The way forward

The “Environmental Movement” cannot halt the man-made Degradation of the Biosphere.

“Something” large, powerful and organized – reflecting a joint sense of purpose – is needed.

This site, and the related 1biosphere.org, are an attempt to justify these statements – and to offer a first step toward that goal.

Once again I am in the process of organizing my thoughts. While I do that I will keep previous home pages archived. As individual items of interest crop up they will be added to this blog.

The guiding principles remain the same:

  • There exists exactly one biosphere
  • To save ourselves we must save the biosphere

Boiling Cold – Western Australia

Boiling Cold is a newsletter by Western Australian journalist Peter Milne.

I am tempted to reproduce his latest in full.  But to add some background for readers who may not be familiar with Western Australia here are just a few snippets (Items in “quotes” are directly from Boiling Cold):

#1 is about Woodside’s North West Shelf project, one of the major LNG projects in Australia. Friends of Australian Rock Art (FARA) brought an appeal in the Australian supreme court to “argue that then environment minister Reece Whitby did not sufficiently consider the impact on climate change from the project, including the surrounding Murujuga rock art.”

At the heart of the appeal is that “Murujuga traditional custodian Raelene Cooper wants an answer after 3½ years to her application for the Murujuga rock art to be protected under Section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Heritage Protection Act.”

There are about a million individual carvings, some over 40,000 years old.  What strikes me about this story is the 3½ year gap between application and judgement (which is pending). It is also another demonstration of the disdain the extractive industries have for aboriginal art – Oh, we dynamited your sacred cave with some old drawings in there? You know, we had to get at the iron ore. Ah well, nothing we can do about it now, oops, so sorry. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)


#2, also connected to Murujuga “… the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] revealed that Curtin University let WA’s Department of Water and Environmental Regulation write a summary of its research into Murujuga rock art, despite the university having that role under its contract. “They put a very rosy spin on the results and I think hoped everyone would only read the summary and not the full report,” was the thought of lead scientist Professor Ben Mullins, revealed by a freedom of information request.

Great work by the ABC

Curtin [University} spine rating: 0/10. 

Curtin demonstration of academic integrity and independence: 0/10.”

What gets to me in this snippet are two things; one that a university will allow its work to be misrepresented.  But then it’s not just Curtin; we see the influence of money and politics on academic freedom around the world.  The second is that in a state where Labor, a left leaning party, has a massive majority in parliament, the wishes of the extractive industries handily trump environmental concerns. [More on that in snippet 4]


 #3 Jarrah is a beautiful tree that grows only in the southwest corner of Australia.  A jarrah forest is a natural wonder.  Jarrah produces a dark, thick, tasty honey.  And its wood has a deep rich reddish-brown colour and an attractive grain.

photo by Podiceps60 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

Podiceps60 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

But jarrah made a poor evolutionary choice; it developed a preference for soil rich in bauxite.  And bauxite is a major source of aluminium.

Alcoa Australia has mined that bauxite for decades.  Hundreds of thousands of acres of jarrah have been destroyed in the process.  There have been remediation efforts but how can you restore the diverse environment that existed?  In addition, there are knock-on effects on biodiversity and water supply – which is the subject of this snippet.

Recently Alcoa commissioned the global engineering firm GHD to analyse the impact of a major expansion to its activities.

“GHD identified 22 potential pathways for Alcoa’s activities to contaminate dams and found 21 of them presented a high risk.

However, Alcoa well and truly hid this vital finding on page 103 of one of 68 documents appended to 23 main reports Alcoa submitted to the EPA [WA Environmental Protection Agency].  Meanwhile, we are all bombarded by continuous advertising from Alcoa, saying all will be well.

Independent expertise versus paid-for PR?  Not difficult to know who to trust.”

[Peter Milne’s more detailed reporting is here]


#4 “The [Western Australian] Government paid Deloitte $400,000 last financial year to “undertake modelling and analysis on the role of WA’s gas in decarbonisation in the Asian region” and “provide advice to cabinet [i.e. the leaders of the government] on these matters.”

