A Nuclear Wild Card
After Brexit ... Humanity Saved by Halophytes?…Calls for Futurists
… Book Review: Fueling Freedom
AAI Foresight has published two
new white papers, excerpted below, for its Foresight Report series.
Readers are welcome to download the reports for free or share links
to the download pages; for permission to reprint the reports, please
contact the respective authors.
After Brexit: A Nuclear Wild Card
By Joergen Oerstroem Moeller
The result of the
Brexit vote depicts a revolt staged by ordinary people left behind,
neglected, and coaxed by the elite unable to deliver on the promise
of economic globalization as a golden age. Now there is a somber
aspect lurking behind the curtain. The Brexit debate has unleashed
political views hitherto taboo. Regressive nationalism, populism,
xenophobia—yes, racism—and violence. Le Front National in France
and similar political forces in other European countries have opened
the door, but the Brexit debate has given it another and more
sinister dimension.
The risk is not
referenda in other European countries, but a revival of political
forces reminiscent of the 1930s—extremism legitimizing oppression
of people who think “otherwise.” If those forces are let loose,
encouraged and boosted by the Brexit debate, Europe faces an
existential crisis already visible over recent years with the
refugees and migrants, but now exploding.
Within the U.K., one
wild card is the nuclear deterrent.
The lifetime of the
existing nuclear deterrent, four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines,
expires around 2028, which in view of planning and procurement puts a
decision on replacement on the agenda in 2016. The force is based in
Scotland.
The official
estimate for replacing the fleet is $44 billion, but unofficial
estimates go as high as $235 billion. The Ministry of Defense has
mentioned 6 percent of the annual defense budget—a somewhat cryptic
message in view of uncertainties about future defense budgets and the
length of investment.
It is one of the few
issues still uniting the Tory party. Almost the first major political
step by new Prime Minister Theresa May was to push this item in an
effort to show that, on a key issue, the party is united and
resonates with the sentiment among many Brexit voters, while at the
same time displaying Labor’s division. This tactic paid off. On
July 19, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to renew the
Trident system. Only one conservative voted against. The opposition
leader, Jeremy Corbyn, against the program, was once again
humiliated, with three-fourths of Labor MPs supporting the
government.
However, tactic is
one thing, strategy another. The economy may throw grit into the
machinery. Falling economic growth may soften the Tory determination
and run counter to Prime Minister May’s apparent move toward the
political center by forcing her to choose between Trident and social
welfare of prime importance to many voters.
 |
| Photo by Kaz Okada |
An unknown factor is
the attitude of Scottish National Party (SNP), which has hitherto
promised to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons. If Scotland votes to
leave the UK and SNP maintains its view, new facilities need to be
constructed in England, adding to the already exorbitant costs. A
Scottish exit from the UK will trigger tumultuous negotiations about
future England-Scotland relations, and the nuclear base will be a
pawn in this game.
The problem for
Britain’s defense forces is not so much the prospect of a European
army drawn into the debate by the “leave” camp—attractive for
some, repellent for others—but that the money is not there.
Meanwhile, after
some hesitation and pondering about what course to take, France and
Germany will in one way or another announce a stronger integration in
key areas such as the single currency (euro) and defense. The door
will be open for other member states to join, but without
derogations, exemptions, and special agreements. Over the years, the
British and the French have tried to step up cooperation, but with
limited success. The two costly weapons systems—nuclear deterrent
and carrier strike groups—look tantalizing for cooperation in the
eyes of everybody but policy makers and top brass. To imagine a
revival of such efforts in the slipstream of Brexit appears fanciful.
Joergen
Oerstroem Moeller is
former State-Secretary, Royal Danish Foreign Ministry (1989-1997). He
is visiting senior fellow, ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore,
and adjunct professor, Singapore Management University &
Copenhagen Business School. He may be reached at
joergen@oerstroemmoeller.com.
Halophyte
Cultivation and Prospects for the Human Future
By Dennis M. Bushnell
Since
the beginning of the Agricultural Age, various civilizations have
exploited and outgrown or polluted their local resources, forcing
them to move on and exploit other territories and resources. A
classic example is the Sumerians, whose agricultural fields became
salinated—a phenomenon being repeated now as the aquifers we are
pumping become increasingly saline. We are repeating the cycle of
overusing or altering the resources we live on, but now we are
overusing or polluting nearly the entire planet’s ecosystem with no
obvious new lands to move to.
However,
there are yet planetary resources that could stave off Malthus for a
while longer. This may be sufficient to enable humans to accelerate
their own evolution at a pace many orders of magnitude faster than
natural evolution.
At
the same time, major social changes can be expected as a result of
the impacts of numerous converging technological developments. We are
well on our way to significantly altering our physiology and then,
perhaps in the farther future, eschewing our physiology completely.
First,
the givens: We inhabit a finite planet with finite resources and
ecosystems. Until recently (and largely still), the human enterprise
was one of broad-scale slash and burn—trash here and then move on
to trash elsewhere. Much of human econometrics is based upon growth,
and we have reached the point where, in terms of population size and
demands upon the ecosystem, we have driven that system into deficit.
