modern

Why Kayak the Hudson River Between Albany and Troy?

|

Most people have probably never kayaked between Albany and Troy on the Hudson River. Yet, it’s a trip one should make, because it’s both fascinating and relaxing, as you paddle between two cities through a lush green landscape.

Livingston State Forest

Not only is the Hudson River conviently located between the two cities, a short drive for residents of the Capital Drive, it demostrates the solitude one can get, and still be within a couple of miles of major former industrial cities in Upstate NY.

Scenic Hudson River

It shows the scale of man’s industrial works up close, as they tower far above you. Who would have ever thought the South Troy Bridge was so tall?

Heading Under the South Troy Bridge

And while the river is much cleaner then yesteryear, you will still smell the raw sewage floating in from some storm drains.

Stormwater Outfall Into the Hudson River

You’ll find secret little tributatories, all but forgotten about in the era of powerboats and superhighways that once buried important little rivers and creeks, and made islands into mainland.

Creek Channel on Breaker Island

You will get a new impression of the river and it’s many crossings, and the noisey automobile traffic that “flies” over the river.

Heading Towards Patroon Island Bridge

You’ll notice how nature’s creations tower far above our cities and urbanized areas.

Livingston Ave Bridge Opens

And you’ll get a new look at the ordinary city, that often looked at as one passes it buy almost in an ignorant fashion.

Albany

Climate Reality vs Reality

|

I am very skeptical about there ever being a very serious effort anywheres in the world to reduce the output of greenhouse gases. While many efforts are well meaning, and most people care deeply about Climate Change, the reality is it – at this point – largely a problem out of human hands.

Modern man is a carboniferous creator, in the words of Lewis Mumford. Not only do we burn a lot of food in our bodies to create energy to power ourselves, we have harnessed fire in many very domesticated ways to produce energy modern man needs to survive. Humans are primarily about burning carbon to power their lives. At the current human population, it basically unthinkable to sustain our species without enormous amounts of fossil fuels – and certainly not our large urban cities.

To limit greenhouse gases to a level recommended by scientists, we would have to basically eliminate all consumption of fossil fuels, reforest much of the planet, and probably drastically change our land use practices, such as how we grow food. Nothing would be untouched in ways humans interact, in a strict climate control regime – everything would have to be tightly controlled by governments to basically eliminate all emissions of carbon.

If that is not dramatic enough, the cuts in energy use that would have to exist in a strict climate change regime. Modern man, particularly in his urbanized form, as an aggregate, consumes enormous amounts of energy. Most cities are supplied their energy needs by distant power plants, vast coal mines, and massive amounts of oil and gas wells. Energy measured in our urban, aggregated use, is measured in megawatts and gigawatts, and millions and billions of barrels of oil.

Renewables are the great hope for man kind. We are generating more renewable power then ever in mankind’s history. This is a good thing, as renewables typically are the least polluting source of energy, one that is restored naturally by forces of natures, and is not used up. Yet, even the most aggressive program of adopting renewables can’t come to close – in the imaginable future – to meet all of modern man’s energy needs, in his urbanized, highly populated form. Some rural cliques might be able to become to energy-self sufficient with renewables, but it’s not going to ever work for our cities.

Conservation and energy efficiency are a valuable ideas. It’s good to save energy, because not only does it reduce air emissions, but reduces demand for fossil fuels, and provides more benefit for less money. This allows us to grow our economy. We need policies to prod our corporations to do more with energy efficiency. Yet, the choice to a sustainable future is not one between a 4-speed automatic transmission and a 8-speed transmission, or even a Chevy Silverado vs a Toyota Prisus. Both are much too polluting for a carbon-free future, if we seek a livable planet.

So what are we left with? Not much in the way of good options. A 350 ppm world – one with emissions in 2050, 80% below 1990 levels – would be a world that is almost 100% free of all fossil fuel uses, and almost entirely on renewables, with energy consumption probably only 10% of current levels. It’s an almost unimaginable world.

Humans could give up their cars, 9 out of 10 lights in their houses, hot showers, running water, and most of our heat in the winter. We might be able to power much of a society with renewables then. But probably not. That world would suck – because we all like having lights, being able to hop in our cars and go to Adirondacks, and hot showers in the morning.

So what’s the alternative? An “unlivable†planet, with increasing impacts from climate change. We need more energy efficient automobiles, appliances, lighting, and insulation, but we still need energy to power those devices, that will increase climate change gases. We are going to blow past sustainable levels of emissions, much too soon, and going to live with the consequences, because modern man has little good choices.

Modern man will adapt to a changing climate – he will have no choice. More places will be air conditioned, but with better insulation in the future. Many pieces of man-made infrastructure will fail with changing weather patterns, but man will replace and re-engineer to avoid future failures.