​

Introduction to the Discovery Solar Transition Project

​

​

The Discovery Solar Transition Project combines technological and economic innovation and existing technology to help stop human civilization from continuing to degrade and overload the earth’s natural systems, as it has been doing for example by overloading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and to help make civilization more humane and just during the struggle. The earth has been responding to civilization’s bad behavior with increasingly dangerous, destructive and costly biogeophysical feedback, including climate change produced by the warming from the excess greenhouse gases. (1 - 12) Civilization is on a path with a substantial chance to force the earth across a stability threshold (tipping point) by around 2050 or sooner, thus triggering a major spontaneous, unstoppable decline in the habitability of the earth for humans and other contemporary species. (13 - 16) As time for transitioning to a better path runs out and government action remains inadequate, the Discovery Solar Transition Project aims to develop a focused supplemental currency system to help bend down the trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions and other damage, and support work to make society more humane and just in the US, and possibly elsewhere.

​

​

A currency system for a better future

​

The project's combination of technology and economics is envisioned to start with a strategy in which a build-up of a large number of supportive early adopters and holders of a digital currency is used to incentivize the formation of a configuration of producers and providers in the United States that could accept the currency. Formation could start with solar and transportation technology development and manufacturing companies and installers agreeing to accept the currency from major energy-intensive industrial and commercial companies (e.g. grocery stores, delivery services) as partial payment for solar installations with energy storage and electric or hydrogen powered vehicles. The solar and other manufacturing companies could originate outside of the project business entity or be spun off from research and development done internally. This in turn would incentivize the grocery stores and others to accept the currency. Some of the currency would flow back from the solar and vehicle workers to the grocery stores and others and some would flow from the larger population of account holder members. Other, less energy intensive firms and businesses could also participate as development proceeds.

 

Policies for creating more currency and granting it to people with low to moderate income for use toward purchase or lease of solar installations with energy storage or participation in community solar and toward electric vehicles would further accelerate uptake of the technology. To promote ecological citizenship, large grants would require completion of a non-too-difficult short course in environmental science and the interaction of human civilization with the natural world as well as in problems related to technological transition away from fossil fuels. 

​

Ecological citizenship would include better decisions about the use of savings from grants for solar installations with energy storage. Education for ecological citizenship also may help build the population of political  supporters and thus contributes to a connection between the currency system and conventional activism.

 

The currency is also to be issued at a discount or granted to donors and volunteers in nonprofit humane, social justice and environmental groups to empower more contributions, and to individuals whose lives and work merit support. Some currency could be granted to nonprofit organizations.

 

So the development of the currency system aims to directly accelerate the advancement and uptake of solar technology with energy storage and other technology and support other work to help bend down the trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions and other damage, and support work to make society more humane and just in the US, and possibly elsewhere.

 

Further description of development and mathematical modelling of system operation and consideration of risks and obstacles is on the currency system development page.

​

​

Learn more about the Transition Project Currency System

 

​

The case for focused digital currency in an environmental revolution

 

 

​Why Digital Community Currency systems?

​

Introduction

​

Human civilization is at a crossroads in its relationship with the earth. The existing financial-capitalist-political system, overall in much of the world, is continuing to drive civilization to degrade and overload the earth’s natural systems, for example by overloading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. The earth has been responding to civilization’s bad behavior with increasingly dangerous, destructive and costly biogeophysical feedback, including climate change produced by the warming from the excess greenhouse gases. (1 - 12) Civilization is on a path with a substantial chance to force the earth across a stability threshold by around 2050 or sooner, thus triggering a major spontaneous, unstoppable decline in the habitability of the earth for humans and other contemporary species. (13 - 16) 

 

In 2020, Professor Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a Professor in Earth System Science at the University of Potsdam, summarized the outlook:

​

​...as far as we know, today—it’s over the next 10-20 years that we determine together—we who live here now—whether or not we press the on button of irreversible changes.... it is during that time that we determine whether or not we will be able to handle what happens beyond those 20 years. (19)

 

The creation, distribution and exercise of economic power (including money, but also other assets) in civilization overall in modern times has been a major force in bringing civilization to the current crisis point and is continuing to push the earth toward a stability limit. To avoid pressing the "on button of irreversible changes" the creation, distribution and exercise of economic power must be changed rapidly to do more of what is needed and less of what should not be done, in a transition to a sustainable and more humane and just society. 

​

What needs to be done includes a rapid technological transition away from fossil fuels to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but while necessary, just technological transition is not enough. The combination of population growth and the assimilation of people into the high-consuming and polluting middle class must be humanely reversed because it slows the reduction of emissions from technological transition and may make it impossible to make the transition fast enough. Meanwhile, the high-consuming and polluting middle class should reduce per-capita consumption through systemic changes and through individual choice. Human Population growth and high per-capita consumption also cause other problems for humans and other species. They drive deforestation, which reduces carbon sinks and increases the chances of spillovers of viruses into the human population and they drive species extinctions.

