ONE TOWN SQUARE: at the intersection of peak oil, climate change, and land use

Last remaining primeval forest in Europe under attack

August 12th, 2010 by Jim Just

Amazingly, there’s one remaining, more or less intact stand of primeval forest left in Europe: the Bialowieza forest, which straddles the border between Poland and Belarus.

Not surprisingly, that remnant 580-square-mile stand is under threat. Only 17% of the forest is protected as national park.  The rest is subject to selective logging, which proponents excuse as “good for the forest”.

The Bialowieza forest hosts a number of endangered species, including the European woodland bison, which lives nowhere else in the wild. The forest also provides habitat to wolves, boar, tarpan (a species of wild horse), badgers, moose, lynx, eagles and woodpeckers.

Greenpeace Poland is working to halt logging in the Bialowieza forest until new forest management plans are drawn up which would limit logging to the minimum required for local residents and ban it during the bird nesting season. Wish them luck.

Climate change predicted to destroy 80% of world’s rainforests by 2100

August 9th, 2010 by Jim Just

Scientists predict in a new study that fewer than one in five of the plants and animals which currently live in the world’s rainforests will still be here in 90 years time. The culprits? Climate change and deforestation.

The study, “Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide congruent forecasts under climate change”, is published in the June edition of Conservation Letters, an open-access journal. Here’s the abstract:

Good forecasts of climate change impacts on extinction risks are critical for effective conservation management responses. Species distribution models (SDMs) are central to extinction risk analyses. The reliability of predictions of SDMs has been questioned because models often lack a mechanistic underpinning and rely on assumptions that are untenable under climate change. We show how integrating predictions from fundamentally different modeling strategies produces robust forecasts of climate change impacts on habitat and population parameters. We illustrate the principle by applying mechanistic (Niche Mapper) and correlative (Maxent, Bioclim) SDMs to predict current and future distributions and fertility of an Australian gliding possum. The two approaches make congruent, accurate predictions of current distribution and similar, dire predictions about the impact of a warming scenario, supporting previous correlative-only predictions for similar species. We argue that convergent lines of independent evidence provide a robust basis for predicting and managing extinctions risks under climate change.

By 2100, climate change and deforestation could have altered two-thirds of the rainforests in Central and South America and about 70% in Africa. The Amazon Basin alone could see changes in biodiversity for 80% of the region.

A U.K. Telegraph article about the study quotes Daniel Nepstad, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center, which studies climate change in Massachusetts:

This study is the strongest evidence yet that the world’s natural ecosystems will undergo profound changes including severe alterations in their species composition through the combined influence of climate change and land use. Conservation of the world’s biota, as we know it, will depend upon rapid, steep declines in greenhouse gas emissions.

The quest for wheatgrass bread

July 7th, 2010 by Jim Just

The Land Institute near Salina, Kansas has been crossing selected strains of wild intermediate wheatgrass grain with annual wheat varieties to breed a commercially practical perennial grain. Gene Logsdon at OrganicToBe.org reports that pancakes made with flour (trademarked Kernza ™) from the resulting grain is pretty tasty.

The flour makes a light dough and the pancakes taste just a tad sweeter than ordinary wheat flour.  * * * It is exceptionally high in some nutrients known to be important to human health and deficient in many modern diets: Omega 3 fatty acids, calcium, lutein, and betaine. It is particularly high in folate, important for preventing stroke, cancer, heart disease and infertility. Folate is also believed to be important for maintaining good mental health in old age.  My mind generally glazes over when reading about nutrient values of various foods so that folate might come in handy. To me the important thing is that for once something that is good for me tastes good too. Kernza ™ does not have enough gluten in it to use alone for leavened breads, but as more and more crosses are made with it and regular wheat, all things are possible.

Being able to grow grain without plowing up millions of acres of soil every year would cut down on erosion and help build soil tilth while enabling farmers to cut way back on fuel and greenhouse gas emissions – saving farmers both time and money in the bargain.

But the search won’t be over until researchers come up with a good perennial bread flour.

Converging on collapse

May 21st, 2010 by Jim Just

Matthew Stein identifies six trends which he says are “converging on collapse”.

  • Climate change: Even if we implemented the most stringent greenhouse gas limits currently proposed, it is quite likely that our world’s climate will warm by 6.3F or more over the next century, leading to disastrous crop failures in most of the world’s productive farmlands and “breadbaskets”.
  • Peak Oil: Our global economy and culture are built largely upon a reliance on cheap oil. Even the U.S. military now believes that by 2012 surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015 the shortfall in output could reach 10 million barrels per day.
  • Collapse of the World’s Oceans: The world’s major fisheries, zooplankton, and coral reefs are all either in collapse or in danger of collapse.
  • Deforestation: Over 50% of the world’s forests have already disappeared, and much of the rest is in threatened. Deforestation contributes approximately 25% of all global greenhouse gasses, nearly double the 14% that transportation and industry sectors each contribute. Additionally, the forests of the world are a critical part of the weather cycle as well as the carbon-oxygen cycle – loss of forest results in “desertification”  down wind.
  • The Global Food Crisis: For the first time since the “green revolution” started, our world is producing less food each year, even as population continues to rise.  We’re loosing top soil and arable land, water for irrigation is becoming more and more scarce – and climate change is just beginning to kick in.
  • Over Population: In the mid 1980s our world first overshot its capacity to provide for its human population, yet population continues to grow. The world’s population is projected to reach 7 billion in the year 2012, meaning that between the start of the year 2000 and the end of 2012  more people will have been added to the population of our world than lived on the entire planet just two hundred years ago.

