The Planetary Tug of War

The intentions of nations on Earth and now the gradual and increasing strategic decisions by large energy corporations seem to have turned the environmental movement, originally starting with awareness of pollution and the planet’s natural balance some 40 years ago, into an energy and industrial production tug-of-war pitting fossil fuel burners against the renewable energy and benign “net-zero” technology sector. The greenhouse effect, as it was initially called back in the 1980s, is creating real consequences for the planet; ecologically according to the scientists, socio-economically as reflected by the debate over future energy production and technology development, and politically as nations grapple with monetary and environmental issues.

There is a significant trend in generating electricity and other industrial technologies that are being incrementally applied in various economic sectors to address the scientifically established conditions of climate change, but there are also countries and corporations ramping up carbon dioxide (CO2) emitting industrial practices at the drop of a socio-economic hat―like the drop of bombs in a new war as they currently are in Ukraine. However, this is just happening now after decades of debate while new scientific data has been accumulating all the while. It has taken about half a century for the collective global village to reach this conjuncture of ecological knowledge, natural resource production and social discourse in Earth’s history.

Decades ago moderate and thoughtful environmentalists insisted that greenhouse gases were warming the planet, while some extreme industrialists claimed this was nonsense. Today the extreme environmental movement apparently wants industry to immediately stop burning all fossil fuel, which would obviously throw society into chaos without adequate transition, while responsible and innovative natural resource and industrial sectors are moving toward renewable energy and other benign technologies to generate profit and jobs without harming the natural ecology that all of humanity needs to survive.

The actuality of a greenhouse effect on the planet seems to have graduated from arguments between scientists and industrialists into a worldwide debate on the direction of energy and industry in light of the widely accepted realisation that climate and the environment are indeed changing on Earth. The question today is: Continue burning fossil fuel to power civilization, or develop renewable energy and other technologies in parallel with nature instead of against it? The merits of both approaches are publicised by earth science professionals, engineers, big business and governments, at least now with all parties finally in the middle of the road on most accounts after decades of friction, and even making concessions or allowances based on evolving research and development.

There are still environmental extremists and “climate deniers,” as the term has evolved, exceedingly active in the ditches of modern social media platforms on either side of the road, but the majority of social influencers are using valid scientific observations, modern technology and clever invention to work out solutions, although the devil is in the detail of various interpretations, definitions, regulations and strategic targets. Contributing editor, journalist and author Peter Brannen, with his thoroughly researched feature story appearing March, 2021 in the reputable if not provocative publication The Atlantic, “The Dark Secrets of the Earth’s Deep Past,” categorically argues through validated paleoclimatology that the planet is heading for trouble unless changes are made.

“Humans are currently injecting CO2 into the air 10 times faster than even during the most extreme periods within the age of mammals. We are imposing a rate of change on the planet that has almost never happened before in geologic history, while largely preventing life on Earth from adjusting to that change . . . a small population of our particular species of primate has, in only a few decades, unlocked a massive reservoir of old carbon slumbering in the Earth, gathering since the dawn of life, and set off on a global immolation of Earth’s history to power the modern world. As a result, up to half of the tropical coral reefs on Earth have died, 10 trillion tons of ice have melted, the ocean has grown 30 percent more acidic, and global temperatures have spiked,” writes Brannen.

The greenhouse effect essentially comes from concentrations found in less than one percent of Earth’s atmosphere―CO2 at approximately .035%, compared to water vapour at 0-to-4%, nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21% and argon at a mere 1%. The current increase in greenhouse gases comes from human activity adding to the natural sources of CO2, which are around 42% ocean-atmosphere exchange (made worse by global warming and acidification), 29% plant and animal respiration, 29% soil decomposition and respiration, and less than half a percent from volcanoes. These numbers and the following statistics are cross-referenced from reliable peer reviewed sources only differing marginally.

The amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is currently approaching 420 parts per million (ppm), a higher level than paleoclimatology indicates in more than three million years, and most certainly the highest it has been in 800,000 years according to ice core samples drilled on the planet; that’s up from 350 ppm in 1986 (considered the safe level) and the 1800s pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. The nations of the world have obtained anywhere from 60-to-90% of their energy from fossil fuels in the last 50-plus years, considered the major contributor to greenhouse gases. That’s the pessimistic news of dark energy (the colour of oil).

The bright green optimistic news is that trends are changing, and changing more dramatically in just the last 10-to-15 years. The world now produces one-third of energy generation from renewable sources that do not directly produce CO2, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IREA), founded in 2009 consisting of 167 country members along with the European Union. The agency is dedicated to net-zero human made emissions of CO2 by 2050 from the current 37 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes (Gt) annually.

The IREA strategy proposes using six technology avenues: 25% renewable energy, 25% energy efficiency, 20% electrification, 20% bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and 10% hydrogen. It can be argued this suggests that the overall plan does not calculate a complete end to the use of fossil fuels. Likely there is room for some of these fuels in moderation, such as textile manufacturing, and in combination with other mitigating measures such as carbon capture that are applied internationally.

