©2011 Michael E. Arth, All Rights Reserved
Home / Social/Political / The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems / V. Environment

 

V. Environment - Cleaning of the Augean Stables

Eco-Policy Design

How to eliminate most human-caused CO2 emissions by 2029

By Michael E. Arth

Copyright © 2009 Michael E. Arth. All Rights Reserved. The Eco-Policy Design has been adapted from a forthcoming book,
The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems.

The Virgin Earth Challenge invites the development of a scheme that could remove at least one billion metric tons (1 gigaton) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year for ten years. It seems unlikely that practical, financially viable devices will be developed soon that will take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in such quantities that they can compete with the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. Even the minimal Virgin Earth Challenge goal of removing ten gigatons over ten years would only be about 4% of the total CO2 emissions created during the last decade, and an even smaller percentage of what will be produced during the next decade.

Therefore, while research into designing machines or processes that can remove CO2 on a grand scale is a worthy endeavor, it is far more likely that the answer lies in having a multi-pronged public policy plan that can be enacted in a reasonable time frame, scaled up easily, which can also pay for itself through market-based incentives. This Eco-Policy Design (EPD) guideline has as its minimum goal to reduce by more than half the current annual carbon dioxide emissions of 27 million metric tons, instead of allowing them to grow from 30 to 40 gigatons between 2019 and 2029 as is predicted. These practical solutions utilize already existing or developing technologies that could be implemented with an international agreement related to public policy. Such a plan would provide extraordinary benefits to all people that would extend far beyond the reduction of greenhouse gases.

In 2004 the U.S. was the 10th largest emitter of CO2 emissions per capita. In that same year, China was the 91st largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, because less than 0.8% of the Chinese population owned a car in that year, but by 2007 car ownership had quadrupled to over 3% (presumably with a significant rise in CO2 emissions). Transportation in the United States, mostly involving automobiles, accounts for 66% of the oil production and 50% of the urban air pollution. In China, automobile exhaust accounts for 80% of air pollution, even though cars are used by only a tiny portion of the population. A contributing factor is that China uses higher polluting vehicles.

Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and Bahrain—all wealthy, oil-producing states that are highly dependent on the automobile for transportation—occupy 5 of the top 7 CO2 emitters per capita. Quatar uses 69.2 metric tons per person while Americans used 20.4 metric tons in 2004. Afghanistan is 205th on the list with 0.03 tons. Chad, where consumption and energy use is low, and where private cars are rare, is last on the list with 0.01 metric tons per capita.

A 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology survey estimated that the world average of CO2 emission was 4 metric tons per person—27 million metric tons—with Americans emitting 20 tons per person. Americans account for about 23% of the world’s energy consumption and most of which relates to housing, transportation and food. In the U.S. there are 191 million cars with more cars than drivers, but nearly every American rides in a car, even if they don’t drive. Clearly motor vehicles powered by fossil fuels are a huge problem when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, and any program to reduce CO2 emissions should focus on what to do about that.

If EPD guidelines were followed the world’s population would stop growing and global annual CO2 emissions would drop below 13 gigatons by 2029 instead of the projected 40 gigatons. This figure could be dropped much lower with the institution of commonly discussed methods, including rainforest preservation, conservation, factory emissions scrubbers, and increased energy efficiency. Following the EPD guideline plus the other measures will eliminate most human caused greenhouse gases by 2029. Other important benefits include the elimination of most of the 1.2 deaths and 35 million injuries from motor vehicle accidents, a rise in the quality of life, a vast reduction in “unwanted children” and violence related to having too many young males, an improvement in health and the establishment of a sustainable economy.

Summary of Eco-Policy Design Objectives

  1. Population Control: Bring about zero or negative population growth through the use of birth credits—a choice-based marketable birth license plan.
  2. Driverless Cars: Between 2019 and 2024 we could replace most of the world’s 800 million gasoline powered vehicles with about 100 million private and shared-use driverless vehicles. (In 2007, 70 million new cars were produced, so all of the world’s vehicles could be replaced by driverless cars within a short period)
  3. Virtual Reality: VR should be encouraged because it will reduce the demand for transportation of all kinds.
  4. New Pedestrianism: As transportation becomes information-based this leaves us with the global automobile slum—a world that has been paved over for cars. This will be an opportunity to remake our cities and new neighborhoods into pedestrian-oriented places worth caring about.
  5. Vegetarianism: Meat production is a bigger polluter than cars, trucks, airplanes, and ships combined.
  6. Solar Energy: Develop a solar-based energy policy.