That last bit of the scope is crucial, as Labor is refusing to release the report because it is “cabinet in confidence.”

You can bet that if Deloitte had produced a ringing endorsement of Roger Cook’s* mantra that WA’s emissions have to rise so our trading partners can drop theirs, the report would be readily available.” *[Roger Cook, the WA premier, comparable to a US state governor]

Can more Australian LNG exports help Asia to emit less carbon?  This is a complex argument.  The devil is in the detail and those details should be readily available.  That a Labor government would not strive for that level of transparency is beyond sad.

(Northern) Summer Solstice – and Climate Change

OK, I guess I’ve gotten up. It’s taken me more than seven months since my last entry. I’ve got some wishy-washy excuses, but not really good enough.

Going somewhat against my second last entry, “Stop fighting Climate Change!”, here is an eye-catching graphic of global warming, from https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/warming-stripes-2025

“The global warming stripes, created by Professor Ed Hawkins, are a visual representation of the long-term rise in global temperatures due to human-caused climate change. 

Each stripe represents the global temperature averaged over one year, from 1850 to 2024. Red stripes are years that were hotter than the 1961-2010 average; blue stripes are years that were cooler. 

The global warming stripes graphic shows a rapid shift from blue to red stripes in recent decades as heat-trapping pollution has warmed the planet”.


And BTW, my previous entry on climate change did not really mean that we should stop fighting it. I have always said is that we need to look at “Biosphere Degradation” in total. Climate Change leads the charge, but Biodiversity, Waste and Pollution, Depletion of non-renewable Resources, all deserve equal billing.

As does degradation of humanity. We are part of the biosphere after all – even when we think we are so special that we can ignore that fact.

Happy solstice tomorrow – especially to my friends in the southern hemisphere – longer days for you!

Stop fighting Climate Change!

Readers of the Boston Globe, LA Times, NY Times, The Guardian and Washington Post – among the major news outlets – get some of the best articles about what’s happening to the biosphere.

BUT…those articles usually appear in a section labelled “Climate ‘something’”; Climate and Environment, Climate Crisis, Climate, Climate California.  And they typically appear after World (i.e. Wars and other disasters), US News (mostly politics and disasters), US Politics (politics), New York (New York politics), Business, Technology, Science, Sports, Obituaries (that’s for the NYT, similar for others) – but before Education and Health (with the position of those last two raising other concerns).

By framing what I have called “Biosphere Degradation” as “Climate Change/Crisis” we play into the hands of the opposing forces.  The discussion immediately turns to technology – by which I mean both engineering technology (e.g. CCS, Transition Fuels, Nuclear Power, Geoengineering) and financial technologies (e.g. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance), Offsets, Carbon tax, EV incentives).  And the forces who most resist having a deeper discussion about biosphere degradation are experts at presenting the technology arguments.

Climate change is arguably the most important topic within the degradation of the biosphere. But by being highlighted as a news section, and by similar programs on TV and radio, it tends to overshadow considerations like biodiversity (see Note below), pollution, over-consumption (ultra-consumption?), climate justice, waste and so forth.

I simply ask that news outlets consider changing their headings to be more inclusive.  “Biosphere Degradation” is probably too clumsy.  Some other title that captures what we are doing to the biosphere, and by extension to ourselves and all future humanity, is needed.  I guess that’s what editors are for – to find a catchy heading.


AND… “we” need to acknowledge that simply by reading this material we identify ourselves as part of the problem.  That’s not an easy realization.

[see also my previous post – Climate Change? Meh]

NOTE – Climate Change and Biodiversity

Climate COP29 will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan from 11-22 November 2024

Biodiversity COP16 will take place in Cali, Colombia from 2 October to 1 November 2024

I am not qualified to make any comment about these conferences. I just wonder about the impact on the biosphere of thousands of delegates traveling to these meetings.  And why they continue to be separate.

Climate Fiction

In our gut we “know” that technology will not solve global warming – let alone all the other factors that degrade our biosphere.

Yes, technology is absolutely required to curb GHG emissions.  But it must be technology in support of humanitarian, ecological goals. And the application of technology must be supported by end-to-end analysis.

