Spade & Spoon: Localizing the Way Westerners Eat
In The Petri Dish: The Plight of our Energy-Sucking Species
By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel, 7-17-07
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: An iteration of Bacteria by physicist/artist Eshel Ben-Jacob | |
|
This is not the decade of global warming or even climate change. It is one of ensuing ecological destruction.
When the energy runs dry, all of the systems we have so carelessly created to gulp that energy down will be worthless. We can build tiny houses (less than 100 square feet), rip up our lawns for edible estates, drive a prius, sell carbon credits on the Chicago climate exchange, or refocus our energy policy on biofuels and ethanol, but as Wes Jackson from the Land Institute argues, “We aren’t going to invent or grow our way out of this thing.” No amount of human innovation can stop the ensuing ecological destruction. To even begin to do that, humans will need to cut their energy use in half, in just ten years.
This was the sobering theme of the 2007 Sopris Conference: Innovative Ideas for a New West, held in Missoula this weekend. Sponsored by the Sopris Foundation, which aims to promote a self-sufficient and innovative West, the conference focused on the future of the West and its people who are known for their, “rogue effort and ingenuity.”
But it seems that regardless of this rogue effort and ingenuity, human ineptitude to live within the tides and provisions of the earth and our relentless need for carbon to fuel our current lives will end in our demise.
According to Jackson, this desire for energy is natural. All creatures want carbon because they need it to live. “We ache for carbon,” he says and in that desire we are not so different from pine trees or rabbits. We are just like bacteria in a Petri dish. As long as bacteria have no boundaries and plenty of sugar (that pretty white package of carbon energy) they will expand ad infinitum.
But there is not an infinite amount of energy to consume on this small planet of ours. The earth is a closed loop system whose energy production simply cannot be expanded. And so rather than expand upon the ways we use that energy, we must consider ways to reduce our use of it.
Our very agricultural systems are prime examples of our energy use ineptitude. According to the United Nations, agriculture is the most destructive activity on the planet. As we produce the food that is the energy to fuel our lives, we use oil energy to do it. We feed what Jackson calls the insidious “auto-mobilis” creatures to fuel our ability to grow food, work and live.
But as Jackson says, the energy crisis is the least of our worries. It’s temporary. It will pale in comparison to the longterm human crises that will follow. The larger problem with our energy crises is that it will lead to further misuse of the soil. And without healthy soil you cannot feed people and create healthy communities. These effects are seen around the world where 27 million people are slaves in countries where the soil is worn out.
For Ralph Grossi, the president of American Farmland Trust, farming is on the cusp of innovation because of biofuels and a new energy boom. And while there are divergent opinions about ethanol and the way it will increase food prices and not necessarily change our energy use patterns, ethanol discussions in Washington are well underway. As Congress debates the upcoming Farm Bill, ethanol will be a major focus. While Grossi is certainly more focused on the current conditions of the system that will allow farmers and ranchers to succeed, he also views agricultural landscapes as providing ecosystem services: environmental goods, wildlife habitat and open space. These services provide an emerging opportunity that can generate new streams of revenue for farmers and ranchers.
But according to Howard Kuntzler, such opportunities will not be realized if the more pressing concern of our misuse of energy resources is not quickly addressed. With rather vociferous arrogance, Kuntzler assured attendees that, “we are not entitled to an orderly transition. And it won’t be.” Our “fossil fuel fiesta,” is over and what will come is a level of despair that we cannot imagine.
His acerbic ruminations were magnified by David Orr’s humbling facts, such as the Stern Review Report. The Chair of Oberlin College’s Environmental Studies program is best known for spearheading a $7.2 million building that is run on solar power, but he is increasingly known for his succinct connections between public policy and what he calls planetary destabilization rather than global warming.
This planetary destabilization is more than a matter of hot pockets over the arctic. It is the literal disruption of our current way of life.
For Orr, the American “people of plenty,” with, “optimism in our DNA,” will not be able to use technology or innovation to keep the weather from changing so drastically that wheat production will shift from the Great Plains to the northern reaches of Canada. While technology has a role in changing the way we use our resources, we cannot begin there.