The picture drawn by Stein is an illustration of what happens as Earth’s inherent limits to growth are approached and then exceeded. As a population grows, at some point it begins to exhaust the ecosystem’s sources of food and energy while at the same time its excretions begin to overwhelm the ecosystems sinks, its ability to absorb wastes.

Imagine a fermentation tank, flush with freshly crushed Pinot Noir. Now add yeast. The little critters feast on the abundant sugars, excreting alcohol. After a few generations of exponential growth, the yeast colony is thriving – some are undoubtedly ascribing their prosperity to a yeasty capitalism and free markets. A few more generations, and the once-cocky yeasts are now in a panic:  will we run out of sugar before we succumb to alcohol poisoning?

Are we smarter than yeasts? Can we behave other than as an organism thrown blindly into the world?

As Stein implores, we have no choice but to act individually as if we can collectively change the universe.

Honeybee losses threaten food security

May 5th, 2010 by Jim Just

In the United States, for the fourth year in a row, more than a third of honeybee colonies have failed to survive the winter.

As an article in the U.K. Guardian explains, if honeybees are in terminal collapse the world could be on the brink of biological disaster:

The decline of the country’s estimated 2.4 million beehives began in 2006, when a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD) led to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of colonies. Since then more than three million colonies in the US and billions of honeybees worldwide have died and scientists are no nearer to knowing what is causing the catastrophic fall in numbers.

* * *

The collapse in the global honeybee population is a major threat to crops. It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute some £26bn to the global economy.

Scientists believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies.

Losses in some commercial honeybee operations are running at 50% or greater. Continued losses of this magnitude are not economically sustainable for commercial beekeepers.

The Guardian article includes a litany of the catastrophic consequences of honeybee colony collapse:

Flowering plants require insects for pollination. The most effective is the honeybee, which pollinates 90 commercial crops worldwide. As well as most fruits and vegetables – including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots – they pollinate nuts, sunflowers and oil-seed rape. Coffee, soya beans, clovers – like alfalfa, which is used for cattle feed – and even cotton are all dependent on honeybee pollination to increase yields.

In the UK alone, honeybee pollination is valued at £200m. Mankind has been managing and transporting bees for centuries to pollinate food and produce honey, nature’s natural sweetener and antiseptic. Their extinction would mean not only a colourless, meatless diet of cereals and rice, and cottonless clothes, but a landscape without orchards, allotments and meadows of wildflowers – and the collapse of the food chain that sustains wild birds and animals.

Meat doesn’t have to be bad

March 31st, 2010 by Jim Just

What if we could achieve all of the following:

  • A more humane livestock system
  • Healthier and tastier meat and dairy products
  • Less E. coli food poisoning
  • Elimination of feedlots
  • Better manure management
  • Increased groundwater recharge
  • More fertile soil and more nutritious forages
  • More diverse and healthier ecosystems
  • Enormous savings in energy
  • Reduced use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
  • Reduced flooding and soil erosion

And, to top it off:

  • A dramatic reduction in global warming gases.

Richard Manning in an article in Mother Earth News titled The Amazing Benefits of Grass-fed Meat argues that we can have all this. And not just for niche markets – we can scale it up. We can convert half of the 150 million acres used to grow corn and soy to permanent pasture and not lose one ounce of meat production.

Tastier, more humane meat – and less global warming. Industrial farming relies on huge amounts of chemical fertilizers that produce emissions contributing to global warming. Nitrogen fertilizer reacts with oxygen to form nitrous oxide (N2O), which has become the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.  N2O has a global warming potential 296 times larger than an equal mass of carbon dioxide and also contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion.  In corn and soy production, tilling adds oxygen which promotes oxidation. Tillage also releases carbon dioxide, along with methane and nitrous oxide. While a growing corn field sucks up a lot of carbon dioxide, the carbon is soon released as the disced down stalks and leaves decay. All tillage systems have been found to be net contributors to global warming, with the worst offenders being the annual crops corn, soybeans and wheat farmed with conventional methods. Conversely, fields of perennial crops pull both methane and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it in the soil. Manning points to evidence that perennial grasslands can, under certain conditions,  be even better at sequestering carbon than forests.

Manning calculates that if we converted half the U.S. corn and soy acres to pasture, we might cut carbon emissions by roughly 144 trillion pounds. That’s not even counting the reduced use of fossil fuels that would also result.

An additional benefit from the reduction of industrial corn and soybean farming not mentioned by Manning would be a reduction of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the use of chemical fertilizers upstream in the Mississippi basin.

So what’s stopping us? Redesigning our food system would require shifting, slashing, or eliminating massive federal subsidies for corn and soybean production – subsidies that end up in the pockets of the agribusiness conglomerates or the wealthy. The “health care” debate, which resulted in further entrenching the parasitic insurance industry, shows how likely that is to happen. Brian Riedl, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls farm subsidies “America’s largest corporate welfare program.