​​​

A shift in society's priorities for using energy is also needed in addition to and in conjunction with a technological transition away from fossil fuels. The continuing depletion of the easiest to access fossil fuels will continue to require a greater rate of input of energy and human work to provide finished fossil fuels per unit energy provided. Along with this, a rapid technological transition, if it were to happen, would require a lot of upfront investment of energy and human work for manufacturing, installation and deployment of solar and other generation and energy storage technology.  So an even greater rate of input of energy and human work in the overall energy sector would be required for some initial period of time, leaving less energy per capita for other things. (46)

​

Under such limitations, along with those caused by worsening environmental feedback (extreme heat waves, drought, storms, etc.) and possible wars, deficiencies of market forces in prioritizing the uses of energy will have worsening consequences. Even with relatively moderate limitations, society’s priorities are already bad under the dominant profit maximization and market economic-political regime. The bad priorities result mainly from the market competition of essential production and activity with luxuries, including the manufacture and operation of private jets and yachts, for limited energy and materials. The market competition will worsen as the limitations worsen.  Based on global society's history and power structure, they will almost certainly get worse in the coming years. (1 - 18, 20 - 22, 47, 25, 28, 29, 32, 34, 43) So a complex of interrelated processes, including energy constraints, will continue to put increasing stress on society in the coming years and will not be humanely dealt with by market capitalism.

​

Civil society in the US, with conventional political activism and policy advocacy, has been losing the battle to increase government support for technological transition, reverse population growth, and improve priorities.  It has not even been able to accelerate technological transition in the US-China trade complex. (7 - 13, 17, 18, 20 - 22, 47, 28, 29, 32, 34 - 36, 42) There is no sign of a global turn-around despite civil society's work and civilization is likely to “push the on button of irreversible changes,” if it has not already, and is seriously in danger of pushing the earth across a stability limit.

 

​Even if civil society could get the corporate-government complex to accelerate technological transition, it is very unlikely that it could make it humanely reverse population growth and enforce energy priorities. This is evidenced by the failure, delay or inability of the US federal government to sufficiently enable the economic bottom half to afford essentials in a time when fossil fuel companies and other big business entities raise their prices to maintain or increase profits for wealthy investors.

 

Therefore, to change to new technology and reduce population growth and per-capita consumption fast enough to avoid climate catastrophe, and improve priorities, additional actions beyond conventional political activism should be taken. A supplemental currency  approach that integrates direct action and support for political activism is introduced in this article.  Such projects might reduce suffering and narrowly avert crossing an earth system stability limit that the status quo is headed for.

​​

In this article:

The main focus of this article is on human-caused  greenhouse gas emissions including the effect of deforestation and carbon cycle feed backs. Civilization's history of increasing emissions will be compared with required future emissions reductions .

 

The factors causing increasing damage are summarized in the IPAT equation,  which is a simple obvious relation between human population and percapita environmental impacts, with a factor accounting for technological changes.    It shows how human population growth and assimilation of people into the middle class has offset per-person reduction of emissions from technological change in some areas and will continue to oppose reductions of  emissions and other environmental impacts. This simple equation has been ignored or effectively denied by the capitalistic growth maniacal rulers of industrial society. 

 

A life-cycle analysis of the the effectiveness of technological transition shows that the T factor can be reduced over time, thus reducing per-capita emissions with better technology.

 

The energy-related economic problems in a rapid transition as well as from the increasing energy cost of fossil fuels will be discussed. 

 

In view of environmental feedback, civilizations bad history, population growth, potential of new technology and energy-related economic problems, some possible scenarios without systemic change will then be  discussed. Some of the requirements for new systems and their potential to realize better scenarios are then discussed.

 

As an example, the development of the Discovery Solar Transition Currency System  is described in which advancement in solar energy and transportation technology and existing technology is enabled to support development of a supplemental digital currency system for creating, distributing and allocating economic power for what needs to be done. This Includes not only further and faster development and deployment of the technology but also work for an overall broad scope of improvement in the allocation of energy and materials and integration with education to increase the base of support.

​

A brief consideration of the possible modifying effects of systems like the one proposed on society's plausible trajectories reveals some of what may realistically be hoped for.  Suffering might be reduced in the coming years. The crossing of an earth system stability limit and a horrible collapse of civilization without hope of a smaller, better one reemerging (on a human time scale) might be narrowly averted. 

​

 

Civilization's bad emissions history and required future emissions reductions

​

Scientists assert that any global warming of over 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial conditions will likely result in irreversible damage and harsh consequences. In the Paris Accord of 2015, over 190 countries agreed to the goal of keeping global warming below 2°C and agreed to aim to not exceed 1.5°C. This would require reduction in global annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions through 2030 and beyond. The year 2005 was used as a reference year by some of the countries, including the US. 

​

Contrary to the objectives though, global annual emissions including the effect of anthropogenic land use changes increased after the time of the accord, and in 2019 were about 5% higher relative to 2015 and 34% higher relative to 2005. (29, 40) China, the world’s highest emitter and coal user, increased its emissions after 2015 and by the end of 2019, they were about 70 % higher relative to 2005. (33) The US did much better, had already decreased its emissions somewhat and its annual emissions were about 12 % below its 2005 level by the end of 2019. (44) This was mainly due to recessions and the replacement of coal with natural gas and solar and wind for electricity generation. However, even this was not enough to be consistent with global requirements to limit warming to 1.5°C and since so much manufacturing of products sold in the US is done in China, including most solar PV cells, the US is complicit in China’s emissions.

