2022

by Ken Kroes

  1. We don’t care.

  2. We trust our leaders to handle it.

  3. We don’t appreciate how bad the problems are.

  4. We have processed all the data and know that these assumptions are false and the world we’re leaving you will be as good as, or better than it is now.

  Which is it?

  I believe the reason for our apparent lack of urgent concern is threefold: We trust our leaders to arrive at sound environmental and social policies, we do not fully appreciate the magnitude of the issues we face, and finally, we have a strong sense of entitlement. I believe that relying on our leaders will offer too few solutions at too late a point in time. Economics nearly always trumps environment and social needs. Lack of appreciation and understanding of the seriousness of our problems strongly suggests our assumption that the data revealing a much darker world is completely false. This is dangerous assumption. What if even part of it (or maybe the majority of it) is correct? As for entitlement, do we need all of the clothes that we buy? Do we need a new cell phone or vehicle every few years?

  I believe our current path of increasing demand on finite resources is not sustainable, and I fear that in several areas we are close to reaching a breaking point. Those of us on this planet who care about children and their future must do more. We must use less and try to provide enough time for long-term solutions to be found. This action does not require laws, regulations, and lobbying. It’s simply a matter of each of us drastically reducing our consumption and caring more for other people. Buy smaller. Buy less often. Buy used. Repair things instead of buying new. Failure on our part will result in a future far less pleasant than what we have envisioned for our children.

  If we drastically reduce consumption and if our leaders and corporations drive better technologies to lower pollution and resource usage, then perhaps our children will have a future that we can be proud of. Both of these actions will not be easy but both are needed.

  I believe it is time not only for discussion of these points but also to take carefully considered and effective action. Please visit my website www.feasibleplanet.com for more information on what we can do to make this a better planet for our children.

  (*) I love word puzzles and the title of this appendix, if you haven’t already guessed, is an anagram. The answer is three large, pertinent words for the topic discussed. Once you have the answer, can you come up with another anagram for the same words? If so, please share it at my website.

  Appendix B - Putting Things into Perspective

  “We have so much time and so little to do. Strike that, reverse it.” – Roald Dahl

  In today’s world, we are immersed in the economic machine and the way that it wants us to live. We must be productive and we must consume. Different ways to live or suggestions that there may be problems with the growth engine are met head on through vehicles like the mainstream news media, regulations and well-funded lobby groups. As a result, I feel that many of us are not as informed as we could be on the major issues facing us on this planet due to the abundance of conflicting information that is out there.

  Initially, I just wanted to do a bit of research into the major areas of concern to get some perspective of how bad things really are. One of things that staggered me as I started to dig in was the amount of positive and negative information that is out there on nearly every topic related to sustainable living on this planet. Take for example the human population on this planet. There are groups that say we do have a population problem and there are groups that say we don’t, both with convincing arguments backed up with data.

  I concluded after a while that the reason there are so many conflicting opinions is that the problems are very complex and a complete analysis of all related data is nearly impossible to do. Hence, groups state their opinions and back them up with the data that agrees with what they are saying, making it sound legitimate but only really saying part of the story. This works for normal debates, but in issues related to the long-term viability of our species on this planet, I fear it will fail. This normal debate process will not declare a winner until there is a time when overwhelming data points to one side or the other. In the case of our planet, if the data eventually shows us that there is a problem, it will probably be too late to act.

  This, in my opinion, is the real issue that we must address. Are we willing to take the risk that we can delay action on potential problems in the hope that there is no problem at all? So far, it seems, that most people believe the answer is yes.

  This conclusion led me to take on a different approach to my studies. Instead of trying to do the impossible task of analyzing all of the arguments, I instead started to focus on the amount of time we have left to come up with solutions if the issues are real. My reasoning is that this would give me an idea of how long we can debate items before we will reach the point of no return—the point where even if there is an issue, it is really too late to do anything about it.

  I am still constantly reading and trying to get more informed, but my initial conclusions related to timeframes were shocking enough that I felt compelled to write this series of books.

  Below are some areas either that have short timeframes or have a major impact on them.

  CFCs and the Ozone Layer

  Most of you probably know that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are very destructive to our ozone layer. There should be little debate here: The release of CFCs into the atmosphere introduces a chemical reaction that depletes ozone. This was discovered as early as 1974 yet it took until the year 1990 for countries to setup regulations to ban CFCs in developed countries by the year 2000, and developing countries by 2010.

  The good news is that the ozone can replenish itself fairly quickly. Recent reports are indicating that by roughly 2050 it should be back to the same level as it was in 1970. There are still several chemicals used in industries that impact the ozone layer and there are ongoing meetings and new regulations to control these.

