You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘global change’ tag.
Three posts about ecological singularity and the avalanche of change
The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) - … Definition (II) - … Solutions (III)
.
The planet issue
Part I was about getting there, the backstory of why and when I wanted to get deeper into the issue of “PSP” – planet saving politics : ) Before I start to explain that strange neologism “eco-singularity” let us have some reality check: Where are we today, about eleven months after the failed summit? A reality check is quite easy since there is a meeting in these days again.
Yesterday, today and tomorrow: Climate talks without adequate political will
In Tianjin, China, negotiators from 177 nations are meeting for U.N.-mandated climate talks . Guess we will see the same syndrome as in Kopenhagen. Even after this years extreme weather events (from Poland to Russia to Pakistan to bring some to mind – and: yes I know the difference of weather and climate!) we do not see “adequate response”. Diagnosis: The econo-techno-political system in it’s entirety just is not capable to process the (mostly unambigous) input of science into the output of necessary decisions.
We are over capacity! Will innovation stretch our limited ressources somehow? Image source: Wackernagel 2010
Connect the both time series. We are part of non-linear systems – surprising changes to the worse are probable. Image source: Munich re 2004
Three posts about ecological singularity and the avalanche of change
The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) – … Definition (II) – … Solutions (III)
.
Eco-Singularity? Never heard of it?
About “the Singularity” you find a lot on the web, due to the wellknown notions of Vernor Vinge, I. J. Good and of course Ray Kurzweil. But before I introduce the concept of eco-singularity I will tell you the personal backstory for better understanding.
Extended fires (n=600) in Russia after high temperature anomalie in 2010 (image is processed; source: Google earth, dutchintell.com http://bit.ly/cU3g57)
Hello, the world is burning, I am back blogging
You know the Social Web universe is still in dynamic change – and it will remain so. Did twitter kill the blogs – and my blogging drive? No. The 140 characters limit is really restrictive. It is absolutely impossible to unfold arguments, showing some new theory or an innovative point of view in this tiny space (see the post of Paul Carr, Techcrunch). And it is meant to be for status messages, aka it is the beat of the social pulse in your network somehow – at least for some. Even the (more than ambigious) ”power of Facebook” was not the reason to retreat a bit from my narrowcasting habit, which never was very ambitious.
Backstory: Fail of global politics causes crisis on the individual level, sometimes
What was the reason to become hesitant with blogging? It was something beyond social media overkill and the inevitable social media fatigue I felt since end of 2009: It was a crisis in thinking and orientation. This phase actually started same time, when the Copenhagen Climate Summit failed in December 2009. No political realist thought of a “real success”, but the summit failed to an extent I did not expect. I was not prepared to this total fail of politics. Brave men have identified eight reasons for the disaster (news.bbc.co.uk), maybe I would find eight consequences resulting from it on a personal scale.
Consequences of Russian heat record 2010. First man tamed the fire, now it might tame him. (Source: dutchintell.com http://bit.ly/cU3g57)
For me the Kopenhagen fail meant rethinking the business of corporate foresight, being concerned with the future in general. Assume that the very framework for our global/local/personal future is about to be destroyed, why should you construct any narratives around that term, why construct scenarios the way you did the last ten years? Responsible foresight should stop the “business as usual” attitude here, it should take a break and think about the big picture, reflect the own role and draw some consequences. Fore some months now I am trying to develop insight, strategy, find a viable path for the decade ahead, a decade which might be more troublesome than e.g. the financial crisis, which apparently is lying behind (second dip not excluded).
.
Three posts about ecological singularity and the avalanche of change
The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) - … Definition (II) - … Solutions (III)
superstructgame.net: superthreats 2019
Some weeks ago the wellknown “Institute for the Future” (IFTF) started an experiment with the crowdsourcing of future scenarios and solution finding. I was too busy with projects and customers to analyze all these ideas, let alone to write a review. Simple question: Does it work? I do not know. It depends on the initial purpose. In terms of quantity it was a success. User generated future in numbers:
- # 7,061 players
- # 536 superstructures (i.e. concepts to save the world)
- # year 2053 = new survival horizon; thanks to the creative ideas of the players the survival horizon of mankind is now set to 2053 (I will send you the formula, if I found it)
Obviously this is a serious game. But is it more than a game? Can anyone, politicians, CEOs, plain citizens seriously base future decisions on cumulated non-experts opinion? This is an
Daniel G. Nocera, MIT - Photo Donna Coveney
FACT: Daniel Nocera (MIT) developed a new catalyst for the storage of solar power. The catalyst is much cheaper than the precious metal platinum.
Chemist Daniel Nocera, head of the M.I.T.’s Solar Revolution Project, has found a substitute for platinum (>USD 1,700/ounce). The components of the catalyst are the cobalte (USD 2.25) and phoshor (USD 0.05). Concerning the components this means a cost effectiveness factor of around 1,000. The discovery is seen as breakthrough.
CONTEXT: The advance is a key discovery in the context of efforts to create artificial photosynthesis.
Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. Technology Review
RELEVANCE: Efficient local solar systems (“solar at home” – with no storage problem) change the game.
- There is an increased competitiveness of solar power and an impact for conventional energy generation and infrastructures
- Technology to store energy is relevant beyond solar energy generation, e.g. volatile wind power
- Winners: The more autonomous “solar prosumer” (esp. in sun rich zones).
- Loosers: Fossil based energy companies
- Comeback of the hydrogen vision as a realistic scenario is possible – even with the hydrogen car getting the energy from the rooftop
- Solar society* before 2020 in some regions of the world
(* “solar society” i.e. with a solar energy share >> 50%? – I have no definition up to now)
RELATED POSTS
SOURCES
- MIT News Office: ‘Major discovery’ from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution
- Technology Review: Solar-Power Breakthrough
- Scientific American: Hydrogen Power on the Cheap–Or at Least, Cheaper
Update 2008-08-03
- Picture + hyperlink MIT News Office
Picture 1: Global Solar Market 2005-2020, McKinsey Quarterly, The economics of solar power, June 2008; picture 2: DESERTEC Concept, TREC
SIGNAL: NEW SOLAR POWER REPORT
The economics of solar power, June 2008 (McKinsey Quarterly)
“By 2020, hundreds of billions of dollars of investment capital will probably boost global solar-generating capacity 20 to 40 times higher than its current level.”
