Fixing the Carbon Tax

This blog has previously questioned the foresight of those who support a carbon tax regarding its regressive nature. The regressive nature of a carbon tax is defined in that it creates a greater burden on the poor. Some have argued against this characterization claiming that there is an association between income and carbon emissions thus the wealthier the individual the greater amount of money he/she will have to pay in taxes. While this assertion is correct it only focuses on the absolute nature of the tax, not the relative nature of the tax. The regressive issue correlates to the percentage of income that poor individuals spend on energy and fuel related activities. The addition of the tax increases this burden further complicating the decision making process between food, energy and medical supplies. The percentage of expenditure is what matters in this situation not the total amount spent because the rich have a higher probability of affording the increase versus the poor because the rich have more disposable income. It does not matter that one has to spend $1,000 more if one has $30,000+ more to spend.

Proponents believe this regressive characteristic of a carbon tax can be countered by establishing a dividend system making the carbon tax revenue neutral for the government. Basically all of the money collected from a carbon tax will be offset to the public in some way. Some plans propose relief of payroll or sales taxes, but neither one of these options would be effective. Payroll tax relief is not appropriate because it does not account for individuals without jobs and it could also negatively influence Social Security funding. Sales tax relief is not appropriate because the chief goal of the carbon tax is to eliminate carbon emissions and one side element to reducing emissions is not just to convert to trace emission sources, but to also create more efficiency and less consumption. The provision of sales tax relief could create a psychological conflict similar to Jevon’s Paradox regarding consumption and carbon emissions if a person attempts to ‘maximize’ their tax relief.

Others want to distribute an annual dividend similar to those issued by certain companies and the State of Alaska equally divided among all adult citizens with half shares (typically) going to children. For example the Carbon Tax Center (CTC) provides an example of such a system focusing only on gasoline. In the example a $10 per ton of CO2 tax raises an estimated $55 billion dollars of revenue annually and then is divided evenly among 300 million U.S. citizens for an annual rebate of $183. Ignore the fact that in this example both adults and children receive the same amount of money, which is probably not suitable. The CTC then calculates that the average lowest quintile income individual will spend an extra $80 annually on gas due to the carbon tax, thus these individuals will net $103 per year from the carbon tax. Despite the limited nature of the example the CTC and other carbon tax proponents use this mindset as a means to counteract the regressive nature of a carbon tax.

Unfortunately those who hold the belief that monetary dividends will effectively mitigate the regressive nature of the tax are not accounting for the changes in behavior that the tax is supposed to motivate. First, note that analysis like the CTC example above is somewhat complicated because the assumptions are rarely listed in an organized and clear manner. For example the CTC expects a carbon tax to focus on applying the tax as far upstream as possible most likely at source points. Basically the tax should apply when a producer (coal mine, natural gas wellhead, port facility, importer, etc.) transfers ownership of a given quantity of the material to another party (energy utility, oil refiner, owner of a gas pipeline, etc.).

This strategy is appropriate and should be effective for eliminating waste, maximizing efficiency and reducing costs. However, when analyzing how the tax affects individuals it must be stated how the companies who are absorbing the tax pass that burden off to these individuals. For most analysis it appears that authors are assuming that an equal burden is passed on to consumers. This assumption may not be accurate for it stands to reason that an equal burden is the minimum that a company would try to recoup from the tax. Therefore, costs for downstream consumers may increase more than for upstream providers where the tax is actually applied. Some may celebrate this change because higher costs could eliminate carbon emissions even faster, but this change would also make a carbon tax more regressive.

The second important element that most, if not all, carbon tax proponents are forgetting is how the nature of the tax changes with time. The carbon tax will increase over time, which will create a dual expansion of the regressive characterization of the carbon tax. First, a higher tax will lead upstream providers to increase their prices for downstream consumers placing a greater burden on all consumers, but more so on those that have less overall money to spend (the poor). Second, a higher tax will further motivate those who have the capacity and funds to reduce their consumption of carbon emitting elements, thus reducing the total amount of transferred tax they have to absorb and the total number of carbon products taxed leading to a reduction in the size of the dividend check received from the government. It stands to reason that rich individuals will be in better position to reduce their carbon emissions versus the poor through the purchase of high capital cost trace emission products like solar panels and electrical/hybrid vehicles.

A side note to this second point is that it is more likely that rich people have more control over their living arrangements (houses and condos versus apartments) as well. This control affords them a better opportunity to install things like solar panels or solar water heaters versus apartment landlords that do not have to pay utilities and could balk at the costs ($250,000+ per complex) of installing these high capital cost trace carbon emission items for their tenets. Therefore, individuals living in apartment or low-income housing may have no ability to significantly change their carbon consumption habits as time passes. With this handicap poor individuals will struggle even further under the increasing burden of the carbon tax as time passes and the tax increases.

Clearly because numerous carbon tax proponents do not acknowledge this reality as a problem they have not produced a solution. At this moment there appears to be two possible solutions. First, the dividend derived from the tax can be progressive versus matching. Basically poorer individuals will be given a larger percentage of the total dividend and richer individuals will be given a smaller percentage. While this system would give poorer individuals more money and thus greater opportunity to invest in trace emission energy and transportation sources, numerous individuals would view such a system as unfair. Interestingly the fairness of such a system is much more complicated than most would care to consider.

Second, because the goal of the carbon tax is to reduce emissions and the conversion from heavy emitting sources and strategies to lower emitting sources and strategies is basically one-directional a clause in the carbon tax could lower the tax rate when certain emission reduction targets are reached. This method is possible because of the one-directionality of conversion in that once someone starts powering their business through say geothermal energy over coal they almost never switch back to coal largely because of all of the financial investment required for the initial switch. Therefore, lowering the tax rate on carbon after certain emission reduction targets are obtained is acceptable and will help those individuals who did not have the resources and/or capacity to move away from heavier carbon emissions.

Such a carbon tax could operate in the following manner:

- The carbon tax would increase with the passage of time until reaching a particular ceiling [for example the tax would be $15 per ton of CO2 in the first year increasing $5 per ton for the first 10 years then increasing $15 per ton for the next 10 years with no increases afterwards (a final tax value from a time perspective of $215 per ton of CO2 20 years after the institution of the tax)].

- The reason for the small increase transitioning to the large increase is to provide a form of grace period to allow individuals and business to adjust to the tax in a controlled and efficient manner and then balloon the tax to ‘punish’ those who have yet to move from high carbon emission sources to low carbon emission sources.

- However, because not all parties have emission decisions under their control, especially the poor, there must be a means to offset the cost of the time-maximized tax. The goal of the carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions, thus reducing the carbon tax with respect to emissions can offer this offset. To ensure the validity of the carbon tax no emission related reductions would take place until after the first 10-year period. After 10 years, a 50% emission reduction based on 2005 emission levels will reduce the tax rate by 20%. Afterwards each 12.5% emission reduction would correspond to a 10% tax rate reduction resulting in a total tax reduction of 60%. Note that these tax reductions correspond to emission reduction ranges not direct values.

- If the carbon tax succeeds then under the above system the slope of the tax relative to time will not progressively increase like the currently championed system, but will instead increase until reaching a maximum and then decrease at a lesser magnitude to the increasing slope relative to the emission decrease. Note the graph below.



- As stated above this system works because once individuals and business switch to trace emission materials and systems these groups will not switch back when the carbon tax drops for it will simply cost more money to switch again and if emissions go back up then the tax will increase because the emission goal will no long be achieved.

- One concern some might raise is that a decreasing tax relative to decreasing carbon emissions may create an artificial emission reduction floor before zero emissions. This position would argue that certain individuals/groups would not give up high carbon emissions because the tax could decrease (versus a conventional system where the tax continues to increase), thus total emission reduction would not reach 100%, but instead 80-90ish%. However, for this to occur these carbon consuming groups need to absorb the burden of the tax throughout its lifecycle including the maximum. This strategy makes little sense for paying the tax will almost definitely result in higher costs versus switching to a trace generator (of course assuming that these individuals have the capacity and funds to make the switch)].

Finally states need to create organizations that will manage how prices change from principle suppliers to secondary suppliers to consumers to ensure that principle or secondary suppliers are not price gouging their respective consumers and scapegoating that gouging on the tax. The low competitive nature of larger source carbon emitters could even suggest that state governments create a price ceiling relative to the tax to eliminate the possibility of price gouging in the first place. Also government may need to intervene if apartment landlords refuse to properly adjust to the carbon tax instead of forcing their tenets to absorb it due to low economic mobility.

Overall it is important to establish a form of carbon emission limitation either directly (cap and trade) or indirectly (carbon tax) to motivate a reduction in carbon emissions. There have been numerous debates on whether a cap and trade or a carbon tax system would be superior at reducing emissions with a carbon tax having pulled ahead recently because of its transparency and simplicity. However, carbon tax proponents are behaving a lot like solar/wind proponents in that they are only studying how their solution affects the present, not the future. A critical element to creating an appropriate solution is to not only address the chief problem, but also understand any potential problems that will arise from the original solution. Carbon tax proponents must address how poor individuals will be negatively affected by the carbon tax not only in the present, but also in the future. The emission reduction adjustment discussed above is only one means of addressing this future problem.

Martian Colonization: A Concern – Solution Breakdown

Ever since humans looked at the sky through a telescope and identified Mars there has been a desire to explore it. Numerous groups have formed with the goal of promoting a human mission to Mars along with various different transit and exploration/colonization strategies. Unfortunately despite decades of space travel humanity seems no closer to exploring Mars in a manned mission than in the 1970s. Perhaps, at this particular moment, this lack of advancement is a good thing.