  The bad news and the reason I am including this example is that it took thirty-five years to put a solution in place for a relatively straightforward problem. For the potential issues we have now, even after we process the data and really understand the issue, it will take decades to get global agreement and solutions in place.

  World Population

  There are many forecasts out there for this planet’s population and one of the lowest I could find is that we will have about another billion people on this planet by the year 2050 (current population as of October 2016 is 7.5 billion).

  If any of the potential problems with a timeframe of less than a few hundred years to solve are real, then this population growth is a very significant problem. As the population increases, the timeframes that we are given to solve potential problems decreases.

  Can we take the risk that climate change, pollution, mass extinction, peak resources and several other issues all are either completely false or for the ones that are real that all have a timeframe of more than a few hundred years to solve?

  The 6th Mass Extinction

  Though not unstoppable, it appears that this planet is well on track to witness the 6th mass extinction of at least amphibians, fish and mammals within the next few hundred years. There are some estimates that show that most commercial fish species could be gone as early as 2050. Some of the major drivers behind this are pollution, over-fishing and hunting, destruction of habitats and rapid climate change.

  As species disappear the ecosystem that they were part of changes. If we allow this mass extinction to continue, the ecosystem that we live in and rely upon for food, clean water, fresh air and a host of other essential components will change drastically.

  We have at least some measure of control over all of the causes for this extinction event, such as slowing down the amount of plastics that are put into our oceans. I have seen recent estimates that we are putting at least 5 million metric tonnes of plastic into the ocean each year. Did you know that when you wash your clothes th
at are made from nylon and other synthetic textiles, you are contributing to this through the micro fibers that come loose during the wash cycle? These micro fibers are then consumed by small marine life, either harming them or entering our own food supply.

  The key question here is do we have enough runway left along with sufficient global willpower to slow down this event in time before changes occur that seriously impact us.

  Jobs, Income, and Wealth Inequality

  There are many issues in the area of economics and the global economy, but I feel that one of the biggest challenges for us and our children will be finding good jobs. With the advances in technology our individual productivity is going up, requiring fewer people to produce the same amount of goods. Combine this with globalization, where many jobs can be now done from anywhere in the world and competition for good jobs will be stiffer than ever.

  The key here is “good” jobs. In my opinion, unemployment numbers are masking the fact that more and more people are working either part-time jobs or working at lower paying jobs.

  At the same time that the majority of the population is struggling to find good jobs, there is the increasing trend of inequality for both income and wealth. In other words, the rich keep getting richer. In 1979, the richest 0.1 percent of the population controlled 7 percent of the wealth in the U.S., and by 2012 this number had increased to 22 percent. The flip side of this is that as the rich are getting richer, the rest of us are getting poorer. Overall, poverty is on the rise. Combine this with the point above about jobs and the future does not look that great for our children.

  If these trends continue, the timeline here is less than a few generations before we devolve back to a society comprised mostly of peasants with a few ultra-rich and powerful ruling over them.

  Greenhouse Gases, Ocean Acidification, and Global Climate Change

  The “great debate” that is currently going on is ‘if” we are witnessing dramatic global climate change and ‘if” we are the reason behind it because of the fossil fuels that we are burning.

  Some key points:

  • If there were no humans on this planet, the climate, CO2 levels, and the acidity of the oceans would not stay constant. There are natural cycles that this planet goes through that impact these areas.

  • When looking at the whole carbon cycle, the amount of carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not insignificant (we are putting roughly 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the overall natural carbon cycle for the planet is in area of 750 gigatons).

  • The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has not been this high for twenty million years. It appears that the rate that it has been increasing over the last 100 years or so is pretty much unmatched in history and this is key. Perhaps humans can adapt quick enough to this change but will the rest of our ecosystem be able to adapt as quickly?

  • In general, both sides of the debate agree that a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a warmer planet.

  • The oceans act as a CO2 buffer and both take in and release CO2. Recent data appears to show that they are getting both more acidic (due to increasing CO2) and warmer.

  • Methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas but has a lifespan of about a dozen years in the atmosphere. If the planet warms up, more methane will be released from the northern permafrost areas and will accelerate the warm up cycle, releasing more methane in a vicious self-feeding cycle.

  • Unlike ozone, the carbon cycle can take hundreds if not thousands of years to stabilize. In other words, even if we stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow, it will take a long time for the acid levels and ocean temperature to go back to where they were.

  There are arguments that a planet that is a bit warmer than it is now and had a bit more CO2 may be a good thing for us in that there would be more plant life and other positive factors. Yes, this is true, that may happen. But do we know that this would be the result? Do we have the knowledge to safely terraform the planet that we live on?

