The Caribbean

G-20 Infrastructure Commitment

On November 16, 2014 leaders of G-20 nations in Brisbane, Australia presented a plan to boost global GDP by more than $2 trillion over five years by investing in infrastructure and increasing trade. Presumably the infrastructure they have in mind will include projects to reduce the use of fossil fuel, chronic poverty, and the abysmal gap in the distribution of wealth and income. If so, here are additional countries with abundant sunshine and water, prime candidates for the mass production of hydrogen by electrolysis.

They, like so many others throughout the world, have little or no fossil fuel reserves. As a result, they are compelled to import most if not all the fuel to generate electricity, payable (so far) in U.S. dollars. If they switch to solar along the lines of the successful Hawaiian prototype, they’ll become energy exporters and save all that precious hard currency. Further, if the countries distribute the net profit to homeowners -as they should since the latter would generate the electricity to produce the hydrogen- this new and permanent income stream would stimulate construction, create jobs and reduce their poverty rate.

The Truth Marches On

The November 1, 2014 Synthesis Report for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leaves no doubt that climate change is real, caused by human action, and that time is running out for our illustrious leaders to take action commensurate with the scope and gravity of the monstrous catastrophe that, in one way or another, we’re all guilty of having unleashed. Legions of scientists in a multitude of disciplines have carefully dissected the problem, and the vast majority agree, backed by much irrefutable evidence, that the technology already exists to halt global warming.

To succeed, nothing less than drastic, fundamental and expensive changes will be required. There is no easy way out, only difficult choices. For that reason, we can only hope that the righteous among them will carry the day as they muster the willpower and courage to take the unenviable and unavoidable career-threatening risks should they choose to confront the determined opposition of a powerful few.

Better Than Grid Parity

Electricity in Hawaii costs $0.38 per kilowatt hour, almost treble the national average of around $0.13, which incidentally does not factor in the damage to the environment caused by using fossil fuels to generate electricity. Solar power, which can cost $0.30 per KWH, is now actually cheaper than grid electricity. As a result, Oahu, the state’s most populous island, boasts 40,159 solar photovoltaic systems interconnected on the Hawaiian Electric Company’s grids for a total of 300 megawatts. This has exceeded 100% of daytime minimum load, triggering safety measures and/or upgrades before new PV on affected circuits can be interconnected to the grid. In simple terms, the utility business/engineering model is being tested by a new concept: distributed generation in reverse, where power is generated by homes and is then distributed to specific points of heavy industrial/commercial use.

The utility is trying to protect itself, and that’s understandable. The issue here is not that Hawaii’s solar experiment has failed to deliver enough power. Quite the contrary, it has proved that individual homes can and in fact do generate far more energy than they consume. In other words, the utility, the state and the state’s voters have not yet figured out what to do with so much FREE power. Instead, they have decided to curtail their very successful and innovative program so they can continue to pay for costly, imported oil and gas to run the utility’s generators.

Here’s an alternative. Instead of curbing installation of PV systems on rooftops, redouble the efforts to do so but don’t turn them on until every home in Honolulu has one. That will give the utility time to turn the fossil fuel power plants off and to morph into a maintenance provider only, end the monopoly and open the sector to competitors.

The evidence is conclusive and irrefutable: there will be excess daytime energy. Why not use electrolysis to extract hydrogen from the ocean, which is free, abundant and readily accessible, and export it to water-starved states and countries? Ask California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Mexico, China, and India, among others, if they could use the extra water and a non-polluting source of energy. Hydrogen is unique in that it can be used to generate electricity and to manufacture pure water, two marketable commodities, therefore its price should reflect that fact. For ordinary Hawaiians, it would be a boom; not only would they not have to pay for costly fossil fuels –ever; they could create a cooperative to operate the hydrogen production business; the income would gradually pay for the infrastructure and in time give them a permanent free and clear income stream they do not presently have.

The Hawaiian success should be carefully studied by so many other islands and countries with abundant sun and ocean: the islands and coastlines of the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, the Andean region of South America, particularly those who are net energy importers. Almost overnight, they could become energy exporters.

