walkabout with some meandering thoughts on this chilly, but sunny April day.

Earth Day has come and gone, but its message should never leave us – there is no Planet B. So, we better take care of the one we got. We cannot use our planet as our trash bin without having an impact. Plastic resides in too many fish and the forever chemical in Teflon resides in too many humans.

Former President Richard Nixon is remembered for Watergate and resigning before he was removed from office, but one good thing he did was set up the Environmental Protection Agency. This entity was set up not too long after the river flowing through Cleveland caught fire from all of the chemical residue.

I read some well-funded politicians are pushing for the reversal of many environmental regulations. This is inane as it moves us in the wrong direction. Maybe we should all watch the movies “Erin Brockovich,” “Dark Waters,” and “A Civil Action” again to see what happens when corporations lie to people about their toxic waste. The sad part is when heroes make these companies accountable for their long-known poisoning of people, it is so rare they make movies about them.

Circling back to the Teflon residue, in “Dark Waters” it noted DuPont was proven to be responsible for poisoning workers and towns people by the largest study of people ever. They then reneged on their promise to compensate their victims and were taken to court one case at a time losing all of them before settling the rest.

There is a tenet called “The Precautionary Principle” that the US does not mandate. This principle requires a company to prove no harm beforehand rather thirty years after poisoning people. Now, these politicians want to make the US even further behind by reversing strides.

This is inane. There is no Planet B.

Throw me some real shade

In an article in The Guardian by Nina Lakhani called “‘We need more shade’: US’s hottest city turns to trees to cool those most in need,” Phoenix’ problems are beginning to be addressed. The sub-headline adds more flavor. “Phoenix broke several heat records last year. Now Grant Park, which has inequitable tree cover, is seeing a tree-planting drive that promises some respite from 100F temperatures.”

Here are a few select paragraphs. “…Over the course of three days in early April, arborists planted 40 or so desert adapted trees in Grant Park, as part of the city’s equity-driven heat mitigation plan to create a shadier, more livable environment amid rising temperatures and hundreds of heat-related deaths….

Phoenix is America’s fifth largest and hottest city, a sprawling urban heat island which has expanded without adequate consideration to climate and environmental factors like water scarcity and extreme heat. ​Multiple heat records were broken last year including 133 days over 100F (37.7C), and 55 days topping 110F (43C).

‘Our goal is to change the inequity and create enough shade to provide residents and passersby reprieve from the heat. For that we need many more trees, but we also need to take care of them,’ added Ontiveros, as he walked through the neighborhood making sure the right families got the right trees.”

Planting trees is a part of a needed solution to both specific heat and larger climate change mitigation. We need more carbon eaters for the latter goal and more new trees, mangroves, and larger forests will help. For the local goal, shade trees will offer both respite, scenery, and a little cooling.

It has long been predicted the climate change impact would be varied as it hits different areas. The more arid and hotter areas will see more droughts and heat. With the mountain top ice moving further up the slopes, the drier underbrush are prone to more forest fires. And, the coastal areas are losing shoreline and increasing the intensity and clout of hurricanes.

We need to use a variety of large scale efforts to put less carbon in the air and take more carbon out of the air. Tree planting is just one of those efforts. But, far more is needed.

Methane from landfills now visible

In a key article in The Guardian called “Methane from landfills is detectable from space – and driving the climate crisis” by Gina McCarthy* a major known concern has become a visible one.  Methane is a gas that hangs around much longer and can do more damage to us humans. The methane leaks from natural gas wells is already visible from space, but now landfills’ leakage can be seen. Per the article, here are a few paragraphs with a link below.

“An elusive climate menace is now easier than ever to see. In early March, a rocket launched into the sky with a satellite that spots methane emissions from space. MethaneSAT joined more than a dozen similar satellites now in orbit, scanning the Earth for pollution and feeding that information back to scientists, policymakers, industry and the public.

What story does the data tell? One of methane on the rise, or one of collective efforts that avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis? Slashing methane is the most efficient way to slow global warming in our lifetimes.

Thanks to huge advances in technology, a new study has brought more clarity to the landfill methane problem than ever before. The non-profit organization Carbon Mapper, with support from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other researchers, observed methane emissions from hundreds of large landfills across the US by aircraft.

