The United States will only become a true human spacefaring nation when it politically/legally has no other choice. In Part 3, I explain the second “must” reason. This is to address the anthropogenic environmental security threat arising from the abnormally high and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Fortunately, America now has a Great Power opportunity to lead the world with a progressive engineering solution—GEO space solar power or astroelectricity as I call it. Astroelectricity will be the catalyst that will remarkably change the world for the better by replacing fossil fuels globally and eliminating energy impoverishment. A key federal climate lawsuit, now underway, could be the trigger for this to happen.
If not already following this blog, please click the “follow” button at the bottom right to sign up. Receiving notification via email is best to ensure that you do not miss a new posting. Sending notifications is the only use of your email address. It is not sold or used elsewhere. Besides, you can always unsubscribe. Please forward these postings to your friends who share your spacefaring interest. Also, please check out the Spacefaring Institute’s YouTube channel.
As discussed in Part 1, metaphorically defining the Moon and Mars as being the equivalent of a high mountain that simply must be climbed “because it is there”, has not persuaded the American public to return humans to the Moon or plant the American flag on Mars. The political challenge for pro-spacefaring Americans is to make the case that America must become—or in persuasive political speak, cannot not become—a true human spacefaring nation. I am addressing this challenge in this series of postings to start 2019.
In Part 2, I focused on America’s historic and future Great Power status. With warfare and the threat of warfare still remaining the final arbitrator of disputes, I believe that America’s Great Power status brings these benefits:
- Prevents the United States from becoming subservient to or being easily defeated by an aggressive Great Power.
- Deters acts of aggression or threats of aggression against the United States and its allies.
- Helps to ensure that the President of the United States will not be intimidated into submission or surrender by an adversary’s break-out new military capability.
- Provides a bulwark against increasingly aggressive, totalitarian nations—e.g., China, Russia, Iran, North Korea—behind which freedom-desiring nations can find common security and partnership.
- Encourages the world’s transition this century to the personal liberty and freedoms needed for peaceful coexistence by demonstrating that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” remains a valid political foundation for freedom-desiring nations.
- Enables the United States to lead the world’s transition this century to sustainable energy to eliminate energy impoverishment, elevate the world’s standard of living, and address excess atmospheric anthropogenic carbon dioxide in an orderly manner—all essential, along with liberty, for the world to achieve lasting peace and prosperity.
In closing Part 2, I pointed out that at the end of World War II, when astronautics first became a major area of Great Power technological interest by virtue of the Nazi German V-2 ballistic missile efforts, General of the Armies Henry (Hap) Arnold, commander of the U.S. Army Air Forces, wrote of the national security need for the Air Force to lead in the development of astronautics. Just as World War II was dominated by air power, General Arnold anticipated that space power would grow in importance for the soon to be new service—the U.S. Air Force. Space was a new domain of national military competition. He anticipated the need for “true space ships … operating outside the earth’s atmosphere.” For forward-thinking military officers at the end of World War II—a war that saw tremendous technological advances in only 6 years: radar, jet aviation, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons—becoming a true human spacefaring nation would be needed to secure America’s security and remain a Great Power.
. . . we should be ready with a weapon of the general type of the German V-2 rocket, having greatly improved range and precision, and launched from great distances.
If defenses which can cope even with such a 3, 000-mile-per-hour projectile are developed, we must be ready to launch such projectiles nearer the target, to give them a shorter time of flight and make them harder to detect and destroy. We must be ready to launch them from unexpected directions. This can be done from true space ships, capable of operating outside the earth’s atmosphere. The design of such a ship is all but practicable today; research will unquestionably bring it into being within the foreseeable future. (Emphasis added.)
