Will Greening Ourselves Result in Extinction?

Adventures in Sustainable Living Podcast

Episode 116

Will Greening Ourselves Result in Extinction?

It always seems as if someone is out to make a profit at our expense. We are repeatedly told we need this product or that one. We are told the more we have the better. The more we buy the better because it is the source of our happiness. 

Over the last two years our society and indeed the entire world has seen unprecedented changes. Many things have undoubtedly been forced on us without our choice. 

And just when it seems things are turning around for the better and there is a small glimmer of hope that people are paying attention to sustainable development, someone is still trying to make a profit. 

If you want all the sickening details, then stayed tuned for E116 Will Greening Ourselves Result in Extinction? 

Welcome back everyone to the Adventures in Sustainable Living Podcast. This is your host Patrick and this is E116 which is called Will Greening Ourselves Result in Our Extinction. 

In my last episode Consumer Beware, I discussed numerous things that we are never told about the products that we commonly purchase and use almost everyday. Following that episode, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss how some companies are positioning themselves to make a profit even as we try to  save the planet. It is interesting to note that even big business is starting to pay attention to climate change but not in the way we really want. 

Climate change is truly upon us. It is going to require the intervention of big business, big government, and a whole lot of international cooperation in order to solve this global problem. But what you need to know is that even in the face of our ultimate demise, someone wants to make a profit. Instead of doing what really needs to be done, big business and big government are reaching for unproven methods and technologies the solve the problem of global warming. The more appropriate choice is work toward changing the underlying behavior that got us in this position in the first place. 

A few years ago a couple of investment experts even wrote a book for the Wall Street Journal called Investing in the Apocalypse. Maybe it is just the ugly side of human nature but it sure seems as if no matter what, even if the world is literally circling the drain, someone is focused on making a profit. And one such good example is the COVID-19 pandemic. 

First of all it is worth noting that before the pandemic, Big Pharma had been slowly backing out of the vaccine market for several decades. This is because vaccines are not a good profit center. Vaccines are used only once or twice and consequently this market does not have the best profit margin given the investment of time and money required to get these product to market. In essence the vaccine market has a limited shelf life.  The other side of the coin is medications that people need on a daily basis is a profitable market year after year. 

In the midst of the pandemic the US government needed a means of convincing Big Pharma to get back into the vaccine market. Vaccines needed to be researched, developed, and marketed which of course takes huge sums of money. That money was eventually supplied by the government funded COVID-19 relief program called Operation Warp Speed. This program eventually paid out $22 billion. 

But underneath the surface of rushing to save humanity OWS was staffed at every level by Big Pharma executives, who were brought on board as contractors. What this means is that they were not subject to the conflict-of-interest rules that typically governs regular employees. Additionally, due to special exceptions they were able to make privileged investments which netted some of them millions of dollars. It is painfully obvious they profited millions of dollars in the face of the death of millions of people. 

But what you must realize is that someone is always going to make a profit under such circumstances. Pandemics, natural disasters, and wars are often good for business. For example, every time a hurricane devastates some coastal community local construction related contractors and home improvement stores rank in millions of dollars in profits. 

But the difference when it comes to climate change is that we are taking about a worldwide disaster. Even in the face of such catastrophe someone is still focused on making a profit. Over the last few decades, big business and government have wasted a tremendous amount of time denying that climate change even exist. But now that the science is painfully obvious, they have switched tactics. 

With this new tactic the very industries and organizations that are responsible for most of the carbon emissions are able to protect their profit margins while never changing their underlying behavior. By doing so the major polluters can continue polluting.  And their new tactic is pushing false solutions based on unproven methods and technologies in order to divert our attention.  

In an article published in Science magazine in 2016, after an extensive study a man named Richard Heedie published his findings that just 90 companies are responsible for climate change. In another report published by the Carbon Disclosure Project, their conclusion was that out of the hundreds of thousands of companies world wide, just 100 of them are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions. It is also worth noting that ExxonMobile is on that list and decades ago their climate scientist predicted with astonishing accuracy the affect that their product would have on the planet. 

Despite this I would like to point out a nice comfortable   arrangement that ExxonMobile has in Texas. As with other oil giants, they all have watched the price of renewables trend downward toward a record low. In fact it is now less expensive to build and operate a power plant based on renewable energy instead of one powered by fossil fuels. Instead of worrying about it, ExxonMobile took advantage of a great opportunity. 

Fracking, which is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks and boreholes to force open exiting fissures to extract oil and gas, is very electricity intensive. By powering just a small portion of its operations in Texas with electricity supplied by renewables, ExxonMobile could pocket the extra cash. Consequently, they profit by turning renewable energy back into the oil market that it is designed to replace. 