Congress justifies agribusiness subsidies as keeping America’s food supply cheap and abundant. No matter that the food’s killing us while bankrupting the health care system and destroying global ecosystems.

The futility of environmentalism

March 7th, 2010 by Jim Just

Stuart Staniford at Early Warning mines the data contained in Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (a U.S. government report we covered here) and concludes that all the work environmentalists have done to protect species and habitats is doomed to be in vain:

All the work that’s been done over the past century to preserve some wild ecosystems in national parks etc, is going to be mostly subverted.  The park may still be there, but what grows in it will, in most cases, be nothing like the thing that we were originally trying to save.

As the impacts of global warming manifest themselves over the coming century, warming temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will result in just about every landscape in the country changing radically.

Staniford’s piece exposes the flaw in the approach environmentalists took in the 70s, the approach (taken by Oregon’s statewide planning Goal 5 , for example): identify a “significant” resource, draw a line around it, and protect it from conflicting uses. Protecting a living resource requires much more than drawing a line around it.  Rather, you have to maintain the health of the ecosystem within which it is embedded.

Within a global climate system wildly disrupted by human greenhouse gas emissions, how could we possibly expect that more local ecosystems could remain unaffected?

Humanity’s long experiment with “more” is over

January 29th, 2010 by Jim Just

Chris Martenson used to be a corporate honcho with a big expensive house in the suburbs on the Connecticut coast. Now he’s downsized, is living in a rural community, has traded in his twin-engine fishing boat for a kayak – and travels the country giving lectures on why we’ll never see a “recovery” from our economic throes. What happened, and why?

In a speech before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Martenson lays out the hard facts:

  • There are 70 million more people on the surface of the planet this year than last year.
  • Each of these new humans consumes some amount of resources such as food, oil, air, soil, water, copper, coal, or timber.
  • Someday, perhaps already, maybe a little later, the global flow rate of oil coming out of the ground will peak and then decline inexorably thereafter.
  • From 2000 to 2008, eight short years, the total amount of debt in this country doubled while no net jobs were created and median incomes actually went backwards.
  • During the industrial revolution, humans have consumed vastly more energy each decade. During the lifetime of a 22-year-old, humans will have burned more than half of all the oil ever consumed throughout history.
  • Oceanic fish stocks, ancient aquifers, and topsoil are all being depleted at unsustainable rates.

Martenson goes on to explore the implications of these realities. To summarize:

All these facts share a single common feature: they are tied to exponential growth in some way. There’s nothing inherently wrong with exponential growth, as long as you have unlimited room and unlimited resources. We live on a finite planet. Time runs out in a hurry towards the end of any exponential growth system, forcing hurried decisions and severely limiting options. And there are clear signs that several key resources on our planet are in their final minutes.

Just as higher prices for fish will not cause more cod to come from the depleted fisheries, oil fields will yield their treasures in accordance to geological limits and not because our economics textbooks say they should.

Adapting to a future of less and less oil will take decades of preparation – but we’ve not yet even begun. TIME is a critical factor. SCALE is an issue. And then there’s COST.

COST – now there’s the economic rub. Every dollar in circulation was loaned into existence, with interest. The effect of loaning all of our money into existence, with interest, is this: there is always more debt than money floating around in the system. Always. And the amount of debt will compound over time – that is, it will grow exponentially. To service the debts that are growing exponentially, the economy must also grow exponentially.

See the problem?

An energy crisis rooted in resource limits will quickly translate into an economic crisis unlike any other. Consequently, the era of growth is ending and what Martenson calls “an exciting new chapter” is about to begin.

Why the optimism? Martenson sees our challenge as not to find vast new resources to exploit, but to undertake the far more sophisticated and worthwhile task of using what we’ve got more wisely. A life with less pollution, more free time, meaningful jobs, more happiness, less stress and greater connection to each other as well as to nature are all within the realm of the possible.

As Martenson says, the longer we fiddle around the more our options shrink. Let’s hope it’s not already too late.

Hitting limits to growth: we’ve entered a new era

January 4th, 2010 by Jim Just

Dr. Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of “Limits to Growth” and its subsequent updates, has a powerpoint presentation and podcast of a recent talk available at the Population Institute site.

Most interesting is his view that the end of growth does not come directly from depletion, but indirectly from rising capital expenditures as the costs of exploiting resource sources and dealing with saturating sinks rise exponentially. And as he points out, that’s what we’re beginning to see already:

Most people assume that the major global difficulties would occur after the end to growth.

This is not correct.

The globe’s population would experience the most stress prior to the peak, as pressures mount high enough to neutralize the enormous political, demographic, and economic forces that now sustain growth.

We are in the early phases of that period now.

Meadows’ presentation finishes up with a chart showing CO2 emissions as a function of four factors:

1. Number of people.
2. Number of units of capital per person, which is a surrogate for living standards.
3. The amount of energy required to build and operate that capital.
4. The fraction of that energy that comes from non-fossil sources.

Meadows points out the key to our climate change predicament lies in reversing population and consumption growth. If we can’t change those, technology can at best only prolong the agony.