Instead we must immediately reduce our energy use. Just as quickly, we must reclaim a philosophy that our country’s forefathers and mothers used to define our nation. We must retool the public words patriotic and conservative to overcome the arbitrary barriers of rhetoric that have split us apart. Instead, we must begin to create a government of participation rather than partisanship to then create an economy based on balance. This would be an economy that protects the commons of our air, water and soil as we have never done before.
For Orr, this is a philosophical change that must happen at the highest levels of government, so that we are a nation no longer driven by bacterial growth and are instead driven by balanced use of our shared resources. Under this philosophy, politicians will no longer sell the growth economy. Instead, they will act on the behalf of posterity, envisioning a new economy and even a new way to govern and be governed.
This is how he would begin:
2. Rapidly transition to more efficient use of those resources. We simply do not have decades.
3. Build a world that is “secure by design” in which every child has rights and posterity is the locus for every decision.
4. View ourselves as trustees of this planet.
5. Form a politics of participation rather than partisanship.
On a simpler level, the speakers seem to indicate that necessary change has two clear sides…
2. Tell everyone you know to do the same. Now. Contact every politician representing you to remake public policy. Now.
For many of the Sopris speakers, supported by a wealth of science and graphs, this is not some inconvenient truth. It is a known reality. We cannot continue to live in an economy that feeds the wide ranging, “auto-mobilis.” No solar array will provide the levels of energy we consume. No wind power or nuclear plant or clean coal will keep us in business. The way we eat and farm will change right along with the way we work. It must. In ten years.
This moment, this very second is the one in which we will do what Orr calls our generation’s Great Work. We must rise up and off our complacent behinds to collectively acknowledge that our energy policy is a sham. We will require our politicians to talk to us like we are adults. We will require them to lead according to the ecology. We will cut our consumption in half.
We are all in this Petri dish together, sliding up the glass edges searching for sugar. But the sugar is almost gone. And no technological prodigy is waiting on the other side to catch us. This time, we have to save ourselves.
[End of article]
See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html
The projected direction of consumption is up.
In particular, see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_6.html
Comment By Gman, 7-17-07It's frustrating to listen to social engineers claim that they know what is best for the future of humankind. What is even more frustrating is the obvious distrust of the free market to determine which form of energy is best. They trust that the gov't (policy makers) knows better which type of energy production should win or lose. Oil companies get all kinds of subsidies, tax breaks, etc. and we wonder why alternative forms of energy can't compete (for example, solar energy). The gov't thinks it levels the playing field a little by subsidizing ethanol production. Whether ethanol is efficient and "green" is quite debatable. Yet, the gov't fumbles ahead with policies that prop up so-called "alternative" forms of energy at the expense of real competition. The driver of economics is scarcity. Gov't subsidization disrupts the natural equilibrium b/n supply and demand. The only force that will lead to innovation is the free market. When we get to a point where fossil fuels are no longer an abundant and efficient form of energy, the market will force us to innovate in ways we've never thought possible. For the naysayers at the Sopris Conference, humanity has been innnovating since the Creation. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you mask that "necessity" with gov't policies and subsidies you will mask the need for invention. Let the market determine who wins and loses in the market for energy.
Comment By pete geddes, 7-17-07"For many of the Sopris speakers, supported by a wealth of science and graphs, this is not some inconvenient truth. It is a known reality. We cannot continue to live in an economy that feeds the wide ranging, “auto-mobilis.” No solar array will provide the levels of energy we consume. No wind power or nuclear plant or clean coal will keep us in business. The way we eat and farm will change right along with the way we work. It must. In ten years."
This is such nonsense. In ten years nearly every indicator of human and environmental health will have improved (the notable exception will likley be CO2 emmissions).
I'm hard pressed to see how this neo-malthusian confernece contributes "New and innovative" ideas for the West.
I'm sorry to disappoint you Craig; but no amount of the free market will automatically value the future over the value of today. This is the problem: exponential growth in a finite environment. The free market will solve this problem eventually but it might be solved through extreme scarcity – like millions of people possibly starving to death… Once you understand growth; you will understand and then try to get governments to help solve theses problem instead of making it worse. The market left unchecked would always value the present grow with little or no regard to future generations. This was predictable and what has been happening. Until we value the future more than we do today and solve exponential growth in both population, energy usage, resource depletion; before the market cruelly solves it for us (like it’s doing in some poor parts of the world) you have no idea what you are asking for.
