A Strategy for Addressing Anthropogenic Climate Change With the OpenNS Model

Abstract:

The current consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change is solely on the arguments that human influence on the chemical composition of the atmosphere is resulting in a rise in the yearly averages of global temperatures. There is still much debate on whether or not the outcomes that we see in the coming decades will be generally unfavorable. This isn’t surprising; considering the world wide political influence on the subject and the lack of a sufficiently sophisticated model to be analyzed statistically. This doesn’t mean however that some degree of alarm couldn’t be perfectly reasonable. A “safe rather than sorry” approach seems to be feasible; considering the technologies that are emerging; that are also likely to result in products and services, that might feed hungry economies.

Aiming at Large Effects:

One of the most influential human endeavors on the issue is agriculture. This may also be the most feasible industry for innovation. Projections on energy needs don’t tend to consider the movement toward automation and the energy needs of the robotic systems that will be required. Computational systems are becoming more and more efficient; but they are also becoming more and more pervasive. Increases in energy usage is one aspect of economics that humans have tended to get wrong throughout history; and it doesn’t seem to be being taken seriously enough today. Research and development in energy resources is and always has been a good idea.

Vertical Farms and Carbon Farming:

Vertical farms have the advantage of giving the producer more control over the product. The elements are difficult to predict; and controlling them is improbable. Encroachment of nature and encroaching upon nature are issues that agriculture and the natural systems that sustain us have been suffering with for thousands of years; to the dismay of ourselves and the other life we share the biosphere with.

Currently, dealing with the elements is resulting in issues such as resistance to herbicides and pesticides; which increases the usage toward levels that are difficult to air off of the produce before distribution. The concerns about this are obvious. Agriculture is also encroaching on rain forests at an alarming rate. The soil depletion is also a concern.

Vertical farms have the potential to offset the surface footprint of agriculture by 50% to maybe 75%.. This is probably enough to not only mitigate encroachment on rain forests, but also to allow them to retake their domain. Carbon farming could then be used to replenish the depleted soil; where arable crops once grew. This is an innovation where factory farming becomes science and conservationist farming.

The fossil fuels used in agriculture would likely be offset from the typical farm equipment to the electricity required to run the systems in the lab. Automation of processes is likely to be a part of the business model; as the financial advantages suggest. It could very well be that there are gains from this; as the heat engines in farming equipment are not as efficient as the plants that produce electricity, and the degree of physical work in vertical farms may not be equivalent either.

The financial potential exists as well. The added control that removing a substantial number of variables from the process is likely to result in less loss and uncertainty in the fields. The resources going into production are more likely to result in a yield and thus a profit. This doesn’t even address the probable innovations that will result in a more lab like environment. This of course requires trading old staples for new ones; but the transition can occur one field at a time. It seems very likely that adequate funding for such reform is feasible; given the degree of public support for solutions.

Energy Resources:

It’s observed that technology is displacing human labor. The extent of which this is happening is under debate; however, there is no obvious reason to contend that automation will not be an accelerating influence in industry. To the contrary, the advantages of both societal and financial factors seem to suggest that automation has a good chance of being a major part of our near future. The manner in which humans contribute to society is changing; with the advent of the internet, and advancements in home and small endeavor manufacturing, and the new business, market and financial models. There’s really nothing to prevent humans from being displaced in not only industrial labor markets; but also in other endeavors where artificial intelligence is becoming more pervasive.

The energy that was once provided by food stuffs toward the locomotion of human bodies, to accomplish the work in labor markets, is likely to be offset more and more by the electricity required to run more advanced robotics and more sophisticated computational systems. Though computational systems are becoming more efficient, they are also becoming more pervasive; and networks and clusters of masses of computers are rising in number as well.

The probability of regulating energy usage seems much lower than that of reforming and innovating agriculture; as the coming decades appear to require more and more energy to continue toward this technological revolution.

The chance that current energy resources would be enough for the coming decades doesn’t seem likely. This is difficult to predict; especially in times like these, where great deals of change occur in small amounts of time. A great deal of emergence should be expected in revolutionary times; where there is a great deal of advancement in science and engineering, and this appears to fit well with observations. The current trends seem to suggest that, for safety’s sake, investment in research and development of energy sources is probably, not only wise, but also eventually required anyway. There just doesn’t seem to be an argument against it.

Financing Change:

The current, world wide political climate is one that uses the issue divisively. This is currently a hurdle to solutions; but change in economic status might change this. The economic influence on political strategy is probably one of the major influences in increases in divisiveness.

Many countries are suffering the effects of destabilization that occurs in this stage of the crisis cycle. It is likely a strong influence in not only political strife, but also the social unrest that is seen around the globe. Since crises cycle, it’s expected that the current state is temporary; and that opportunities for change might result in future.

The countries that are more influential in the global economy, are likely to be the catalysts for the movement to the next stage of the cycle. That is of course crisis running it’s course; followed by recovery. The sharing of economic woes is likely to result in the sharing of economic consequences; as one’s decline tends to influence the decline of another. Global trade creates interdependence among nations; that includes sharing in outcomes collectively. Partnerships abroad are the pathways for chain reactions of sorts.

Following crisis, recovery economies have lost much of their complexity; and room for growth tends to exist. This is a favorable condition for cooperation in general; and cooperation tends to be the outcome. This is probably expected to be seen in business culture, financial culture, political discourse and interaction and even foreign policy. This might also be a favorable condition for addressing climate change; with systemic innovation.

Governments are more likely to support innovation in times of healthy economic growth. This is especially the case where arguments are made that support the health of the real GDP. A strategy that addresses the problem in a systemic manner, but also in a financial manner might have the best chance of success under such conditions. The change of the state of the global economy to that of recovery can occur relatively quickly; due to modern resources. There is really no reason why it can’t run it’s course in the first half of this decade.

Projections:

Projections of average global temperature increase in 2025 may be 1.5 degrees. There is no apparent reason not to begin immediately. More favorable conditions for solutions appear to be coming by then. The work previously done is just preparation for the opportunity.

It appears that staying below 2 degrees of increase means being completely prepared to implement solutions; which seems improbable. This doesn’t however mean that any projections are correct; this includes the consequences. This is not an argument for a suggestion that it is too late. It’s also not an argument for a suggestion that it is irreversible; or that it can’t be prevented from getting worse. I’m not even prepared to suggest either way if it's likely to be generally unfavorable or not; and it’s completely unlikely that anyone else is either. This is an attempt to play as safe as practical… that’s all.

*The projections of economic impact over the next couple of decades are too complex to falsify; with the current economic change in consideration.

*Projections of the state of a complex system with the complexity of the biosphere are too complex to falsify; with current methods and technologies.

* What is optimal now, for the biosphere is not known; and projections concerning what it might be in the next two decades, are not falsifiable by current methods and technologies.

* Studies on Runaway Climate Change are based in heat absorption and dissipation rates. They argue that with the change in chemical composition of the atmosphere, the rate of absorption could surpass the rate of dissipation. They are projected with the climate simulation; and most of the studies suggest that it is unlikely.

Regulation?:

Regulation doesn’t seem to have pathways for feasible mitigation of impact. Promises of regulation are likely to be thwarted with issues such as energy crisis, lobbying and campaign contributions.

Reinvestment seems to be the most feasible solution to the issue. A strategy that points out impending energy crisis and the feasibility of directly addressing the most influential factors, with not only not creating economic strife but also arguments for the creation of new markets and more efficient and profitable systems, seems to be a much more feasible strategy for approaching the issue. It’s a cooperative strategy; based in Game Theory.