A Cure for Gaia
Autor: Gilvan Apolonio | Publicado: 2013-11-03T19:59:00-07:00




I like the concept
of Gaia, the Living Earth. I especially love it because it offers a way to see
our world as a living being without appeal to any mystical explanation. I like
because it shows our world as it really is: alive and fragile, susceptible to poisons
but with defense mechanisms. Gaia has its "immune system" and will do
everything possible to stay healthy.



One of its many
defense mechanisms is temperature control. This system is complex, but
fascinating. One of the tools for this control is the polar and mountain
glacier. Water is a fascinating substance. One of its many properties is its
high thermal capacity. The water can contain five times more heat than
aluminum, 10 times longer than steel, and twice the capacity of the ice.
Furthermore, while 4180 Joules are required to increase in 1ºC (2ºF) an amount
of 1 kg water (more than 2 pounds), 334,000 Joules are necessary to melt the
same amount of ice at 0°C (32ºF). Therefore melting ice is difficult. If
properly packaged, the ice may not melt for many years. Therefore, a large
amount of energy can be absorbed by ice. Additionally, the ice’s clear surface reflects
back to space most of the energy coming from the Sun Polar caps are our
air-conditioning system.

One of the
arguments used by critics of global warming is precisely the fact that, in
recent years, the climate apparently shows a tendency to revert the trend of
warming, showing severe winters both in the north and south hemisphere.
Interestingly, during this time of stringent winters, the glaciers’ melting rate
showed above average speed. This is no coincidence. In fact, this melting is a
part of Earth’s temperature control mechanism, because each kilogram of melted
ice removes from the environment a lot of energy. However, this is no reason
for us to be carefree. The control mechanism is working, but is being pushed to
the limit. This is because as the ice melts, there is a darkening of the
surface of the earth with a consequent increase in absorption of solar heat,
which melts the new masses of ice.

Our body has also
a temperature control mechanisms. When our body is too hot, it starts the
sweating process. Some water in our body is released through the skin pores. Water’s
evaporation cools our skin. This occurs because the energy required to
evaporate the water is greater than that necessary to melt the ice (2,260,000
Joules per Kg) Body heat is used to evaporate the water, making it colder in the
process. In some situations, this control can fail. If a person stay for long periods
under hot sun, the perspiration’s water evaporates at a much higher rate, due
to sun’s heat. Virtually no body heat will be used in the process and the
person will eventually become strongly dehydrated. This process is known as
sunstroke. One of the symptoms of heat stroke is high fever. As a defense
mechanism against stroke, people adopt defensive behaviors, such as drinking
plenty of water and seek a shady spot. One consequence of heatstroke is burns
skin, which among other disorders, triggers an inflammatory process and impairs
the ability of the skin to perspire, worsening the symptoms.

Similarly, the
Earth is suffering heatstroke. But unlike a careless sunbather who abuses the
sun, the Earth is in this situation because we have interfered in their defense
mechanisms. The vegetation cover, glaciers and marine biomes are like the skin
with important participation in the planet’s temperature control. Maybe the
Earth could support a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is its vegetation
and the oceans were intact. Since they are not, this burden accumulated over
the glaciers.

This is the part
of global warming which is usually not mentioned. There is a commitment in the
media to show that the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is solely responsible for
global warming. It gives to the public the idea that global warming is the
main, if not the only one environmental problem we face. In fact, global
warming is just a fever. The disease is much more severe, it can potentially
kill the patient. Sad to say this, but the disease is we, humans, since we have
extracted from the earth three times more resources than it would be able to
replace at its maximum capacity. We have behaved as grasshoppers in planting,
eating up to the last green stalk.

In an attempt to
minimize the effects of our lifestyle, much has been said about sustainable
development. Unfortunately sustainable development has been represented as a
mere action for compensation. Many products currently present on their labels
messages like "This product has offset its carbon emissions by planting
trees," or "This product is environmentally sustainable." These
actions, if real, are usually mere palliatives. Most of the time, companies
have not taken any concrete action. They just bought some carbon credits and
continued to do things as they always did. A few companies have adopted real
sustainable practices like fighting waste, energy efficiency and true support
to environmental programs, such as Brazilian’s SOS Atlantic Forest Institute.
Surprisingly, these companies realized that sustainable action reduces costs
and increases profits.

Here I quote from the
British scientist James Lovelock’s book "The Revenge of Gaia" (Basic
Books, 2007). I have read a lot about climate change, but only Lovelock seems
to have a structural view of the problem, a physiological view in fact.
Lovelock speaks convincingly about the Gaia theory, how the Earth can maintain
homeostasis, i.e. maintaining a highly dynamic and theoretically unstable environment
in equilibrium. Showing a great knowledge in the area, although he admits that
this is an area that we are only beginning to understand, he makes it clear the
ways we are interfering. Also he shows the extent of the damage. This damage is
so great that, according to Lovelock’s opinion, it is not sufficient a
sustainable economy, but a sustainable retreat, in parallel to an army in
retreat when there is no way to win the battle. Although fatalistic (and
sometimes only fatalistic discourse takes effect), his point of view has been continually
corroborated by numerous scientific studies.