One of the chief concerns about a human mission to Mars should be the simplicity in which proponents sell such an undertaking. This dismissive attitude is exemplified by the comparisons of explorers in the 1500s going to the ‘New World’ and traveling to and colonizing Mars. These comparisons are foolish in that even though the ‘New World’ was unexplored there was reason to believe that food would be available, gravity would not change, partial pressures of various gases would not change beyond human survival capacities, the Earth’s magnetic field would not suddenly collapse or the temperature would not change so dramatically that it would require specialized equipment just to walk around. Realistically ‘New World’ explorers only had one major threat, which was making landfall before running out of provisions. Overall there is very little genuine comparison between these two different endeavors and to continue to make such a comparison leads one to question the seriousness of those who make it.

This attitude has handicapped Mars exploration and colonization for analysis seems to now rely on broad platitudes and overly optimistic assumptions. Of all of the thousands of pages written by Mars colonization proponents available there is little critical analysis focusing on nauseating specifics of what will be required for both preparation for a Mars mission and when colonists actually arriving on Mars (the most detailed analysis involves transit from Earth to Mars). The lack of detailed economic estimations is also puzzling relying instead on unspecific estimations with no success probability inclusions. In some respects proponent analysis can be compared to a recipe with a list of ingredients yet no information on how they are combined to make the desired food or what quantities are required. Without more deeper and critical analysis there is a very high probability that any astronauts/colonists sent to Mars will die quickly. Nine different concerns with colonizing Mars are discussed below including the popular solution to those concerns and how that solution may currently be lacking.


Concern: Mars has an extremely cold average surface temperature (relative to Earth), thin atmosphere, 38% Earth gravity and low oxygen partial pressure and total pressure (below Armstrong minimum) with high carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide partial pressures. These specific planet characteristics demand a specialized response to ensure survival.

Popular Solution: Mars colonies should be located in underground caves (lava tubes).

Problems with Solution: Colonizing in lava tubes eliminates the danger from radiation exposure due to the thin atmosphere, but does not eliminate the pressure or temperature issues. A side note: some proponents were celebratory when Mars Rover Curiosity identified surface radiation levels similar to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This attitude makes little sense because few people actually thought that Mars radiation levels significantly differed from LEO radiation levels due to its very thin atmosphere. Astronauts are somewhat protected in the International Space Station from radiation, but even then only routinely stay for months where as Mars colonists will need protection for the rest of their lives.

Additional Popular Solution: Robots are landed on Mars prior to human arrival and construct a pressurized heated habitat in a lava tube or on the surface.

Problems with Solution: There is no precedence for such strategy. Robots have never autonomously built anything of significance on Earth (a much easier task theoretically) and due to the location of the lava tube just as it blocks out radiation, radio signals from Earth designed to control the robots will also be hampered heavily reducing build efficiency, that is assuming that the signals can be received successfully at all. Quadrotors from University of Pennsylvania currently have the most potential, but are still far away from any real usefulness. Very little attention has been paid to this seemingly obvious obstacle. One interesting aspect of using robots is that some group shave attempted to create ‘Mars-like’ environments on Earth in order to better understand the conditions colonists would be exposed to, yet none of these environments have included constructing shelter elements with autonomous or radio controlled robots.


Concern: Lack of available oxygen for even short duration stays.

Popular Solution: No one has really proposed a realistic one. The most popular seems to be creating oxygen through the electrolysis of water.

Problems with the Solution: The concern with this problem is that even adamant colonization near/mid century supporters seem to completely ignore it magically thinking that water electrolysis will somehow provide enough oxygen for the continuous and normal breathing of 2-6 colonists. Individuals who propose this solution seem to ignore the fact that water is also necessary for human survival and is currently scarce on Mars so destroying 2 molecules of water for 1 molecule of oxygen is not a wise choice. Also in the early stages of Mars colonization there may be intermittency associated with energy availability, which would reduction electrolysis efficiency and available oxygen.

Also small hydroponic gardens are not going to provide any significant amount of oxygen through photosynthesis in the early/midterm of colonization, but will require water and a small supply of oxygen themselves. Creating additional water through extraction from hydrated materials is extremely optimistic in the short-term because of the high-energy requirements and very low resultant water yields.

Some next century and beyond colonization supporters propose breaking down the numerous amounts of metal oxides on Mars to oxygenate and thicken the atmosphere (a solution that will take centuries and assumes that the Martian atmosphere will retain that oxygen instead of letting it leak into space). Others want to seed Mars with genetically engineered cyanobacteria, which will produce an oxygenated atmosphere similar to how the one on Earth was created. However, such solutions are not applicable to those who want a colonization mission in this century.


Concern: The long transit flight between Earth and Mars will expose astronauts to deadly levels of radiation.

Popular Solution: The only safety assured solution is to decrease the length of the trip, thus use of chemical based propulsion is not advisable. One of the more popular solutions to this effect is the use of a Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) with a nuclear-electric generator to shorten travel time to between 39-95 days depending on orbital location of Earth relative to Mars.

Problems with Solution: The only major problem is that VASIMR has never been tested in such a manner. Such tests could be conducted by using it to send preparation supplies to Mars (after launch due to its low thrust-to-weight ratio). Also the utilized water supply for transit should be concentrated around the sleeping area to further limit radiation exposure.

There is a disturbing trend by some proponents to mitigate radiation danger by simply making linear additive judgments regarding damage potential when there is no reason to exclude the damage potential as exponential due to the continuous high relative level of exposure (especially for humans having lived on a generally protected Earth); an exponential damage potential could overwhelm biological safeguards for managing mutated DNA resulting in higher fatality rates.


Concern: There are obviously infrastructural power problems for colonists as a pressurized, heated and oxygenated shelter with water filtration and some form of hydroponic greenhouse are required for even short-term survival. Where does the power come from?

Popular Solution: Pre-arrival distribution of solar panels.

Problems with Solution: There are numerous concerns with a solar panel approach. First, the total solar energy that reaches Mars is approximately 43% of that which reaches Earth, thus even in ideal situations of efficiency at least twice the infrastructure will be required. Second, Mars has numerous dust storms that typically last for a few weeks to a few months, which could at best eliminate power generation for the duration of the storm to at worst destroy the solar cells. How will colonists receive power in a dust-clouded environment? Currently Mars does not lend itself well to energy storage options. Third, distance between the colony, more than likely located in a subterranean lava tube, and the solar panels, more than likely on the surface, creates a transmission problem. Basically a transmission infrastructure will need to be created and maintained. The better solution is to use a small modular nuclear reactor. The reactor can either be converted from the VASIMR after landing or can be delivered prior to human arrival. Nuclear waste can be managed due to its limited creation and sealed in a salt vault (sufficient lead availability will be unlikely).


Concern: The ability to grow food on Mars is severely compromised due to poor quality soils, lack of sunlight, dust storms and inconsistent water availability.

Popular Solution: Hydroponics in greenhouse type structures using artificial light.

Problems with Solution: Hydroponics appears to be the appropriate choice, but the lack of detail provided for food growth on Mars in the numerous treaties created by colonization proponents is especially troubling. Food growth is one of the more direct unambiguous elements of Mars colonization. One would expect that an entire ‘meal plan’ had already been designed for colonists so that they would have extra energy for EVA days, restricted calories for rest days and have sufficient vitamins to ward off any diseases brought on by specific vitamin deficiencies. However, proponents seem to have taken the stance of “use hydroponics to grow anything and let other people figure out the details.” This concern is especially important regarding what happens if the hydroponic system fails and plants start to die. So the individuals pushing for near-future colonization want other people to figure out the details of how colonists are going to grow and consume food on Mars?


Concern: Who will make up the crew of the first colonization crew?

Popular Solution: There is no general agreement in age, size, nationality or profession, which is surprising for like food there are very few uncertainty factors surrounding theoretical crew selection. One element that needs to be better identified is the training regiment for potential colonists because just placing candidates through NASA training will not be enough.

Problems with Solution: The fact that there is no recognized strategy is a problem. Some argue that the first colonists should be beyond their reproductive years because of significantly shortened lifespans and problems that would arise from the pioneering group having to care for children (thinking colonists will remain abstinent is unrealistic). Some argue that the first group should be young because of the physical toll living on Mars will take on the body and all of the exploring and general work that will be required for survival. Not surprisingly both youth and experience will be required, but it is essential that these differing age groups not create bias among themselves fracturing the colonists.

Nationality is irrelevant because it is likely that the first group will never return to Earth (one-way mission) and based on the Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: “no celestial body is subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” A government could not claim resources or land on Mars; therefore no one could be directly excluded due to his/her nationality.

Professions for the first group have some clear choices in there must be at least one physician (although multiple people should have some form of medical training), one psychologist, one lab technician and one electrical engineer (if nuclear power is utilized from a small modular reactor nuclear engineering knowledge would be useful as well). Someone with training in physical therapy would be useful for dealing with any muscular or skeletal issues that arise from the gravity and pressure changes, but would not be necessary. The importance of choosing professions is having individuals with experience in elements that will require direct immediate on-site interaction versus time-expanded elements that can be researched or instructed by experts from Earth.

Some may argue that an ‘on-site’ psychologist is unnecessary because individuals can communicate with a psychologist on Earth. While true, a psychologist among the crew fosters increased preemptive action when confronting a problem and allows for easier direct arbitration of a given conflict. Also there will be times when communication with Earth will not be available, thus a psychologist among the crew will be available to mediate problems at all times.


