Climate change

CAW (Combined Arms Warfare) and climate drought

admin

Author: Manu Steens

In this article I write my own opinion, not that of any organization.

We write February 20, 2023. A Flemish newspaper writes “Drought plunges Argentina into a perfect storm – Argentina is groaning under the most severe drought in sixty years. The whole world will feel that”.

On the internet, journalists explain that neither Ukraine nor Russia are making progress in terms of gaining ground, and that the West’s arms supplies to Ukraine matter less than how those weapons are used. CAW – Combined Arms Warfare – is the new magic word. (More information about CAW can be found at Combined arms – Wikipedia)

One question is, does it make sense to post this wisdom about CAW and Ukraine on the net? With the collection of his flying equipment, it seems that Russia could also be planning something similar. Furthermore, there is a chance that Russia wants more than that: will it apply hybrid warfare in total warfare? What if it attacks Ukraine’s economy by destroying grain production in the fields? The other countries in the world will have to step in with the food supply. What could such a future look like?

There are the following uncertainties here that I plot against each other:

  • Russia is actively or trying to eliminate Ukraine’s grain production or not;
  • other countries (not just the West) may or may not be able to provide sufficient assistance in terms of grain production.

This gives us the following possible futures:

1: The show goes on – Assisting succeeds and the grain of Ukraine is not destroyed by Russia. Ukraine can export its grain and generate income. The disappointing harvest in Argentina does cause increases in food prices. This is going to be felt by ordinary citizens in many countries and is going to cause inflation to rise.

2: Feeling hungry – Assisting succeeds and the grain of Ukraine is destroyed by Russia.

In addition to the rising food prices, famine is imminent in Ukraine. More people are seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. Aid organizations are providing more food packages to Ukraine.

3: Also hungry – Assisting is not possible and the grain of Ukraine is not destroyed by Russia. There is a famine that is spreading: countries that depend on foreign grain see their livestock shrink. Meat production in a number of Western countries is coming to a standstill or is shrinking sharply. In the southern hemisphere, too, there is a cry for help with regard to livestock. A number of grain exporting countries impose export restrictions. Part of the global food supply chain comes to a halt.

4: Human disaster – Assisting is not possible and the grain of Ukraine is destroyed by Russia. The global supply chain of cereals and meat products is partly at a standstill, but the production and export of beer and alcohol production is also experiencing serious problems. Not only Ukraine is experiencing a famine, parts of Africa were also dependent on the grain from Ukraine. Inflation is skyrocketing, reaching more than 10% year-on-year again. Certain foods are taken out of the basket that defines inflation, in order to try to moderate wages and not derail the economy. The number of suicides among ranchers is increasing.

Conclusion: regardless of whether the war in Ukraine increases in intensity, food prices come under attack, and world hunger is not getting any better. Sectors that depend on grain production are also coming under attack. Ostensibly, this is independent of the war, but given that Ukraine is a breadbasket for the world, one disaster here may fuel the other. So a conclusion may be that it is a bad time to go to war. But it always is.

Are seaweed farms on oceans realistic as a solution for the climate ?

admin

Author: Manu Steens

In the previous article I wrote down a wild idea about growing seaweed in oceans as a solution for the climate.

The actual origin of the idea was that I had seen seaweed in a shop in Antwerp in their range and the fact that I had read Bill Gates’ book, where I had my reservations about his idea of ​​​​capturing CO2 with technical solutions from the atmosphere. A basic chemistry course did the rest. But also the question whether Business Continuity Management could save the world from climate change. The idea came quickly that it will only be realized if there can be made a lot of money. And for that, industries have to be created. Possibly with creative destruction.

Today, however, I read some articles about seaweed, and oh wonder, the world has not stood still. It appears that a lot is already being done with seaweed. Time has not stood still in Belgium either. Techniques already exist, there is already a lot of knowledge and experience with cultivating seaweed, albeit on a small scale compared to what I deem necessary. But it gives courage. My first idea is certainly not contradicted. My idea is however somewhat different: let’s do that on the oceans, in ethically responsible places of course. Still the wild dream.

Suppose someone wants to draw up a project about it, what does he or she need to know, and where can they obtain information? For example, there is now talk of exploiting large seaweed breeding basins on land.

Things that need to be known are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to and from the world, which consists of each of us, but also of the environment.

Let’s focus on a SWOT here.

What are some opportunities?