Solar Power Economics

October 24, 2014

Here’s an example –albeit of limited scope- of how solar power could be used to reduce unemployment. An Arizona-based private company will build a 60-megawatt solar power plant on 600 acres of dry, vacant land near Mendota, California, a drought-stricken community with near 30% unemployment about 25 miles west of Fresno. When fully operational, it will produce enough power for 20,000 homes in California and create about 400 temporary and 50 permanent jobs. The company will then sell the energy to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

Without a doubt, the project will bring some much needed relief to an agricultural community that has been devastated by a pervasive drought. Without water, farmers have been forced to fallow 200,000 acres, one third of their land –and eliminate jobs. Long term, however, this should be considered an interim step to eliminate unemployment, not just reduce it, and to substantially increase the income of the owners of those 20,000 homes the project will serve. The ripple effect of an economic transfusion on that scale and magnitude would increase consumption, which accounts for about 70% of the U.S. economy, and spawn a true recovery with long term, sustained growth. Better yet, it could create a model which other communities and even whole nations might want to emulate.

A Better Alternative
If all the homes in the area were to be outfitted with solar panels capable of generating a surplus of electricity, that is, more energy than they consume, homeowners could then lease the grid lines from public utilities to sell and deliver the electricity directly to specific users. That would divert the profits from the utilities to the homeowners, a powerful incentive to produce as much as possible. This is not socialism; it is simple recognition that modern technology has made large generating plants powered by nuclear or fossil fuels obsolete and vulnerable to acts of terrorism. The sooner we accept that reality and begin the inevitable transition to a new model the better off we’ll be. With solar there’s no reason why homes must be interconnected with each other unless for a specific purpose such as conquering drought or ushering in the Age of Hydrogen.

The Conquest of Drought

Speaking at Brookings on the economics of climate change, Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew remarked that “the cost of inaction or delay is far greater than the cost of action.” The fact of the matter is that there is no national or international consensus among leaders on what, if anything, to do, and paradoxically, consensus is necessary to prevent global warming from exceeding two degrees Celsius and to avoid greater catastrophes.

Even more pressing than agreeing on clean energy policies is addressing drought. No amount of energy, clean or otherwise, will materialize a drop of potable water where there is none to begin with. If the amount of nature-provided water is insufficient to meet demand in non-coastal areas, current or projected, there is presently no practical way to increase the supply. Inevitably, this will lead to unprecedented tensions and losses, and in some cases –war.

Given these ominous portents, perhaps we should refocus our attention on hydrogen’s other property, namely that it is one of two elements in a water molecule. Hydrogen, not oxygen, is the key, for the latter is in the atmosphere while the former does not exist in elemental form on our planet. It must be freed from a compound, and that costs time, energy and money.

For that reason, and in view of the existing political necrosis, it seems in right order to revisit some of the most controversial concepts ever proposed. Foremost among them is the case of Stanley Meyer and his Resonant Electrolysis Cell System. For the uninitiated, this short bio, video and synopsis of his work might help them understand who he was and what he alleged to have accomplished, and in all fairness, this article summarizes the objections of his detractors.

But his gadgets, expired patents, and the testimony of reputable persons on his behalf remain. Surely among the thousands, if not millions, of brilliant scientists everywhere and anywhere, one must be willing to accept the challenge to definitively prove or disprove Meyer’s work. The stakes cannot be higher; if in the affirmative the dis-assembly of seawater into its two elements will become routine and profitable, and so will the reassembly of pure water in inland areas far from any coastline. Essentially, we’re talking about the conquest of drought.

Consequences of Climate Change Assessment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Excerpted from the full report

August 2012

Executive Summary

The 2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment is the fifth report prepared in response to the mandate in the 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (Public Law 93–378, 88 Stat 475, as amended). This report summarizes findings about the status, trends, and projected future of forests, rangelands, wildlife and fish, biodiversity, water, outdoor recreation, wilderness, and urban forests, and the effects of climate change upon these resources. The results will be useful to resource managers and policymakers as they develop strategies to sustain natural resources. The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will continue to use the results to inform strategic planning and forest planning.

The 2010 RPA Assessment outlook for U.S. resources is largely influenced by a set of RPA scenarios with varying assumptions about global population and economic growth, global wood energy consumption, U.S. population and economic growth, U.S. land use change, and global climate change from 2010 to 2060.