The fossil fuel industry tells us great stories about transition fuels, carbon offsets, green hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, geoengineering and so forth.  But they are harmful stories, little more than delaying tactics.  Even in the short term they do more harm than good.  They delay the inevitable, hard decisions we need to make.

These two articles put some facts around things we already knew in our gut:

Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds

Photo from https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/biggest-lng-ships/

“Research challenges idea that sending liquefied natural gas around the world is cleaner alternative to burning coal.

“The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken – LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper. “To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.”

Drilling, moving, cooling and shipping gas from one country to another uses so much energy that the actual final burning of gas in people’s homes and businesses only accounts for about a third of the total emissions from this process, the research finds.

“The peer-reviewed research…challenges the rationale for a huge surge in LNG facilities along the US Gulf coast, in order to send gas in huge tankers to overseas markets. The US is the world’s leading LNG exporter, followed by Australia and Qatar.

Previous government and industry estimates have assumed that LNG is considerably lower emitting than coal, offering the promise that it could replace it in countries such as China, as well as aiding European allies menaced by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a major gas producer.

But … LNG expansion is not compatible with the world avoiding dangerous global heating, with researchers finding in recent years the leakage of methane, a primary component of gas and a potent planet-heating agent, from drilling operations is far higher than official estimates. …[in addition] as much as 3.5% of the gas delivered to customers leaks to the atmosphere unburned, much more than previously assumed. Methane is about 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, even though it persists for less time in the atmosphere.”

[The quotations above are from a Guardian article and from the research paper on which it was based].

Ex-carbon offsetting CEO charged with multimillion-dollar fraud

… former CEO of C-Quest Capital, indicted over allegations of carbon credit manipulation… stepped down as CEO of C-Quest in February this year. In June, the new management of C-Quest announced that they had reported their former CEO to US authorities for his role in allegedly faking emissions data to generate millions of worthless carbon credits…[in a] scheme that manipulated information on the impact of cooking stove projects in Africa and south-east Asia to make them appear far more successful at reducing emissions than they were in reality…to fraudulently obtain carbon credits by using manipulated and misleading data. They then sold those credits to unsuspecting buyers in the multi-billion-dollar global market for carbon credits.”

[Hopefully this story is an outlier in the business of carbon credits.  Again*, we have a gut feel about offsets; maybe it is a financial technology necessary through the transition.  But in my view, it is a delaying tactic.  Offsets will not solve the degradation of the biosphere.  In this particular instance the offsets are not just worthless, they actively, deliberately, help to degrade the biosphere.

The quotations above are from a Guardian article.

*Again? See my 2021 post on wood pellets. That entry is about the “carbon neutrality” of wood pellets.  It is essentially an offset story with a slightly different title. It is accounting technology to support a GHG emitting industry.]


What’s the point of quoting these articles?  How do they relate to E and F?  How would the creation of a Federation of Environmental Organizations make any difference?

It’s about stories.  E creates cover stories to have us believe that technology (engineering or financial) is the answer.  We are told not to worry.  We are told to keep spending; our lifestyle mustn’t change.  Otherwise growth would stall, recession reign and chaos descend. F needs to create equally powerful stories, based on end-to-end research, based on facts.  Stories that point to a bright future, but also clarify that some more fundamental changes will be necessary.

What are “E” and “F”? – Please look at the HOME page.

What Artificial Intelligence “thinks” of 1biosphere

I fed the content of 1biosphere.org into NotebookLM, a Google AI product currently in “experimental” mode.  It offers several different output formats and here are three of them: a PODCAST, a SUMMARY and a FAQ.

PODCAST

I think this is amazing.  It sounds so real; two voices discussing 1biosphere.org – all without a human reading or voicing anything. Yes, it is a bit long and sometimes repetitive. It pulls in some items that are not part of the website and it does not reflect my emphasis in other areas.  It also ignores differences between my direct input and where I quote others. Despite all that it is an interesting commentary in a format I never considered.


