tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26012970438224370692024-03-15T00:27:00.774-05:00Blog of John C. AyersOccasional observations about science, society, education, and sustainability.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-34444932914146048532013-03-26T19:05:00.001-05:002013-03-26T19:05:25.377-05:00Selfishness and lack of moral conviction in Tennessee State Legislature<p>Yesterday TN senators voted to not make pseudoephedrine HCl (Sudafed) a prescription drug because it would be inconvenient for consumers. Meanwhile this drug is used to illegally produce methamphetamine in Meth labs, an activity that leaves young children without parents and tears apart poor communities. Yet TN senators are unwilling to accept a minor inconvenience to help these children and their communities. This type of selfish behavior has become widespread, in part due to the influence of philosopher Ayn Rand, who taught that the moral purpose of life was to serve ourselves and make ourselves happy rather than to serve others, literally the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus Christ. These same conservatives glorify soldiers for their self-sacrifice in war, yet they are unwilling to make any sacrifice of their own in the war on drugs. The word hypocrisy comes to mind.</p> <p>Meth is a drain on our countries' resources. The cost to our police forces and judicial systems is great. The cost to poor communities is immeasurable. Every life lost to meth is the loss of a potentially productive member of society. Government should take every possible step to guard the wellbeing of children, even if those steps are "inconvenient," because children are our future, and they can help keep our country strong.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-69933783844491209212012-12-06T08:13:00.001-06:002012-12-06T08:13:24.385-06:00Living Sustainably: The Rule of Halves<p>You've probably heard hundreds of tips on how to live more sustainably. Who can remember all of those tips, or even worse remember to do what they say? And the prescriptions sound complicated and time consuming. Many people feel overwhelmed when considering how to reduce their ecological footprint, so they throw their hands up in despair and give up on sustainable living. Don't despair! I have a simple guideline, a rule of thumb you can use to become twice as sustainable: cut everything you own and use in half! I call it the rule of halves. Move to a house half the size of your current house. Cut the number of cars in your family in half, and cut the size of your cars in half. Cut the number of miles you travel by car in half. Cut how much meat you eat in half. Buy energy star appliances that use half the electricity. Cut the size of your lawn in half. Cut the number of televisions in your house in half, the number of computers and printers in half, the amount of clothing in half. For most Americans these steps should be easy, because we currently have more of these things than we need. Don't throw away what you give up: donate it for others to use. And abstain from buying more stuff to replace the stuff you get rid of: you won't have room for it in your smaller house anyway. Soon you will realize that you don't need all of that stuff, and that your life is more enjoyable because you spend half as much time shopping for and maintaining stuff. People in Europe and Japan have half the ecological footprint of Americans, yet they have the same level of wellbeing and are at least as happy.</p> <p>So be proud of your small house and your small car! Small is beautiful. If you follow the rule of halves consistently you will cut your energy and material use, your ecological footprint, and your costs in half and make your lifestyle more sustainable. </p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-81837074190319942042012-10-06T13:41:00.000-05:002012-10-06T13:45:06.215-05:00Does increasing taxes on the wealthy hurt the economy and lead to higher unemployment?<p>For years Republican politicians have claimed that increasing tax rates on the wealthiest, who are the "job creators," will hurt the economy and lead to higher unemployment rates. I decided to test these claims by collecting evidence. </p> <p>The claim that higher taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy was recently tested by Thomas L. Hungerford in a 2012 publication of the U.S. Congressional Research Service ("Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945" CRS Report for Congress no. 7-5700 / R42729, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf">http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf</a>). Here is what he found: "There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced." In other words, the only definite outcome of decreasing taxes on the wealthy is to increase economic inequality, which has been shown to cause a host of societal problems.</p> <p>The figure below from the 2012 CRS report shows that there is no correlation between the top marginal tax rate and economic growth as measured by real per capita GDP growth rate:</p> <p><a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/-eDQKi1MPr3g/UHB8Gvxp8FI/AAAAAAAADjg/FgdkQ8HPr_0/s1600-h/clip_image001%25255B3%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image001" border="0" alt="clip_image001" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/-_h1BayaPG_s/UHB8Hi5rB4I/AAAAAAAADjo/8_q5LiO-IMs/clip_image001_thumb.png?imgmax=800" width="187" height="244" /></a></p> <p>In a New York Times article published September 15, 2012, David Leonhardt (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0</a>) asked "Do Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth?" and answered "no," presenting this chart to support his conclusion:</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvsduYhnOj0C7T9lGcQaV1B0NWzaBA3bwuOu996wq8PZT-AbQBoon9RQTe9Zd2j9mgS2LUoqdsa8mYir5ZLMl3LbjLiw3A5eX3aVPTqaFYXYmZwBGHps_4UUKYJEejLsk51zLAR3dPIXRk/s1600-h/clip_image002%25255B3%25255D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image002" border="0" alt="clip_image002" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-fbajpbOxYCE/UHB8Inf6dUI/AAAAAAAADj4/gFenc9pgHV8/clip_image002_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="145" height="244" /></a></p> <p>The chart clearly shows that the Bush tax cuts did not prevent the country from plunging into a deep recession. In fact there are many investments made by the federal government that are more effective than tax cuts at spurring economic growth, including funding of basic research, which leads to the development of new technologies for the market. For example, most of the technologies embedded in Apple's popular IPhone originated in federally-funded research (see <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/american_innovation">http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/american_innovation</a>), as did the Google Search Engine, which was an outgrowth of a National Science Foundation grant to Stanford University. We conclude that there is no evidence that increasing taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy.</p> <p>Now let's address the second, related question: does raising the highest marginal tax rate lead to higher rates of unemployment? To answer this question I made a plot with highest marginal tax rate on the x-axis (independent variable, data from <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf</a> ) and average annual unemployment rate on the y-axis (dependent variable, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, <a href="http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet">http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet</a>).</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2sow_jt-Fnly8t9_OCrnX1Yyr7oy4Vp7eE9MOJIUNZ5sSLhg29694wnWe-cJxDlkYicw5lcIisisW9B8P4EUFUx2Bn4dyVO1HERmUZki7nwb6jSLOfj7AAcoDOo-AxiXNfB1e0kFxwEbr/s1600-h/clip_image003%25255B3%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image003" border="0" alt="clip_image003" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwOIY_IM3J2yS7qUWlA8C9nu3j1c2OK0zaSgEHqZJzB2br3juVbduOepJP3_3mP0-sorL5qxK1C85HgTs2W_Ge12SQdfdKRr2m-bW6abD1-uX6POc4BYsnLbENDF7ReDIQZqDU5fKVwl4X/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="149" /></a></p> <p>The chart shows that increasing income taxes on the wealthy does not increase unemployment; if anything, the unemployment rate goes down when tax rates on the wealthiest increase.</p> <p>Many people don't realize that tax rates on the wealthiest declined dramatically between 1945 and 1990, and declined further beginning in 1995 to the lowest levels on record in 2005 (see figure below).</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4hjLiQcmXt1GRDx8c0oi4fNFQCcuAgqt7TTbBnNOKqOkr0-Rn99OTfpEIjdnduuyM4SJ3JWh4qQXW3r-KxP-NIT0-Yr7kp8oh2JNkz1aP3KSEvv_KP4ZprFxxmIYvB4MxrDOod33byQtR/s1600-h/clip_image004%25255B3%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image004" border="0" alt="clip_image004" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilb7VlAlha_DOzvofQoZQLL89QCNPqxm9VtiWl5l8tByEYZ6MXCsHTZIxmQBEmU6aytsj1Zjv5pnBPPGUhXBKwAZ9XeTL6Chy4rDpdYoD-K1aJfNkKuHnNQTSGjBrrsoafV9BY0DeUNwra/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="191" /></a></p> <p>Yet recessions have repeatedly come and gone, as reflected in this chart from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing unemployment rates since 1948:</p> <p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/--22wIcuIpk8/UHB8LU_szJI/AAAAAAAADkg/kjinpxVyCvE/s1600-h/clip_image005%25255B3%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image005" border="0" alt="clip_image005" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg35r4eGAf_kxMagq1EXLcKPXB8ry6gkTB8HGZWtbHLS6W4rYGLkg04mIf5YzcmD0CVfax9PNQprpnySyxpwG1pzWMAPQ5N3LbTZ1GD1cFWMoRiR1N1j_NhbG9IhB5UNA38tsvyoVN-qUqO/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="135" /></a></p> <p>(from <a href="http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet">http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet</a>). The unemployment chart looks nothing like the previous chart of the highest marginal tax rate, indicating there is no correlation between the two. </p> <p>So why do Republican politicians keep claiming that lowering taxes on the wealthy will create jobs and grow the economy? I don't have data to objectively answer that question. I can only speculate that their motivation is political rather than economic: they receive large campaign contributions from wealthy donors who, in return, expect enactment of favorable tax policies.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-31219179053271786392012-08-26T10:32:00.001-05:002012-08-26T10:32:40.961-05:00What is the root cause of denialism?