Sustainable Development: A Thermodynamic Challenge
A major challenge facing political, economic, scientific, educational and environmental leaders around the world cuts across national boundaries, economic markets and cultural traditions. Barring any unforeseen intervention by some yet to be recognized global force, the next fifty years will witness a doubling of world population. Simply put, we are adding nearly 88 million souls each year to global human population.
This fact alone will require doubling the entire global human support service infrastructure by the year 2050 at the latest if we are to even maintain our current unacceptably low standard of living for most humankind on this planet. In order to maintain our current level of traffic congestion, housing shortage and cost of living, we will have to increase, by a factor of two, every home, office, library, schoolhouse, college, university, municipal service, health facility as well as food, clothing and primary means of production, energy generation and transportation system on earth!
The major, overriding challenge facing world leaders today is the creation of a geopolitical, economic and environmental solution to this global population growth problem in ways that raises the standard of the human condition, improves political stability at home and abroad, and preserves our environment’s ability to cleanse and restore itself.
This major challenge has four inextricably linked components:
How do we:
A. double the global economy to maintain our existing standard of living, or even more than double the economy to improve the standard of living for the majority of the world’s population currently living in unacceptably poor living conditions,
B. without running out of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and metals that make economic development possible?
Secondly, how do we:
A. at the same time, reduce the current level of anthropogenic adverse impact on local as well as global environments, and actually improve Earth’s ability to cleanse and restore itself so that
B. we do not run out of renewable resources such as clean air, potable water and soil that support all life on Earth?
Thirdly, how do we:
A. develop a globally competitive and economically, politically, and culturally sustainable food and fiber production and delivery system
B. without irreparably damaging the standard of living, cultural diversity and personal security of the very people that support the entire enterprise?
Lastly, how do world leaders:
A. assert dynamic leadership through local action having global significance
B. without threatening, or appearing to threaten regional or national boundaries, political autonomy, ethnic traditions, economic independence, market clarity, and scientific principles?
Clearly, we must redesign the current economic and ecological interface paradigm and redefine the roles of corporate and community leaders from short term, ethnocentric objectives to long term, geocentric goals. There is a growing body of evidence that this paradigm shift is well underway in the business-industry sector of our economy.
Science:
The objective study of reality. Science is the systematic gathering of data about real objects and the energies affecting them, and the drawing of conclusions based upon study of those data regarding using agreed upon methodologies and statistical analysis. Science seeks results that are demonstratable and repeatable by disinterested third parties and other researchers within statistically significant and stated levels of confidence. Confidence: A statement of probability, or the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case. Probability theory is used extensively in areas such as statistics, mathematics, and science to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems repeating themselves under similar conditions.
In mathematics, confidence limits, or statement of probabilities, always lie between zero and one. An event with a probability of 1.00 is certain to happen, whereas an event with a probability of 0.00 will never occur under existing circumstances and study methodologies. Usually, scientific affirmation is based on stitistical data at the 0.01 level of confidence.
Skepticism:
Skeptics or Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge of such. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning “without” and gnosis, “knowledge“, translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims, particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities, is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.
Faith:
Faith is a belief, trust, or conviction not based on logic, reason, or empirical data, but based fundamentally on cognitive volition or conviction, often associated with a transpersonal relationship with God, gods, a higher power, a person, elements of nature, and/or a perception of the human race as a whole. Faith can be placed in a person, inanimate object, state of affairs, proposition or body of propositions such as a religious creed. Faith can mean believing unconditionally. It can be acceptance of something that one has been told by one who is considered trustworthy. Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact. Faith is formed through instinct, intuition, meditation, communing with nature, prayer, or perceived usefulness of a belief system
Every college student, regardless of major, graduating in the 21st century must be aware of our place in the natural world, our impact and dependence upon it, and our responsibilities for its protection and preservation. It might well be that, through a combination of moral obligation, ethical justice, political astuteness and scientific enlightenment, this world of ours might have a fighting chance at surviving and prospering, according to the Iroquois tradition, “unto the seventh generation.”
Sustainability Defined
Sustainable development is “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (The “World Commission on Environment and Development”) Although this definition of “sustainable development” has become widely publicized, the term “sustainability” is not limited to one precise definition. “Sustainability is defined differently within and between cultures, and its definition has changed over time.” It is not possible here to deal with all of the definitions and interpretations of sustainability, including at least one point of view that, in the face of an entropic universe, it is oxymoronic (nature is not sustainable in a constantly changing environment.)
Hence it may be more appropriate to adopt a broad consensus definition of sustainability for the purpose of this discussion. The fundamental principles guiding sustainability include: Avoidance or minimization of negative impacts on the environment; Conservation and efficient use of natural resources; and Ecological harmony and respect for biodiversity. In practice, these principles are translated into numerous guidelines that attempt to balance economic, social and cultural demands with the need to responsibly manage our environment so that its carrying capacity is not exceeded by human activities.” (Canadian Architect – Perspectives.)
Systems Dynamics
A system is a series of self-organizing, interrelated and interdependent parts or subsystems that function effectively together to accomplish mutual survival of the group. Sustainability is the capacity of a system to maintain a thermodynamic steady state at some optimum level above equilibrium constant (thermodynamic balance.) When upset (threatened, moved out of steady state) by changes in its surroundings or internal systems, the sustainable system has the capacity to return to its previously established thermodynamic steady state (resilience), or establish a new thermodynamic steady state over time meeting the challenges of both internal (physiological) and external (environmental) environmental changes (adaptability.)
