May 26, 2007

GLOBAL WARMING B AN ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Francoise Hall

Number of Words: 16,696.

GLOBAL WARMING B AN ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

THE PROBLEM AND ITS PARAMETERS................................................................................ 4

TABLE 1............................................................................................................................. 4

TABLE 2........................................................................................................................... 11

ORGANIZATION OF THE DATA................................................................................ 13

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS.......................................................................................................... 13

SOLUTIONS WHICH PARTAKE OF THE MAGICAL.............................................. 14

New Technologies will save us.............................................................................. 14

Peak Oil will save us.............................................................................................. 14

Remove Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere..................................................... 14

Deflect the Sun=s Rays from the Earth................................................................ 15

We can redeem our Carbon dioxide Emissions..................................................... 15

Do not focus on Global Warming.......................................................................... 15

We can continue long-distance, high-speed Travel............................................... 16

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE TOKENISM, WINDOW-DRESSING............................. 21

Only what can be counted counts......................................................................... 21

Setting Targets which are unrealistically low........................................................ 21

Enclosing the Pollution Commons......................................................................... 22

Policies of Inaction by Governments..................................................................... 22

Believing the Words of Governments................................................................... 22

Equating Energy Efficiency with Energy Reduction............................................ 23

SOLUTION WHICH PARTAKES OF NIHILISM........................................................ 24

It is too late already............................................................................................... 24

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE............................................. 25

Coal........................................................................................................................ 25

Wood..................................................................................................................... 26

Biofuels.................................................................................................................. 27

Tidal Barrage......................................................................................................... 29

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE REASONABLE BUT SEVERELY FLAWED............... 30

Natural Gas............................................................................................................ 30

Nuclear Power....................................................................................................... 30

Hydrogen............................................................................................................... 31

Biogas.................................................................................................................... 32

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE BOTH REASONABLE AND ETHICAL....................... 33

A rationing System................................................................................................ 33

New Construction Materials.................................................................................. 34

Heat-efficient Homes............................................................................................ 34

Efficient Transportation......................................................................................... 35

Wind Energy.......................................................................................................... 36

Wave Energy......................................................................................................... 36

Hydro-electric Power............................................................................................. 36

Tidal Stream Energy.............................................................................................. 36

Solar photovoltaic Cells......................................................................................... 37

Airships.................................................................................................................. 37

MY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 38

OMISSION OF THE MILITARY................................................................................... 38

Military Keynesianism........................................................................................... 38

Table 3: The United States Military Budget, Fiscal 2007..................................... 39

How to defend the Lifestyle of the Planners?...................................................... 40

WILL THE U.S. FOLLOW THE U.K.=S LEAD?.......................................................... 41

Official Policies..................................................................................................... 41

What Science says................................................................................................. 42

AVIATION AND THE WISH TO BE GOD.................................................................. 43

Aviation and global Warming................................................................................ 43

The social Context of high-speed Travel............................................................... 43

Pretending to be God............................................................................................ 43

The Atman Project................................................................................................. 44

Without Oil but with a higher Level of Consciousness......................................... 45

The Evolution of human Consciousness B the Phylogeny.................................... 46

The Evolution of human Consciousness B the Ontogeny..................................... 46

THE SIZE OF HUMANITY............................................................................................ 48

The human Population........................................................................................... 48

The ecological Footprint of Humanity................................................................... 48

Global Warming as one Aspect of Resource Over-use.......................................... 48

Population Sizes sustainable at various Rates of Energy Consumption................ 51

CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION..................................................................... 52

Monbiot=s Perspective.......................................................................................... 52

My Perspective...................................................................................................... 52

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 58

GLOBAL WARMING B AN ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

THE PROBLEM AND ITS PARAMETERS

TABLE 1: Table 1 summarizes the data assembled by George Monbiot, showing the magnitude of the problem of global temperature increase, and the changes which would be required to produce temperature stabilization by the year 2030.

The data are as follows:

1. Global Temperatures and Greenhouse Gases Emissions: In the past century, global temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius, most of the rise having taken place in the past 50 years.

A global temperature increment of two degrees above pre-industrial level is a critical threshold. It is the point at which major human impacts and critical positive feedbacks are expected to begin. Large ecosystems collapse, and begin to release carbon dioxide instead of absorbing it. Global warming accelerates by self-reinforcing feedback loops and is out of human control.

The question is, therefore, whether the global temperature rise can be held to no more than another 1.4 degrees during the present century.

If by 2030

* The atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases concentration is 400 parts per million (that is, 50 ppm below the present level), the chances of temperature stabilization at 2 degrees or below, are 90 percent.

* The atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases concentration is 450 ppm (that is, the present level), the chances of stabilization at 2 degrees or below are 67 percent.

* The atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases concentration is 550 ppm, the chances of stabilization at 2 degrees or below are 10-20 percent.

2. Present Carbon dioxide Emissions: Carbon dioxide accounts for 85 percent of all greenhouse gases. The following data are in terms of carbon dioxide, not all greenhouse gases (For the calculations, see Table 1, Footnote l, Table A).

* Total for Humanity: In 2006, the total human emissions of carbon dioxide were 26 billion tons per year. Per capita, this amounted to 4.0 tons per year, or per week the equivalent of 1.4 times the weight of a 57 kilogram (125 pound) person.

* High-income OECD Countries: In 2000, the carbon dioxide emissions of the countries which belonged to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and also were classified in the United Nations= high-income category, were 12.5 tons per capita per year, or per week, the equivalent of 4.3 times the weight of a 57 kilogram (125 pound) person.

* United States: In 2000, the carbon dioxide emissions of the United States were 20.0 tons per capita per year, or per week the equivalent of 6.7 times the weight of a 57 kilogram (125 pound) person.

3. Requirement for Stabilization at no more than 1.4 degrees this Century: By 2030, the carbon dioxide absorption capacity of the biosphere will have decreased from its present of 15 billion tons per year to 10 billion tons per year. To obtain a 90 percent chance of temperature stabilization at no more than 1.4 degrees this century, therefore, carbon dioxide emissions must not surpass 10 billion tons per year.

* Total for Humanity: By 2030, the human population is predicted to have increased by 1.8 billion to a total of 8.3 billions. Per capita, the carbon dioxide emissions permitted, therefore, consistent with a 90 percent chance of stabilization below 1.4 degrees this century, is 1.21 ton per year. From the 2006 per capita carbon dioxide emissions of 4.0 tons per capita, this is a 30 percent reduction.

* High-income OECD Countries: By 2030, high-income OECD countries will have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from their present level of 12.5 tons per capita per year, to 1.21 ton per capita per year B a 90 percent reduction.

United States: By 2030, the United States will have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its present level of 20.0 tons per capita per year, to 1.21 ton per capita per year B a 94 percent reduction.

Table 1: Parameters for Global Temperature Stabilization by the Year 2030 ^(a)

Measure

Pre-

indus-

trial

2006 ^(b)

2030

90 percent chances

of temperature

stabilization below

2 degrees ^(c)

2030

67 percent chances

of temperature

stabilization below

2 degrees ^(c)

2030

15 percent chances of temperature

stabilization below 2 degrees ^(c)

Temperature Increment:

2006: Actual.

2030: Targeted.

(degrees Celsius)

1900-1999

0.6

2000-2099

1.4

2000-2099

1.4

2000-2099

1.4

Atmospheric CO₂

(parts per million)

280

380 ^(d)

Must not exceed

340

Must not exceed

380

Must not exceed

460

All greenhouse Gases

(parts per million CO₂ equivalents)

450 ^(e)

Must not exceed

400^(f) ^(g)

Must not exceed

450 ^(f) ^(g)

Must not exceed

550 ^{(f) (g)}

Biospheric CO₂- absorbing Capacity

(billion tons per year)

15 ^(h)

10 ^(h)

Biospheric CO₂ capacity continues

to decrease.

Biospheric CO₂ capacity continues

to decrease.

Human CO₂ Emissions

(billion tons per year)

Must not exceed

10 ⁽ⁱ⁾

Human emissions exceed biospheric

CO₂ absorbing

Capacity.

Human emissions exceed biospheric

CO₂ absorbing

Capacity.

World Population

(billions)

6.5

8.3 ^(j)

CO2 Emissions:

Humanity

(tons per capita per year)

4.0 ^{(k) (l)}

Must not exceed

1.2 ^(m)

(a 30 percent reduction)

If more than 1.2, global warming

swings out of

human control

If more than 1.2, global warming

swings out of

human control

High-income OECD Countries ⁽ⁿ⁾

(tons per capita per year)

12.5 ^(l)

Must not exceed

1.2 ^(m)

(a 90 percent reduction)

United States

(tons per capita per year)

20.0 ^{(l) (o)}

Must not exceed

1.2 ^(m)

(a 94 percent reduction)

Notes to Table 1:

^(a)Pp xi-xiii, 3-4, 10, 15-17, 41, 44 and 173.

For the data showing that at a greenhouse gas concentration of 550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalents, the chances are 15 (10-20) percent that global temperature will stabilize below 2 degrees: Retallack 2004, cited p. 41.

For world population: United States Bureau of the Census 2006, p. 4.

Carbon dioxide emissions by humans:

For Year 2000: United Nations Development Programme 2004, p. 210.

For Year 2002: Calculated and also Hensen 2006, p. 32.

For the 2000 carbon dioxide emissions in countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and which are also categorized as high-income: United Nations Development Programme 2004, pp. 210 and 281.

For carbon dioxide emissions in the United States:

For Year 2000: United Nations Development Programme 2004, p. 207

For Year 2003: United Nations Statistics Division 2007, p. 1.

For population size and percentage of population 16 years or older: United Nations Development Programme 2004, pp. 152 and 155 [See the present document, Table 1, Parameters for Global Temperature Stabilization by the Year 2030, Footnote (k)].

^(b) Figures in this column are actual at the present time.