​

Since the Paris Accord, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2018 issued a report on what needs to be accomplished to have various probabilities of limiting warming to the 1.5°C and 2°C levels. To aim for at least an estimated 50% probability that global warming will not exceed 1.5°C or return to 1.5°C by 2100 after a low overshoot, global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions should be no more than 25 – 30 billion tons CO2e/yr in 2030 and then further reduced down toward near net zero around 2050. The median of the 2030 target range is approximately 33% lower than the global 2005 level. In reality, emissions in 2030 should be even lower because the scenarios considered for the report included subsequent deployment of highly problematic schemes and technologies for removing carbon from the atmosphere and these should not be relied upon.  (39)

​

In 2020, US GHG emissions dropped very sharply due to the coronavirus recession and for the year were down about 22.2% from their 2005 level. (48)  So to be in line with the median of the global target range for 2030, which is about 33% below the global 2005 level, (see above), the US as of the end of 2020, would have had to decrease it annual emissions by another 10.8% of its 2005 level by the end of 2030.

​

However, the dip in US emissions in 2020 due to the coronavirus was followed by  a partial rebound in 2021, so that for 2021, they were only 17.4% down from 2005. (48) So as of the end of 2021, US annual emissions would have to go down another 15.6% of the 2005 value by the end of 2030. (required 33% below 2005 amount - 17.4% achieved) The average annual decrease in annual emissions would then have to be about 1.73% of the 2005 level per year, (15.6/9), which is 1.6 times faster than for the period from 2005 through 2020 (15.6/9  compared to 17.4/16 ).

 

However, the earlier period included two recession years during which there were sharp decreases in emissions (2009 and 2020). Between these years, according to EPA data, the period after 2009 through 2019, the average rate of decrease in annual US emissions was only about 0.288% of the 2005 value per year. (Emissions went up and down and trended down a little. The drop in just 2009 was about twice the decrease in the ensuing 10 years.)  (31)

 

US emissions have already gone up sharply in 2021 after the 2020 drop.  As of the end of 2021 then, the required average annual rate of decrease in annual emissions, 1.73% of the 2005 level per year, is about 6 times greater than between the recession years of 2009 and 2020. It seems unlikely to be achieved without the help of at least another major recession.

​

China has done much worse and it can be estimated that its total greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 were over 70% higher relative to 2005. The US has been complicit in China's emissions because so much that has been sold in he US has been manufactured in China. Global emissions in 2021 were close to the 2019 level, 34% higher than in 2005.  

 

This makes civilization very far from where it should be. Recall that the global emissions level in 2030 should be around 33% lower relative to 2005 to be on a pathway that limits warming to 1.5°C or returns to below 1.5°C .  As of the end of 2021 then, a decrease of about 67% of the 2005 level would be required by the end of 2030.  So over nine years,  the average rate of decrease of global emissions would have to be about 7.4% of the 2005 level per year. Considering events in the past few years, that would be a dramatic change in global behavior. So warming will very likely exceed 1.5 °C. It will probably happen in the 2030's or a little sooner and it will be a challenge for the US and other countries just to limit global warming to 2 °C. 2°C would be much worse than 1.5°C and a number of scientists suspect that a global climate tipping point (i.e. stability limit) may lie around warming of 2°C. (15)

​

​The contribution to elevated atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from direct anthropogenic emissions has produced warming, and the warming is changing some of the earth’s natural systems to make them net emitters of carbon dioxide and methane. It’s changing others (e.g. reducing ice sheets) to make the earth reflect less solar radiation back to space. These feedback effects add to the effect of direct anthropogenic emissions and accelerate warming. These could reach a point such that elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions from the earth itself and increased absorption of solar radiation would cause continued warming even if direct anthropogenic emissions were to stop. In such a scenario, the earth would be pushed across a stability limit by human civilization’s bad behavior and warming would run away out of any human control.

​

Much environmental damage other than from direct emissions has been done in the complex environmental crisis. Even if the emissions problem were to be solved in time, human population growth could continue to drive deforestation, soil degradation and species extinction, to name a few effects. An extensive list of the massive damage done to the earth by humans is presented in (49). 

​​

New systems for creating and selectively distributing economic power (currency) could focus on much of what needs to be done to produce a broad scope of improvement. Analysis of what needs to be done is aided by the IPAT equation.

 

​

The IPAT equation

​

Civilization’s annual emission of greenhouse gases from any area of the world, which could be the entire world, is equal to the population in the area times the average emission per person in the area.

 

The annual amount of emissions per capita depends on the various human activity levels per capita, and the set of technologies used. Information about activity would include for example, the annual commuter miles driven per person in private vehicles in the area, the fraction of commuters that use various types of mass transit and average distance traveled by the trains or buses per person. Information on the technology used for commuting would be the mix of vehicle types and characteristics.

 

The mix of technologies used in a specified initial year in a period considered may be referred to as the standard set. Under the standard set of technologies, the per capita emissions due to the activities in a given year is denoted as A. If the mix of technologies changes, e.g., the percentage of vehicles used that are electric increases, among other things, the overall effect of just the change in the technology mix for each activity or service is represented by a correction factor T. This is distinct from just the effect of say, increased miles driven per person, or changes in industrial activity per capita, which would contribute to a change in A.