As populations continue to grow, so will their demands, as the future
billions strive to improve their standards of living. The shortfall
of resources to meet those accelerating demands may be the equivalent
of three planets, some have estimated. Therefore, the growth mantra
will, at some point, have to switch to a sustainability mantra, with
major impacts on geopolitics and national security as well as
econometrics.
The
other major given is the innate cleverness of the human animal to
subvert or delay Malthus and to invent and deploy technology to
enable the continued growth humans seem to seek.
An
Emerging Solution Space: Halophyte Cultivation
Halophytes
could provide both energy and food for the future. There are some
10,000 natural halophytes—plants that are tolerant to saline
agricultural land. Many will grow reasonably well using direct
seawater (no desalinization needed), even before we introduce
advanced genomics. These plants could produce nearly all that
glycophytes (freshwater plants) now produce.
Among
the immense advantages of switching to halophytes are that
saline-tolerant plant biomass uses what we have a surfeit of (and
what could be our last major play regarding the ecosystem):
wastelands, deserts (44 percent of the land area), and seawater (97
percent of the planet's water resources). Seawater contains about 80
percent of the nutrients needed to grow plants, and researchers are
developing new techniques to extract nitrogen from the air, thus
requiring little fertilizer.
 |
| Photo by Sean Smith, NASA |
Halophyte
cultivation for food would free up the 70 percent or more of the
freshwater we use for conventional glycophyte agriculture, and which
we are now running out of for direct human use, thus solving both
water and food problems. And cultivation of halophyte biomass would
similarly obviate the use of arable land and freshwater for biofuels
and provide petrochemical feedstocks for plastics and other
industrial products. It is literally “green energy” and
chemicals.
Overall,
halophyte cultivation and development could address our interrelated
land, water, food, energy, and climate problems. While this approach
does not solve such problems as income disparity or machines taking
over jobs, it would provide society some breathing room and push
Malthus downstream by perhaps a century or more, thus alleviating
many societal issues in a synergistic fashion.
Dennis
M. Bushnell is
chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, where he is
responsible for technical oversight and advanced program formulation.
He
may be reached at dennis.m.bushnell@nasa.gov.
Calls
for Futurists
- 50:50 - Scenarios for the Next 50 Years,
to
be published on March 1, 2017 (Future Day), by Fast Future
Publishing, seeks chapter proposals from both new and established
futurists. Suggested topics include macro perspectives on the future,
demographics, values and beliefs, civil society, governance and legal
systems, peace and conflict, business, energy and the environment,
and science and technological innovation. “The intention is to
publish 50 views on the next 50 years from 50 different future
thinkers around the world,” says publisher Rohit Talwar. View
guidelines at
http://fastfuturepublishing.com/main/books/5050-proposal/. Submit
proposals (deadline October 24) at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/50-50proposal
- The Design
Management Academy Conference 2017,
to be hosted by the School
of Design at
the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/en/
seeks papers and session proposals on the theme “Research
Perspectives on Creative Intersections.” The conference, to be held
June 7-9 in Hong Kong, will focus on seven meta themes: new models of
innovation, product-service systems, policy making, intersecting
perspectives, methods, capabilities, and foundations. Submission
deadline is November 15. Learn more at
http://designmanagementacademy.com/dma2017/.
- Knowledge Futures: International Journal of Futures Studies
published by the Centre for Knowledge Futures at the University of
Management and Technology in Lahore, Pakistan, seeks papers on a
variety of futures-related subjects, including artificial
intelligence and anthrobotics, bioinformatics and genomics, cosmology
and astrobiology, disruptive technologies, the Singularity,
neuroepistemology and neuroethics, sustainability and alternative
futures, speculative studies and science fiction, and more. Deadline
for submissions is November 30. Learn more at http://umt.edu.pk/.
Fueling
Freedom:
Alternatives to Alternatives
Book
Review by Randall Mayes
The
next U.S. president will inherit an estimated $20 trillion national debt. Polling reveals that voters are most concerned about jobs,
the economy, and terrorism, while global warming is much lower on the
list of priorities. However, climate and energy policies will have a
major impact on these issues.
In
Fueling
Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy (Regnery, 2016),
authors Kathleen Hartnett White, director of the Armstrong Center for
Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and
Stephen Moore, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and
economist at the Heritage Foundation, examine the prospects of
renewable energy and fossil fuels as viable paths for meeting future
energy demands.
Given
that U.S. voters overwhelmingly favor economic growth and energy
security over climate control, the authors argue that fossil fuels
and market-driven advances to abate greenhouse gases provide the most
logical path forward.
Over
the past several decades, the green
energy movement became fashionable because of the belief in peak oil
and the prospect of reaching the tipping point for global
warming. This led to a global push to promote alternative energy
sources. However, today fossil fuels still
supply over three quarters of global energy demands.