^(c) A global temperature increment of two degrees above pre-industrial level (0.6 degree Celsius during the last century and 1.4 degree during the present century) is a critical threshold. It is the point at which some of the major human impacts and the critical positive feedbacks are expected to begin. Above two degrees, large ecosystems start to collapse, and begin to release carbon dioxide instead of absorbing it. Beyond this point, global warming accelerates by self-reinforcing feedback loops and is out of human control.

^(d)Most of the 100 parts per million increase since pre-industrial times has taken place in the past 50 years.

^(e) Because the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only stabilizes after 200 years, the chance that at present, we are already committed to 2 degrees, is 30 percent.

^(f) Assuming that carbon dioxide continues to be (380 / 450)x 100 = 85 percent of all greenhouse gases.

^(g) At a concentration of 400 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases (that is, a concentration of 50 ppm below the present level), in 2030, the chances of temperature stabilization below 2 degrees, are 90 percent.

At a concentration of 450 ppm, the chances are 67 percent.

At a concentration of 550 ppm, the chances are 10-20 percent.

^(h) At present, the carbon absorption capacity of the biosphere is 4 billion metric tons per year, equivalent to a carbon dioxide absorption capacity of (4 x 3.667) = 14.7 billion metric tons per year.

By 2030, the carbon absorption capacity of the biosphere will have decreased to 2.7 billion metric tons per year, equivalent to a carbon dioxide absorption capacity of (2.7 x 3.667) = 9.9 metric tons per year (rounded off to 10 metric tons per year).

⁽ⁱ⁾ For global temperature stabilization by 2030, human carbon dioxide emission in that year must not exceed the capacity of the biosphere to absorb the gas B that is, 10 billion metric tons per year.

^(j) In 2030, world population is predicted to be 8,296,000,000.

^(k) This figure for humanity is for 2006. It is arrived at by dividing the total human emissions in 2006 by the world population that year: (26 / 6.5) = 4.0 tons per capita per year.

^(l) Humanity: The total human emissions, in 2006, of 4.0 tons of carbon dioxide per year means that during that year, the weekly per capita human emission rate was (4,000 / 52) = 76.9 kilograms. In 2002, the world population was 6.2 billion of which 4.4 million (70.6 percent) were adults 16 years or older. Assuming that these adults weighed an average of 56.6 kilograms (125 pounds), each of them put into the atmosphere every week an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to (76.9 / 56.6) = 1.4 times their own weight.

High-income OECD Countries: In 2000, the per capita emission of carbon dioxide in the high-income OECD countries was 12,500 kilograms B a weekly per capita emission rate of (12,500 / 52) = 240.4 kilograms. In 2002, the population in the high-income OECD countries was 911.6 million of which 745.7 (81.8 percent) were adults 16 years or older. Assuming that these adults weighed an average of 56.6 kilograms (125 pounds), each of them put into the atmosphere every week an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to (240.4 / 56.6) = 4.3 times their own weight.

United States: In 2000, the per capita emission of carbon dioxide in the United States was 19,800 kilograms B a weekly per capita emission rate of (19,800 / 52) = 380.8 kilograms. In 2002, the population of the United States was 291.0 million of which 228.2 million (78.4 percent) were adults 16 years of older. Assuming that these adults weighed an average of 56.6 kilograms (125 pounds), each of them put into the atmosphere every week an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to (380.8 / 56.5) = 6.7 times their own weight.

Table A summarizes these data.

In 2003, the per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States was 20,000 kilograms B a weekly per capita emission rate of 20,000 / 52 = 384.6 kilograms. This was equivalent to (384.6 / 56.5) = 6.8 times the weight of each adult every week.

Table A: Carbon dioxide Emissions as a function of Adult Body Weight

Area

Carbon dioxide Emissions per person as a

multiple of an assumed average Body

Weight of 56.5 kilograms (125 pounds)

World (year 2006)

1.4

High-income OECD countries (year 2000)

4.3

United States (year 2000)

6.7

^(m) In order to achieve global temperature stabilization below 2 degrees of warming, carbon dioxide emissions should not exceed (10 billion tons / 8.3 billions) = 1.21 metric tons per person per year.

⁽ⁿ⁾ High-income countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) number 24, as follows:

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Korea (Rep. of)

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States.

^(o) This figure is for the year 2003.

TABLE 2: Table 2 summarizes, for selected countries, the change in carbon dioxide emissions which would be necessary to achieve, by 2030, the equalization of all countries to the average sustainable emission rate for the world of 1.21 tons per capita per year.

The data show the following:

* Industrialized Countries: For Adeveloped@ countries (United States, Japan, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, France and Australia), the required reduction is dramatic B ranging from 82 to 94 percent.

* China: For China, the required reduction is 62 percent.

* India: India will be permitted an increase of 2 percent.

* Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Chad: For Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Chad, the allowed increase is dramatic B ranging from 3,200 to 12,000 percent.

* Iraq: Iraq, in 2003, would have had to make a reduction of 55 percent. However, 2003 is the year that it was invaded by the United States, and this calculation is undoubtedly no longer valid.

Table 2: Selected Countries B

Change in Carbon dioxide Emissions needed

to achieve the World Average of 1.21 ton per capita per Year by 2030 ^(a)

Country

Population

(2002)

(millions)

Carbon dioxide Emissions

(2003)

Total Per capita

(million (tons per

tons per year) year)

Change required to

achieve the world

CO₂ Emissions

Average of 1.21 tons per capita per year ^(b)

(percent)

United States

291.0

5,842 20.00

-94

China

1,294.9

4,151 3.19

-62

India

1,049.5

1,276 1.19

+ 2

Japan

127.5

1,259 9.90

-88

Germany

82.4

865 10.50

-88

Canada

31.3

587 18.50

-93

United Kingdom

59.1

558 9.40

-87

France

59.8

408 6.80

-82

Australia

19.5

372 18.80

-94

Iraq

24.5

73 2.67

-55

Bangladesh

143.8

35 0.25

+3,200

Afghanistan

22.9

1 0.03

+3,933

Chad

8.3

0 0.01

+12,000

⁽^a) Pp. xiii and 16.

For population numbers: United Nations Development Programme 2004, pp. 152-155 and 250.

For carbon dioxide emissions, total and per capita: United Nations Statistics Division 2007, pp. 1-8.

^(b) Assuming that the other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, are reduced at the same rate as carbon dioxide.

ORGANIZATION OF THE DATA

1. Monbiot=s Organization of his Data: Monbiot sets out to show that for the United Kingdom, a 90 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, is feasible. He demonstrates this by analyzing the activities responsible for 60 percent of the country=s carbon dioxide emissions. These activities are:

a. Shelter: Housing (including cement), heat and electricity.

b. Travel: Ground and air transportation (including virtual shopping) (pp. xii, 60 and 199).

2. My Organization of the Data: My organization of Monbiot=s data is not the same as his. I have taken the data he presents, added some from my own sources, and organized the whole in categories of Asolutions@ which, in my opinion, reveal the level of consciousness from which they arise.

* My first category is Magic B pre-logical, the level of consciousness of a 2-7 year old.

* Next are ATokenism,@ ANihilism,@ and ACounter-productive@ solutions. These are not helpful to those who want to work at the rational level.

* My next categories are AReasonable,@ in the sense that they are on a rational level. I have divided these into two groups:

. The first group is AReasonable but severely flawed,@ that is, they fail as helpful, moral, long-term solutions for humanity now and its subsequent generations.

. The second group is AReasonable and ethical,@ that is, they are helpful and moral for humanity now and its subsequent generations.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

The following is a listing of the possible solutions and their flaws, as analyzed by George Monbiot, but organized by me in the order of the probable level of consciousness which gives rise to them.

SOLUTIONS WHICH PARTAKE OF THE MAGICAL

1. New Technologies will save us:

a. It won=t happen: Surely, Athey@ (the unidentifiable, omnipotent scientists) won=t let the collapse of the biosphere happen (p. 206).

b. Create Energy: Make a perpetual motion machine (p. 207).

2. Peak Oil will save us:

We will run out of Oil just in Time: Lack of oil will prevent us from polluting, and then the climate will stabilize.

Synthetic fuels B artificial crude oil B from oil sands and coal are more polluting than petroleum (p. 209).

3. Remove Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere:

a. Scatter Iron Particles on the Ocean: Iron particles scattered on the surface of the ocean will stimulate the growth of plant plankton. The plankton will absorb carbon dioxide from the surface water, and then will sink to the depths of the ocean.

Hardly any of the gas which the plankton absorbs is removed from surface water (p. 208).

b. Extract of Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere: Remove CO₂ from the atmosphere with chemical scrubbers.

The cost would be astronomical (p. 208).

c. Spray Sea Water into the Air: Sea water sprayed into the air will create clouds which will screen out some of the sunlight reaching the earth.

The attendant retardation in the development of rain-bearing clouds would cause droughts downwind (p. 208).

4. Deflect the Sun=s Rays from the Earth: Yearly, launch a million tons of tiny, aluminum, hydrogen-filled balloons into the atmosphere. They will reflect only light of wavelengths beneficial for cooling the planet. In 2006, President George W. Bush called this Amodifying solar radiance.@

This idea is the legacy of Edward Teller (1908-2003), developer of the hydrogen bomb. In the troposphere, up to 13 kilometers above the surface of the earth, any leaked hydrogen would react with hydroxyl molecules to form water vapor B a greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere, 16-40 kilometers above the surface of the earth, the hydrogen would destroy the ozone layer (pp. vi, 138 and 209).

5. We can redeem our Carbon dioxide Emissions:

a. As in the Netherlands, during the 15^th and 16^th centuries [described by John Lothrop Motley, in The rise of the Dutch Republic (1855)], so in cyberspace today, absolutions for the sin of emitting carbon can be obtained for a price. ACarbon offset@ companies promise to redeem the environmental costs of a person=s sin by interceding with the atmosphere in the form of planting trees or fund renewable energy projects in distant nations.

