Humans and the planet

A vital issue for humanity is the extent to which human activity has a negative effect on the ability of the planet to sustain us, going forward. We have the power but probably not the will to change or modify our activities.

Climate Change

Radiometric dating on meteorite, terrestrial and lunar samples indicates that the Earth became a separate entity at about 4,500 million years ago. The climate has been changing ever since and there is no reason to expect that it won't continue to change, with or without human intervention. Climate change is driven by energy fluctuations from the Sun, eccentricities in the Earth's orbit and rotation, plate tectonics (changing distribution of continents and oceans, volcanoes) and the greenhouse effect. These drivers cause from shorter term to longer term lags in climate change.

We are presently in an interglacial period and our understanding of the equilbria that exist on the planet is far from complete. Although caution is recommended, we should not panic about climate changes that we may not have any control over and needlessly sacrifice the quality of living on the planet. Moderation and gradual moving to renewables as technology makes practical advances seems to be the most prudent option.

Greenhouse Gases

Water vapour is the principal greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is claimed that it contributes 95% of the greenhouse effect and given its concentration in the atmosphere this seems reasonable. Since the Industrial Revolution the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from about 200 ppm to 400 ppm and is considered an anthropogenic effect, which is a reasonable assumption but not proven fact. Although the concentration of carbon dioxide has doubled since the Industrial Revolution, this increase of 200ppm is equivalent to 0.02% absolute change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is a miniscule change in concentration.

It has been proven that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. However, being a greenhouse gas is a necessary but insufficient condition to claim that the miniscule absolute change in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is the main driver of climate change even in the short term.

According to Le Chatelier's Principle the atmospheric equilibrium will move to oppose and partly annul the alteration in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So far as the writer is aware, no clear evidence has ever been put forward that such a miniscule increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause a significant increase in the greenhouse effect, but we should be cautious, the planet and its subsystems are complex and are not fully understood.

During the Ordivician Period about 460 million years ago, there is evidence that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was about 4400 ppm and that the planet was not a hotter place than today. It has been proposed that carbon dioxide levels increase in response to warming and further amplifies warming. Even if this is valid, it in no way quantifies the amount of warming that a miniscule absolute increase in carbon dioxide concentration would cause.

Those who panic about carbon dioxide increase do not have a good case and more practical and comprehensive solutions are needed for sustainability than have been advanced to date. There are other greenhouse gases, like methane, but the increase in carbon dioxide is singled out due to our dependence on combustion of fossil fuels, emitting carbon dioxide. Our dependence on fossil fuels is something we must reduce or eliminate over time, especially given the almost certain increase in population and standards of living across the planet in the future.

Energy

Due to concerns over carbon dioxide and local particulate emissions, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind have become the holy grail. They appear to be at no cost, using sunlight and wind. What is ignored is the high capital cost and life cycle considerations (meaning they are costly), the unreliability due to the vagaries of the weather, and that they are dependent on surface area for upscaling, but they are good for supplementing base line power and for niche markets. A solar farm or wind farm can only produce more electricity by increasing the area of panels or turbines.

This puts a real and severe limitation onto the application of solar and wind for large scale electricity generation such as is required for high rise buildings or industrial complexes especially. Coal-fired and gas-fired power stations and nuclear facilities remain the base-line for large scale generation as they upscale on the basis of volume rather than area, as well as being cheaper and more reliable. Modern coal-fired stations do not emit as much carbon dioxide, due to new technology (more efficient), as the old ones and many lessons have been learned from the disasters with nuclear plants over the world that should help avoid but do not guarantee that similar disasters may not happen.

Other countries, such as China, plan to build numerous coal-fired power plants, perhaps as many as 300 or more in China alone, by 2030. In the light of this to think that Australia could make a significant contribution to global emission reduction by not building one or two more coal-fired power stations is absurd. The large quantities of coal Australia exports is mainly used for electricity generation, so how hypocritical is that? Combustion of coal in China and India will have the same effect re emissions as electricity generation in Australia. There are no fences in the atmosphere. Gases are miscible and we all share the same atmosphere except for short term local concentrations, as happens after massive burning off, volcanoes and concentrated local emissions from cars and industry.

Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and we must eventually phase them out. Use of non-renewable resources is not an option in the long term.