But some of this behavior is actually our own fault. Depending on who you ask, climate change does not exist, or it requires global mobilization, or it is just an engineering problem. Such vague ideas and indecision tend to promote delay and inaction. While tax supported renewable energy takes coal-fired plants off line they also support continue oil extraction. In the midst of this uncertain situation people and businesses are going to do what they’ve alway done. This means they are simply going to search for a means to make a profit and that is exactly what is happening.

The bottom line is that very real, and very dramatic emissions cuts is exactly what is needed. Instead of this what we now see is false solutions based on unproven technology being marketed and some folks are making big profits as a result. According to the latest science, we must keep global average temperature below a 1.5 degrees C increase. In order to accomplish that there needs to be dramatic cuts in emissions that correspond to a countries’ fair share based on their historical responsibility. And these cuts need to happen by the end of this decade. What is happening is that once again we are attempting to use science and technology to solve our problems instead of actually changing our behavior. 

The concepts that are being promoted center around things such as net zero, carbon markets, offsets, and removals. And as you will see, these are based on unproven technology and are about everything else except actually cutting our emissions. The industries actually responsible for most of the emissions are simply hiding behind their “net zero” pledges.

The concept of net zero means that any carbon emissions created are balanced, or canceled if you will, by removing the same amount of carbon out of the atmosphere. An obvious natural solution to this is to allow nature to do the work. Land and marine plants absorb carbon and release oxygen. We can accomplish natural removal of carbon by planting more trees. But there are other means of removal that are technology based. Underneath it all what allows the big polluters to keep on polluting is the creation of carbon markets and carbon credits. 

It is these carbon markets and carbon credits that make these plans of “net zero” possible in the first place. How it works is that the industries that have the highest carbon emissions actually pay for some action which is deemed to balance out their emissions somewhere else. This is known as carbon offsets. These carbon offsets generate carbon credits which are trade on carbon markets. Carbon offsets are generated from projects that theoretically reduce or avoid carbon emissions or remove emissions from the atmosphere. 

The reality is that efforts at carbon offset and carbon removal are often combined. This includes both nature based solutions and technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage. On the surface as you start to understand what these projects entail, it appears to be a reasonable solution. But you find a completely different story once you get beneath the surface. 

First let’s look at nature based solutions.  

Nature Based Solutions

Natural processes are truly a well oiled machine and are still able to accomplish many things that continue to be out of reach of humanity. Consequently, you would think that nature based solutions would be the best way to go. But as you will see, this is problematic as well.  

These natural solutions to carbon removal fall into several categories. 1) Forestry practices such as planting new trees, allowing clear cut areas to regrow, and improving forestry management 2) Wet-land practices which focus on restoring and protecting peatlands and coastal wetland areas. 3) Restorative agriculture such as no till agriculture, cover crop rotation and improved livestock management 4) and ocean based practices which focuses on restoring and marine ecosystems such as sea grass meadows and kelp forests. 

These so-called nature based solutions are promoting large scale projects which supposedly protect and preserve ecosystems as carbon offsets and even closing off forests as above ground carbon stores. These programs promote making payments to people to avoid deforestation and forest degradation. This would make trees more valuable while they are still standing instead of being cut down. At first glance you would think this would provide a rapid and inexpensive way to avoid carbon emissions. But as you will see, such methods are problematic. 

Soil Carbon Farming

Another nature based solution is so called soil carbon farming. It was brought about by the fact that for decades we have been practicing extraction farming which of course depletes the soil of nutrients. Carbon farming is the whole farm approach to optimizing carbon capture by engaging in practices known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored in plant and/or soil organic matter. 

The challenge with this is that many carbon farming platforms are digitally linked to soil information data banks. Giant agribusiness can thus monitor soil carbon changes and dictate how farmers use their land. Consequently, they can use this platform to promote their own products such a patented seeds and pesticides. Consequently this offers yet another opportunity for big business to make a profit.

Technological Fixes

The next category of so called carbon removal offsets are the proposed technological fixes, meaning geo-engineering. What this entails is large-scaled, deliberate manipulation into the Earth’s climate systems. The end point of this is removal of carbon from the atmosphere, storing it under ground or reusing it in some means of production. 

The challenge once again is that these technologies have not been proven. Additionally there are potential risks of long-term storage of CO2 underground. There is the risk of increased pressure which can induce seismic activity. There is also the risk of the gas leaking back into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.  The other possible risk is local ground water contamination. 