  The risk of potentially causing a few-degree change in the planet temperature and causing a substantial release of methane from northern permafrost regions or increasing the ocean acidity level to the point of making many species go extinct is, in my opinion, too high to ‘gamble’ that it will all work out ok.

  Most of the studies that I have read indicate that if we don’t curb CO2 creation, that few degree change will happen within the next hundred years.

  Peak Natural Resource Supply

  There are several natural resources on this planet that we are getting close to using up, at least the easy to get to sources of it. Examples include oil, phosphorus, natural gas, copper, lithium, and freshwater. A variety of factors go into determining the timeframe for when we will exhaust the supply for each of these. These factors include the level of recycling, replacement with some other material, and the discovery of new sources. Predictably of the timeframes for when we will reach the end of the supply for each of these is very erratic.

  However, there is a finite supply of these items and since we continue to draw on them, there must come some period of time when we will actually run out. From what I have read, it would appear that a practical timeframe for oil, natural gas, and coal would be in the 100-to 200-year area. Not that far off, but probably far enough that we will come up with new technologies and materials to replace them when the supply is exhausted. Of course, long before that we are going do more environmental damage as we try to find more sources, such as drilling in the oceans for oil, fracking and ocean mining.

  The couple of resources that have gotten my attention though are phosphorus and freshwater.

  Phosphorus is a major component in fertilizers and so far, at least there is no alternative for it and it cannot be made. Without fertilizers, there would obviously be a dramatic drop in agriculture production. Estimates of peak phosphorus range from 50 to 200 years. Like oil, this is not too far off, but unlike oil, there is no good replacement here and the end result will be much higher prices as supplies of phosphorus start to dwindle and agriculture output starts to drop.

  The amount of freshwater that we have is a bit different than other natural resources such as copper in that it is a renewable resource, but where the water is and where it is needed are two different things. This is already a problem as we exhaust rivers and underground aquifers to sustain growing agricultural and urban demands. The problem will only intensify as our population increases, underground sources become exhausted and rain patterns change due to climate change.

  The timeframe for freshwater is pretty much right now. There are several major rivers around the globe that either don’t or rarely make it to the ocean anymore due to the high demands of irrigation and urban usage. Either due to a short-or long-term pattern, there are many areas now that are in the midst of a multi-year drought that is causing heavy reliance on backup sources of water, such as underground aquifers and lakes. These backup sources will not last much longer.

  I think the situation with freshwater is a good example of why I am fearful of our future. We have a clear problem here and several potential solutions, yet we continue to kick the can down the road. There are some measures that are being taken to try to either curb water use or to create more through desalination, yet roughly a billion people on this planet lack sufficient access to it.

  Appendix C - Why Not?

  Just for fun, imagine the outcomes if some of the following items were implemented. In my opinion, each would have a positive effect on our world. While there would be issues and problems in introducing some or all of them, an examination of why the intent of each is not already in place serves as a good exercise.

  1. Similar to drug ads that seem to devote at least 30% of their time outlining potential product side effects, create a law whereby all commercials inform viewers of the extent of resources used to build the product being sold. They would be required to challenge viewers to determine whe
ther they need to buy the product and if so, to remind them that a good alternative may be to buy something smaller or used instead.

  2. Unless a meal is ordered in advance as “to-go,” automatically add a twenty percent tax to a restaurant bill if the diner does not finish the meal and does not take the remainder home. Oblige restaurants to offer variable sizes for their meals.

  3. Force cities to allow for small houses (less than 500 square feet), underground homes, and to get rid of bylaws prohibiting people from living in their car or RV within city limits (at least allow for a number of designated places within the city to do so). While working on zoning laws, enforce a certain percentage of residential areas to be committed to multi-generation and/or true multi-family homes.

  4. Some type of resolution passed forcing each country to work towards getting a decreasing year over year GDP for the next twenty years. Countries with increasing GDPs would be obliged to pay penalties (which would go to the countries with the decreasing GDP). Would you vote for a political party who had negative growth as a campaign platform? If not, why not?

  5. Force credit scores to include personal net worth and income as components.

  6. Make all public transportation free (this is already in place in several cities).

  7. Impose a country-wide, four-day work week. Make it illegal to open most places of business for one or two days of the newly formed three-day weekend.

  8. Make it compulsory to show key environment statistics and trends in the mainstream news, including newspapers, radio, and television.

  9. Put in a law that would put a warning label on all products that contain plastics that will eventually end up in the ocean. An example would be all clothing that contain synthetic textiles. 

  Appendix D - Anagrams

  I love anagrams and there are several throughout the Percipience series. Here are the solutions to the ones in this book.