A Global Catastrophe
For many years we have been told that global warming is unprecedented over the past 100 years, that human industrial activity is by far the dominant driver of 20th century climate change, and that nothing else is important. Is this a bridge to nowhere? If something is not done immediately, we will be facing a global environmental catastrophe that will harm virtually every human.
In the last 50 ppm (parts per million of CO²) increase, the Arctic was impacted, imagine what another 50 ppm increase will do.
Last week’s solemn promise by the G7 to de-carbonize by the year 2100 took the wind out of the already very limp sails of “progress” towards any meaningful (that is, economically painful) global agreement on emissions in Paris.
All the need to peak emissions within five years is to adopt the so-called “Bridge Scenario”, which involves new schemes to phase out coal plants and hoist renewable subsidies. This pigs-might-fly element of the current report of the G7 is that global energy-related emissions could peak by 2020 ‘at no net economic cost’.
If no stronger action is taken, then the average temperature by the year 2100 will have increased not by that nice safe 2 degrees C but a potentially catastrophic 2.6 degrees C.
There is hope: investors have already begun to weigh in on the climate debate. A growing number of energy companies have seen shareholder resolutions this year aimed at forcing management to identify risks associated with climate change. Failing to examine the climate impacts of some investments could be seen as negligence of the responsibility of fund managers.
The recent data tells us that investors are looking at less carbon intensive investments. There will be a energy investment shift to utilities.
We are stuck debating only with unbending people: Governments that don’t wish to risk economic slowdowns and the oil and gas industry that are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so.
It will take effort and that requires collective action. Your part of a group of like minded individuals need to look out for the well being of all the inhabitants of this planet.
If something is not done immediately, we will be facing a global environmental catastrophe that will harm virtually every human on the planet. We need collective action taken together to achieve our common objective: a sustainable world.
However, it has long been recognized that individuals often fail to work together to achieve some group goal or common good. If one believes that the collective act will occur without one’s individual contributions, then they may try to free ride.
It may be problematic, but not impossible.
The free-rider problem occurs wherever there is a collective good giving non-excludability: a person can enjoy the benefits of the good without having to pay for it. Free riders must know if they do not contribute, they will not receive the good, not through exclusion but because the good will not be provided at all.
If the group is heterogeneous in terms of wealth, then it may be easier to secure collective action, because the rich members may provide the goods and allow poorer members to free ride.
It is easier to mobilize people when interests currently being satisfied are threatened than to promote interests not yet satisfied. Do you feel threatened yet? You should!
I am optimistic that humanity will switch to alternative energy sources once they become cheaper than fossil fuels, which they already have if you have examined the latest innovation called HUG. This may not be the only solution, but it is one of the best alternatives and it needs your boost!
Now that the historic Paris Climate Deal has been reached, it’s time to move beyond visions and missions, and talk strategy and tactics What does it mean to reduce carbon emissions in this country?
Like much of the rest of the world, Canada has come to a point where big projects are necessary to resuscitate both local economies and global environments. We have just signed a new climate deal, but what we need is a New Climate Deal. We need projects at this scale as job creators, and as a way to allow Canada to continue producing energy in a more responsible way.
With more than 50,000 wind turbines and more than 650,000 solar installations for electricity consumption across the United States, most people routinely see these as a journey towards a cleaner electricity system. Yet, this doesn’t solve our climate problem even with this many wind and solar units.
More new technologies should be at the centre of our climate strategy. What do those innovations look like? Why are Americans and Canadians not concentrating on leading innovation, instead of following the pack?
An immersed turbine can convert the energy of the moving water into electricity. The hydrokinetic energy resource is free as well as usually dependable and predictable. In addition, the process emits no greenhouse gases.
HUG hydrokinetic energy has great potential, but it is still very much in the developmental stage. The term “hydrokinetic energy” refers to the production of electricity from water in motion— river flows, tidal currents, ocean currents and ocean waves.
HUG Energy is promoting this different kind of hydropower: small, environmentally friendly projects on rivers, rapids and waterfalls. These methods are unique in that they do not require the forming of a reservoir but instead utilize a hydrokinetic type method.