<p><b>denialism</b> (<i>usually <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable">uncountable</a>;</i> <i>plural</i> <b><a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denialisms#English">denialisms</a></b>)</p> <ol> <li>describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Words/Sustainability Book/#_ftn1_7353" name="_ftnref1_7353">[1]</a>. </li> </ol> <p>In recent years the messages of politically conservative groups in the US have become increasingly at odds with scientific findings. The latest example is the recent claim by US Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., that “legitimate rape,” in his words, rarely causes pregnancy. I initially thought this was a brain-addled individual making things up on the fly during a radio interview. However, I’ve since learned that this is the official position of American Right to Life, The American Family Association, and the Human Family Research Center, three anti-abortion groups (Dan Horn, “Science Suffering in the Debate Over Rape,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/26/2012). The groups make this claim because they believe it will make it easier to pass legislation that bans abortion without exceptions for rape and incest, but the scientific evidence does not support their claim that rape is less likely to result in pregnancy. As in other current controversies involving social issues, conservative groups not only ignore scientific evidence when it doesn’t support their views, but make claims that are at odds with the evidence. </p> <p>Increasing numbers of politically and religiously conservative groups are adopting this anti-science approach. The conservative John Birch society started the anti-Agenda 21 movement opposed to sustainable development and the anti-fluoridation campaign<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Words/Sustainability Book/#_ftn2_7353" name="_ftnref2_7353">[2]</a>. The Tea Party gave birth to the “Birthers” movement that claims President Obama is not a US citizen because he was born in Kenya, despite the overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Currently the most important scientific claim that deniers dispute is that the Earth is warming due to release of the greenhouse gas CO<sub>2</sub> during burning of fossil fuels, again despite overwhelming evidence supporting this claim. </p> <p>How did this all start? I believe that conservatives embarked on the slippery slope of denialism beginning with the Creationist movement that arose in response to the scientific theory of evolution. Motivated by their religious beliefs, which are rooted in a literal interpretation of the bible, fundamentalist Christians either passively choose to ignore evidence of evolution or actively fight to stop the teaching of evolution in public schools. It seems that once people become accustomed to denying evidence, they become increasingly adept at it. No amount of evidence will convince active climate change deniers that climate change is occurring. Based on my personal observations (I would love to see a study that tests this claim), it seems that most climate change deniers are politically conservative, fundamentalist Christians who also deny the reality of evolution. Such individuals will crow about scientific findings that support their views, but will ignore or attack findings that are at odds with their views rather than change their views. This dogmatic approach is rooted in political ideology. Recent studies suggest that the only way to persuade climate change deniers to adopt climate change mitigation measures such as cap and trade is to convince them that even if climate change claims are false, mitigation measures will have a positive effect on social welfare such as greater technological and economic development<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Words/Sustainability Book/#_ftn3_7353" name="_ftnref3_7353">[3]</a>. While this may treat the symptoms of denialism, it doesn’t address the causes. What can cure the disease of denialism? Effective teaching of evidence-based science in public schools is a start, but society needs to find new ways to stem the spread of denialism, which is making our country less competitive and harming future generations. </p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Words/Sustainability Book/#_ftnref1_7353" name="_ftn1_7353">[1]</a> <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denialism">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denialism</a> </p> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Words/Sustainability Book/#_ftnref2_7353" name="_ftn2_7353">[2]</a> The John Birch Society also opposed the civil rights movement and promotes claims that the UN is plotting to take over the world. </p> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Words/Sustainability Book/#_ftnref3_7353" name="_ftn3_7353">[3]</a> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-16398701720382205102012-08-04T14:52:00.000-05:002012-08-04T14:54:25.610-05:00Does urbanization make a society more sustainable?<p>A recent iCreate Sustainability debate (<a href="http://www.icreate-sustainability.org/discussion/topic/show/559843">http://www.icreate-sustainability.org/discussion/topic/show/559843</a>) asked "Does Global Urbanization Lead Primarily to Undesirable Consequences?" In the "Yes" column is Environmental Magazine, whose writers "suggest that the world's cities suffer from environmental ills, among them pollution, poverty, fresh water shortages, and disease." So does urbanization increase or decrease levels of sustainability? </p> <p>To answer this question we will use the ecological footprint, which is the best measure of sustainability. It is well known that cities have lower per-capita ecological footprints than suburban and rural areas. For example, citizens of Manhattan have the lowest ecological footprint in the U.S. (see Stewart Brand's 2009 book "Whole Earth Discipline"). Environmental problems may appear to be caused by urbanization because the environmental impact of humans is concentrated in cities as a result of high population density. If urban residents migrated to rural areas, their aggregate environmental impact would be greater. However, their impact would be less obvious because it would be spread out over a larger area. The concentration of environmental impact in urban areas leads to the misconception that cities are the cause of negative environmental impacts. </p> <p>One important unanswered question: Does urbanization lead to higher fertility? This question is important because overpopulation is one of the primary reasons we are currently in a state of global ecological overshoot. The 2010 World Bank report "Determinants and Consequences of High Fertility: A Synopsis of the Evidence" states "Fertility is almost always lower in urban as compared to rural areas." (see <a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRH/Resources/376374-1278599377733/Determinant62810PRINT.pdf">http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRH/Resources/376374-1278599377733/Determinant62810PRINT.pdf</a>). So the evidence is clear: urbanization slows population growth and decreases the per-capita ecological footprint. Together these reinforcing effects greatly slow the rate of growth of the environmental impact of societies over time. </p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-6864703779960873292012-08-01T19:31:00.000-05:002012-08-01T19:37:32.699-05:00Ineffective Consumer Guides: Energy Star Labels<p>I've heard for several years that Wal-Mart was becoming more sustainable, but a purchase I just made makes me doubt that. I bought a Haier mini-fridge for my daughter's college dorm. When I opened the box in her dorm I found the US EPA Energyguide label taped to the refrigerator, inside the box. The label showed that the fridge was at the high end of the cost range for similar models, meaning it is the least energy efficient. It bothers me that Wal-Mart is selling the most energy inefficient model, but it bothers me even more that the information was hidden inside the box. The label should be on the outside of the box so it can inform consumers; hiding it inside the box seems like a deliberate attempt to hide from the consumer that the fridge is not energy efficient. So who is at fault? Certainly Haier shares some blame for making such an energy-inefficient product and for placing the label inside the box. However, Wal-Mart sets the rules for their vendors, and their rules should include that the products they sell must be energy efficient, and that the Energyguide labels should be clearly displayed. Finally, the US EPA shares blame: their rules should require that the label be displayed outside the box or printed on the box. </p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-52480639422283685992012-06-30T09:24:00.001-05:002012-06-30T09:24:41.773-05:00Sustainability update: June 2012<p>It's been sixteen months since I last posted, and much has happened on the sustainability front. A huge positive development has been the transition from coal to natural gas in many US power plants. This has mainly been driven by historically low natural gas prices rather than environmental concerns, but I think it also results from the EPAs plan to impose more stringent emissions regulations on power plants. Sustainability continues to gain more publicity, and consumers are driving less and buying more fuel-efficient cars in response to gas price increases resulting from Peak Oil.</p> <p>However, Americans have done little to change their consumer lifestyles. And the conservative backlash against environmentalism, especially in Congress and state legislatures, has only intensified. For example, the South Carolina legislature recently voted to prevent planning commissions from using sea level rise forecasts when making planning decisions. That's the first time I've heard of a political organization mandating that relevant information be ignored when making decisions. Even worse, the bill, which is blatantly anti-intellectual and anti-science, passed by a wide margin. Virginia is about to pass a similar law. And a <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341034/title/Climate_skepticism_not_rooted_in_science_illiteracy">recent study</a> shows that people with high scientific literacy are actually more likely to be climate change skeptics/deniers, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of global climate change.</p> <p>These events have finally convinced me that no amount of information will convince climate change deniers that we must act to prevent catastrophic climate change. I now accept that most people are capable of being deeply irrational on certain topics. We must place our hope in those who are still able to think rationally, who can still be swayed by the evidence and accept that we are moving toward a global environmental crisis. We must also appeal to those who are not so self-centered that they are able to consider the effects of their actions on the future well-being of their children. It doesn't help to be angry or frustrated with people we view as ignorant or unethical. We must accept that human beings are deeply flawed creatures, and hope that either God or chance will pull us through this crisis, despite our self-destructive behavior. </p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-8696071774434809722011-02-21T19:23:00.000-06:002011-02-21T19:29:02.341-06:00The parable of the snacirema<p>Once there was a happy town filled with people called snacirema. The snacirema were peaceful people, but occasionally a snacirema turned bad and hurt or killed his fellow snacirema. These incidents were well-publicized, and they made some snacirema fearful. Those who were afraid decided they needed protection, so they started to breed sreraebnug for protection. Sreraebnug were powerful creatures that usually did their master's bidding, but sometimes the sreraebnug turned bad and attacked their masters or other snacirema. Although the sreraebnug made their masters feel protected, the many sreraebnug patrolling the town made the snacirema uneasy. </p> <p>The more sreraebnug that people bought for protection, the more people heard of other snacirema who were hurt or killed by sreraebnug gone bad. Sometimes the sreraebnug would get confused and kill good snacirema or sreraebnug. This scared the snacirema even more, so many bought more sreraebnug to protect them. Soon the snacirema were afraid to go outside without a sreraebnug to protect them. And there were so many sreraebnug that deaths caused by confused or bad sreraebnug became common. </p> <p>Finally the snacirema became so frightened that they held a town meeting. "How has our town become so dangerous?" someone shouted. Another chimed in "I used to buy sreraebnug to protect myself from bad snacirema. Now I have to buy more sreraebnug to protect myself from other sreraebnug. But I don't feel any safer." Arguments raged through the town hall. Then one young snacirema stood up and asked, "Didn't we all feel safer before everyone started buying sreraebnug? Didn't we have fewer deaths and injuries without the sreraebnug?" The crowd murmured for several minutes before the snacirema standing next to her said "The girl is right. Using sreraebnug for protection has made our town more dangerous, not less. The sreraebnug have made us more frightened, not less. I wish we could get rid of all of the sreraebnug, and then maybe we will all feel safe again." </p> <p>It was decided; the snacirema herded up all of the sreraebnug and put them in a zoo, promising to keep them well fed. They didn't have to do that for long, though, because the sreraebnug fought and killed each other until none were left. "Good riddance" said the townsfolk. They were no longer afraid to go outside. Without the sreraebnug, they learned to trust each other again instead of being afraid of each other. And the snacirema lived happily ever after. </p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-9672401707330507652011-02-17T20:07:00.000-06:002011-02-17T20:30:33.172-06:00Global Climate Change: Theory and Evidence<p><font color="#333333">Perhaps the greatest challenge to sustainability is Global Climate Change (GCC). Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. This has led to a steady rise in the concentration of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere. At the same time, average global temperature has risen 0.76°C (1.4°F) since 1850, a phenomenon known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). “Business as usual” models project global temperatures to rise an additional 3°C (5.4°F) by 2100. The consequences of such rapid and dramatic global change are largely unknown, but preliminary estimates suggest that sea level will rise a little over 3 feet by 2100, and that weather hazards will become more severe. Economic losses are estimated in the trillions of dollars and loss of life in the hundreds of millions. A 3°C rise in average global temperature could put 30-50% of plants and animals at risk of extinction (IPCC 2007). Risks can be magnified if global climate passes a tipping point that leads to irreversible change. The high level of uncertainty about the effects and consequences of GCC demands that we apply the precautionary principle and reduce carbon emissions. In this blog post we will review the theory behind AGW and the supporting evidence.</font></p> <p><font color="#333333">First we have to make clear what we mean by “climate.” Climate is what you expect, but weather is what you get. Climate is the long-term characterization of the 'average' weather. It changes over decades, while weather changes on a daily and even hourly basis. We often overgeneralize, in space and time, the short-term changes in weather. An example of overgeneralizing in a geographic sense is "we had a wet summer, so everyone in the U.S. had a wet summer." We overgeneralize in a temporal sense when we say "this week is the coldest I can remember; we must be entering a new Ice Age.” We make both types of mistake when we generalize short term changes in local weather to long-term changes in global climate, e.g., "this summer in Nashville is the hottest I can remember; it must be global warming.”</font></p> <p>GCC has happened often during earth’s long history. Much of what we know about these changes comes from the study of ancient climates as preserved in rocks, sediments, and ice cores. These changes resulted from natural processes such as variation in solar output, in the earth’s orbit around the sun, in the spatial distribution of the continents, in oceanic circulation patterns, and the rates of volcanic activity. However, never has climate change resulted from human activity, until now. The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), which is emitted during burning of fossil fuels, is believed to be responsible for a sudden rapid increase in average global surface temperatures in the last century. Average global temperature has risen by 0.76°C (1.4°F) since 1850 and is projected to increase another 0.5-1.0°C (0.9-1.8°F) due to greenhouse gases <i>we have already added</i> to the atmosphere (Dawson and Spannagle 2009). These changes are irreversible over a timescale of 1,000 years because it would take longer than 1,000 years for the artificially warmed oceans that moderate climate to cool off (Solomon, Plattner et al. 2009). Because the rate of temperature change is greater than at any other time in the last 22,000 years when natural processes determined the global temperature (Joos and Spahni 2008), we infer that a new, non-natural process is responsible for these changes, so we name it anthropogenic global warming (AGW).</p> <p>The idea of global warming is really quite simple. Energy in sunlight passes through earth’s atmosphere and heats the surface, which warms and gives off heat. Without greenhouse gases like CO<sub>2</sub> in the earth’s atmosphere, that heat would radiate into space and be lost, and the average surface temperature of the earth would be only -18°C (0°F), meaning that all water on the earth’s surface would be frozen (Faure 1998). Life would not be possible. Fortunately, the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere absorb and trap the heat, increasing the average observed surface temperature of the earth to a very hospitable 15°C (59°F). We are fortunate to have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. However, like Goldilocks we need it not too cold and not too hot, but just right. If the concentration of greenhouse gases gets too high, it will be too hot for us.</p> <p>Recognition of the greenhouse effect goes back to Joseph Fourier in the early 19<sup>th</sup> century, and the role of carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) was identified in 1859 by John Tyndall. No scientists dispute that CO<sub>2</sub> is a greenhouse gas: scientists have repeatedly verified that through experiment. It was Svante Arrhenius in 1896 who predicted that human activities could contribute to the greenhouse effect, but it wasn’t until the 1970’s that scientists like Roger Revelle and Wallace Broecker began to raise the alarm. Their concern was based on measurements by Charles Keeling, who showed that CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in the atmosphere was increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO<sub>2</sub> (Figure 1) show both seasonal fluctuations related to plant growing seasons, and a long-term trend of steadily increasing CO<sub>2</sub>. So how is this related to human activity? In the Peak Oil chapter, we described how oil contains the energy of sunlight that fell on earth millions of years ago, trapped in organic molecules manufactured by plants using photosynthesis. The simplified chemical reaction is:</p> <p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TV3Zwau8MFI/AAAAAAAAC68/wBiLWNs6Vx4/s1600-h/clip_image001%5B3%5D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image001" border="0" alt="clip_image001" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjacPlf91cgRXW-03pSZxwiSHc0Cu1zsmNM1gfjcuQldvN24dcMPhJw3Ho5KybIte6-UpYk1GSTRqx0yyc55J2Y_0eCxxesDanCLdcSZhvAKb3qQ47iXQaphRTaGpO_odp_L6VQ7drt4Olq/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="166" /></a></p> <p>Figure 1. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauno Loa, Hawaii, USA (ppm) and average annual global surface temperature anomaly (°C) between 1958 and 2010. Temperature data from Hansen (2010), atmospheric CO2 concentration data from Keeling (2009).</p> <p>Eq. (1) CO<sub>2</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>O + energy from sunlight = CH<sub>2</sub>O + O<sub>2</sub></p> <p>The molecule CH<sub>2</sub>O represents the organic matter that stores the energy in fossil fuels. When we use fossil fuels, we undo the work of photosynthesis, promoting the reverse reaction by heating the organic matter in the presence of atmospheric oxygen so that they react and liberate the stored energy, a process called combustion. The troubling product of this combustion is CO<sub>2</sub>, which accumulates in earth’s atmosphere, leading to the observed steadily increasing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration (Figure 1).</p> <p>Equation (1) illustrates the delicate balance between plant photosynthesis (forward reaction) and combustion (reverse reaction) that determines the concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. From Eq. 1 above we can see that combustion consumes O<sub>2</sub> while producing CO<sub>2</sub>. Thus, we would predict that increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration should be balanced by decreasing O<sub>2</sub> concentration in the atmosphere, which is what we observe (IPCC 2007).</p> <p>The current atmospheric O<sub>2</sub> concentration of 21% is just right for trees: If O<sub>2</sub> rose to 25%, forests would burn after every lightning strike, but if it fell to 13%, we could not start a fire. In fact, it is life that regulates the composition of the atmosphere, as illustrated vividly by James Lovelock’s conception of Gaia. He posits that earth behaves like an organism because its components act in concert to maintain life-support systems at optimal levels. Just as our body maintains a constant temperature of 98.6°F, the earth can maintain global temperatures within a narrow range that is conducive to life. How does it accomplish this? Eq. (1) gives us some insight. Because temperature positively correlates with atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration, when CO<sub>2</sub> is increased, then temperature increases, and these changes combine to create a greenhouse that promotes plant growth through photosynthesis (Eq. 1). This causes plants to extract greater amounts of CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere, decreasing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and therefore temperature. This is an example of a balancing negative feedback loop. Thus, life helps to regulate the composition of the atmosphere and maintain an optimal temperature, and the earth system of which life is a part is self-regulating (homeostatic). Essentially, the solid earth and atmosphere (geochemistry) and life (paleontology) have co-evolved.</p> <p>The rapid increase in human population coupled with the rapidly rising rate of combustion of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has destroyed the balance. Where atmospheric concentrations of CO<sub>2</sub> and O<sub>2</sub> were in a steady state prior to the Industrial Revolution, they are now rapidly changing. As noted by E.F. Schumacher in “Small is Beautiful (1973),” “The system of nature, of which man is a part, tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting, self-cleansing. Not so with technology.” As we pump increasing amounts of CO<sub>2</sub> into the atmosphere and temperature rises, the earth acts more and more like a greenhouse and plants grow faster, acting as a sink for CO<sub>2</sub> according to Eq. (1). However, this negative feedback is not sufficient to keep atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations from increasing (Figure 1). Although life absorbs some CO<sub>2</sub> we emit through fossil-fuel burning, it won’t absorb all of it. Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration will continue to increase, but not as much as it would without photosynthetic plants. Another negative feedback is dissolution of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> in seawater. As atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations rises, increasing amounts of CO<sub>2</sub> dissolve in the oceans to form carbonic acid according to:</p> <p>Eq. (2) H<sub>2</sub>O + CO<sub>2</sub> = H<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub></p> <p>Increasing concentrations of this weak acid cause the pH of seawater to decrease. This is a major problem for organisms that extract Calcium Carbonate (CaCO<sub>3</sub>) from seawater to build shells, because Calcium Carbonate dissolved readily in acidic water. Coral reefs are the backbone of coastal marine ecosystems that have very high biodiversity, yet these reefs are rapidly dying across the world’s oceans, in part due to ocean acidification. How sad that these corals, which have been some of earth’s most successful creatures, having survived for hundreds of millions of years, now face extinction because of anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. If the world’s coral reef ecosystems collapse, so will most of the world’s coastal fisheries, leading to the loss of the primary protein source for most low-income coastal communities. </p> <p>How do scientists know that the excess CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere did not come from decaying plant matter or burning of modern vegetation? Because the proportion of atmospheric carbon that is radioactive <sup>14</sup>C has been declining steadily, indicating that ancient carbon is being added to the atmosphere<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a>. How do we know that the CO<sub>2</sub> didn't come from volcanoes? Because the <sup>13</sup>C/<sup>12</sup>C ratio of the atmosphere has been steadily decreasing. Volcanic CO<sub>2</sub> has high <sup>13</sup>C/<sup>12</sup>C, and only plant matter has low <sup>13</sup>C/<sup>12</sup>C, so the decrease in atmospheric <sup>13</sup>C/<sup>12</sup>C must come from burning plant matter<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[ii]</a>.