Just Another Agenda

Everybody's got an axe to grind and a plan to push. Everybody's got an agenda. Some are better than others, of course, and a few make it into political platforms in one form or another. Sadly, those that do make it into political platforms are seldom innovative and even remotely specific. For any budding politicians looking to break the mold on environmental and energy policy by embracing future commercial interests while also satisfying many of the needs and wants of environmentalists, I submit to you some musings of mine posted back in February on Slashdot.org and edited for this column:

Some of this may seem impractical, but I would think the following should hold true:

It is theoretically possible that we will reduce the variety of building materials utilized in the public and private sector to predominantly include carbon-based materials such as carbon nanotubes, diamond-nanotube composite, aggregated diamond nanorods, and other similar materials. We'll still probably need metals for a variety of tasks, but our current concrete/steel/asphalt/wood/plaster/sheetrock economy will likely be scrapped in favor of an economy based around superior technology. In light of this potential development, our primary resources will include:

1). Energy
2). Fresh Water
3). Carbon

Therefore, the most intelligent way to counter the effects of global warming on human society would be to ensure the rapid and stable mass-distribution of the aforementioned resources, in one form or another, to as many communities as possible.

Energy, most likely in the form of electricity transmitted across a grid (as we have now), stored in the form of hydrogen transmitted by pipeline or ground transit, or stored in batteries/capacitor banks will be at the core of our economy more so than it is now. Carbon-based construction utilizing multi-walled nanotubes and similar substances will likely require massive amounts of energy to produce building material in desirable quantities. It is also likely that we will be utilizing an increasingly mechanized workforce in the future which will further our need for energy.

With sufficient energy, we should be able to:

1). Build intracontinental water distribution networks much larger than anything currently available to ensure proper irrigation of lands regardless of weather conditions
2). Power massive pump/levee/dam systems to evacuate water faster than it can accumulate due to flooding and store it until it can be safely released into normal drainage channels.

3). Provide sufficient desalinization services to keep water distribution networks fully supplied, at least until we perfect technology that lets us separate water into hydrogen and oxygen from mere exposure to sunlight (a process that would yield rather than consume energy and purify water at the same time).

4). Fabricate building materials out of super-strong carbon-based materials which we may use to reinforce existing structures or build advanced infrastructure that will withstand the punishment of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis.

5). Power armies of automated construction machines tasked with rebuilding our entire civilization's housing and infrastructure out of materials stronger than those which we use now.

That would nearly handle any crisis imaginable outside of soil depletion and rising sea levels. I would imagine that coastal cities would eventually have to be moved inland or built on stilts (which is doable with the right materials and a sufficient amount of effort) to survive unless someone wants to protect entire coasts with sea wall networks or . . . something.

In any case, all of the above have one thing more than anything else: energy. Lots of it. Maybe more than a hundred times the energy we produce now, too. Sadly, supply is currently being outstripped by demand. That's one situation that must be reversed.

Of course, there are problems with plans such as those I outlined above, as I also noted:

There are a few problems with plans like mine:

1). At least in the United States, problems seem to exist in the logistical and political arena when it comes to macro-engineering. Example: The Big Dig. It was a technically feasible plan ruined by graft, corruption, and possibly incompetence.

2). Modern industry, or at least the face of modern industry visible to the public, seems more concerned with small, disposable/replaceable products. In a sense, even our housing and infrastructure (roads in particular) are disposable.

3). Owners of existing infrastructure that would be replaced by that mentioned in my plan (or in plans like mine) would not enjoy seeing the value of their assets undermined and would interfere accordingly.

However, you are correct in asserting that much of the technology associated with "green" political movements has improved so vastly that it makes sense to adopt it on technical merit alone without worrying about environmental benefits. The question is, who really wants a safer and more efficient tomorrow?

Honestly, if you are a would-be policymaker, politician, or political commentator looking for something seemingly novel, logical, and simple that will set you apart in a political debate, please consider what I have said here carefully. I stand by my remarks, though the energy source(s) we shall use to make the above possible have yet to emerge. Nuclear power and clean coal will only take us so far.