Planet Plan

Planet Plan Website of Bruce H. Clark

Introduction:

This website contains a plan for saving planet earth. Do not be discouraged by the thought that many of the suggestions would be difficult to implement. Allow your dreaming self to join in creating a vision for sustainable use of the gifts on this planet. To do this, don’t let reality go to your head!

Join the visionary thinker, Bruce Clark, as he explores what it would look like if we gave no consideration to our own comfort and rigid ideas, and just dreamed about what could be. The measures will sound impossible and drastic. How else does change come about?

Biography of the author:

Bruce Harlan Clark wrote Planet Plan. At 63 years of age, he polished up his notes, and put them on his website in the last month of his life. He died on October 27, 2009, before completing this project. He intended for this site to be interactive, with input from others. He called for expertise, and planned to cultivate experts in many fields to engage in dialog about this plan, and add to it. With this input, the timelines for change could have had realistic means of implementation behind them. Alas, with his death, it is up to you and your community to finish creating Planet Plan and the means to accomplish these challenging tasks. Here are his notes in raw form.

PLANET PLAN BY BRUCE HARLAN CLARK

Disclaimer: Please bear with our initial written submission, as it is not meant to be a finished product. We will start with the plan and make corrections and amplifications as required. We appreciate and greatly are in need of such submissions of expertise. Please feel free to submit your own contributions. Our intent is to cultivate experts who will have long-standing participation in this Planet Plan.

Some components of this plan may at first seem extreme, or the impact on your own lives may seem extreme. This train of thought is not productive. We are not like the other soothsayers and predictors who say if our ideas are not followed, global catastrophe will reign. Although we are trying to avert global environmental catastrophe, predictions of exact timelines for each area of the earth are extremely difficult, if not impossible to accomplish with any great accuracy.

Planet plan has identified three major arenas where change would be beneficial to the planet. They are: cessation of carbon burning, reduction of world population, and the concentration of the population moved to Eurasia while the rest of the continents and islands recover from the degradation left behind.

I. PLANETARY TRANSPORTATION

By continuing to subsidize the motor vehicle industry, the world completely missed an excellent opportunity to get the world transportation industry on a better financial foundation. Far better would have been to let the market make adjustments, including bankruptcy. Subsidy will just make the day of reckoning more difficult when it does arrive. The world cannot continue to support vehicles that degrade the environment.

A critical part of Planet Plan is cessation of carbon burning. Set forth here are deadlines for cessation of carbon burning for various aspects of transportation.

Cessation deadlines:

All military and recreational aircraft shall cease operation no later than 11:59 PM GMT, Dec 31st 2015. There will be no military exceptions, such as coast guard or rescue missions. The potential for abuse (use for military purposes under pretext of rescue or border patrol) is too great. The military has not been or any help in the progress of civilization and, therefore, a de facto phasing out of military aircraft is necessary, even if certain uses are a benefit to the planet.

No new launches of spacecraft or travel in outer space. This species needs several hundred thousand years at minimum before it is qualified to interact with anything outside Planet Earth.

Motorized Vehicles: (primarily cars and passenger trucks, but also including motorcycles, mopeds, snowmobiles, ATV’s, and any other off- road vehicles) shall cease operation no later than 11:59 PM GMT, Dec 31^st 2020.

Other essential large trucks (not just big pickup trucks), heavy equipment, etc., shall cease operation no later than 11:59 PM GMT, Dec 31st 2035. Exception: after 11:59 PM GMT Dec 31st 2020, only biodiesel shall be consumed. (Exception: certain equipment, earth movers of various types, could be used if necessary to save endangered species or remediate toxic conditions where benefits greatly exceed harm to planet.)

Railroads shall cease operation no later than 11:59 PM GMT, Dec 31st 2100, except that after 11:59 PM GMT Dec 31st 2020, only biodiesel maybe used. We are going to stop using harmful means of transportation. Two hundred years of experimentation, including railways, has not worked.