</p> <p>So we can agree that CO<sub>2</sub> is a greenhouse gas, and that human activity has increased the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in the atmosphere. This should lead to warming of the atmosphere, which will thermally equilibrate with the land surface and oceans through heat transfer, causing them to also warm. Thus, the entire earth will warm, as is evident in (Figure 1). The rate of heating was higher in the last 25 years than over the previous 150 years. This acceleration of warming to rates higher than ever recorded in geologic history is what has scientists concerned (Joos and Spahni, 2008).</p> <p>Global warming is documented by many global changes. Instrumental records (corrected for the urban “heat island” effect) and natural evidence (shrinking and thinning of Arctic ice, loss of Antarctic ice shelves, and receding of most Alpine glaciers globally<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[iii]</a>; lengthening of growing seasons, migration of animals and plants to higher latitudes, and borehole measurements) all show that the earth’s surface has warmed 0.4-0.8°C (~1°F) during the 20th century. The probability that warming is real is > 99% (IPCC 2007). For example, the warmest eight years recorded since record-keeping began about 150 years ago all occurred within the twelve years preceding 2011. In fact, since 1850 the 24 warmest years have been as follows, from warmest to coolest: 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997, 1995, 1990, 1991, 2000, 1999, 1988, 1996, 1987, 1983, 1981, 1994, and 1989. The 24 warmest years have all occurred since 1980. It is nearly impossible for these observations to occur by chance.</p> <p>It’s also important to know that CO<sub>2</sub> is not the only important greenhouse gas; others include methane CH<sub>4</sub>, Nitrous Oxide N<sub>2</sub>O. Together, these gases increase the average global surface temperature by 34°C. The heating power of a greenhouse gas (radiative forcing) is proportional to the reduction of infrared radiation leaving earth caused by a unit increase in concentration of gas in the atmosphere. The cumulative effect of a greenhouse gas depends on its radiative forcing and how long it stays in the atmosphere, termed the “residence time.” The total Global Warming Potential (GWP) therefore depends on both the radiative forcing and residence time of a GHG in the atmosphere (scale normalized to CO<sub>2</sub>): CO<sub>2</sub> = 1, CH<sub>4</sub> = 21, N<sub>2</sub>O = 290, CFC’s = 3000-8000 (Faure 1998). GHG emissions are usually reported as CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents CO<sub>2e</sub>. So, for example, emission of 1 kg of CH<sub>4</sub> would be equivalent in terms of GWP to 21 kg of CO<sub>2</sub>, so CO<sub>2e</sub> = 21 kg. The GWP of CFCs are large because their atmospheric concentrations are near zero, they absorb infrared radiation between 8000-12,000 nm where CO<sub>2</sub> is ineffective, and they have long atmospheric residence times (Faure 1998)<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[iv]</a>.</p> <p>(Figure 2) compares the relative importance of GHGs to global warming by plotting the percentage of total CO<sub>2e</sub> associated with each type of GHG emission. Although CO<sub>2</sub> is the weakest of the GHG, it has the largest effect on global warming because we emit such large volumes of CO<sub>2</sub> during fossil fuel burning. Thus, AGW mitigation measures must first focus on reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.</p> <p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TV3Zwz3BUKI/AAAAAAAAC7E/F7BiUss6qEQ/s1600-h/clip_image002%5B3%5D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="Global Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2004." border="0" alt="Global Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2004." src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TV3ZxLIqkYI/AAAAAAAAC7I/MA6-1_7PJ1E/clip_image002_thumb.png?imgmax=800" width="244" height="149" /></a></p> <p>Figure 2. Global Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2004 expressed as the percentage of total CO<sub>2e</sub>. Data from IPCC 4th Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html</p> <p>Of course anthropogenic GHG emissions are not the only cause of GCC. Natural causes of GCC include variable sunlight intensity, strengthening greenhouse, increased atmospheric aerosols, and volcanic eruptions. Computer simulations based on real-world measurements show that the natural drivers, solar variability and volcanic eruptions, have actually caused earth’s surface temperature to decrease during the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Aerosols also cause cooling. As a result, observed global surface temperatures cannot be explained by natural forces alone (Figure 3). Therefore, the only remaining cause of global warming is increased greenhouse gas concentration from fossil fuel burning. (Figure 1) shows an excellent positive correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO<sub>2</sub> concentration from 1880 to the present, consistent with the idea that increased CO<sub>2</sub> is associated with increases in temperature. Data from ice cores collected in Antarctica demonstrate that this correlation stretches back 420,000 years (Petit, Jouzel et al. 1999). Plotting CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations versus temperature anomalies recorded in the ice cores demonstrates that the trend for the “Anthropocene” is distinctly different from the natural trend, showing unequivocally that the atmosphere-climate system has been highly perturbed by human activities (Figure 4). The positive correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration shown in (Figure 1) and (Figure 4) suggests, but does not prove, a cause and effect relationship<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[v]</a>. However, we can say with a high level of confidence that when atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration is high, average global surface temperatures are high, and since the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration is now higher than at any time during the past 420,000 years, we can expect that temperatures will rise to levels higher than at any time during the past 420,000 years as the global climate system adjusts to the new, higher level of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere.</p> <p><a name="_Toc242498857"></a><a name="_Toc247429944"></a><a name="_Toc248561867"></a><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TV3ZxdvQVbI/AAAAAAAAC7M/o1yP3jKjf2o/s1600-h/clip_image004%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image004" border="0" alt="clip_image004" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TV3ZxmMTY3I/AAAAAAAAC7Q/ofyg9gOfZrg/clip_image004_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="205" height="244" /></a></p> <p>Figure 3. Comparison of average global surface temperatures that were observed with those predicted by models that accounted only for natural climate forces and not human forces. From Mann and Kump (2009). </p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1tISzSkB42cWaG75Ft88ewcWgA3PxamZuy3nwp8Rcsds-KXWMqv11lmcVx57a4cleDXPF0Zl-x198JZANLYH4oZ_3rb_xbphJgvlkmlItCp0iIfqZ0Szhiu8x2wbgBvfVUc3FNVEYXeBF/s1600-h/clip_image006%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image006" border="0" alt="clip_image006" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TV3ZyKURwbI/AAAAAAAAC7Y/zl4N734LEmo/clip_image006_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="193" /></a></p> <p>Figure 4. State–space view of Antarctic ice-age cycles. From Etkin (2010).</p> <p><b>References</b></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_1">Archer, D., M. Eby, et al. (2009). The Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide. <u>Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science</u>. <b>37: </b>117-134.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_2">Dawson, B. and M. Spannagle (2009). <u>The Complete Guide to Climate Change</u>, Routledge.</a></p> <p>Etkin, B. (2010). "A state space view of the ice ages—a new look at familiar data." <u>Climatic Change </u><b>100</b>(3): 403-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9821-x.</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_3">Faure, G. (1998). <u>Principles and applications of geochemistry: a comprehensive textbook for geology students</u>, Prentice Hall.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_4">Hansen, J. E., R. Rued, et al. (2010) "NASA GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) Analysis." <u>Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change</u> DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/cli.001. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html.</a></p> <p>IPCC (2007). <u>Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</u>. Cambridge, U.K. and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press.</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_5">Joos, F. and R. Spahni (2008). "Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years." <u>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences </u><b>105</b>(5): 1425-1430. </a><a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/5/1425">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/5/1425</a></p> <p>Keeling, R. F., S. C. Piper, et al. (2009) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network." <u>Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change</u> DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/atg.035. <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html">http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html</a>.</p> <p>Mann, M. E. and L. R. Kump (2009). <u>Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming</u>. New York, DK Publishing, Inc.</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_6">Petit, J. R., J. Jouzel, et al. (1999). "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica." <u>Nature </u><b>399</b>(6735): 429-436.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_7">Solomon, S., G.-K. Plattner, et al. (2009). "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions." <u>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences </u><b>106</b>(6): 1704-1709. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.abstract.</a></p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[i]</a> <sup>14</sup>C has a half-life of 5700 years, so plant matter that is older than roughly 6 half-lives or 8*5700=45600 years has essentially no <sup>14</sup>C.</p> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[ii]</a> Note that it is the changing <sup>14</sup>C content of the atmosphere that makes accurate <sup>14</sup>C dating of material less than 100 years old impossible.</p> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[iii]</a> see <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html">http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html</a></p> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[iv]</a> Some confusion about GWP values exists because they are sometimes quoted for different timescales. Some studies only look at a 100 year timescale and find that the GWP of CH4 is 73, i.e., methane is 73 time more potent than carbon dioxide. However, if we take the longer term view required by sustainability of, say, 1000 years, the GWP of CH4 drops to 23 because CO2 persists in the atmosphere longer than methane. See Archer, D., M. Eby, et al. (2009). The Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide. <u>Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science</u>. <b>37: </b>117-134.</p> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Documents/My Weblog Posts/#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[v]</a> One complication is that, when viewed at high temporal resolution, ice cores show that atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increases lag behind temperature increases by several centuries, possibly suggesting that increased temperatures cause high atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> rather than the reverse. However, there is a good explanation for this relationship, one that relies on increases in solar insolation to trigger warming episodes that then become amplified by increases in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>. Variations in insolation (solar intensity) due to Milankovitch cycles are not sufficient to explain the large (6° C) temperature variations of the ice ages. However, they can trigger temperature excursions. If insolation increases, then atmospheric temperature will increase slightly. This causes the solubility of CO<sub>2</sub> in seawater to decrease; the ocean begins to add CO<sub>2</sub> to the atmosphere, which further increases temperature due to the greenhouse effect, which leads to more degassing, creating a positive feedback loop. This is reinforced by another positive feedback loop in which continental ice sheets melt and recede, exposing land with a lower albedo, leading to increased absorption of solar radiation and heating. The oceans take about a thousand years to overturn and degas, so the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in the atmosphere will not peak until roughly a thousand years after the heating episode began.