Key Themes
Land development will continue to threaten the integrity of natural ecosystems.

Urban and developed land area is projected to increase across RPA scenarios between 41 and 77 percent by 2060. Although urban and developed land area remains a relatively small percentage of the U.S. land base, this expansion occurs at the expense of forest and rangelands. Forest land area is affected the most: forest losses are projected to range from 16 to 34 million acres in the conterminous United States. The South Region is expected to have the greatest loss of forest, ranging from 9 to 21 million acres, roughly 4 to 8 percent of the South’s 2007 forest land base.

The loss of forest land contributes to reduced growth in total forest inventory, reduced forest carbon stocks, and reduced tree canopy cover. Forest inventory volumes are expected to peak between 2020 and 2030, followed by a decline in volume to 2060. Only in one RPA scenario is inventory volume in 2060 less than in 2010, however. Carbon stocks are also projected to decrease across all RPA scenarios as a result of declining forest land area and changes in carbon stored per acre. The result is that forest land becomes an emissions source in future decades, the tipping point varying by the particular dynamics of land use change and timber harvest levels in each RPA scenario.

Although the loss of acres is important, low-density development may pose a greater threat to the integrity of remaining forest and rangelands through the effects of fragmentation. The expansion of housing in the wildland-urban interface and housing development around public lands fragment natural land covers and often lead to additional development. Habitat loss and degradation are major causes of species endangerment. At-risk species tend to be prominent in areas with high human-population densities, where land use intensification has occurred, or where species with restricted ranges are concentrated. Given the projected land use changes, biodiversity in the United States is expected to continue to erode.

Climate change will alter natural ecosystems and affect their ability to provide goods and services.

Changes in temperature and precipitation generally had limited effects on the distribution of forest types and forest inventory during the RPA projection period, but those effects were more noticeable in the Western United States. At least in the immediate future, climate change is not posing a risk to having sufficient inventory to sustain forest products production. The risk to providing other forest ecosystem services is not known, however, nor is the potential effect of increasing occurrences of extreme events.

Rangeland ecosystems typically occur in areas of environmental limitations. The diversity of rangeland ecosystems, the multitude of current stressors, and the potential changes in climate will result in highly diverse responses to climate change across rangeland systems. Effects on forage availability, with consequences to ranch enterprises of livestock, game, or tourism will require flexible, and possibly novel, management to maintain rangeland health and economic viability.

Climate change is projected to have substantial effects on water demand and supply. The primary effects of climate change on water demand are increases in agricultural irrigation and landscape watering in response to rising plant water needs. Across a range of RPA scenario-climate combinations, water withdrawal would increase from 2 to 42 percent from 2005 to 2060. The result of the combination of increasing water demand and declining water yields is an increase in vulnerability of the U.S. water supply to shortage, especially in the larger Southwest and Great Plains.

Change in terrestrial wildlife habitats will affect both the current habitat of wildlife species and their ability to migrate if habitats change. The grassland-forest land transition throughout the Central United States and the steep elevation gradients in the Intermountain West will be most exposed to habitat stress caused by a shifting climate regime. A comparison of areas of future stress to areas of current stress associated with the distribution of at-risk species and intense land uses indicated that the location of high current stressors tends not to overlap well with the location of high future stress associated with climate change. This lack of overlap potentially complicates the efforts of managers to prioritize wildlife conservation actions.

Climate variables only slightly affected outdoor recreation participation, with results indicating slight increases or decreases in participation rates and days of participation that varied across outdoor recreation activities. The exceptions were snowmobiling and undeveloped skiing (cross-countryskiing and snowshoeing), for which climate effects resulted in substantial declines. The effects of climate change on the recreation environment are also expected to affect future outdoor recreation opportunities.

Competition for goods and services from natural ecosystems will increase.

