December 14, 2014

The United Nations climate change conference in Lima ended with a less than comprehensive accord.

There’s an anecdote from the age before radar that illustrates where the world stands today with respect to climate change:
A brand new dreadnought-class battleship is steaming at 15 knots in thick fog. The lookout spots a barely visible light straight ahead, at an indeterminate distance, and reports it to the captain. Based on the growing intensity of the light, the captain assumes a fast-approaching small vessel, as of yet invisible to the lookout, is unaware of the impending collision. Hastily he blows the horn and sends a wireless ordering it to move. A swift response comes in, short and blunt, “You move.” Incensed, the captain responds, “No, you move. I’m a dreadnought; it takes us much longer to turn and there’s no time. If you don’t we’ll crush you.” To which the light replies, “No, you move. I’m a lighthouse on dry land and you only have a few minutes before you hit the jagged rocks and boulders around me.”

It’s no secret that a handful of nations own, or control by proxy, most of the fossil fuel reserves in the world. Collectively they also produce and consume the lion’s share of the fuels, therefore their wealth and power are linked to them. That of course poses a dilemma as it conflicts with the urgent need to fight climate change. For that reason their goal seems to be a finely tweaked reduction, but not outright elimination, of fossil fuels as a principal component of the world’s energy supply. For example, if they were to assist poor nations that lack domestic sources of hydrocarbons (captive clients) make the transition to solar to generate all their electricity, three things would likely decline: the demand for fossil fuels, their price, and the need for dollars to pay for them. Conversely, poor nations would benefit greatly. They would pay nothing for fuel to generate electricity and they would save their hard-earned dollars for other priorities. This would amount to nothing less than a tectonic shift in the world order.

While better than nothing, it’s simply not enough to limit the average atmospheric temperature increase to an “acceptable” level. Already we’re experiencing catastrophic storms and devastating droughts; many if not most of the world’s great aquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate and entire rivers no longer reach the sea. Worse, there’s no global forum, not even a discussion to create one, to address a crisis that may well ignite wars and famine in the not too distant future.

Collectively, individually or in groups, countries should very seriously consider the possibility of creating an alternate binding mechanism within the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to:

• use solar energy to eventually generate all our electricity;
• use excess electricity to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater;
• use the hydrogen expressly to manufacture pure water wherever it’s needed or desired, domestically or for export;
• generate additional electricity using hydrogen and gravity as described in Plan A above.

The technology exists, and it should improve. As for money, there’s plenty of idle private capital worldwide which could be tapped under the right terms and conditions.
Several variants of Plan A, designed for a variety of regions, are available. The question is, will the dreadnought change its course?