The deal evades any possible method of accounting. Every single one of us needs to decrease his or her emissions (pp.209-212 and 171).

b. As allowed through the AClean Development Mechanism@ of the Kyoto Protocol: The 1997 Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (which established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988), allows one nation to offset the level of its pollutants by paying for carbon-cutting projects in other nations.

The deal evades any possible method of accounting. Every one needs to decrease his or her emissions (pp. 209-212 and 171).

6. Do not focus on Global Warming:

a. Action is not worth its Cost: The economic decline which would accompany a reduction of global warming, would outweigh the losses which global warming will impose. The cure is worse than the disease. This is the thesis argued most famously by the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, in this 2001 book, The skeptical environmentalist. The cost of doing nothing, he calculates, is less than the cost of stabilizing global temperature at 2.5 degrees above the 1990 level.

As well as downplaying the problem, this argument is amoral. It is not possible to put an economic price on a human life, on an ecosystem, or on the climate (pp. 49-50).

b. Money on Global Warming is mis-spent: In terms of lives saved, money spent on reducing the impact of global warming, would have a lesser return than money spent on such projects as relief of hunger, availability of potable water, and the prevention of diseases like AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

* Global warming is likely to increase these causes of death, thereby making them more difficult to address (p. 54).

* Only a relatively small proportion of the cost of preventing global warming will be born by governments. Most of it will be born by corporations and citizens (p. 56).

* Money spent on preventing global warming competes not with foreign aid but rather with money spent on coal, oil, roads, farm subsidies, environmental degradation and unprovoked wars B all of them polluting projects .

In 2004, the United States spent $19,000,000,000 on foreign aid B 0.17 percent of its gross domestic product. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes estimate Avery conservatively,@ that the cost of the first three years of the Iraq war was $1,500,000,000,000 B 13.4 percent of the GDP (pp. 53-54).

No techno-fix: In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that:

AThere would not appear to be any practical alternatives to kerosene-based fuels for commercial jet aircraft for the next several decades.@

In 2003, the British government concluded that:

ACurrently, there is no viable alternative visible to kerosene as an aviation fuel.@

The growth in aviation and the need to address global warming cannot be reconciled. For transportation in general, and aviation in particular, capacity creates demand, not the other way around. If the capacity is there, demand will rise to fill it. Aviation has been growing faster than any other source of greenhouse gases. In the United Kingdom, the carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes has doubled in the 14 years between 1990 and 2004 (from 20 to 40 million tons) (pp. xiii, 144, 174, 176 and 182).

b. Trains: The world=s fastest train in operation is the Atrain a grande vitesse@ (TGV) from Lyons to Aix-en-Provence. It has an average speed of 263 kilometers per hour B 30 percent the 900 kilometers per hour cruising speed of a Boeing 747 or the Airbus A321. At present, the maximum train speed in the United Kingdom is 180 kilometers per hour.

The energy consumption of a train rises dramatically at speeds more than 200 kilometers per hour. Increasing the speed from 225 to 350 kilometers per hour, for example, almost doubles the amount of fuel a train burns. High speed performance and low energy consumption are at odds (pp. 182-184).

c. Ships: The fastest ocean-going passenger ships have a cruising speed of 54 kilometers per hour (30 knots). The Queen Elizabeth II cruises at 45-50 kilometers per hour (25-28 knots). It burns 433 tons of fuel per day, takes six days from Southampton to New York, and accommodates 1,790 passengers. For a return trip, this is (433 x 12) / 1,790 = 2.91 tons of fuel per passenger. A ton of shipping fuel produces 3.12 tons of carbon dioxide. Each passenger, therefore, is responsible (2.91 x 3.12) = 9.1 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This is (9.1 / 1.2) = 7.6 times the emissions of the same trip made by plane (pp. 184-185).

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE TOKENISM, WINDOW-DRESSING

1. Only what can be counted counts: In 1996, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a life in the rich nations was worth ten times one in a poor nation ($1,500,000 and $150,000 respectively). The Panel was much ridiculed. Today, economists circumvent this problem by excluding from the balance sheet anything which cannot be quantified B ecosystems, human communities, human life. What they cannot count, does not count (p. 50).

2. Setting Targets which are unrealistically low:

a. The Kyoto Protocol: The Kyoto Protocol aims for a 5.2 percent reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by 2012.

This target bears no relationship to the reduction needed for global temperature stabilization (pp. 16, 48 and 82. See the present document under Solutions which partake of the magical, No. 5, We can redeem our Carbon dioxide Emissions, Item b, As allowed through the AClean Development Mechanism@ of the Kyoto Protocol).

b. The Policy of the United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has announced its policy to reduce its carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050. This is one of the world=s most ambitious objectives.

It is also next to useless. The target bears no relationship to the reduction needed for global temperature stabilization (p. 40).

c. The Policy of the major environmental Groups: The major environmental groups seek to demonstrate that a target such as that of the U.K., can be met without major economic loss.

No environmental group has yet stepped forward to say that we need a reduction of the magnitude which science demonstrates is required (p. 40).

3. Enclosing the Pollution Commons: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, in effect since 2005, entitles countries which pollute most to continue to pollute. The scheme got its start by the handing out, free of charge, carbon dioxide emissions permits to large European companies, with the most permits going to those companies emitting the most carbon.

This is a classic act of enclosure. By seizing a right held in common (the right, within the system, for each one of us to produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide) and giving it to corporations, the E.U. privatized the right to pollute (pp. 46, 48 and 59).

4. Policies of Inaction by Governments: The policies of governments are not contained within the reports and reviews they commission. The policies are the reports and reviews.

Governments will pursue this course of inaction, irrespective of the human impacts, as long as it remains politically less costly for them than the alternative (pp. 213-214).

In the United States:

a. In 1997, Vice-president Al Gore, in a speech to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, claimed that limiting the carbon emission the United States might otherwise have produced in the future, equated to real reductions in actual emissions (pp. v and 220).

b. In 2006, President George W. Bush announced an Aambitious climate change strategy@ consisting of reducing greenhouse gas emissions Arelative to the size of the American economy@ by 18 percent in the next 10 years.

This policy, as did his 2002 Clear Skies Initiative, replaces absolute carbon emissions with Acarbon intensity,@ thus allowing for the increase in carbon emissions predictable from an increase in economic growth (p. vi. White House 2002, pp. 4-5).

5. Believing the Words of Governments: It is tokenism to believe that governments mean what they say. The public=s ready acceptance of governments= token actions, is itself tokenism. We chose to believe that the targets set by some of the more progressive governments, such as that of the United Kingdom, provide realistic means of dealing with global warming. No one has yet campaigned for austerity (pp. 40, 42 and 215).

6. Equating Energy Efficiency with Energy Reduction: Many believe that a piece of equipment which uses 30 percent less energy than the one it replaces, saves 30 percent of the energy previously used.

Stanley Jevons, in his 1865 book, The coal question, showed otherwise. In Scotland, between 1830 and 1863, a lowering by 66 percent the amount of coal needed to produce one ton of iron, was accompanied by a 1,000 percent increase in coal consumption.

In 1980, Daniel Khazzoom and Len Brookes postulated that in a free-market, energy efficiency increases energy use by releasing money which is then spent on ever more energy-intensive processes.

Worldwide, since 1865, as energy efficiency has increased by one percent a year, energy consumption has increased steadily.

In the 30 richest countries, between 1980 and 2002, energy use has increased by more than 1 percent a year (23 percent in 22 years). The fall in the cost of energy per service has stimulated an increase in consumption.

A similar effect happens at the micro-economic (individual) level. More efficient car engines have been accompanied and increase in fuel consumption. Cheaper and quicker aviation has resulted in an increase in the number of customers, and hence an increase in emissions.

In the absence of government policy, such as binding targets or rationing, increasing energy efficiency stimulates greater energy use (pp. 61-63 and 100).

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the 2006 agreement between Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States, for the sharing of energy- and carbon-saving technologies, sets no binding target for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The Partnership may well stimulate an increase in these emissions (pp. v, 61-63 and 153).

SOLUTION WHICH PARTAKES OF NIHILISM

It is too late already: James Lovelock is the scientist who, in 1972, first proposed the Gaia Hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is a self-regulating living system (Wikipedia, AGaia Hypothesis,@ pp. 1-2 and 17).

In 2004, Lovelock suggested that nuclear energy is our only option to curb global warming in time to save civilization:

AWe cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels, and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power, can provide enough energy and in time. If we had 50 years or more, we might make these our main sources. But we do not have 50 years. The Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that, even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years . . . Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy@ (Lovelock 2004, p. 2).

In 2006, in an article published by The Independent and in his book, The revenge of Gaia, Lovelock suggested that global warming may already be out of human control:

AClimate specialists see [the Earth] as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years . . . As the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade (Celsius) in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics@ (Lovelock 2006a, p. 1. Lovelock 2006a, cited pp. 15 and 227).

ABefore this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable@ (Lovelock 2006a, p. 1).

AWhat should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold@ (Lovelock 2006b. Quoted in McCarthy 2006, p. 3)

AWe have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change, and realize how little time is left to act. And then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilization for as long as they can . . . The notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly, I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate@ (Lovelock 2006a, p. 2).

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

1. Coal: Coal contains an average of 24 kilograms of carbon, that is, potentially (24 x 3.667) = 88 kilograms of carbon dioxide per gigajoule (billion joules) of energy. Coal-fired electricity generators have an efficiency of 40 percent. (The figures for natural gas are 54 kilograms and 52 percent, respectively) (See the present document, under Solutions which are reasonable but severely flawed, No. 1, Natural Gas).

Flaws:

a. Destructive: Coal mining is extremely destructive to the environment. AMountain-top removal,@ is decimating the Appalachian Mountains.

b. Polluting: Coal burning is polluting. AClean coal@ is never a possibility.