Increasing water demands are likely to increase competition between water uses. The water projections indicate that the United States is on a pathway to unsustainable levels of water use in several regions across a range of RPA scenarios. Increased water use efficiencies, water demand reductions, increased trading or sale of water rights, and higher pricing for water consumed are possible mechanisms that could help to bring water supplies into balance with future water demands. Future water use levels depend most importantly on uses in the agriculture sector because irrigation requirements are highly sensitive to changing precipitation and temperature patterns. The current outlook indicates that demand pressures will increase, continuing or increasing current groundwater mining and further depleting streamflows, especially in drier areas of the United States. These pressures, in combination with development effects on water quality, raise concerns about the health and relative abundance of aquatic species in the future.

Species associated with aquatic habitats have higher proportions of at-risk species than other species groups. The condition of aquatic systems varies across the United States. Nationwide, more than one-half of monitored lakes were ranked in good condition, but only 28 percent of wadeable streams were ranked in good condition. Imperiled aquatic species tend to occur in areas with high population density, and many of those areas are projected to have increased population and development in the future. Maintaining or improving water quality and streamflows is likely to be challenging, especially in the face of increasing development pressure and water demands.

The availability of suitable land may constrain growing recreation demand. A stable public land base, a declining private natural land base, and increasing numbers of outdoor recreation participants are expected to result in increased conflicts among recreationists and declines in the quality and number of per-person recreation opportunities. The ability of recreation resources to absorb additional demand varies widely across the United States. The limited amount of public land in the East, where most forest land is privately owned, will likely be under greater stress from additional demand than public lands in the West.

Pressures are likely to be greatest on public lands near large and growing population centers.

In contrast to the water and outdoor recreation situations, future demands for livestock forage and forest products can be met out to 2060 for most RPA scenarios, despite the projected losses in land area devoted to these uses. Currently, forage availability exceeds forage demand on 98 percent of all rangeland, and little increased grazing pressure on rangeland is expected in the near future. Given the current general abundance of forage, effects of climate change on ranch enterprises are likely to be localized.

Timber resources are projected to be abundant enough to meet demands, especially if we continue to see efficiency gains in harvesting and conversion technology. Only the RPA scenario with the highest increase in wood biomass use for energy is expected to lead to potential competition for land resources with other uses, particularly with agriculture. The high harvest levels to meet these demands may create conflict with other for forest uses. For example, the projected expansion of planted pine in the South Region to meet those biomass energy demands would displace natural pine, which may be undesirable from a biodiversity perspective.

Geographic variation in resource responses to drivers of change will require regional and local strategies to address resource management issues.

Projected population growth rates—and associated urban and suburban development patterns—vary across the United States. Areas with high population growth rates will see large expansions of urban areas, unless local and regional master plans are in place to manage the growth effects. Trees in urban areas—the urban forest—deliver a variety of ecosystem services. Retaining and managing trees in newly developed urban areas will be increasingly important in the future to continue receiving ecosystem services that are critical to urban quality of life. Low-density development patterns are more difficult to predict but are more likely to occur in rural areas where population continues to grow than in areas where population declines are projected.

Development will also affect rangelands, even though the proportional loss of rangelands is smaller than for forest land area. Rangeland areas with the highest levels of fragmentation occur where agricultural land uses are prevalent. Many of these areas have projected declines in population, which should stem development pressure. Expansion of farming could result in the conversion of some rangelands to crops in places suitable for increased agricultural production, particularly if crop prices remain high. Conversely, several areas—particularly in the Southwest—that currently have relatively little fragmentation will likely be exposed to development pressure from population growth.

The projected changes in vulnerability of the U.S. water supply vary geographically. Decreases in water yield (that in turn affects water supply) have a greater effect on future vulnerability than the effect of increases in water demand in about half of the assessment subregions (ASRs) where vulnerability is projected to increase. In some ASRs, the combined effect of changes in water yield and demand lead to untenable levels of vulnerability, suggesting that adaptation to water shortage there will be essential. Currently, the West has more areas of higher vulnerability. Future increases in vulnerability may also affect some parts of the East, along with becoming more prevalent in the West.

Imperiled aquatic species are concentrated in the Eastern and Southwestern United States. Where increased risks of water shortages are projected, threats to aquatic species are likely to increase. Conflicts about water uses, maintenance of instream flows, eroding water quality, and prices for water and water rights are all likely to increase in the future, exacerbating the threats to these species. Water policymakers and water rights owners are likely to face more tensions among water uses and pressures to change or adapt existing policies to better reflect shifting water use values.