Gail the Actuary at The Oil Drum transcribes his finishing words:

So far, our concern about climate change had manifested itself through efforts to improve efficiency and to implement alternative energy sources–the so-called technology options. I will just close by pointing out that as long as we ignore demographic and cultural issues, the growth in the first two factors will continue to offset all of the improvement we make in factors 3 and 4. And so until we can understand how to begin reducing the growth in the first two factors, climate change is a foregone conclusion.

Richard Heinberg also has his presentation posted at the same site. Heinberg focuses on how peak oil and the consequent end of growth led to the financial crisis, one that will not be resolved in the way to which we have become accustomed. The end of growth means we have entered a new era.

Climate change talks, EPA action: too little, too late?

December 7th, 2009 by Jim Just

Even as the climate change talks begin today in Copenhagen and as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announces the U.S. will begin regulating greenhouses gases regardless of what the House and Senate do, some are warning: what we are considering doing, won’t be enough.

Consider that economic infrastructure now being installed around the globe is locking in future increases in fossil fuel consumption. Take China, for example.

In 2008, less than nine million cars were sold in China. In 2009, car sales will rise to between 12 and 13 million. By 2015, car sales are expected to reach 16 million – an increase of 44% over 2008 levels. The cumulative increase in cars on the road in China cannot do other than increase future demand for oil, as gasoline and diesel.

At the beginning of 2006, China had an estimated 350 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in operation. An additional 600 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity (net of retirements) is projected to be brought on line in China by 2030 – an increase of 42% over 2006 levels.

Not to pick on China. The U.S. is responsible for 29% of carbon dioxide emissions over past 150 years, triple China’s share. But assigning blame for greenhouse gas emissions is irrelevant to crafting a solution to the climate change crisis.

Even while a new study published in Nature Geoscience (abstract here) reports that over the long term Earth’s temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, the decade of the 2000s will go down as the warmest on record – and climatologists warn warmer weather is on the way.

In a speech to delegates at Copenhagen, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri went down the list of impacts from global warming, some of which we are already beginning to see:

  • More heat waves and heavy rainfall events
  • Increase in tropical cyclone intensity
  • Disappearance of Arctic sea ice
  • Decrease in water resources in semi-arid areas, such as the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil
  • Elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 meters
  • Species threatened with extinction
  • Greater stress on water resources from population growth and economic and land use change, including urbanization
  • Significant future increase in heavy rainfall in many regions, with greater flood risk, while other regions dry up
  • More than two billion people will live in areas threatened by flood
  • Increasing threat to low-lying island nations and coastal cities and deltas from rising seas Seas are already rising because of melting glaciers and icesheets as well as expansion of the oceans as they warm

The good news may be that the scenarios spun out by the IPCC are fantasies when it comes to potential future fossil fuel consumption. The fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal – simply will not be physically available to generate the greenhouse gas emissions projected in the several IPCC scenarios. Even the IEA, in its recently released World Energy Outlook 2009, is admitting its projections of future energy availability are nothing more than “faith based”, conceding the majority of oil production in 2030 will be coming from “fields yet to be developed or found” and that “output at existing fields . . . will drop by almost two-thirds by 2030.”

The bad news is, the science keeps getting increasingly gloomy. Every new study seems to report that Earth’s climate is more sensitive than previously believed and that “tipping points” are fast approaching, if not already exceeded.

And the good news is pretty dismal, for business-as-usual. If peak production of fossil fuels is near enough to ensure that climate catastrophe will not occur no matter what emissions policies we adopt, that in turn means that our energy policies are hopeless when it comes to transitioning to a social and economic system based on renewable energy resources that in any way resembles the industrial society we have come to think of as normal and desirable.

We cannot avoid the reality that any possible solution to our energy and climate predicament requires that we invent an entirely new economic model, one that doesn’t strive for or depend on economic growth but instead is based on the ecological principle that we must learn to find happiness within limits imposed by the natural systems within which we all live.

Unfortunately, economic growth remains the official ideology at Copenhagen. How to continue on that path is the agenda.

Emissions up 41% since 1990, sinks failing

November 19th, 2009 by Jim Just

Earth’s carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ are not keeping up with the amount of the greenhouse gas being produced. That’s the conclusion of a paper published in Nature Geoscience:

In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability.

Carbon released by fossil fuel burning (black) continues to accumulate in the air (red), oceans (blue), and land (green). The oceans take up roughly a quarter of manmade CO2, but evidence suggests they are now taking up a smaller proportion. Credit: Samar Khatiwala, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

The oceans play a key role in regulating climate, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. The first year-by-year accounting of this mechanism during the industrial era suggests the oceans are not keeping up with rising emissions – a finding with ominous implications for future climate.

The researchers estimate that the oceans last year took up a record 2.3 billion tons of CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels. But with overall emissions growing rapidly, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans since 2000 may have declined by as much as 10%.

The study also found that a 29% rise in carbon emissions between 2000 and 2008 can be attributed to a large extent to burning coal and the growth of ‘emerging economies’. The use of coal as a fuel has now surpassed oil.

Developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries – but a quarter of their growth in emissions is from producing stuff for export to developed countries.

In spite of the global economic downturn, emissions increased by 2% during 2008.

