Showing posts with label future technologies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future technologies. Show all posts

2.19.2016

A Wasteless Future is more realistic than ever


Dear friends and readers

This is the last post in this blog - from today all my thoughts (and much more) will be posted at my new website:


In this website you can find news that I carefully select, blogs, much more details for my work and of course my vision for a Wasteless Future. 

Subscribe to my newsletter and join the Wasteless Future thinkers, so you can get get insights on how social and technological innovation can reshape the recycling and waste management industry. Learn how you can contribute and let me share with you ideas for books, events and projects. 

Stay tuned - a new adventure just started. Soon, I will release the first project for the Wasteless Future thinkers. 

1.05.2016

Lyft, General Motors and the future of driverless waste management and recycling

The recent news about General Motors' 500 million dollars investment in Lyftlaid out GM's plans to develop an on-demand network of self-driving cars with the ride-sharing service. "We think our business and personal mobility will change more in the next five years than the last 50," GM President Dan Ammann said in an interview with Reuters. The announcement came as Toyota Motor Corp and Ford Motor Co said they would adopt the same software to link smartphone apps to vehicle dashboard screens. Toyota and Ford, two of the world's biggest automakers, invited rival car companies to join them to counter the push by Apple, Alphabet, Tesla Motors Inc and others into self-driving cars, or what the industry calls autonomous vehicles. So, it is time to warm up the discussion about driverless cars' use in waste management and recycling issues. And as you probably imagine, driverless cars fit perfectLy with robotics and artificial intelligence. 

Robotics
Robots are already here. More than 22 millions of them are in use in several industrial applications, continuously working and connected to the Web. Although they have been proved both much more difficult and expensive than it was initially expected, the combination of robots with the new sensors and the advances of artificial intelligence have set the scene for an exponential growth of robotics within next 5-10 years.



Robots are already in use in the waste management industry. Back to 2010, Mitsubishi and Osaka University researchers presented a robot that identifies different plastic materials among rubbish and sorts them into piles. SADAKO in Spain has created a commercial model (Wall-B) able to sort mixed household waste, equipped with a suction system adapted to small, light and very heterogeneous target objects. The Finnish company Zen Robotics is focused in C&D waste, with its robot capable of replacing up to 15 human waste sorters.  VOLVO is currently working on a joint venture to develop a robot that interacts with the refuse truck and its driver to accomplish the work.



The potential benefits of using robots are countless but it seems that their use will be controversial: robots will replace hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers in recycling and waste management, creating a huge negative social impact and intense conflicts.

Artificial Intelligence, driverless cars and drones

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already reshaping our lives. Either it is the rapid response of Google to any search we made or the speech recognition, AI has become a business as usual element of the daily lives of billions. Driverless cars and drones are equipped with advanced AI systems that are working in combination with powerful sensors. Their evolution goes really fast.

It is no surprise that many car manufacturers are beginning to think about cars that take the driving out of your hands altogether. These cars will be safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient than their manual counterparts. Yet, there are several issues to be resolved, but it seems that we are on the way to resolve them. If the experts are right, the most important problems will be managed before 2020.
Google recently announced that by 2017 they would start to deliver packages with drones, on a massive scale. Amazon has already published its first efforts to use drones for delivering its products. The US Federal Aviation Agency is working hard to complete a drones traffic management system until the end of 2016 and the first US database with legally licensed drones will be completed next month.

Driverless collection of recyclables will not be that difficult in certain parts of the world. And if you imagine a drone delivering your supermarket supplies to your window and taking back your recyclables, you probably are close to a reality that’s on the way. 
The consequences to traditional waste management will be tremendous. On demand hybrid collection services will become mainstream and the road towards a completely automatic and auto-optimized collection system will open. Important cost reduction is expected by the use of drones and driverless cars, but first there must be substantial investments. But, there is a high risk of more or less jobless collection and recycling systems, especially in the most technologically advanced places of the world. 

However, there is a very interesting comment on the future of driverless cars. Dave King, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, in a recent interview at Washington Post mentions that the future of driverless cars is not going to be like we think. Well, let's continue the debate...

12.17.2015

Star Wars: The Force Awakens - how about the recycling and waste industry?

Few hours before the official release of the new Star Wars sequel (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) the buzz about the movie has skyrocketedHarrison Ford revealed how his leg was almost broken by hydraulic forces. The new movie is expected by decades of millions of impatient Star Wars fans. But the same is true for the reaction of the waste management industry to the tsunami of the third industrial revolution - I dare to write that we need something like a rapid awakening and paradigm shift in order to surf on the huge waves of the current technological, social and economic change. 