Concern: Funding a colonization mission to Mars is not a problem in the initial/capital cost, but instead becomes costly and potentially problematic in the maintenance cost because of numerous pre-colonization missions for preparation and post-colonization missions for support. Estimates that colonizing Mars will only take 11 to 30 billion dollars could be accurate if one has little interest in the landing colonists surviving beyond a very short period of time. One of the biggest problems with this issue is that even ardent supports have yet to produce an invoice cost structure for the overall capital and maintenance costs associated with Mars colonization detailing every single task and cost estimate with appropriate assumptions. Overall without the intricacies of a mission design it is impossible to reasonably estimate costs, thus realistically any number that has been estimated cannot be taken seriously (this statement should be noted by Elon Musk and Robert Zubrin especially).

Popular Solution: Sell sponsorship elements to private corporations and heavily materialize the idea of a mission to Mars and associated colonization.

Problems with Solution: Privatizing the issue of Mars colonization comes off as tacky and cheapens the whole idea among the honorific charges that the ideal behind Mars colonization is enrichment of the human spirit, feeding humanity’s innate curiosity and enhancing survival probabilities of the species. How inspirational will it really be for the public to hear about the Google Solar Searcher making landfall and the Apple iPhone 27 colonist setting foot on Mars? Proponents of this marketing solution also typically overestimate the amount of money that will be raised forgetting that a vast majority of people are interested in characters not concepts. For example what drives ‘Star Wars’ sales… people buy more because of an affinity to Hans Solo or Darth Vader over an affinity to space travel in general.

People like drama, but only when there are no real life-death consequences to that drama. Watching people actually die on Mars as a part of some reality show concept will instantly turn-off most of humanity (or at least it should otherwise that says something about humanity). Also little traction has been made on a mission to Mars; this lack of progress may have diluted its believability in the mind of the public, thus a reality series may not draw the attention proponents want until the public has the belief that a colonization mission will actually occur; otherwise such a ‘show’ will be viewed as a publicity stunt, which would further damage colonization credibility. Unfortunately for proponents this ‘chicken/egg’ issue is a similar one that faces electrical vehicles with the relationship between its required infrastructure and total sales.

Popular Solution #2: Exploration of Mars will pay for itself because valuable minerals and precious metals mined from Mars can be returned to Earth and Martian land can be sold to private citizens. In fact some propose a triangle trading system between Earth, Mars and localized asteroids.

Problems with Solution: The idea of creating an economic ‘juggernaut’ from Mars is rather far-fetched at the moment. Even the most optimistic estimates would acknowledge that even with basically everything going right in colonization (something proponents always seem to assume) it will still take decades until even a little economic productivity on Mars is produced beyond the simple elements required for survival. Name the number of companies that are willing to invest billions of dollars in a project that has a low payoff probability with a successful ROI of over a decade? The idea of selling Martian land is quite insane because sovereign nations are not allowed to claim ownership and a first come first served privateer mentality would probably also not be viewed as valid legally due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the colonization of Mars. Thus the very idea of Martian land ownership until thousands of people are on Mars will do nothing but cause problems and increase the probability of death for the colonists.

Speaking of private organizations…


Concern: The state of the government sponsored space program places significant limitations on Mars colonization because the United States, who has been the leader for the last two decades in space exploration, has quasi-quit manned space travel, largely due to the setbacks in the Constellation Program, creating a significant gap in space travel capacity for humans.

Popular Solution: Mars proponents think that privatization can drive the colonization of Mars citing such successes as SpaceShipOne (Mojave Aerospace Ventures) and SpaceX.

Problems with Solution: Proponents are thinking very short-term with this solution. As stated above the realistic profitability potential of a colony on Mars is decades, if not a century, away from any positive potential and companies do not like to invest in things that have such a large uncertainty time frame. For example suppose a private corporation responsible for transport for Mars colonization goes bankrupt, in part because of the colony infrastructure transport, before the colony is self-sufficient? Is another private company going to pick up where that first company left off, especially if the colonization project had a role in driving the bankruptcy?

What proponents fail to consider is that 99.99+% of all cost estimates in business are underestimates with the actual costs being greater. To those who think that corporations would never simply allow the colonists to die… corporations kill people everyday and think nothing of it and could easily scapegoat colonist deaths by blaming the colonists themselves. The simple fact is that as of this moment it is difficult to justify the direct involvement of private corporations in a Mars colonization endeavor. Realistically unless it is very lucky privatization will probably be relegated to LEO space tourism versus spearheading Mars colonization.


Concern: The possibility of life on Mars in the form of rudimentary bacteria has not been eliminated, thus what should be the response of colonists to this possibility?

Popular Solution: There is no definitive solution offered. Most plans involve colonists eventually searching for this life and conducting routine collection and cultures to identify.

Problems with Solution: While standard protocol for exploration and classification of any discovered life after colonization is understandable very little discussion exists regarding addressing bacteria on the colonization site itself. While the probability that any encountered life is pathogenic is remote, without the existence of a biohazard analysis area (including such a structure for the initial portion of the colonization is rather inefficient) the region surrounding the initial colonization site should be sterilized. Sterilization is easy enough as an UV light strobe can be deposited in a centralized location of the colonization environment and a continuous pulse should be sufficient to eliminate any Martian life in the region. Some may argue against this idea citing morality issues of killing indigenous Martian life, but it stands to reason that if life exists on Mars then it is not concentrated in a single place. Therefore, such killing can be attributed to killing E. Coli in milk through pasteurization.

In the end it is understandable that after reading the above criticism some could argue that this post did little to advance the aspect of specifics associated with a mission to colonize Mars. Such a contention is correct, but this blog is also not devoted to promoting a mission to colonize Mars thus there is less expectation or responsibility to produce the nauseating specifics required for such a mission. Such an expectation would be akin to wondering why a biomedical engineer did not draw up the blueprints for the largest skyscraper ever in lieu of a civil engineer. However, it is appropriate for a biomedical engineer to ask questions regarding the blueprint even if some of them may be regarded as unnecessary/stupid. One interesting option to expand the demand for specifics is if various Mars colonization groups could organize a televised debate among ‘experts’ on the various elements associated with Mars colonization. Such a debate would force speakers to expand details beyond checklists and rosy assumptions that everything would always work out in favor of the colonists. As of now no rational person should support a mission to colonize Mars with the lack of details and DIY attitude that most proponents seem to have relative to the colonization. Colonizing Mars and colonizing North America is hardly the same thing.

New Strategy for Military

The debate concerning the national deficit has increased in fervor in recent years with significant escalating costs associated with military spending including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, large tax cuts for all Americans including the super wealthy and the specter of rising healthcare and social security costs. While discussion of various strategies to head off further accumulation of future debt is appropriate, an interesting element is how obstinate numerous individuals are when it comes to discussion of reducing military expenditures. While it is true that the controversial Simpson-Bowls deficit reduction strategy included military cuts most of those cuts were haphazard and unfocused. The simple reality is that a significant amount of funding will have to be cut from the military budget intelligently to effectively address future deficit problems while maintaining public confidence in the military itself.

There are two central issues when discussing the matter of reducing funds to the military: first, the paranoid belief that national security is somehow greatly compromised by reducing funds at all and second the lack of a clear strategy for the military in modern society. The first issue can be better addressed by highlighting the second issue. At the moment there is no consistent recognized role for the military. While there is a mission statement: “protect the sovereignty of the U.S. of America from foreign aggression” there does not seem to be a clear execution strategy for that mission statement. Basically should the military be offensive, preemptively attacking potential enemies or defensive, counteracting clear aggressive behavior towards the U.S. and her territories? On its face the better execution strategy seems to be defensive, especially when considering future costs.

The biggest concern with an offensive strategy is the dynamic nature of the attack targets. Without an imperial mindset there is nothing to conquer, thus initiating an occupying force is not appropriate, yet large state complexes are no longer the chief threat. The shift away from single sovereign state forces applies focus to stress the moving parts associated with the interrelated groups that exist within sovereign nations and can move between nations. However, without acquiring cooperation from those nations direct attacks against these independent groups can be complicated. A chief example of this complication is the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan with regards to Al Queda and the Taliban. The U.S. cannot simply invade Pakistan to remove Al Queda so they resort to smaller scale unmanned drone attacks, which still cause problems both in their collateral damage and how they influence the relationship between the two countries. These complications decrease cost and probability efficiencies of defending the sovereignty of the U.S.

The administration of a defensive strategy offers numerous financial advantages. First, standing military manpower can be significantly reduced to a reserve force, which can be periodically rotated during non-global war to ensure performance excellence. For example the military could have 500,000 total members with 100,000 on active duty (weekend training, etc.). After a set time period individuals would rotate from active duty to reservists and a pre-determined new 100,000 would move from reserves to active duty. Such a rotation would keep everyone in the military reasonably fresh and up-to-date on new combat techniques and strategies; current focus would more than likely be on urban combat. Rotations would be true to the proportional representations of the total military demographic. Basically suppose the 500,000 troops were 33% army, 28% navy, 22% air force and 17% marine then the 100,000 active duty troops would be 33,000 army, 28,000 navy, 22,000 air force and 17,000 marine.

A defensive strategy could also eliminate the old standing ‘two ocean front war strategy’, highlighted by the Vinson-Walsh Act in 1940, that has been used by pro-military spending advocates, but is no longer appropriate because no real legitimate threat can materialize in the Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean Sea front. No African or South American country can field a naval threat that a land-based or air-based counter-attack force could not neutralize effectively with almost zero to zero collateral damage. Currently all Western European countries are allies and if foreign relations change the change will not occur so quickly that some of the existing eleven carrier groups could not be adjusted appropriately.