The press release summarizes the main findings of the study:

  • CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels increased by two per cent from 2007 to 2008, by 29 per cent between 2000 and 2008, and by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2008.  1990 is the reference year of the Kyoto Protocol.
  • CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased at an average annual rate of 3.4 per cent between 2000 and 2008, compared with one per cent per year in the 1990s.
  • Emissions from land use change have remained almost constant since 2000, but now account for a significantly smaller proportion of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (20 per cent in 2000 to 12 per cent in 2008).
  • The fraction of total CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere has likely increased from 40 to 45 per cent since 1959. Models suggest this is due to the response of the natural CO2 sinks to climate change and variability.
  • Emissions from coal are now the dominant fossil fuel emission source, surpassing 40 years of oil emission prevalence.
  • The financial crisis had a small but discernable impact on emissions growth in 2008 – with a two per cent increase compared with an average 3.6 per cent over the previous seven years. On the basis of projected changes in GDP, emissions for 2009 are expected to fall to their 2007 levels, before increasing again in 2010.
  • Emissions from emerging economies such as China and India have more than doubled since 1990 and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries.
  • A quarter of the growth in CO2 emissions in developing countries can be accounted for by an increase in international trade of goods and services.

Add bluefin tuna, caribou to list of species at risk of extinction

November 6th, 2009 by Jim Just

Add the Atlantic bluefin tuna and maybe the caribou to the list of species threatened with extinction.

Google News has an article about the bluefin tuna:

An international fisheries group set up to protect Atlantic tuna has done the opposite and driven one species of the fish, the bluefin, to the edge of extinction[.]

ICCAT [the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas] has for decades set quotas above what its own scientists have recommended for bluefin tuna. Those quotas are systematically exceeded by industrial fleets, which over-fish the species.

Combined with illegal fishing, this has caused the population to decline by more than 85 percent in the eastern Atlantic and by more than 90 percent in the western Atlantic.

The article quotes Susan Lieberman, director of international policy at the Pew Environment Group:

Enough is enough, it’s time for a zero quota; we’re going to put the brakes on this fishery. If we had any terrestrial species that had declined this much, this quickly, we would have said we have to shut this down, we have to let them recover.

So what about those terrestrial species? Google News has another article about caribou:

Once, caribou wandered over the Arctic tundra in herds that took days to pass. . .

Today, scientists fear caribou are the new cod. . .

Biologists say 15 of the world’s 23 herds are shrinking. Only six herds, generally the small ones, are growing.

Concern has been building for years. But this summer, survey results carried a distinct whiff of impending catastrophe.

N.W.T. biologists estimated the Bathurst herd of the central barrens had fallen from over 120,000 animals in 2006 to 32,000 – a 75 per cent implosion representing the loss of nearly 90,000 caribou in only three years.

The news was even worse to the east, where scientists studied cow-calf pairs in the Beverly herd.

Aerial survey teams couldn’t even find enough pairs to get statistically valid data. A herd that numbered 280,000 animals only 15 years ago was simply gone.

“Collapse. I think that’s a good term,” said Ross Thompson of the Beverly-Qamanirjuaq Management Board.

Scientists blame a combination of factors: climate change, aboriginal hunting and industrial development. Climate change is degrading forage quality; producing heavier, icier snow that makes it more difficult to get at food; and improving conditions for the biting, bloodsucking flies that drive caribou crazy and impair their ability to breed by preventing them from building their strength. Caribou are now preyed upon from snowmobiles and pickups rather than by dogsled. Then industrial development – diamond mines, oil and gas exploration and intensive mineral prospecting – on or adjacent to calving grounds not only disrupt caribou movement between winter and summer ranges and calving grounds; caribou tend to avoid coming near such sites, and so their range is reduced.

Deforestation led to demise of Nasca in Peru

November 2nd, 2009 by Jim Just

The Nasca people, best known for giant geoglyphs etched into the surface of a vast desert plain, once flourished in the valleys of south coastal Peru. About 500 AD their civilization collapsed into a bloody resource war and then vanished.

Photograph: Kevin Schafer/Corbis, published in the UK Guardian

What happened? Archaeologists from Cambridge University say the Nasca brought about their own demise by ruining the fragile ecosystem that supported them. Their study was published in the journal Latin American Antiquity.

Over the course of many generations, the Nasca cleared areas of forest for agriculture. The huarango tree, which once blanketed what is now desert, was gradually replaced by crops such as cotton and maize.

But the short-term agricultural gain came at a high price because the trees were the critical component of the ecosystem. Dr. Beresford-Jones explains what happened:

The huarango is a remarkable nitrogen-fixing tree and it was an important source of food, forage, timber and fuel for the local people. Furthermore, it is the ecological ‘keystone’ species in this desert zone, enhancing soil fertility and moisture, ameliorating desert extremes in the microclimate beneath its canopy and underpinning the floodplain with one of the deepest root systems of any tree known.

In time, gradual woodland clearance crossed an ecological threshold – sharply defined in such desert environments – exposing the landscape to the region’s extraordinary desert winds and the effects of El Niño floods.

In the absence of huarango cover, when El Niño did strike, the river down-cut into its floodplain, Nasca irrigation systems were damaged and the area became unworkable for agriculture. Infant mortality rose, while average adult life expectancy fell. The crops that had been cultivated by the Nasca for generations disappeared, and the area fell victim to a severe drought.