1. Population Control:

Despite the vast range of problems related to increasing population—pollution, congestion, climate change, resource shortages, and resource wars, to name but a few—most people don't consider it worrisome that the population of our planet goes up by 219,000 people every single day, for a total of 80 million more people every year. This is like adding the combined population of England, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand every single year.

This increase means that 308 million more tons of carbon dioxide are being added every year to the total annual production. The population growth in the next decade will add 3.08 billion metric tons per year. We should be in panic mode about what to do about this, but it is not even on the political agenda. As the great mathematician Bertrand Russell once said about overpopulation when the population was less than half of what it is now: “Mankind would rather commit suicide than learn arithmetic.”

It is not just a problem with the developing world, which has the highest birth rate, but with developed countries as well. The U.S. has the highest growth rate of any industrialized country—mostly due to immigrants and their high birth rate. This is a disaster in the making, because when we are talking about the dangers of overpopulation the most critical factor is not sheer numbers, but carrying capacity (carrying capacity = how many people can the Earth sustain at a certain standard of living). A hundred Bangladeshis use as many resources as one American, so more Americans are potentially as bad for the planet as 100 Bangladeshis. But people are not trees—they move around quite easily. So every Bangladeshi who picks up and moves to a developed country multiplies his effect on the planet up to 100 times. This is why immigration from poor countries to rich countries is aggravating the problem.

In fairness we should stop population growth immediately across the board in all countries. Japan and some European countries are nearing zero population growth and this should be cheered. There are many benefits to a graying, wiser, more peaceful demographic profile and we will not need young people for caretakers because robots will take care of the old in the future, as they are already beginning to do in Japan.

An additional factor in the population explosion is the very real possibility of radical life extension in the near future. Every day 155,000 people die. If the death rate was reduced to near zero, and the birth rate stayed the same, we would add 374,000 people every day, instead of 219,000. Obviously, we need to face the overpopulation issue squarely. There are people who claim that increasingly the population is a good thing because it grows the economy, brings in fresh, young blood, and that human ingenuity will somehow find a place to put all these people (Terraform Mars! Rockets to the stars!) However, radical life extension will presumably bring renewed vigor and vitality so that decrepitude will be eliminated along with death.

Population optimists, including Julian Simon and Bjørn Lomborg, focus on necessarily flawed predictions by Thomas Malthus in 1798 in his Essay on the Principle of Population and Paul Erhlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb. Futurology is not an exact science and should not be treated as such, even by population optimists. Julian Simon, for example, claimed in 1994: “We have the technology to feed, clothe and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years…We [are] able to go on increasing forever.”

Malthus wrote that resources grow linearly, while population grows exponentially and if left unrestricted, human populations will grow until they grow too large to supported by food production. The fact that humans developed large-scale agriculture and technologies that can support a larger population has not changed the fact that the ideal human population is not known precisely and humans are in a complex, fluid interaction with their environment that can be dramatically affected by both their behavior and their technology. This has been expressed by Paul R. Ehrlich in his IPAT or I = PAT equation: I = impact on the environment from consumption. P = human population level. A = consumption per capita. T = technology factor.

Nevertheless, we are now able to measure the past and current impact of the existing population and it does not look good. In regards population growth, less is more in regards buying time to solve the wide-ranging environmental problems. We are better able to assess the state of planet and its resources today than ever before, and the consensus of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (a four-year research study by 1,360 scientists) is that humans had a greater impact on the environment in the second half of the twentieth century than in all previous recorded human history. The conclusion of the UN Environment Program and Global Environment Outlook (a five-year study involving 1,400 scientists) is that human need is outstripping available resources and that are already exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. In March 2009, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, updating the 2007 findings, reported, “The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.”

The scientists also said that sea levels could rise as much as a meter in this century because of melting glaciers and ice sheets. It is imprudent to take chances with the only habitable planet we have got. In the long term we might be able to upload our minds into cyberspace and discard the bodies, but as long as we value our bodies, we must stop population growth.

