B1: The best possible outcome! | |
The B1 scenario nut-shelled: -rapid economic growth; changing to service/information based economy; -population increase until 2050, then gradually decreasing; -reduction in material intensity with an introduction of clean, resource-efficient technology; -emphasis on global solutions to socio-econo-enviro stability. B1 is similar to A1 in its population trend; different than A2 & B2 in that their population does not begin to fall. Its economic development is unique in that it features a successful transition to a service and information based economy (none of the other scenarios do that); and it has a global worldview on the big picture. B1 is definitely the most hopeful, best-case scenario of the six, and one can observe some of the trends described in it, in the world today. For example, China and India’s populations are both predicted to be in decline by 2050, and the demographic transition shows that in stage 4, post-industrial nations have decreasing populations. The growth of knowledge-based economies, which began in the 1970’s, is continuing to spread globally, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (refer to Trends and Implications, page 9). And one has only to look at the Green Rankings Global Top 100 to see that the top-traded global companies are deeply committed to resource efficient technology. The European Union has recently had some economic problems, but the fact remains – 27 sovereign nations are cooperating under a common flag to work for the common good. All this being said, it is undeniable that the worst is yet to come for the developing nations in Africa as far as population growth is concerned; estimates show several African states rising in population well into the 22d century. And China continues to balk at any international agreement regarding carbon reduction policies, making any protocols manufactured in Kyoto or Copenhagen useless without their cooperation – they insist upon “voluntary” compliance while claiming their right to continue to play catch up with the United States. Who can say which scenario will out? That’s why there are six of ‘em…pay your money, take your chances! |
 | We will survive! |
Our scenario could be the best as we emphasize global solutions to all forms of sustainability. While the A1 scenario showd integrated world, our scenario emphasizes working together to find solutions to make the world more sustainable--not just integrating with each other but actually focusing on sustainability. Sorry A2 and B2, but if you keep living in your little individual shells, we are all doomed...... Now, if we can just make it happen...to all work together. Right now, China is the top emitter of greenhouse gases, but have expressed little interest at this time to work to reach agreements. The US and China leaders want each other to take the lead, but neither country will do that unless the other makes explicit committments that neither is willing to do. Governmental power struggles will be one of the biggest hurdles to world wide solutions. Time had a great article on these issues, see U.S. vs. China that could be used by teachers to help students begin a discussion about country vs. country conflicts. |
 | Clean Coal: an oxymoron for the ages |
One of the tenets of our B1 scenario is the use of clean, resource-efficient technologies for energy production. I've visited some of the DoE sites and it seems that numerous technological advances have been made in the field of carbon capture and gasification (both of which can reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 emissions). But apparently the energy companies are not willing to implement this new cleaner solution because plants cannot easily be retro-fitted, and building new plants is too financially risky at this point…all they’re spending money on, is a media campaign to reassure the public that everything will be OK as long as the EPA doesn’t rock the boat with “restrictive” laws that will cause job loss and increased energy costs! The phrase “clean, resource-efficient technologies” used in our scenario may also be translated as alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, wave, hydro, geothermal, tidal and yes - even nuclear. It is true that the world’s largest energy brokers are currently exploring some of these options, if only because they still want to be in the game when the fossil fuel finally runs out. So – I think that part of our scenario is likely, if only because of the education we are proving our young students about the environment. I would like to think that all the future business majors sitting in our science classes are getting a world-view that puts the environmental safety of the planet (most particularly the biosphere) above corporate greed. I have been greatly encouraged by the OWS protestors! |
| Is Clean Coal a possibility? |
Eugene, you are obviously way beyond me in understanding and grasping the whole idea of GCC and teaching it. I am hoping that in preparing this class assignment, I will learn enough to help my students (who are also beginners!!) understand what they can and should do as they grow and mature. Thanks for leading us to the DOE site http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/index.html. I found the following interesting: "Existing CO2 capture technologies are not cost-effective when considered in the context of large power plants. Economic studies indicate that carbon capture will add over 30 percent to the cost of electricity for new integrated gasification combined cycle" Can we afford it? As we look at our scenario which emphasizes global solutions, will reclamation of carbon dioxide be feasible economically? Will alternative solutions for energy be bigger? Our state, with the nation's highest unemployement rate right now, has politicians and community leaders all over the alternative energy ideas, to bring them to our state where we have excesses of solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Not sure about nuclear here as lour leaders really helped kill the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mtn, so too many people think nuclear is "too dangerous". |
| plan for a cleaner future |
Cheryl, ...I've been teaching and researching GWCC for six years now, so I might have head start on you...but I still need to get better at preparing lessons that connect with my kids. Your point about not being able to afford clean coal technology now is a very good one. Nothing man builds, lasts forever (well, the pyramids at Giza & the Roman aqueducts are still around!) and eventually new power plants will need to be constructed. I hope by then that the clean coal technology being developed today will be put to use! How difficult would it be to sell a nuclear power plant in the USA after what happened in Japan this past spring? Chancellor Merkel in Germany has halted nuclear energy in her country because of overwhelming public disapproval. |
No comments:
Post a Comment