 

Of course overall emissions from all activities depends on other information, such as the annual amount of electricity used in homes, commercial buildings and industrial sites, and the mix of technologies used for generating electricity. For total annual emissions in a given year, there would be a value of A determined by all of the activities and a correction factor T to account for all of the technological changes relative to the reference year. It is conventional to denote annual emissions by I, and population (average for the year) by P. So for a given year and area of the world, the annual greenhouse gas emissions are

​

                                   I = PAT

​

This is the simple IPAT equation, well-known among some parts of the scientific community.

​

The history of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions suggests that the increase of the global P factor has been very dominant and changes in T have been cancelled by changes in A, or the AT product varied somewhat but returned to about its earlier value. Over the period from 1980 through 2019, global CO2 emissions increased by about 75%. (42) During the same period, world population increased by about 73%, about the same increase as for emissions. (45)

​

As a simple illustrative example, consider the change in annual greenhouse gas emissions over a multiyear period during which technological change in electrical generation and energy storage occurs in a country. The case without population growth, in which P remains the same, will be discussed first and then the case in which the population increases will be discussed. Suppose that electrical energy in the country is 100% generated by fossil technology at an initial time, which is assumed to be the standard mix in this example. Then suppose that over the subsequent period of some years, the electricity consumption annually per person remains the same. A then remains the same at what the emissions per person would be with the initial technology mix. But the mix of technology changes by the end of the period so that 20 % of electricity generated and used is from solar photovoltaic, which would have zero operational emissions. The T factor would become 0.8. Annual operational emissions per person from electrical generation would be multiplied by this factor, i.e. reduced by 20%, by the end of the multi-year period since the other factors remain the same.

 

For simplicity, this example is considering only a change in annual operational emissions, and any effects on cumulative industrial emissions and future warming over the multi-year period from the transition are not included, but will be discussed below. It should be noted however, that any increase in cumulative emissions per capita  over the years could be less than the emissions per capita from building and installing the new technology if less of other equipment is manufactured for example. The change is supposed to be a transition, including a reduction in manufacturing of the old technology per capita.

​

On the other hand, suppose that population in the country increases by a factor of 11/10 (10% increase) during the multi-year period, i.e. the new P is 11/10 times the initial population Pi. Suppose also that the average level of energy use per person does not change along with this increase, so that the electrical energy consumed annually per capita remains the same and A remains the same. There would be more energy used because of more people, but if the mix of technologies improves as in the previous example, (which would require more work because of the population increase) i.e. 20% solar PV, the annual emissions per person by the end of the multi-year period would again be reduced by a factor of T = 4/5 of what it was.  However, because of the larger population using electricity, this would be multiplied by the new P = (11/10)Pi, so that emission reduction for the area would only be by a factor of 11/10 x 4/5 = 44/50 = 0.88. The reduction would only be 12% as opposed to 20% without population growth. Thus population growth without reduction in activity and consumption per person can seriously offset reduction in emissions from technological improvement.

​

Greenhouse gas emissions are just one part of the damaging interaction of human civilization with the natural world. Insight into other environmental impacts of human activity other than direct greenhouse gas emissions may be gained from the IPAT equation. The effect of population is even more drastic for impacts than cannot be substantially reduced through technology. Some of the various impacts are strongly interdependent. Obviously the demand for resources may also be analysed similarly. Population growth can also decrease the amount of available resources of certain kinds while increasing the demand for them.

​

Possibly the most threatening increase has been an increasing demand on water resources and agriculture. The effect has been compounded as prime cropland has been massively converted to housing, roads and other urbanization to accommodate more people. Thus land resources are decreasing while population growth increases demand.

 

More people being served by fossil fuels accelerates global warming and climate change that is interfering with and threatening agriculture by worsening water resource problems and decreasing some crop yields.  Because of the per-capita demand for agriculture, population growth drives deforestation to satisfy both local and global agricultural demand, which reduces carbon sinks and so further increases the rate of global warming and its effect on agriculture. Thus population growth is contributing to water resource problems while increasing demand.

​

Deforestation and other land conversion driven by population growth causes species extinction and loss of biodiversity, which is implicated in virus spillovers. If the viruses are deadly enough, they could decrease demand for human agriculture, bringing need and availability more into balance, but it would be better if civilization could do it voluntarily. (7-10)​

​

Growth accelerates depletion of the most easily accessible resources and shortens the time for adaptation and technological improvement to deal with resource problems. 

​​

It is easily seen from the "commonsense" IPAT equation that the use of fossil fuels (lack of progress reducing T), the size and growth of the human population (large and growing P), and consumption and waste deposition per capita (large AT) are main drivers of the degradation and overloading of the earth’s natural systems that is producing negative feedback.

 

T could not realistically be reduced enough to overcome never-ending growth of P and A. Systems for creating and distributing economic power should be able to help reduce all of the factors in the IPAT equation. The AT product for emissions has to be reduced to about zero in the long run. There is some hope for progress in reducing T as shown in the next section.

​

​

Effectiveness of technological transition

​

In the above examples, a transition over a multi-year period in which solar PV coupled with energy storage replaced some fossil powered installations produced a reduction in annual operational emissions per capita.  This would contribute to reduction in future warming beyond the multi-year period and during the period, compared to continuation with an all fossil fuel technology mix.