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-9238322570977290092011-02-10T17:54:00.000-06:002011-02-10T18:01:39.069-06:00Green Construction<p>A Guest blog by <a href="mailto:krista.peterson925@gmail.com?subject=Green%20Construction">Krista Peterson</a></p> <p>Green construction is a new form of construction that is safer for people and the environment and is cheaper over the long term than old construction. Its use follows an era in which residential and commercial buildings were constructed both cheaply and quickly to please owners. Instead of focusing on quality, the goal was most certainly quantity. The materials used in the building of these shoddy and quickly-constructed structures were typically very unfriendly to the environment and contained hazardous products including fibrous asbestos<a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Desktop/#_edn1" name="_ednref1"><sup>1</sup></a>. </p> <p>Fibrous asbestos is the only known cause of the disease mesothelioma, which is a rare form of cancer that affects the linings of the heart, chest and abdomen. When asbestos fibers become airborne they can be inhaled or consumed – via eating or drinking – and they will eventually cause a variety of harmful and fatal health problems. <a href="http://www.mesotheliomasymptoms.com/">Mesothelioma symptoms</a> often resemble the common cold and other basic chest and lung ailments, which makes the victims life expectancy substantially shorter because of the common misdiagnosis. <br />Asbestos was used in more than 3,000 products during the 20<sup>th</sup> century, as it was inexpensive and present in large quantities. Perhaps the most common use of asbestos was for insulation. Fortunately, construction workers can now use safer choices to insulate a building. These include: <br />1. Cotton Fibers – A highly popular material used in the construction of “green” buildings, insulation made of cotton fiber is made using denim and other forms of batted recycled material. As with cellulose, cotton fiber is treated using mild chemicals to make the material fireproof. However, the fiber is completely nontoxic and does not produce any gases. <br />2. <a href="http://www.cellulose.org/HomeOwners/InsulationEnvironment.php">Cellulose</a> – Formed from 85% recycled material, cellulose is a fancy way of defining old shredded newspaper. This material has quickly become one of the most popular forms of eco-friendly insulation throughout the world. The cellulose is treated using safe chemicals to increase its resistance to heat and to prevent growth of mold. It is completely nontoxic and has been shown to decrease utility bills by as much as 20% annually. <br />3. SPF or <a href="http://www.sprayfoam.org/index.php?page_id=38">Spray Polyurethane Foam</a> – This type of insulation is ideal for those who suffer from allergies as it is sprayed within the areas that need to be insulated. The foam fits very snugly and does not allow mold to grow. These are several different types of foams that are sold but it is agreed that water-based icynene is the best. It contains no polybrominated diphenyl ether that is toxic. This type of foam also lacks hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are greenhouse gases and can catalyze the destruction of stratospheric ozone. On average, the use of SPFs can decrease utility bills by around 35%.</p> <p>Other substances that were toxic were also used in building construction, which would affect both the health of those who were working to construct the site and those who worked in or resided in the building. Fortunately, the dawn of the 21st century brought many different options when it came to replacing these old products that were used and proven hazardous to human health. These replacements greatly improved the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/iaq/">indoor air quality</a> and the general environment for working and living conditions. Additionally, buildings that were well-constructed and were built to be environmentally friendly typically needed less energy to function and consumed less water. This saved environmental resources, and pleased tenants and landlords as the costs of water and electricity were decreased. Thus, green construction is smart construction because it is healthier, eco-friendly, and in the long term more cost-effective than conventional construction.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="file:///C:/Users/ayersj/Desktop/#_ednref1" name="_edn1">1.</a> Asbestos is a family of six minerals. The fibrous amphibole forms (amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite) are known to be carcinogenic. However, the cancer risk presented by the most commonly used form of asbestos, chrysotile, is low or nonexistent; see Ross (1984) Definitions for Asbestos and Other Health-related Silicates, American Society for Testing Materials Special Publication 834, pp. 51-104.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-44036461814004631802010-11-24T16:13:00.000-06:002010-11-24T16:19:34.132-06:00Peak Oil 4: Consequences of Peak Oil<p><em>The scale of all human enterprises will contract with the energy supply. We will be compelled by the circumstances of the Long Emergency to conduct the activities of daily life on a smaller scale, whether we like it or not, and the only intelligent action is to prepare for it.</em> - James Kunstler (2005) "The Long Emergency"</p> <p>Peak oil has already had a major impact on U.S. society. Rising gas prices, and the realization that the gigantic cars manufactured by the U.S. auto industry were unsustainable, caused the collapse of some of the largest corporations in America. The American auto manufacturing industry was so unsustainable that doubling the price of gas caused an almost complete collapse of the industry within one year. Many people lost their jobs, most of them for good. High gas prices in 2007-2008 led to many public protests and riots worldwide <a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a>. Oil prices are projected to increase substantially in the “business as usual” scenario, from $80.16 in 2010 to $110.49 in 2015 and $121.94 in 2025 ((<a href="#_ENREF_3">EIA 2009</a>), Table 16, pg. 88). As the title of Richard Heinberg’s book on peak oil suggests (<a href="#_ENREF_5">2005</a>), “The Party is Over,” and life is going to get tougher.</p> <p>What will the post-peak world be like? It's hard for us to know. Many people thought the world would collapse because of the year 2000 problem, but it had an insignificant effect on our lives. Still, it's hard to believe that the change from cheap to expensive oil won't have big repercussions. Bates (<a href="#_ENREF_1">2006</a>) comments "Peak Oil may be the trigger for a global economic depression that lasts for many decades. Or it may not. It may plunge us into violent anarchy and military rule. Or it may not. But if Peak Oil doesn't wake us up to the precariousness of our condition, divorced from our roots in the soil and the forest, annihilating the evolutionary systems that sustain us and replacing them with brittle, artificial, plastic imitations, what will?"</p> <p>Peak Oil will cause four types of changes in transportation. From the fastest to the slowest they are:</p> <p>· Lowered quality of life – e.g. drive less</p> <p>· Increased energy efficiency – e.g. buy a Prius</p> <p>· Adapt a new energy supply – e.g. ethanol.</p> <p>· Changed cultural aspirations- e.g. buy a house in the city, no need for a car. </p> <p>These four changes will work together to reduce energy demand. Alternative energy will never replace oil for transportation, and we will face a decline in the four ways above (<a href="http://transitionculture.org/2006/08/25/dennis-meadows-limits-to-growth-and-peak-oil/">http://transitionculture.org/2006/08/25/dennis-meadows-limits-to-growth-and-peak-oil/</a>). As a result, many who study Peak Oil believe that people will essentially be stranded in the suburbs due to oil shortages, and will be forced to migrate out of the suburbs (e.g., see the interesting movies “Sprawling from Grace” (<a href="#_ENREF_2">Edwards 2009</a>) and “The End of Suburbia” (<a href="#_ENREF_4">Greene 2004</a>). However, it seems unlikely that people will abandon the suburbs in response to peak oil, as there will be alternative methods of transportation such as electric cars, which as of 2011 are already becoming widely available.</p> <p>Peak oil will also reduce food supply and economic capital. As people adapt to preserve economic capital, the changes will become social as individuals work together as communities to adapt to an oil-free, low energy lifestyle. Transport of food and goods currently depends on liquid fuels; Peak oil will sharply curtail transport, creating a gap between supply and demand of food and goods that only increasing local production can fill.</p> <h6>Environmental and Social Costs of Oil Use and Addiction</h6> <p>The environmental consequences of Peak oil and the costs of our oil dependence are well illustrated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. The Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling 41 miles off the Louisiana coast in water 5,000 feet deep when it exploded on April 20, killing 11 platform workers. Before British Petroleum (BP) capped it on July 15, 4.9 million barrels of crude oil had gushed from the drill hole, causing widespread damage to shorelines and fisheries. The federal government closed nearly 36% of federally-owned area in the Gulf of Mexico to fishing, costing the fishing industry billions of dollars. The U.S. Travel Industry estimates that the three-year cost to lost tourism could exceed $23 billion. Costs to BP had risen to $3 billion by July 5, 2010.</p> <p>A clue to how the spill relates to Peak oil is contained in the name: the Deepwater Horizon was in deep water because oil companies had already drilled all of the shallower, easier to drill locations. Drilling for oil is becoming riskier and more expensive as we are forced to mine more extreme environments; the easy oil is already gone. </p> <p>The social costs of oil use also deserve closer inspection. In his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" (<a href="#_ENREF_4">2008</a>) Thomas Friedman argues that the global dependence on oil has made the oil states powerful, and that power has prevented or even reversed political reforms. In (Figure 1.) the countries that produce more oil than they consume plot in the green “sustainable field,” where we refer to the ability of a country to meet its current needs. Countries in the green field export oil, and countries in the red field must import oil. The dependence of countries like the U.S. on oil from countries in the green field has caused many social problems, including decreased national security of importing states.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9L3rWcgnkOyiuTa6aRfBw7us_1J5pNmUL-rjJRJZriqXbUIajJ_xAn_oWx8YSlnuNtMNP6bogTSIzdE1HmI-xx26oZku0bzF6YsWP3eU1f_AwzAaXcm2TtkLUHWq-dfo6Q4J7CAeGPwaA/s1600-h/clip_image002%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image002" border="0" alt="clip_image002" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TO2PdZffn7I/AAAAAAAAC6g/ViFLSnOlqVk/clip_image002_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="178" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276366671">Figure </a>1.</p> <p>Of the 23 countries that get the majority of their income from oil and gas, none are democracies (p. 105). Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia can treat the U.S. with impunity because oil income has made them powerful. Friedman's First Law of Petropolitics states "In oil-rich petrolist states, the price of oil and the pace of freedom tend to move in opposite directions… Petrolist states (are) authoritarian states (or ones with weak state institutions) that are highly dependent on oil production for the bulk of their exports and government income ((<a href="#_ENREF_4">Friedman 2008</a>), p. 96)." Governments of petrolist states get their money from oil sales, not taxes, and they use the money to placate their citizens through subsidies. If the price of oil plummets (which seems unlikely), governments of petrolist countries like Iran will likely collapse.</p> <p>In general, the "resource curse" affects third-world countries that sell their natural resources and use the money to develop in unsustainable ways. Typically a minority of citizens controls the resource, and they became fabulously rich while the vast majority of citizens remain destitute. The resulting concentration of power prevents the development of democracy. "Our addiction to oil makes global warming warmer, petrodictators stronger, clean air dirtier, poor people poorer, democratic countries weaker, and radical terrorists richer (p. 81)." Thus the proliferation of bumper stickers in the U.S.: ((<a href="#_ENREF_4">Friedman 2008</a>), p. 80): "How many soldiers per gallon does your SUV get?"; "Osama loves your SUV"; "Nothin' Dumber than a Hummer"; "Draft the SUV drivers first." Friedman concludes that "The world will be a better place politically if we can invent plentiful renewable energy sources that eventually reduce global demand for oil to the point where even oil-rich states will have to diversify their economies and put their people to work in more innovative ways ((<a href="#_ENREF_4">Friedman 2008</a>), p. 107)."</p> <h6>Effects on Transportation and the Economy</h6> <p>Peak oil is likely to strongly hurt businesses that depend on transport by truck or plane. If you are a trucker, work in the airline industry, for FedEx or UPS, or for big box stores like Wal-Mart, you should start formulating a backup plan in case you lose your job. Obviously if you are an investor you don't want to invest long-term in companies that make money primarily through transportation. New jobs in sectors like local food production will open up to close the supply-demand gap for transported goods.</p> <p>The post-peak world may be like living in the U.S. during WWII. Americans were resource-constrained, and there was energy rationing (no new cars, limited gas). People grew victory gardens. WWII was an emergency, but not the type we are used to, the kind associated with natural disasters. Rather, it was a "long emergency,” to use James Kunstler's phrase, and that's the type of emergency that will confront us. The repercussions and responses to Peak oil will stretch out over years. Yet like natural disaster emergencies, when people band together and work toward a common cause, the Peak oil emergency may help rebuild communities. It may reverse many negative trends of the 20th century such as depersonalization and centralization.</p> <p>The U.S. is particularly vulnerable to the challenges presented by Peak oil because it has a low population density, and because the U.S. built its cities for cars rather than people, leading to urban sprawl. Australia is even more vulnerable because transportation distances within Australia and to its trade partners are even greater than in the U.S., and it is more dependent on petroleum-based fertilizers to produce its food.</p> <p>In conclusion, Peak oil is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the next several decades. As global oil production decreases and demand increases, the price of oil and of all goods that use of oil or oil-derived energy in their life cycle will skyrocket. Sadly, people will be forced to abandon marginal living areas that petroleum made livable, such as big chunks of Australia. But out of the Peak oil crisis may emerge a new, more rewarding lifestyle, if we prepare for change. </p> <p>For more information about Peak oil see:</p> <p>ASPO International: The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas: <a href="http://www.peakoil.net/">http://www.peakoil.net/</a></p> <p>References</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_1">Bates, A. (2006). <u>The Post-Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing Times</u>, New Society Publishers.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_2">Edwards, D. M. (2009). Sprawling From Grace<b>: </b>82 min.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_3">EIA (2009). Annual Energy Outlook 2009, USDOE<b>: </b>230. </a><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf">http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf</a>.</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_4">Friedman, T. (2008). <u>Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America</u>, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_5">Greene, G. (2004). The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream<b>: </b>78 min.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_6">Heinberg, R. (2005). <u>The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies</u>, New Society Publishers.</a></p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[i]</a>For a sampling from 2007-8 see: Transporters, farmers to protest failure to cut fuel prices in India (<a href="http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/transporters-farmers-to-protest-fail">http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/transporters-farmers-to-protest-failure-to-cut-fuel-prices_100148001.html</a>, Truckers protest fuel prices in Mexico City (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/24/mexico.protest/index.htmlU">http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/24/mexico.protest/index.html</a>, Scores of bikers in UK have caused rush-hour disruption in a protest against rising fuel prices (<a href="http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2008/06/05/bikers_stage_fuel_price_prot">http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2008/06/05/bikers_stage_fuel_price_protest</a>, Truckers to protest fuel costs in U.S. (<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-03-30-truckers_N.htmU">http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-03-30-truckers_N.htm</a>, Hundreds Protest Against Steep Fuel Price Rises in Burma (<a href="http://www.irrawaddy.org/multimedia.php?art_id=8391U">http://www.irrawaddy.org/multimedia.php?art_id=8391</a></p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-16373110758792105492010-11-04T07:41:00.000-05:002010-11-04T07:42:58.116-05:00Peak Oil 3: National and Global Production Peaks of Oil and Other Resources<p><i>"We've embarked on the beginning of the last days of the age of oil." — </i>Mike Bowlin, Chair, ARCO<i></i></p> <p><em>"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel</em>." — attributed to Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai</p> <p>We are not good at recognizing distant threats even if their probability is 100%. Society ignoring [peak oil] is like the people of Pompeii ignoring the rumblings below Vesuvius." — James Schlesinger, former US Energy Secretary</p> <p>Geologists have been predicting since the 1950s that oil production would begin to decrease in a matter of decades. When Geophysicist M. King Hubbard predicted in 1956 that oil production in the U.S. would peak in the early 1970s, both the scientific community and the public made him a pariah. However, when production peaked in 1970 as he predicted (Figure 1), many scientists accepted him as a prophet (most of the public remained unaware of his predictions). Many people forget that until the early 1970s the U.S. was, like Saudi Arabia of the 1980s and 1990s, the largest oil producer in the world. However, since the early 1970s the U.S. has become increasingly dependent on foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to feed its voracious appetite for oil. We now rely on unstable third world countries to fuel our cars, and we finance despots and wars to maintain our precious oil supply. Even George W. Bush acknowledged in 2008 that the U.S. is addicted to oil. The effects on foreign countries of the U.S. addiction to oil are very similar to the effects of the U.S. addiction to illegal drugs: the flow of money from the wealthy U.S. leads to corruption, crime, and political instability in third world countries. Our addiction has caused scores of countries and millions of people to suffer. Moreover, our dependence on foreign countries for oil has obviously decreased our national security.</p> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TNKqRcmBmXI/AAAAAAAAC5s/67VIjhZMuag/s1600-h/clip_image002%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image002" border="0" alt="clip_image002" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TNKqR77PUAI/AAAAAAAAC5w/ojbQ_0Xaico/clip_image002_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="182" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276362911">Figure </a>1. U.S. oil production over time. Equation for Gaussian fit: y = 10955*exp(-0.5*((x-1972.8)/36.21)^2). Data from BP Statistical Review (2010).</p> <p>Now that the U.S. depends on foreign countries for 2/3 of its oil, we must be concerned not only about the reliability of our existing suppliers but also the natural limits to global oil production. In the year 2008 the world experienced for the first time a spike in oil and gas prices resulting from demand, as opposed to previous price spikes in 1973, 1980, and 1990 caused by global conflicts. Increases in oil prices result in increases in the costs of farming and food. The spike in 2008 occurred because countries didn't allow the market to correct itself; instead, for decades they subsidized energy and food, keeping prices artificially low ((<a href="#_ENREF_5">Friedman 2008</a>), p. 41).</p> <p>To understand better why we can expect to have future shortages of non-renewable resources such as oil, we refer to (Figure 2), which plots hypothetical production rates of renewable and nonrenewable resources as a function of time. As discussed previously, because there is a finite amount of every nonrenewable resource such as oil, production and consumption inevitably lead to resource depletion. The total amount of a resource that is available (the ultimate cumulative production) is equal to the area under the curve. Resources that are not abundant and that we use rapidly run out quickly so that their resource production curves are very narrow. Resources that we use slowly or that are abundant last much longer, so their curves are wide and do not peak until well into the future.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9lbGOeXckhvC0WEb7zSvDqm_MbDaQgYmaepcwnYceDJXMZLBpJpTgm1b55WRSsLxasvbU7PttrkbggY5jVYKdj0bPGh9YfttL8dh2KYm4nIDgRcuxFiqsfjl-OW0rBbaqQQU5FdpBFThI/s1600-h/clip_image004%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image004" border="0" alt="clip_image004" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9nGg24MMZYqZoxS4t_3oS5hT1d57IKBJuSuJUbuAfj-99ciX8NfpRQN6DZ5DW-Mdzwiz_0SpAfkvOsRCMOzC2ikt8hkX0I_arAhloM3LOh1W9kwpSSyjswqhbplFL9o6ZdrwBjAyW6vhm/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="172" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276362953">Figure </a>2. Hypothetical production rates as a function of time. After Hubbert (1987).</p> <p>It is the timing of the peak that is of most interest, because any time after the peak the resource will be scarce and therefore be expensive. In (Figure 2) the “unlimited exponential growth” curve can represent human population, while “renewable resource” can represent water production/consumption. As stated by Hubbert, “In their initial phases, the curves for each of these types of growth are indistinguishable from one another, but as industrial growth approaches maturity, the separate curves begin to diverge from one another. In its present state the world industrial system has already entered the divergence phase of these curves but is still somewhat short of the culmination of the curve for nonrenewable resources (<a href="#_ENREF_8">1987</a>).”</p> <p>Note that on the rising limb of Hubbert's Peak demand drives supply: "the more oil the world economy needed, the more the oil industry could produce… Once we pass the peak, supply begins to dictate demand, meaning that prices start to rise suddenly and steeply, and the people with control of the remaining oil really get to start calling the shots (<a href="#_ENREF_7">Hopkins 2008</a>)."