Because of population momentum, which is caused by high birth rates producing too many young people who have not yet had children, we would need a birth rate of close to 1 child per woman in order to bring about immediate ZPG. This is close to the average birth rate of Europeans already, and if not for immigration Europe would already be at ZPG. What we need is a method that preserves choice while also achieving ZPG immediately in all countries. There is a plan that will do this. Since the mid 1990s I have been proposing a “choice-based, marketable birth license plan,” or “birth credits.” In 1997 I informally proposed the ideas to agencies of both the Indian and Chinese governments. Economist Kenneth Boulding first proposed the idea in 1964, followed by ecological economist Hermann Daly in 1991. More recently, Philip A. Lawn wrote about it in 2000. Birth credits would be fair, non-discriminatory in regards the poor, and could stop population growth on a dime.

Each woman would be issued one birth credit, which she can use to have one child or she can sell it at the going market rate. If she decides to have more children she would have to buy one credit for each additional child. Noncompliance would bring fines similar to a traffic fine, or liens on property for individuals, and market sanctions for countries. Noncompliance can easily be factored in, even if whole countries opt out. The birth license would only cost a tiny fraction of the real cost of raising a child, so it would function more as a wake-up call than any real economic hurdle to childbearing. It would also tend to prevent unwanted children, a huge benefit of the plan. One of the major problems in the world is the Youth Bulge Effect, where a high birth rate causes a high number of young males in the population. Combined with underemployment, this creates high levels of violence, as we see throughout the Middle East and in Africa, as well as in poor communities in developed countries.

Like the single, welfare mother Nadia Suleman, who had 14 kids with in-vitro fertilization, we are used to seeing people breed without any regard for their own ability to raise children or what overpopulation means to the planet. Therefore, birth credits at first might sound extreme, but it is a fair tradeoff that allows all of us to live on a sustainable Earth. It is also a vast improvement over China’s one-child policy because people who do not have children should be rewarded, and people who are well suited to having more children should be able to. The poor would benefit the most from such a plan, because they suffer the most from the effects of having too many children. Proof of this is the fact that the average household net worth in the U.S. is in inverse proportion to the number of children in the household.

The problem in most save-the-world discussions, other than the difficulty of establishing the statistical baseline in regards resources, is to get people to agree on the boundaries between individual rights and collective rights. Our collective rights are being eroded every day by the cumulative effects of individual irresponsibility, so we need universal policies that define the boundaries of these rights. If we could agree on using birth credits, population growth would end and we might begin to get a handle on a wide range of problems facing our species and the other species that we share the planet with.

2. Driverless Cars:

Ninety percent of the time, cars are parked somewhere taking up resources. If we traded private cars for efficient, zero emission, self-driving public taxis, we could have any type of vehicle we want, when we want it, for a fraction of the cost of owning a vehicle, and we would take a huge step toward solving a wide range of problems, including global warming. Almost all of the world’s annual 1.2 million deaths and 35 million injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents are caused by humans, so smart autonomous cars will be able to prevent most of those casualties too. Even in advance of completely autonomous cars, driving software will be able to increase the energy efficiency because computer-aided driving will accelerate and decelerate at the maximally efficient rate. Doubters need look no farther than existing car sharing programs, and GM has been promising that the current model of the Opel Vectra will use lasers, video cameras, and a computer for its ‘Traffic Assist’ that will be capable of driving itself on the highway in heavy traffic. Insurance companies, automobile makers, lawmakers under control of industry lobbyists, and the minority of drivers not wanting to be chauffeured, may resist replacing so many private cars with so few self-driving public cars, but the environmental, safety and economic reasons for doing so are utterly compelling.

In the last few years we have seen self-parking cars and collision avoidance systems in commercially available cars, as well as well-publicized automobile races involving driverless vehicles. In January 2008 General Motors announced that they plan to have self-driving cars on the road within 10 years that can drive in any situation. This has enormous implications for the number of vehicles on the planet, which might not seem obvious at first blush. It could even be that GM and other automakers may not have yet seriously considered the ultimate implication of autonomous vehicles which is this:

More than 90% of the time, cars are parked somewhere, taking up space, and costing money and resources. By trading private vehicles for driverless public taxis and shuttles, we could theoretically reduce the number of vehicles by 80% or more and pass the financial and environmental savings onto everyone.
 Of the horrific 36 million annual casualties from motor vehicle accidents, 95% are caused by human error. As the trend for safer vehicles continues, it will eventually be illegal to let a human (or at least an un-enhanced human) have total control over a vehicle. This will help ensure that all vehicles will eventually be self-driving.