Establishing and maintaining a thermodynamic steady state above equilibrium requires the input of an external energy source (endergonic reaction) from some energy-yielding (exergonic reaction) source in the surrounding of the system. The internal (systemic) and external (surroundings) reactions are interdependent, or coupled, reactions. A system with a wide range of tolerance for deviation from the steady state exhibits resilient while systems with a narrow range of tolerance are said to be vulnerable or threatened. Resiliency indices and vulnerability indices are universally applied to biological systems or ecosystems.
A system is defined by its overall, or net, input and output resulting from energy and matter conversion reactions within the system. A “respiratory system,” “circulatory system,” “transportation system,” “agricultural system,” “waste water treatment system” or “energy system” is defined by the output or overall function it performs. All systems are composed of interrelated, interacting and interdependent subsystems and, in turn, are intricately related parts of a suprasystem. All systems, subsystems and suprasystems function at some optimal level within a well-defined range of tolerance or the entire system, called an ecosystem by ecologist, suffers, adapts, declined, and dies and is replaced by some better adapted system (biological evolution or ecological succession.) A system’s tendency to decline and die as opposed to responding effectively to environmental change through adaptation or evolution is its “vulnerability index.”
In medicine, this capacity is called “health” and the condition of “wellness” is termed “homeostasis”. A “healthy” person can withstand the onslaught of winter flu seasons, spring rains and dampness, summer heat waves, and fall chills. His or her “homeostasis” is never pushed beyond its limits to respond effectively. They are “immune” to threat or “insult” from their environment. Even their well-deserved “hang-overs” are mild and of short duration. They are “healthy” or put another way, resilient. Another term of their condition might be they enjoy a “thermodynamic steady state” with a wide range of resiliency to challenge from within or without.” Simply put, they are “sustainable.”
“There may be as many definitions of sustainability and sustainable development as there are groups trying to define it. All the definitions have to do with:
Living within the limits (carrying capacity) of ecosystem
Understanding the interconnections among economy, society, and environment
Equitable distribution of resources and opportunities” (Sustainable Measures, 2004) [i]
The primary goal of sustainable development addresses the critical need for the protection and restoration of potable water supplies, breathable and healthy air, tillable soil and sufficient energy resources and a complete, balanced plant and animal ecosystem to provide for the increasing human societal demands while protecting pristine, natural habitats, restoring degraded fragile ecosystems (hot spots) and the protection of endangered and threatened species and associated biodiversity. Development is defined as an increase in complexity, efficiency and effectiveness while growth is defined as an increase in size or mass. Secondly, sustainability explores realistic and effective options and makes recommendations aimed at accomplishing sustainable development for urban, commercial and agricultural expansion to meet growing societal needs for food and fiber and habitable living space with minimum adverse impact on natural environments.
This second goal is intended to address the increasingly poor air quality, water supply diminution and distribution priorities and perennial soil destruction created by conventional agricultural practices and unplanned urban development and their adverse impact on human health. Ecological, economic, political and cultural considerations will be addressed as interdependent factors in creating a truly sustainable ecoregion, nation or global environment.
Economics, Ecology, Politics, Policy and Culture Meet at the Bottom Line, Down the Line
Lester Brown, in his comprehensive review of our current environmental condition, “State of the World – 2000” reports, “Today ecologists look at the deteriorating ecosystems and see a need to reconstruct the economy, the need for a paradigm shift.” [ii] This ideological chasm separating economics and ecology is artificial at best and destructive at worst. “Economists look at grain markets (for instance) and see the lowest grain prices in 20 years. But the Ecologists see water tables falling in key food-producing countries.”[iii] Paul Hawkens, successful business executive from the San Francisco Bay area, noted in his book, The Ecology of Commerce, “We have reached an unsettling and portentous turning point in industrial civilization… Business people must either dedicate themselves to transforming commerce to a restorative, sustainable undertaking, or march society to the undertaker.”[iv]
Percey Barnevik, President and CEO of Asea Brown Boveri (ABB,) one of Europe’s most respected corporate leader says, “As we enter twenty-first century, the earth is home to over 6 billion people striving to improve their quality of life. They need an abundant, affordable, reliable and sustainable power supply – but with as minimal environmental impact as possible.” Business and governmental leaders, from insurance companies to agribusiness firms to city managers and regional planners, concern about adverse environmental trends is rising. “The banking community is beginning to worry about the sustainability of its investments. The insurance industry has begun to cut back on its coverage in regions that are vulnerable to tropical storms…a result of global climate changes.”[v] Business research information coupled with objective scientific studies is documenting the significant relationship between sound manufacturing processes and increased efficiency and profits. “Environmental pollution is in reality an economic waste.”[vi]
Clearly, every sector of our society is becoming more aware of the imperative nature of sustainability. But we are still left with the questions: What is to be sustained – Water, air, ecosystems, the world? For how long is it to be sustained – One year, one generation, one millennium? Who is to sustain it – Government, industry, the people, “them”? How much is it going to cost and who pays the bills?
The Concept of Sustainability
First, let’s examine the concept of sustainability, that is, the ability to sustain one’s self over a period of time. In systems analysis parlance, this implies a thermodynamic equilibrium functioning effectively at any number of levels but within well-defined parameters, or limits, with equal efficiency. Raw materials or supplies of raw materials flow into a system be it a manufacturing company or transportation system. Certain conversion processes such as smelting, melting, forging, burning, or plating take place, and the end products are either assimilated into the system for growth, repair, or storage to increase “capital value” or released to the environment, or markets as output, either as products or waste materials.