They detected significant emissions at more than half of the landfills they flew over. The emissions were often persistent: observed over multiple visits, spanning months, sometimes years. And they were large. About 80% of the emissions detected at landfills – more than 850 unique methane plumes – released at least 100kg of methane an hour.

That emission rate meets the ‘super-emitter’ threshold that the EPA set for the oil and gas sector in its new standards. These large plumes are not fully captured in official inventories. On average, landfill emission rates calculated in the study over multiple visits were 1.4 times higher than the emissions that operators reported to the EPA.

This data is alarming, but the solutions are clear.

Let’s start with prevention. Keeping organic waste out of landfills – through waste prevention, food recovery and composting programs – is the most effective way to avoid future landfill methane generation, while benefiting communities. Each year, the average American family of four loses $1,500 to wasted food. We can all do a better job of buying what we need, eating what we buy, and donating or composting what’s left.

And at landfills, there are simple, low-cost changes to avoid methane leaks. Early and expanded gas collection, better landfill covers, and additional accountability measures – more methane monitoring, more often – can help halt the release of methane to the atmosphere. We can encourage our local landfills to be part of the solution too, implementing best practices that better control methane and co-pollutants.”

I encourage you to review Ms. McCarthy’s credentials and link to the article below. Also, it might be worth checking out the documentary movie “Ice on Fire.”

*Gina McCarthy was the first White House national climate adviser, the 13th administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and is managing co-chair of America Is All In

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/09/methane-pollution-organic-waste-landfills

A very energetic idea

In an article in Politico by David Ferris called “Big winner in Biden’s EV charging revolution: Gas stations,” an obvious trend is taking shape. Here are a few paragraphs:

“When Americans steer their electric vehicles off the highway and into shiny new charging stations — many paid for with federal tax dollars — they’re likely to find them in a curiously familiar place: the gas station.

More than half of the charging stations being built so far from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law are rising at truck stops and gasoline stations, according to data exclusively provided to E&E News by EVAdoption, an EV data consultancy. In essence, the law’s $7.5 billion pot for charging is reinforcing the very fossil-fuel infrastructure that the EV era would seem to consign to oblivion.

That raises the prospect that money intended to cut emissions could throw a lifeline to companies that traditionally have raised them. Even so, many experts say the two industries are a natural fit.

‘I’ve always kind of assumed that the combination of fueling station and convenience stop would dominate,’ said Loren McDonald, the founder of EVAdoption. ‘They’re safe. They’re well lit. They have bathrooms on site. They have restaurants and stores. They check a lot of the boxes.’”

This is an idea that makes total sense. Having consulted with convenience stores, they make most of their profit when petrol users come in the store for food and drinks. This is a key reason these stores are fast food franchise holders as well. Since, charging a battery takes more time than gassing up, this should be a win-win for consumers and store owners.

Norway leads the way

Per an article by Sam Wallotson in The Guardian called “How did Norway become the electric car superpower? Oil money, civil disobedience – and Morten from a-ha,” a surprising result is discussed. The subtitle has the punchline – “More than 90% of new cars sold in Norway are electric. And it all started with some pop stars driving around in a jerry-built Fiat Panda.” A few paragraphs tease out the story.

“I’m in Stavanger to find out how, in a world where transport contributes about 20% of CO₂ emissions, Norway came to lead the world in electric car take-up. In 2023, 82.4% of private vehicles sold in the country were electric. In January, the figure was 92.1%. The goal is to hit 100% by next year.

Why Stavanger? Because, as well as – irony alert! – being its oil capital, Norway’s third city, in the south-west of the country, has been pivotal in its road towards zero-emission transportation. They tried electric buses here in 1994. In 1998, the city was part of a European trial of electric vehicles (EVs) for goods distribution.”

I love this story because the Norwegians started back in the 1990s and just kept plugging away. It gets back to my favorite business book, “Built to Last,” where successful companies over time try things and keep doing the things that work. Norway started with electric buses and kept adding to the mix.

Cities in the US which are fully renewably energy powered built on previous efforts. They may have started with hydro power, added solar, then wind and eventually became 100% powered.

Norway should be commended for their focus and success.

