Adapt or Die

Global Warming is not all about temperature. Temperature is between cause and effect – neither cause, nor effect. I’m not going to argue about cow flatulence, transportation, or particulates. Let’s get beyond that to find the fundamentals.

The underlying causes are two: population and energy. Inseparable. Like thumb and forefinger.

The effects are a global readjustment in where and how we live and work, in how many we are, and in how we source the energy we need. We cannot sustain our current populations and current lifestyle in our current locations with our current means.

Migrate, adapt or die.

I know that the focus, the talk, the plans, and the demands are all about lifestyle changes and energy source adjustments. In my opinion, that may affect the rate of change but not the outcome. Cut energy demand in half by changing lifestyle and then double the population. That was helpful.

I am not advocating a wholesale population reduction. Nature will do that.

Move San Francisco to Victoria, Denver to Regina, Atlanta to Toronto, Paris to Oslo, Rome to Berlin, Moscow to Murmansk, Shanghai to Magadan, Belem to Buenos Aires, Mogadishu to Cape Town, and Manila to Melbourne. Expand the Sahara north and south, east and west. Remove the Amazon rainforest. Melt the glaciers. Flood the coastlines. Move all species towards the poles.

We cannot save those species that cannot adapt or migrate.

On a day-to-day basis, our life and lifestyle is sustained by energy and always will be. I do see an increasing global need to increase our electrical generation capacity now – if not to increase capacity then at least to replace fossil sources.

By what means? In order, I support: hydro-electric, wind, solar, nuclear, and fossil. All have pros and cons. Why this order? First, using these statements: Hydro, wind, and solar are renewable sources. Wind generation is more efficient than solar. Nuclear is more efficient than fossil power. Hydro-electric is less variable than wind and more efficient. Hydro, nuclear, and fossil are more responsive to variable demand.

Second, by applying these additional factors: The life-cycle cost; the parasitic load including the cost of transmission; the cost of insuring against disaster; and the external costs – health, environment, and decommissioning.

Canada – as of 2016 – generates 65% of its total electrical generation from renewable sources. Brazil 80%, Norway 97%, Iceland 100%. Brazil generates slightly less from renewable sources in total than does Canada. Norway generates less than 25% of what Canada generates in total, and Iceland is unique among all nations. For countries that generate in excess of 600,000 GWh annually, Canada generates two-thirds from renewable sources – overwhelmingly hydro – and Germany is second at 29% – using wind, biomass, solar, and hydro in that order. Brazil is doing very well but, at the high end, Canada is in first place.

Let’s keep going.

I support Site-C.

I would rather turn Mount Kobau and environs into a wind and solar farm than a National Park. I would much rather support the survivors than try to save the doomed.

by Stuart Syme