</p> <p>We can apply Hubbert’s approach of constructing resource availability curves to any non-renewable resource on either a local or a global basis. Many countries are already post-peak for production of oil (including the U.S.) and other resources. For example, the U.S. imports 100% of the following resources that it uses: Arsenic trioxide, asbestos, bauxite and alumina, columbium (niobium), fluorspar, graphite, manganese, mica, quartz crystal, strontium, thallium, thorium, and yttrium (<a href="#_ENREF_9">Keller 2011</a>). Because we have global trade, local scarcity has not resulted in a crisis. Countries that have a surplus of a resource export it, and countries erase their deficits by importing. The problem occurs when global annual production rate of a nonrenewable resource peaks and then begins to decline. During the decline, resource production cannot keep pace with demand, and resource prices rise. Peak oil may cause shortages of many other resources because oil provides the energy to transport those resources. If the U.S. doesn’t have oil to transport all of the resources that we import, we will have more than just an energy problem.</p> <p>What nonrenewable resources may become scarce in the 21<sup>st</sup> century? Hubbert predicted that copper, tin, lead, and zinc would reach peak production within decades (<a href="#_ENREF_8">Hubbert 1987</a>). At the current rate of consumption, these metals will be available for 60, 40, 40, and 45 years respectively, and Indium, which is used in LCDs and solar cells, may run out in only 15 years (<a href="#_ENREF_12">Ragnarsdottir 2008</a>). Phosphate, which is an essential component of fertilizers, may disappear within the next 60-70 years (<a href="#_ENREF_11">Oelkers and Valsami-Jones 2008</a>), which could greatly decrease agricultural productivity and cause widespread food shortages.</p> <p>It’s not just non-renewable resources that we have to worry about. Certain types of renewable resources have production curves similar to those of non-renewable resources because their renewal rate is less than the harvesting rate. For example, deep (fossil) groundwaters have been in the ground for hundreds or thousands of years, which means it would take hundreds or thousands of years to replace them at natural recharge rates. In many areas of the world, the groundwater extraction rate is much greater than the recharge rate, so the groundwater reserve is shrinking, as made visible by falling water tables in unconfined aquifers. When we use groundwater and other resources faster than they can be replaced, we are effectively mining them, and we can expect the production rate to peak and then decline, as occurred in Saudi Arabia (Figure 3). Consequently, hydrologist Luna Leopold advocated the treatment of groundwater as a nonrenewable resource that we should use only during droughts. The sustainable approach to resource use is not to use renewable resources faster than nature can renew them.</p> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TNKqSvSIPKI/AAAAAAAAC58/aF62saqH5eI/s1600-h/clip_image006%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image006" border="0" alt="clip_image006" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOweiEwFRUCZrTDKo1YXMX2c9t1q3f_HLKccRVXk_1SZf3BFpXtONIgj1EhanFES0gQrZF_nlgK0Ox2Ct-Y96yOaZ8NArc6aH8Kg2-EB7zpU-ZWYNn0EhyphenhyphengPvEJBenY7mYuOYrcmjMm6Xs/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="155" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276363004">Figure </a>3. Saudi Arabia Water Supply 1980-2000 in Million cubic meters/year. Data from Abderrahman (2001).</p> <p>Another renewable resource whose production has peaked is the global wild fish catch, which peaked in the 1980’s due to overfishing (Fig. 1.10). Fortunately the use of aquaculture as a substitute is expanding, which has softened the blow. As human population and resource demand continue to increase, we can expect to see the production of more resources peak and then begin to decline. The important question is, will we always find adequate substitutes as we did for marine fish?</p> <p>Oil production is now declining in 60 of the 98 oil-producing countries. Most of these countries had a peak in oil discovery 30-40 years before they reached peak production. Similarly, we can expect world oil production to peak 30-40 years after world discovery rates peaked in 1965. World oil consumption has outpaced the discovery of new oil reserves for almost three decades: we now consume four barrels for every one we discover. </p> <p>Discoveries of oil total about two trillion barrels worldwide, and we already used ~one trillion barrels. That puts us at the center of the production curve where the peak is (often called “Hubbert’s Peak”), so that when we start consuming the second half, production rates will decrease and prices will rise (the curve is symmetrical, so the peak is in the center and the area under the curve to the left of the peak is the same as to the right of the peak, corresponding to one trillion barrels). Furthermore, the first trillion barrels was the oil that was easy to get out of the ground; the second trillion barrels will become increasingly more difficult to mine. The EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Investment) will steadily decrease, and the amount of environmental damage associated with oil recovery will greatly increase.</p> <p>Andrew Nikiforuk gives good evidence that the world is nearing peak oil in his book “Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent” (<a href="#_ENREF_10">Nikiforuk 2008</a>). He notes that the biggest supplier of oil to the U.S. is no longer Saudi Arabia, but our next-door neighbor Canada. U.S. citizens are happy because there is less risk that money we spend on oil will end up in the hands of terrorists who target us. However, Canadian oil primarily comes from the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, and mining of this “dirty” oil creates huge environmental problems, including much higher CO<sub>2</sub> emissions per unit energy because large amounts of natural gas are used to refine this dirty oil. Production of tar sand oil emits roughly 100 to 650 pounds of CO<sub>2</sub> per barrel, compared with North Sea oil that emits only ~20 pounds per barrel. Nikiforuk (<a href="#_ENREF_10">Nikiforuk 2008</a>) calls this “a switch from bloody light oil to dirty heavy oil,” and concludes that it is not in the best interests of the U.S. or Canada.</p> <p>Several other observations support the idea that global peak oil is near. First, of the 98 oil-producing nations, 60 have already passed their peak (<a href="#_ENREF_7">Hopkins 2008</a>), including the U.S., U.K., Norway, Venezuela, and Russia; countries near their peak include Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China; and countries where production is increasing include Canada (tar sands), Kazakhstan, and seven others. Second, although prices have been very high, giving an incentive to increase production, the production rate has remained steady at 84-87 million barrels per day for the last six years (Figure 4). The evidence is that geology rather than economics or politics dictates production rates. Third, oil companies are drilling in more difficult environments because they have already tapped out the easy targets. For example, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in May 2010 resulted from the extreme pressures below one mile of ocean and four miles of rock where they were drilling. Another supporting observation is that oil companies have not greatly expanded their oil exploration activities even though the price of oil has skyrocketed. Oil companies are now using their vast amounts of money to diversify or buy back their own stocks rather than spending more money on R&D and exploration. This is clear evidence of falling return on investment in exploration, and shows that oil companies are planning for reduced oil production.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTZOC1XMMP_KYFoSbSJohiSFgo-TIDEU5xJ9mtunM0JHYYUKefmxl4SQtRYc9qwxPfEi7YMve2ahClP4SLpV7laKZ-UWLeiz1bVhkb2d-tjClX2JcforSZot67r-Oucmz2CqMuc7aipmlj/s1600-h/clip_image008%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image008" border="0" alt="clip_image008" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOIak9LstagNBoWwL8Nj24yu9SylUDMdd4i856XFXRrj-8x9zAMej3mLD-BLfwiRHXZkulDPmysdRrXbgvJxNTs48F98ryMYreuGTUTxsGYCILC5oNcP5fC1sAIis9HSXXog4U8VgQB5cr/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="182" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276363054">Figure </a>4. World oil production in thousands of barrels daily. Gaussian fit predicts peak production in the year 2026 (y = 85079*exp(-0.5((x-2026)/51.94)^2). Data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy Data 2010.</p> <p>So when will global oil production peak and then begin a steady decline leading to increasing cost? Oil companies and national governments want investors to be optimistic about the future, so they try to discredit peak oil claims. To get the true story we need experts who are independent of corporate or government interests, who have no personal stake so their opinions are objective, and who base their opinions on facts. Kenneth Deffeyes (<a href="#_ENREF_4">2001</a>) argued that the peak would be somewhere close to the year 2005. Using data from British Petroleum’s annual <a href="http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622">Statistical Review of World Energy 2010</a>, I plotted world oil production through 2009 (Figure 4). The data show that oil production plateaued starting in 2005. The increasing gap between constant supply and increasing demand fueled by countries like China and India caused oil prices to increase dramatically by 2007 before falling in response to the global recession. A Gaussian fit to the production data peaks at 2026<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a> (Figure 4). Most other studies that tried to fit the production data and extrapolate it into the future suggested that oil production would peak near 2008-2010 (Figure 5, from www.theoildrum.com). Considering that oil production has not increased significantly since 2005, and actually dropped 2.6% from 2008-2009 (<a href="#_ENREF_1">BP 2010</a>), these predictions seem accurate. However, as Hopkins (<a href="#_ENREF_7">2008</a>) points out, the exact date of the peak doesn't matter; what matters is that it is near, and we haven't begun to prepare for it.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7OhCQzcYTcqqcAj-ZFara9GmCC4jrmllukN2kRvJoeH5jiqY3S2To37H3JHAqpy2MZWApuDv2oxHOyOukbtAzNrPlAYa55OnoMzP0dP0Zm-_8NRHmbiTbYtC8vKXA8fZyTgrMu6-G_YZy/s1600-h/clip_image010%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image010" border="0" alt="clip_image010" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TNKqTx-gAZI/AAAAAAAAC6Q/_zDrziJaUN0/clip_image010_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="192" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref273468530">Figure </a>5. World oil production (EIA Monthly) for crude oil + NGL. The median forecast is calculated from 15 models that are predicting a peak before 2020 (Bakhtiari, Smith, Staniford, Loglets, Shock model, GBM, ASPO-[70,58,45], Robelius Low/High, HSM,Duncan&Youngquist). 95% of the predictions sees a production peak between 2008 and 2010 at 77.5 - 85.0 mbpd (The 95% forecast variability area in yellow is computed using a bootstrap technique). The magenta area is the 95% confidence interval for the population-based model. </p> <p>According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary” (<i>Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management</i>, February 2005, Page 64). What is crazy and wasteful is that the U.S. and other countries are still building car assembly plants, roads, highways, parking lots, suburban housing developments, and airplanes as though cheap oil will last forever (<a href="#_ENREF_2">Brown 2009</a>). We continue to make investments in an infrastructure that will be superfluous shortly after we build it. This is an example of a market that is failing because it does not anticipate even short-term changes.