HUG Energy can also install generating equipment in places where water is already dammed without causing additional environmental impacts. Unproductive dams and dams that need to be decommissioned can be revived. And in its smallest form, it provides small-scale local power sources that keep revenues in local communities.
HUG application includes generating electricity from ocean currents, which has had no commercial application to date and ocean waves has had no more than 20 MW globally. Contrast this to over 150,000 MW from either wind energy or solar energy sources.
Imagine all the locations of rivers, rapids and waterfalls in North America. What about the cost? The design below will provide inexpensive hydro at $0.01/kWh compared to average energy costs of $0.07/kWh. Why so inexpensive? Without a dam, there are no large concrete works involved.
There is a very good reason why we do not place our turbines directly into the flow of water like all the other kinetic energy systems. They need to capture energy from a flow that exceeds the threshold velocity of 3.1 m/sec. That is why all these others, like tidal energy, continue to remain in the experimental stage after 25 years of experiments. Instead, the HUG direct the flow into a vortex.
The HUG Energy System adds an important ingredient: the vortex principal. Simply stated, once the flow of water is directed into a whirlpool shaped vortex, the velocity of the flow increases by four times.
This is shown by the formula of Kinetic Energy, which increases by the power of three inside a vortex. Kinetic Energy = ½ x A x V 3 x efficiency (A = area swept; Velocity)
= .5 x 3.26 m2 x (7.72 m/s) 3 x .35 = 260 kW/turbine
Twitter has some interesting quick facts: https://twitter.com/romainaudet
HELPING SOLVE THE WORLD’S CARBON POLLUTION
New Trees are the only solution to soaking up Carbon Dioxide:
Enter the Carbon Tax Fund
500 trees/hectare will yield 50 tons of Carbon from branches and weeds or (50 tons x ⅓) 16.7 tons of CO2 emission absorption: each tree absorbs 65.6 lbs of CO2 /year from its biochar.
On a 1.5 acre farm of 300 trees:
- There will be 10 tons/year of CO2 emission absorption: at the rate of $15/ton, the Net Present Value (NPV) is $150/year (at the rate of $100/acre).
- The Carbon Tax Fund can support 300 trees for a total cost of $150/year for a period of 25 years plus an initial $450:
- There will be 300 trees with a NPV of $0.50: at the rate of $15/ton, the Net Present Value (NPV) is $150/year.
- Add $1.00/tree for reporting and auditing for 25 years (that’s a one-off total – not per year): $300 to be monitored by Living Water MicroFinance Inc. for 25 years.
There is a stipulation that all biomass on the 1.5 acre farm will be converted to biochar every year. The calculations for one acre is $100/year for biochar support of 200 trees and $300 initial support for the NPV of 200 trees ($100) and the reporting and auditing over 25 years ($200).
This fund will be made available to other farmers who need support before the orchards become productive after 18 months.The women farmers and their families maintain this agroforest farms by planting vegetable like yam in between the new tree seedlings. The microfinance loan is due after the harvest. The original fruit and nut tree seedlings along with nitrogen fixing trees are supplied by Today’s Tall Tree Nursery.The tree nursery funding will be supported by $300 NPV and Biochar charges/acre. The $80,000 Today’s Tall Tree Nursery will be supported by 267 acres or 106 hectare (0.4 square miles).
Our Mission: to help solve the problem of carbon dioxide build up in the world by growing and managing mature forests of foliage, fruit and nut trees that eventually are used in lumber — not firewood. The Carbon Tax Fund supports a Microfinance initiative to support women farmers and their families who will nurture these trees over their lifetime. The Net Present Value of each tree is $1.49 including maintenance for 25 years.
SOME IMPORTANT LINKS
- An Irrigation System: NORTHydro.com
- A Rabbit and Fish Farm: AfriCAPITALISM.us
- An Agroforestry Intercrop System: LivingWaterIs.com
- The Charitable Arm: SunnyUp.net
- God’s Loveletters: Godloveletters.com
- Thunder of Justice: ThunderofJustice.com
- Microfinance for women: LivingWaterMicroFinance.org
- Deliverance Is: DeliveranceIs.com