The rate of this “through-put” is self-regulated by internal feedback and control mechanisms. Levels and types of input are compared with output, or product and the rates of conversion are modified to maintain the entire system in a relatively steady state, whatever the level of productivity. If raw materials become scarce, production slows down. If markets become flooded and inventory backs up, production slows down, if backorders pile up, in-take and production increases. If market demands increase production increases. Therefore, barring any outside interference or internal breakdown, the system is sustainable.
Ecological Sustainability
Water, air and nutrients (supplies of raw materials) flow into an ecosystem such as a lake or swamp. Certain conversion processes such as photosynthesis and respiration take place, and the end products are either assimilated into the system (for growth, repair, or storage) or released to the environment (markets) as output, either as products or waste materials. The rate of this “through-put” is self-regulated by internal feedback and control mechanisms. Input, rain, is compared with output, organic debris, and the rates of conversion are modified to maintain the entire system in a relatively steady state, whatever the level of rainfall. Therefore, the system is sustained.
Left to their own devices, open systems such as the theoretical one described above, are sustainable indefinitely as long as the overall parameters within which they exist stay within fairly well defined limits of rainfall, nutrients, output markets, and overall systemic “health,” or the ability to withstand insult or upset, to the system. Theoretically, a healthy ecosystem is self-organizing, self-regulating and self-sustaining. Natural balances, or better still, steady states, exist between constructive (anabolic, or autotrophic) reactions and destructive (catabolic, or heterotrophic) reactions. Ideally, as much carbon dioxide sequestered by photosynthesis just about, over time, equals the amount of carbon dioxide that is oxidized by respiratory or other exergonic reactions. Increases or decreases in sunlight, temperature, rainfall, flooding, sedimentation, scouring, or atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have significant impacts on the rates of photosynthesis and respiration, but as long as the relative rates of reactions remains constant, the overall processes are sustainable.
However, ecological systems such as forests, wetlands, deserts and the like, have a tendency to modify their own habitat as a result of their very own interactions with these naturally occurring “suppliers” and “markets.” Over time, nearly every naturally occurring ecosystem changes, or modifies, its habitat (limiting factors) to such a point that it is no longer sustainable. Eventually each system is replaced by another ecosystem better adapted, or more suited, for the newly-created habitat. Through this natural, gradual process of ecological succession, lakes become ponds, ponds become meadows, and meadows become forests as one succeeds the other. Therefore, in order for a pond to remain a pond, it has to be artificially dredged and cleared of sedimentation that would otherwise eventually and inevitably fill in and destroy the pond by creating a meadow. While we all long for our own Walden Pond, nature is against us on this one.
Economic Sustainability
The social system with the greatest impact on environmental quality is, of course, our economic system, with its subsystems of industry, agriculture, trade, and so forth.”[vii]“Too many of these strategies treat environmental issues as separate concerns to be addressed by environmental ministries rather than as problems that are woven into the very fabric of the world economy.”[viii]Paul Hawkens, a successful business executive from the San Francisco Bay area, noted in his book, The Ecology of Commerce, “We have reached an unsettling and portentous turning point in industrial civilization… Business people must either dedicate themselves to transforming commerce to a restorative undertaking, or march society to the undertaker.”[ix]
In reality, any business today is an international business. Leaders at all levels in the 21st century are going to increasingly find these environmental resource issues impacting on everything they do and how they do it. “If the economy is to be put on a sustainable footing in the twenty-first century, it is unlikely to be the result of a top-down, centralized plan. The answer is more likely to lie in an eclectic mix of international agreements, sensible government policies, efficient use of private resources, and bold initiatives by grassroots organizations and local governments.”[x]
Across the business and government spectrum, from insurance companies to agribusiness firms, concern about environmental trends is rising. “The banking community is beginning to worry about the sustainability of its investments. The insurance industry has begun to cut back on its coverage in regions that are vulnerable to tropical storms…a result of global climate changes.”[xi] Business research information coupled with objective scientific studies is documenting the significant relationship between sound manufacturing processes and increased efficiency and profits. “Environmental pollution is in reality an economic waste.”[xii]The solution, therefore, is to convert pollutants into profits. “Because industry is a principal source of environmental problems, it needs to become a principal source of solutions.” “It is likely that they are better equipped than government regulators to understand the often complex technology involved in their manufacturing processes.” [xiii]
For example, Minnesota Manufacturing & Mining (3M) Company management has taken great strides toward decreasing their adverse impact upon the environment by increasing the efficiency of their materials processing. They have also taken steps toward developing new markets for new products developed from process byproducts that used to be waste products. Not only do they dramatically decrease land fill additions but are increasing profit margin by more efficient manufacturing processes and new products out of previous waste materials. In the 1960’s, the catch phrase for environmental problems was, “the solution to pollution is dilution.” Today, a very effective approach might be, “the solution to pollution is profits.” Likewise, Dow Chemical Company has initiated significant production and processing “rethinking” as well as “retooling” processes designed to reduce demands on natural resource supplies while converting potential pollutants into profitable product lines.[xiv] Hewlett-Packard Corporation is preeminent in the field of environmentally friendly processes in a traditionally high impact industry of electronic manufacturing.
Agricultural Sustainability
As an example, agriculture does not exist in a vacuum. Agriculture, and its corporate iteration, agribusiness, impacts on the entire infrastructure of a country. Agribusiness, like any major enterprise, places heavy demands on a nation’s economy, balance of trade, currency, value systems, and need for roads and railroads, energy generation and transmission, and communication networks. It competes directly with cities and other industries for water affecting both quality and availability. Farming and its various activities impact on ground water levels and quality as well as surface streams and lakes. The cost of farming directly influences the cost of living and therefore the standard of living of any nation. Therefore, any planning process for sustainable agriculture must be taken as a part of the more comprehensive plan for regional and national economic interests.