SUMMARY

This document argues for the urgent formation of a global Federation of Environmental Organizations, “F”, to combat the ongoing degradation of the biosphere, which it attributes to a powerful and destructive force it calls “E.”

E, representing forces like neoliberalism, oligarchy, and capitalism, is characterized as a system that exploits the biosphere for profit and power, often at the expense of human well-being.

The author outlines a vision for F as a unified, global force with the power to counter E’s influence. He proposes a structure for F, addressing key issues like vision, ethics, governance, finance, and marketing. He emphasizes the need for a global perspective, recognizing that local actions are insufficient to address the global scale of the problem.

The document uses a blend of scientific language, political commentary, and symbolic representations to illustrate its message, urging readers to act now to prevent irreversible damage to the biosphere.

[I quite like this summary]


FAQ: There Exists Exactly One Biosphere – An Appeal for a Federation of Environmental Organizations

1. Why is there an urgent need for environmental organizations to form a federation?

The current environmental crisis demands a united front. Individually, organizations lack the power and reach to combat the global forces degrading the biosphere. A federation (F) would amplify their efforts, provide a unified message, and effectively challenge entities like “E” (representing Neoliberalism, Oligarchism, Capitalism, etc.) that prioritize exploitation over sustainability.

2. What would be the primary goals of this federation?

“F” would strive to halt and reverse the degradation of the biosphere by countering the influence of “E.” This includes addressing climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, and the exploitation of both humans and resources. It would operate globally while maintaining local action, fostering unity, and promoting effective solutions.

3. How would such a federation be structured and governed?

“F” could adopt a structure similar to successful multinational organizations, incorporating elements of corporations, government organizations, and even religious bodies. It would comprise departments, geographical divisions, partnerships, and a management structure, potentially resembling a United Nations focused on the biosphere. Leadership would emphasize shared responsibility, potentially avoiding traditional power structures.

4. What role would marketing and messaging play in the federation’s success?

Marketing is crucial to counteract “E’s” pervasive influence. “F” needs compelling branding (e.g., “1biosphere”) to unify its message and inspire action. It would leverage traditional and digital marketing strategies to communicate the urgency of the crisis, highlight “E’s” detrimental role, and offer a positive vision for the future.

5. How does the issue of consumption factor into the federation’s mission?

“F” recognizes that technological solutions alone are insufficient. It would advocate for a significant shift in consumption patterns, moving away from the “buy now, buy more” mentality promoted by “E.” The focus would be on promoting mindful consumption, valuing quality over quantity, and prioritizing the long-term health of the biosphere.

6. What stance would the federation take on politics, justice, and violence?

“F” would engage actively in the political sphere to counteract “E’s” dominance and advocate for policies aligned with its goals. It would promote a justice system that values the equal worth of all humans and safeguards their well-being. While rejecting illegal violence, “F” acknowledges the role of legal and ethical action to protect the biosphere and its inhabitants.

7. How does the concept of time impact the federation’s approach?

“F” adopts a “Deep Time” perspective, considering the consequences of actions over generations and millennia, contrasting with “E’s” short-term focus. It emphasizes the urgency of the present moment, recognizing that delaying action could push the biosphere past critical tipping points, making recovery impossible.

8. Is it realistic to believe that this federation can succeed against powerful entities like “E”?

While challenging, the success of “F” is possible. The author argues that humanity possesses the capacity for collective action, evidenced by organizations like the European Union and successful social movements. “F” aims to leverage this capacity by uniting environmental organizations, engaging in effective marketing, and promoting a vision of a sustainable future.

[The FAQ is OK.  I assume it is structured more for a teaching situation, where students are asked to study a text and extract it’s meaning.  Maybe not so applicable to the target audience here.  Still, it’s not bad to generate this response in a matter of seconds.]

Overall, these results support my contention that we, the Federation (“F”), must be aware of the good and bad effects of AI.  If it can so easily generate this output for me, it can do the same if presented a mass of misinformation.  We can be sure E will use AI to its fullest extent. (See the home page for an explanation of the symbols “E” and “F”)

And, yes, I am aware of the energy use, and the GHG implications, of the AI farms that enable this sort of work. Which is of course the problem; we are our own enemy.