There are now no undisturbed ecosystems in the region, and what remains of the old-growth huarango forests is being destroyed in illegal charcoal-burning operations.

No solution to our agricultural predicament

October 26th, 2009 by Jim Just

Compared to any other human activity, land use and agriculture are the greatest emitters of greenhouse gasses.

You heard that right. More than the emissions from all the world’s passenger cars, trucks, trains and planes, or the emissions from all electricity generation or manufacturing. Of the three most important man-made greenhouse gasses — carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation, methane emissions from animals and rice fields, and nitrous oxide emissions from heavily fertilized fields  — account for 30% of the total.

Jonathan Foley points out at Yale Environment 360 that since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystems than agriculture. Continued population growth is pushing global agricultural systems to their very limits. He asks:

Already, we have cleared or converted more than 35 percent of the earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, whether for croplands, pastures or rangelands. . . What will happen to our remaining ecosystems, including tropical rainforests, if we need to double or triple world agricultural production, while simultaneously coping with climate change?

We’re already exploiting Earth’s water resources in an unsustainable manner, drawing on fossil aquifers and draining rivers before they reach the sea. The use of industrial fertilizers and other chemicals has more than doubled the flows of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the environment and fundamentally upset the chemistry of the entire planet. How can Earth cope with future demands from increasing population and agricultural consumption?

Unfortunately, Foley’s answer is pretty feeble. First, acknowledge we have a problem. Then, “find ways to simultaneously increase production of our agricultural systems while greatly reducing their environmental impacts” – what he calls a “greener agricultural revolution.”

What Foley can’t admit is, we don’t have a “problem” that can be solved with yet another technofix. We’re in a predicament, from which there’s no solution, no easy way out. The best we can hope for is to face our predicament squarely, with as much courage and grace as we can muster.

Running a real-time test of peak oil theory

October 13th, 2009 by Jim Just

Those in the peak oil community – including this blog – have long been predicting that peak oil implies the end of economic growth as we have come to know it.

Global oil production has been on a plateau since late 2004 and – at least for the moment – appears to have peaked as of July 2008. As Sadad al Husseini has said, the economics of oil have broken down:

It’s not a matter of you throw a little money and you get a lot of oil; it’s now you throw a lot of money and you get a little oil.

In a speech at the 2009 ASOP International Conference in Denver, Richard Heinberg reiterates the economic consequences and points out they were predicted by the peakists:

As we all know, the global economy began contracting last year—though that’s just a nice, abstract way to put it. Industrial production fell. Corporations downsized or disappeared. Fifty trillion dollars in global capital vaporized in stock market crashes, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and defaults. Millions of people lost employment and housing. Globalization went into reverse.

Also, in 2008 the oil price spiked 50 percent higher, in inflation-adjusted terms, than at any point in previous history. It would be an enormous oversimplification to say that the oil price spike “caused” the world recession, but the fact that the price spike and the economic crisis occurred at the same time is hardly meaningless coincidence.

In effect, we are seeing a vindication of what many of us have been predicting for a long time.

Fossil fuel depletion is not the only physical barrier that we’re bumping up against.  The climate change impacts that are beginning to be felt and a score of other indices of environmental decline show that energy limitations are only one of a number of limits to growth. As Dan Allen would put in Obama’s mouth:

We cannot have infinite wants on a finite planet. These were childish wishes.

Even after the crash, nobody is questioning the reality of our previous prosperity. The crisis was  not sufficient to shake the current system; if anything, the grip has been tightened. We all seem to still be hoping that everything can return to the way it was. The dominance of the finance sector on the economy and our politics has not changed. We have poured trillions into propping up a growth-dependent financial system, when we desperately needed to instead begin building a social, political, and economic system that would allow to live as gracefully as possible while the human economy shrinks as a subset of the ecology.

Peak oil theory in its broadest formulation predicts that resource depletion means that growth is no longer possible.  Global warming (and other “sink” impacts) mean that continued growth isn’t even desirable, as it would lead to catastrophic ecological collapse. We’re in the middle of a real-time test of both theories.

The follies of magical thinking

July 31st, 2009 by Jim Just

Dave Cohen at the Energy Bulletin observes that the 21st century will surely usher in a peak and decline in both expansion and growth for human population and economies. He then takes on what he calls “friedmanism” – a syndrome certainly not particular to Thomas Friedman, but he serves as exemplar: the “Awful Truth” is too much for him to handle.

Cohen observes Friedman has to be a cheerleading, “blue skies” kind of guy if he wants to be a mover and shaker, and a fixture at the New York Times. That’s true, not only at the New York Times. Joseph Romm, for all his invaluable work is another example. As Cohen says, realism will get you fired in a heart beat. Why do you think we have a cheerleader as President (now that’s two in a row!). Realism won’t get you elected.

We’re in the middle of Earth’s sixth great extinction event – this one caused by human activities. This loss of species will pose a major threat to human existence in the next century. Yet we press on as usual, mining fossil fuels and burning oil, gas, and coal as if nothing’s wrong. It’s keep the economy growing at all costs – even at the cost of the collapse of Earth’s ecological systems that sustain us.