Political Sustainability
No governmental policy related to the environment, the economy or to society in general is sustainable unless it has the firm, long-term committed support of the majority of both political parties, all major candidates, and the electoral constituencies. Policies that are enacted by one set of incumbents only to be overturned by another set of incumbents are not sustainable regardless of their inherent merit or “ecological” logic. What makes a policy “sustainable” is its inherent support from major political support groups and individuals, namely “special interest groups.”
“Ultimately, all politics are local politics.”[xv] All elected officials are politicians who are elected to their ‘high offices’ right out of their own local District made up of very local precincts and/or districts. Such officials respond most effectively to ‘special interest’ group that can really have an impact on the decision-making process. Everyone, citizen or not, 18 years old or not, belongs to one ‘special interest’ group or another. College students belong to a special interest group interested in maintaining and expanding their Pell Grant support. Single moms belong to a special interest group that wants to maintain or expand their aid to families with dependent children and general assistance programs. 86% of people on welfare are single, teen-aged mothers. Parenthetically, teen-aged pregnancy is the leading cause of poverty in this country. They are a special interest group with practically no representation anywhere. Motorcyclists who don’t want to have to wear helmets belong to a special interests group. It’s just that some special interest groups are more special than others. And who are those ‘really special interest’ groups? Quite frankly, anyone who votes and/or donates money and better still, gets others to vote and donate money belongs to a ‘very special interest’ group.
A United States congressperson has to run for election and reelection ever two years. That’s every seven hundred and thirty days. It costs about $750,000 to run a successful campaign for congress and several million to run a similar campaign for the senate. That means that a congressperson has to raise about a thousand dollars every day they are in office just to run for election and stay in office for another two years. Our elected representatives have to spend a great deal of their “off-hours” raising money just to stay in office so they can raise still more money to stay in office longer. Actually, no elected official can actively campaign or raise money, read that, get votes or get money to get votes, while they are in a state capital such as Sacramento, California or Washington, D.C. being paid and spending government money. That makes it even worse. That means each congressperson has to raise their $750,000 on weekends, or about seven thousand dollars every Saturday and Sunday of their lives. A senatorial election costs approximately $10,000,000 while presidential elections can exceed one hundred million dollars or more!
The Role of Special Interest Groups
That’s where special interest groups come in. Each congressperson and senator needs help and lots of it to fund their campaigns and pay their bills so that they can meet with and serve the needs of their constituency, that’s you and me again, and spend some time with their families. A ‘really special interest group’ is anyone or any group of ‘anyone’s who donate money, lots of money, and help raise lots of money for the next campaign. Wealthy people, organized labor, professional groups such as doctors, teachers and lawyers, corporate affiliations, and of course political action committees, or PAC’s, all give substantial sums of money to political parties and political candidates whom they are convinced will propose bills and support legislation that is favorable to their particular interest, or ‘special interest.’
Another ‘really special interest group’ is any group that turns out in large numbers at the poles and votes for a particular candidate, cause or initiative. Senior citizens, first generation naturalize Americans, conservatives, wealthy people, and those who really care about their environment, their liberties, or their neighborhoods register and vote in every election. Every candidate for office has precinct lists in front of them and they know who is registered with what party and who voted in the last primary and general election. They even know who voted and who did not vote in special elections for school boards and harbors commissioners. Ecological sustainability is dependent upon political survivability of its place in the priority structure of politically active special interest groups.
Cultural Sustainability
Social conflict and environmental concerns are no better illustrated than the Three Gorges dam project on the Yangtze River in China. The quest in China for an alternative source of energy for heating and cooking that is more environmentally friendly than that currently produced by burning soft (bituminous) coal has created conflicts common to such proposals. Five ancient valleys of great cultural heritage value will be flooded to provide clean, efficient hydroelectric energy for cities though out south China. Shanghai and Guangzhou are so heavily polluted that one can just barely see across the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers respectively. There will be no simple answers here or elsewhere concerning actions taken to insure the present and future if such actions threaten to destroy our links to the past.
One major issue to be faced by the current environmental preservation and restoration effort is a matter of personal impact and family values, at least as seen through the eyes of those families most directly affected by environmental remediation efforts. We all are or ultimately will be affected directly and indirectly by environmental pollution and decay. We all will, therefore, benefit from environmental restoration efforts. It is the worker in today’s business, industry and farm, and his or her family, however, whose life style, security, home and job is most directly impacted by manufacturing, production and consumption changes resulting from these efforts. Simply stated, her or his job is on the line.
However, it is less than effective to tell a South African native not to kill zebras when his and her children are starving. It is less than effective to tell a Pakistani who’s wife has just been mauled by a tiger not to kill tigers. It might be more successful though equally daunting, to attempt to convince Southeast Asians to eat brown rice instead of polished rice. It would go a long way alleviating protein deficiency diseases if national leaders could convince Indian populations to eat meat (heaven literally forbids) instead of allowing cattle the run of cities and towns. Burning elephant dung for heating and cooking is the only alternative for Botswana San even though it results in serious depletion of soil nutrients. Equally ineffective is attempting to convince a three-car American family to share a ride with each other and double up on trips to the market with taking in a show. The American automobile and the independence it yields is a “constitutional right that shall not be abridged.”