General H. H. Arnold, “Third Report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War”, November 12, 1945
Over 70 years later, President Trump understands that national dominance in space is essential to America’s security and prosperity. China has made it abundantly clear that it views space as a domain of military, scientific, and economic competition with the United States. President Trump has restarted the National Space Council, chaired by Vice President Pence, to update and develop new U.S. space policies. In what now appears to be a controversial move, President Trump has called for establishing a new military service—the U.S. Space Force. Just as the U.S. Navy is essential for providing America and its allies with the security and freedom to use the oceans for commerce, the U.S. Space Force will be doing the same as America industrializes space to undertake GEO space solar power.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is life’s primary chemical compound on the Earth. Living creatures exhale CO2 as their primary metabolic waste while living plants absorb CO2 to provide the carbon needed for plant cell functioning and growth. Also, decomposing organic matter adds it to the environment while geological processes can add it or convert it into other chemical compounds such as rock. Life on the Earth requires CO2 in the atmosphere, seas, lakes, rivers, and ponds. Natural CO2 is not a pollutant.
As seen in the above figure, the atmospheric CO2 concentration varies over time. The above figure shows the variation in this concentration over the last 800,000 years through at least eight cycles of global glaciation and interglacial warming. As there was no anthropogenic contribution, these must be natural CO2 variations. Scientists speculate that these variations could be due to, as examples, volcanism, changes in solar output, and changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun. The squiggle in the CO2 data indicates that the climate constantly experiences modest changes within longer cycles of even bigger changes. Considering that the temperature and CO2 concentration do not change without cause, multiple non-anthropogenic forcing functions affecting the temperature and CO2 concentration must be involved. In short, natural (non-anthropogenic) climate change is complex which makes it difficult to predict using computer models. Despite considerable effort, there is no tested hypothesis explaining these changes in concentration and temperature.
For most of the last 800,000 years, the Earth has been far colder than today. We are living in an interglacial warm period when the glacial ice that usually covers most of the northern hemisphere has receded. Thus, the climate today is already naturally abnormally warm. Sustaining human civilization will require that we environmentally engineer the climate to keep it abnormally warm. Hence, the often heated political discussions of “fixing” global warming are really about how to keep the climate abnormally warm. Or should we let the Earth “naturally” return to a new glacial period?
Atmospheric CO2 concentration (parts per million by volume—PPM) from 800,000 years ago to about 17,000 years ago from ice core measurements. (Data source: World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder, and NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, retrieved 2016 and 2017. Reference: Figure 2, J. M. Snead, Astroelectricity, Credit: J. M. Snead.)
The above chart highlights the range of maximum CO2 concentrations during the previous eight warm interglacial cycles. Ice core CO2 measurements indicate that the CO2 concentration stayed within the narrow range of about 175–299 PPM. This consistency over the past 800,000 years is noteworthy considering that 200 million years ago, during the time of the dinosaurs, the CO2 concentration is believed to have been about 2000 PPM and, perhaps, over 5000 PPM 300 million years earlier. Since then, some combination of changes influencing the climate has resulted in a significant lowering of the maximum natural CO2 concentration.
Of particular note is that during every one of the previous eight warm interglacial cycles, the CO2 concentration naturally climbed back to within the 244–299 PPM range and, then, halted before falling during the next glacial cooling. During the last four cycles, the peak CO2 value was in the narrower range of 279–299 PPM. Something caused these natural upper bounds to happen repeatedly. Throughout the period of modern humans, the lower concentration has prevailed. This is our natural range of CO2 concentration.
The above figure compares the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration with the growth in the world human population and the release of carbon emissions. Around 1900, the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose above the natural maximum of 300 PPM. Examination of changes in the carbon isotope distribution indicates that the increase was predominantly due to fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This finding supports the hypothesis that the abnormally high and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is substantially due to the use of fossil fuels during the Industrial Age. (Land use changes for agriculture and an increase in the number of domesticated ruminant farm animals is also a likely contributor.)
In other words, the atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic and should be considered a pollutant. Further, there is no tested hypothesis that the abnormally high atmospheric CO2 concentration is or will not become harmful to public health and welfare. Thus, the abnormally high atmospheric CO2 could be considered a hazard subject to regulation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the U.S. Clean Air Act.