UK environment suffering under Brexit

An article in The Guardian yesterday caught my eye entitled “Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s vital environmental protections.” The subtitle highlights the gist: “Exclusive: Britain is falling behind the bloc on almost every area of green regulation, analysis reveals.”

Rather pick only a couple paragraphs, below I have repeated several key points in the piece.

“Vital legal protections for the environment and human health are being destroyed in post-Brexit departures from European legislation, a detailed analysis by the Guardian reveals.

The UK is falling behind the EU on almost every area of environmental regulation, as the bloc strengthens its legislation while the UK weakens it. In some cases, ministers are removing EU-derived environmental protections from the statute book entirely.

Businesses and environmental groups have told the Guardian they have been left in the dark as to the extent of the regressions because there is no government body tracking the divergence between the EU and the UK.

In practice, it means:

• Water in the UK will be dirtier than in the EU.

• There will be more pesticides in Britain’s soil.

• Companies will be allowed to produce products containing chemicals that the EU has restricted for being dangerous.

At least seven big policies have been changed that have put a chasm between the EU and the UK on environmental regulation. These include:

• EU-derived air pollution laws that will be removed under the retained EU law bill.

• Dozens of chemicals banned in the EU are still available for use in the UK.

• Thirty-six pesticides banned in the EU have not been outlawed in the UK.

• The UK is falling behind on reducing carbon emissions as the EU implements carbon pricing.

• The EU is compensating those who are struggling to afford the costs of the green transition, while the UK is not.

• The EU is implementing stricter regulations on battery recycling, while the UK is not.

• Deforestation is being removed from the EU supply chain, while the UK’s proposed scheme is more lax and does not come in until a year later.

One green MEP said the findings were ‘tragic’ while a centre-right MEP said the divergences were ‘particularly bad’ for companies that wanted to do business on both sides of the Channel.”

Let me cut to the chase. The UK is geographically not a huge country. Screwing with environmental regulations can have a heightened negative result. Looking at the two lists above should give any UK citizen pause. Emulating the US’ business centric environmental protections is not a recipe for success, in my view, as we do not adhere to “The Precautionary Principle.”

To be clear, I have never been a supporter of Brexit. What the financial experts predicted before the vote is happening. Yet, this article is equally troubling and should be looked into further.

Faith leaders fighting for climate action

An article called “The faith leaders fighting for the climate: ‘we have a moral obligation’” is yet another clarion call to do something more about climate change. The subtitle speaks of these leaders coming together – “Climate action in New Orleans has found support from faith leaders working across historic divides.”

A few paragraphs highlight their concerns:

“It has been another catastrophic climate year: record-breaking wildfires across Canada scorched an area the size North Dakota, unprecedented rainfall in Libya left thousands dead and displaced, while heat deaths surged in Arizona and severe drought in the Amazon is threatening Indigenous communities and ecosystems.

The science is clear: we must phase out fossil fuels – fast. But time is running out, and as the climate crisis, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation worsen, there is mounting recognition that our political and industry leaders are failing us.

If the science isn’t enough, what role could – or should – faith leaders play in tackling the climate crisis? After all, it is also a spiritual and moral crisis that threatens God’s creation, according to many religious teachings.

Globally, 6 billion people – about 80% of the world’s population – identify with a faith or religion, while half of all schools and 40% of health facilities in some countries are owned or operated by faith groups. In addition, faith-related institutions own almost 8% of the total habitable land surface – and constitute the world’s third largest group of financial investors.”

I have been to two separate interfaith conferences where various religious leaders – Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Hindi – offer up scripture to guide us to be better stewards of the environment. The first was with the Sierra Club and the second was an Interfaith Council.

Even Pope Francis prepared an Encyclical about doing more about climate change. Being a trained chemist, I appreciate the concern of the Pope even more. I amusingly recall fossil fuel funded politicians saying the pope should stay away from this subject. They, of course, are being paid to stay away from the subject.

It should be noted the fossil fuel industry has stepped up its role to naysay climate change and take cherry picked pot shots at renewable energy alternatives. With an industry that has so much money, it can easily afford disinformation campaigns dating back to the 1990s.

These faith leaders don’t have near the same level of financial considerations. We should give them a listen moreso than politicians with dirty money in their pockets and especially an industry who had such an invested stake in the outcome.