"Our world is becoming more controversial than ever. We are capable to identify the quantity and quality of water in March, in a distance which ranges between 35  -100 million km but, due to poverty and lack of appropriate global response, roughly 700 million people (1 to 10) lack access to safe water. We are discussing how to utilize the Internet of Things in industrialized economies but, according the recent ISWA’s “Wasted Health: The tragic case of dumpsites” report, the health impacts of dumpsites are worst than malaria in India, Indonesia and Philippines. On the bright side, the third industrial revolution creates new, unimaginable opportunities for making sustainability a cornerstone of each and every industrial sector. On the dark side, the recent “Global Waste Management Outlook” (GWMO) report revealed that roughly 2-3 billion people lack the most elementary waste services while

As far as we know, industrial revolutions are long historical waves that gradually cover the planet. In reality, even now, there are parts of our world that have not been so much affected by the second industrial revolution. So no one expects that the third industrial revolution would soon transform the whole planet. But the current industrial revolution is based on technologies that follow exponential rather than linear paths of development – practically it means that the change that is coming will be too big and too fast. And this change is happening with the current shift of power (from global “north” to global “south”) and the continuously growing global interconnectivity. It is expected that the current industrial revolution will affect mostly the developing world (roughly 40% of the planet’s population). The poorer part of the world will benefit much more than the richer one, for the first time in the history of industrial revolutions.

In this rapidly changing landscape, disruption of traditional industries will very soon be the new “business as usual”. A recent IDC report, published on November 4 this year, predicts that by 2020 one third of the top 20 firms, in every industry, will be seriously disrupted or even failed. The recycling and waste management industry seems unprepared for substantial changes – unfortunately, a good, even if complicated and expensive, adaptation plan is not enough. What is coming is a radical redefinition of what is called waste and how it will be managed."  

Well, this is the introduction of my new article "Third industrial revolution and the future of recycling" that was published yesterday at the Waste Management World magazine (November - December 2015 issue) - you can register for free and enjoy the whole article plus a great content from many important contributors. If you want to continue click here

12.04.2015

COP21 & Climate Finance, investment or assistance?


As the discussions in Paris are getting hotter, some serious dilemmas are getting more obvious – unfortunately, we are still far away from having a common and targeted response to the questions posed. Let’s see the example of Bangladesh. With a population of 140 million, Bangladesh is one of the world's most populated countries. It is also one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Cyclones, floods and droughts have long been part of the country's history and they have intensified in recent years. As a result of the long exposure to these hazards, Bangladesh is a world leader in adaptation strategies but this has come with a heavy price tag. Bangladesh’s Ministry of Finance has been working with the UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative to launch its first comprehensive climate change accounting system. The results of the financial review were really astonishing.

Bangladesh currently spends $1 billion a year, 6 to 7% of its annual budget, on climate change adaptation. This is roughly 20% of the World Bank’s forecasted adaptation budget for the next 35 years! But it was spent just for one year (but this is another story, there are a lot of questions about the reliability of those long-term forecasts and their documentation). The facts reveal that 75% of money spent on climate change in the country comes directly from the government, while 25% comes from international donors. There is one more shocking detail: the average European citizen emits as much carbon in 11 days as the average Bangladeshi in an entire year.  
Then, allow me to come back to my previous post on Climate Justice. We can’t put the burden for fighting climate change and funding adaptation strategies to the citizens of Bangladesh, we simply can’t ask them to pay for their protection from the pollution that the Western World has created – but this is exactly what’s happening now, in many cases, as the case of Bangladesh. If we don’t stop this practice, we simply erode any reliable agreement on Climate Change – as I have already written there is no real agreement without Climate Justice.

Ok, but someone can say that rich countries are committed to provide 100 billion dollars to developing countries by 2020. On December 2, the US special envoy for climate change Todd Stern had told a press conference that donor countries were “well on the way to beating that pledge”. But allow me to mention that I have some doubts about those 100 billion dollars. Initially, I doubt a little bit about if those money will be, finally, available and also, I have my questions regarding the time horizon in which they will be given. In addition “If today’s public adaptation finance were divided among the world’s 1.5 billion smallholder farmers in developing countries, they would get around $3 each year to cope with climate change – the price of a cup of coffee in many rich countries,” as Oxfam’s climate policy adviser Jan Kowalzig recently said.