ACarbon Capture and Storage:@ ACarbon capture and storage@ (sequestration) is the technology which enables carbon dioxide to be extracted from the coal before it is burned, or from its smoke as it burns. The carbon dioxide is then buried underground, to quote Monbiot, Ain the hope that it will stay where it is put.@

Monbiot is aware that this technology would help revitalize one of the most destructive of industries. He welcomes it, nevertheless, because of its potential to make possible the continued use of coal, and still be able to make the necessary reductions in carbon emissions for climate stabilization before 2030 (pp. 84-88).

In my opinion, no amount of carbon sequestration can compensate for the destruction of the environment which accompanies coal mining. In addition, on an ethical basis, I disagree with Monbiot regarding his acceptance of carbon sequestration. I discuss this in My Conclusions, Item E, Carbon dioxide Sequestration.

2. Wood: Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, and thus, if harvested at or below their growth rate, the amount of carbon dioxide released as they burn, will be no more than the amount they absorbed while growing.

In 2004, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution estimated that the caloric content of wood is about 10 gigajoules (billion joules) per ton. The most efficient means of producing wood is by growing willow trees and harvesting their branches every three years. This produces about 10 dry tons of wood per hectare per year. Assuming that harvesting and transporting uses 10 percent of the wood=s energy content, this is equivalent to 9 dry tons of wood per hectare per year. Assuming additionally that the efficiency of conversion of the wood into useful heat is 75 percent, this would produce (75 x 9) / 100 = 67.5 gigajoules (billion joules) of heat per hectare per year.

Flaws:

a. The Pre-emption of agricultural Land: To produce 50 percent of the heat used in the United Kingdom, would necessitate all of its agricultural land to be used solely for this purpose. Growing energy crops threatens to raise food prices by keeping land out of food production, thus enhancing the chances of famine.

b. The Lowering of Water Tables: Like all energy crops, willow trees are fast-growing, and thus need more water than arable crops. Falling water tables in an already water-stressed world would enhance the chances of famine (pp. 118-119, 171 and 181).

3. Biofuels: Biofuels are transport fuels made from plant or animal matter. They can be made from rapeseed, sunflowers, maize, wheat, sugar cane, even straw, and B one day perhaps B wood.

The United States Energy Policy Act of 2005, contained a Renewable Fuel Standard which mandated blenders of transport fuels to use at least 28.4 billion liters (7.5 billion gallons) of renewable or alternative fuels by 2012.

In his 2007 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush announced a new Alternative Fuel Standard of 132.5 billion liters (35 billion gallons) by 2017 B almost five times the 2005 Standard. By 2017, biofuels should be supplying 24 percent of the nation=s transport fuel.

Flaws:

a. The Pre-emption of agricultural Land: President Bush has announced his target despite the fact that even though at present, the rich nations have replaced but a fraction of one percent of their transport fuels with biofuels, in 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization was already reporting:

Aa surge in the price of cereals, particularly wheat and maize . . . to levels not seen in a decade . . . partly the result of a fast-growing demand for biofuel production.@

In 2006, the Sarasin Bank concluded that until a new generation of vegetable fuels made from straw or wood is developed,

Athe present environmentally and socially responsible limit for the use of biofuels [is] roughly 5 percent of the current petrol and diesel consumption in the European Union and the United States.@

b. The Lowering of Water Tables: The limit on available water is already forcing farmers to choose between growing crops for food or growing crops for cars.

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE REASONABLE BUT SEVERELY FLAWED

1. Natural Gas: Natural gas contains an average of 14.6 kilograms of carbon, that is, potentially (14.6 x 3.667) = 54 kilograms of carbon dioxide per gigajoule (billion joules) of energy. Modern gas-burning electricity generators have an efficiency of 52 percent. (The figures for coal are 88 kilograms and 40 percent, respectively) (See the present document, under Solutions which are counter-productive, No. 1, Coal).

Flaws:

a. A greenhouse Gas: As a greenhouse gas, unburned, natural gas is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Even small leakages eliminate its lower carbon content advantage over carbon dioxide (Lovelock 2004, p. 2).

b. A limited Supply: The supply of natural gas is limited. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) predicts that the global gas production peak will occur by around 2025 (2020-2030) (pp. 82-83).

2. Nuclear Power:

Flaws:

a. A limited Supply of Uranium: Energy analysts Jan van Leeuwen and Philip Smith estimate that were all the electricity in the world produced by nuclear power, uranium supplies would last of 7 years.

b. Radiation: All nuclear power stations leak radiation into the environment. Among the radioactive materials they release, is plutonium, the most toxic element on earth.

c. Waste Disposal: The problem of the disposal of nuclear waste has not been solved (pp. 90-91 and 96-97. van Leeuwen and Smith 2005, cited pp. 96-97. See the present document under My Conclusions, Item E, Carbon dioxide Sequestration).

3. Hydrogen: Hydrogen can be produced from coal by grinding the coal into a powder and passing steam and oxygen though it. It can be produced from natural gas by heating the gas and putting it in contact with steam (re-forming natural gas). These two methods are accompanied by the release of carbon dioxide. Hydrogen can also be produced from water by passing an electric current through it (electrolysis). This method does not release carbon dioxide but is inefficient and expensive (pp. 134-135 and 162).

Flaws:

a. Hydrogen needs Energy to produce it: Hydrogen is not a ready-made source of energy. It must be manufactured, and its manufacture uses energy.

In Europe, it is likely that hydrogen for transportation will be produced from natural gas, thus hastening the decline of this resource. In the United States, it is likely to be produced from coal or (more expensively) by electrolysis, using nuclear power or wind. If this is so, then it will double the requirement for electricity production.

Hydrogen cars need not be a priority. Hyper-cars (very fuel-efficient cars) face no significant technical problem to their development and could easily be mass produced. Electric cars, while at present having a range of only 300 miles and a time of recharge measured in hours, could be improved. Both these options are superior to the attempt to develop a hydrogen car B despite our governments= obsession with a hydrogen network (p. 165).

b. Forming a greenhouse Gas: Any hydrogen leaked would find its way into the troposphere (up to 13 kilometers above the surface of the earth), where it would react with hydroxyl molecules to form water vapor B a greenhouse gas.

c. Destroying the Ozone Layer: Any hydrogen leaked would find its way into stratosphere (16-40 kilometers above the surface of the earth) where it would deplete the ozone layer (pp 138 and 208. See the present document under Solutions which partake of the magical, No. 4, Deflect the Sun=s Rays from the Earth).

d. Technical Difficulties for Use in Transport: The development of cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells is too technically difficult to contribute significantly toward a solution to global warming before approximately 2025.

At a pressure of 289 kilograms per square centimeter (5,000 pounds per square inch), hydrogen contains 3 megajoules (million joules) of energy per liter. At atmospheric pressure, petroleum contains 32 megajoules (million joules) per liter. Hydrogen at 5,000 pounds per square inch, therefore, has 1/10^th the energy density of petroleum at atmospheric pressure. In 2004, the United States National Academy of Engineering concluded:

ANo hydrogen storage system [for vehicles] has yet been developed that is simultaneously lightweight, compact, inexpensive and safe.@

(Pp. 163 and 165. See the present document under Solutions which partake of the magical, No. 7, We can continue long-distance, high-speed Travel, Item a, Aviation, No Fuel Option other than Kerosene, Item iii, Hydrogen).

4. Biogas: Biogas is methane produced by landfill sites (dumps), sewage farms and manure pits.

Flaw:

The potential of biogas is very small. Landfill sites, sewage farms and manure pits present an environmental hazard, are avoided by the public, and their remote location makes it almost impossible for the gas to be used as a source of energy in buildings. On the whole, biogas is easier to use for generating electricity than generating heat (p. 122).

SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE BOTH REASONABLE AND ETHICAL

1. A rationing System: A rationing system with a meaningful limit on carbon dioxide emissions, and accompanied by both regulations and a public information campaign, is the only fair way to gain control of global warming.

A rationing system is based on a decision by world representatives as to the yearly amount of carbon dioxide humans can emit and still not exceed a desired increment of global warming.

For example (as summarized in Table 1), in order to have a 90 percent chance of obtaining global temperature stabilization 2 degrees or less than the temperature which prevailed in pre-industrial times, the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must not exceed 400 parts per million by 2030 (50 parts per million below the level in 2006).

By 2030, however, at this level of greenhouse gases, the carbon dioxide absorption capacity of the biosphere will be 10 metric tons per year (a decrease of 5 metric tons since 2006).

In 2030, the world population is predicted to be 8.3 billion. Per capita, therefore, the carbon dioxide allowance would be 10 / 8.3 = 1.2 tons per year.

The United States presently emits 20.0 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Its per capita reduction, therefore, would have to be (20 - 1.2) / 20 = 94 percent.

Creating a carbon rationing system, in effect creates a new currency. The entitlement to pollute would be accounted, saved, spent and exchanged, much as money is today. If everyone tries to buy Acarbon units,@ the price will be very high. The price of polluting will be to transfer money to non-polluters B generally the poor. Economic justice is built into the system (pp. 44, 46, 71 and 82. See the present document, Table 1, Parameters for Global Temperature Stabilization by the Year 2030).

2. New Construction Materials: AOrdinary Portland Cement@ is what we know as Aplain cement.@ Its name was invented by its early 18^th century manufacturers who claimed that it resembled the fine fresh water limestones of Portland Bill, in Dorset, southern England. The manufacture of this cement releases one ton of carbon dioxide per ton produced. It takes five tons to build an average home, and hence, each home built is accompanied by the emission of 5 tons of carbon dioxide. The manufacture of cement accounts for between 5 and 10 percent of the world=s human carbon dioxide emission.