Pundits like Roger Pielke Jr. warns that we can’t aspire to the impossible – that is, to actually doing something to mitigate global warming before it’s too late. That would be “magical thinking.” Pielke says setting unattainable emissions targets such  is not a policy – it’s an act of wishful thinking. Nature doesn’t give a damn about what’s politically possible or not. Believing that reality can be placated by half-measures is magical thinking, in my book.

Question: why is a supposedly reputable journal like Yale Environment 360 publishing bilge by Roger Pielke Jr.?

Realistic thinking would be to admit that the days of economic growth are over and to begin planning for a measured descent; to admit that global warming is a crisis and to take whatever steps necessary to avert catastrophe; to admit that the end of the fossil fuel age is upon us and to begin to transition to living well on far less. To optimistically believe that these problems will solve themselves without effort and without drastically changing our ways is magical thinking.

Realistic thinking would recognize that the American Empire is unsustainable and needs to be dismantled. We spend hundreds of billions each year on so-called  “defense” to sustain a network of 865 military facilities stretched around the world. As Chalmers Johnson writes at TomDispatch:

However ambitious President Barack Obama’s domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

But I suppose it is magical thinking, to think that anything will be done to avert disaster, either here in the U.S. or globally. Humans are what they are. Things will unfold as they will unfold.

Cohen ends his piece by citing David Quammen:

I can’t top David Quammen. As he says, in some millions of years the planet will fill up with life again-that’s the good news.

A steady-state economics for the U.S. and the world

June 5th, 2009 by Jim Just

Eco-economist Herman Daly in a recent speech at a United States Society for Ecological Economics conference laid out ten specific policy proposals for moving to a steady-state economy at a level of physical wealth that the biosphere can sustain. Too bad Daly isn’t at the helm of U.S. economic policy rather than Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke – for whom the economy revolves around Wall Street rather than being embedded in the real, physical world.

Daly’s ten policy prescriptions are summarized below – but be sure to read the entirety of his speech at The Oil Drum to catch the flavor and nuance of his argument.

1. Cap-auction-trade systems for basic resources. Caps limit biophysical scale by imposing quotas on depletion or pollution, whichever is more limiting. Auctioning the quotas captures scarcity rents for equitable redistribution. Trade allows efficient allocation to highest uses.

2. Ecological tax reform—shift tax base from value added (labor and capital) and on to “that to which value is added”, namely the entropic throughput of resources extracted from nature (depletion), and returned to nature (pollution).

3. Limit the range of inequality in income distribution—a minimum income and a maximum income. Without aggregate growth poverty reduction requires redistribution. Set fair limits to the range of inequality.

4. Free up the length of the working day, week, and year—allow greater option for part-time or personal work so as to maximize enjoyment of life.

5. Re-regulate international commerce—move away from free trade, free capital mobility and globalization, adopt compensating tariffs to protect efficient national policies of cost internalization from standards-lowering competition. Trade and capital mobility must be balanced and fair, not deregulated or “free”.

6. Downgrade the IMF-WB-WTO to something like Keynes’ original plan for a multilateral payments clearing union, charging penalty rates on surplus as well as deficit balances—seek balance on current account, and thereby avoid large foreign debts and capital account transfers.

7. Move away from fractional reserve banking toward a system of 100% reserve requirements. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage in hands of the government rather than private banks, which would no longer be able to create money out of nothing and lend it at interest.

8. Stop treating the scarce as if it were non-scarce, but also stop treating the non-scarce as if it were scarce. Enclose the remaining commons of rival natural capital (e.g. atmosphere, electromagnetic spectrum, public lands) in public trusts, and price it by a cap-auction–trade system, or by taxes, while freeing from private enclosure and prices the non-rival commonwealth of knowledge and information.

9. Stabilize population. As a start contraception should be made available for voluntary use everywhere.

10. Reform national accounts—separate GDP into a cost account and a benefits account.

Mystery message: the myth of growth has failed

June 1st, 2009 by Jim Just

This passage on the Peak Oil News site conveys the powerful message that the myth of growth has proven a failure:

Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate the economy will be 80 times that size by the year 2100.

This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems.

For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that – financial crises aside – growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries, where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our well-being.

The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters – as it has done recently – politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries.

But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.

This passage is attributed to the report Prosperity Without Growth, recently released by the U.K. Sustainable Development Commission – the government’s “independent watchdog on sustainable development.” The mystery is, I can’t find anything like it anywhere – in the report itself, in the summary, in any press releases, in any interviews with the report’s author. WTF?

Oops – there it is, right in the Forward.

G20 gets thumbs down from peakers, environmentalists

April 4th, 2009 by Jim Just

In an earlier post I observed that the G20 summit ended without tackling the world’s underlying problems. Others whom I respect greatly are now starting to weigh in with similar observations.

Kjell Aleklett writes, there’s Not enough oil for the G20 package. If the stimulus package that the G20 group decided on is to achieve its stated objective and return us to the growth path we’ve come to expect, then we will need an increase of 8 to 9 million barrels per day during the next 5 years. Such an increase is not possible. He says what the G20 group should be discussing is the investments required to transform the energy system to renewables.

