H2Orbit - Its About Sustainability

Just getting people to pay attention to the problem is a challenge. This website was created in 2001 to help people better see the situation, issues, challenges and solutions. Yet as of 2006 the main counter stood at 10299. People come to the site, read it, and then do nothing about it. We need to incite people into action. Even if its only reading this web site, because they learn something from the experience. So not only do we need a plan, we need to get people to pay attention to the plan. What kind of plan? A strategic visionary plan that is actionable. Read on we think you'll agree - this is the plan.

H2Orbit seeks to convey the situation, present the issues and challenges in a way that demonstrates the kinds of programs and initiatives needed to illicit maximum participation, especially from partners, needed in order to implement the solutions required to attain the vision.

First no one should doubt that these are exceptionally complex problems and issues. Everyone should refrain from jumping to conclusions on any given topic. H2Orbit simply submits that the preponderance of evidence is heading in a particular direction and that there are several, not one, thrusts of impact being by the events that evidence represents. That those thrusts conspire to create a circumstance of global impact beyond which the situation on our planet becomes dire for all life. That we have an opportunity to mitigate those circumstances through coordinated global effort.

There is a framework to the larger picture and it is important for us all to understand that framework. What we mean by this is that each set of evidence, ocean acidification, as example, is systemically connected to the larger set of issues of climate change. Those relationships constitute the framework to which we refer.

Therefore it is important to remember:

H2Orbit is about sustainability of our biosphere. Not just the air. Not just the water. Not just the land. Not just the economy. Not just the ecology. Not just the social conditions in this or that location. H2Orbit is about it all, together. As integrated and systemic as the very nature in which we exist.
Costs need to be determined not just in terms of expense, but in terms of failure. What will it cost humanity if this effort fails? Would those expenses be worth the investment if we kept the money and failed? In that circumstance H2Orbit contends that it won't matter in the face of billions of starving people. The cost of failure is simply too high. We cannot fail. It's just that simple.
According to the World Bank, as we stated elsewhere, some 50% of the worlds population lives within 60 kilometers of the coast. Earth is a marine habitat. Protein from the sea feeds millions upon millions. Over the next several centuries 100% of those people are likely to be displaced by rising sea levels. Almost the entire state of Florida will be underwater. What costs are associated with those events? What are the implications to the global economy under those circumstances? We remind the reader that the Kennedy Space Center is located in Florida. If we loose those launch facilities then a) they have to be replicated elsewhere, b) we loose precious time, and c) we might not have the time left to implement the needed solution.
We urgently need solid biosphere derived metrics to benchmark our collective 'sense of urgency'. We can no longer afford historical petty debates or squabbles over anything. We (collective we) need to focus if we are to solve these issues. Solving this needs to be priority number 1 for humanity. H2Orbit contends the biosphere demands the urgency. We will further contend that urgency is very high.

All the various extrapolated time lines seem to drive to 'zero' (e.g. failure points) between about 2050 and 2100. We need to establish programs, initiatives that drive maximum participation between now and 2050 to begin mitigating those risks to extend the horizon of implementation so that we can succeed and attain the vision. Entrenched pundits need to recognize the situation we are in. If you don't help everyone else your position won't matter to your grandchildren or anyone else's.

Carbon dioxide introduced into the biosphere has lowered the pH in our oceans, increasing their acidity and that affects everything living in them. The Coral Reefs are under siege. Fish populations too are affected. 'Cutting back' does nothing to solve these circumstances. Indeed it is tantamount to standing by, doing nothing, and watching something die we all depend on.
Conserving does nothing to satisfy the demands civilization requires for energy.
Anthropogenic gases are introduced into the atmosphere by an array of sources. Transportation in its entirety is responsible for only about 25%. The other 75% comes from energy production. That energy is used by cities, infrastructure, and industry. We can't just turn that energy off at the tap to conserve. Restricting the supply of energy and transportation simply is not the answer. Society needs those things to provide basic services. Services like hospitals, ambulances, water treatment plants, sewage facilities, etc.
The permafrost areas are releasing greenhouse gases five times faster than previously assumed. Conserving does nothing to address that problem. Our situation is being driven by the anthropogenic gases already in the biosphere.
Conserving will not convince the bears in Northern Spain to start hibernating again. (See article linked from our Latest News menu.)
Conserving will not correct the ocean acidification problem
No - conservation alone will not solve these issues or address the challenges we face. H2Orbit's proposed solution, if implemented offers the best chance to achieve the vision.