A practical and moderate approach would be to continue using coal or nuclear for base load power and employing a variety of renewables for peak loads. Further advances in storage batteries and alternative renewable and other technologies would make their use more practical and reduce and eliminate the need for fossil or nuclear over time.

Other Damage

Deforestation

Deforestation continues on a large scale across the planet (due mainly to population increase and modern technology) reducing the rate of photosynthesis where plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, the oxygen being vital for life. Photosynthesis is a process by which plants convert carbon dioxide, water and solar energy into glucose and free oxygen (6CO₂ + 6H₂O + ^solar -----> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂) . Without photosynthesis there would be essentially no oxygen in the atmosphere and our lives depend on oxygen.

Deforestation tends to increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, because the rate of absorption decreases with deforestation in accordance with Le Chatelier's Principle. Perhaps massive deforestation contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution rather than or as well as carbon dioxide emissions? The increased carbon dioxide will help to drive photosynthesis (Le Chatelier's Principle).Without photosynthesis we will all die of oxygen starvation.

There is no reported apparent change in oxygen concentration, and remember oxygen is an unstable gas in the atmosphere, and we perhaps should be more concerned with maintaining oxygen levels (approximately 20% of the atmosphere) rather than panic about a miniscule increase in carbon dioxide, a gas which is needed for photosynthesis, vital to life as we know it. The dynamic equilibrium supporting our existence is maintaining itself for the time being.

Why is there no panic about oxygen concentration which will fall if there is not enough carbon dioxide being absorbed for photosynthesis? Lack of oxygen means death and oxygen is an unstable gas. Its instability in a free form as elemental gas is not universally recognized and yet it constitutes nearly 20% of the atmosphere and is vital to humanity.

Plastic

We are trashing the oceans with plastic. Once in the water plastic never fully biodegrades, at least for most plastic waste at the moment. There are 5 major ocean gyres. The largest and best known is the Great Garbage Patch in the north Pacific - a concentrated soup of microplastics, or tiny fragments less than 5 mm across. It is 3 times the size of France and was discovered in 1997. It is believed to be the largest plastic dump on Earth with 7 million tonnes mass and up to 3 metres deep. Plastics have only been mass produced since the 1950s. Plastic in the ocean is a real threat to marine life which is part of our food chain. With global production of plastic increasing exponentially, the trashing of the oceans can only increase greatly unless changes are made. Using only biodegradable plastic, if this is possible, would be an immaculate solution to prevent trashing the planet with plastic waste.

Population

The current world population estimate (June 2019) by the UN is 7.7 billion. It is estimated that it took 200,000 years for world population to reach 1 billion and then only 200 years more to reach 7 billion. It is believed that recently rate of growth has slowed a little, but estimated current increase in population is about 80 million people a year. The UN believes that fertility rates will drop (from 2.5 in 2019 to 2.2 in 2050) but still project that the world population will reach 10 billion by 2050. Clearly the finite resources of the planet places limits on the number of us that can live comfortably, even allowing for technological advancement, so the current exponential increase in population cannot be sustained. Each person leaves a footprint on the planet so keeping our numbers at a comfortable level is the first step towards looking after the planet, helping to ensure our own survival.

Our Footprint

The footprint that an individual leaves on the planet is largely determined by standard of living. Those in rich countries leave a greater footprint, generally speaking, than those in poorer countries. The production of goods and services which sustains us and improves our standard of living requires raw materials (water, land, forestry, mining) and if these natural resources are non-renewable they will eventually become depleted, despite whatever technological advances may be made.

Conclusion

The biggest threat to our own survival is the combined effect of our own successful propagation and our natural desire to improve our standard of living, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, nor how much renewable energy is used. Renewable energy alone will not save the planet. We are abusing the planet and trashing it like hungry locusts...but we do far more damage and are arrogant about it.

For a sustainable future, we must humanely stop population increase as it is now, sensibly limit our cumulative footprint including decreased exploitation of non-renewable resources and generally take care of the planet. The alternative is war, famine and disease, or even extinction, whatever other steps we might take. There is no Planet B available at this time so we should look after this one to look after ourselves.

For many, life is a constant struggle, immediate survival being the only important thing, and the future of humanity and the planet is, understandably, not high on their agenda. Without some co-ordinated effort across the world, which is highly unlikely, among people with vastly different living standards, differing priorities, values, attitudes and beliefs, we will drift along as we are, being in plague proportions and trashing the planet, slowly killing the goose that laid the golden egg.