UNFC3
The United States ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFC3) treaty in 1992 when it was signed by President George H. W. Bush and consented to by the U.S. Senate. Here is the signing statement:
Today I have signed the instrument of ratification for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which I submitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent on September 8, 1992. The Senate consented to ratification on October 7, 1992. With this action, the United States becomes the first industrialized nation (and the fourth overall) to ratify this historic treaty.
I signed this convention on June 12, 1992, in Rio de Janeiro at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The convention was also signed by 153 other nations and the European Community. Today I am calling on them to join us in ratifying the convention as soon as possible and making a prompt start in its implementation.
The Climate Convention is the first step in crucial long-term international efforts to address climate change. The international community moved with unprecedented speed in negotiating this convention and thereby beginning the response to climate change.
The phrase “climate change” in the title and its use in the treaty
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
The three actionable parts of the objective are:
- Prevent anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from causing dangerous interference with the climate system,
- Ensure that food production is not threatened, and
- Enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
The intent of the UNFC3 treaty was that the specific actions to implement the treaty’s objective would be defined in later protocols. (This follows the model of the treaty and protocols successfully used to address anthropogenic causes of the loss of atmospheric ozone.) There have been three attempts to define a protocol acceptable to the U.S. Senate. (As a Great Power, U.S. ratification is essential.) The most recent was the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement signed by President Obama—an inadequate implementation of the UNFC3 as I have addressed previously
When the 1992 UNFC3 treaty was consented to by the U.S. Senate, Congress did not include accompanying legislation to codify parts of the treaty into U.S. law. Had the treaty been specific as to what nations were to do, then such provisions in the treaty, per my understanding, would have been “self-executing” into U.S. law. Even though this treaty has no self-executing provisions, some believe that the President cannot ignore or contravene the treaty.
All treaties are the law of the land, but only a self-executing treaty would prevail in a domestic court over a prior, inconsistent act of Congress. A non-self-executing treaty could not supersede a prior inconsistent act of Congress in a U. S. court. A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that–as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights–the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it. (Emphasis added.)
Frederic L. Kirgis, American Society of International Law, Volume 2, Issue 5, May 27, 1997
Thus, not being a lawyer, it is possible that the UNFC3 treaty could limit what President Trump could do through, for example, executive orders. With President Trump having decided to abandon the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, he may become politically/legally forced, through legal action against the President, to provide an alternative implementing protocol, consistent with the UNFC3’s ultimate objective, rather than doing nothing.
In reviewing the UNFC3’s ultimate objective, a new implementing protocol would need to address the following:
- There is no tested hypothesis that any abnormally high atmospheric CO2 concentration is safe. Therefore, we are beyond the point of preventing potential “dangerous interference with the climate system”. The only remedy is to remove the abnormally high CO2.
- Preliminary data indicates that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is decreasing the nutritional value of many plants. This impacts all living creatures. The only remedy is to remove the abnormally high CO2.
- To enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner requires a growing supply of practicable sustainable energy per capita sufficient to sustain and advance economic prosperity. This requires a progressive engineering plan to provide the world with substantial new sustainable energy sources sufficient to eliminate worldwide energy impoverishment and enable worldwide sustainable economic development.
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act was initially made law in 1963. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled that CO2 emissions could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Thus, the Clean Air Act provides an existing law enabling regulation or other Federal Government actions to be undertaken to address the first two parts of the UNFC3’s ultimate objective.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act
The Clean Air Act would appear to enable the Federal Government to mandate actions/regulations that would return the atmospheric CO2 concentration to a safe level—perhaps no more than 300 PPM. However, this would need to be done in a manner that does not degrade the “general Welfare”. This could only be achieved through a progressive engineering plan.
Juliana v. U.S. – climate lawsuit
In 2015, a “constitutional climate lawsuit” was filed against the U.S. Government. (A summary of the lawsuit and the on-going legal actions is here.) The U.S. District Judge handling this case addressed the fundamental legal question of the propriety of the lawsuit.