Some say presenting all of this material beats the drums of fear. What's really scary is doing nothing in the face of mounting evidence. That's scary. Many of those same people call for "hard evidence". Trending data is never hard. The roots of those trends are hard and that's what we try to point out, link and otherwise convey. This is the amphibian problem discussed in my blog.

We all need to "consider the source" when we hear people talking about these issues. That's one big reason H2Orbit links external resources to back up our points. We want you to see what we see. To know it's there and that we are not the source of the original story, report or data. What we want you to be aware of is the preponderance of information. Look at as much of it as you can - and then step back and think about where all that data is leading. Think about the big picture. Then ask yourself - "what do we need to do to fix this?" We encourage you to perform your own diligence. When you do we think you will agree with us.

The only way to get "hard evidence" is 'after the fact'. Waiting until the problem is so intuitively obvious to the most casual observer means waiting until the problem is so large we can't do anything about it. What we mean by that is it will be beyond our ability to repair the damage done to the oceans. We may be beyond that point already but we're certainly in a better position today to begin working on that problem than we would be three decades down the "everything is rosy 'do nothing - there's no problem" path. If you hear a politician demanding "hard evidence" - immediately look to see if they are defending an entrenched position or constituency, then proceed using your best judgment and common sense.

There are many issues, important to people today. There are many issues critical to society and humanity today. There is a single issue that if we (collective we) don't solve, none of the other issues will matter. This single issue will render all other issues moot.   That issue is our environment. Climate change stands to wipe out all the accomplishments of humanity. Stop and think about that for a few minutes. You have free will and can choose any path you like in life. You know what is happening. You know we have the strategies and technologies to solve the problem. How do you think your subsequent behavior is going to be labeled, by god if no one else? You need to think - really hard.

The challenge even of understanding that single issue is that it creeps on slowly and finishes fast. So slow it will take another 90 years to finish it's insidious plodding.   To compound the complexities in understanding that single issue are the diverse mechanisms causing it and manifestation of their results. Language doesn't help either. That single issues has been labeled "Climate Change" by scientists. People everywhere usually think about "air" when they think about 'climate' oriented issues. Climate change affects our atmosphere, to be sure, but it also has severe impact to our oceans and soils. Not just with temperature changes. The pH levels have changed. Acidity has increased. As ice melts, the jet stream shifts. As the jet stream shifts, moisture is carried to different areas. That means a shift in rain fall. One of the largest plateaus in China is undergoing increased desertification. That's techno babble for "it's turning into a desert".

People too are used to struggling with problems, and sometimes failing, only to try again. Maybe several generations later. Galileo reviewing Eratosthenes's works might be an example of that, to great impact on human understanding. This particular problem might be of a magnitude well beyond our ability to solve "after it's here". Do we really need to wait until all the coral reefs on Earth are dead before we take action? 20% of all the coral reefs on the planet are already dead. Do we really need to wait until commercial fish populations are wiped out around 2048? 120 species of frogs have gone extinct in the last three decades. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.   How much will your money be worth if there's no one left to spend it? What then will be the value of your companies stock? How do you think God is going to judge your actions - knowing that you knew there was a solution and your behavior was to do nothing or worse? Knowing that you not only killed millions of humans but thousands of species. We think this problem is on that level. We think this problem needs everyone to sit up and pay attention. Ancient words warn of avarice and they are words every corporation and shareholder should heed. Money for money's sake is the wrong approach - indeed it is the wrong answer. If we don't solve this problem all the money in the world won't matter a hill of beans in Manhattan.

Corporate comptrollers sit up and pay attention. Couple your ROI plans to improvements in the biosphere. We encourage you guys to review the L1 reading list in our bibliography, especially the third book on the L1 list. The "what's in it for me" attitude needs to be balanced against the new framework. New paradigms are needed to be inculcated into corporate thinking. Or we are all toast.