  • A more than exponential increase and leap in food production, which will be necessary to continue feeding the many billions of people. Alleviate hunger in the world. In some countries in the world there are populations that (can) eat little or no meat. I am thinking of Buddhists in India, but also in Asian countries, where rice is currently often a main part of the diet, which makes the diet quite one-sided for large parts of the population. The benefits of this additional food source is an argument for its widespread adoption.
  • In addition to vegetable food, it is also possible to combine with the cultivation of shellfish.
  • Animal nutrition and fish nutrition, so that meat production does not have to be compromised, but also can increase the fish stock in the oceans.
  • Overproduction is virtually impossible, and even welcome, if handled properly.
  • A climate neutral way of producing fuel, which is already being worked on in the fuel sector. This provides an opportunity for creative destruction. A lot of money can be made in this sector, and that is an argument for developing this technology on a large scale.
  • The incredible mass of phosphates and other fertilizers that run off annually to the seas, is captured in the seaweed, so that using fertilizer might not be necessary. Which is also good for the fish stock. This also provides an opportunity for creative destruction.
  • Depending on the characteristics of the seaweeds used, fertilizers can be produced for the agricultural sector on land, because a cycle is created of the lost phosphates and other fertilizers that become available cyclically.
  • Scientific challenges and fun developing
    • logistics on oceans and on land
    • seaweed farms on a large scale as a kind of floating islands as well as
    • seaweed processing techniques that must be done immediately after harvesting. Seaweed does not store very well. This is accompanied by developments in machine construction in combination with shipbuilding
  • Political reinforcement of the countries of the OECD, but also politically unstable countries can benefit from this, such as some African countries, where the seas have been fished empty, and the water is otherwise only used for piracy.
  • Countries that invest early in these applications will quickly benefit financially.
  • Since the climate approach has to be done very quickly, these floating seaweed companies and all sectors around them must do everything they can to develop these technologies. This provides work in various sectors in addition to scientific research: job creation with regard to
    • Operating the farms
    • Logistics at sea and on land
    • The Shipment: passing food factories that produce food need hand on board
    • The trade of finished and partly finished products
    • Justice in international disputes
    • Creating legislation on exploiting the seas
    • Technology and specialized labor for shipbuilding, machine building, but also for building floating farms that must be storm-resistant.
  • As a bonus, we also get a more oxygen-rich atmosphere: trapping and binding the incredible amount of CO2 in the seas, allowing the seas to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and even be able to deliver a fraction of 02. (This is the reverse of what is happening now.) The climate advantage thanks to this extra O2 source is an argument for applying it on a large scale.
  • As a second bonus, by growing on a large scale, the price of the finished products will be very low, while a large turnover can guarantee very large profits.

So far a number of opportunities that I can think of.

What are possible threats?

  • Seas and oceans are a hostile, an often unknown environment. There are gigantic storms. This complicates working in the logistics chain, the development and exploitation and the inhabitation of seaweed farms. Because in order to withstand the storms, the sea farms must be flexible to give in to the swells, but must contain rigid parts for “cabins”. For the benefit of the crew, stability of the sea farms is also necessary, so that the crew does not become deathly ill. Or to be able to drop them off and pick them up.
  • Hurricane areas will have to be actively avoided. 
  • Such islands may need to be able to dive like a submarine.
  • The safe, shallow, known coastlines may be suggested first to deploy these types of farms. However, that will be too small.
  • In my gut feeling, so many farms will be needed on the oceans that they could hinder international shipping, but also pleasure shipping with private yachts.
  • Shipping must be able to recognize and avoid the sea farms in time.
  • The sea farms must be known to all players, where they are located, who the owners are and who is present on them and when. This is partly to prevent or settle legal or political disputes.
  • Possible implicit political and military interests of the owners countries of this food production in relation to each other if “great powers” ​​arise in this production.
  • Vulnerable places in the oceans with great biodiversity must be respected.

Some possible strengths of “our” world.

