04.30.08
Biocurrency | Environmental Economics
Heed Warning: I am not an economist, material scientist or an environmentalist, per se, but I believe that we need to do things in a different way if we are to flourish as a global society. If anything, I’m a modern Natural Philosopher.
When one makes a value statement regarding environmental impact, such as, which consumer good has the least impact, there are so many variables that make up this value, that it is often easier to make a uninformed, moral decision instead of an informed, scientific one.
First, we remove the human considerations from this equation. Don’t get upset because I simplify a cow into Power and remove all the splendor of life. This is about an idea, not an ideology. Labor and money are not part of the environmental economy as both are near-infinite resources, given the proper priority. This is about a simple method to measure scarcity amongst renewable resources.
For instance, what goes into making a cow, besides labor? Grain, grass, antibiotics, land, air and water. What do we get? Beef, milk, leather, manure, and methane. To restore the land, air and water required to create a cow would require a certain input of resources, in the form of fertilization, purification and desalinization. Fertilization is chemical, and could be provided by the cow, and appropriate use of crop-rotation practices. Air purification in the form of carbon offsets and desalinization requires power.
Power (P watts), in the form of electricity, enables our modern day alchemy, the transmutation of stuff into more stuff and is the fundamental element of any attempt to establish the notion of biocurrency.
Lets look at what goes into making a car, petro-chemicals, elements, power and heaps of water. Maybe if you have leather seats, you add in a cow, but we broke down the cow into an expenditure of Power. Petrochemicals, while not technically biomass, are formed from organic materials, so I’m going to include them as Power, since biomass is fuel.
Finally, we have Materials (M tonnes), which are limited in supply, until we re-purpose our existing materials or mine asteroids.
Yes, I understand this is a simplification and a generalization which is counter to the instinct of science which is to define and divide. Deal with it.
Biocurrency (Bio$ watttonnes) equals the input of all Power & Materials into a given system. Bio$ = P+M
How much Bio$ went into your water bottle? How much could be reclaimed through recycling? Can we say the same for your car? Or the cow for that matter? Is there anywhere that you could get MORE power out of a process than the inputs you put into it?
One could use a direct measure of fresh water, biomass, elements, power, & air consumed to determine what sort of impact a given product has. I suppose this would be more accurate, but ultimately, it’s the idea that the environmental impact of a given production process can be quantified into an environmental cost is what the world needs right now. This paves the way for taxes, efficiency improvements and transparency so the consumer can make informed choices.
We need to balance our use of natural resources just like we do our checkbooks.
Given the state of things right now, which is more important?