People are not used to solving problems that exist a generation or two into the future. They want to be able to see the problem right in front of their face. They are not comfortable with extrapolated trends. Well - this problem is exactly one of those kind of problems and if they (collective we really) don't solve it - the problem is going to kill them.   The other aspect of this problem is that while strategies and technologies exist to solve the problem - they too require 40-60 years to implement. That leaves precious few seconds remaining in which to achieve success and avert disaster.

The challenge then is to demonstrate the situation with enough credibility to implement the solution in the face of the issues and challenges to achieve the vision.

Here's a quick attention getter. People wander around their suburban homes thinking (or not thinking) gee we have a lot of plants here and a great yard. If that's you try this: Load "google earth" on your computer at home. Find your neighborhood and look at it from 1 mile high. Then go look at any metropolitan area and ask the same question. Think we have enough plants? What do you think all this development has done to the local carbon footprint? Think about it. Zoom around the planet see what people everywhere are doing.

Another area that would be a huge help is leverage remote sensing and geographic information systems to help survey the health of coral reef structures. NASA recently funded a project whose mission wasn't to tell us the health of these reefs but to prove that only 2% were within reach of humans, as if ocean acidification weren't impacting 100% of them. National assets like satellites need to be properly used for useful research.

The image above leverages satellites for exactly this purpose. These studies are under funded and too limited. H2Orbit proposes that an intensive global survey be missioned immediately to establish benchmark surveys. These surveys will tell us trends, rates, species impact, etc.

We must have a comprehensive strategy and plan that integrates the best of the existing programs with an aggressive utilization of space to assure survival. The high frontier must be an option for improving conditions back here on Earth. Leveraging resources from space can significantly improve the situation on Earth, provide energy and help cleanse the ecosystem. Biosphere improvements will take time to manifest themselves systemically in the ecosystem. If we start now, those improvements should begin becoming evident before the century is out and provide opportunity for people. In short we need to make saving the planet an economic priority and space is the unique opportunity. We need to make it a business priority that exhilarates and inspires the soul.

World organizations and national governments must collectively manage the global economy towards the resolution to minimize the impact along the way to primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of industry. Industrial policies will need to change to assure sustainability. The economy supporting these industries must also reflect behaviors that reinforce sustainability. These will be challenges indeed given the current world economy.

When you see theoretical consumption theories or models, like the Hubbert peak theory, which posits that the rate of oil production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. Don't look at it as "oh no oil resources are on the decline". Think of it as "oh no - that means mankind has turned everything to the left of today on that chart into Carbon Dioxide through combustion". First look at that chart and think "how much CO2 does that represent"? Then ask "where did it all go?" Then ask yourself how much more can the Earth take? As you answer those questions you will begin to graphically see why we have ocean acidification problems.

Scientists believe that the oceans have absorbed about 120 BILLION TONS of carbon since the year 1800. In water, carbon dioxide becomes a weak carbonic acid and has lowered the average pH of seawater by about 0.1 units on the 14 point scale, to 8.2. Predicted emmisions could lower it a further 0.5 by 2100. Increased acidity may also directly affect the growth and reproduction of fish and plankton. Carbon dioxide enters the biosphere first in the atmosphere and then is introduced into the oceans via rain and surface absorbtion.

One gallon of gasoline weighs about eight pounds (3.64 Kg). When that gallon of gasoline burns in your engine it combines with the atmosphere to produce about 22 pounds (10 Kg) of CO2 plus other components. Now when you look at the chart above just think about how much CO2 is represented by that information. Oh, there are 42 US gallons per barrel. One barrel of oil can generate about 19.5 gallons of gasoline. (the remaining components can still produce CO2 if combusted so don't dismiss them). So multiply the numbers on the above chart by 19.5 to get gallons of gasoline. Then multiply that number by 22 to get the pounds of CO2. Remember everything to the left of today on the above chart has been converted into CO2. Now you begin to see how this problem can be affecting our oceans and atmosphere.

So one of the challenges we face is sequestering all of that CO2 that has been produced. Remeber that really big number? Well we need to render it inert in the biosphere through a process called CO2 sequestration. Unfortunately our oceans are a natural carbon dioxide sink and that's where much of the atmospheric CO2 winds up - and it's causing ocean acidification which in turn is impacting the coral reefs.