Any Metaphor In A Storm

Evil and Good – Sauron and Hobbits, Vader and Jedi, Harkonnens and Fremen, Nazis and Allies, War and Peace, Voldemort and Harry, Minotaur and Theseus – tales of titanic struggles.

The sheer genius, skill and persistence needed to turn these ideas into great books and memorable films staggers me.  Any of them could be a powerful metaphor in the struggle for the biosphere.  And yet…

What struggle?  I sit comfortably, with a hot cup of tea.  Friendly men and women, sportily attired, blue poop bags at the ready, walk their dogs.  The trees show the very first signs of autumn yellow.  The fridge is well stocked. The cats are fed, lounging in the sun. The news is of wars, of vicious election rhetoric, of all sorts of disasters – all are distant, in space and time.

But this struggle, possibly the greatest humanity has faced since the invention of agriculture, is right here and now.  Wars, quite apart from the personal tragedies, are environmental disasters.  The elections will matter, even if the champions of a “green” future are less than perfect.  The floods, fires, famine, diseases and displacements are real and immediate.

Why then don’t we act to stop degrading the biosphere in the same way we acted to counter other calamities?

Because the Enemy is us.

The Evil of Sauron, the tragic fascination of the ring (a metaphor for money?), Orcs, Trolls, Balrogs with their bad teeth, black blood, and disgusting eating habits, all present an obvious Enemy that needs to be defeated by any means.  “The Fellowship of the Ring” becomes inevitable.

The “Star Wars” Empire, with its dispassionate destruction of an entire planet and casual use of torture, justifies an armed Federation – with the Force on their side.

The hideous Lord Harkonnen and his weird nephews, abetted by the inept Emperor of “Dune” is justly defeated by the Fremen eco-warriors – using the power of spice and worms.

The Minotaur, half bull, half man, hides in his labyrinth (a metaphor for offshore accounts and shell companies?) and eats Athenian sacrifices until killed by Theseus.  And Theseus only finds his way back out by following Ariadne’s thread.

All these stories have repellent villains and relatable heroes.  If our champions have any flaws, they are all very forgivable, more than offset by the secret powers they manage to harness.

Closer to our reality, the second world war started just 85 years ago, 25 years after the start of the first one – the “war to end all wars”.  The Evils of Hitler and the Nazi regime are exhaustively documented.  As are the root causes and the need for an alliance to defeat them.  Unfortunately, the lessons of that recent history seem to be forgotten.  As Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) says in her voice-over to “The Fellowship of the Ring”; “Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.”

But what if Evil hides in plain sight?   When the supporters of biosphere degradation are well dressed, well-coiffed, articulate and successful A-type personalities the task becomes so much more difficult.  They appeal directly to our wants – which have been nurtured in us since birth by continuous advertising and other stories.  If our national, economic, religious and ethnic identities are at risk – and the prosperity of our family and community is threatened – should we not listen to their Siren song?  (Metaphor…  beware of the deadly reefs).  And, secretly, don’t we wish to be friends with those confident, smiling, fit, young spokespeople who sell these ideas?  Don’t we want to be like them?

This conundrum always brings me back to a logical, unemotional approach to the entire discussion.  Others have brought long experience, deep knowledge, passion and determination to the fight.  They have the skills and resources to create informative analyses, thoughtful recommendations and make them understandable, entertaining and convincing.

I will try and stick with the symbol “E” for the, seemingly invincible, forces that compel us to degrade the biosphere and “F” for the, as yet nonexistent, federation, or fellowship, of Environmental Organizations that I believe is needed to influence and change “E”.

By all means let’s use metaphors, but let’s also face up to the real effort, which needs us to join in honest, coordinated, consistent, difficult work – without magic.