  • There is already experience on a smaller scale with the cultivation of seaweed.
  • Seaweed grows very quickly.
  • The polytechnic engineers, mechanical engineers, shipping engineers and others can bring their knowledge together to develop a design of a prototype of a sea farm. Dr Brian von Hertzen of “the Climate Foundation” has already elaborated ideas on this. Some required specifications of such a sea farm are:
    • It must be virtually unsinkable but may need to be able to dive to avoid severe weather e.g..
    • Have a flexible enough structure
    • To be able to have a smooth crew embark and desembark
  • There is already some knowledge and practice on how to use seaweed
    • in the energy sector (this is a potential source of creative destruction) (biodiesel and combustible gases)
    • in the food sector
  • There is more awareness about the climate, and the urgency is slowly but surely better sensed.
  • Votes are raised for various reasons to start exploiting seaweed on a massive scale.
  • My experience is that if people want to realize something, they usually succeed.
  • Politics can very strongly “nudge” the private sectors through tax and other benefits for investors to make investors invest. This can be done both in terms of investments and returns.
  • Provided the right investments are made, parallel work can be done on knowledge and skills to cultivate seaweed under different circumstances: along the coastlines, on the wide oceans…
  • The OECD can play a prominent role because of its international role.
  • Political stability in the world could improve, because there could be less dependence on fossil fuels.
  • The lack of internationally agreed rules for setting up seaweed farms in international waters is more of a convenience than an inconvenience for entrepreneurs.

Some possible weaknesses of “our” world.

  • It takes a mind shift to use seaweed as a vegetable on a large scale. This takes time, which is scarce, so other derivative products must be created “en masse”.
  • The weather predictions at sea should perhaps be better known.
  • Potential political unwillingness to cooperate at an international level.
  • Possible disinterest of the economic world to invest in the development of the necessary techniques or not convinced about the possibilities.
  • The necessary sum of venture capital will be huge.
  • Too many politicians who do not yet believe in the climate problem, have too little will and priority for it and too much influence.
  • Science is not convincingly clear about the state of the climate and its causes: there is too much internal disagreement.
  • There is too little cooperation between the knowledge domains (technical, economic, political) for such a project and to succeed in the short term.
  • There are no international rules and laws in order to be able to operate these types of seaweed farms or sea farms without political entanglements. For example, what if a farm drifts into the territorial waters of a politically unstable country.
  • The techniques to be developed only partially exist. It takes time to develop these things at a normal pace. And time is running out. To make it go faster, politicians and the global economy must take the matter seriously, and be prepared to pump money into it at a fast pace, and with priority. Politicians can give a financial or other push to the potential investors.
  • Politically or monetarily unstable countries will be able to profit minimally from these achievements, unless international politics is used to provide insight into the benefits of participating politically in this.
  • Decomposition of dead seaweed can consume oxygen. Therefore, regular harvesting and processing is also necessary.

The answer is not yet given, whether seaweed farms on oceans are realistic.

To do this, the strengths and weaknesses should be linked to the opportunities and threats in a confrontation matrix that thereby defines projects and activities for each factor of a SWOT, for which this list above can be a first approach. This already shows that technical problems are not the only ones.

To this end, for an answer to the question of realism of development and a vision of cooperation over the feasibility of such an idea, there should be several fields of science and industrial sectors and the political world involved. A first idea for this is an organizational network of several communities of practice at each node of the network. They can then organize activities, partnerships, etc. to define feasible projects for issues in that confrontation matrix, once it has been established. If successful, it can be demonstrated whether the idea is feasible. After that, the super project has to start, on all fronts at once to save time and with a major advertising campaign for entrepreneurs . But those are all different ideas.

The interested reader can find more information here:

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/05/19/gekweekt-zeewier-uit-onze-noordzee-Gezond-maar-duurt-nog-jare/?fbclid=IwAR3mL0ocvK6HreUOrXv_BM_Zx19osnzU1FB1K6PB1Dx2n02

https://www.zeewierwijzer.nl/zeewier/zeewier-marine-macro-alg/teelt/?fbclid=IwAR28MHy9j2YVQigTZ73266kd03UmOe8Zf9qqb_mV4WJlP2jif81zcB2ngV4

https://theconversation.com/how-farming-giant-seaweed-can-feed-fish-and-fix-the-climate-81761?fbclid=IwAR39NqJf61oj4G3ibPPPOyTl-OYP82SGTczFJxHhwCWGNlG3jF-8XOV4G3k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed_farming?fbclid=IwAR3mL0ocvK6HreUOrXv_BM_Zx19osnzU1FB1K6B1Dx2n02PBb6DMh7I7w30

The IPCC : Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate  

https://www.euronews.com/green/2020/06/09/seaweed-farming-an-economic-and-sustainable-opportunity-for-europe?fbclid=IwAR1C_ZUhZEc46cq6D7QUGllX_o5FFrlu5xBTBmYEtxC6lN82yHpIGMklFV

How to avoid a climate disaster

admin

Author: Bill Gates

“The solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need”. That is the subtitle of the book about which a lot of advertising was made on all kinds of media. And the author quotes in his work a number of interesting comments. What touched with me initially is that we need to think more quantified: yes, planting trees is good, but is that enough? And why?