The point of this is that Earth's atmosphere has too much CO2 in it already. We are already past the point of damage. Therefore, programs and initiatives that reduce CO2 emmisions are completely worthless. If a single pound of CO2 is incrementally added to what is already present - then it is part of the problem and not part of the solution. We need programs that are part of the solution.

Click the chart above and study it. Then ask yourself: "Don't we need to bring CO2 levels down to be at or below pre-industrial revolution levels in order to mitigate the risks that are now evident?" Then ask 'what is this stabilize at 2-times or 4-times planning going to do to our biosphere'? We can do better than that. Now having said that H2Orbit wants to make it clear that we are not bashing NASA here. This chart and the one below are out of context for their original purpose. This chart was simply intended to convey power requirements to CO2 production. Our contention is that if we initiate a targeted effort to drive solar power satellites that we can begin addressing these problems.

H2Orbit believes we have the opportunity to meet and overcome these challenges. So our short answer is "yes >> IF << we take the correct action".

We encourage readers not to get to overwhelmed by all of this. Understand that the magnitude of the situation is why these challenges requires everyone to be involved. Teamwork can maximize our collective chances for success. In fact no single entity or country can solve these problems alone. We must do this together and we would go so far as to say its an all or nothing game.

Moving beyond "exploration" will provide opportunity. The US 'Vision for Space Exploration' policy falls considerably short of being able to accomplish the milestones necessary for leveraging space technologies to solve the problems out lined here. We must embrace space in a way that demonstrates clear improvements and will give everyone long term hope.

Think of what can be done with globally delivered energy, clean air and a healthy biosphere. Irrigation and clean water for peoples that today don't even have those things at all. Starving people will be able to feed themselves. Think about the ravages of disease that would also be addressed with these same capabilities. The challenges may be great but so are the benefits.

Today space is a nationalistic endeavor. We contend this must change. We contend that space must be commercialized in pursuit of the majority of these endeavors. It will require the entrepreneurial spirit of business endeavors that will create the innovation and effort necessary to succeed. National governments need to work with their existing space agencies and military organizations to create a "safe path to space" for all of mankind. Instead of patches of nationalism on spacesuits we need to see business logos.

Business allowed to embrace space will create jobs. Tens of thousands of them. Jobs in every sector and probably in every industry. Jobs where people know they are not only helping the economy but the ecology. They will know they are helping preserve the biosphere. The illusory hope they had before will be replaced with the steadfast knowledge that we can solve these issues and the future holds much promise.

Integrating space into the global economy will inspire entrepreneurial innovation. That vision will drive colonization which in turn will help drive new business; enhance existing business and create new geography. The new real estate will spread freedom and inspire the planet for greater things to come. The reasons for going to space have now changed and the survival of the planet is at stake.

Only space based technologies can generate enough clean energy (SPS), in ample abundance and with the 'speed of implementation' to correct the current global situation to avert the impending calamity. That a presence in space can provide abundant energy without polluting the planet is only one benefit
from the endeavor. A stronger push toward space will create a flurry of new high-tech jobs and business opportunities. People will have hope because
our actions today secure their future. Embracing space will give humanity time to learn. It will allow us time to improve the quality of life for everyone. It expands opportunity for humanity as people apply what they have learned. Obviously, security must be intrinsic. Obviously the United States cannot do this alone. That's why strong leadership in every community is absolutely required for resolution. We are not naive enough to think we can move to a 'post scarcity' economy. It will probably take something more dramatic even than this to make that happen.

Some pundits will say "this is too expensive". Our response is "what is the cost of NOT getting this done?" Clearly the "cost to first power" will be significant. John Mankins, NASA Manager of Advanced Concepts Studies, indicates that SPS stations in the 10 Gigawatt class can come online by 2050. Our view is that we must get started now because the lead time to "first power" is more significant than the cost in terms of ecological impact. If we wait until 2050 the majority of the reef systems around the world will already be dead. We cannot afford the time. We need to push these programs up in priority. Furthermore, if this could be solved terrestrially then the coral reefs around the planet would not be dieing, in fact many are already dead. Other pundits say "this will cost jobs". Our response to that is "Garbage." This will create jobs. Tens of thousands of them. The challenge is that the 'net new' jobs will be in different sectors and will require retraining, but then that too creates jobs. We can't allow "business power struggles" to dictate strategic policy. Not when the health of the planet swings in the balance.

