Yesterday Wednesday I was invited to participate in the “Nobel Laureate Choral Concert” in Eric Ericsson hall, Skeppsholmen. The Event was part of the ”Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability” that has been held in Stockholm over a period of three days. Today the participating Nobel prizewinners signed a document called ”The Stockholm Memorandum – tipping the Scales towards Sustainability”. I have now downloaded the document, read it and admired all the fine words written therein. (The Stockholm Memorandum)
Let’s begin with the term “Sustainability”. If you search for a definition you may find that given in the Brundtland Commission report of 1987:
”Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Fine words but what do we see in reality?
For me, the central requirement in our lives is energy. From that perspective we can see how certain nations develop in a positive manner because they have the opportunity to use energy while other nations lack development because they do not have access to energy. Provision of energy for a growing world population should be the central issue in every document that attempts to address the future.
In section 2, ”Managing the climate – energy challenge”, one might have expected a discussion of global energy issues but, instead, the document encourages governments to reduce emissions in a just manner while saying, At the same time, the energy needs of the three billion people who lack access to reliable sources of energy need to be fulfilled”. How this is going to happen should be the central issue.
Once again we have a document that does not address the greatest global issue that we face, “that all too many people have all too little energy to share”. Once again it is environmental issues that are prioritised,
”In an interconnected and constrained world, in which we have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, environmental sustainability is a precondition for poverty eradication, economic development, and social justice.”
We will never achieve these goals if we do not discuss our future from an energy perspective. Food is energy and energy is required to produce food. Then we need shelters that have access to energy, an economy that provides us with money to buy food and pay for those shelters and energy to power that economy. Of course, that energy we need should be sourced in a manner compatible with providing a future for our children and grandchildren.
It is said that Santa Claus lives in the Finnish city of Rovaniemi. The Stockholm Memorandum document was presented to Finland’s president but one can ask whether it could just as well have been handed over to Santa Claus because such a document cannot have any significance for our future if it does not discuss that future from an energy perspective.
(Swedish)
I går kväll var jag inbjuden att vara med på “Nobel Laureate Choral Concert” i Eric Ericssonhallen, Skeppsholmen. Eventet var en del av ”Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability” som har ägt rum i Stockholm under tre dagar. Idag har de Nobelpristagare som varit med skrivit under ett dokument som kallas för ”The Stockholm Memorandum – tipping the Scales towards Sustainability”. Jag har nu laddat ner dokumentet, läst det och begrundat alla de fina ord som radas upp i dokumentet. (The Stockholm Memorandum)
Låt oss börja med själva begreppet ”Sustainability”. Om man söker efter en definition hamnar man på den definition som fanns i Brundtland Kommissionen rapport från 1987:
”Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
Fina ord, men hur ser verkligheten ut.
För mig är det centrala i tillvaron behov av energi och utifrån möjligheten att använda energi kan vi se hur vissa länder utvecklas positivt medan andra saknar utveckling för att man inte har tillgång till energi. Att diskutera energiförsörjningen för en växande världsbefolkning borde vara det centrala i varje dokument som försöker se in i framtiden.
I avsnitt 2 ”Managing the climate – energy challenge” kunde man förväntat sig att man diskuterade de globala energiproblemen, men vad man gör är att uppmana regeringar att reducera utsläpp på ett rättvist sätt samtidigt som man säger ” At the same time, the energy needs of the three billion people who lack access to reliable sources of energy need to be fulfilled”. Hur detta skall ske borde vara centralt.
Än en gång har vi ett dokument som inte tar sig an det största globala problem som vi har, ”att allt för många har allt för lite energi att dela på”, än en gång är det miljöfrågan som prioriteras: ”In an interconnected and constrained world, in which we have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, environmental sustainability is a precondition for poverty eradication, economic development, and social justice.” Vi kommer aldrig att uppnå dessa mål om vi inte diskuterar vår framtid utifrån ett energiperspektiv. Mat är energi och det behövs energi för att producera mat, sedan behöver vi bostäder där det finns tillgång till energi, en ekonomi som ger oss pengar för att köpa mat och betala för vår bostad och idag kräver vårt ekonomiska system energi. Självfallet skall den energi som vi behöver tas fram så att vi går mot en framtid som är bra för våra barn och barnbarn.
Dokumentet lämnades över till Finlands president och i finska Rovaniemi hävdar man ju att Tomten bor. Nu var det inte till Tomten som dokumentet skulle överlämnas, men frågan är om det inte blir ett dokument som lika gärna kunde lämnats över till Tomten, det kommer inte att få någon betydelse för verkligheten då man inte diskuterar framtiden utifrån ett energiperspektiv.
abilivism
May 19, 2011
Det är skrämmande att sådana här grupper av Nobelpristagare precis som resten av världseliten fortsätter klämma ur sig dokument som avslöjar en total ignorans eller i alla fall ovilja och oförmåga att diskutera våra verkliga ödesfrågor. Människan ter sig verkligen som ett korkat djur.