That is the great added value for society: it creates awareness in numbers (numbers of billions of tons of CO2 equivalents per year) of the problem. All these numbers are so big for me that I can hardly imagine them.

The major classes of problems the author cites and discusses are:

  • Power generation         
  • Making stuff
  • Food Production
  • Mobility
  • Heating and cooling off

Towards the end, he cites a number of technological and non-technological recommendations.

  1. Multiply investments in research and development in the field of clean energy and climate by five over the next ten years.
  2. Focus more on high-risk, high-reward research and development projects.
  3. Link research and development to what we need most.
  4. Involve business from the start.
  5. Harness the power of tenders.
  6. Create incentives that lower the costs and reduce risk.
  7. Build the infrastructure that allows new technologies to enter the market.
  8. Change the rules so that new technologies can compete.
  9. Link CO2 to a price.
  10. Create clean electricity standards.
  11. Create clean fuel standards.
  12. Create standards for clean products.
  13. Get rid of what is old.

I regard his “plan” as a source of inspiration, which governments all over the world must (quickly) consider and follow up if we want to stand a chance.

Besides this, as an exercise in scenario planning, I see the following uncertainties with an important impact on a global level:

  1. Are all countries going to fight this challenge in closed ranks, or are governments going to act in scattered order?
  2. Will the technology be able to innovate quickly enough and will the solutions be accepted by society? These seem to be two criteria, but there is really only one: will the technology be successful soon enough or not?

If we put these things against each other, I come to the following possible four futures , provided that the governments comply :

What do these possible futures look like?

Some freewheeling in the scenarios gives the following: (Numbers are indicative.)

Scenario 1: Nature survives : the current generations understand the importance of fighting global warming together. Science provides alternative energy sources that are CO2 neutral. Politics provides measures that can compete with conventional energy sources like fossil fuels. Politicians speak intensively with science. Youth is encouraged to continue on these paths. More global cooperation in the fields of energy, medicine and food supply is being made, through targeted scientific research. Humanity is developing a broader framework for mutual cultural understanding across borders. The loss of biodiversity is more limited than the other scenarios. (E.g. ‘only’ 5%) Forestry is being done. Birth control is imposed worldwide.

Scenario 2: Started too late : The steps taken by politics and science are analogous to those of Scenario 1, but the technical solutions come too late. Global warming is spinning out of control and there is a major destruction of biodiversity by 80%. Global population shrinks by 80% due to the further spread of tropical diseases, food shortages and drought. Migration is to be expected. War for the last resources is very likely during the evolution of this scenario. A major economic crisis follows in which the stock markets collapse. The world market collapsed. People try to get by with local initiatives.

Scenario 3: It could have worked : Science is coming up with technical and non-technical solutions fast enough, but politicians and business don’t think it’s necessary to work together in concerted efforts. Measures to use the climate-friendly solutions and make them competitive differ too much from country to country and give multinationals loopholes to work elsewhere than in their home country with solutions that are cheaper and climate-unfriendly, all to satisfy stakeholders. In some countries protests break out against these differences in measures. The approach to climate change is inconsistent and inefficient. This gives rise to a huge rise of global warming of more than 4°C by 2060 as it can in scenario 2. Famine threatens through poor political coordination and drought. As a result, here too is a large decline in biodiversity of 80% .

Scenario 4: The doomsday scenario : We don’t have to say many words about that. The idea that things are better elsewhere will cause large groups of people to make desperate attempts to migrate away from the arid places on Earth. The drought will greatly reduce biodiversity (more than 80%). Due to the need for energy and food, there is a threat of global hybrid conflicts. These conflicts lead to a decimation of humanity. The global economy enters into an unsustainable crisis along the way and economy is reduced to 5% of current activity.

Conclusion :

What this breakdown shows to possible future scenarios is that the measures proposed by the author make sense, but only if two conditions are met:

  • Politicians will to work together across borders and cultures to give climate solutions a competitive advantage when they present themselves, by all countries simultaneously.
  • There is an effort made by companies, universities, governments and citizens alike to generate ideas and work on potential solutions together, again and again, even when an initial design does not seem to work.

The author offers a range of ideas for this. Governments can offer the platform on which these problems are tackled. However, it does not have to be strictly these scenarios that guide such work. But they do give a clear picture of what might be coming our way.