The domed roof the Pantheon and hundreds of other structures, some of which are sill standing today, were built by the Romans with APozzolan cements,@ part of a category of cement known as geopolymeric cements. The key components of these cements are compounds of aluminum and silica, and they can be manufactured from several types of clay, industrial waste, and common sedimentary rocks. These cements set quickly, are stronger than ordinary cement, last longer, shrink less, and are more resistant to fire. They are cheap and their manufacture produces between 80 and 90 percent less carbon dioxide than that of Portland cement (pp. 198-199 and 202).

3. Heat-efficient Homes:

a. The Passivhaus: The Passivhaus (passive house), was first developed in Germany, in the late 1980=s. It has no active heating or cooling system. The Aenvelope@ of the house (the outside layer) is air-tight, containing no Athermal bridge@ (conduit) between the inside and outside, all possible conduits between inside and outside being prevented by insulation. The only exception to this insulation is the ventilation system which is designed to minimize the temperature gradient between the air entering and the air leaving the house. The inflow air is surface air drawn through pipes underneath the ground where temperature variations are relatively much reduced. The air is then passed alongside air leaving the house, further minimizing the temperature differential between the inflow and outflow. The windows face the sun and are super-insulated. The walls have a high Athermal mass@ B they are made of materials which maintain their temperature (pp. 68-69).

b. Label Energy Use: Label the energy use of houses, listing all appliances separately. Replace the present meters, which exist solely for the benefit of the supplier, by Asmart meters@ B small panels inside the front door of the house, which display the energy being used, and have an off switch which permits turning off all except pre-selected appliances when the owner is out of the house. Such meters reduce consumption by more than 12 percent (pp. 75-77).

In 2005, a group of manufacturing countries, including China, South Korea and the United States, sought to persuade the World Trade Organization (WTO) that energy labels are a Abarrier to free trade@ and should be made illegal (p. 75).

c. Unplug Appliances: Not only switch off but also unplug unused appliances. In the United Kingdom, in 2004, this would have saved the country about 2 percent of its electricity. U.K. power stations emitted 172,350,000 tons of carbon dioxide that year. The saving, therefore, would have amounted to (2 x 172,350,000) / 100 = 3,453,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions (p. 74).

d. Use Light-emitting diode Bulbs: Compact fluorescent light bulbs are four times as efficient as ordinary incandescent bulbs. Light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs are even more efficient (p. 75).

e. Use a Vacuum-insulated Refrigerator: Vacuum-insulated refrigerators are eight times as efficient as the average model in use today (p. 75).

f. Use a Cathode Ray Tube Television: Ordinary cathode ray television screens use five times less electricity than the new large plasma screens (p. 74).

4. Efficient Transportation:

a. Encourage public Transportation: Give buses dedicated lanes on highways and orbital roads, and grant them priority at junctions by enabling them to turn on the green light with a transponder. These are examples of what could be a broad program to encourage public transportation by making it faster, more relaxing and more reliable than private car travel (pp. 148-149).

b. Raise car performance: In 2006, in the United Kingdom, new cars had an average emission rate of 170 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. The Toyota Prius, rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as the greenest car on the mass market, has an emission rate of 105 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer (pp. 155 and 257).

5. Wind Energy: In 1999, the Energy Technology Support Unit, on commission for the British Government, estimated that by 2025, offshore wind would be the most Apracticable@ source of renewable energy for the United Kingdom B Apracticable@ meaning that it could be produced at a reasonable cost, within such constraints as not building in national parks, on overly soft seabed, or where turbines would interfere with radar or migrating birds.

In 2004, the energy payback time of wind power, including installation and connection to the grid, was one year. Offshore wind turbines, with the electricity carried in high voltage direct current cables, offers a promising possibility (pp. 101-104 and 248).

6. Wave Energy: In 1999, the Energy Technology Support Unit, on commission for the British Government, estimated that by 2025, waves would be second only to wind as the most Apracticable@ renewable source of energy for the U.K. B supplying about half the energy supplied by wind (p. 102).

7. Hydro-electric Power: In 1999, the Energy Technology Support Unit, on commission for the British Government, estimated that by 2025, hydro-electric power would be the third most Apracticable@ renewable energy source for the U.K. B supplying about 7 percent of the energy supplied by wind. Almost 60 percent of this is already in operation and cannot be expanded without causing serious environmental problems. The still exploitable 40 percent is in Scotland (p. 102).

8. Tidal Stream Energy: Tidal stream energy means the use of rotors to capture the energy of free-flowing currents. In 1999, the Energy Technology Support Unit, on commission for the British Government, estimated that by 2025, tidal stream would supply less than 2 percent of the Apracticable@ renewable energy of the U.K. (p. 102).

9. Solar photovoltaic Cells: In 1999, the Energy Technology Support Unit, on commission for the British Government, estimated that by 2025, solar photovoltaic cells would supply less than one percent of the Apracticable@ renewable energy of the U.K.

From an energy perspective, in 2002, the payback time of solar photovoltaic cells was 3-4 years. The manufacture of photovoltaic cells is more energy-intensive than that of any other renewable source of energy (pp. 102, 125 and 248).

From a financial perspective, as of 2003-2004, solar photovoltaic cells did not provide a return on investment, 30 years being both their life expectancy and the span of time after which the original investment is paid off. New technology, such as silicon spheres, dye-sensitized cells and nano-technology may bring down costs (pp. 130 and 253).

10. Airships: Airships are crafts kept aloft by gases which are lighter than air. They have a maximum speed of 130 kilometers per hour and a range of 10,000 kilometers. A flight from London to New York would take about 43 hours. Despite the 1937 Hindenberg disaster, they appear to be safe. They have difficulties landing and taking off in high winds, and difficulties advancing with a wind against them. Take-off times and journey times are, therefore, less reliable than those of jets. In a carbon dioxide-rationed world, however, they are an attractive method of transportation (pp. 185-186).

MY CONCLUSIONS

A. OMISSION OF THE MILITARY

1. Military Keynesianism: Monbiot concludes that for the United Kingdom, a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gases emissions by 2030, is feasible. He is aware, however, that this conclusion is based on the exclusion of the military from his calculations. With regard to the United States, this seems Utopian, because without the military, the U.S. economy would collapse.

In 1936, in his book, The general theory of employment, interest and money, the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), proposed that when an inequitable distribution of income causes people to be unable to buy what their economy produces, and therefore, the economy contracts, the government should, through deficit spending, create jobs artificially in order to employ the workers (even if this means wars and/or a waste of resources on socially worthless products).

In 1943, Micha Kaleck, Polish economist, coined the term Amilitary Keynesianism,@ to mean government spending on arms to:

a. Increase manufacturing.

b. Raise workers= income, and thus increase consumer spending.

c. Employ young males with few skills and little education B that is, being an employer of last resort.

d. Generate new infra-structure and advanced technologies B as indeed has happened with the jet engine, radar, nuclear power, semi-conductors and the Internet, all of which began as military projects, becoming later the basis for major civilian industries.

From 2003 to 2007, defense accounted for 50 percent of the U.S. Government=s discretionary spending. (Discretionary spending is that which the President and Congress can appropriate, in contrast to mandatory spending which must be spent in compliance with existing laws, such as for social security, medicare, and interest on the national debt).

Table 3 shows the military spending which is Ahidden@ in categories other than the Department of Defense. Adding to the official budget of the Department of Defense, the expenses by (i) Departments other than the Department of Defense, (ii) The congressionally appropriated ASupplements,@ and (iii) The Military Construction Appropriations Bill, gives a total budget for defense of $1,019 billion, double what the administration calls the Aannual defense budget.@ It is more than the combined defense budgets of all other countries on Earth.

In addition, non-transparent nature of the accounting in the Department of Defense, interferes with obtaining an accurate picture of the extent of the U.S.=s reliance on a permanent arms economy (Johnson, pp. 276-277).

Table 3: The United States Military Budget, Fiscal 2007 ^(a)

Department / Official Entity

Total

(billion dollars)

Department of Defense (Pentagon)

Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 ^(b))

Missile Defense and other outer Space Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ships, Submarines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No data

Aircrafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No data

Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No data

440

Department of the Treasury

Pensions to military retirees and widows, and their families . . . . 162 ^(c)

Interest on debt-financed Defense Outlays (going back to 1916). 139 ^(d)

301

Congressionally appropriated ASupplements@: Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

118

Department of Veterans Affairs (lifetime care of the seriously wounded)

68 ^(b)

Department of Homeland Security (Adefense@ against terrorism)

Department of State (foreign arms sales and military-related developmental assistance

Department of Energy (nuclear weapons)^(e)

16 ^(f)

Military Construction Appropriation Bill (military bases, inside and outside the U.S.)

12 ^(f)

Total

1,019

^(a) Johnson, pp. 271-274.

^(b) For the year 2006.

^(c) The figure is not officially disclosed. This is a very approximate figure.

^(d) For the year 2002

^(e) In 2006, the U.S. had 9,960 nuclear bombs B down from the peak of 32,500 in 1967.

^(f) For the year 2005.

2. How to defend the Lifestyle of the Planners?: If the United States (or any other country), were to adapt peacefully and smoothly to a power-down of 94 percent in 23 years, it would soon be the envy of those caught up in wars, water-scarcity, famines, floods, fires and disease. This is true also at the local level. Communities which are now planning for the upcoming onslaught may have to defend their future lifestyle.

The moral problem of whether to Adefend@ one=s way of life while the planet (the only celestial body that we know of which sustains life) is becoming inhospitable to life, cannot be resolved at the country (inter-national) level. It can only be resolved at the world (humanity) level. On average, human consciousness has not reached that level, and world institutions which would be able to take the necessary decisions are not in place.

Monbiot himself points to the need for global organizations in his 2003 book, Manifesto for new world order, in which he suggests:

a. A World Parliament.

b. A democratic United Nations.

c. A Fair Trade Organization.

d. A World Bank [Monbiot 2003; summarized in Hall 2004 (Toward Global Justice), pp. 1-7].