Rolf Åkerberg
May 19, 2011
Jag tror att planetens (biosfärens) förmåga att överleva måste vara ett högre mål än att 7 miljarder människor med deras ökande och omättliga behov måste tillfredställas. Biosfären är omvandlad solenergi och lever av den och det överskott som möjliggör våra liv kunde uthålligt klara de få miljoner vi var för millennium sedan, men medför med dagens befolkningsnivå att vi förstör våra (och alla andra varel-
sers) egna livsbetingelser.
Att använda energi inom ett slutet system medför ju entro-
piökning eller, på vanlig svenska miljöförstöring, och det
enda som kan motverka denna är utifrån tillförd energi, i
detta fall solenergi och det som byggs upp via den. Hela vår
civilisation innebär en resursförbrukning från det livsuppe-
hållande systemet (biosfären) som vida överstiger uppbygg-
nadstakten. Såna här förhållanden borde vara kända i alla fall bland fysiker.
Ed Pell
May 19, 2011
They are politicians not engineers or scientists. They like to issue feel good statements that make themselves look good. I do not expect to hear ideas about our energy future from the band Abba nor do I expect it from politicians.
When the engineers and scientists come up with answers to future energy needs the politicians will be quick to tell us all that they invented it (like Al Gore invented the internet LMAO).
Ed Pell
May 19, 2011
I enjoyed the line “However, population growth also needs attention.” The idea that if we just had more X or Y or Z we would end hunger and poverty seems unlikely to me. It just means we would have more people and we would still have hunger and poverty.
We need to start thinking in terms of what percent of the population will be hunger and poor. And how will proposed change X influence the percentage. If we empower group A and they reproduce less while group B is reproducing at a fertility of seven then all we have done it make sure the future will be populated mostly by the descendants of B. Like bringing high reproduction rate groups into Sweden you will have a future Sweden most populated by the descendants of the high reproduction rate groups. This is simply evolution in action.
NikFromNYC
May 22, 2011
Old Headline: The Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability
Only 11 of the 17 are physics/chemistry prizes. Three are medicine, one literature, and two economics. Of the hard scientists, we have work on ion channels, decomposition of ozone (two of them), elementary particles, theory of the strong interaction, magnetoresistance, computational quantum chemistry, fullerenes, superfluidity, W and Z particles. Lots of very highly specialized eggheads, which these days is what leads to hard science awards. So they have rounded up 10 of the 137 living chemistry/physics Nobel Prize winners.
New Headline: 93% of Hard Science Nobelists Decline To Sign Alarmist Manifesto
-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
P.S. Here I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming:
Denial: http://oi52.tinypic.com/35d2nie.jpg
Oceans: http://oi53.tinypic.com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg
Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/16ifevq.jpg
Prophecy: http://oi54.tinypic.com/2hq5tae.jpg
Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/i56fsg.jpg
Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
Ed Pell
May 23, 2011
Thank you. Columbia physics M.A. 1980
Ed Pell
May 23, 2011
Data the inconvenient truth.
Or
Data the difference between science and religion/politics.
Ed Pell
May 24, 2011
I am enjoying the met data for central England. I see a raise of 0.0023 degrees per year or 2.3 degree per millennia. I see no structure or trend once this is removed.
(sarcasm on) Yes life must have been hell from 1690 to 1735 when central England suffered a 3 degree rise in temperature (sarcasm off)
There is an interesting drop in temperature from 2007 to 2010. (sarcasm on) If we all paint our roofs black we can counteract this disaster. (sarcasm off)
I highly recommend the book “State of Fear”.
Avneet Thapar
May 22, 2011
Did all the lauraetes sign up? I heard only 17 did. Is it any significance that the rest (33) didnt sign? Were they opposed to the memorandum?
For the record, i believe the Stockholm Memorandum is fascist.
Göran Benedicks
May 24, 2011
I also believe in the necessity to focus on the future energy issue! Bravo!
Patrick
May 25, 2011
Today on the radio in New Zealand – apparently the IEA were the first organisation to talk about Peak Oil 😉
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon
I think you should try to get a space to give a reply!
Someone
June 19, 2011
In state-of-the-art life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), which arguably has sustainability or sustainable development as goals, resource depletion is indeed one of three environmental damages which are counted, the two others being human health and ecosystems, which of course should not be forgotten either.
One major problem in quantifying damage from resource depletion is the impact of technology shift. How expensive will a 100% global shift to solar power be? In order to understand the costs of resource depletion, that question actually has to be answered. There is also the big problem that the damage categories human health, resources and ecosystems are not independent of each other but intertwined, and it is tough to tell to which degree.
As for oil, there is always a possibility of shifting the technology to coal, although that would wreak havoc on the environment and in extention of this, us. This is, however, the likely outcome of a gradual peak oil where the government or business leaders do not interfere in a strategic manner.
As far as I can tell, the economy is a subset of nature, not the other way around.