 

However, if the new technology was produced using mostly or entirely fossil fuels, as is expected in the early stages of transition, the activities required for the production, including material extraction, processing, transport, manufacturing and deployment would have produced up-front emissions that could be quantified in terms of their future global warming potential. It should be noted however that as the transition proceeded, the production of the new technology could have increasingly been powered by  non-fossil technology, and the upfront emissions decreased. For simplicity in this introductory analysis though, it will be assumed that this did not happen. In any case, in order to asses the effectiveness of the transition in reducing future warming beyond the period and during the period, the warming produced by the upfront emissions must be estimated in relation to the total fossil emissions avoided by the transition to solar PV. 

​

This determination depends at least in part on the ratio of lifetime energy output for the solar PV installations with storage to the energy required up front to produce them. This is referred to as Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI):

​

                                            EROI = Eout/ E_upfront

​

For solar, this ratio depends on the solar radiation received in the geographic area considered, as well as characteristics of the PV installations.

 

A number of studies to estimate EROI values for solar PV have produced widely differing results because of differing assumptions, such as incident solar energy per unit area, and definitions. A review and analysis by Bhandari et. al., published in 2015, of a number of studies that included sufficiently thorough information, harmonized and resolved the differences among them.  (For example, various studies assumed different values of annual incident solar radiation on earths surface, which would be applicable to different latitudes. The harmonization translated the results to apply to 1700 kW h per square meter per year, about the average for the earth's surface.)  The average EROI for mono-crystalline solar PV systems over all relevant studies was found to be 8.7. The average EROI for poly-crystalline solar PV systems over all relevant studies was found to be 11.6.  (50) The EROI values for newer technology and improved manufacturing methods should be even higher.

 

This review and analysis was for systems without energy storage. Energy storage included in a system can reduce its EROI. The effect for a given amount of storage relative to output can be estimated by multiplying E_upfront by the factor by which the upfront energy required would be increased by including the storage. EROI would be divided by this factor. So if energy storage increases the upfront energy requirement by 25% for example, the EROI would be multiplied by 1/1.25 = 4/5. If storage allows excess energy from the solar panels to be routed to storage instead of wasted, the reduction in EROI would be less.

​

The EROI is used for estimating the ratio of fossil emissions avoided by replacing fossil generation with solar PV and  energy storage to fossil emissions produced from building the PV with storage. For this purpose, the emissions produced by electrical generation from fossil fuels must be estimated. The amount of emissions from electrical generation by fossil technology equals the energy provided by the fuel Eprimary times the emissions per unit energy from the fuel, ei. But the energy Eprimary provided by the fuel (called primary energy) has to be greater than the electrical output from the generators (called end-use energy) because efficiency eff is less than 100% (around 60 % for some of the best fossil technology). So the energy from the fuel equals electrical energy output Eout divided by efficiency. Therefore the amount of operational emissions produced by generating electrical energy E with fossil technology is

​

                                I =  ei x Eprimary = ei x E/ eff

​

Therefore, if the energy E is provided by the solar PV installations over their lifetimes instead of by fossil installations, the avoided amount of operational emissions is given by the above equation.

 

In some studies, the energy output from the PV installations is already expressed as the equivalent primary energy Eprimary that would have to be supplied by fuel systems to produce E. A specified factor eff is assumed in such evaluations to convert an estimated E for the PV technology to Eprimary. The avoided amount of emissions is then just calculated as ei x Eprimary.

 

What is I in relation to the amount of emissions from the upfront investment E_upfront of energy to produce the PV installations? Not all of the energy was electrical, and different fossil technologies with different efficiencies may have been used so that eff could be different. But as an approximation, if E_upfront is the actual energy applied in the steps to produce and install the equipment, eff can be assumed to be the same and the same formula may be used except with E_upfront instead of E. If E_upfront_primary  is the equivalent primary energy used up front, just use ei x E_upfront_primary to get the amount of emissions upfront.

 

But E = EROI x E_upfront in the equation for I (and Eprimary = EROI x E_upfront_primary assuming the same eff for both upfront and avoided). So in general,  the ratio of emissions avoided by replacing fossil installations with PV to the emissions upfront from producing the PV installations is approximately

​

                                  I_avoided/I_upfront = E/E_upfront = EROI

​

​

For example for PV installations with energy storage and with EROI = 10  x 4/5 = 8, the amount of emissions avoided is then of course 8 times the upfront emissions.

 

One more thing to consider is that as of a given time, in this case the end of the transitional period, a unit of past emissions during the transitional period may have a different contribution to warming at any future date, as measured  by expected temperature at that date,  than a unit of future emissions avoided would have had. Thus the ratio of decreased warming effect as of a given future year from avoiding emissions to  the effect at that time from the upfront emissions might be different than EROI. Depending on the time of the future year, the ratio could be greater than EROI or less. If the future year is well before the end of the lifetimes of all of the PV installations, there would not be enough time to realize their benefit as of that date, and the ratio of warming effects would be less than EROI. As the date moves farther into the future, the ratio of effects as of the date would approach the EROI, then possibly exceed the EROI and then go back down toward the EROI as the future date goes out.

​

With the values of EROI found in the review and analysis referred to, long-term emissions can be very substantially reduced by replacing fossil installations with PV.