Comment By Craig Moore, 7-17-07Roger, you said to me: "...you have no idea what you are asking for."
All I did was direct attention to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html and
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_6.html
I did not know that it would be so hard for you to point and click. Do you need some help?
I believe Roger meant to address Gman, whose insane idea that free market solutions will address this burgeoning crisis. Free markets don't work without discipline, and our current consumption mirrors many of the problems that business encounter in our current relatively free-market society. Our unfailing appetite for fossil fuels torches Gman's argument, much like corporate CEOs with a taste for exorbitant compensation sing to the bank as their company goes down in flames.
On the other hand, Pete's optimism strikes me as another deadly corporate practice: reckless speculation.
Nick, given how public health, living conditions, growth in wages, and technology innovation have had a steep uptrend in the past 100 years why do you suggest Pete's remarks are reckless and speculative?
Comment By Pete Geddes, 7-17-07"Pete's optimism strikes me as another deadly corporate practice: reckless speculation..."
Huh?
Turns out that living in a modern, industrial society extends your life span. For example:
The long-term trend in overall cancer death rates, declining since the early 1990s, continued through 2003 for all races and both sexes combined.
In 2004 life expectancy in the United States is 77.9 years. Those living to age 65 will have an average of 17.7 years left to live, making their life expectancy almost 83 years. (In 1990, life expectancy was 75.4 years.) The steady increase is due to improvements in public health, nutrition and medicine and declines in some types of unhealthy behavior, such as smoking.
Doesn’t our material comfort depend on degrading the environment? No. Degradation of the environment is a consequence of poverty, underdevelopment, and poor governance, not economic progress.
“Affluence and freedom are friends to the environment...and provide the only practical pathway to achieving a sustainable future environment.”
How many comets and other celestial real estate have hit the earth with dramatic effects since the birth of our solar sysyem? How many times has the average temperature been much high than now? Without loggers to blame, how did the past great extinctions happen? Why do they call our present time an "Inter- glacial?" Why are Canadian earth scientists thinking we are entering a "little ice age" of perhaps two decades or more in duration? How do great volcanic events, above and below the oceans, work on gross climate responses? Where does all the heat from great lava floes go? Vegetation is burning throughout the world 24/7/365, year after year. Is that a benign process? I think about salmon bringing ocean nutrients to the forest and interior environments in their bodies, and the cycle of water from cloud to stream to ocean to cloud, in a world that is much more aquatic than above water. And then I wonder why we are not fully committed to wise use of nuclear power. It is at that point that I lose interest in the whole exercise.
Using too much energy just to keep things lit up is most likely a waste of resources. We need the smart guys to create a positive image of energy conservation, and the market place will react accordingly. Selling fear as conservation is not productive, unless of course, you are losing weight and getting ready to run for President.
We have too many people here, using resources at our excessive rate. Can you imagine the energy footprint of a third worlder at home as opposed to his/her footprint in the U.S.? The best immigration enforcement argument is that every illegal alien uses more of the world's precious energy resources in the U.S. than he/she would at home. Border enforcement and immigration law enforcement is green as a gourd. Maybe not nice, or friendly, but green just the same.
I think I need to read the Bible, maybe the parts on greed, selfishness, tower of Babel might be a good story, or the Adam and Eve story....lots of good stuff.
Comment By pete geddes, 7-18-07Roger:
A discussion of markets, governments, and future generations is too long for this forum. But your simplistic construction, i.e., governments good, markets bad is just that. Here's just one example of government action harming the world's poorest while simultaneously risking our ecological future.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118470420636969282.html?mod=hps_us_pageone
"Wealthy countries subsidize their commercial fishermen to the tune of about $30 billion a year. Their goal is to keep their fishermen on the water. China, for example, provides $2 billion a year in fuel subsidies; the European Union and its member nations provide more than $7 billion of subsidies a year. Such policies boost the number of working boats, increase the global catch and drive down fish prices."
Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel fails readers on two counts. One, she either does not know, or chooses to ignore, the sorry history of Malthusian predictions. The sort of intellectual slop served up, digested, and regurgitated by journalists at the Sopris Conference ("we have ten years left to radically transform society") does nothing to engage Westernerns (or anyone else) in the important conversation about our future.