Of the existing carrier groups two can be anchored in Annapolis, one with a European Ally (if needed due to concerns in the Middle East similar to the 5th group currently in Bahrain) and the remaining eight at various places in the Pacific theater to ensure Pacific maritime rights for all East Asian countries. With the elimination of the two ocean strategy no additional naval forces will be required in the budget until an existing high-value ship is decommissioned saving significant funds over the long-term. As a rule of thumb a single carrier group could be replaced every ten years, thus significantly reducing procurement costs. In addition with the focus on the Pacific Theater some carrier groups will not have to be replaced and could instead be sold abroad when viewed as out-of-date if so desired. Basically no additional naval forces will be required under such a strategy.

With the advancement of unmanned drones offensive air-to-ground capacity can largely be transferred from manned bombers to these unmanned drones. Therefore, no new bombers will be needed in the near future. The emphasis on offensive air-to-air combat is limited as well due to the strength of the U.S. carrier groups and surface-to-air missile defense networks, thus the need for new fighters will be significantly reduced. New fighters would only be required when existing technology is completely out of date and computer analysis identifies kill ratios of greater than 5 to 1 against potential existing opponents. Based on these new criteria unnecessary further procurements like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can be eliminated.

Playing defense would also eliminate the need for expansion of heavy armor because only two countries have the capacity to engage in a land war with the U.S.: Canada and Mexico; the likelihood of either one of those countries invading the U.S. is incredibly small. If the unthinkable did happen any invasion force can be countered with air superiority and naval counterattacks from both coasts (the carrier group at Norfolk and those in California). Therefore, no procurement of additional heavy armor will be needed in the budget for decades under a defensive strategy. In honest analysis with the increasing likelihood of urban combat, the cost/benefit ratio of heavy armor in general becomes less and less viable.

Some would argue that such cuts to the military would result in lost jobs. Of course it would because that is how a consumer based economic system operates, when spending in a particular field decreases the size and structure of organizations providing goods and services to that particular field decreases. However, it is completely irrational to continue spending money on military equipment that would not be necessary in a real defensive strategy over an offensive-defensive “bi-polar” strategy. Jobs that exist based on this irrational spending can be regarded as pure inefficient government subsidized jobs because the defense contractor that employs person A in that particular job is creating inefficiency in the transaction by siphoning off a large portion of the money for itself which then leaves the economy versus that money going directly to the employee. Any free-market capitalist should be in favor of eliminating such inefficient transactions. For any argument of sympathy for these individuals losing their jobs… why is it that these individuals, most who have had large five to six figure yearly salaries and should have large savings accounts, should receive sympathy yet there is no sympathy when thousands of lower paying, but more essential teaching or police jobs are eliminated?

It is important to note that while a defensive strategy will significantly diminish the number of new military projects and overhead costs of current maintenance, there should be no reduction in funding for DARPA. While there are some instances where research at DARPA may be viewed with a roll of the eyes the overall structure and importance of DARPA cannot be understated for it is these homerun/strike out research projects that have the higher probabilities of creating innovating weapon and armor technologies, which will reduce costs over the long-term. In addition a defensive strategy will reduce the probability that active military personnel enter combat. However, despite this reduced probability salaries and benefits currently granted to military personnel should not be withdrawn or reduced, but can be rearranged more efficiently if need be.

Reducing military costs will also require the expansion of cheaper surface-to-air and surface-to-sea missile systems as well as alternative fuel-based unmanned drones. One means to improve the ability to design these drones is to reduce carrying weight by reducing missile capacity. Also developing localized electrical magnetic pulse weapons due to less collateral damage engagement will be useful. In large part a significant amount of savings will come from reducing use and size of the mobile carriers (drones over fighters and bombers). Finally increasing funding for intelligence operations (CIA etc.) will increase preparation time for attacks against the U.S. reducing the total cost of defense. Basically consider the similar medical analogy in that if one knows the pathogen causing the illness one can deduce its method of attack, thus the cost of treatment is significantly reduced.

It stands to reason that there will be three major areas of global conflict over the next few decades. First, Eastern Asia as India and China continue to via for influence and economic development while nursing old grudges, China competing with other Southeastern Asian countries and Japan for control of local waterways and other oceanic bodies, India and Pakistan continue to via for control of the Kashmir region and the continued saber-rattling of North Korea towards South Korea. Realistically this area has the greatest potential for sparking a larger global conflict. Second, in the Middle East with Iran’s progressing attempts to acquire nuclear arms and the fierce determination of Israel to prevent a nuclear Iran and the continued Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Third, various elements of unrest could breakout in Central and Southern Africa. Fortunately these conflicts will largely remain regional and have little global catalyst effect. The above considerations for military spending in a defensive strategy will allow the U.S. to effectively address these potential conflicts with the ability to protect U.S. sovereignty as well as assist in protecting the sovereignty of other independent nations. It could be argued that all foreign military bases outside these combat areas could be eliminated with no additional new bases being built.

Some raise concerns about how allies would respond to significant cuts in the U.S. military budget. Any negative response would be derived from unnecessary fear and ignorance. First, there are very few nations that even directly make use of an “intimidating” influence of the U.S. military in foreign relations (Japan and South Korea come immediately to mind in their relationships with China and North Korea respectively). Second, there is a lot of overreaction in that any cuts to the U.S. military will somehow exponentially diminish its ability to conduct battle operations. With eleven carrier groups the U.S. navy will be able to effectively intervene in any major conflict area that is not in central Africa for decades to come even if zero new ships are constructed. Third, the emergence of new drones can compensate for losses due to their repeated use without placing pilot lives in danger or requiring new training for who would have replaced those killed. Unfortunately almost all complaints by allies about military spending cuts are largely driven by self-interests and one could wonder why these allies have not planned for the eventuality of a cut in U.S. military spending because one is inevitable one way or another.

There are three keys to significantly reducing military spending without compromising national security. First, prioritize a defensive strategy taking advantage of the geographical location of the U.S. and her surrounding allies in order to reduce the demand for military force. Second, eliminate expansion of the military (no new forces) instead focus on replacing aging technology with relevant significant upgrades. However, one should not replace a piece of technology just because something better exists, only do so when that new technology is a significant upgrade versus perceived enemy capacity. Third, expand FBI and CIA intelligence gathering to eliminate potential attacks before they materialize and create more efficient strike opportunities against mature threats. It is sad how little money is spent on FBI and CIA activities domestically and internationally versus how much money is spent on developing a helicopter or jet fighter that is 2% better than the previous model. Similar to the second point sometimes one wonders if Congress masquerades as Apple consumers in that they need to buy the next model even if there are no real fundamental improvements. Overall controlling military spending is easier if priorities are reassigned to focusing on a defensive front over an offensive one and do not reduce U.S. protection probability.

Winning Back Honesty

It can be said that human beings in general are akin to water in that they seek the path of least resistance. The epidemic of cheating and unethical behavior, especially in education, has become more rampant in the past decades largely due to the inception and development of the Internet, which has made dishonesty easy. Schools as early as middle schools to as advanced as prestigious universities are experiencing this problem, thus the increase in the number of cheating and other unethical behavior events is not isolated to any specific age group, but permeates a majority of them. So the question is what can educational institutions do about this problem?

A number of individuals argue that it is important to understand the psychological triggers that lead to this unethical behavior and counter them at the source. However, the efficacy of such a mindset is put at risk when unethical behavior is motivated by rationalities such as “need good grades, but don’t want to work for them”, “I don’t need this class for the future, but it is required so cheating doesn’t matter”, “I have too many other important things to do” or even “everyone else cheats (despite having no evidence of this) so why should I have to work hard?”. How does society challenge a mindset that is basically predicated on laziness and apathy? Complicating the problem is that there is rarely a single governing reason for cheating, instead numerous reasons similar to those above are intertwined, thus attacking one reason in isolation cannot be the strategy, yet attacking multiple strategies is overly complicated and may create excess necessary work for instructors that will not be compensated.

One of the most counterproductive elements regarding cheating is how society tries to obfuscate the blame. Instead of blaming the cheaters themselves people apply blame to the school, the instructors, the parents, peers, heck it almost seems like some would rather blame Taylor Swift versus actually blaming the cheaters. Frequent is the ridiculous claim that instructors drive ‘justifiable’ cheating because they don’t clearly demonstrate the relevance of the class or make the class interesting. Even the most plausible excuse for cheating, forgiving plagiarism because students don’t have an explicit definition of it, seeks to defer blame because it suggests that someone else should have taught students both the definition of plagiarism and that it is unethical because these students are so inept they cannot do these two things for themselves. Until society is prepared to place the onus of cheating on the individuals who are actually committing the action there is little that can be done to genuinely stem the problem. The first step to placing the onus of cheating on individuals is to apply significant punishment to those who cheat.

There are three chief elements which encapsulate the problem of cheating in education: students cheating on tests, students plagiarizing work they find on the Internet including purchasing papers from paper mills and instructors changing answers on tests. Addressing the first element raises an immediate question regarding test structure. The most obvious way to address students cheating on tests is for the instructor to give essay tests. It is very difficult to cheat on an essay test when the questions are not previously known, especially when test questions are scrambled and alternated between rows. Essay tests also have the advantage of judging whether students not only understand the basics of the subject, but can also translate those basics into more complex ideas over regurgitating memorized facts. This methodology can also psychologically demonstrate to students that there is meaning behind understanding the basics. The chief disadvantage of essay tests is the additional work demanded of instructors to create and grade them, especially in large (30-40 student) classes because no additional salary or respect is drawn for this additional un-required workload.

Regardless of whether or not an instructor uses essay tests or another testing format, an important element to limiting cheating is to control the situation by creating a standard and uniform testing environment. For example one such environment is outlined below:

- On the day of the test when students enter the classroom they place their books and all other objects brought to class against a sidewall including the removal of caps and hats then students sit at their respective desks.