Bioenergy

Another concept that is being proposed is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. This is actually the leading proposed path to net negative emissions. What this entails is growing crops as biomass. The plant material is then burned to created energy. The carbon emissions emitted during combustion is captures and stored underground. While this sounds promising too many people, the underlying problem is that producing biomass at the scale sufficient enough to make this work would require about three billion hectares, which is about seven and a half billion acres of land. That is about two times more land than what is presently cultivated on the planet. 

Now there are other geo-engineering techniques that are being proposed by the fossil fuel industry. These include solar radiation management and ocean fertilization. But the one thing that all of these techniques have in common is that they are not proven to work at scale and they are very costly.

Summary

If you have been following me, you will remember in one of my recent episodes how I talked about being able to stand on the deck of the cabin and watch the storms move in across the mountains and close in on the cabin. We often jokingly say, “Here comes the dark cloud of doom.” 

You have undoubtedly heard the saying every cloud has a silver lining. Well, when it comes to climate change, this dark cloud of doom does in fact have a silver lining. It is called profit. 

Make no mistake the common denominator to all of these proposals for solving climate change is that these technologies are unproven, costly, and they simply provide a convenient smoke screen for corporations and governments to continue high levels of carbon emissions.

It also opens to door for mass land grabbing and has already created conflict and increased corporate control of indigenous land and holdings traditionally controlled by forest people and peasant communities. Once again these projects often disregard any considerations for human rights and result in forced evictions and even home demolition of long-standing residents. 

Do you think for one minute that any one of the over 56,000 small farming operations presently in the state of Kansas is going to give up their land for some unproven nature based solution to climate change. Yet that is exactly what happens in developing countries. 

These false solutions provide nothing more than a dangerous distraction from the reality of what needs to done which is cutting emissions. Meanwhile it provides a convenient corporate platform which produces disastrous social and environmental impacts.

Furthermore, I would think it would be an extremely dangerous proposition to delve into manipulating the Earth’s climate with unproven technologies. But, politicians who are unwilling to stand up the those responsible for destroying the plant continue to latch onto to unproven technologies.  

By far the biggest challenge associated with these nature based solutions is the threat to food sovereignty. The shear scale of land needed to meet the rising need for carbon offsets simply leads to more land grabbing from small scale food producers. What most people do not realize is that 70% of the world is fed by small scale farms. What is desperately needed is wide scale  protection of the small farmer and protection and restoration of the ecosystems for their intrinsic value, not as a marketable carbon commodity.

Furthermore, the argument is that these so-called “green” solutions provides jobs and economic security. The reality is that many of these nature based solutions provide informal, low-wage, temporary, high-risk employment.

Just recently a report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set forth the argument that addressing climate change will require a fundamental change in the way we manage farmland and forest. For decades we have been warned that our societal model of production and consumption is at the root of climate change. Consequently, saving our planet will require a fundamental change in our economy and the very way we live. 

Having an economic system focused on capital accumulation only allows corporate profits to prevail over the well being of people and the environment. By doing so we are just maintaining the status quo and rewarding the 100 companies responsible for 71% of carbon emissions. 

Yet most of us continue to languish in our comfort zone because we are convinced that climate change has been tackled. We now have the choice to be “green” or not. We rest comfortably in the knowledge that we will never have to give up anything in order to make the world a better place. We are satisfied that we are doing something about climate change because we now make “green choices.” 

As long as we indulge the fantasy that money and technology is going to save us, true change is impossible. We have to change the underlying behavior that got us into this situation in the first place. We have to realize that corporations have teamed together to turn the apocalypse into a money making opportunity. If we blindly follow them then our greening will result in our extinction. 

The reality is the things that would truly make the difference is developing mass transportation, substantially reducing personal car ownership, ending oil and gas exploration, closing coal mines, building community based renewable energy plants, doing away with industrialized farming, promoting and building local organic farming systems which have been proven to enhance nutrition, improve biodiversity, and quality of life. Making such changes is going to require some courage. But as long as we maintain the status quo, we just continue to favor the apocalypse investors. We are going to have to change the rules. 

The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg once said, “We can’t save the world by playing by the rules because the rules have to be changed.” 

Well folks, that’s about it for this week. I truly hope I have given you something to think about. Individual actions and individual choices is what is going to make the difference. I hope you will join me for the next few episodes because I am going to talk about several really important topics such as whether or not carbon offsets really work, the truth about electric vehicles, and the some of the challenges of greening our economy.  

But for now that’s it for this week. Be sure to join me again next week for another episode in the adventures in sustainable living podcast. 

This is your host Patrick signing off. Always remember to live sustainably because this is how we build a better future. 

Patrick