Looking Forward

The United States has abundant natural resources. A growing population is projected to lead both to increased demands for a wide array of goods and ecosystem services from forests and rangelands and to shifts in land uses as public values for certain goods and services change. Woody biomass production to promote domestic energy security is a prime example.

The outlook shown in this report is based on a continuation of current natural resource management policies in the face of projected changes in demographic and economic conditions and social values. The results highlight a number of areas in which pressures may emerge on policymakers to change current policies or develop new policy approaches. The negative effects on the environment, economy, and society portrayed by the scenarios in this RPA Assessment are not foregone conclusions. They can be avoided by timely actions from policymakers and land managers. This RPA Assessment lays the scientific foundation for taking action and dealing with the issues before their full effect is felt.

Remarks Of Secretary Jacob J. Lew On The Economics Of Climate Change

Editor’s note: does not offer a solution to drought.

Excerpt of the full transcript

…The need for action is clear. The world can either choose to ignore the challenge today and be forced to take more drastic action at greater cost down the road. Or we can make sensible, modest and gradual changes now, and in the process create jobs, reduce business and household expenses, and drive innovation, technology, and new industries. This choice should also be clear.

As an economic matter, the cost of inaction or delay is far greater than the cost of action. Costs associated with extreme weather events like rising sea levels, drought, heat waves, wildfires, floods, and severe storms demonstrate the scope of economic exposure. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates if warming above pre-industrial levels increases to three degrees Celsius, instead of two degrees Celsius, there could be a 1 percent decrease in global output annually. The economic cost of climate change is not limited to one sector of our economy. It threatens our agricultural productivity, our transportation infrastructure and power grids, and drives up the incidence of costly healthcare problems.

We are facing historic levels of extreme weather from a range of conditions. Some parts of the country face extreme flooding, and other areas face severe droughts. Our agricultural regions are threatened with some states facing a potential loss of up to 50 to 70 percent of average annual crop yields, and livestock productivity is threatened as well.

Nowhere is the economic cost of climate change more clear than in the area of infrastructure, which is fundamental to our economy’s productivity and competitiveness. The fact is, our water and sewer systems, our power plants and power grids, and our roads and airports were not designed or built for the extreme climate conditions that we are facing now and expect to face in coming decades. Superstorm Sandy in 2012 closed every tunnel and most bridges leading into New York City, while a large part of the subway system below 34th Street—including all seven tunnels under the East River—was flooded by storm surges.

Increased health care costs associated with pollution and extreme heat are well documented. Very high temperatures, for example, threaten the health and safety of construction workers, farmers, and others who work outdoors, while putting entire industries like housing and agriculture at risk. Extreme heat will also lead to more heat related illness. Dangerous air pollution creates the risk of similar negative consequences for the health and safety of Americans across the country.

On the other hand, much less has been said about the impact of climate change on our nation’s fiscal situation. When the federal government has to step in and do things like provide disaster relief, crop and flood insurance, protection from wildfires, and healthcare, taxpayers pay the cost. Already, the National Flood Insurance Program has had to borrow $24 billion from the Treasury Department because of payouts resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Sandy—all of which occurred over the past nine years. If the fiscal burden from climate change continues to rise, it will create budgetary pressures that will force hard tradeoffs, larger deficits or higher taxes. These tradeoffs would make it more challenging to invest in growth, meet the needs of an aging population, and provide for our national defense.

As former Secretary Rubin has said, “[W]hatever your public policy views, whether you care about our national debt and deficits, our tax rates, or government investing in everything from national security to job creation, you should care about the costs of coping with climate-related damage.” In short, we must do all we can to limit this burden and to manage the fiscal risk.

President Obama understands what is at stake, and after years of talk in Washington about facing up to the challenge of a changing climate, he has taken action by reducing carbon pollution, increasing energy efficiency, and investing in American energy, including natural gas, solar, and wind power.

I know that some view combating climate change as a choice between investing in our future and growing our economy in the near term, but that is a false choice. Making the right investments will make our economy stronger today, create tens of thousands of new jobs, and position the United States to lead the world in the technologies and the industries of the future.