- The instructor creates two separate tests using the same questions, but in different order. The instructor hands out the tests facedown along with a #2 pencil to alternating students in such a way that a student is surrounded by individuals with the other test. This strategy heavily limits the positive outcomes for a student who decides to look at another student’s paper or makes it incredibly obvious to anyone proctoring the exam that someone is looking at another’s paper. For example a 30-student class with a 6 x 5 square desk arrangement with tests A and B would see a distribution as followed:

A B A B A B
B A B A B A
A B A B A B
B A B A B A
A B A B A B

- It is thought among ethicists that a vast majority of people are honest because they are not faced with temptation, not because they stare down temptation and walk away from it. This psychological reality may be why the laughable ‘Entrapment’ defense in the criminal justice system even exists. The two above steps are designed to reduce available ‘cheating’ temptations, thus reducing the amount of work any proctor has to engage in to provide honest evaluation.

- When the period begins the students will be instructed to turnover their tests and begin. During the test if the instructor sees anything that is not a #2 pencil or the test in a student’s hand or on/around his/her desk that student will receive a zero on the examination and be sent to the principle’s office.

- The instructor will proctor the exam from the front of the room watching for any inappropriate behavior. If any is witnessed the instructor will place a small token on the desk of the offending student and make a record of the offense. If a single student receives three tokens over the course of an exam then there will be a predetermined consequence. It is understandable that some individuals may view this element as worrisome because of the possible power abuse that can result. For example it is no secret that there are situations where instructors and students do not get along and that dislike can evolve into bias. In the above situation credibility involves a instructor-said student-said structure because other students are taking the exam. However, with the above testing environment it is unlikely that such a system will be heavily utilized. Students will be able to inquire on the reasoning behind any tokens after the completion of the test and will be able to appeal if he/she believes that a three token ‘performance’ was unfairly/inaccurately awarded.

- At the end of the period students will place their completed exams in a box positioned on the instructor’s desk. The instructor will remove the box eliminating the ability to turn in the test (resulting in a zero) 30 seconds after the class period has completed. If a student completes his/her exam early that student will not be allowed to retrieve possessions until the end of the period. The idea behind this restriction is to mitigate additional distractions and inter-period cheating by granting access to electrical devices.

The above outline only addresses how to stem cheating in a single class it does not address stemming cheating between classes. Normally, especially in high school when there are multiple periods of the same class and students do not have a single testing session, opportunity exists during common periods for early period students to tell friends in later periods about the test revealing unethical details. For example someone who takes the exam in 1st period may tell a friend in a common 3rd period class about the test that the second person will take during 5th period. Multiple tests eliminates this cheating opportunity because individuals may not be getting the same questions, thus any information about specifics acquired from previous test takers will not be applicable.

There are two popular means of utilizing a multiple test methodology. First, three different tests are created, 1st and 2nd period are given test #1, 3rd and 4th period are given test #2 and 5th and 6th period are given test #3. Therefore, there is no reasonable time frame in which relevant test questions can be transmitted to other individuals either electronically or verbally. Second, three different tests are created and all students randomly receive a copy of a given test.

This second strategy has strengths and weaknesses versus the first method. The chief weakness is that cheating is only limited to a random probability of 33% for success instead of basically 0% for the first strategy. The strength is that keeping the multiple tests a secret will result in a 67% chance that the latter student involved in any cheating will have a lower performance probability due to inaccurate information. Therefore, those who attempt to cheat will actually have a significant chance at putting themselves at a greater disadvantage versus not having attempted to acquire unethical information in the first place. The long-term hope is that after realizing the inaccuracy of the illicit information, individuals will no longer seek the information viewing it as a waste of time.

Overall thought it stands to reason that if the idea is to reduce the ability of individuals to cheat the consistency of the first methodology proves superior to the benefit/cost risk structure of the second methodology. However, some caution must be taken, for depending on the circumstance after the completion of the test some students may complain that certain periods received more difficult questions than other periods which would raise concern that grades are more influenced by what period an individual was in versus what that individual actually knew pertaining to the subject matter. While a possibility, the above concern is rather muted if the instructor practices appropriate test design.

The second chief element to educational cheating is students plagiarizing work they find on the Internet. The first issue when developing a counter strategy to this form of cheating is to determine whether or not the instructor will include homework and quizzes in the final grade. If the instructor will include homework/quizzes in the final grade then the instructor can give numerous small ½ to 1 page long essay assignments that can create an ‘answer fingerprint’ for given students. This fingerprint will indicate a particular style of writing, sentence structure, word choice, presentation depth, etc. that can be used by instructors as a metric for longer more detailed papers to detect inconsistencies and potential plagiarism. Issuing the quizzes in class precludes the ability to use the Internet from the beginning to contaminate the samples.

If homework/quizzes are not going to count towards the final grade then the above strategy will more than likely not be successful for most students because in modern culture most students tend not to view the intangible rewards of knowledge that come from doing homework. If material is not going to affect the final grade most judge that there is little reason to actually perform the work. If the work is not completed then there is no ability to create a reliable ‘answer fingerprint’, thus there is no standard to compare to future works. In this situation it stands to reason that the total number of graded elements will be small, suppose two to four. If this is the case then one strategy to address potential plagiarism is to split the assignment into two parts. First, the students write the paper and second the students have to defend the position taken in the paper on a ‘written test’ in class. Basically the next class day after the papers are graded will be reserved for each student to answer a three/four question mini-test about their paper.

The idea behind this strategy is two-fold. First, for individuals who actually wrote their paper they should have a grasp of the knowledge that was required to formulate the ideas that produced the paper. If an individual did not write a paper, but instead acquired it from a paper mill there is a much smaller probability that the individual has enough of a grasp of knowledge to perform well on the test. Second, the point of education is to acquire established knowledge that can be used in the future not create ephemeral knowledge that disappears after a few weeks. Therefore, even if limiting plagiarism is not a goal the above strategy serves as a valuable purpose to advancing education, thus there is reason in doing it. One might argue that instructors do not have enough time to take such a strategy as it would waste class time which is limited as it is, but recall that this strategy is tied to large quality low volume grading thus only two to four class days will be used for the method. Note that these days are not ‘sacrificed’ because they do serve the purpose mentioned above.

A supplemental strategy for addressing plagiarism has been to utilize the online service www.turnitin.com. However, the service does cost a significant amount of money (thousands of dollars for a one year license for even medium sized schools (1,000 students)). With the omnipresence of budget problems for most public schools, amplified by the continued emergence of charter schools driven by unsupported positive bias, paying this additional sum for this private service may be more detrimental to students than beneficial in how school funds are distributed.

Another strategy for reducing plagiarism is to have students hand in rough drafts of their work a week before the due date for the assignment. Such a condition limits the opportunity for plagiarism because the instructor can see the development of thought and presentation in the rough draft and use that as marker of comparison against the final copy. If there are significant differences then the instructor can ask the student why he/she decided to go in such a radically different direction between the rough draft from a week ago and the final draft. An incoherent or insufficient explanation will typically only be given if work has been plagiarized. Finally to ensure proper boundary conditions there must be clear definitions of plagiarism given at the beginning of a class year along with clear consequences. Having students sign a ‘contract’ of sorts confirming that they have received and understood these ethical standard expectations would eliminate any ‘confusion’ regarding student comprehension.

The third and final type of cheating has actually emerged as significant only over the last decade. The increased importance of standardized testing has created an environment of additional pressure for some instructors who believe that the use of the standardized testing as an evaluation metric for schools and individual instructors is weighted inappropriately. This pressure has lead some to resort to cheating for their students, with some schools even having ‘answer correction parties’ for their instructors after the completion of a given standardized test. Clearly such behavior is inexcusable and precautions must be established to ensure that it no longer occurs.

While the best option would be to replace instructors with independent test auditors for national testing days, most school districts and/or states would not want nor typically even have money budgeted to pay for these individuals. Therefore, one option may be to ‘instructor swap’ where instructors from school A administer tests at school B and instructors from school B administer tests at school A. For most schools the logistics of such a temporary swap would not be difficult, but the swap itself raises an interesting psychological question among the instructors, a question similar in nature to that of the prisoners’ dilemma (PD).

In the swap scenario there are two compelling forces that may act upon the substituted instructors. The first force is the standard comrade support structure that exists in most occupations where Person A of occupation A looks out for Person B of occupation A and visa versa solely because they both have the same occupation. Therefore, the swapped instructors may not go out of their way to help another instructor that does not teach at their institution, but may ‘bend’ the rules a bit to assist in a positive manner.

The second force is the direct principle of the PD. While there may be a natural leaning towards helping a fellow instructor, that leaning is not guaranteed, especially in the same school districts with the weight of standardized tests on bonuses in a more evaluation heavy environment. In PD the best outcome is derived from the prisoners trusting each other and both admitting guilt; however, if one fails to follow through on this trust the consequences are disastrous for the individual that admits guilt. In the competitive environment that education ‘reformers’ are trying to craft among instructors if one instructor does not reciprocate assistance it will help him/her both in salary and job security. Therefore, this aspect of the PD may suppress any occupational equality bias.

Crafting appropriate punishments for cheating is tricky because the punishment must be severe enough that students have proper respect for ethics, but not so severe that it creates a self-catalyzing negative situation. Initially it can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘too severe’ punishment for cheating (within the scope of common sense i.e. no death penalty, etc.) because cheating does not occur by accident, it is a willful and conscious occurrence. Factors like ‘family problems’ or ‘too much stress’ are frequently mitigated as rationalities because students that use them do not make instructors aware of the situation, thus it is viewed as a scapegoat or excuse not a negative trigger. Basically assigning any punishment severity to cheating is akin to giving a motorist a $2000 speeding ticket. Whether an individual exceeds the speed limit is entirely under the control of the individual (clearly stuck accelerators are not given valid speeding tickets, etc.).