Second, she fails to ask press presenters on their views. Just once, I'd like a reporter to ask the likes of Dr. Orr if he really believes we have ten years "left" and if so, what sort sacfifices to our personal liberties he thinks are required/justified to avert the coming ecological catastrophe.
Pete, a living example of the grit, determination, imagination, and can-do spirit that is 180 of the Sophis conference is Dr. Norman Borlaug. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070718/COMMENTARY/107180025
>>>>>>>>>>>
As the result of multiple appeals to Congress by his friends and colleagues, yesterday at the Capitol Rotunda in Washington President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bestowed upon Dr. Borlaug the highest civilian honor: the Congressional Gold Medal.
Dr. Borlaug has already received the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, being one of only five people in history to achieve all three honors (reason enough to think he should be better known than Paris Hilton).
Who is this man whose greatness has been overlooked by many but was honored by Congress? Dr. Borlaug has spent his life staving off world hunger. In a sense, the fact that people have become so complacent about having a plentiful food supply is itself a testament to his accomplishment — revolutionizing the production of basic foodstuffs, and in the process proving wrong better-known scientists such as Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who argued that starvation would inevitably increase as population did.
<<<<<<<<<
Also, another conference will occur in Africa next month. See: http://allafrica.com/stories/200707180927.html
>>>>>>>>>
The conference will be held under the theme "Adaptation Policies and Strategies for Sustainable Development in Africa" and is expected to provide insights into climate change adaptation policies and strategies from the African continent as well as identifying the long term effects and impact of climate change in Africa.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Perhaps the next Dr. Borlag will come from Africa who will not only show the way to survive climate change and resource rotation but prosper from it without the draconian measures to crawl into a hole and pull a rock across the top.
I don't know how the free market will save us from global warming, or even from running out of energy. Right now, the price of oil is determined by how much it costs to extract it from the ground; if a company can sell a barrel of oil for a penny more that it costs to produce, the company has an incentive to do it. The amount that is left in the ground doesn't matter. We expect that as oil runs out, it will get more and more expensive to extract it; but there is no guarantee that will happen, oil extraction technology might improve faster than oil runs out. For all we know, oil will be $60-$80 a barrel until the last drop is burned, and most people will still be claiming it isn't worth buying a hybrid because gas is only $3.50 a gallon.
Comment By Pete Geddes, 7-18-07Craig:
Yes, Dr. Borlag is indeed a saint. More on him at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregg-easterbrook/greatest-living-american-_b_56665.html
Jim:
The molecules of carbon used to provide one unit of energy or economic product has steadily declined for the past 100 years. This is good news for the environment. For it's the spills and emissions of carbon that oils beaches and warms the climate.
How can we account for this progress? The answer is straightforward: In a competitive economy, and when people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions, pollution and waste indicate inefficiency. And without government protection, inefficient processes are filtered out. The market process, like evolution, is a constant search for fitness. In the long run, companies face persistent economic and social pressures to become green.
Roger:
More on markets vs. gov't and the conservation of resources.
Here's a passage about Mexico's state run oil company (Pemex) that is a nice illustration of how and why government run companies fail:
"Some of the oldest wells in Texas can deal with flow that's 99% water.
But Pemex didn't have the money to invest in this basic technology. The capital budget of the national oil company was set by politicians in Mexico City who were eager to grab as much of the company's revenue as possible for the country's budget.
Pemex right now provides about 40% of total government income. Without the cash to invest in water-separation technology, Pemex simply shut any well in the Cantarell field as soon as water content reached 5%. Production at Cantarell fell by 12% in 2006 and is forecast to fall an additional 15% in 2007.
Where Pete is coming from:
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has received $240,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report
2002
$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2003
$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$20,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Seminar
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Federal Judicial Seminars
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2005
$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2006
$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006
Oh no! Exposed! Matguy, did you find this posted on our web site where we disclose our all our funding....
Anyway, did you have an argument to make or...never mind.
I guess I'm a cynic.
I imagine Exxon wants as many people in the world to buy as much of their product at as great a profit as possible as fast as possible. I can't imagine them funding anybody who gets in the way of or fails to further that mission. So, my guess is that Exxon hopes that FREE will help them achieve their goal.