Transition Period From Dangerous Drivers to Robot Cars

2009-2018: During this period the switch is made to plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles while the bugs are worked out of autonomous cars. No more gasoline-powered vehicles should be produced in order to allow the existing inventory of gasoline powered vehicles to age into obsolescence. From 2019, only autonomous cars would be produced with each year bringing out improvements over the previous year: Models between 2009 and 2018 should be built so that the self-driving feature can be retrofitted later. Here is the proposed production schedule, which could even be improved upon if the bugs get ironed out quickly:

2019: 500,000 first generation self-driving cars to be produced.
2020: One million
2021: Ten million
2022: Twenty million (From this point 200 million gasoline powered vehicles per year would be recycled until all but a small number of liquid fuel-powered classic, museum, or race cars would be left, but even these could be retrofitted to be self-driving).
2023: Twenty million
2024: Twenty million
2025: Twenty million (replacement level reached)

Production from 2025 would be at replacement level only. This assumes that people in 2025 will make just as many automobile trips as they do now—but this is a highly questionable assumption once fully immersive virtual reality is taken into account.

3. Virtual Reality

The need to travel could be replaced with virtual cocoons that allow us to conduct business, travel and leisure in cyberspace. It seems reasonable that we might see the number of automobile trips drop 80% or more, which might leave only 20 million driverless cars on the road by 2030. Virtual reality is also already here in nascent form. It began with the use of the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television, and then exploded with the growth of the Internet and the many billions of pages making up the World Wide Web.

Anyone who has watched a teenager at his computer playing World of Warcraft with nine million other kids from all over the world, or has visited the more adult-oriented SecondLife.com, has seen the cartoon version of the future in two dimensions. My brother, who has a teenage son, calls the massive, multi-player cyber-game "World of War Crack" because he feels he has lost his kid to an online addiction. His concern is justified, and it recalls how our parents fretted over us passively staring at “the boob tube.”

Instead of virtual reality being an abomination against nature, however, it may be the best thing that has ever happened to us and our planet, if only because it may get rid of the cars and steer people away from taking apart and polluting the world with rampant consumerism. Most of us will soon fully immerse ourselves in a multi-tiered, three-dimensional virtual reality that will eventually be even more subtle and rich than the real world. It will take on aspects of the real world, imagination, and spirituality, and draw everyone together in countless ways that are almost unimaginable today. Eventually most jobs, recreation, entertainment, and socializing will take place in cyberspace, which means that commuting or travel for most purposes will become unnecessary. We already realize a huge economic, logistical and environmental benefit with instant communication. This will only get better. Eventually virtual worlds will be vastly more sophisticated while using a tiny fraction of the current energy levels.

With the help of information-based technologies we may finally rid the Earth of the sight, smell, danger, pollution, global warming, and aesthetic degradation caused by motor vehicles. Ironically, the accelerating pace of technological change, which brought us those vehicles to begin with, may also provide us with the tools to reduce their number to a tiny fraction of current levels. The next question becomes, with the Information Age upon us what will we do with the paved-over slum bequeathed to us by the Automobile Age? What will we do with our physical selves and our real cities?

4. New Pedestrianism:

During this transitional period, we also have the opportunity to begin to rebuild our new towns and neighborhoods into functional, attractive, pedestrian villages. The looming probability that we will live through our avatars in virtual worlds makes it important to exercise our bodies and walk around in places that can compete with compellingly attractive virtual worlds. We are already struggling to deal with the societal problems created by automobile-oriented architecture and city planning.

The New Urbanism movement, which at least aims to restore a sense of architecture and a sense of place common before WWII, still caters to cars, because cars are not only in the streets in front of the houses, but also in the back of the houses in the alleys. In some urban areas, cars, parking lots, and roads cover 70% of the landscape, not even counting all the businesses that service the cars. So even if we vastly reduce the number of cars, we will still be left with the infrastructure that has supported them.
 The answer is to implement a future-oriented form of town and neighborhood design that addresses both practical and quality of life concerns.

