Sustainability shift

There is not much room left for expansion within the unlimited resources economic framework.  The roots of capitalism have run up against the limited nature of fossil fuel reserves, and therefore a foundational shift will have to take place to provide a mechanism for long-term economic stability.

Looking out over 100 years, that transition to sustainable production has begun and is in its infancy despite the current lack of congressional support.  Banks, power companies, and federal agencies have already started figuring the cost of carbon and water into their future plans for growth, a much more powerful vehicle for change that outlasts political term limits.  But, is the shift happening fast enough?

The decade-long investment planning that is necessary for energy and agricultural shifts would transition more quickly if Congress were to legislate energy reform, but even without immediate carbon legislation the inevitability of comprehensive energy reform has pushed the banks to begin restricted financing to high risk investments like coal power plants and to begin favoring natural gas, solar, and wind.

Without direct leadership from the government, the economic shift toward sustainability simply happens more slowly.  The environmental costs will still continue to build despite the lack of direct economic considerations of them.  With water shortages predicted across vast geographical swaths and agricultural output shifts due to climate changes, both converging in the next decade or two, not to mention continued forecasted volatility in the oil and energy markets in general, rising healthcare and insurance costs, mass migrations, food shortages, the question should be asked whether a global response needs to happen more quickly than the markets can usher one in.

The shift toward sustainability is happening, though it is often obscured by the headlines.  While some coal-fired power plants have been built recently, many more coal plant proposals have been rejected by the banks for having too many risks associated with them.  This is important because it shows a foundational shift.

Utilities planning for a decade-long rolling switchover to gas from coal fired plants would like more clarity on emissions from Congress to set the bar on how far they are going to have to go, but for now, they will make due without direct leadership. 

Since gas emits half the carbon emissions of coal when burned, figuring regulations of some sort, it is a smart bet for utilities; power companies that end up closing down coal-fired plants and building natural gas power plants are taking the conservative route; meaning that the markets have factored in regulations.

The more progressive utilities in states with renewable energy portfolios of 30% or higher have taken on a different set of risks associated with trying a new technology.  In California, utilities are trying to meet increased demand by replacing more coal-fired power plants with solar, whereas utilities in Colorado are adding more wind. 

Building natural gas fired power plants does not come without its own set of risks.  Natural gas most probably will just get us farther down the line, dependent on a different limited resource with only half the emissions.  Do we need to be acting faster than that?  Is there more that has to be done more quickly than simply transitioning to another limited fossil fuel in the next two decades?  Aren’t our sustainability problems much more pressing, much bigger than that?  Hasn’t the global economy run up against the concept of limited resources?

Chasing after the elusive unlimited growth ghost as it ducks, bobs, and weaves its way through the decades results in environmental factors that ultimately limit growth.  After technology for unconventional natural gas extraction is developed and exported globally, gas and the rest of those finite resources like oil, coal, water, food will all reach the peak of their supply curves sometime in the next few decades as their unlimited growth models run up against their respective limited realities.  What happens if the water reservoirs in the American southwest continue to dry up?  At some point does the value of water become greater than the value of oil? Can we grow agriculture without oil? ...without water?  What if both peak concurrently?

Global economies are shifting toward the reality today that all resources are limited and should be factored equally into costs of operation.  The value of the extracted natural gas is seriously diminished if it compromises the water supply in the area; so goes for oil sands development.  We’ve pushed up against our limits with water and oil; one sustains our environment and the other sustains our society, so they both have extreme value.  The lower aquifers get in certain regions of the world, the more expensive food will become; the higher the price of oil, the more expensive food will become.  In a world of limited resources, the more expensive everything becomes.

The shift at the base of the economy whereby the banks factor in the value of different ecosystem services when approving large, long-term loans is a good thing; but figuring out how industries are to be held economically accountable for the costs of long-term damage to the atmosphere, freshwater rivers and streams, and the oceans is an issue the banks are not qualified to answer.  At what point does the government’s role become apparent as a protector of common goods?  When common goods like air, water, and food are at stake, legislated authority is the only boundary that markets have.  Climate change, freshwater depletion and contamination, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss all have a cost associated with them that is not currently being figured into economic value under the unlimited growth model.  At some point under that model, the environment as foundation of all economic activity, apparently begins to collapse. 

The slow grind as new input data is entered into the system has started happening.  

Slow or fast, the shift to sustainability will happen simply because it is a better idea.

Read more stories like this @ EarthPulseDaily or Examiner.com

RELATED ARTICLES:
How much is left? The limits of Earth’s resources; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
The U.S. power sector is changing, even without a climate bill; CLIMATEBIZ
Turning away from coal; WSJ
Fracking chemicals will be disclosed; SOLVECLIMATE
Scientists find thick layer of oil on seafloor; NPR
Coal ash contaminates groundwater and drinking water sites in 21 states; CIRCLE OF BLUE
Unconventional gas resources changing more than markets; OIL & GAS JOURNAL
The irrigation juggernaut; NYT
Report examines water risk associated with global warming; WATERWORLD