We must take action to shift energy production and consumption away from hydrocarbon based fuels. We can do that by shifting energy production to space based facilities and consumption to clean technologies like fuel cells. Today's hydrocarbon based energy production and consumption can be almost completely eliminated. That alone will eliminate the single largest source of air pollution. Air pollution is estimated to contribute as much as one third (1/3rd)
of the contaminants in the world's coastal oceans: which by the way, is where the majority of coral reefs happen to live. We need better ways to capture and store carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making our oceans un-livable. Our biosphere is failing around us. Additionally some terrestrial processes that adversely impact the ecology can be shifted to orbital facilities where strict controls can be applied to contain or eliminate toxins; used during, or result from, production of some materials. Relocating these activities and many others would further reduce ecological impact to the Earth and further enhance the natural ability of nature to facilitate recovery.
There are actions we can take. There are solutions in existence today. All we need do is act. The challenges of action represent opportunities in abundance.

The U.S. Congress was presented a plan that, ironically enough, would have
solved this problem, in the mid to early 1970's. The plan was shot down by hobbyists trying to protect then existing political interests. We probably were not ready then anyway, and we certainly did not recognize this problem then, but neither of those issues is the point. The point is that this plan is not new.
Its been on the drawing board for well over 30 years. We can solve this. The technologies today are better, by far, than those originally presented and
they will continue to improve. We need to dust off that plan and act. What we have now that we did not have in the 70's is motivation.

Historically space has been a social 'want'. In the face of this problem it becomes a 'social need'. Ecology is driving immediacy and the geologic
record assures the premise; 'we must diversify humanity across the solar system'. We must begin now, not in 30 years. If we wait it may well be too late. Whether you look short term, across the next century, or long term, even with a geologic timeframe, our best option to push forward is to embrace space. In fact the longer the longer a time frame one uses it becomes increasingly evident that the only solution is to embrace space.

These technologies and opportunities must be used to help mankind globally. Energy is required globally and to everyone. Otherwise rural populations will continue to consume hydrocarbons.

The strategic priority has to be assuring the health, diversity and sustainability of Earth's biosphere.

Returning atmospheric CO2 levels to appropriate sustainable levels
Assure global policies and practices reinforce sustainability (e.g. don't do stuff that will damage Earth's biosphere)
Repairing damaged sectors and areas of Earth's biosphere
Assure global availability of energy
Align global economic policies to assure sustainability
Assure social conditions support long term sustainability

These global priorities need to be reinforced by policies and practices that assure success and maintain sustainability.

Project management goals and objectives with relatively shorter time horizons need to be in alignment with the above priorities. Those goals and objectives need to be attainable and people need to understand how they fit into larger projects and priorities. Communications needs to be cogent and an intrinsic part of the overall thrust with education worldwide.

Now is humanity's opportunity to do what every other species from our planet has not done in its history. Live beyond catastrophe. This proposal is neither simple nor quick. It will take every bit of 100 years to accomplish, it will take us all; and you might notice: that's about all the time we have to get it done. We would humbly submit that failure in this instance is not an option. We contend that this effort will have deep impact across global economic sectors and help everyone, not just through commerce; but through the ecological improvements required for sustainability. Abundance of energy will significantly aid food security. The conclusion therefore is that we must diversify the portfolio of human endeavors. We diversification here not in the traditional financial sense but as a means to reduce risk and increase chances for survival.

We cannot afford to be shortsighted. Systems thinking is required. That's why we must engage space in an open manner so that entrepreneurial spirit will seek innovative techniques and technologies to minimize costs and solve problems. We must start now. And we must embrace it with an open market, free trade approach. We need strong dynamic leadership to focus that spirited effort.

The reasons for not embracing space are dwindling. The reasons for increasing both the breadth and depth of current efforts are mounting. Momentum for
both increases with each passing day. We need catalytic leadership to help drive comprehension and understanding in order for positive action to begin.
Be such a leader in your community.