B. WILL THE U.S. FOLLOW THE U.K.=S LEAD?: Even omitting the military, the changes required to keep global temperature to no more than two degrees Celsius above that which prevailed in pre-industrial times, are very impressive. It is hard to imagine how the United States will do this, in view of:

1. Official Policies:

a. No Targets: Most countries have no targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The political pressure on the United States to have targets is increasing, but not yet strong enough to force it to face its undoubted, overwhelming responsibility for global warming.

b. Proposed Targets too low: The targets proposed even by those governments, such as the United Kingdom, which are the most ambitious in this respect, are much lower than what science says is needed to avoid catastrophe.

c. Targets non-binding: President George W. Bush still rejects not only the Kyoto Protocol, but also any proposal which might look to the future beyond its termination date of 2012.

As this is being written, leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) countries are meeting in the Baltic resort town of Heiligendamm, June 6-8. The G8 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States. Representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa have been invited. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has called for:

i. Limiting the global temperature rise during the present century to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

ii. Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below the 1990 level by 2050. For comparison, the target of the United Kingdom is a reduction of 60 percent below the 1990 level by 2050 (See the present document under Solutions which are Tokenism, Window-dressing, No.2, Setting Targets which are unrealistically low, Item b, the Policy of the United Kingdom).

The United States wants key targets and timetables for counteracting global warming removed from a draft summit communique (Planet Ark 2007, pp. 1-3. TerraDaily 2007, pp. 1-2).

e. In 2007, Koni Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, in Boulder, CO, concretized the alarming rate at which the Greenland Icesheet is melting by pointing out that 2-3 days= worth of icebergs from the Jakobshavn Isbrea Iceberg, on the Greenland Icesheet, produce enough fresh water to supply the City of New York for one year (Steffen 2007a, pp. 1-3. Steffen 2007b. Reuters Alertnet 2007, pp. 1-2).

C. AVIATION AND THE WISH TO BE GOD

1. Aviation and global Warming: Monbiot finds that aviation is the industrial sector which will have to be reduced most dramatically. Not only does it have to be curtailed almost entirely to permit the achievement of a 90 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2030, but it will not be possible to replace it by other methods of high-speed transportation because these, at high speed, would emit even more greenhouse gases than airplanes. High speed and low energy in every case conflict.

2. The social Context of high-speed Travel: Since we will have to do without the high-speed travel we have today, it might be helpful to ask ourselves why we want ever-higher-speed transportation. Put slightly differently, we should ask ourselves why we want to be at any place (anywhere), at all places (everywhere) at (almost) the same time. Slightly differently still, the question is why we want to be (almost) omnipresent.

3. Pretending to be God: Ken Wilber suggests that at stages lower than full enlightenment, humans intimate being God (which is correct), but mistakenly think that they have to act like God. Indeed oil has enabled our generation to achieve great strides toward feeling like God.

Oil has brought us nearer to:

a. Immortality: Immortality in the sense of being able to delay death for longer than any previous generation, by means of oil-enabled programs of public health and a great elaboration of the profession of medicine, as well as oil-enabled good nutrition and education.

b. Omnipotence: Omnipotence in the sense that the discovery of oil in the West, together with the realization that it could be used as a source of energy, has made us more powerful than any previous generation. We can literally move mountains. Industrialization is precisely the ability to transform the world by means of the (almost) limitless, cheap energy of oil [Many references, summarized in Hall 2006a (The brief and disastrous Reign of Homo Petrolatum), pp. 1-61].

c. Omnipresence: Omnipresence in the sense that we go to the moon, travel in the stratosphere at supersonic speed, and electronically Asee@ views from space, all made possible by the energy provided to us by oil. Even nuclear power has as its foundation the availability of the cheap energy of oil.

4. The Atman Project: Wilber sees the psychological development of humans as having the same goal as that of natural evolution B the production of ever-higher unities, all the way to the Ultimate Reality, Ultimate Unity, Spirit, Buddha, God, Atman. (In Hinduism, Brahman is the ultimate and universal reality of pure being and consciousness, and Atman is the inner essence of the human being). From the outset, the soul intuits its Atman nature, and seeks to actualize it as a reality. This is the drive to actualize Atman [Wilber 1980/1996 (The Atman project) p. 117; summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 21-22. Upanishads].

The AAtman Project,@ human attempts to find Spirit, has four dimensions:

a. Subjective:

i. Eros: Eros is the desire to recapture the prior Wholeness which was obscured when the boundary between self and other was constructed. However, the self has not reached the non-dual stage (Atman), and therefore, there is no recaptured Wholeness. The self must rely on a substitute. Instead of finding actual and timeless wholeness, the self substitutes the wish to live forever. Instead of being one with the Kosmos, it substitutes the desire to possess the Kosmos. Instead of being one with God, it tries itself to play God. These wishes are based on the correct intuition that the real Nature of the self is infinite and eternal, but on the incorrect assumption that this intuition can be applied to a separate self, can be achieved at a level of development below the non-dual, on the assumption that one=s ego should be God B immortal, cosmo-centric, death-defying, all-powerful [Wilber 1980/1996 (The Atman project) pp. 120-124; summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 21-22].

ii. Thanatos: Death terror arises in one form or another wherever there is a boundary. It is inherent in the sense of a separate self. AWherever there is other, there is fear.@ The separate self denies death and finds tokens of transcendence through substitute sacrifices [Upanishads, cited in Wilber 1980-1996 (The Atman project) pp. 121-124; summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 21-22].

b. Objective (External):

i In the Service of Eros: This dimension consists of wants, desires, properties and possessions, goods and materials. The self searches for wealth, fame, power and knowledge, all of which it tends to imbue with either infinite worth or infinite desirability. Since it is infinity that the self wants, all of these external, objective, and finite objects are merely substitute gratifications. The world of objective substitute gratifications is the world of culture. Culture is the major human realm of objective compensatory activity [Wilber 1980/1996 (The Atman project) p. 125. Wilber 1981/1996 (Up from Eden) p. 18; both of these summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 21-22].

ii. In the Service of Thanatos: This dimension consists of substitute sacrifices. Among these substitute sacrifices is war [Wilber 1980-1996 (The Atman project) p. 125; summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 21-22].

It will, therefore, be very difficult to give up the oil, which has made our present Atman Project possible, unless we move to a higher level of consciousness, from where we can see more clearly both the trajectory of evolution and the place of our deeper self within it.

5. Without Oil but with a higher Level of Consciousness: Evolution is uni-directional. Externally, it moves from anaerobic prokaryotic cells, to aerobic prokaryotic cells, to alga-like eukaryotic organisms, to plants, animals and humans. Each level of complexity is accompanied by a higher level consciousness, and humans are the only life-form to have self-reflective consciousness. Evolution promises increasingly high levels of consciousness (breadth of consciousness, perspective) until full enlightenment might eventually be available to all humans [Wilson 1992/1999, pp. 29-32, 48-49, 52-53, 56, 113, 133, 183-191, 210 and 294; summarized in Hall 2005a (Ask the Mosquitoes), pp.3-6. Wilber 1996 (A brief history of everything), pp. 23, 26-27, 35, 38, 40-41 and 301; summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War) pp. 2 and 69].

Our challenge today is to grow internally in depth of spirit. It is to realize that we do not need oil in order to be God, because we are God already.

6. The Evolution of human Consciousness B the Phylogeny: Ken Wilber details the phylogenetic evolution of human consciousness in the following broad categories:

Time of beginning of Stage Stage

700,000 B.C.E. Foraging (hunting and gathering)

200,000 B.C.E. ATyphon@ (Body-self)

9,500 B.C.E. ALow Mythic-membership@

4,500 B.C.E. AHigh Mythic-membership@

2,500 B.C.E. ALow Egoic@ (in the West)

500 B.C.E. AMiddle Egoic@(in the West)

1,500 C.E. - Present AHigh Egoic@ (in the West)

1,980 C.E. APsychic,@ just beginning in the West.

Higher stages are available on an individual basis, but all humans pass through all the stages in sequence [Wilber 1981/1996 (Up from Eden). Wilber 1983/2005 (A sociable God). Wilber 1995/2000 (Sex, ecology and spirituality). Wilber 1996 (A brief history of everything). Wilber 2000/2001 (The eye of Spirit); all of these summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 23-42].

7. The Evolution of human Consciousness B the Ontogeny: Wilber details the ontogenetic evolution of human consciousness in the following broad categories:

Age (years) Stage World View

0 - 2 Sensory-motor Archaic

1 2 Typhonic Egocentric

2 - 4 Early pre-operational Archaic-magic

4 - 7 Late pre-operational Magic-mythic

7 - 11 Concrete operational Mythic-rational

11-15 Formal operational Rational

Available individually Vision-logic Aperspectival, world- centric

Available individually Psychic, Global Soul Psychic, Shamanic

Available individually Subtle Saintly

Available individually Causal Sagely

Available individually Non-dual Non-dual, Siddha (after Siddhartha, the Buddha).

[Wilber 1977/1993 (The spectrum of consciousness). Wilber 1983/2005 (A sociable God). Wilber 1995/2000 (Sex, ecology and spirituality). Wilber 1996 (A brief history of everything). Wilber 2000/2001 (The eye of Spirit); all of these summarized in Hall 2005c (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 12-20].

D. THE SIZE OF HUMANITY

1. The human Population: Monbiot does not mention the issue of the human population B its present size, its exponential growth, and its increasing demand, both total and per capita, on the Earth=s resources. Yet, these factors play a crucial role in our ability to adapt to the drastic reduction in energy use which Monbiot proposes.

Global warming is inseparable from the size of the human population and its demand for energy. Global warming itself is only one aspect of the larger problem of the incapacity of the planet to sustain us all.

2. The ecological Footprint of Humanity: The ecological footprint of humanity is a measure of its use of renewable resources B its demand on the biosphere. The unit of measurement is the number of planets needed at the present rate of resource use, one planet equaling the total biological productive capacity of the Earth during the year in question [Living Planet Fund 2006, pp. 2-3; summarized in Hall 2006b (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality) p. 32].

