Two categories of human output emerge from this system: Tools and Consumer Products
Tools has two formulations for production, but requires larger energy output and directly competes with biomass output. The first is the Recycling or extraction of metal:
Metal Recycling: SE+T= M
Crafting Tools: SE+M+CP=T (CP notes wooden handles or any other CP made from farm production)
Consumer Products have three equation levels associated :
Farm Production: T+ S+BE+ CE = EE + BE
Craft/Consumer Production: SE+EE or BE +T=CP
Composting: T+ BE+ CP = CE + S (<—No metals here )
Every level of production requires energy for output. Stored energy or Biomass energy. S is an input or an output so creation of S is my next avenue of exploration.
but S is also required for BE.
This is an division of the equation, so S for solar has a different input than S for other stored energies. Solar energy has a 50% constant input over a solar year. Water has an up to 100% output depending on the flow, but requires a tool and input for production as does wind, methane, fossil fuels depending on how efficiently the energy is stored.
So here I need to show the inputs for the other types of energy.
Solar directly converts to biomass energy through carbon exchange and photo(n)-synthesis.
Wind: (wind is solar energy too)
A nagging new variable has shown itself. Solar is constant. All of the other forms of energy are not directly converted and require tools. This will change the equations a bit.
SE for Stored Energy P and for Pollutant. is what I am choosing.
S+ T= SE + P
The efficiency of converting to SE is expressed in technological output or the efficiency of T, changes the output of P.
This adds another level of input for stored energy. Since Biomass is a variable and M is a constant (theoretically), the amount of SE used to exchange M to a Tool directly competes with the other three equations of economy in energy usage, biomass production, and pollutant production.
The current attitude about biomass is that it is carbon neutral. According to my formulas, biomass is carbon positive and then carbon negative when burned. The statement: ““The CO2 emitted from biomass-based fuels combustion does not increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations, assuming the biogenic carbon emitted is offset by the uptake of CO2 resulting from the growth of new biomass.” from the US EPA in May 2009 is misleading because it assumes that the use of biomass is always replaced with new biomass, which isn’t true if it is replaced with industry at its destruction.
The solution then is to find an equation balance between pollution outputs and enough carbon uptake through biomass conversion to eliminate carbon pollution. However, biomass does not convert other toxic pollutants such as sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid (like that produced in certain factories and from volcanic eruptions) Instead, these compounds scatter and absorb sunlight (photons) also directly competing with biomass production.
NASA also lists “desert dust” as a competing aerosol that effects sunlight distribution, so theoretically the increase in deserts upon the earth also competes with sunlight absorption.
The larger part of the problem of aerosol pollution is found in the production of sulfate aeorsols when burning coal or oil. I won’t rewrite NASA and confuse you so here is a direct quote found here:
The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days.
The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.
Climatic Effects of Aerosols
The additional reflection caused by pollution aerosols is expected to have an effect on the climate comparable in magnitude to that of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases. The effect of the aerosols, however, will be opposite to the effect of the increasing atmospheric trace gases – cooling instead of warming the atmosphere.
The warming effect of the greenhouse gases is expected to take place everywhere, but the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas. No one knows what the outcome will be of atmospheric warming in some regions and cooling in others. Climate models are still too primitive to provide reliable insight into the possible outcome. Current observations of the buildup are available only for a few locations around the globe and these observations are fragmentary.
Understanding how much sulfur-based pollution is present in the atmosphere is important for understanding the effectiveness of current sulfur dioxide pollution control strategies.
The Removal of Aerosols
It is believed that much of the removal of atmospheric aerosols occurs in the vicinity of large weather systems and high altitude jet streams, where the stratosphere and the lower atmosphere become intertwined and exchange air with each other. In such regions, many pollutant gases in the troposphere can be injected in the stratosphere, affecting the chemistry of the stratosphere. Likewise, in such regions, the ozone in the stratosphere is brought down to the lower atmosphere where it reacts with the pollutant rich air, possibly forming new types of pollution aerosols.”
In other words, the total elimination of sulfur based aerosols in the atmosphere should be a goal of biomass production but cannot be completed with biomass production. A sulfate/sulfuric bacteria or plant has to convert the sulfur back into the soil where it originated.
In even shorter terms: P as a pollutant is expressed in unexchangeable gases and contaminates like sulfur and not carbon based gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and Nitrogen.
To express air pollutant as a factor it must be added to the equation… oh how to do that when I am ready.. LOL
There are few numbers out there on biomass production. Washington state has an extensive reporting and research program. The numbers for biomass are counted in dry tons as produced in a year. My calculation would include permanent installations of living biomass, not as consumer product as expressed by these numbers.