Cultural realities are every bit as commanding and irresistible as global warming and even more so to the less-than-well informed. The simple act of wearing a condom and practicing “safe sex” would have prevented most of the AIDS cases afflicting 60 percent and 35 percent of the citizens of Zimbabwe and Botswana respectively. Wearing condoms and using other birth control measures might well reduce welfare roles by over 50%in this country alone. The almost universal commitment to the concept that “my house is my home” stands directly in the way of preservation of open spaces and threatened ecosystems when applied to large landowners and corporate developers. Cattle and dairy farmers faced with almost ruinous increases in operating expenses “just to clean up” a near-by stream is less than enthusiastic about the sustainability of the wetlands maintained by that stream.
Sustainability Redefined
Sustainability is the capacity of a system to maintain a thermodynamic steady state at some optimum level above equilibrium constant (balance.) When upset (moved out of steady state) by changes in its surroundings, the sustainable system has the capacity to return to its previously established thermodynamic steady state (resilience), or establish a new thermodynamic steady state over time meeting the challenges of both internal and external environmental changes (adaptability.) Establishing and maintaining a thermodynamic steady state above equilibrium requires energy (endergonic reaction) from some energy yielding source outside of (in the surrounding of) the system (exergonic reaction.) The internal (systemic) and external (surroundings) reactions are interdependent, or coupled, reactions.
The Physics of Sustainability:
Sustainability is the capacity of a system to maintain itself and/or return to its previously established thermodynamic steady state if upset by external challenges, or establish a new thermodynamic steady state over time meeting the challenges of both internal and external environmental changes. In medicine, this capacity is called “health” and the condition of “wellness” is termed “homeostasis”. A “healthy” person can withstand the onslaught of winter flu seasons, spring rains and dampness, summer heat waves, and fall chills. His or her “homeostasis” is never pushed beyond its limits to respond effectively. They are “immune” to threat or “insult” from their environment. Even their well-disserved “hang-overs” are mild and of short duration. They are “healthy.” Another term of their condition might be “thermodynamically resilient with a wide range of challenges from within or without.” Simply put, they are “sustainable.”
The Physics of Thermodynamic Steady States:
Entropy as indicated by the symbol, S, is a condition or state of randomness and disorganization (low level of organized free energy capable of doing work) and a high probability of “spontaneous random occurrence” i.e., a leaderless mob. An increase in entropy or ΔS, as an expression of disorganization change, results in a +ΔS, and a decrease in disorder or more exactly, an increase in “orderliness,” or enthalpy, results in a –ΔS.
Enthalpy symbolized by the letter, F, is a condition or state of organization and complexity (high degree of organization such as a football team.) Free energy is the capacity to do work. Enthalpy has a low probability of “random occurrence” and may happen without the infusion of energy of organization (force) i.e., an army. An increase in enthalpy as an expression of increase in organization results in a +ΔF. If the “free energy” is in the form of heat energy, it is symbolized by the letter, H, and the measure of change in heat energy is measured in change in temperature (ΔT.)
An increase in enthalpy (organization) results from a decrease in entropy (disorganization.) +ΔF = -ΔS. Such conversion processes require an input of energy, hence, are endergonic reactions.
An increase in entropy (disorganization) is achieved by a corresponding decrease in enthalpy (or organization.) + ΔS = -ΔF. Such conversion processes liberate energy, hence, are exergonic reactions.
NOTE: From Flambert.com.
Many texts define the second law (of thermodynamics) as “the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process” and then throw qrev/T or free energy = ΔH and ΔS at you. (where qrev/T = free energy, or F)
“In the Gibbs equation, ΔG = ΔH – TΔS, each term describes an aspect of the energy that is dispersed because of a chemical reaction occurring in a system: ΔG is an expression of change in total energy in a reaction. Therefore, ΔG is the total energy that is spread out in the universe (system plus surroundings) due to the reaction that has taken place in the system.
ΔH is the energy (heat) liberated from the exothermic or exergonic reaction that is dispersed from the system to the surroundings, or in endothermic (endergonic) reactions, from the surroundings into the system. TΔS is the energy that is dispersed in the system – in the products of the reaction as compared to the reactants.
The Gibbs “works” because it corresponds to the second law as we would state it, “Energy spontaneously disperses, if it is not hindered. When it does so, entropy increases in the combination of system plus surroundings.” This is what the conventional statement means when it says more succinctly but more obscurely, “‘the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process.’”
Coupled Thermodynamic Processes:
Enthalpy -to- Entropy reactions drive Entropy -to- Enthalpy Conversion Processes. The Third Law of Motion states that, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Therefore, if entropy increases (+ΔS) in the universe, enthalpy must increase (+ΔF) somewhere within the universe (system + surroundings.) Fortunately for us, the increase in entropy on the sun (+ΔS) has resulted in an increase in enthalpy right here on Earth (+ΔF). This might well explain the very obvious increase in organization and complexity expressed in organic evolution of the species and succession in ecosystems.
Since no system is a perfect system, that is, there is always a loss of free energy in any conversion process due the thermodynamic inefficiency of the reaction systems. Any entropy-to-enthalpy reaction (endergonic) build-up of organization or complexity, actually results in less energy in the enthalpy system than was lost in the exergonic reaction. The difference is expressed as an increase in randomness, or entropy. Hence, + ΔS. Clearly, no such reactions resulting in increased complexity or free, usable energy of organization can continue indefinitely. It is not “sustainable” over time. Eventually, all free energy of organization will be lost to, or converted into entropy of randomness and all life as we know it ceases to exist. However, there can be a happy ending to this scenario. In fact, the happy ending is not an ending at all. For well over 750 million years, there has been a continuous build up of complexity and increased presence of free energy on this earth. In fact, for well over 160 million years, there was such an abundance of complex reactions that the surplus was “stored” in deep “domes” of organic matter: Oil, coal, and natural gases.