Our ecological footprint is as follows:

a. In 1961: In 1961, the ecological footprint of humanity was 0.5 planets.

b. In 2003: In 2003, the ecological footprint of humanity was 1.25 planets B 2.5 times what it was in 1961.

c. If we were all Adeveloped@: In 1999, David Pimentel, at Cornell University, estimated that it would require at least three times the earth=s entire resources and physical area to provide the world population with the material and energy consumed by an average North American [Pimentel 1999, cited in McCluney 2005, pp. 177, 182 and 304; summarized in Hall 2006b (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality) p. 6].

3. Global Warming as one Aspect of Resource Over-use: The indicators of our over-use of resources have been apparent since the early part of the 20^th century, and are now obvious in all major sectors of life:

a. Soil Erosion: From 1955 to 1995, nearly 33 percent of the world=s cropland was abandoned because erosion had made it unproductive.

b. Grains: From 1998 to 2005, the world reserves of grain have decreased by 33 percent.

c. Fish: Compared to their population in the 1950's, by 2003, only 10 percent of all large fish (tuna, swordfish) and ground fish (cod, hake, flounder) were left anywhere in the ocean.

d. Forest Cover: From 1990 to 2005, the world forest cover decreased by 0.21 percent annually B a total of more than three percent.

e. Water: By 2025, fresh water availability per capita per year is projected to have decreased as compared to 1990:

i. Africa: By between 38 and 63 percent in Algeria, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lybia, Morocco, Rwanda and Tunisia.

ii. The Middle East and Southwest Asia: By between 34 and 69 percent in Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

f. Biodiversity:

i. The distant Past: In the distant past (which we know from fossil records), the extinction rate of species was 0.5 extinctions per 1,000 species per 1,000 years.

ii. The recent Past: In the recent past (1950 to 2000), the extinction rate of species was 100 extinctions per 1,000 species per 1,000 years B an increase of 20,000 percent over the rate of the distant past.

iii. The Future: By 2050, it is projected that the extinction rate of species will be 5,000 extinctions per 1,000 species per 1,000 years B an increase of 5,000 percent over the rate of the recent past.

g. Nuclear Wastes: The earth cannot detoxify our nuclear wastes. As of the period 1995 to 2005, humanity had available as nuclear fuel, the radiation equivalent of 187 million Hiroshima bombs.

Of this radiation, 99 percent was in the form of depleted uranium (DU) which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years B the age of our Earth. The other one percent was in the form of plutonium which is the most toxic element on earth and has a half-life of 24,000 years.

h. Technological Threats to Life: The biosphere cannot rid itself of the threats we pose to it by our technology. The introduction 40 years ago, of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, the introduction 10 years ago, of genetically-engineered organisms, and the more recent introduction of nano-technology (the manipulation of matter on the scale of atoms and molecules) are uncontrolled experiments with life, which, if disastrous, cannot be undone.

[Many references summarized in Hall 2006b (Our Physical Environment, our capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), Soil, p. 10; Grains, p. 8; Fish, p. 15; Forest Cover, p. 20; Water, p. 28; Biodiversity, p. 30; Nuclear wastes, pp. 45-46; Technological Threats, p. 50].

To think about and assess the implications of these contemporary ecological threats handed down to us by the 20^th century, is a matter of pressing importance.

A rising ocean,

A submerged island,

An eroding shore,

A slowing ocean circulation,

A toxic river,

A disappeared species,

A nuclear accident,

A mountain without its top,

A cloned cow.

All these represent completely different ecological threats gathered together uniquely, each one marked by features which render it powerfully and radically new. We must learn to think and practice ecologically for the long-term future. Wars and reactions to spills are not adequate responses [van Wyck 2005, p. x. Summarized in Hall 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

4. Population Sizes sustainable at various Rates of Energy Consumption:

* In 1995, the United States was consuming energy at the rate of 60.0 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year.

* In 1994, with a total population 5.6 billion, world energy consumption was 11.4 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year.

That year (1994), David Pimentel estimated that:

. A world population of 3 billion could be sustained solely with solar energy, consuming energy at the rate of 11.5 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year (the same as the world average in 1994).

. A world population of 1 billion could be sustained solely with solar energy, consuming energy at the rate of 30.0 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year (half that of the United States in 1995).

[Many references summarized in Hall 2006b (Our Physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), pp. 69-72].

World population, its size and growth, cannot be divorced from any discussion of global warming, energy use, or any other of the present threats to life on the planet today.

E. CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION

1. Monbiot=s Perspective: Monbiot=s feat of demonstrating that it would be feasible for the U.K. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent within the next 23 years, comes at the price of reviving both the coal and the nuclear industries.

a. Coal: In the case of coal, the sequestration (Acapture and storage@) of carbon dioxide from the smoke of power plants, could reduce the plants= emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 to 85 percent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that if the carbon dioxide is buried in Aappropriate reservoirs,@ less than one percent would be likely to have escaped after 1,000 years (pp. 84-85. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change undated, Table SPM.1, p. 9; cited p. 85).

b. Nuclear Power: In the case of nuclear power, Fraser King, of the Finnish Nuclear Authority, suggests that the sequestration (Aburial@) of nuclear wastes could be done safely by setting the spent fuel in cast iron, encasing it in copper, and burying it in a borehole which would then be filled with saturated bentonite, a kind of clay. Under these conditions, the copper barrier would last for Aat least a million years@ (pp. 90-92. King 2002, cited pp. 91-92).

Monbiot admits that every nuclear power station leaks radiation into the environment. However,

Athe grim moral accountancy which must inform all the decisions we make, obliges me to state that nuclear power is likely so far to have killed a much smaller number of people than climate change@ (p. 91).

2. My Perspective:

a. The imbedded ethical Issue: Carbon dioxide never decays. It is stable, and stays exactly as it is. Nuclear materials decay, depleted uranium halving its radiation in 4.5 billion years, and plutonium halving it in 24,000 years.

Monbiot is suggesting that we leave for our children a planet not only without coal or oil, and even perhaps without uranium, but one also dotted with multiple underground spaces, entry to which is forbidden on pain of individual and/or large-scale death from radiation or global warming.

The burden of proof that this is a moral, ethical stance is on those who advocate such a legacy to future generations.

d. The Threat of an Accident: Accidents are not accidental. They are part of our endeavors. They are not the empirical falsification of our endeavors but part of what we call progress.

In 1974, in the chapter entitled AOrder and Accident,@ in his book Conjunctions and Disjunctions, Octavio Paz (1914-1998), Mexican writer, poet and diplomat, wrote:

A[The accident] is not really a defect. It is a property of the system, something that belongs to it as a system. [It] is not an exception or a sickness of our political regimes; nor is it a correctable defect of our civilization. It is the natural consequence of our science, our politics and our morality. The accident is part of our idea of progress . . .@

AThe accident is incorruptible and unpredictable . . . [It has become] a paradox of necessity. It possesses the fatality of necessity and at the same time, the indetermination of freedom@ (Paz 1974, pp. 111-112. Quoted in van Wyck 2005, p. 13).

Somewhat later, and in the same vein, Paul Virilio (1932-), French cultural theorist, pointed out that it is no longer possible to think of our technology and the accidents which accompany it, as distinct entities (Virilio, cited in van Wyck 2005, pp xx and 12-13).

The probability of an accident is inscribed into the very design of our technological productions. Any carbon dioxide or nuclear waste sequestration design will specify the probability of containment over time B and ipso facto, specify the probability of failure.

The threat of an accident is real without being actual. Threat is the virtual aspect of the accident. Like the accident, it is has the Afatality of necessity@ and the Aindetermination of freedom.@

To conceptualize ecological threats as risks is heuristic because the damage produced by the accident (such as the release of carbon dioxide or nuclear material) is non-calculable. No insurance company can calculate the damage which would be caused by an Aaccident@ and distribute the loss equally to all human beings, present and future (and much less to other species) [van Wyck 2005, pp. xx, 12-14, 85-86 and 102-103. Summarized in Hall 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

e. How to warn all Cultures: The national boundaries which at present shape the way we handle waste, will be irrelevant to generations millennia in the future. The markers for burial sites, therefore, will have to be designed as part of a global system of markers for such sites. These will have to have meaning in all languages, present and future. They will have to be pan-cultural and trans-historical.

The mission of the markers will be to reveal a secret (there is something way down deep which you cannot see). The markers will do this by calling attention to themselves (look at me) and then reject (go away, don=t disturb, don=t Ainterfere@) [van Wyck 2005, pp. 20, 29, 46, 54, 60 and 73. Summarized in 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

f. How to warn future Generations: What kind of sign will adequately warn a generation thousands of years into the future?

Michel Foucault (1926-1924), French historian and philosopher, in his book, The order of things B an archaeology of the human sciences (1966), writes:

AThe sign does not wait in silence for the coming of a man capable of recognizing it. It can be constituted only by an act of knowing@ [Foucault, cited in van Wyck 2005, p. xiv. Summarized in Hall 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

Foucault warns us that:

i. Information (data) is not equivalent to knowledge. Information can exist without a knowing subject, but knowledge cannot. The markers will need knowers in order to be understood.

ii. Knowledge cannot survive independently of the culture which produced it. Knowledge needs context. The word Abark,@ for instance, can only be understood in context (the Abark@ of a tree and the Abark@ of a dog) [van Wyck 2005, p. 48. Summarized in Hall 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

In addition, we know that markers:

i. Can be lost or become unreadable.

ii. Cannot teach risk analysis.

iii. Cannot ensure continued governmental stewardship B and indeed, may foster the opposite.

iv. Cannot prevent a loss of memory about the site and its purpose.

v. Do not necessarily deter land development which might compromise the site [van Wyck 2005, p. 52. Summarized in Hall 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

g. Who will be guilty if the repository is entered?: A marker has two ethical functions, both of which reassure the present that it has met its obligation to the future:

i. It enables those who understand it to avert the danger (hardly an ethical accomplishment on the part of the present).

ii. It ensures that those who Aintrude@ or Ainterfere@ with the repository (either because they could not figure out the marker, or did not care), will not accuse the present of negligence (van Wyck 2005, p. 47. Summarized in Hall 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

A purely technical, pragmatic, security-centered approach to ecological threats (of which global warming or what to do with nuclear waste are examples), leads to solutions which are equally technical and pragmatic B a marker, probably consisting of a sign and a monument. There is no grief, no mourning. There is simply an installation that must be read correctly [van Wyck 2005, p. 76. Summarized in 2005b (A Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats) pp. 1-16].