​

Another study found that after a society-wide transition to technology with non-fossil sources, nuclear wind and solar, for generating electricity, the life-cycle GHG emission intensities for these technologies would be well below that of the current mix. (51)

​

Unfortunately though, the technological transition as of 2019 had not been happening globally. Technological advancement combined with conventional political activism by civil society has not been able to make it happen so far. From the end of 2015 through end of 2019, the increase in global primary energy supplied by fossil fuels was over 50% greater than the increase of the equivalent primary energy from all non-fossil sources. (24) 

​

New systems could create and distribute economic power (e.g. in the form of currency) for further development and accelerated uptake of non-fossil technology and with this help, its growth rate might overtake the growth rate of the use of fossil fuels. The example system (Transition Project) provides one way to do it.

​

​

Energy related economic problems

​

Without a transition away from fossil fuels, civilization will continue to decline and sooner or later be doomed. Climate feedback has and will continue to play a role. Also however, despite the energy density and versatility of finished fossil fuels, the decline in energy from fossil fuels relative to the energy and human work required to extract, process and transport them because of the depletion of the easy to access high quality deposits, will contribute to a decline in annual energy available for other things than obtaining more energy (net energy), independent of climate feedback. Without a transition to other sources, this decline will continue and contribute to bringing down technological civilization along with climate and other environmental feedback.

​

On the other hand, a serious rapid transition would have high upfront requirements for energy and human work. This, along with the depletion of the easiest to access fossil fuels, making fossil fuels harder to get, would require more annual work to be done in the overall energy sector (including extraction, transport and processing  materials, manufacturing and deploying solar and other equipment, along with extracting, transporting, processing and delivering fossil fuels) to supply energy for everything, including the work in the energy sector, at the previous rate. A greater fraction of the population would have to work in the energy sector to do this. But then the greater fraction of the population would be applying energy at a greater rate in the energy sector. The energy sector would itself use a greater fraction of the annual energy it supplies.  This would leave less energy per capita annually for other things. (46)

​

These include operation of refrigerators, air conditioners, home heating, food production for humans and their pets, medical care for humans and their pets, transporting agricultural products, manufacturing tools, transportation to essential jobs, and other important needs. These needs will compete for energy with manufacturing big-screen TVs, trips to Las Vegas, unnecessary long-distance commuting, amazingly energy intensive proof-of-work bitcoin mining, manufacturing and flying private jets, and building and operating yachts. The sacrifice should be imposed on the big-screen TVs, private jets, yachts, trips to Las Vegas, unnecessary commuting and insanely energy intensive bitcoin mining.

 

Such  constraint, along with worsening environmental feedback (more extreme heat waves, drought, storms, and viruses) and possible wars, deficiencies of market forces in prioritizing the uses of energy would have even worse consequences than previously. The dominant profit maximization and market consumerism economic-political regime overall can not be relied upon to prioritize the uses of energy humanely and justly. (22, 47) Society’s priorities are already bad even with moderate energy related economic problems and environmental feedback, and they would need to be improved even if the problems were not to worsen.  But based on global society's bad track record and power structure, they will almost certainly get worse in the coming years. (1 - 18, 20 - 22, 47, 25, 28, 29, 32, 34, 43)

​​

The corporate-government complex in the US, with its stubborn adherence to profit maximization and market consumerism, can't be relied upon to enforce humane and just priorities even with more conventional political activism from civil society. This is evidenced by the failure, delay or inability of the federal government to sufficiently enable the economic bottom half to afford essentials in a time when fossil fuel companies and other big business entities raise their prices to maintain or increase profits for wealthy investors. 

 

New nongovernmental systems for creating and distributing economic power in the form of supplemental currency could help subsidize essentials and help shift the consumption reductions to non-essentials. 

​

 

Possible scenarios

​

Any possible future world scenario may be described by the time evolution of properties of the natural world, such as the progression of global average temperature, of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and of forest area, along with, the time evolution of human impacts such as annual greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation, the feedback events such as virus spillovers and changes in average precipitation patterns over time, and the time evolution of properties of society, such as wealth concentration, education levels, economic activity and many other properties and societal events.

​

The interaction between entities in human society and their responses to natural events affects the impact of human civilization on the natural world, such as the time evolution of annual greenhouse gas emissions. For example, changes in precipitation patterns over time that decrease agricultural production and create food shortages and other climate related events could affect the response of voters in the US to political activism by civil society and to politicians who propose or enact policies to accelerate transition away from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, fossil fuel company executives and investors and the banks that help finance major fossil fuel operations, and utility company people that do not want pressure for change, could continue or even intensify their expenditures on selecting and financing politicians and on disinformation, thus opposing civil society. The outcomes of these interactions could affect the time evolution of annual US greenhouse gas emissions. Technological breakthroughs in solar and corresponding increases in uptake for example could also affect emissions. Population growth would probably be a drag on emissions reduction or even prevent it if transition were weak enough.

​

A detailed model for computer simulations could calculate scenarios corresponding with different assumptions or empirical observations about relationships and response characteristics for the various entities. Building a detailed predictive model for this is beyond the scope of this article. However, similar simulations have been done and it has been found that the computed scenarios corresponding with business as usual policies aimed at never-ending growth agree closely with historical data. These scenarios end with a sharp decline in civilization from either environmental problems or depletion of easy-to-access resources.

​

Possible scenarios may be classified according to assumptions about different interactions and responses, such as the business as usual assumptions of little or no appropriate responsiveness to feedback from the natural world, including climate change and virus spillovers. This classification, might also be called stubborn-stupid-greedy, and its scenarios may be the most likely. They certainly are in the near future.