These fortunate “surplus” endergonic (increased organization, energy storing) reactions were possible only because the vast majority, well of 99%, of all such reactions were driven from another set of reactions taking place 93 million miles away; the thermonuclear reactions on our very own sun. These thermonuclear reactions on the sun result in massive quantities of exergonic reactions releasing billions of kilowatts-equivalence of energy every second, some few millions of which are caught and captured here on earth by our mostly-ignored green plants. The massive exergonic reactions on the sun drive the relatively minor endergonic reactions here on earth. These double reactions are in fact, coupled reactions where one drives the other. However, in just under 200 years, industrialized civilization has gone through, cut down or burned up the majority of all known reserves of such organized, organic matter. Just what were these “constructive” positive enthalpic forces and how might we rekindle their productivity here on earth? That is the challenge of sustainability.
Thermonuclear exergonic reactions on the sun drive endergonic reactions on Earth
Photosynthesis, an endergonic reaction (+ ΔF), utilizes light energy from the sun to energize or excite electrons in the chlorophyll molecules in green plants and some purple sulfur bacteria. By a series of solid state electron transfer reactions, energy pumped into the electron by the chlorophyll molecule is removed to increase the complexity and free energy of other organic compounds that drive the metabolic “engine” of the plant. Utilizing carbon dioxide and water, these same plant cells store their surplus day-time energy production in complex organic molecules called starches and other complex carbohydrates, proteins and fats for future uses. Humans and other animals eat the organic compounds and other plant products utilizing the stored energy in exergonic reaction of respiration, the by-products of which are carbon dioxide and water and heat energy. For well over 750,000,000 years, these endergonic-exergonic, enthalpy-entropy reactions have been carried out in a most sustainable manner. The “balance” between the endergonic processes of photosynthesis and the exergonic reactions of respiration was maintained by natural population control mechanisms as determined by the carrying capacity of ecosystem. Carrying capacity, in turn, is a moving target, so to speak, depending on weather (wet seasons, droughts) or other natural occurrences (earth quakes, volcanic eruptions.) Carrying capacity may vary dramatically day to night, season to season, year to year. Such perturbations in carrying capacity that are cyclic are called periodic changes.
Some changes in carrying capacity, however, are slow to emerge and are more or less permanent. The natural processes of ecological succession, for instance, display a slow, progressive process of conversion of an ecosystem with a low enthalpy (organization) and high entropy (disorganization) into a complex, dynamic highly biologically diverse ecosystem. A bare bottom lake or pond (atrophic) displays little complexity of either structure or activity (biological function.) A mature (euthropic) lake or wetland displays a very complex arrangement of biodiversity and interactions within the surrounding habitat. The sere (organized successive conversion of one ecosystem to another) produced by the processes of an atrophic lake or wetland slowly transforming itself into a very complex eutropic lake and eventually a meadow or forest with a very complicated and biodiverse climax vegetative state is, in reality, a set of biochemical and biophysical interaction resulting in the increase in enthalpy (+ ΔF) at the expense of a decrease in entropy (- ΔS.) No ecosystem on earth carries out these endergonic processes more rapidly or in more significant quantities than wetlands.
This localized increase in enthalpy in the lake’s ecosystem is driven by the corresponding decrease in enthalpy somewhere else. In natural ecosystems, this corresponding decrease in enthalpy occurs on the sun as its massive amounts of active hydrogen are converted into inert helium in the exergonic process of thermonuclear reactions. In anthropogenic (man-made) changes, these increases in complexity (enthalpy) are driven by corresponding decreases in complexity somewhere else right here on earth. Coal, oil and natural gases are converted by oxidation, an exergonic reaction, liberating energy and reducing the complex organic fuels to carbon dioxide and water. Likewise, wood burning fireplaces, ovens, and stoves convert very complex cellulose compounds into CO2 and H2O. Our entire carbon-based economy and industrial organization is based upon the relatively simple process of converting chemical compounds with high levels of organization (enthalpy) into simple compounds with lower levels of organization.
About 8,000 to 10,000 years ago in at lease three different regions of the Earth, humans discovered the process of selecting and storing a portion of seeds gathered in their hunting and gathering exploits. They planted these selected seeds and settled down to wait for their germination some 4-6 months later. From this simple act, settlements emerged and former nomadic hunter-gathering tribes became settlers and farmers. They, in effect, took control of their environment no longer dependent upon the vicissitudes of nature to provide food and shelter. Famine, the primary population control mechanism for hundreds of millions of years, was greatly reduced and human populations exploded. The “balance of nature” was destroyed. The delicate balance between endergonic, enthalpy-generating reactions with exergonic, entropy-generating reactions was broken. We began to “disorganize” our environment (+ ΔS.) The past century bore witness to prodigious conversion of naturally dynamic, steady state ecosystems to unbalanced, burnt out or lumbered out forests, dug out coal, oil and natural gas fields, uranium ore deposits, river courses realignment and dam construction, wetland conversions, land geomorphology alterations and otherwise destroyed.
It takes thousands of years for nature to grow a forest and hundreds of millions of years for the deadwood falling on the forest floor to be converted into coal, oil and natural gases. It takes only minutes, even seconds, for modern machines such as automobiles and electric generators to convert these very complex structures into simple compounds that pollute the atmosphere and endangers the lives of all living organisms. It is thermodynamically impossible, at lease by all currently known methodologies, to build and operate a machine that converts highly complex, high energy earth-bound compounds into simple, low energy compounds in a sustainable manner. In other words, we are rapidly converting our environment into randomness and chaos.