While any punishment is justified from the standpoint of free action it may not be appropriate. There are larger issues to consider in that a single mistake should not create a situation that is ‘unrecoverable’. For example it can be argued that expelling a student for a single cheating event creates an undue burden on both the student and his/her family. However, just as there must be temperance in the first offence there must be the prospect of more significant punishment in the case of relapse. Therefore, one punishment option would be for a first-time cheating event to result in a zero for the given test/paper (as mentioned above) and a calendar year long probation period where further cheating will result in automatic failure of the class in which the second event occurred. In this punishment structure the student does not receive multiple ‘first-time’ event depending on the class, if the student cheats in class A then cheats in class B he/she automatically fails class B. In this system it must be recalled that cheating is a conscious choice.

Punishment for instructors changing student answers or other cheating is rather straightforward for as adults they should understand the consequences of such behavior. There should be no quarrel if an instructor is fired after committing such an act. One could even argue that such a penalty will not be misappropriated because high quality instructors will not need to cheat because a majority of their students will be able to perform at least adequately on the examinations, thus only low quality instructors will be driven to cheat. Granted the legitimacy of this conclusion is dependent on the influencing weight of standardized tests on instructor evaluation.

Overall while addressing the root causes of cheating would be ideal unfortunately such a strategy does not appear overly viable due to the psychological factors that embody those causes. Until society is willing to judge methodology as an important element to gained results, cheating will always be regarded as beneficial. Therefore, in order to ensure the importance of genuine understanding and accomplishment in lieu of fraudulent actions society must develop the mindset to detect and punish cheating. Education is one of the prime battlegrounds for morality. The battle against cheating is two-fold: ensuring that it is not a successful strategy and demonstrating the values of ethics and knowledge.

The Last Resort for the Future?

Not surprisingly based on its description, global warming is a global problem where decisions made in a given region or even in a single country over the long-term can have profound negative consequence to others. Unfortunately while the major players recognize that global warming is a problem there appears to be little diplomatic urgency to create a globally recognized system to address the mitigation of CO2 as well as any future CO2 remediation or adaptation strategies to diminish the detrimental outcomes that are already occurring. This lack of progress creates a unique, but onerous decision-making environment for parties who have behaved or are now behaving responsibly with regards to CO2 emissions.

Consider the following example: in a neighborhood lives family A, family B and family C. All three families share the same water supply. Family A does not produce a lot of waste and/or acts appropriately when disposing of the waste they create during the course of their day. Family B does well enough with disposal, but still has moments where waste disposal is improperly performed. Family C does not properly dispose of their waste and is slowly contaminating the water supply. Family A has asked family C numerous times to either properly dispose of their waste or to create less waste citing the moral obligations of all three families to maintain the purity of their communal water supply. Despite this reasonable and appropriate prodding family C has refused to change their waste management behavior.

Unfortunately for family A they cannot contact the police because while family C is engaging in reckless behavior practically and morally their behavior is not recognized as illegal. In addition family A is unable to move to a different location due to a lack of available funds. Based on this scenario family A appears to have two responses: do nothing and eventually wait to die from a water-borne disease/dehydration or forcefully prevent family C from continuing to contaminate the communal water supply.

The above analogy describes the global community as it stands with regards to CO2 emissions. Family A represents groups like the European Union, Maldives, New Zealand, etc. Family B represents groups like Brazil, Australia, Canada, etc. Family C represents groups like the China, United States, India, Japan and Russia. With the aforementioned failure of international treaties and a disregard for morality both of others and the future, can it be morally justified for a group of significant military might like the European Union to declare war against a nation like China on the pretense that their actions will definitively result in the eventual destruction of the European Union?

Some would argue that the European Union declaring war on a nation like China would be counter-productive for both sides due to the monetary investments in the war, which could be better applied to carbon mitigation and the additional carbon emissions that would be released by the machines of war and the destruction they would cause. This reservation is understandable, but is flawed. While the money could be utilized for carbon mitigation the motivating factor for declaring and executing the war in the first place is that the money is not being used for carbon mitigation fast enough. The carbon emissions arising from the aggressive action can be thought of as a preventative action reducing the total amount of carbon by ‘motivating’ these family C entities to hasten their emission reduction even if it costs percentage points in their GDP.

While some individuals like to portray nations like China ‘green’ because of their investment in solar and wind energy, these investments are not replacing fossil fuel energy sources, but are augmenting them. Even conservative estimates have China emissions peaking at 2025 and most of this increase will be driven by further investment in a fossil fuel energy infrastructure.1 This investment will result in a slow decrease from that peak further increasing probability for climate reaction detriment. Other nations, like the United States, are reducing emissions due to slower growth in cooperation with small improvements in efficiency and non-fossil fuel energy generation, but are increasing coal exports to other nations. Also they are increasing natural gas production, which when including fracking elements shows only a slight emission profile improvement over coal in the safety quality scenarios and worse emission profiles in scenarios lacking safety diligence, which are much more common.2

It is important to note that the execution of the war would not be of the ‘total war’ variety, but would be surgical strikes against large carbon emitting structures like coal and natural gas power plants, cement factories, aluminum and other metal factories, etc. However, it stands to reason that there will be collateral damage from both the strikes themselves (due to shift workers at the facilities and flying debris nearby areas) and loss of services provided by the destroyed facilities.

It is reasonable to assume that the populous of the attacked country will not understand the reasoning behind the attack and will demand their country strike back in a fit of enhanced nationalistic fervor. The biggest question in this reaction is the type of attack strategy utilized in the counter-attack. Would the counter-attack involve a reciprocation of targets (large carbon emitting structures and/or power generating facilities) or would it have no focus and regress to total war? Due to the nature of modern warfare the only effective means to counter-attack for most of the ‘family C’ nations would involve an aerial assault.

A counter-attack utilizing direct payload transport could be defended against rather routinely with proper preparation. Therefore, a manned flight or drone-based counter-attack should not be a concern. The chief counter-attack concern should be ballistic missile either nuclear or non-nuclear. Despite an expected bout of nationalism from the population, leaders of the attacked country would be hard-pressed to justify a nuclear derived assault to other bystander nations. The simple fact is that mutual assured destruction (MAD) has always been in effect and will always be in effect, thus a nuclear assault is almost impossible to consider. Even without MAD a nuclear assault falls under the same purview as CO2 emissions in that the nuclear material will not remain localized and only affect local regions. No organized nation would risk the blowback from using nuclear weapons on either a diplomatic or environmental level, thus the only reasonable counter-attack to fear is a non-nuclear ballistic missile.

Another strategy could be declaring war against a ‘family B’ who is aiding the waste created by family C. For example in the real world the European Union could declare war on Australia who exports large amounts of coal to China, Japan and India. This strategy may evade the potential problematic nationalistic elements that would aggravate the war strategy with counter-attacks. Also most of the supplier countries have less developed militaries than the heavier emitters making them, for lack of a better term, easier targets with less collateral damage potential while still producing significant emission reduction results.

It is understandable that some would believe a declaration of war strategy to be too aggressive and would instead support international sanctions against these suppliers. Certainty coal export sanctions against a country like Australia would be a smoother strategy for reducing exports to China and India versus conducting military action. While theoretically correct it would take significant international cooperation to make such sanctions work, cooperation similar to that required for a carbon mitigation climate treaty, cooperation that does not appear to be forthcoming.

For example consider that lack of cooperation regarding sanctions of Iran. Russia and Iran have a trade relationship worth 3.7 billion dollars3 and China and Iran have a trade relationship worth almost 50 billion dollars, which prevents either from getting behind economic sanctions.4 Australia exports 40 - 70 billion dollars of coal (obviously the price fluctuates) annually with about 23.5 – 41.1 billion going to China, India and Japan.5 Think China, India or Japan is getting on board with economic sanctions of Australia? It stands to reason that they could significantly dent any economic sanctions by absorbing most, if not all, of the export losses Australia would incur to participating sanctioning nations while maintaining coal purchases.

Another important aspect to consider is the element of global economic disruption. Forcefully reducing carbon emissions will result in a disrupted supply chain from the affected country. This disruption will lead to price increases for those countries that receive exports. However, such a strategy can also produce opportunities for new businesses within those export affected regions. Proper preparations must be made to directly address these potential disruptions. To this point it must be asked what is more important: an individual allowing his/her grandchild the opportunity to live long enough to have his/her own children or the ability to purchase the next model of the iPhone at a 100 dollar discount or some other material object at a small discount?

Overall the idea discussed above is one of last resort, but disturbingly enough is becoming more and more relevant with each passing year of limited action on reducing carbon emissions. Climate negotiations have failed numerous times to produce any global emission reduction strategy that is not entirely voluntary. Superficial goals like reducing carbon intensity will not stop the threat to the global environment. Time is of the essence as the global environment is responding more negatively and more quickly than previously thought to the increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere and oceans. Can rational people allow the desires of a small group of individuals to not only endanger their own future, but the future of everyone else living on the planet even if the only response left is violence?

--
Citations –

1. Zhou, N, et Al. “China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050.” China Energy Group Energy Analysis Department Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2011.

2. Howarth, R, Santoro, R, and Ingraffea, A. “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations.” Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5.

3. http://tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=213679

4. Payvand Iran News, http://www.payvand.com/news/12/apr/1001.html

5. http://www.australiancoal.com

Legitimizing the Modern Presidential Debate

Modern debates have become akin to campaign stump speeches with the sole purpose of stating talking points to ensure seal-clapping approval from one’s base while staying board as possible to avoid direct criticism from opponents. Unfortunately the revive the debates of Douglas-Lincoln is not feasible any longer because candidates no longer have the intelligence to express ideas in such a detailed manner or the guts to expose themselves and their ideas in bare-naked specifics. Therefore, to lament days long gone is a needless exercise which wastes time. However, simply because society cannot return to the past does not mean it must settle for the sham confrontational pageantry and typical hollow words associated with modern debates.