So here's the thing. Exxon isn't a human being. Exxon as an entity doesn't care about suburban sprawl and the massive amount of driving and fuel consumption necessitated by its construction. Exxon does not care that all that driving necessitated by sprawl takes time away that working people could spend with their families and communities otherwise. Neither private developers nor Exxon care if diverse communities of people exist where members of serveral social classes can live and work in close proximity and spend time with one another instead of behind the wheel.
Exxon instead must hope for the opposite; for the faster more sprawl can be built, more gasoline will be consumed sooner by those driving increasing distances between their homes and their jobs and each other. For Exxon, sprawl is a big winner because it increases the demand for gas.
The free market builds sprawl. Sprawl requires lots of gas. Exxon sells gas. When people start talking about how that gas might get really expensive some time soon, and that maybe we ought to adopt some regulatory strategies to reduce our dependence on it, Exxon needs somebody to tell those people that they're full of it, and they are clearly willing to pay for that service.
A cynic? No Matguy, you're just really confused. How is it FREE helps Exxon sell their product......?
Exxon sells energy to people who voluntarily exchange something they value, money, for something they value more, gas.
Exxon is in the business of finding, extracting, refining, and selling liquid hydro carbons. Who knows energy it will be selling in the future.
People choose where they live. Sometimes they choose to live far from where they work, often exchanging long commutes for better schools for their kids. In some places they can take public transportation. In others they can't or prefer not too.
Pete, you are right. I am confused.
Why does Exxon help fund FREE?
Why would Exxon fund FREE if FREE didn't help Exxon sell energy at a greater profit?
First, I'm pretty sure Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel is referring to James Howard Kunstler, not Howard Kuntzler.
Second, the raging "debate" featured in this thread-of-comments only serves to prove to me there will be no "Great Work" or Great Turning. There will be no "economy that protects the commons of our air, water and soil as we have never done before". No "participation rather than partisanship". No adult conversations between or among politicians and the public. And modern, "developed" (and clearly devolved) "auto-mobilis" will most definitely not cut its "energy use in half, in just ten years".
Third, J.H.K. is right, we deserve all the unimaginable disorder and despair coming our way and then some.
Fourth and last, good luck to us all, we're going to need it.
Enjoy!
There is a recent book entitled "Eco- Imperialism - Green Power Black Death" written by Paul Driessen. It is endorsed by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore is quoting as saying,
“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. Eco-Imperialism is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.”
See: http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=driessenp&date=070719
Driessen writes:
"Environmentalists also oppose biotechnology to improve agricultural output, insecticides to reduce malaria and other diseases, and even jetliners that bring tourists to Africa and African produce to Europe.
At bottom, environmentalists don’t want the world’s poor to rise up out of poverty and become middle class, because then they would become consumers, use more resources and demand more electricity. Green activists are happy to demand more aid and debt relief, but they do everything possible to prevent energy, mineral and economic development, modern agriculture and living standards, or meaningful opportunities for the world’s poor to take their rightful places among the Earth’s healthy and prosperous people.
Poor countries should worry not about climate change – but about whether they will have electricity for refrigerators, lights, and modern homes, hospitals, schools, shops, offices and factories. They should be concerned not about the supposed (and often far-fetched) risks of development and technology – but about the real, immediate, life-threatening dangers that development and technology would prevent."
------------
I don't endorse Driessen as Moore did, but I find it interesting that the very measures advocated by the Sophis conference are deemed inhuman by those that will suffer because of policies stemming from that mind set. By the way, Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
The real dissapontment I find is with the original story. As a piece of journalism it fails on multiple dimensions. For example:
The author quotes Wes Jackson from the Land Institute: “We aren’t going to invent or grow our way out of this thing.”
Then she writes,"No amount of human innovation can stop the ensuing ecological destruction. To even begin to do that, humans will need to cut their energy use in half, in just ten years."
Can we unpack this just a bit? O.K. so if we "aren’t going to invent or grow our way out of this thing," what are we going to do? Should we, as the bumper sticker reads, "Go back to the Pleistocene?"