New Pedestrianism (NP), a more ecological and pedestrian-oriented version of New Urbanism that I developed in 1999, takes the approach that cities of the future will have to be beautiful, sustainable, useful and fun. There are different forms of NP, but the kind that is most likely to be adopted by planners and developers involves putting cars and pedestrians on two completely separate networks. People and cyclists would travel on tree-lined pedestrian lanes in front of the houses and businesses. These human-scaled car free, multi-use trails would open up into plazas, mixed-use neighborhood centers, parks, and will front important natural amenities like waterfronts and greenbelts. Reasonably attractive automobile streets, with buried utility lines, also lined with trees, would always be in the rear. There would be carriage houses to provide a street presence and lower cost housing or guest units. Formal garden gates would provide an attractive rear entrance where motorists could call. Compact and vibrant pedestrian villages like this where aesthetics, health, safety, recreation and community are important would help keep people involved in the real world. Pedestrian villages would provide a balance in our local and global life that is already being lost today. We will surely lose these qualities in the future if sprawled-out cities—strung together with strip malls and other automobile-related crud—are what people see when they venture out into the real world. It might be that we need to begin living in pedestrian villages now in order to restore our sanity and prevent the future from looking like my nephew's idea of fun. For more on this go to www.newpedestrianism.com.

5. Vegetarianism: America was once home to a 100 million free-range bison, a sort of New World cow that also commanded great respect among the indigenous people. These bovine mammals were slaughtered to near extinction by range busters seeking their hides and the carcasses were simply left to rot. The buffalo has was a more docile form of cattle that could be managed by rustling, riding, and wrangling cowboys—before being ground up into hamburger and eaten. Now that the range has been conquered, the cow is now an image of subjugation, and pollution.

Today, the raising, management, and processing of cattle in factory farms, sometimes called The Meat-Industrial Complex, is a huge business, and the pollution caused by cow dung is a greater problem than ever before. In fact, according to a December 2006 United Nations report, “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” Cattle production for food is the primary cause of air and water pollution, land degradation, water shortage, loss of biodiversity, and global warming. Seventy percent of former Amazonian rainforest is being used for cattle production. According to researchers at the University of Chicago, you can do more for the environment by becoming a vegetarian than by buying a hybrid car like a Prius. The meat industry produces more greenhouse gas than all the ships, aircraft, trucks and cars in the world together, and eating one single pound of meat produces the same amount of greenhouse gas as driving an SUV for 40 miles.

Raising cattle for food is about 10 times less efficient than eating seeds, fruits, legumes, and vegetables grown for food. According to Henning Steinfeld, chief of FAO Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior of a 2006 U.N. report, the livestock industry is one of the “most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” A single factory farm, with 140,000 head of cattle, is capable of producing 1.6 million tons of manure every year. This exceeds the waste produced by the 2.2 million meat-eating human inhabitants living in Houston, TX.

Altogether, there are 12,000 concentrated animal feeding operations in the U.S., with 890 million animals (including 100 million cattle) producing 2.7 trillion pounds of waste every year. In addition to all this waste, the EPA estimates that 5.5 metric tons of methane per year are produced in the U.S. and about 80 million tons worldwide are being produced by 1.2 billion large ruminants. Contrary to popular myth, only 5% is due to flatus and 95% is due to eructation. Cattle farting and burping produce 28% of all methane gas released into the atmosphere each year from human-related activities (and 18% of all greenhouses gases). Methane, as a greenhouse gas, has a warming effect that is as much as 50 times greater than carbon dioxide. Sixty-five percent of the world’s nitrous oxide, which is about 300 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, is also produced by the meat, egg, and dairy industries.
In addition to all of this pollution, an additional health risk is created for area residents who have to breathe bacteria-laden clouds of particulates that drift up from effluvia that is sprayed onto fields from huge “lagoons” of waste. Runoff into waterways or leaking lagoons can also cause severe water pollution. In 1995 a waste spill killed 10 million fish in a river in North Carolina. The reaction of the Environmental Protection Agency until recently has been that already weak pollution regulations should be further relaxed, even though the number of number of these factory farms has gone up three times in the last 20 years.

Hercules cleaned the Aegean stables by diverting a river through them to wash the dung into the sea. We have been following the Hercules method of dealing with pollution—just wash it into the sea or don’t worry about it—for thousands of years. This worked okay for the ancient Greeks and Romans, but it does not work for us. The simplest solution is to go vegetarian, or at least vastly reduce meat consumption, and seek to find acceptable meat alternatives. The quickest way to drop consumption would be to charge an environmental tax while at the same time banning advertising for meat products and educating the public about the dangers with labeling. There would be both an environmental and health bonus, and it is similar to what we should do with tobacco, drugs, alcohol and other harmful products. There are also attempts to better use the dung for use as fertilizer (such as for mushroom farms in China) and in the “Waste-to-Energy and Fertilizer Project” being set up at Landhi Cattle Colony in Pakistan.