But how can we
conciliate a “sustainable retreat” to the needs of poorer countries growing? We
live in an unfair situation in which 10% of the population consumes 90% of the
resources. The remaining population lives in situations ranging from just above
the poverty line to the extreme scarcity. Piped water and sewage are luxuries
that many do not even know exist, and medical care is just unthinkable. These
populations often derive their living from the land without proper techniques,
which simultaneously degrades the soil and produces an insufficient livelihood.

I’d like to talk
about a personal experience about efficiency. A few years ago, I was a fire
safety equipment designer. It was a very competitive market, but all
manufacturers offered very similar solutions. At this time, fire alarm
equipments consumed several tens of Watts. Nobody seemed to care much about it
at the time because this consumption was equivalent to one or two light bulbs.
But it bothered me, because the equipment needed large and heavy power supplies
and batteries to operate even in case of power outages. The devices were big,
heavy and warm a lot. With a little research, I discovered electronic
components that allow designing smaller, more efficient, less consumption, and
more reliable devices. But they simply were not used, because the prevailing
paradigm about heavy and energy-wasting equipment. My first project using these
new components was still big, but consumption was reduced to one tenth of the
market standard. It was destined to Brazilian INPE's headquarters in Cachoeira
Paulista. I believe that this equipment is still operational today. Subsequent equipment’s
generations of have become more compact, reliable and energy efficient. If I
were still working in the area, I know that nowadays I could obtain even better
results. I mention this story to show that our technological development led us
to the point where we can be more energy efficient, highly efficient. Much of
the resources that we extract from the earth are to produce energy. Energy used
for transportation, lighting, heating, cooling, and to manufacture most
products we use. Energy is a precious resource. Without energy, surely we would
not exist. Without abundant sources of energy, we could never reach 7 billion
people population. All goods and resources that we need rely directly or indirectly
from our energy sources.

Maybe we don’t
have to think about sustainable withdrawal as dramatically portrayed by
Lovelock. It may be possible to greatly reduce our environmental footprint by
changing the way we use energy and materials, and using the best technology we
have available. We can do thing like increasing energy efficiency, improving
industrial processes, eliminating waste in manufacturing, storing, transporting,
distributing and using goods, increasing consumer goods lifetime, using better and
not polluting water sources, improving construction techniques, using land and
urban space more rationally, recycling 100% of waste produced and stop producing
items that can not be recycled. We can also have good sense sense on consuming
and utilizing goods and products. Why would we buy a 50” TV if a 32” TV is too
large to our room? Why keep TV or lights on when no one is using?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We
can also adopt sustainable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.), respecting
environmental constraints. Hydroelectric plants have been identified as major
carbon sources, usually because their dams flood large wood areas that, when
submerged, ferment and emit CO2 and methane. One study showed that some hydroelectric
power plants emit more carbon than an equivalent thermal power plant. So it is
not just about adopting renewable energy, but doing so while respecting the
environment.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It
is hart to quantify how actions impact preserving the Earth and its delicate
life support system. My intuition tells me that some right actions and well
planned may be sufficient to reverse the situation, since we abandon demagogic
positions, adopting serious and responsible measures. Recently, I herd about a
campaign to save energy by turning of one computer monitor pixel. According to
the campaign proposer, if 1 million people adhere to the campaign, installing a
software on their computers that randomly erase a pixel of the computer screen
, a certain amount of energy ( a few thousand watts / hour) would be saved .
Surely this campaign did not consider two things: The first is that the
software that would be installed would occupy memory space and processing time
and probably spend more energy than that obtained with the deletion of the
pixel. The second is that modern display is liquid crystal with fixed
illumination, independent of pixels is on or off. Therefore, turning off a single
pixel would make no difference. Reducing in the monitor’s brightness setting
would result in affect effect thousands times greater. Make no mistake. There is
not small actions that will save the planet, but large ones, as spending less
time in the shower, using solar heating, avoiding to use drinkable water to
unnecessarily wash sidewalks and the cars or water the grass, changing house windows
for larger ones in order to more effectively use daylight, using only energy-saving
bulbs, avoiding buying unnecessary products, using fuel alcohol even when
gasoline is cheaper, and turning off your computer when it is not in use.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It
is imperative that people, companies, and governments change the way they think
and do things to save Gaia, our living planet. Those who have followed this
path have nothing to complain about.