We have already seen this work. Our new fuel economy standards will double the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade, and we have doubled the amount of renewable energy we produce. This means that our cars, trucks and renewable technology will compete effectively in a world looking for energy efficiency, lower costs, and lower emissions.

The fact of the matter is, over the past few years, solar installations have increased by 500 percent, and now every four minutes, a home or business goes solar in the United States. At the same time, with the President’s Better Buildings Initiative, the energy efficiency of America’s commercial buildings is improving. Making buildings more energy efficient creates jobs, lowers business costs, and reduces pollution. So far, this initiative has led to $300 million in energy savings for businesses and other organizations.

To be sure, changing how we power our country is good economic policy. Today, the fastest-growing source of electric generation is renewables, which already account for a fifth of generation globally. Indeed, renewables now produce as much electricity worldwide as gas and more than twice that from nuclear. In the coming years, an expanding world will demand more and more electricity and renewables are expected to be the fastest-growing source to meet that increased demand. So the more we do at home to encourage low-carbon energy generation, the better positioned our companies and workers will be to take advantage of these new business opportunities.

To build on what we have accomplished, as part of the administration’s Climate Action Plan, the President announced new rules this summer for existing power plants. These rules represent the most significant policy to arrest climate change that the United States has taken to date. And they will help us cut carbon pollution and increase clean energy production.

Though much remains to be done, these policies represent our nation’s commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change head on. And tomorrow, the President will join more than 120 heads of state in New York to mobilize global action to address climate change, because this is a global problem that requires collective action.

Global action is imperative, and it is a good investment in global economic growth.

First, making these changes is cost-effective. Look at the new power plant rules that I just mentioned. This policy will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power generation by 30 percent relative to 2005 levels. And meeting these standards will cost a fraction of the benefits associated with the increased efficiency at coal power plants and the greater use of renewables and natural gas. The health and climate benefits from producing more clean energy and reducing our use of dirty energy is expected to be worth between $55 and $93 billion in 2030.

Second, if we fail to make changes now, it will be much more costly to deal with the problem later, and some options may be foreclosed entirely. The right approach going forward is to use market forces that balance the cost of reducing emissions with what the latest science tells us we need to do to keep temperature increases below dangerous levels. The alternative—allowing greenhouse gas emissions to reach increasingly dangerous levels—will require expensive and more difficult action later. In a recently released report, the Council of Economic Advisers found that, for each decade of delay, the cost of hitting a given climate target goes up, on average, by approximately 40 percent.

We must adopt a risk-management approach to climate change. We must do what we can to substantially lower the risk of the most catastrophic climate impacts, and that means reducing emissions. As former Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, wrote recently, “There is a time for weighing evidence and there is a time for acting. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned…it is to act before problems become too big to manage.” The fact that Secretary Rubin and Secretary Paulson have taken leadership positions in making the case to address climate change underscores the economic urgency of action…

Make the Deserts Green!

October 14, 2014

Here’s more evidence, if any is needed, that the world needs to manufacture water in parched deserts far from any coastline to plant and irrigate trees so they can reduce the heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America details how scientists discovered that plants have the ability to absorb approximately 16% more CO2 than previously thought. Apparently higher concentrations of CO2 stimulate plants to grow, increasing their ability to process the gas and produce oxygen as a byproduct.

Comments of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Climate Change at Arequipa, Peru

(Excerpt of his complete remarks)

October 13, 2014

The Security Implications of Climate Change

Today, this region has become one of the most stable in the world. In many nations of the hemisphere, economies are growing and democracy is flourishing.

But we must be ready to confront emerging and future challenges to ensure this progress marches on.

One of those emerging challenges, environmental security, is a major theme of this week’s conference, and it provides us with an opportunity to discuss the security implications of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier”…because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today – from infectious disease to armed insurgencies – and to produce new challenges in the future.

The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere. Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the seeds for instability. Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline, and trigger waves of mass migration.

We have already seen these events unfold in other regions of the world, and there are worrying signs that climate change will create serious risks to stability in our own hemisphere. Two of the worst droughts in the Americas have occurred in the past ten years…droughts that used to occur once a century.