​

For example, the collective response of voters to changes in precipitation patterns over time that decrease agricultural production and create food shortages, the response to other climate related events, to political activism by civil society and to politicians who propose or enact policies to accelerate transition away from fossil fuels, could be weak or at least not strong enough, partly due to disinformation. Fossil fuel companies and various business entities could intensify their political efforts and prevail, keeping the US Senate gridlocked through 2030, so that no additional federal support for accelerating technological transition is realized. Technological breakthroughs in solar and corresponding increases in uptake might not offset this. Population growth would still be needed by the fractional reserve banking system in the US and still be needed or desired by a number of large business entities. Population growth would slow or offset progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, among other things. The effect could be that US emissions would not decrease much or even increase. Related to this, the response of China, where much production for the US is done, could also be very poor.

​

After 2030 or sooner, it might not be possible to avoid harsh acceleration of societal collapse. Accelerated climate feedback from the continued build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases and warming could cause continued changes in precipitation patterns, resulting in agricultural shortages, made more severe by increased population. Virus spillovers that become more frequent due to deforestation could interfere with even essential economic activity, (except work done by hospitals and undertakers). Transition to solar and other non- fossil technologies might not be nearly far enough along. The increase in the energy and annual work requirement to provide fossil energy, due to depletion of the easy deposits, would leave less annual energy and human work for other things, even for essential activity. Much of the available energy from all sources might have to be focused on producing war materials and war activity, making things even more difficult.

​

Fossil fuel companies would increase their focus of energy, mostly from fossil fuels, and focus of human work to extract and process enough fuel to meet much of the demand.  There might be a too-late attempt to accelerate transition away from fossil fuels. The previously higher energy profit ratios of fossil fuels would have been squandered rather than focused on manufacturing and installing new energy and transportation technology. Annual emissions would not decrease much even as the fuel supplied by the fossil fuel companies to the rest of society decreases, because more emissions would come from the increased use of fossil fuel to supply fossil fuels. The energy sector could finally collapse at some point in the later stages though because of a lack of food and other supplies and services resulting from both energy shortages and climate feedback. Pathogens could also play a role.   It could happen sooner because of lack of adaptation and a breakdown of the economic system even if it were physically possible to continue.

​

Without there having been a substantial enough transition to non-fossil energy, once the extraction, transport and processing of fossil fuels could not continue, civilization would finish its collapse to a much smaller size. Many people remaining at such a time and dependent on fossil fuel driven agriculture and transportation of products would probably starve, along with their pets. This could possibly prevent civilization from pushing the earth across a stability limit but it is obviously the wrong way to do it. Then the earth could later recover back to Holocene conditions, and a smaller better, wiser civilization could emerge, possibly as soon as several decades later, and possibly with some technological knowledge that would enable a sustainable foundation.

​

On the other hand, even if a collapse occurs due to environmental feedback and resource problems, it might not be fast enough, fossil fuel use might not terminate soon enough and civilization could push the earth across a stability limit anyway, before the end-stages of the collapse. The earth would spontaneously transition to a hotter state, much less habitable. It might be much more difficult for a new civilization to later emerge and it could take very much longer.

 

So stubborn-stupid-greedy scenarios have at least two possible long-term horrific ultimate outcomes. Nuclear war would be another possible ending and would cut things short.

 

Requirements for new systems and their potential to realize better scenarios

​

New systems with revolutionary combinations of technological and economic innovation might produce better scenarios. The new systems would create and focus economic power on what needs to be done and might bend down the curve of global greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid a stability limit, and improve societal priorities and adaptability to reduce damage and suffering. Such innovation could be added to and supportive of conventional political activism and possibly reduce the depth and severity of the collapse process. Initiatives should aim for rapid improvement, but it is difficult to know what might be achieved. Realistic expectations might seem to be that a moderate improvement over very bad possible scenarios could be achieved, since the various forces in society against sustainability and a better world are so powerful. 

 

Climate feedback after 2030 could be a little less severe, energy shortages a little less and so agricultural shortages a little less severe. Some virus spillovers might be avoided. Economic power would be more humanely distributed and prioritized better compared to what market forces would do. A stability limit might be avoided, which in the long run could make a huge difference. A much better civilization might emerge after a very difficult period. The crisis point might be a turning point.

 

Here are some of the requirements and possibilities for new systems to work toward these realistic goals:

 

To accomplish  technological transition, before and after 2030, annual upfront investment of energy and human work in the manufacturing of solar and energy storage equipment would have to increase, and the annual energy put into fossil fuel equipment, extraction, transport, refinement and delivery would decrease over time rather than stubbornly persisting until a collapse. The net effect, for at least an initial period, might be a decrease in annual energy available for activities outside of the energy sector because of the high upfront investment required for solar and wind equipment and installations along with energy storage, along with possibly more construction of nuclear capacity. This is a possible investment cost of the transition required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast enough that many people are ignorant about.

 

Under such conditions, new systems could help improve priorities relative to market forces so that enough energy would be available for the important things. New systems could help by subsidizing the work in technological technological transition and other essential important things. This would increase demand and increase the workforce for the new technology and for essentials that some people would otherwise not have, and so could shift employment away from producing and doing non-essential things. For example,  energy gobbling trips to Las Vegas could become more expensive if a shortage of people available to work for the airlines, in hotels, deal cards etc. could be created by increasing employment in solar technology manufacturing and installation. The price for the trips would  be increased by the airlines and hotel-casinos to balance supply and demand. Trips to Las Vegas would be reduced and with the proper arrangements, might be shifted to work toward sustainability.