Those
advocating alternative energies have argued that, when the social
costs of fossil fuels—the effects of climate change and health
impacts—are not included in cost-benefit analyses or in prices at
the pump and for electricity, the benefits of
fossil fuels to society are inflated. The authors counter that
it is only fair to also factor in the social benefits of fossil fuels
to legitimately compare the two energy strategies.
Humans utilized wind and water
wheels thousands of years ago, but these technologies were not
scalable or reliable. Consequently, human labor and farm animals were
the major source of power for most of human existence. In 1800, more
efficient fossil-fuel-powered machinery ignited an Industrial
Revolution in Great Britain. The Industrial Revolution has provided a
significant rise in the standard of living and growth of the middle
class. For many, coal power and steam engines
reduced the workweek from 72 to 40 hours and has subsequently reduced
the amount of disposable income spent on subsistence from 74 percent
to 13 percent today. As a result, real incomes have risen by a factor
of nine.
More
recently, the shale revolution has brought billions of people
out of poverty and raised the living standards for many others.
Jet and gasoline engines have revolutionized transportation on land,
in the air, and on the seas. With the rise of suburbs in the United
States, housewives became the envy of the rest of the world with
their station wagons, modern kitchens, and numerous household
appliances.
The
authors argue that, ironically, progressive energy policies utilizing
renewable energy are actually regressive for developing societies.
There is a moral case for fossil fuels since green policies restrict
the most efficient power sources for transportation, food, materials,
heat, and cooking in the developing world.
In
the future, it is unlikely that countries will be able to power
trillion-dollar economies with solar and wind power. The
U.K., Germany, China, and the U.S. have all subsidized green energy
and set mandates to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Despite nudges
and subsidies to make renewables economically viable, these countries
have all experienced green bubbles.
Energy
Security and Independence
While
people were once indoctrinated to think that the Earth is running out
of fossil fuels—the conclusions of The Club of Rome’s 1972 study
Limits to Growth—peak oil never materialized. Rather, oil
has become relatively cheap. Quoting from Matt Ridley’s, The
Rational Optimist, the authors point out that, even with
population growth, fossil fuels are abundant enough to generate
wealth for the whole planet. The United States alone has an estimated
$50 trillion worth of oil and gas reserves, according to the
International Energy Agency.
Taking
advantage of these reserves could provide a path for economic growth,
get the United States back on track for a desired 4 percent growth
rate, fund infrastructure upgrades, and reduce the federal deficit.
Instead of boosting the economies of Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and
Libya, the United States could actually export oil and gas using
these reserves.
California
and Texas both have vast oil and gas reserves. Texas embraces the oil
industry and is rich, while California embraces green energy and at
times has struggled financially to pay its schoolteachers and
government employees. Developing California’s reserves could help
with the state’s solvency issues.
To
address global warming, the authors believe we should not
underestimate the ability to solve problems through market-generated
innovation for a long-term solution. Market forces have made abundant
natural gas affordable. Advances in fracking technology have lowered
methane emissions into the environment.
Research
by Google reveals that the physical requirements necessary to develop
the infrastructure for solar and wind reliance are not practical. The
amounts of acreage, steel, and cement needed and questionable
sustainability benefits have convinced Bill Gates to shift
investments with his foundation from alternative energy to
breakthrough research technologies.
The
authors are critical of an economic system that enables Elon Musk to
receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for SolarCity,
SpaceX, and Tesla. However, in the case of SpaceX, Musk realizes
that, even with an efficient and sustainable energy source, it will
become necessary to terraform other
planets at some point in the future. With or without the Anthropocene
period and increased carbon and methane emissions, the Earth’s
temperature will inevitably rise as it has numerous times throughout
history. In many cases, it is expensive and a losing battle to fight
Mother Nature.
Authors
White and Moore provide a service supplementing the alternative
energy movement perspective with an alternative: fossil fuels and
technological innovation driven by markets. For the next president
and other policy makers, Fueling Freedom provides an in-depth
discussion of many topics unlikely to be included in a compilation of
policy memos from staff members. For other readers, it will help
develop more informed opinions on energy policy decisions.
Randall
Mayes
is
a
technology analyst and author of
Revolutions:
Paving the Way for the Bioeconomy
(Logos Press, 2012). He may be contacted at randy.mayes@duke.edu.
Signals:
artificial
general intelligence, economics, neuroscience, robotics
__________
Send
us your signals!
News about your work and other tips are welcome, as is feedback on
Foresight
Signals.
Contact
Cynthia
G. Wagner,
consulting editor.
Want
more signals from AAI Foresight? Check out the blog!
Log in to add comments.
Feel
free to share Foresight Signals with your networks and to submit any
stories, tips, or “signals” of trends emerging on the horizon
that we can share with other stakeholders and the foresight
community.
__________
1619 Main Street,
#1172
Freeland, WA 98249
Managing Principal:
Timothy C. Mack
Webmaster and IT
Consultant: Tom Warner
Consulting Editor:
Cynthia G. Wagner
Designer:
Lisa Mathias