Yet, this process cannot happen overnight without strategies in place to ensure some economic stability, and in the meantime certain nations and companies are sticking to the “drill baby, drill” or “keep digging” approach to create jobs, keep families fed and produce electricity for growing populations. But do not make any mistake about it, fossil fuels are the number one target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal is the biggest culprit emitting approximately 15 Gt of CO2 annually, followed by oil which dropped in 2020 and is not back to pre-pandemic levels, at about 11 Gt, with natural gas emitting 45-and-30% less at 7.5 Gt. After fossil fuels, agriculture, land use, biomass burning and waste disposal contribute the rest of the 3.5 Gt of CO2 humans and their industries emit annually. Greenhouse gases are comprised of approximately 72% CO2, followed by methane at 18% and nitrous oxide at 9%, with fluorinated gases from appliances, foams and aerosols taking up 1%. Here’s a quick breakdown of the primary contributors to climate change by industrial sector and by greenhouse gas, according to the International Energy Agency which pre-dates IREA by 35 years.

An element of the international debate on climate change is whether profit and jobs in traditional industries are coming with a price too steep for the planet and society. Some industrialists contend that the planet is resilient and the climate will bounce back; Mother Nature can handle the pressure. Although many scientists and advocates say the world does not have any margin for error and actions are needed now before it is too late, and many countries are buying into this premise, the resilience of the planet might have some validity to a certain extent in the postulations of climatology.

Biologist Owen Mulhern admits that projections are not necessarily hard, cold facts even if they are based on robust evidence. In his Earth.Org recent article A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time, he writes: “It is undeniable that the climate is an extremely complicated system with many factors that we still do not quite understand . . . Moreover, the further we look back, the more uncertainty there is around the data.” However, he also says, “Looking back at the 2 extra degrees of warmth last time CO2 levels were this high (Pliocene era, 3 million years ago), should be enough of a call to action considering the damage two more degrees would cause today.”

Brannen also warns of the slippery slope: “When hucksters tell you that the climate is always changing, they’re right, but that’s not the good news they think it is. ‘The climate system is an angry beast,’ the late Columbia climate scientist Wally Broecker was fond of saying, ‘and we are poking it with sticks.’ The beast has only just begun to snarl . . . For almost all of the Earth’s history, the planet was a much warmer place than it is today, with much higher CO2 levels. This is not a climate-denying talking point; it’s a physical fact, and acknowledging it does nothing to take away from the potential catastrophe of future warming. After all, we humans, along with everything else alive today, evolved to live in our familiar low-CO2 world—a process that took a long time.”

International environmental and industrial actions vary today based on climate, economic and social considerations, even though there is much more renewable energy than when the greenhouse effect became an issue. The direction of countries such as Spain, Denmark and Norway serve as stark examples. Once dependent on oil and gas, Denmark has made a commitment of 100% renewable energy by 2050, which will mean a 75% reduction of CO2 emissions from 1990 levels; doing this by turning it’s natural resource industry into a thriving sector developing solar, wind and water power with very profitable companies. Spain recently produced enough electricity from renewable sources for a full working day; a promising benchmark. At the other end of the spectrum Norway is issuing a significantly increased number of oil and gas exploration blocks in the Norwegian and Berent Seas off its north coast and into the Arctic.

The big question of storage for solar and wind energy has put the development of batteries and the mining of minerals at the forefront. Similar issues surround the increased production of electric vehicles. The amount of hydro-electricity and tidal power, while reducing emissions of CO2, brings into question the effects on eco-systems from damming waterways and disruptions to the natural patterns of marine life. The merits of nuclear power are changing with new prospects for safer reactors such as molten salt, let alone the potential of thermonuclear fusion. And the use of hydrogen is entangled in the viability and economics of different processes and the infrastructure that is required.

Conventional farming practices are fairly significant contributors to greenhouse gases, but the popularity of techniques that are not necessarily new ideas can help to reduce the impact. These include grass-fed livestock on rotating pastures, zero-till seeding and planting on stubble fields, which both enhance carbon sequestration, as well as recycling and reusing waste by-products, and good old tree planting.

Speaking of forestry, clear-cutting for lumber and to make room for crop fields and food animals is adding to the greenhouse effect, yet some countries have productive and sustainable forest management depending on the local eco-systems and the particular industry sector. The global carbon sink of forests and their potential to emit net-oxygen are critically important. The world’s forests currently absorb approximately 16 Gt of CO2, but half of that is lost to deforestation, wild fires, insect and disease infestations; obviously planting trees and preserving large tracts of forest are good ideas.

There are other technologies being developed, including various carbon capture systems, plastic and waste food to fuel technology, vertical and floating farms, ocean cooling technology, giant carbon sucking vacuums, carbon capturing fuel generating air conditioners, giant air purifiers, bottom-up autonomous energy grids, and the ongoing lithium-ion, salt or iron-air battery conundrum. The list goes on. 

The fact there are so many technologies being considered surely means the majority of Earth’s population believes the greenhouse effect is a problem. Agreement on the road to recovery does vary from population segments to economic sectors and political jurisdictions, yet international investments in transition of infrastructure and the workforce does stimulate some optimism. The fact that even conventional natural resource companies see economic opportunities in the alternative energy and technology industry is encouraging for the planet, one would think.

And so, this space and time in Earth’s history is the subject of much planetary conjecture. A larger portion of government policy and funding compared to 40 years ago is focused on the environment. Nevertheless, economic opportunities and standard of living are still the major issues in most democratic elections, or other structures of civilization for that matter. Perhaps humanity can stand in the middle of the road with integrity and enterprise, and take care of all the issues.

June 8, 2023