George Monbiot writes the G20 forgot the environment. Climate breakdown, peak oil and resource depletion all dwarf the financial crisis in financial and humanitarian terms.

Monbiot sums up the G20 communiqué:

We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, will use every cent we don’t possess to rescue corporate capitalism from its contradictions and set the world economy back onto the path of unsustainable growth. We have already spent trillions of dollars of your money on bailing out the banks, so that they can be returned to their proper functions of fleecing the poor and wrecking the Earth’s living systems. Now we’re going to spend another $1.1 trillion. As an exemplary punishment for their long record of promoting crises, we will give the IMF and the World Bank even more of your money. These actions constitute the greatest mobilisation of resources to support global financial flows in modern times.

Oh – and we nearly forgot. We must do something about the environment. We don’t have any definite plans as yet, but we’ll think of something in due course.

Monbiot accuses the G20 of engaging in “magical thinking”, believing that getting the economy back to where it was – infinite growth on a finite planet – can somehow be reconciled with the pledge “to address the threat of irreversible climate change”.

Friends of the Earth’s executive director Andy Atkins laments:

“Once again world leaders have short-changed people and the planet. The economic system and the global environment are on a devastating collision course – but despite pledging to build an inclusive, green and sustainable recovery little has been done to change direction.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

Tacking climate change on to the end of the communiqué as an after thought does not demonstrate anything like the seriousness we needed to see. Hundreds of billions were found for the IMF and World Bank, but for making the transition to a green economy there is no money on the table, just vague aspirations, talks about talks and agreements to agree.”

And here’s David Norman, World Wildlife Fund campaigns director:

Any argument that climate change should be moved down the political agenda until the current economic crisis is addressed is incredibly shortsighted. Finance and the climate are inextricably linked, and if we don’t address climate change now, we will certainly pay later.

Chu’s biofuels dream is a geoengineering nightmare

March 28th, 2009 by Jim Just

David Cohen at ASPO-USA (also The Energy Bulletin) makes obvious something that I hadn’t realized before: Energy Secretary Chu’s (and by extension President Obama’s) energy policy, in relying on 4th generation biofuels, puts its faith in a radical form of geoengineering.

Cohen thinks the odds of pulling off that gamble at all, much less without unforeseen and unintended consequences, are slim.

Chu wants nothing less than to alter the Earth’s primary productivity – the proportion of the sun’s energy available to and assimilated by plants – to achieve greater efficiency in the conversion of sunlight to chemical energy than Nature has after 3.5 billion years of evolution.

After the costs of respiration, plant net primary production is about 0.05% of the solar constant. Note that this is the “average” efficiency, and in land plants this value can reach ~2-3% and in aquatic systems this value can reach ~1%. This relatively low efficiency of conversion of solar energy into energy in carbon compounds sets the overall amount of energy available to heterotrophs at all other trophic levels. Chu’s objective is to design microbes and plants which have been genetically altered to speed up or enhance photosynthesis. Chu describes his strategy for developing 4th generation biofuels as a “portfolio” approach.  This is from a news report on his confirmation hearings:

Such a multi-pronged approach looks to optimize all phases of biofuels production with no preconceived idea of which area is likely to offer the biggest payoff. And that, Chu said, “is why I’m so optimistic some real progress can be made.”

Cohen rechristens it as “scattershot” approach – randomly fire a lot of bullets in some general direction and hope you hit something – and points out it really means we don’t have a clue which ideas might work:

“No preconceived idea” means “I have no idea.”

Even if the research efforts should bear fruit, putting 4th generation biofuels to work will require the creation of artificial ecosystems, i.e. systems which have been human-designed and -engineered for specific purposes. Cohen cautions the mere fact that evolution has placed upper bounds on the efficiency of primary productivity in plants suggests that there are very deep reasons why this is so and that tampering with plant productivity may be a grave mistake or impossible.

Large-scale production of 4th generation biofuels is a form of geoengineering. We will plant energy crops on a land area of unknown size—this depends on the efficiency of the solar energy collection. (If no or only minor efficiency gains are achieved, there won’t be enough land.) Then we will harvest those crops and transport them to biorefineries, where biomass will be converted to fuels as shown in Figure 1. It is unknown how much energy the entire pathway itself would require, so we don’t know what the net energy will be. * * *

The lack of humility before Nature displayed here is nothing short of astonishing.

Cohen objects we shouldn’t be betting the farm on the unknown outcome of all these science experiments, and asks:

Why is geoengineering preferable to implementing sensible policies that promote liquid fuels frugality? Are these people crazy?

Here’s a synopsis of Cohen’s apologia for what would objectively seem to be insanity:

Human beings are very resistant to change. Societal behavioral changes are always gradual unless shocks occur that put large behavioral changes in motion. In the absence of such shocks, solutions to problems requiring rapid and deep behavioral change are politically impossible. Even politicians promising “change” quickly get with the program, which essentially amounts to doing nothing (doing nothing is a choice: it allows events take their natural course.) The promise offered by the magical technological solution to any problem is almost irresistible. If a problem is serious, as with energy, the more time a technological solution requires, the more popular it will be with politicians for whom gradual solutions are always good and shocks are always bad.

But his question remains:

Are these people crazy?