A better debate format would consist of a broad overarching topic (economics, environment, foreign policy, education, energy, etc.) with four separate and unique questions pertaining to that topic. The moderator would write the questions prior to the debate. The goal of debate is to convince others of the superiority of a certain position and the failures of other contrasting positions. Superiority of a given position over others can only be genuinely adjudicated by understanding the differences between those positions and how those differences would theoretically interact with the boundary conditions and variables presented by society in reality. This debate format would require sufficient time to explain these differences.

Candidates would have a total talk time of fifteen minutes for each question with a two-minute utilization minimum during each speaking session with no ceiling. Basically a candidate could talk for fifteen minutes straight, but would have to talk for at least two minutes. When a candidate has less than two minutes of talk time remaining he/she must use at least 25% of the available time. To ensure efficiency and accuracy offline electronic screens will be available on the podiums of each candidate that will track the question and how much time each candidate has remaining. These devices would behave like electronic chess clocks where after a candidate stopped speaking he/she would push a button that would stop the current clock and start his/her opponent’s clock.

The question of whether or not the candidates should be informed of the questions before the debate is an interesting one. Initially it stands to reason that making the questions available is appropriate. Most problems faced by a President are long-term that have been developing over years rather than short-term that materialize in a given moment. With this point and the point of debate itself in mind regarding solutions, choosing a President is not about determining who can think quickest on one’s feet and how much information can be memorized, but to discuss hypotheses and identify the best ideas to solve a particular problem for foreign and domestically. Finally advanced knowledge of the questions will increase the probability that candidates have greater detail in their answers making it easier to differentiate between the core ideas associated in those answers.

However, there is one major concern with letting the candidates know the questions beforehand, the issue of authenticity. With foreknowledge of the questions there is a higher probability that candidates simply regurgitate talking points and stump speeches. Basically there is less honesty in the answers because those answers are too polished, or for lack of a better word too inoffensive. In the heat of the moment when put on the spot there is higher likelihood of a candidate revealing his/her biases. This bias may reveal contradictions between stated ideas during the debate and the personal characteristics and beliefs of the candidate. Fortunately the timing format limits the efficacy of such a strategy because to talk in such board terms will not impress viewers, especially if other candidates demand and demonstrate greater details in their answers.

A secondary more minor problem is that while stated above that most problems are long-term, there are some instances where quick decision-making is required and it is important for voters to see how candidates go through a thought process to solve new and immediate problems. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the moderator should reveal three of the four questions to the candidates at least one week prior to the debate and the fourth question should be concealed until it is asked during the debate.

One of the critical elements of a debate is candidate interaction. Debates in which candidates are not allowed to pose questions to other candidates do not accomplish the intended purpose of a debate because idea exchange and challenged validity are limited. Candidates should be able to 'poke' holes in the answer of another candidate to test the validity and effectiveness of a given idea or solution. Based on the time restrictions placing a cap on the number of questions a candidate can ask seems appropriate. Initially allowing six total questions over the entire debate with no more than two per question is a good place to start. While it may be difficult to impose a limit on question asking, both time limits and the need to reduce the probability that one candidate obfuscates flaws in his/her answer(s) by reducing talk time through forcing the opponent(s) to answer numerous questions supercede any restriction concerns.

Candidates would be allowed the create written documents prior to the debate (notes) to use in the debate, but all electronic devices would be disallowed for concern about unethical behavior such as communicating with another party or performing research while other candidates are speaking. Candidate order would be determined by a coin flip after the moderator determines the order of the questions with the winner either selecting to answer questions 1 and 3 first or questions 2 and 4 first.

Finally another element of this debate format could include the moderator at the conclusion of the fourth question fact checking a single statement made by each candidate and asking candidates to clarify their statements within three minutes using the accurate information. Reasonably there should be little reason to reject such an option, but there may be concern that numerous media outlets may detract from the overall debate by focusing on moderator bias instead. However, despite this minor concern moderator fact checking at the conclusion of the debate with rebuttal opportunity is appropriate.

The way debates are currently conducted in modern society, evading legitimate discovery of meaningful solutions for so many existing and new problems in the global environment, is shameful and should not be tolerated. The above debate design is one way to ensuring that voters better understand how candidates would manage a large number of problems in numerous different fields. Clarification of these ideas is important for determining viable solutions as well as creating a more defined character regarding what the United States wants to be as a country instead of this uncertain ‘all political parties are the same, everyone is equal unless they aren’t, melting pot, but not really, government out of my life unless I need its help’ type of contradictory mantra that a large number of voters seem to possess. Overall the public needs to demonstrate that they realize debates are not pageants where the winners are those who are more confident, good-looking and empathetic, but intellectual competitions where the winners are those who present the best ideas for solving a given problem in the context of reality. If that is not the case then why continue to waste time with a debate at all and simply give each candidate 20-30 minutes of national television time to stump.

Investigating a New Means for Carbon Remediation – Freezing CO2

The inability of global society to modify energy and transportation infrastructures to mitigate the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions has lead to a steady increase in atmospheric concentrations of these elements resulting in a steady increase in global surface and ocean temperatures. Unfortunately the existing temperature rise is not representative of the additional carbon emissions that have been released because temperature follows CO2 in two separate feedback systems, slow and fast. The temperature increases to date are representative of the fast feedback, more temperature increases will occur even if emissions are balanced again natural carbon sinks tomorrow due to the slow feedback element.1 Therefore, it is difficult to rationally argue that humans need only to mitigate carbon emissions to avoid significant detrimental long-term damage to the environment; humans must also devise a means to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If one could be confident that the global community would cease excess carbon emissions in the very near-future then slower more natural means of carbon remediation, like planting trees and restoring peat/swamp lands would be appropriate, but existing human behavior indicates that such a condition is not forthcoming; therefore, faster means of atmospheric carbon remediation utilizing technology will be required.

Numerous methods to accomplish this accelerated remediation have been proposed ranging from enhancing mineral weathering and extracting CO2 from the atmosphere with sorbents/amines to oceanic iron fertilization and biochar expansion from feedstocks, all of which have been discussed at one point or another on this blog. A new option was recently proposed involving the extraction of CO2 by freezing it.2 Basically the idea is to install gigantic freezers on Antarctica to solidify CO2 separating it from the atmosphere and then storing that CO2 underground. The selection of Antarctica is practical for two obvious reasons: first the naturally cold temperatures reduce the energy demands associated with freezing the CO2 reducing costs, time and infrastructure and second there is little competitive interaction. Competitive interaction relates to the fact that very little can be done on Antarctica so building this freezer infrastructure will not deprive resources from other human endeavors (no food growth, no settlement, no mineral acquisition, no alternative power infrastructure for normal operation, etc.).

While the general physics and thermodynamics of this process do not raise any significant concerns, there are two major issues that need further evaluation. First, the lead author of this proposal, Professor Ernest Agee, believes that using wind power from a fleet of 16 1.2 GW wind farms will be sufficient to address the necessary energy requirements. The first concern with this plan is that an efficiency of 100% is assumed for these wind farms, which is not appropriate. While wind energy is ‘free’ and the intermittency is less of a problem due to separation from societal necessity, including this intermittency is still important to understand the time requirements associated with annual CO2 extracted. Included in this concern is the imbalance of the intermittency. If a wind farm produces an annual power output of 1.2 GW that output is rarely evenly spaced. Some days will produce 10 MW and other days will produce 0 MW, but not all of that excess MW may be utilized by the freezers. Therefore, without storage or some other means to address this overflow there will be additional non-use that must be considered beyond the normal capacity factor when calculating CO2 extraction.

The second concern with using wind power is that the temperature, which was a boon to reducing the energy requirement for solidifying CO2, but will more than likely also reduce the energy provided. There is a lack of extensive studies regarding how wind turbines are able to function in cold conditions and almost none regarding how they function in extremely cold conditions and the results from those that exist do not provide confidence in ensuring the theoretical outcomes.

Cold weather can influence wind power generation in one of three major ways: 1) the low temperatures affecting the physical properties of the materials; 2) ice accumulation on physical structures/surfaces themselves; 3) the presence of snow in the vicinity of the turbine.3 Of these three issues low temperatures is the largest concern. Both the steel and various composite materials used in turbine construction are negatively influenced by cold; steel becomes more brittle, which reduces their ability to absorb energy and resist deformations before failure.3,4 Composite materials suffer from unequal shrinkage creating greater levels of residual stress which leads to microcracking which results in faster deterioration of the material.4,5 Generators, yaw drive motors, transformers and other electrical devices can also respond negatively to the cold largely due to thermal shocks between down-time and operational-time.