However, we do have systems right now, here on earth, that capture energy released from the exergonic reactions on the sun to drive endergonic reactions capable of doing all the work we now use complex and non-renewable carbon compounds for now. They are called photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells capture free energy in the form of light from the sun as energized electrons, an endergonic reaction, much in the same manner that photosynthetic plant cells do. Coupled with newly emerging nanotechnology and high capacity storage units being developed, humans can have reliable, affordable, sustainable energy resources for all foreseeable needs for cooking, heating, and transportation now and in the future.
In the meantime, we can capitalize on the 750 million year old processes of photosynthesis to “capture” light energy from the sun and use it to convert carbon dioxide and water into complex carbon compounds better known as corn and other farm products from which we produce methane and other complex compounds for conversion to electric power. Be it photovoltaic cell reaction or green plant cell reactions, the “drawdown” from the environment is the same; sunlight and water and carbon dioxide and the waste products exuded into the environment are the same: Carbon dioxide and water and heat!
The Forest Dilemma
Some 25,000 years ago humans discovered various techniques of killing animals, a rich source of protein, without being killed in the process. We shifted our lifestyle from scavenger and gatherer to hunter and gatherer. It apparently did not take early modern humans to also discover that grasslands supported far more “killable” prey than forest. Between 10,000 and 25,000 years ago, shortly after discovering the control of fire, humankind started the relentless process of clear burning forest both in the “old world” and later the “new.” In fact, many of the open savannas and grasslands found throughout the northern temperate zone are the remnants of “clear burning” by our ravenous ancestors.
A broadleaf, hardwood forest takes 50-150 years to reach “climax” vegetation levels of productivity. It take only a few moments to start and spread a fire that effectively wipes the ecological slate clear making way for a much faster-growing meadow that attracts and supports thousands of herbivores feeding on the succulent, green grains and forbs. Regular burning of grasslands, in turn, retained a relatively constant supply of fruits and seeds, roots and succulent stems of annual plants while suppressing the reappearance of much slower growing, heavily-barked, shade-producing trees. No longer were the products of photosynthesis being sequestered deep within the heartwood of ancient trees. We were taking control of our environment and well on our way toward creating a non-sustainable, “entropic” society.
The Agriculture Dilemma
About 8,000 to 10,000 years ago in at lease three different regions of the Earth, humans discovered the process of selecting and storing a portion of seeds gathered in their hunting and gathering exploits. They planted these selected seeds and settled down to wait for their germination some 4-6 months later. From this simple act, settlements emerged and former nomadic hunter-gathering tribes became settlers and farmers. They, in effect, took control of their environment no longer dependent upon the vicissitudes of nature to provide food and shelter. Famine, the primary population control mechanism for hundreds of millions of years, was greatly reduced and human populations began their relentless “explosion.” The “balance of nature” was being destroyed. The delicate balance between endergonic, enthalpy-generating reactions with exergonic, entropy-generating reactions was broken. We began to “disorganize” our environment (+ ΔS.) The past century bore witness to prodigious conversion of naturally dynamic, steady state ecosystems to unbalanced, burnt out or lumbered out forests, dug out coal, oil and natural gas fields, uranium ore deposits, river courses realignment and dam construction, wetland conversions, land geomorphology alterations and otherwise destroyed.
The Modern Society Dilemma
In modern societies, anthropogenic (man-made) increases in complexity or free energy (productivity) are driven by corresponding decreases in complexity or free energy somewhere else right here on earth. Our entire carbon-based economy and industrial organization is based upon the relatively simple process of converting chemical compounds with high free energy levels (enthalpy) into simple compounds with lower free energy levels releasing free energy to do work (productivity.) As long as photosynthetic processes somewhere on earth balance out or exceed slow oxidative respiratory and rapid oxidation burning processes here on earth, the thermodynamic steady state is maintained. Such an “energy system” would be sustainable. However, in modern societies, fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gases are converted by burning (rapid oxidation) reducing the complex organic fuels to carbon dioxide and water liberating energy (an exergonic reaction.) Thermoelectric generators, wood burning fireplaces, ovens and automobiles convert fossil fuels or very complex cellulose compounds into CO2 and H2O liberating free, or usable, energy to do work.
The Fossil Fuel Dilemma
It takes thousands of years for nature to grow a forest and hundreds of millions of years for the deadwood falling on the forest floor to be converted into coal, oil and natural gases (fossil fuels.) These fossil fuels represent billions of kilowatts of free energy and hundreds of billions of tons of sequestered carbon. It takes only minutes, even seconds, for modern machines such as automobiles and electric generators to convert these very complex structures into simple compounds that pollute the atmosphere and endangers the lives of all living organisms. It is thermodynamically impossible, at lease by all currently known methodologies, to build and operate a machine that converts highly concentrated, high energy earth-bound fossil fuel compounds into simple, low energy compounds in a sustainable manner. The sequestered carbons and corresponding free energy are being “unsequestered” at unprecedented rates worldwide. In other words, we are rapidly converting portions of our orderly environment into randomness and chaos at a rate far greater than “nature” can reverse the process.
We can, and in many locations, are capitalizing on the 750 million year old processes of photosynthesis to “capture” light energy from the sun converting carbon dioxide and water into renewable complex carbon compounds better known as corn and other farm products. Likewise, we can and are utilizing human and other animal and plant waste liberating heat for conversion to electric power. Any process that “burns” complex carbon compounds such as sugars, starches, cellulose, or simpler compounds like methane and other natural gases produced by “digesters” have the capacity to be or become sustainable. Capturing and treating heavily-laden run-off from hog and dairy farms, feed lots and paper pulp mills can produce sustainable, carbon-based energy systems.