The source is here: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0507047.pdfFor the sake of this exercise, I will use the total estimated biomass production of the state just from the dry numbers excluding manure production for calculating an example of currency. The estimated total BE is 14.7 million dry tons per year. Lumber output is expressed in board feet per year, so this is hard to add to the output, but trees should be included as a biological basis and tree farms included in the monetary price. The above numbers include mill waste so I will go with that for this exercise.
Bushels, Tons and Pounds: what a mess. Okay pick a rate. I am going for tons so this will be guesstimate work once again. The USDA quotes the Edible output at about 200,000 tons of field crops, 34,000 tons of vegetables per year, and the approximately 1 million tons of meat production from the each state you get 1.2 million tons of Edible Energy (aka food).
Finally compostable energy is listed as 1.8 million tons from animals and (1113g per person per day times 7 million people) 3.2 million tons of waste when calculated for the population of the state. (I have no idea if those numbers include immigrants, sorry friends)
Totals using the formula I came up with looks like:
1.2 million EE + 14.7 million BE + 5 million CE (tons) equals an output of 20.9 million tons of biological production for the state.
The total land mass area is 42.6 million acres.
Calculated 20.9 million / 42.6 million = a half ton of biological production per acre per year after total conversion.
That is just a production estimate. The calculation for inventory is the basis for the monetary price. Yes, after all that conversion there is still more work to do in inventory. Thomas Jefferson (ancient slave trader) kept a very distinct accounting of inventory on his farms. Why did he do that? Three reasons that I can guess.
1.) There was no money. True value was in goods.
2.) He was a Planner. He had to actually provide for everything on his farm or sell it (bestowing care to someone else)
3.) It gave him credit among friends.
I am really only interested in number 1, and part of number 2.
There was no money. True value in the goods was in your inventory and farm production numbers. Space and time were constant factors in production and European farming styles with imported slaves and new agriculture were his business. He is rumored to have smuggled cannabis seeds out of India: a crime punishable by death at the time. By 1812, we indeed had a hemp war. Inventory is the basis for monetary value, not production.
The part of number 2 I care about in the inventory of TJ’s goods is that he also cared. Selling goods was a sign of power. Besides inventory, you wanted to care for your friends. Nearly 250 years later, we circumnavigate the globe everyday in just a few minutes with a space satellite. Caring for humans is now our specialty. Caring for what humans rely on, isn’t even on our radar. Since there are no data numbers out there for this, it will have to be philosophically invented.
A couple other things first. Energy is the supporting factor for every means of production. The system with the most energy usage will dominate. Unfortunately for us this means that unbalance between metals and biological life is based on specific energy production AND the ability for metal production to overcome biological production. Another way of saying this is: as metal uptake into tools increases, without proper management of biological systems, biological life is exterminated. Mining literally shaves off the biological life in most instances. Even the rulers of old knew “men can move mountains.” Just as ants will live in a concrete “driveway” (read ‘bunker’) to escape the metals of our unbalance, so will we. And just as ants will move a whole picnic of goods into their bunkers, so will we. (I am craving some mushrooms err fungus right now)
Now back to the inventory boring stuff. I will start with a tree (my favorite partner on the planet). Each one has incubation, growth, age, and mass. These are all counts in the current capitalist system for capital. If it is metal, it can be put down on your taxes. If it is a plant, it must be converted to monetary value according to “markets”. For more information on the falsehood of markets, please see the blog http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/the-global-currency-crisis-dress-rehearsal-for-the-abolition-of-money/ . In other words, markets of biological life are controlled by markets of controlled money: purposely inflating the price of metal and deflating the value of biological energy.
My system aims to turn the world right side up again. A tree’s age and mass will be the basis for the system. Metal also has value, but as long as it is kept in the system as a tool it will keep its value. Now metal has value as new goods, and garbage is very profitable (more profitable than recycling metal), so metal is only profitable in the secondary cycle as garbage. (“Which is real garbage!?”, my mom would say.)
We also have the unfortunate expense of subsidizing energy production with fiat. My friends point out constantly that Chevron wouldn’t exist in a real world, and I tend to agree with them. Subsidizing oil with fiat is only profitable if you can find new oil. The very nature of oil exploration requires a constant renewal of oil discovery and this has brought a massive industry of metal covetousness in world production. Metal to find more metal and oil to find more oil.
How to set the world right? Put imperial metal back in its place! (of course.. set a course for biological life!) I dream about what will happen if a tree and a snail become paper and escargot. Therefore, under this system biological life can only have monetary value if they are indeed alive. If they are not alive, they have become a part of the production cycle. Somewhere in there is an equation jumping at me. Time is working as always. And communalism is nothing but free time.