Watercraft shall be propelled by non-combustion, non-nuclear means, e.g. sails, oars or poles, etc., no later than Dec 31st 2035, (except between Dec 31^st 2020 and Dec 31^st 2035 only biodiesel).

Motorbikes and snowmobiles use very little gas, however, they are far more insidious in their ability to penetrate and disrupt formerly "unattainable" areas, further threatening endangered species. In any case, whatever the mode of transport employed, plans and efforts shall be made for systematic retreat from environmentally sensitive areas.

There shall be no “free pass” for passenger vehicles running on “free energy” such as solar, or theoretical such as solar, wind, Tesla, hydro, perpetual motion or nuclear (whether fission or fusion).

In Planet Plan, all nuclear technologies and practices are taken to be of the utmost danger to the planet. There shall be an immediate termination of any government protection or guarantees on the safety or holding harmless of the use of nuclear materials. (As these chapters are primarily concerned with carbon burning, we will cover nuclear technologies in later chapters or books.)

CARBON BURNING

Let’s look a little at carbon burning. Let’s say our plan goes through and we do have 100 million people living in an uncivilized manner. That means that they will be living as tribes in the far-flung reaches of the earth. Can people in all parts of the earth go without using a fire everyday? Of course in tropical regions they wouldn’t need a fire, Africa and South America would primarily at the extremities.

There can be no such thing as a pre-fire age. The earth has always had fire ever since it has had substantial foliage because of natural lightning. Not to make too fine a point, but long before humans entered the picture, there has been extensive fire caused by thunderstorms. Therefore it is not appropriate to think in terms of… let’s have a civilization prior to fire, because, with due respect to human intelligence, whether civilized or no, it is inconceivable to think of tribes living in far northern or far southern exposures having forest fires and not readily learning about the advantages of fire and the control of fire for better survival. Also it would be naïve to try to establish rules via customs, mores, religious precepts, that a person should refrain, on moral or ethical grounds, burning carbon.

For example, it wouldn’t work to have a taboo against burning the very soul of mother earth. The only question would be could environmental or ecological mores be developed in each of the tribes using ideas pertinent and relevant to that tribe? To inculcate a respect in the natural world that would see huge widespread fires as destructive of the earth when they are caused by natural forces, such as lightning, that is beyond the scope. I’m talking more about human-caused situations, for example, the Kalapuya of Oregon’s Willamette Valley used to burn grass to provide better access to game and food plants such as camas.

I’m beginning to see that the importance of the use of fire needs to be more thoroughly investigated. I believe it is necessary, though difficult to work with the fire problem. It must be pursued, because there may be no other choice as a practical matter.

Our goals of keeping carbon consumption to a minimum would require banishment of all tribes from sensitive areas. At some point we have to raise the issue of genocide. When we talk about moving around tribes on the planet like pieces on a chessboard, that smacks of genocide. Also unpopular would be our idea of keeping civilization away from critical areas like islands. Depopulation of islands such as the British Isles and Japan would be unthinkable to these nations today. But with time, the wisdom of this Planet Plan will be appreciated.

A forestry expert told me that it’s better to be burning wood from above ground for heat and light energy than it is to burn coal, oil or gasoline, because fossil fuel products are mined and may not be replenished for millions of years, whereas by planting enough trees the carbon could be recouped.

We want the making of Planet Plan to draw in and include as much information as possible. One of our principle means of restoring the carbon balance will be to use and encourage sequestration of carbon through natural means such as encouraging the growth of large trees. Therefore it is important for us to be aware of alternative theories for the origin of hydrocarbons so that when more accurate calculations may be made, our information will be more accurate.

Most of us, upon hearing a question, “What is the origin of hydrocarbon deposits?” would answer that they are the result of biological growth sustained by solar energy, creating heavy biomass, which becomes hydrocarbons after being under pressure for millions of years.

Yes but are there any other alternatives? I know that prior to WWII the Germans began perfecting a process of turning urea into burnable hydrocarbons. What did they find? I have heard theories that some hydrocarbons may have been in the Earth’s surface at the time of the Earth’s creation. Theories may entail swirling gasses around the Sun eventually being pulled together into planets.