Despite all that, of course I can’t resist a metaphor, no matter how twisted.  Here is my tale of Ariadne’s thread.  It also appears in Appendix 3 of my “Appeal and Challenge to the Environmental Organizations”, here and on 1biosphere.org

ARIADNE’S THREAD

I admire Europe.  Not the geography, the history, the castles or the cuisine – although those are all fascinating – but the idea.  Here is a bunch of people that speak different languages, have different economies and, for much of recent history, have systematically maimed and killed each other.  Yet, they have formed a union, a Federation, that works.  It is an incredible achievement[1].

Europe’s flag, its symbol, is a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background[2]

The flag, if you allow a little whimsy, reminds me of the constellation Corona Borealis, the Northern Crown.

This arrangement of stars is known as the “Poor People’s Bowl”, the “Camp Circle”, the “Woomera”, the “Boomerang”, or the Welsh goddess “Lady Arianrhod” among other titles.

But in Greek mythology this constellation is the crown, made by Hephaestus, which Ariadne threw into the sky after her wedding to Dionysus.

Titian, 1520 – “Bacchus and Ariadne” – National Gallery, London

Throwing her crown into the heavens is no mean feat, but Ariadne’s real fame comes from the slaying of the Minotaur.  Without her Theseus would likely not have dared to venture into the labyrinth.  Even if he did manage to find the monster, and kill it, he was unlikely to find his way out again.

That monster may still be devouring human sacrifices had she not secreted the red thread – Ariadne’s Thread – which Theseus unwound to find his way back out of the labyrinth.

Theseus and the Minotaur, Athenian black-figure kylix 6th century BCE. Toledo Museum of Art

Today, one meaning of “Ariadne’s Thread” refers to solving a problem which has multiple apparent ways to proceed – such as a physical maze, a logic puzzle, or an ethical dilemma – through an exhaustive application of logic to all available routes.

If the European Union is a logical solution to preventing another war on that continent, then, maybe, the union, or Federation, of Ecological Organizations (“F”) is a logical solution to preventing irreversible degradation of the biosphere – linked by Ariadne’s Thread and our basic axiom;

There Exists Exactly One Biosphere.


[1]  It is a total shame that the UK decided to leave that union.  And why, once again, are political parties that promise a retreat to the horrible past of nationalism, racism and so many other forms of discrimination, gaining support? See also my previous post on “Europe – what if?”.

[2] Why 12 stars?  12 is just a nice number – divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and itself.  The EU currently has 27 member states.

NJ – EV registration charge – WT…?

NJ – what are you trying to do? Discourage people from buying EVs? I guess if you can afford an EV (not me BTW) then a measly $1060 (the first 4 years are payable up front) on top of the regular registration fee is nothing. But is this really the message you want to send?

CHARGEVC.org comments: “…the whole EV incentive programs [are] a “hot mess … while there are also federal tax incentives for some vehicles that can save buyers up to $7,500, that program doesn’t cover all the EVs on the market….The state program is on-again, off-again. The federal program applies to less than half of the electric vehicles in the marketplace. So consumers are terribly confused and uncertain about it.”

Just another reason for Environmental Organizations to unite and present a clear picture of what is happening – and influence the drafting of these budgets and rules.

It would be understandable if this extra revenue were to go toward building the charging infrastructure needed for the transition to EVs. But no, this money will go to standard repair and maintenance. And who causes the most wear and tear? Hint: Not EVs!

I see that a number of other US states charge similar fees. But that’s not good news. Why copy bad policy?

The “on-again, off-again” comment also wakes some not so pleasant memories. Changes in the NJ residential energy retrofit programs caused some companies in that field to either go out of business or drastically scale back their operations – and stopped many others from ever participating.

An Appeal and Challenge

The proposal that follows – for a Federation of Environmental Organizations – has been raised here several times. The pdf below is the latest iteration. Another copy is at 1biosphere.org – the version on that site will be edited as needed. The .org site as a whole will become active when others become interested and we make some actual progress.

Click on the pdf below to allow navigation within the pages.  It is easier to read if downloaded. Download button is located on the pdf toolbar, left.  On phones or tablets you may need to click the “1biosphere A5 August 2024” link to make it visible.

Please send comments or questions to 1biosphere.org@gmail.com