Since we face serious environmental problems, is it too much to ask for one example of "ensuing ecological destruction?" I'd bet many NW readers will respond, "climate change." That's good, because now we can focus the trade-offs of potential solutions. Much more productive than pining for a "radical transformation of society" (another statement that escapes any critical analysis).
And by the way, here's an example of the application of technology that will be essential to avoiding both the "ensuing ecological destruction" and the need for "radical transformation of society."
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/11723001344d3110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
It appears to me and to many others I know that free market forces can indeed change society and consumptive patterns. This is true. It also appears that the time scale in which we have to work to prevent, or perhaps partially mitigate hardship for all people in light of environmental issues related to global warming, access to clean water, energy, etc is not a long one. I admit to being irked when the discussion of these matters bogs down in a back-and-forth about whether or not "ten years" is accurate or whether or not market forces can affect change. To me, it seems that an honest discussion should focus on the fact that many people in countries that are large resource consumers do not want to face the unpleasant possibility that their lifestyle may not be sustainable. This includes me at times. Yes, we do need to have open and clear debate on exactly the kinds of personal liberties we may infringe upon and the degree to which we need to do so. While the market may drive a change towards a greener existence over time, is there enough time to let the market work and avoid great hardship? No politician, it seems, is willing to frame the debate in terms of how Americans will possibly lose the freedom to live the way we do (all consumptive habits could be addressed here). But isn't this really what we're talking about? Perhaps the market, being an expression of people's wants and not necessarily needs, is not the best tool for addressing a situation in which the context is human needs (food, clean water, etc.) not wants.
Comment By Craig Moore, 7-19-07Pete, here's another example of such technology that goes beyond the gloom and doom hype. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070719-08321900-bc-us-solarcells.xml
>>>>>>>>>
Inexpensive solar cell technology created
NEWARK, N.J., July 19 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists have developed a technology to produce inexpensive solar cells that can be painted or printed on flexible plastic sheets.
New Jersey Institute of Technology Professor Somenath Mitra said the process is so simple, even homeowners will someday be able to print sheets of the solar cells with inexpensive home-based inkjet printers and then attach the product to a wall or roof to create their own power stations.
Purified silicon, also used for making computer chips, is a core material for fabricating conventional solar cells, Mitra said. However, the processing of a material such as purified silicon is beyond the reach of most consumers.
"Developing organic solar cells from polymers, however, is a cheap and potentially simpler alternative," he said. "We foresee a great deal of interest in our work because solar cells can be inexpensively printed or simply painted on exterior building walls and-or roof tops. Imagine some day driving in your hybrid car with a solar panel painted on the roof, which is producing electricity to drive the engine. The opportunities are endless."
<<<<<<<<<<
There is a program on the Discovery Channel entitled "2057." See: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/2057.html Discovery Channel entitled "2057."
Amazing look at what the world and society might look like in 50 years. Gloom, doom, and pessimism just aren't in the cards.
I think it is a fact, good or bad, that we are paying $3.00/gallon for gas in a country that mostly was built (in the last 50 years) around $2.00/gallon gas, adjusted for inflation:
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm
If somebody can explain to me how we can keep shipping our goods and ourselves around this country and world the way we are doing it today without changing how (and where) we live, work, recreate and shop, I'm all ears.
The free market works. If the cost of energy-efficient equipment is less that the money saved by using it, companies will do the rational thing and use the efficient equipment. Most of the improvements we've seen in efficiency are due to increases in the price of energy (some is due to reductions in the cost of energy-saving technology). If the price of energy doesn't increase, the pace that companies adopt energy-saving technology won't necessarily increase either.
Oil use is still growing every year, so the current rate of improvement in efficiency isn't even keeping up with the increased demand. I think we need to worry about running out of oil, both because I think burning it causes global warming and because we don't have a replacement for oil when it runs out. We are developing the technology we will need to replace oil, but are we developing that technology fast enough that oil won't run out first (or the Earth won't bake)?
Maybe everything will work out without doing anything special, but governments have been encouraging energy efficiency for the last few decades; so it is hard to know how efficient our economy would be today if the government hadn't acted and it was all left to the free market instead. I think it would be prudent to prod companies to research energy efficiency a little harder, so we are sure we will have adequate replacement energy sources before our non-renewable sources run out.