It is possible, according to these theories, that hydrocarbons may have been concentrated in the planet during these creative processes. If there is any truth to these theories it could be very damaging to the idea that we can, somehow, using natural processes or otherwise, sequester hydrocarbons back into the Earth so that the Earth returns to near its pristine condition.

We have heard a lot about ice-core drilling as a means for determining changes in gas composition and temperature changes over vast reaches of time. What other theories or technologies are available for determining atmospheric percentage contents and temperatures over time?

Solar energy is an alternative that needs to be researched and developed further.

II: POPULATION REDUCTION

Planetary emergency requires each "couple" to have no more than one child between them. Sex of partners doesn't matter. Partners procreate only once. If the child is not stillborn, that's the only one they get. It would be ideal for both partners to be sterilized after the birth of their child. Morning after pills and abortion shall backstop the best birth controls available. A foundation would make all kinds of birth control available. Natural multiple births would be okay, but use of fertilization techniques discouraged because they often lead to multiple births.

This would be strictly on a volunteer basis. Otherwise it opens the door to charges of alignment with nefarious schemes concocted by the ruling class to head off large populations by germ warfare, depleted uranium, pollution, developing new epidemic disease strains, biochemical trails, etc.

It would be important to reverse all incentives toward production of children, and foster cooperation of various religions in our acknowledged goal of population reduction. There could be financial incentives for sterilization, and such agreements would be immune to challenge. The person would sign, then return several days later to re-sign, indicating sobriety and comfort with the decision.

Couples should be encouraged to wait to have their child until they truly want one and are best able to care for her or him. It is important to rewrite the propaganda and psychology of the "only" child stigma. The child needn't be an "only" child if several families were cooperatively involved.

The Preliminary target population range for the planet is 50 to 100 million depending on further studies. This could take 500 years to attain through population reduction.

III. POPULATION RELOCATION

The Old World has been trashed for millennia. The New World has been recently trashed. It should be able to recover more quickly. Therefore, the population centers should be located in the Old World, in Eurasia.

For the renewed health of the planet, vast new wilderness preserves shall be created. The goal will be to leave islands and the western hemisphere largely unpopulated. Small tribal enclaves could be located in warm, temperate climates, thus requiring fewer resources for fuel. Eurasia is not necessarily distributed across or toward tropical zones, but nonetheless suffices. Centralized populations in Eurasia will make transport less difficult.

Choose a location so that humans won’t have to use energy to heat or cool. This band of population centers shall fluctuate north and south, etc, no millennium secular (long term) weather requirements, i.e.: if ice age comes, etc.

All areas known to hold hydrocarbon deposits shall be wilderness areas and provided special treatment in order to return to, as much as possible, a wilderness state. Wilderness preserves shall be located in: North, Central and South America, Australia, Greenland, Antarctica, and all of Africa. All islands, especially British Isles and Japan, New Zealand, Indonesia, Madagascar, etc.

* A new breed of professionals shall emerge, that of eco-therapists, part art/part science to help get "back to the garden". With the best results, how can we return a livable world to bears and salmon; pull dams?

*Aral Sea ---was I dreaming? Could Russia really have built huge new gas experimental station on island near Aral Sea?

It is difficult to understand what Hawaii would look like under the changes we foresee herein; therefore I will strive and seek help from others. By myself, I am not fully capable of setting up the goals and structures required. There are many Hawaiian Islands. A realistic plan might be having one of these islands hold a small population that can survive using skills from the Stone Age. Development on all other islands would be taboo. (Said island to be later determined after thorough research.) After it is determined how many tribes can be there, it is suggested here that only one island be used for however many tribes it is determined appropriate. This just makes sense in that it will give the other islands a rest. They have been especially injured by long years of exploitation and intensive chemical agriculture. Also the process shall begin of replacing non-native plants with native species. Extreme example: sailors used to drop off pigs and cattle so they would have something there the next time they came.

