The Prophets and Our Resources

Review of the previous post.

The previous post, post number 10 of 13, discussed the Ground Rules (presented in another series) as they apply to the field of ecotheology.

Preview of this post.

This post, post number 11 of 13, , begins a discussion of practical considerations for the method of applying ecotheology discussed in this series by presenting a couple of basic questions that must be considered.

1. Practical Considerations
2. Basic questions

The practical question, of course, is: “how does one replace resources such as oil, gas or other natural resources?” At the present time, the primary sources of energy are: solar; hydraulic (which includes wind and water); chemical (which includes biochemical), and nuclear. Other sources, such as thermal, are also being studied, and there are several basic energy sources that are used to produce bulk electrical energy: coal, oil and natural gas, nuclear fission of Uranium, solar, geothermal, biomass, garbage and sewage, hydro, tidal, wind, wave, direct solar conversion. As noted above, even the so-called “renewable” resources such as solar, wind and the like remove resources from the earth and as such are not totally “renewable”. That is, for example, in order to build solar panels, natural elements, such as monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium selenide/sulfide, are consumed and thus fall within this problem. Certainly, the basic structures of wind mills require elements and materials. We are still left with the problem of how to replace resources. Outer space mining of elements from other planets and asteroids might be a candidate; however, at the time of this essay, such approach is so far out there it may lie in the realm of science fiction^[1]. Even nuclear fusion, while appearing to be nearly limitless, consumes some element (hydrogen). Other systems used for energy conversion, including thermoelectric engines, thermionic engines, thermionic converters, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) engines, photovoltaic effect solar cells, fuel cells and the like all suffer the same drawback: some resource will be consumed in the process of producing energy for use outside the system in which the energy is being generated.

Still further, even if we were mandated to immediately convert to a new source of energy, it would take years^[2] during which time, resources would be removed from the earth and not replaced.

The problem is quite basic: in order to produce energy something must be converted^[3] in a manner which produces energy^[4] during the conversion which means that whatever remains after the conversion will be less than what began the process. The difference being the energy produced and the losses^[5] associated with the process. Thus, if we are to have energy, we must consume something. Our civilization is based on energy, so we cannot avoid the problem by simply saying that we will not use energy.

Therefore, we simply cannot get to a place where we fully meet the above criteria of putting back as much as we remove. What we can do, however, is to put back as much as we can relative to what we remove. That seems to be the best we can do as we will never achieve a perfect zero-sum balance between what we remove and what we put back.

Thus, a rule regarding resource use might be that only as much can be removed as can reasonably be replaced.

The definition of “reasonably” will depend on the state of the art of technology available at the time as well as the economics associated with making the balance. It is to be noted that this balance should not be based on the law of supply and demand. The demand is always increasing and the supply is finite; therefore, the market will be affected accordingly. If the formula were price based, the concept of social justice would apply with wealthier nations or entities paying for the less fortunate. While the concept is laudable, it will defeat the purpose of this rule. The purpose of the rule is conservation of resources, not spreading the cost from the poor to the wealthy. Thus, any entity, no matter how wealthy or how poor, will be required to return something which benefits the earth’s resources whenever that entity removes resources. What and how much they are required to return will be set based on the above-discussed rule of reason. What is reasonable both practically and economically will rule what the resource user must return. But he must return something which can be reasonably related to the amount of resources he removed.

Another practical problem is determining how much one actually needs. Each person defines his “needs” differently. That is, one person’s basic “needs” may be another person’s luxuries. For example, one person may feel that he “needs” a twenty-room mansion for himself and his wife; whereas, another person my feel that his basic “needs” will be met by a two room shack that merely keeps the weather out. Who is the arbiter of “needs”? This issue raises one of the most basic areas of tension in the world: the “haves” versus the “have nots”. The “have nots’ clearly will define “basic needs” far differently from the “haves”. This issue extends across all borders: geographic; economic; cultural; historical and the like. Its solution, like that of what is “reasonably” replaceable is so complex as to be nearly unsolvable.

As was the case with the other issues identified by the prophets, the prophets began the discussion with a broad identification of the problem but did not provide practical guidance in solving the problem, instead choosing to leave the practical aspects to each society and civilization to work out for itself^[6]. Thus, as before, we need a careful and unbiased discussion about what is “reasonable” with regard to resource use in our civilization. Again, the discussion must be between those that are unbiased and do not have an agenda or even the appearance of an agenda.

Preview of the next post.

The next post, post number 12 of 13, continues the discussion of practical considerations for the method of applying ecotheology discussed in this series by presenting possible solutions that can be used in solving the problem presented by current applications of ecotheology.

[1] But see, “Better Than Earth – Planets quite different from our own may be the best homes for life in the universe,” by Rene Heller, published in Scientific American, January 2015, Volume 312, Number 1, pages 32-39.

^[2] See, “The Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind” by Vaclav Smil, Scientific American, January 2014, Volume 310, No. 1, pages 54-57 in which it is suggested that, based on a history of taking decades to move from one source of energy to another,  it may take several decades to move from fossil fuels to new energy supplies.

^[3] The conversion might include a conversion which releases internal energy stored in the system, such as nuclear, chemical or thermal energy or energy such as electrical (in the form of electromagnetic or electrostatic energy) or mechanical energy (in the form of kinetic or potential mechanical energy). However, the process will consume something of the system since the ultimate objective of the process is to produce energy which will be used outside the system.

^[4] The energy can be removed from the system by conduction, convection, radiation, electrically, chemically, biologically or mechanically.

^[5] According to the basic laws of thermodynamics and physics, there can be no such thing as an engine which operates at 100% thermal efficiency. That is, it is impossible for an engine to have a useful output which is exactly equal to the total input. Thus, any process will have losses. The losses can be electrical, mechanical and/or thermal. The electrical losses, i²R, losses, are especially problematic in long distance transmission lines associated with bringing power from the source, or power plant, to the user via transmission lines.

[6] See, for example, Barton, John, “Virtue in the Bible,” Studies in Christian Ethics 12 (1999): 12-22, Reprinted in Understanding Old Testament Ethics. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.