Transportation Costs and International Trade Over Time
David Hummels, Associate Professor of Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Abstract:
While the precise causes of post-war trade growth are not well understood, declines in transport costs top the lists of usual suspects. However, there is remarkably little systematic
evidence documenting the decline. This paper brings to bear an eclectic mix of data in order to provide a detailed accounting of the time-series pattern of shipping costs. The ad-valorem
impact of ocean shipping costs is not much lower today than in the 1950s, with technological advances largely trumped by adverse cost shocks. In contrast, air shipping costs have dropped
an order of magnitude, and airborne trade has grown rapidly as a result. As a result, international trade has also experienced a significant rise in speed.
Jim:
Aside from temporary shortages caused by political disruptions, the world is awash in oil and will be for a long time. Supplies of coal are even cheaper and far more abundant.
But a change is coming. When it occurs, it’s likely to resemble the 17th century transition in England when coal replaced wood, and then again in the 19th century when oil displaced coal. Fortunately for the environment, in the developed world, the transition will be to cleaner fuels.
Oil is a non-renewable finite resource, yet we’ll never run out. How is this possible? First, there is a critical difference between resources and reserves. Resources are the total physical stock of a natural commodity (e.g., oil, coal, or gold). Reserves are the portion that can be economically developed with current technology.
Technological advances allow us to constantly move commodities from the resource category into the reserve pool. New exploration and drilling and recovery technologies dropped the worldwide finding and development cost per barrel of oil dramatically: from $21 in 1979-81 to $6 in 1997-99.
This helps explain how oil reserves can expand even as consumption increases. For example, California’s Kern River field was discovered in 1899. By 1942, its reserves were estimated at 54 million barrels. But over the next 44 years it produced 736 million barrels. In 1986, another estimated 970 million barrels remained. And the field is still producing.
“Resources are, reserves become.” When institutions foster innovation scarcity never wins against creativity. The historical evidence supporting this is so clear and compelling I wonder why anyone believes otherwise.
The free market has always and will always come up with solutions as long as it is left free. Humans are innovative if left to pursue their goals. The thing most likely to create all of the catastrophes is someone trying to control everyone else. I for one am not going to listen to someone living in a 30,000 sf house flying around in his private jet, telling me that I, in my 1000 sf house and economy car, have to cut back on my consumption. He is buying "carbon credits" (from whom, not me) so his doesn't' count.
The hybrids use lead batteries as in from lead mines, is that better for the environment than fossil fuel? Teh energy efficient light bulbs have mercury in them, then what to do when the burn out? Or break?
Mankind does not have to be controlled, they will come up with solutions.
By the way the 10 year time table is not too impressive to someone who was raising a family when we only had 10 years until the global freeze....that was 30 years ago.
Why do I hear nothing of overpopulation as the problem and world-wide birth control as the solution? This was in fashion 20 yrs ago, but I guess it is no longer politically correct to insist that 3rd worlder's, the #1 progenitors of unnessary future humanoids, start to use rubbers and stop uncontrolled sexual behaviors.
If overpopulation and the resulting degradation of the environment is not mitigated by birth control, than more harsh socioeconomic and natural measures are inevitable, such as famine, drought, plague, pestilence, and the unleashing of the dogs of war.
Isn't that exactly what's already happening in Africa?
Hi Paul:
Here are two papers that may answer some of your questions:
Too Many People?
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26487/pub_detail.asp
Beware the Population Alarmists
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26427,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
I read the two aforementioned articles from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. Why do conservatives think the UN invented the idea of over-population and that it is some sort of liberal conspiracy? Among others, Paul Erlich (the Population Bomb; late 60's) was one of the first to alert us to the upcoming dangers of overpopulation. I never considered him to be any kind of alarmist agenda-setting liberal.
The math and economics of too many people outstripping local resources makes just too much sense to dismiss for political ideology of any kind. The conservatives appear as ridiculous as the liberals in their denials of the facts. I can only guess that they want that cheap supply of labor to continue unabated. After all, there are plenty of desolate places for them to live, and the wealthy will be glad to sell them to them.
Pete, our current lifestyle apparently requires ever-increasing consumption of limited resources. We cannot sustain our current lifestyle forever, especially if developing companies adopt the same lifestyle. We know we are going to have to change, so why don't we act rather than passively waiting for the free market to force the necessary change?