But, unfortunately, I have a more important doubt. Are those 100 billion dollars going to be given as loans (which means actually as an investment that will provide a certain profit) or as grants? Is it going to be recognition that rich countries have to pay a big part of the bill they have created or it will be one more way to create long-term dependencies of the poor countries? Gambia’s environment minister, and representative of the least developed countries group, Pa Ousman Jarju was absolutely right when he said: “We cannot take loans to pay for climate change and take that as climate finance. For us it needs to be grant-based finance because we are not responsible for what is happening.” So, let’s hope he will be heard, but let’s think that if the rich countries follow the path of loans, any climate deal will be fragile, ineffective and it will create much more problems than it will resolve.

11.17.2015

Climate Change is as alarming as Paris Attacks!

We are all aware of the recent Paris Attacks by ISIS that resulted in a massacre. At least 89 people were killed inside the Bataclan concert hall, while at least 29 died at three restaurants. More than 350 were injured and many remain in hospitals. Although we are still shocked, we do hope that Paris will soon recover and become again the city that Ernest Hemingway describes like this “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” But there is another good reason to think on Paris and this is the upcoming COP on Climate Change. And I have a very clear message about it. 
Climate change is going as alarming as the Paris Attacks. 

I suppose that most of us are aware of the climate change impacts and the long-term irreversible problems that will be created. I also suppose that many people, although they do not doubt at all for the core climate change arguments, are thinking that sometimes the impacts and the urgency are somehow exaggerated. Of course, there are climate change deniers (some of them as serious as Donald Trump who recently twitted “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”).  And, finally, there is a also a huge grey area of people that are thinking that “the scientific facts are too complex to be understood” or that “this is one more sign of the environmental catastrophe that is often predicted” or simply that “ok, but human are too genius and they will find their way to manage the problem”.

Well, allow me to say something in a very clear way. What we have to do, right here, right now, is to react in a red alarm that is becoming louder and louder, day-by-day. All the recent scientific facts confirm that this is a full-blown crisis. Let me recap some of the ones I went through this summer, with the valuable help of Jeremy Grantham and his great GMO Newsletter.

Visible changes in the climate have been accelerated; many more records than normal of droughts, floods, and, most particularly, heat have been achieved. Last year was the hottest year ever recorded, and this year, 2015, helped by an El Niño, has gotten off to a dreadful start. This year, global average surface temperatures are likely to reach 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), above preindustrial temperatures for the first time, according to the UK Met Office. This puts the world halfway to the internationally agreed warming target of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.  Other data, also recently released, shows that 2016 will be the first year in all of human history when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air meets or exceeds 400 parts per million for the entire year. As of 2014, that annual figure was 397.7 parts per million, which is an astonishing increase of 143% from the level in the air prior to the industrial revolution, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). According to the Met Office, the world has already emitted around two-thirds of the carbon dioxide it can put into the atmosphere to have a likely chance (more than 66% chance) of limiting warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.

The World Wildlife Fund, “Living Planet Report,” published in September, 2014, estimates the disastrous decline in total animal life: in general it has halved in the last 40 years, with bird populations down 40%.  The recent report (end of 2014) of the Audubon Society “Audubon’s Birds and Climate Change Report: A Primer for Practitioners” presents the damage likely to be inflicted on future bird populations by climate change and it highlights that maybe in the next 40-60 years we will have a very limited bird population. The excellent SCIENCE Article, “Marine IceSheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for Thwaites Glacier Basin, WestAntarctica” announces that the Thwaites Glacier4 in the Antarctic has “gone irreversible”. There are also several recent articles that deal with the direct thermodynamic effects of a warming climate, which account for most of the increase in extreme temperature events. In a simplified way they state that climate change may not cause more hurricanes or more droughts, but when they do occur, the higher ocean and air temperatures will guarantee that these events will be worse than they would have been in a lower-temperature world. In a great paper titled “Contrasting futures for ocean and society from differentanthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios”, published on July 2015, at Science, 22 scientists led by Jean-Pierre Gattuso argue that any new global climate agreement must begin to minimize the mounting toll on the world’s oceans to prevent irreversible damage. They also mention that oceans are not receiving their appropriate share of concern while ocean life is diminishing at the fastest rate since the so-called Great Dying of 250 million years ago.  One of the co-authors, professor Hoegh-Guldberg said “There’s compelling evidence that increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are already resulting in fundamental changes to the physical, chemical, and biological properties of our planet”.

