Workingman wrote:It is noticeable that Food and Water are on the short list for the £10 million prize on offer.
*Flight - How can we fly without damaging the environment?
2% of global emissions and only 12% of the overall transport impact of greenhouse gasses. OK it's in the upper atmosphere, but that does not mean the impact is 20 times greater.
*Food - How can we ensure everyone has nutritious sustainable food?
It would help if we were not putting more than a quarter of a billion extra people on the planet every decade. Also you have to have an agreeable climate to grow food. Something we are destroying.
*Water - How can we ensure everyone has access to safe and clean water?
Already we've seen this with Barcelona having to tanker water from Greece to fill the reservoirs. We are creating a climate where some places have more water than they can possibly store or even deal with and others, predominantly large countries with limited water resources, who are suffering increasing lack of water.
The best answer is to stop putting more water into the atmosphere. Which is a by product of heating the atmosphere.
This prize is a typical reflection of a total lack of understanding of the problems and a lack of will to deal with them. 200 years of CO2 emissions have changed the climate to the state where resources are becoming scarce. Overpopulation in areas of scarce resources is making it worse.
Whilst we undoubtedly have the engineering ingenuity to mitigate some of these impacts we have created, it will only be for those who can afford it. Also it will take energy. Lots of it.
So how does anyone think we are going to transition to a clean energy infrastructure, which allows the climate to support us? The reality for the UK is this.
From the UK Government site, the figures of energy consumption. To level it they have converted the figures into thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent so we can level set it.
gas 46,797 (does not include the gas to generate electricity)
oil 56,656 (does not include the oil to generate electricity)
solid fuel 2,239 (does not include the coal to generate electricity)
electricity 26,845
So:
first of all we can't even transition our current power grid to non fossil fuel.
Second the raw energy requirements of coal, oil and gas are nearly 4 times that of our current electricity generating capacity. OK electric only is more efficient, so lets say 3.5 times.
Third, to stand completely still and not move forward, we would have to increase our power generating capacity to something close to 4 times what we currently produce. (why only 4 times? Lots of power wasted overnight, better power spread use, etc. If we didn't do anything smart it would be 4.5 to 5 times)
Fourth, Large vehicles, planes and ships cannot run on Electricity. We don't have the technology. So we'd have to manufacture the fuel which can take up to 4 times the energy used to simply burn the fossil fuels. Increase grid capacity by at least another 2 times current generation capacity.
Anybody not tackling this problem is lying to themselves and to everyone else. It starts, ends and is all about energy. Energy is our gateway to civilisation. We can dig it up and burn it or we can generate it, but without energy we are back in the days of sail and horses.
Given that burning fossil fuels is going to destroy our liveable habitat, the total focus of our civilisation should be on mitigating that first.
But look at what we are doing. Wind, yet when the most fruitful power source, strong wind, presents itself, we have to shut most of them down. And what do we do with this power? Use it when we can, but let it go if we don't need it at that second. Solar? We generate and feed into the grid during the day, but what about at night? Do we store and excess and feed it back? Where is the research into long term storage of the vast amounts of power that we will generate by renewable means? Power which will be desperately needed when we finally run out of Oil..
How many people are being encouraged to spend their thousands creating power islands which insulate them from the grid and take their entire load off the grid?
None.
Why?
Because then the power companies would suffer and the government would get less tax on the profits....
We can understand that smoking in a car can damage children's lives.
We can understand that running a car in a sealed garage can kill you
Why can't we understand that planet earth is no more than a sealed dome with a finite amount of atmosphere with a very delicate balance?
Stupid is as stupid does. Perhaps the Ants will inherit the earth after all....
Overlaying all this is the "humanitarian" wish to save more lives, feed more people, provide more water for more people. Nothing about sustainable families, nothing about sustainable population for the habitat. No, cities have cured the vast majority of our populations from having to understand that the land must feed the people. Supermarkets don't fill themselves.
100 years ago this prize might have been laudable.
Today it's a sick joke.