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,” I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken
The fundamental legal right being exercised by this lawsuit, first brought against President Obama, is:
[W]hen the rights of persons are violated, ‘the Constitution requires redress by the courts,’ notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decisionmaking.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __, slip. op. at 24 (2015)
The central relief requested is:
Order Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend; (Emphasis added.)
Both President Obama and President Trump’s administrations have opposed this lawsuit. As of this blog, the lawsuit is now proceeding to trial. Should the plaintiffs prevail, the President could be directed, effectively, to bring the United States into compliance with the first two parts of the UNFC3’s ultimate objective and the Clean Air Act by preparing and implementing new environmental regulations under court supervision.
Update: The Federal Government, through appeal, is seeking to have the case dismissed.
What could happen
Excessively tax fossil fuels
The progressive political “solution” favored by some environmentalists is to simply abandon fossil fuels by excessively taxing their use through a carbon consumption tax. No plan for an orderly transition to replacement sustainable energy sources is provided.
The United States became a non-sustainable consumer of energy around 1830 as the increasing population’s need for wood fuel and wood for construction exceeded the natural replenishment of the remaining forests. (The population now is about 10X larger.) Since that time, the United States consumed wood at a non-sustainable rate, forcing the transition to coal and other non-sustainable fossil fuels. Today, fossil fuels provide about 80 percent of the energy consumed in the United States.
A progressive political plan to excessively tax fossil fuels will have severe consequences for the United States, especially as other countries would see an economic advantage in continuing to use fossil fuels. Essentially, this is what was tried with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement enabling China and other “developing” nations to increase their use of fossil fuels while the United States and other developed nations were to be severely penalized. This was an unfair and ineffective agreement.
National Astroelectricity Program
A progressive engineering plan is one that protects liberty while advancing prosperity—individually and nationally. As I explain in Astroelectricity: Why American engineers should advocate for GEO space solar power to end America’s CO2 emissions, make America energy secure, and prepare America for the 22nd century, there is no viable terrestrial nuclear or renewable energy solution to replace fossil fuels for the United States. Therefore, the United States will need to undertake a National Astroelectricity Program, similar to federal electrical power and hydroelectric initiatives of the 1930s, to transition from fossil fuels to sufficient sustainable energy in an orderly manner.
To replace fossil fuels, this National Astroelectricity Program will require that the United States build 800 5-GW GEO space solar power platforms—a total generating capacity equivalent to 2,000 Hoover Dams. By necessity, the United States must become a true human spacefaring nation in order to industrialize space to undertake GEO space solar power. Further, a manned U.S. Space Force, operating “true
And you probably thought creating a U.S. Space Force would be an impossible undertaking!! America is about to boldly go spaceward!
There is more to come in this series. However, next I”ll focus on astrologistics.
If not already following this blog, please click the “follow” button at the bottom right to sign up. Receiving notification via email is best to ensure that you do not miss a new posting. Sending notifications is the only use of your email address. It is not sold or used elsewhere. Besides, you can always unsubscribe. Please forward these postings to your friends who share your spacefaring interest. Also, please check out the Spacefaring Institute’s YouTube channel.
James Michael (Mike) Snead is an aerospace Professional Engineer in the United States, an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and a past chair of the AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee. He is the founder and president of the Spacefaring Institute LLC (spacefaringinstitute.net) which is focused on space solar power-generated astroelectricity and the astrologistics infrastructure necessary to enable the spacefaring industrial revolution that will build space solar power energy systems. Mike Snead has been involved in space development since the mid-1980s when he supported the U.S. Air Force Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV) studies, the National Aerospace Plane program, and the Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X) project. In 2007, after retiring from civilian employment with the Air Force, he began to study the need for (and politics associated with) undertaking space solar power. Beginning in the late 1980s, he has published numerous papers and articles on various aspects of manned spaceflight, astrologistics, and energy. His technical papers are located at https://www.mikesnead.com and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike-Snead/research. His blog is at: https://spacefaringamerica.com. His eBook, Astroelectricity, can be downloaded for free here. He can be contacted through LinkedIn or through email sent to spacefaringinstitute@gmail.com.