​

Wasteful long-distance commuting would also have to be reduced even further also, but that would probably be more popular than reducing trips to Las Vegas or reducing the sales and operation of SUVs for example

 

Of course population growth that supplies an abundance of cheap labor would oppose the effectiveness of such a non-governmental strategy for trying to shift employment. Energy limitations combined with market forces, absent government intervention,  would then raise the costs of food and other essentials until fewer people could afford them, as is happening today. This is one more reason that the new systems should support work to reverse population growth. It also illustrates that a combination of new non-governmental systems along with government policy, if it could be induced, could be most effective.

 

Meanwhile, the federal government in the US would have to implement policies against building and operating private jets and yachts and sending billionaires into space because the rich would probably be less sensitive to the costs of these activities.  Other luxuries would have to be reduced also, and the more rapidly emissions must be reduced, the more drastic would the curtailment have to be. 

 

To reduce the demand for energy, materials and food, the new systems should also help to humanely reduce population growth through measures recommended by the UN. It would be better to have a decent quality of life for fewer people, rather than a poor quality of life for more people and a horrible collapse of civilization.

 

Overall, the economy would be less high consuming but income and wealth would be more evenly distributed, with important activities given priority.

 

These requirements could be satisfied by focused supplemental currency systems that create and issue currency for specific purposes and that develop an appropriate configuration of currency acceptors and users. The project described next provides an example of how this could be done.

​

Development of the Discovery Solar Transition Currency System

 

The example project, The Discovery Solar Transition Project, combines technological and economic innovation and existing technology to help stop human civilization from continuing to degrade and overload the earth’s natural systems and help make civilization more humane and just in the struggle.

 

The project's combination of technology and economics is envisioned to start with a strategy in which a build-up of a large number of supporting early adopters and holders of an ecological digital currency is used to incentivize the formation of a configuration of producers and providers that could accept the currency. Formation could start with solar and transportation technology development and manufacturing companies and installers agreeing to accept the currency from major energy-intensive industrial and commercial companies (e.g. grocery stores, delivery services) as partial payment for solar installations with energy storage and electric or hydrogen powered vehicles. The solar and other manufacturing companies could originate outside of the project business entity or be spun off from research and development done internally. This in turn would incentivize the grocery stores and others to accept the currency. Some of the currency would flow back from the solar and vehicle workers to the grocery stores and others and some would flow from the larger population of account holder members. Other, less energy intensive firms and businesses could also participate as development proceeds. Policies for creating more currency that would enable low to moderate income homeowners to use it for purchase or lease of solar installations with storage and electric vehicles would further accelerate the uptake of the technology. Further description of development and mathematical modelling of system operation and consideration of risks and obstacles is on the currency system development page.

 

 

Producing a broad scope of improvement

 

The currency is to be issued at a discount to donors and volunteers in nonprofit humane, social justice and environmental groups to empower more contributions, and to individuals whose lives and work merit support. It may be issued as a reward for education about the interaction of civilization with the natural world to promote ecological citizenship. This would include better decisions about the use of savings from grants for solar installations with energy storage. Education for ecological citizenship also helps build the population of activists and thus contributes to the connection between the currency system and conventional activism.  So the development of the currency system aims to accelerate the advancement and uptake of solar with energy storage and other technology to directly help bend down the trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions and other damage. This is combined with help building up the population of activists and support for a broad scope of improvement and resilience in the US, and possibly elsewhere.

 

 

Advantages of a currency system and integration with other approaches

 

The currency system can be developed and produce results in the US without approval from the US Senate, with its over-representation of climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry. Development of a large base of membership is key to success but majority support is not needed for a currency system to develop and function: the system could produce results without majority support in any particular geographic region, unlike what political action usually needs to get results. Furthermore, even if and where some political action succeeds in getting better government policy, a currency system can further accelerate progress, and help overcome deficiencies, loopholes, perversion and deception in the policy. Also, the educational component contributes to building the foundation for political action. Thus the Transition Project adds a new dimension to civil society in addition to just political action for better government policy and may provide a synergistic integration with education and political action.

 

 

Technology in the next revolution

 

The example project described in this article is an example of how technology might play a role in a revolution that must succeed the industrial revolution if there is to be a chance for a better civilization to emerge from a period of crisis. Technological advancement supported the development of the stubborn capitalist-political system. Furthermore, the fossil fuel technology that supplied the energy is one of the main factors in the system that has been driving toward disaster.  So a change in technology is needed, but in the context of the current system, it can’t stop all of the destructive forces that would unethically and severely reduce the habitability of the earth for contemporary species long-term, doom civilization and inevitably eliminate the chance for a smaller, better civilization to emerge. So rather than just technological change in the context of the current system, the power of technology should be harnessed to help build new systems to improve priorities and reduce the destructive forces. This would amount to a revolution necessitated by the environmental crisis, in which new systems would modify and possibly eventually replace the stubborn capitalist system that technology previously helped develop.

 

 

People that become members and support the Transition Project will receive authorization for its supplemental currency.