We need to broaden our thinking about ecological threats to include not only ours but also future generations, and not only ourselves, humans, but all life on earth B the biosphere. We need to make these threats real, not just probabilities, actual, not only virtual.

REFERENCES

Except where specified, all page numbers refer to:

Monbiot, George. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Other References:

BBC News, 2005. AAviation >huge Threat to CO₂ Aim= B U.K. Homes, Firms and Motorists will have to cut Carbon dioxide Emissions to Zero due to Air Travel Growth, a Study says.@ U.K. Version. September 21.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/sci/tech/4266466.stm. Accessed June 3, 2007.

Bridges 2007. ABush calls for 20 percent Reduction in U.S. Gasoline Use by 2017. Environmentalists skeptical.@ (Bridges is a weekly trade news digest), Vol. 11, No. 3, January 31.

http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-01-31/story4.htm. Accessed June 15, 2007.

Cowling, Sharon et al, 2004, AContrasting simulated past and future Responses of the Amazonian Forest to Atmospheric Change.@ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. 359, March 29. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Godrej, Dinyar. 2001/2002/2006. The non-nonsense guide to climate change. Oxford, U.K.: New Internationalist Publications.

Green Car Congress, 2007. ABush Administration sends alternative Fuel Standard to Congress. Governor Schwarzenegger encourages different Approach,@ March 21, 2007.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/bush_administra.html. Accessed June 16, 2007.

Hall, Francoise

2004. AToward Global Justice.@ May 22 (7 pages, unpublished).

2005a. AAsk the Mosquitoes.@ March 19 (13 pages, unpublished).

2005b. AA Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary ecological Threat.@ May 21 (16 pages, unpublished)

2005c. AA Transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness. November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

2006a. AThe brief and disastrous Reign of Homo Petrolatum.@ September 30 (61 pages, unpublished).

2006b. AOur physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality.@ November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).

Hensen, Robert, 2006. The rough guide to climate change B the symptoms, the science, the solutions. New York, N.Y.: Rough Guides.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, undated. ACarbon dioxide Capture and Storage B Summary for Policymakers.@ Bert Metz, et al, Editors. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/ccsspm.pdf.

Jenkins, Geoff, 2003. AA Question of Probability B Latest Research identifies New Factors in Climate Change.@ New Economy (Institute for public Policy Research, London. Vol. 10, March. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Johnson, Chalmers. 2006. Nemesis B the last days of the American republic. New York: Henry Holt/Metropolitan.

Jones, Chris, et al 2003. AStrong Carbon Cycle Feedbacks in a Climate Model with Interactive CO₂ and Sulphate Aerosols.@ Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, May 9. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

King, Fraser, et al, 2002. ACopper Corrosion under expected Conditions in a deep geologic Repository.@ Posiva Oy, Helsinki. January. (Posiva is the Finnish Nuclear Authority). Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

http://posiva.fi/raportit/POSIVA-2002-01.pdf.

Living Planet Fund, 2006. ALiving Planet Report 2006.@

http://www.livingplanetfund.com/infro 1pr.aspx.html. Accessed December 31, 2006.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006b. Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality. November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).

Lovelock, James,

2004, AJames Lovelock B Nuclear Power is the only green Solution B We have no time to experiment with visionary Energy Sources. Civilization is in imminent Danger.@ The Independent. May 24. Reprinted at:

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles=articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm. Accessed June 16, 2007.

2006a, AJames Lovelock B The Earth is about to catch a morbid Fever that may last as long as 100,000 Years. Each Nation must find the best use of its Resources to sustain Civilization for as long as they can.@ January 16. Reprinted at

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece.

Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

2006b. The revenge of Gaia. New York, N.Y.: Penguin. Quoted in Michael McCarthy, 2006. AEnvironment in Crisis B >We are past the Point of no Return.=@ January 16. CommonDream.org, News Center.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0116-06.htm

McCarthy, Michael, 2006. AEnvironment in Crisis B >We are past the Point of no Return.=@ January 16. CommonDream.org, News Center.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0116-06.htm.

McCluney, Ross, 2005. ARenewable Energy Limits@ (pp. 153-175), and APopulation, Energy and Economic Growth B the moral Dilemma@ (pp. 176-185). In Andrew McKillop with Sheila Newman, Editors. 2005. The final energy crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006b (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality). November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).

See also Francoise Hall, 2006a. AThe brief and disastrous Reign of Homo Petrolatum.@ September 30 (61 pages, unpublished).

Monbiot, George.

2003. Manifesto for a new world order. New York, N.Y.: The New Press.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004. AToward Global Justice.@ May 22 (7 pages, unpublished).

2007. AA lethal Solution B We need a five-year Freeze on Biofuels, before they wreck the Planet.@ The Guardian, March 27.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution. Accessed June 15, 2007.

Parry, Martin et al, 2001. AMillions at Risk B Defining critical Climate Change Threats and Targets.@ Global Environmental Change, Vol. 11. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Paz, Octavio, 1974, AOrder and Accident.@ In Octavio Paz, Conjunctions and Disjunctions. 1974, Helen Lane, Translator. New York, N.Y.: Viking. Quoted in Peter van Wyck. 2005. Signs of danger B waste, trauma and nuclear threat. Theory out of Bounds, Volume 26. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005b. AA Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats.@ May 21 (16 pages, unpublished).

Pimentel, David, 1999. AHow many People can the Earth support?@ Population Press, Vol. 5, No. 3. March/April. Cited in Ross McCluney, 2005. APopulation, Energy and economic Growth B the moral Dilemma.@ In Andrew McKillop with Sheila Newman, Editors. 2005. The final energy crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006b. Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality. November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).

Planet Ark, 2007. AMerkel unsure G8 will Clinch Climate Breakthrough.@ May 25

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42146/story.htm. Accessed June 6, 2007.

Retallack, Simon, 2004. ASetting a long-term Climate Objective B A Paper for the International Task Force on Climate Change.@ Institute for Public Policy Research. October. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Reuters, AlertNet, 2007. AThunder? It=s the sound of Greenland melting.@ (Gelu Sulugiuc). June 6.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28258754.htm. Accessed June 6, 2007.

Steffen, Koni,

2007a, AInterview B Global Warming and the Melting of Greenland.@ (Gelu Sulugiuc). June 5. Reuters, Blog, 2007.

http://blogs.reuters.com/category/from-reuterscom.environment. Accessed June 6, 2007.

2007b, Excerpt of Interview with Koni Steffen. Democracy Now! 2007, Headlines, June 6.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221. Accessed June 6, 2007.

TerraDaily, 2007. AGerman Minister criticizes U.S. Objections to G8 Environment Deal.@ May 26.

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/070526170051.ac9mqp5o.html. Accessed June 6, 2007.

United Nations,

Development Programme, 2004. Human development report, 2004. New York, N.Y.: Human Development Programme.

Statistics Division, 2007. AEnvironmental Indicators: Climate Change B CO₂ Emissions.@ April.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air co2 emission.htm. Updated April 2007. Accessed May 30, 2007.

United States,

Bureau of the Census, ATotal mid-year Population for the World B 1950-2050.@

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html. Updated August 24, 2006. Accessed October 11, 2006.

White House,

2002. APresident announces Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives.@ News Release B Speech to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Silver Spring, MD. February 14.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html. Accessed May 28, 2007.

2007. ATwenty in Ten B Strengthening America=s Energy Security.@ State of the Union Policy Initiatives B Energy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html. Accessed June 15, 2007.

Upanishads, composed beginning c.900 B.C., form the last section of the literature of the Vedas, mystical writings of Hinduism. In the Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6th edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University/ Gates Group.

van Leeuwen, Jan and Philip Smith, 2005. AFrom Ore to Electricity B Energy Production and Uranium Resources.@ In Jan van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, Nuclear power B the energy balance. Chapter 2, sixth revision. August 6. Cited in George Monbiot. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.

http://www.stormsmith.nl.

van Wyck, Peter. 2005. Signs of danger B waste, trauma and nuclear threat. Theory out of Bounds, Volume 26. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005b. AA Psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary Ecological Threats.@ May 21 (16 pages, unpublished).

Virilio, Paul (1932-). Cited in Peter van Wyck 2005. Signs of danger B waste, trauma and nuclear threat. Theory out of Bounds, Volume 26. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Wikipedia AGaia Hypothesis.@

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis. Updated June 16, 2007. Accessed June 16, 2007.

Wilber, Ken.

1977/1993. The spectrum of consciousness. 20^th Anniversary Edition. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

1980/1996. The Atman project B a transpersonal view of human development. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

1981/1996. Up from Eden B a transpersonal view of human evolution. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

1983/2005. A sociable God B (1983 subtitle: a brief introduction to a transcendental sociology), 2005 subtitle: toward a new understanding of religion. Boston: Shambhala.

1995/2000. Sex, ecology, spirituality B the spirit of evolution. 2^nd edition, Revised. Boston: Shambhala.

1996. A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.

2000/2001. The eye of spirit B an integral vision for the world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambhala.

The above seven books summarized in Francoise Hall 2005c. AA Transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness.@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

Wilson, Edward. 1992/1999. The diversity of life. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton.

***