Last but not least, Andy Lee, in his article on July 2015 "The conflict between demographics and water in the Middle East", puts the water stress in Middle East as a cornerstone of the current and the emerging conflicts. He states “Bloomberg recently reported that water levels on the Euphrates River that
flows from Eastern Turkey through Syria to Iraq have fallen more than 50% this year, withering farmers’ crops and raising the risk of a wider regional conflict. Both Iraq and the Islamic State say that Turkey needs to release more water from its dams to replenish the river in the former Fertile Crescent where drought conditions now endanger millions. The situation for Iraq has grown even more acute after Islamic State used a dam captured in Ramadi to cut off water to government areas. The situation will only get worse as Turkey is due to complete the last 6 dams in a 22 dam project on the Euphrates and Tigris next year despite Iraqi protests. As the surrounding soils dry out, less water is absorbed into the ground. The Euphrates and Tigris have the second fastest
rate of groundwater storage loss after India according to Chatham House. A NASA study of the two river basins shows stored freshwater water reserves of 144 cubic kilometers, equal to the Dead Sea or 152% of the two countries’ 2008 annual renewable water resources, were lost over the 7 years through 2009. Soils drying up accounted for about 20% of the loss, with surface water from lakes and reservoirs another 20%, and the rest was depleted from underground aquifers. Meanwhile, demand for freshwater continues to rise. Does this explain some of the fighting in the region, and the low value people put on their own lives? What happens when the aquifers are exhausted as they surely will be in the next few years?”

There is no time left – adaptation and mitigation strategies are going too slow. As many people believe, it seems that we need something like a Marshal Plan for planet Earth. And probably this plan will cost trillions of dollars. But just a minute, let’s think again about the costs. In 2015, the global military expenditures were 1.7 trillion dollars.  For the years 2010 – 2015, the global military expenses were roughly 10 trillion dollars! Each year we spent 75-80 billion dollars for cyber security and 70 billion dollars for pet food. And according the Global Subsidies Initiative “Globally, subsidies to fossil fuels may be on the order of US$ 600 billion per year, of which the GSI estimates about US$ 100 billion is provided to producers. Nobody knows the real number, however, because there is no international framework for regularly monitoring fossil-fuel subsidies”.
So, how much money we need to tackle climate change? What will be the cost of a Marshal Plan for Earth? Many different groups converge to something like 150 – 200 billions dollars per year.  This is just double of the global spending on pet food! It is less than 10% of the global military spending and 25% of the subsidies given to fossil fuels! Recently, Thomas Piketty proposed a flight tax to raise 150 billion dollars climate funds per year. According his proposal, air travel should be taxed to protect the world’s vulnerable from drought, flooding and sea level rise. A €180 ($196/£130) levy on business class tickets and €20 on economy class would raise the estimated €150bn a year needed for climate adaptation.
I am sure that there are many other creative ways to find the, finally, tiny amount of money required every year. So the problem is not the availability of funds.
The problem is that one-tenth of people are responsible for 45% of global emissions. Sunita Narain, the director of the Indian Centre for Science and Environment, recently said "We must put an end toenvironmental colonialism. Individuals have a right to development, whereverthey are…The problem is that the United States will manage to get their total lack of ambition accepted in the Paris agreement, which means Africa and India will have no room for development". As Piketty recently explained in Guardian "the countries of the North should be convinced to finance more adaptation. Climate change adaptation funds currently stand at $10 billion, while the United Nations Environment Programme estimates the need at 200 times this amount". Piketty recalled the fact that the media always present the United States and China as the biggest emitters, responsible for 42% of global CO2 emissions, with Europe far behind at only 10%."But if you factor in the emissions of products consumed, Europe's CO2 emissions are closer to those of the US and China," the economist insisted. Under this calculation, the EU emits 16% of the global total, compared to 21% for both China and the United States.

I find no better way to close this note with some words written by Naomi Klein, in her emblematic book “This changes everything”. “Climate change has never received the crisis treatment from our leaders, despite the fact that it carries the risk of destroying lives on a vastly greater scale than collapsed banks or collapsed buildings. The cuts to our greenhouse gas emissions that scientists tell us are necessary in order to greatly reduce the risk of catastrophe are treated as nothing more than gentle suggestions, actions that can be put off pretty much indefinitely. Clearly, what gets declared a crisis is an expression of power and priorities as much as hard facts. But we need not be spectators in all this: politicians aren’t the only ones with the power to declare a crisis. Mass movements of regular people can declare one too…I am convinced that climate change represents a historic opportunity on an even greater scale. As part of the project of getting our emissions down to the levels many scientists recommend, we once again have the chance to advance policies that dramatically improve lives, close the gap between rich and poor, create huge numbers of good jobs, and reinvigorate democracy from the ground up. But before any of these changes can happen – before we can believe that climate change can change us – we first have to stop looking away”