However, we now have energy conversion systems, right here on earth, that are highly efficient, clean, non-polluting, non-organic, sustainable energy systems that capture energy released from the exergonic reactions on the sun to drive endergonic reactions capable of doing the work for which we now use complex carbon compounds and non-renewable fossil fuels. They are called photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells capture free energy in the form of light from the sun energizing electrons in the light-sensitive cells, an endergonic reaction, much in the same manner that chlorophyll does in photosynthetic plant cells. Coupled with newly-emerging nanotechnology and high capacity storage units being developed, humans can have reliable, affordable, non-polluting and sustainable energy resources for all foreseeable needs for cooking, heating, and transportation now and in the future. Be it photovoltaic cell reaction or green plant cell reactions, the “drawdown” from the environment is the same; sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. And the waste products exuded into the environment are the same: Carbon dioxide and water and heat! The net thermodynamic conversion is light energy from the sun converted into heat energy that radiates back into space, providing of course we haven’t already so damaged Earth’s stratosphere so that these heat energies are trapped within our atmosphere. If so, then all bets are off.
The Challenge
Sustainable development is the marshalling and utilization of natural and human resources to maintain and improve our current standard of living while preserving and protecting those resources for the benefit of future generations. Simply put but not simple to achieve, sustainability is the establishment of natural resource use policy and practice that create a dynamic steady state among natural ecosystems and economically sustainable agriculture, urban expansion and industrial development that meets the needs of business, industry, government, the people of California and the natural environment, according to the Iroquois Nation, “unto the ninth generation.”
The primary goal of sustainability addresses the critical needs for the preservation and restoration of pristine, natural habitats, protection of endangered and threatened species and biodiversity through preservation of fragile ecosystem (hot spots), and the protection and restoration of water, air, soil and energy resources. Secondly, this project will explore realistic and effective options and make recommendations aimed at accomplishing sustainable development for urban and commercial, and agricultural expansion to meet growing societal needs for food and fiber with minimum adverse impact on natural environments. This second project goal is intended to address the increasingly poor air quality, water degradation and distribution priorities and perennial soil destruction created by conventional agribusiness practices and their adverse impact on human health within the Central Valley. Ecological, economic, political and cultural considerations will be addressed as interdependent factors in creating a truly sustainable Global Ecosystem.
Summary
Sustainable development planning for natural resource utilization involves the direct and active participation of three principle societal elements. They must involve business and industry, governmental services and policy makers, and non-profit or non-governmental organizations.[xvi] To insure “buy-in” by all concerned stakeholders, each segment of our society must be addressed. In addition, such planning efforts must have the support of the general population of that society if they are to survive over time to fruition. For any sustainable resource development to have an appreciable chance of surviving, it must have at least three characteristics. It must preserve that which is significant and unique, restore that which has been destroyed or polluted, and conscientiously develop that which holds out promise of improving the human condition in a specific geographic region and abroad.
Environmental sustainability is a very real possibility only if pursued through realistic economic, political and cultural avenues. Divorcing environmentalism from the real world within which we all live, will be as futile as separating an ecosystem from its supporting habitat. It simply will not work. If we are to succeed in developing comprehensive environmental & natural resource management plans, particularly those designed to feed, clothe and house our ever increasing human population, we must move from a destructive confrontation mode to a constructive and cooperative methodology of problem solving. Business, industry, governmental and non-profit organizations must “stop the rhetoric and sit down at the same table”[xvii] and together plan for and build a sustainable future for ourselves, our children, and our world according to Iroquois tradition, “unto the seventh generation.” [xviii]
Additional Blogs
Note:
These blog sites are intended for the consideration of environmental resource management students and are not intended to supplement or supplant on-site strategic environmental resource studies for implementation of environmental resource utilization, development, policies or plans.[1]
|
Sustainable Development: Eco-economics (http://adp2atp.blog.com) |
|
Our Children, Our Canaries: Our Children (http://canaries.blog.com) |
|
Barriers: Barriers (http://vulnerability.blog.com) |
|
Reconnecting the Worlds of Science: Reintegration (http://reintegration.blog.com) |
References:
[i] Flavin, Christopher. Climate of Hope: New Strategies for Stabilizing the World’s Atmosphere, Worldwatch Paper #130. 1996 (7)
[ii] Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin & Hilary French. State of the World, 1997 Norton Press. 1997 (9)
[iii] Brown, 2000 (105)
[iv] Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin & Hilary French.(20)
[v] Brown, 1997
[vi] Huey Johnson. Narrator Green Plans. Video.
[vii] Johnson, Huey. Green Plans – Greenpring to sustainability. Bison Press. 1995 (124)
[viii] Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin & Hilary French. State of the World, 1997 Norton Press. 1997 (4)
[ix] Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin & Hilary French. State of the World, 1997 Norton Press. 1997 (20)
[x] Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin & Hilary French. State of the World, 1997 Norton Press. 1997 (4)
[xi] Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin & Hilary French. State of the World, 1997 Norton Press. 1997
[xii] Green Plans. Video. Huey Johnson, narrator
[xiii] Johnson, Huey. Green Plans – Greenpring to sustainability. Bison Press. 1995 (137)
[xiv] DeSimone, Livio D. and Frank Popoff. Eco-efficiency – The Business Link to sustainable Development. M.I.T. Press. 1997.
[xv] unknown
[xvi] Johnson, Huey. Green Plans – Greenprint to sustainability. Bison Press. 1995 (97)
[xvii] Green Plans. Huey Johnson, narrator, Video.
[xviii] Unknown Native American