Another problem is cold temperatures increasing viscosity for various lubricants and hydraulic fluids making these beneficial elements more detrimental. When oil is thick and unable to circulate effectively it dramatically increases the probability of damage to gears and other moving parts. Loss of lubrication can also maintain higher internal friction reducing power transmission levels for gearboxes and other elements. Finally small connectors and supports like seals and cushions can loose flexibility and result in more inefficiency.6,7 These failures also are problematic because the composite materials that would be useful for cold weather turbines, those with similar thermal coefficients, are not mass produced thus when developed would cost significantly more money because they would be more unique composites (if they exist at all) and they would not be mass-produced eliminating scale-up savings.3

Not surprisingly the biggest problem with addressing the problems caused by low temperatures result in sacrificed efficiency. The probability of thermal shocks can be reduced by placing heaters inside the nacelle to create lead-time for increasing temperatures during start-up.3 However, these heating elements must be powered, which requires batteries and/or storage systems. Lower viscosity lubricants can be used to aid cold starts and maintain some fluidity, but the drop in viscosity will reduce its protective ability at normal operating temperature increasing the probability of mechanical erosion and damage.3,6 Changes in drive-train activation could be applied avoid full torque until a safe temperature is reached, but such a start-up methodology is not currently applied in moderate temperature turbines and would also reduce electricity generation.3,4

The second problem is with the accumulation of ice on various portions of the turbine most notably on the blades. There are two major forms of ice that can form on turbine blades: glaze and rime. Glaze forms through the typical process when liquid precipitation strikes a surface at the temperature below the freezing point. Basically glaze is similar to the ice that forms on objects and plants during ice storms, hard and transparent (you can clearly see the object encased). Rime forms when surfaces are below the freezing point and are exposed to clouds or fog with supercooled water droplets.5 Rime ice is white and opaque due to the presence of trapped air bubbles. The probability of rime ice formation increases with increasing elevation, thus rime ice formation could be a significant problem for wind turbines built in Antarctica. The potential problem of rime ice could be extended in determining whether or not it will be hard rime ice or soft rime ice. This is an important distinction due to large relative differences in density, which could adjust the strategy used to address its formation and accumulation.

Both forms of ice can form on the rotating and non-rotating surfaces of the turbine. The largest problems are associated with icing of the rotor due to operational interference of speed limiting devices like flaps and blade tips, increases in static load, changes in dynamic balance accelerating fatigue, reduction of energy capture due to changes in the aerodynamic profile of the rotor reducing lifespan and simple weight increases leading to tower collapse.3,5 Other problems stemming from ice accumulation are increases in static loading and wind loading because of increases in surface area (especially for rime ice).

A significant problem with both the ice and general cold temperatures is that due to the consistency of these temperatures and the location of Antarctica, maintenance of these turbines will be a complete nightmare. Icing on Antarctica is also concerning because it will significantly tax normal de-icing strategies. The most common method of de-icing is to apply an anti-adhesive coating, like Teflon, on the turbine blade. However, without frequent application this method will fail quickly on Antarctica. Active de-icing methods could be applied using thermal de-icing from heating units, but once again such a design requires energy and some of that energy may need to come from a non-wind source due to temperatures and wind intermittence. Some estimate that the total energy requirement for thermal active de-icing is between 6 – 12% of the output energy,7 but this estimate should be increased significantly due to the longer operational times that will be suspected for the original estimate only deal with temporary freezing conditions not consistent ones. Black coated blades will probably not work in Antarctica because there really is no opportunity to absorb heat over a long enough period of prep time, but they might as well be utilized due to no real detriment in their use.

Problems related to snow will be largely based on where the wind turbines are built. On the coast wind farms have a significant advantage in their ability to better harness the strong katabatic winds, which have reduced potency more inland. Note that due to its elevation moving inland will still produce higher wind profiles than a vast majority of locations on the other six continents. As a whole Antarctica is basically a frozen desert receiving less than 200 mm of precipitation on its coasts and less than 50 mm inland. Therefore, coast-based wind farms will have to deal with much higher rates of precipitation, usually in the form of snow, whereas inland the concern of snow is almost non-existent. The important aspect of this precipitation is its annual amount is generally divided into waves of large activity and almost no activity. This behavior could increase the probability of damage due to large volumes of precipitation limiting recovery time and overwhelming preventative measures. However, despite these possibilities overall snow is a limited concern regarding its potential negative impact on the efficiency of a wind farm.

The second important issue that must be addressed for this proposed method is how to manage the CO2 once it has been solidified. The overall idea desires to store the solidified CO2 (in snow form) in an insulated specialize ‘landfill’ of sorts with five being constructed for the initial design.2 The concern with this strategy relates back to the energy supply issue because in order to maintain the solidification of the CO2 this landfill will have to be cooled like a larger version of the freezers that created the solidification in the first place. As discussed above there are numerous reasons to anticipate wind power not being consistently supplied due to its natural intermittency as well as efficiency and maintenance problems brought on by weather conditions, thus storage in an extend landfill freezer may not be a sustainable idea because if the CO2 reverts to a liquid or gas the entire project fails.

Transferring the CO2 to pressure-sustaining containers for storage in effort to manage them after state changes from sold to liquid will probably not be economically effective because of the number of materials involved. There will be a storage ceiling regarding the concentration of CO2 that can be stored in a given pressure-sustaining container more than likely forcing the construction of numerous smaller volume containers, which will create logistical and space problems.

Another possibility for CO2 storage would be to inject it into the deep ocean where due to the low temperature/high pressure environment of the deep ocean the CO2 would react with water forming a solid hydrate. This CO2 hydrate is denser than seawater so it should remain at the bottom of the ocean sequestering it from the geochemical cycle.8 However, the process is exothermic, which will release heat and reject salt. These reaction bi-products could create localized instabilities on biological life in the environment. This effect should be limited because of eventual mixing due to ocean circulation, but there may be a scale problem if the CO2 is deposited in a single place over a consistent time period. There is some concern that this immediate release of CO2 before formation to hydrate could damage local biosphere largely due to low metabolic tolerance of CO2 and its resultant excess proton damage.9,10

There are two methods that could be applied for deep ocean storage. In the first method the logistics for a deep ocean storage methodology would require a long pipeline to transfer the CO2 to sufficient depth because if the CO2 is released at too shallow a depth the hydrate formation reaction is not fast enough to mitigate the density difference between the CO2 and the seawater, thus the CO2 would rise to the surface creating large inefficiencies in hydrate formation.8 The general floor depth for ensuring efficiency is about 2600 meters. Note that for this method the CO2 would have to move from a solid state to a liquid one, which is not an issue.

The second method could use a mini-refrigerator that would store the solidified CO2 maintaining its state while the CO2 was transferred to the appropriate depth before it was released. Upon release the CO2 will more than likely move from a solid state to a liquid state, but the added time as a solid will increase the efficiency of the hydrate reaction relative to the depth of the CO2. This method could create more radical shifts in localized environments because it would entail larger concentrations of CO2 over shorter time frames versus the first method, which releases smaller concentrations over longer more consistent time frames.

Overall the value of this idea is predicated on its economic viability relative to other carbon remediation techniques. This blog has discussed numerous times that there is an economic separation between remediation and mitigation techniques because both will be required to evade the more significant detrimental consequences of global warming. The chief advantage of the technique discussed above is that it does not require the use of water. Almost every other legitimate remediation technique requires significant amounts of water be it direct air capture, enhanced weathering, biochar synthesis (the process of growing the feedstock because relying on residue is not an effective strategy) to even growing trees. The chief disadvantage of this technique is supplying the power for the process.

Unfortunately as it stands currently wind power does not appear to be able to supply consistent power to this process due to the extreme cold temperatures reducing efficiencies and increasing probabilities for maintenance, low consistency and lack of cost-effective storage options (no pumped hydro). There has been some discussion regarding the creation of a very low temperature wind turbine, but this design is in the kW range not the MW range which is required for GW sized wind farms.11 Also there are some questions to whether this design could survive wind speeds above 60 m/s, which leads to questions for larger wind turbines as well. Storage is not a big specialized concern because it will be an issue for all non-biological (trees/biochar) carbon remediation methods.

The advantage of not having to use additional supplies of water makes this method quite attractive because water will have multiple elements vying for its dwindling supplies in the future. However, due to the remote location of Antarctica, powering this system is difficult. Solar will not be efficient due to long stretches of no sunlight, tidal power is too expensive and cannot produce nearly enough energy, geothermal is a non-starter for obvious reasons and using any type of significant carbon emission technology will defeat the purpose of this carbon remediation method. As outlined above there appear to be significant issues with using wind power, which makes its inclusion questionable. Therefore, powering this method may rely on the use of small modular nuclear breeder reactors. Note that consistent power is important for scale because unless this system is taking in a significant amount (at least 1 billion tons of CO2 per year) it loses significant economic value versus using those funds on other strategies like direct air capture or enhanced weathering. Overall if the power issue can be addressed this method is actually a welcome possibility to the range of options for carbon remediation and should be pursued barring any negative surprises.

--
Citations:

1. Hansen, J, et Al. “Climate Change and Trace Gases.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 2007. 365:1925-1954.

2. Agee, E, Orton, A, and Rogers, J. “CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropogenic Global Warming.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 2012. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1

3. Lacroix, A and Manwell, J. “Wind Energy: Cold Weather Issues.” Renewable Energy Research Laboratory. 2000.

4. Dutta, P. and Hui, D. “Effects of Cold Regions Environment on Structural Composites.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Technology in Experimental Mechanics. Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1997.

5. Peltola, E, et Al. Expert Group Study on Recommended Practices: 13. Wind Energy Projects in Cold Climates. International Energy Agency. 2011.

6. Brugada, R. “Performance of Thermoplastic Elastomers (TPEs) at Subzero
Temperatures.” Proceedings of the Subzero Engineering Conference. 1989. 67-73.

7. Jasinski, W, et Al. “Wind Turbine Performance Under Icing Conditions.” Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 1998. 120:60-65.

8. Brewer, P, et Al. “Direct Experiments on the Ocean Disposal of Fossil Fuel CO2” Science. 1999. 284:943-945.

9. Seibel, B, and Walsh, P. “Potential Impacts of CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Biota.” Science. 2001. 294:12-13.

10. Millero, F. “The Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle.” Chem. Rev. 2007. 107:308-341.

11. Stander, J. “Selecting a Small Wind Turbine for the South African Antarctic Research Base SANAE IV.” Winter Wind Conference in Sweden. December 2008.