6. Build a Solar Based Economy:

Almost all our energy on Earth comes from directly or indirectly from the sun. The real cost of indirect methods such as from fossil fuels is staggeringly high once the tax payer subsidies, the costs of sprawl, the cost to the environment, the portion of the military budget being spent on defending the oil interests, and other factors are calculated in. One of the few growth industries during the 2007-2009 recession has been the photovoltaic industry. The growth is being driven by the fact that the cost of picking up the energy that falls upon the Earth everyday from the sun has been dropping. The cost of photovoltaic cells recently hit $1 per watt, which has long been touted as the economic breaking point, and the point at which that it can begin to augment the power grid. As efficiency continues to increase there is also the possibility that nanosolar photo-voltaic panels, manufactured with carbon nanoparticles, will be able to take the carbon dioxide out of the air during production. This would attack the CO2 problem from two directions.

Improving battery technology, coupled with driverless taxis that can be switched out or rapidly recharged at charging stations, will essentially solve the range problem that had bedeviled the owners of electric cars who wanted to drive outside the range of the battery. “Nanoball” batteries, with a cathode made up of tiny balls of lithium ion phosphate, have already been demonstrated in experiments at MIT to be able to charge 100 times as fast as typical lithium batteries. An electric car battery utilizing this technology could be recharged into five minutes. Even without vastly improved batteries the driverless taxies would still be feasible because they could be traded out when they need charging.

Increasing efficiencies in the new technologies will also mean that we can use less to do more. Computing power in supercomputers has been increasing by 1000x every ten years, while the amount of energy needed to compute has also been heading the other direction. Eventually, logically reversible computing (aka non-destructive computing), where each logic gate reuses the energy that it used from the previous computation, will enable computational processes that use almost no energy. According to Edward Fredkin, the efficiency of a reversible logic gate, as opposed to the irreversible logic gates we have now, can achieve at least 99% efficiency with no heat being dissipated except for the energy required to produce the result. By the time this goal is achieved we will have solved the greenhouse gas emissions problem permanently. Until then the Eco-Policy Design will help do all we can with what little we have.

Related links:

http://www.michaelearth.com
http://www.laborsofhercules.com
http://www.newpedestrianism.com
http://www.pedestrianvillages.com
http://www.goldenapplesmedia.com
http://www.newurbancowboy.com
http://www.villagesforthehomeless.org
http://www.unice.info

Recent articles, papers, and interviews:

• The CNU presentation, New Urbanism and New Pedestrianism in the 21st Century, can be found at http://www.newpedestrianism.com.
• The New Pedestrianism: A Practical Solution, Carfree Times, Feb. 08. http://www.carfree.com/cft/i049.html
• Memebox Interview: Michael E. Arth 12/20/07, http://memebox.com/futureblogger/show/173
• Michael E. Arth on the Future of Sustainable Cities by Venessa Posavec, March 17, 2008. http://memebox.com/futureblogger/show/174-michael-e-arth-on-the-future-of-sustainable-cities
• New Pedestrianism: A Bridge to the Future, Carbusters Magazine #33, http://www.carbusters.org/magazine/index.php?issue=33&go=feature3
• Cracktown to Cosmic Internet, C-Realm Podcast by KMO. Interview: 4/30/08, Episode 92: - http://c-realmpodcast.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-04-30T16_51_13-07_00
• Interview: City Architect and Reconstructor Michael E. Arth http://www.corrupt.org/act/interviews/michael_e_arth

These solutions have been adapted from my forthcoming, two-volume book: The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems. You can read more about these and related issues at http://www.laborsofhercules.com.

To obtain copies or eBook downloads of Volume I and Volume II of
The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems, click here

 

 

 

Return To Top

 

Home | Biography | Speaking Engagements | Michael's Blog | Home & Urban Design
Books & Film | Art & Design | Social / Political | Homelessness
| The Garden District
Golden Apples Media | New Urban Cowboy
New Pedestrianism | The Future




Contact Info:

MEA@michaelearth.com

www.MichaelEArth.com

 

 

 

 

Website Design & Hosting services provided by: TinkerGraphics.com