In the Caribbean, sea level rise may claim 1,200 square miles of coastal land in the next 50 years, and some islands may have to be completely evacuated. According to some estimates, rising temperatures could melt entire glaciers in the Andes, which could have cascading economic and security consequences.

These climate trends will clearly have implications for our militaries. A higher tempo and intensity of natural disasters could demand more support for our civil authorities, and more humanitarian assistance and relief. Our coastal installations could be vulnerable to rising shorelines and flooding, and extreme weather could impair our training ranges, supply chains, and critical equipment. Our militaries’ readiness could be tested, and our capabilities could be stressed.

DoD’s Plan to Address Climate Change Risks

The U.S. Department of Defense takes these risks very seriously, and that is why today we are launching a new Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Building on one of the main themes of this year’s CDMA, this roadmap lays out our plan for confronting the challenges posed by climate change.

This roadmap shows how we are identifying, with tangible and specific metrics, and using the best available science, the effects of climate change on the Department’s missions and responsibilities. We have nearly completed a baseline survey to assess the vulnerability of our military’s more than 7,000 bases, installations, and other facilities.

Drawing on these assessments, we will integrate climate change considerations into our planning, operations, and training. Last year, for example, I released the Department of Defense’s Arctic Strategy, which addresses the potential security implications of rapidly melting Arctic ice.

Another Perspective to Secretary John Kerry’s Comments on Climate Change

October 12, 2014

Secretary Kerry is of course correct in his understanding that climate change must be quickly addressed. However, his prescription –clean energy- the equivalent of a vaccine, is not a remedy for the full blown disease our planet is suffering from. No doubt it might have helped 45 or more years ago, before those gazillions of tons of greenhouse gases were nonchalantly dumped into the atmosphere, before killer droughts became commonplace, thousands of species extinct, the ocean acidic, and most certainly before the unacceptable gap in the distribution of income and wealth decimated the American working and middle classes. Now much, much more is required.

Clean energy and solar power are not synonymous; the latter is a subset of the former. More to the point, if the clean energy market is the mother of all markets, then the water market is the father, and the sun is the matchmaker. Here’s why.

Except for desalination in coastal areas, which consumes enormous amounts of energy, all the clean energy in the world including wind, solar, and even nuclear fission, which in fact is anything but clean, will not produce a meaningful amount of fresh water. A clean energy policy by itself does nothing to solve mega droughts anywhere or replenish aquifers in California, Nevada, Arizona or the Great Plains, the nation’s breadbasket. In a nutshell, we are in grave danger of eventually suffering unprecedented losses, not just financially but strategically in terms of our ability to grow our own food. What we do now, or fail to do, will determine the outcome.

Even if a clean energy policy manages to generate and produce enough electricity and water to meet current and future demand, that still does not address the gap in the distribution of income and wealth. Modern technology has made the nineteenth century model of public utilities and electric grids obsolete, and it’s time to recognize and admit that fact.

Stacked solar glass orbs

Any building, even in areas prone to overcast skies could theoretically generate a surplus of electricity. Therefore, over time, large power plants can and should be phased out as described in Plan A to divert profits from utility shareholders to working and middle class borrowers.

First-time buyers (click to enlarge)

That would help the latter qualify for mortgages, promote large scale construction to relieve the housing shortage that’s keeping prices artificially inflated to the injury of young first-time buyers, create much needed man-jobs and improve the buying power of consumers.

While useful to the domestic economy, clean energy is not an exportable commodity; more specifically, it cannot be directly exported to reduce or perhaps reverse the trade deficit with China. Hydrogen is exportable; when combined with the oxygen in the atmosphere it will produce fresh water anywhere, even in remote deserts far from shore. Hopefully the upcoming meeting in Lima, in the shadow of the majestic Andes, will inspire world leaders to consider the merits of the Andean module of Plan A.

Underdeveloped west, developed east

Any new energy policy should not be east-centric; the western half should be fully developed on par with the east, particularly non-coastal areas as described in Plan A. Only so might it become possible to conquer drought, reverse the trade and federal deficits, and create a new income stream to help reduce the wealth gap.

WikiSolver

Economic & Political Solutions

Author: Solver1