I think the fishing industry is instructive. We extracted fish too quickly and the stocks collapsed. Now we are hoping the stocks will recover and are trying to make fish farming work. The "free market" didn't prevent the collapse of the fishing industry (governments didn't either), is this the way we want to handle our oil resources? I think it is obvious that we can't sustain the current rate of oil use forever, so use will have to decrease at some point. Since our oil use isn't dropping yet, and is in fact continuing to increase, there may be reason to doubt that the free market will wean us off oil in time to avoid massive economic turmoil.
Maybe we still have plenty of time to retool our economy to use less oil; but we don't even know how we are going to do that yet. It is likely that whatever we have to do, it will be cheaper if we have more time. The situation isn't a crisis yet, so it isn't time for really drastic measures, but I'd feel better if oil consumption started to decrease. It is time we set oil prices high enough to stop the growth in demand, then hopefully the free market can take over from there.
Hi Jim:
We don’t face a binary choice between markets or governmental action. To suggest so is to construct a straw man that obscures our challenges.
No good economist argues that the market is a magic elixir of near perfection. It is not and will never be. Markets coordinate wonderfully as they drive toward narrow efficiency, but they ignore much that is intangible and often destroy that which has no price and no owner. Business is naturally rapacious when not held accountable. That's why we need sensible environmental regulations.
I posted a link earlier of an example of governmental fisheries policy that protects a few powerful interests at the expense of taxpayers and the environment. The rush to convert native forests to palm oil plantations, in the face of government mandates for alternative fuels, is another. In contrast, everywhere we’ve applied market forces (e.g., in the form of various property rights regimes) fisheries are improving.
Does economic growth really stress the environment? If so, then countries with large GDPs should have the worst environmental quality. And this is clearly not the case. The air and water are cleaner in developed countries because their citizens have both the inclination and the resources to care for the environment. Indeed it is the lack of economic growth that keeps many in poverty. And the poor can’t afford environmental quality.
Will we destroy our environment on the path to prosperity? Are we, as critics assert, like the man falling from a ten-story building and concluding as he passes the second story, “so far so good”?
There are reasons to think not. In the long term, technological improvements and productivity gains allow us to use fewer material inputs -- and to emit ever fewer pollutants -- per unit of economic output. This reduces both our economic and ecological footprint. This reality is driven by human inventiveness.
The poorest countries are beneficiaries. They’re able to adopt our modern, efficient, and less environmentally damaging technologies -- and shortcut the road to environmental quality.
Great discourse here. But I wonder if anyone here has heard about those Islamic terror groups that are funded with oil money? Maybe we should factor that into the discussion?
Since if they ever achieve their goals, all of our free market theories and long commutes will be done in the happy hunting ground?
There are alot of reasons to change the way we are doing business right now, whether or not gloom and doom is on the horizon.
Hal
If the Saudis sold oranges rather than oil, they could still finance terror operations. For half the price of a 2000 Honda Civic, about $7500, terrorists bought Zodiacs and C4, nearly sinking the USS Cole. They killed 17 sailors, wounding many more.
Why is the developed world so dependent on Persian Gulf oil? The reason is simple and clear. This oil is easy to find and cheap to extract.
The global market for oil is like one big pool, where oil from each nation is mixed before consumers buy it. Hence, we can not selectively reduce demand from any one source. If we are going to reduce demand, it has to be for oil in general. This means higher, not lower, prices. The least worst policy solution is to implement a stiff gasoline tax (phased in over time).
Even if we successfully reduced demand by, say, 10 percent, the effect on the number of barrels of Saudi oil consumed would likely be minimal. Why? Again, because the Saudis are the world’s low-cost producer. If demand for oil drops, they will be the last ones pumping.
Hal, see: http://www.dobmagazine.nickles.com/columns/column.asp?article=magazine/columns/070723/MAG_COL2007_LN0001.html "A Roadmap To North American Oil Self-Sufficiency"
The Shell in-situ project looks interesting.
See Piper Foster's update of the conference at http://www.headwatersnews.org/p.sopris100407.html. Foster is the Organizer of the Sopris Conference.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/in_the_petri_dish_the_plight_of_our_energy_sucking_species/C520/L40/