Some of the criteria for choosing the tribal land are ample fertile ground for food production on a primitive basis, and ample water to sustain it. The primary diet of most tribes would probably be from the sea.

IV. MORATORIA on ACTIVITIES such as building and mining

IMPLICATIONS, CONSEQUENCES

Whenever a new paradigm emerges, especially one like this (radical to the root), it fairly simply gives us ready answers to decide on issues heretofore befuddling.

Emergency moratorium on creating any new buildings

In the Old World, rebuilding on the same place could be permitted in appropriate areas. As for bridges, just quit maintaining them, we rarely can even paint them all.

Emergency moratorium on any mining except in conjunction with landfills.

Clearly, no more dredging should take place. There are plenty of natural harbors fit for sailing ships unless dredging is shown to be the overall best method of cleaning up a river, as was necessary to remove PCB’s in the upper Hudson River.

Clearly, there should be no opening of Arctic Wildlife Refuge or any other.

No problem anymore with Arab/Israeli conflict, because neither should be living there in that worn out desert. The area is probably only suitable for nomadic tribes.

Problems---Do we revert to draught animals such as horses, oxen and yaks?

CLEAN-UP DEBATE

Because cleaning up the environment generally involves machinery, we are going to switch the burden of proof using the assumption that it is better to let the situations collapse.

Set up and argument/debate:

Side one says cleaning up environmental catastrophes involves expending large amounts of carbon resources; therefore nature should be left to take over instead.

Side two; are you insane? Just go to the Hanford area at the Columbia River where open containers are waiting to overflow into the Columbia for dispersion into the world. No matter what the cost, we must prevent the flooding of the world with such huge rivers of radioactivity.

The Supplemental Notes For Planet Plan

Sub story: The Sources of Hydrocarbons

The premises of most ecologists include the idea that carbon dioxide has been increasing in the atmosphere. If we knew the source of what is being consumed perhaps we could just walk up to where we found it and put it back, and maybe then things could approach becoming normal again. This is much like thinking that an embezzled company experiencing financial difficulties could straighten out after the embezzled funds had been replaced.

Most scientists believe that the immense hydrocarbon deposits (oil and gas) are derived from fossil deposits over millions of years. That is to say, these deposits are actually the result of the concentration of millions of years of solar energy captured in plants through photosynthesis, then accounted for up the food chain with consumption by animals eventually decaying, leaving behind their traces in hydrocarbon deposits. There may be other more controversial theories for the origin of hydrocarbon deposits.

Einstein used to say you don’t understand a theory until you can explain it to a 12 year-old child.

A common form of embezzlement is when one takes from another an asset such as a pile of cash from a safe which it is thought can easily be replaced. Since it can easily be replaced in the mind of the taker, because he knows of a good investment. So he takes it out and he happens to know of a key piece of real estate that is about to be purchased and with this cash money, he buys it quickly with the idea that he can sell it for a quick profit since other buyers were having problems. However, what if it was not so easy to replace the taken cash? What if the safe was moved or the combination changed or some other complication? By the same token, what if the origins of hydrocarbons on earth were not limited just to fossil sources? What if we cannot put it back?

Common theories of the origin of the solar system include the theory that planets in the solar system originated through gravitational accretion of gasses and dust over a long time. Wouldn’t it be logical to guess that pockets of gasses would have been part of many of these planets? Many possibly including hydrocarbons. Wouldn’t it be ironic if, after “embezzling” hydrocarbons from the earth for so long, displacing their carbon burn–products, we find out that they cannot be replaced? Still, some ecologists believe we can naturally replace the burn-carbon using and enhancing natural processes, by planting and encouraging the growth of large trees over millions of years.

We need a thorough discussion of cessation of carbon burning, or non-combustion. Such a wide free-ranging discussion would include a thorough discussion of maximizing biomass in every area of the world.

It’s time to discuss thoroughly cessation of carbon-burning in general.

We need to find technologies other than ice core drilling to make some determination of atmospheric change.

Simplify, simplify, simplify. How would we explain this to a 5 or 10 year old?