</p> <p>Many will dispute the assertion that world oil production has nearly peaked. It is possible that the current peak apparent in (Figure 4) is a local maximum rather than a global maximum. Examples of local maximums include the 1973 and 1980 peaks in world oil production followed shortly after by price increases. Both of these local maxima resulted from political events, the OPEC embargo in 1973 and the Iraq-Iran war in 1980. So while resource availability is the primary control, anything that disrupts production and transportation of oil (wars, natural disasters, and politics) can cause short-term fluctuations in production rates and therefore price. However, the current oil production peak is not caused by political events, but by the inability of producers to increase supply.</p> <p>Others argue that oil production, or at least combined conventional and unconventional oil and gas, will not rapidly decline but will plateau or slowly decline (<a href="#_ENREF_3">Cheney and Hawkes 2007</a>). Production of conventional oil and gas may decline steeply. However, substitution with unconventional oil such as tar sands combined with improvements in extraction technologies will slow the rate of production decline for combined conventional and unconventional oil and gas, consistent with the nearly constant production rate of the last six years. Even in this best-case scenario where world oil production plateaus rather than peaks, oil prices will still climb considerably because demand will continue to increase exponentially as the economies of China and India expand at an exponential rate. As noted by Lester Brown, in this era of globalization “where oil production is no longer expanding, one country can get more oil only if another gets less (<a href="#_ENREF_2">Brown 2009</a>)”. The U.S. will be competing with China, India, and every other country in the world for oil, which will drive up oil prices.</p> <p>Some think that increasing domestic production will solve any oil shortage problems for the U.S., but in reality, oil companies will sell any domestically-produced oil on the global market. Despite political claims to the contrary, if the U.S. opened the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling today, when it reached maximum production in roughly 2030 it would supply no more than 1.2% of the total world oil consumption<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[ii]</a>, and therefore would have a negligible impact on oil prices. Furthermore, oil production could not begin until roughly ten years after opening ANWR (yes, it takes that long to build the pipeline, drilling facilities, etc.), and would peak around 2030 before starting to decline, so it won’t help the U.S. for at least ten years. So no, opening ANWR will not solve our oil problem.</p> <p>The most important question about oil is not how much remains in the ground, but how much can we mine and still maintain economic and energy profits (Hall and Day (<a href="#_ENREF_6">2009</a>)). We get an energy profit when we get more energy from the oil we produce than the amount of energy required to produce it. The Energy Return On Energy Investment EROEI of U.S. petroleum declined from roughly 100:1 in 1930, to 40:1 in 1970, to about 14:1 in 2000 (Hall and Day (<a href="#_ENREF_6">2009</a>)). For the tar sands that produce a major amount of oil consumed in the U.S. the ratio is much less than 10:1, perhaps even close to 1:1 (Figure 6). As EROEI decreases, the cost per unit energy increases.</p> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TNKqUHvGVHI/AAAAAAAAC6U/iNEYr7Ibsn8/s1600-h/clip_image012%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image012" border="0" alt="clip_image012" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv9tpmBPwUXbeTcjciTdz_9QzgBqfW-NQxIsctTTlypN62i4D61iXTpYrbz2ftSP7Wr9BKRzscArDO0KBC1L4aEW25GvR1sR8T89lrC5UonSw2AAzuZ9ET1Pbm2stOE9nwdq_r7NFXSOAo/?imgmax=800" width="210" height="244" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref273511413">Figure </a>6. From Hall and Day (2009)</p> <p>Increases in EROEI, supply-demand gap, and price of petroleum will also cause increases for gasoline, because gasoline is produced by distilling oil in a refinery. Gasoline is an amazing substance that we take for granted. Each gallon of gasoline contains 37 kWh of energy, which is equivalent to 500 hours of human work<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[iii]</a> (<a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html">http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html</a>). In other words, you could hire 500 people to push your car for one hour and it would get you roughly as far as one gallon of gasoline. Currently that gallon of gasoline costs about $2.50, but to hire 500 people to push your car for one hour at a typical wage of $10/hour would cost you $5000. People say gas is too expensive? It’s the bargain of the millennium, which is why people are burning through it so quickly.</p> <p>Some argued that gas prices were high in 2008 because the U.S. didn’t have enough refineries, and that the problem of high gas prices would just go away if we build more refineries. If that were true, then the price of gas should be cheaper in most other countries, which are unlikely to all have made the same dumb mistake. Here is a global comparison of gas prices:</p> <p><b>Table 5.2: Gasoline Prices for Selected Countries, February/March, 2009</b></p> <p>From <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2009_fotw569.html>. <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody> <tr> <td width="153"> <p><b>Country</b></p> </td> <td width="153"> <p><b>Pump Prices</b></p> </td> <td width="153"> <p><b>Country</b></p> </td> <td width="153"> <p><b>Pump Prices</b></p> </td> <td width="153"> <p><b>Country</b></p> </td> <td width="153"> <p><b>Pump Prices</b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="153"> <p>Netherlands</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$6.25</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>India (Delhi)</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$3.75</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>China</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$1.93</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="153"> <p>United Kingdom</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$5.94</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Australia</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$3.32</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Nigeria</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$1.85</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="153"> <p>Germany</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$5.87</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>South Africa</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$3.24</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Indonesia</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$1.67</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="153"> <p>Italy</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$5.72</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Russia</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$2.38</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Iran</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$0.33</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="153"> <p>France</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$5.56</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Mexico</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$2.36</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>Venezuela</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$0.12</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="153"> <p>South Korea</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$5.38</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>United States</p> </td> <td width="153"> <p>$2.23</p> </td> <td width="153"> </td> <td width="153"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </p> <p>In most countries gasoline is more expensive than in the U.S.. Iran and Venezuela have anomalously low prices because they are petroleum-producing countries with government-controlled pricing. European countries have much higher prices due to heavy government taxation. Thus, high gas prices are a global problem caused by oil scarcity, and are not caused by a U.S. infrastructure deficiency. We conclude that oil is becoming scarce, that exploration and enhanced recovery are unlikely to relieve that scarcity, and that oil prices will continue to rise as demand increases.</p> <p>References</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_1">BP (2010). Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, British Petroleum. </a><a href="http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622">http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622</a>.</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_2">Brown, L. (2009). <u>Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization</u>. New York, NY, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_3">Cheney, E. S. and M. W. Hawkes (2007). "The Future of Hydrocarbons: Hubbert's Peak or a Plateau?" <u>GSA Today</u> <b>17</b>(6): 69-70.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_4">Deffeyes, K. S. (2001). <u>Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage</u>. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_5">Friedman, T. (2008). <u>Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America</u>, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_6">Hall, C. S. A. and J. W. J. Day (2009). "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil." <u>American Scientist</u> <b>97</b>: 230-237.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_7">Hopkins, R. (2008). <u>The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience</u>, Chelsea Green Publishing.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_8">Hubbert, M. K. (1987). Exponential Growth as a Transient Phenomenon in Human History. <u>Societal Issues, Scientific Viewpoints</u>. M. A. Strom. New York, NY, American Institute of Physics<b>: </b>75-84.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_9">Keller, E. A. (2011). <u>Environmental Geology</u>, Pearson Prentice Hall.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_10">Nikiforuk, A. (2008). <u>Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent</u>. Vancouver, BC, Canada, Greystone Books. file:///C:\Users\ayersj\Documents\My%20Classes\Sustainability\Papers\TarSandsBook.pdf.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_11">Oelkers, E. H. and E. Valsami-Jones (2008). "Phosphate Mineral Reactivity and Global Sustainability." <u>Elements</u> <b>4</b>(2): 83-87.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_12">Ragnarsdottir, K. V. (2008). "Rare metals getting rarer." <u>Nature Geoscience</u> <b>1</b>(11): 720-721. </a><a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/pdf/ngeo302.pdf">http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/pdf/ngeo302.pdf</a>.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[i]</a> According to Deffeyes (2001), production values for nonrenewable resources such as oil are best fit using the Gaussian or normal distribution y=a*exp(-.5*((x-x<sub>0</sub>)/b)<sup>2</sup>). This equation has three adjustable parameters: the year of peak production (x<sub>0</sub>), the amount of oil produced daily during that peak year in millions of barrels (a), and the number of years between the half-maximum points (b). I used the Solver add-in in Microsoft Excel 2010 to minimize the sum of the squares of the residuals (= predicted – measured), known as the chi-squared statistic, by automatically adjusting the values of the three parameters until I obtained the best fit values for global production of a = 85.0, b = 51.9, and x<sub>0</sub> = 2026, with r<sup>2</sup> = 0.87. I obtained the same results using nonlinear regression in Sigmaplot 11. The calculated peak production of 85 million barrels per day is roughly equal to the production rate from 2007-2010.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[ii]</a> Fear of oil shortages has led to the spread of misinformation, particularly for political gain. Recently a friend said he had heard from several sources that ANWR can supply about 60 years of oil for the U.S.. I told him that I had heard that, given our current oil consumption rate, it was more like a two -year supply (if it were our only source of oil), and that to last 60 years ANWR would have to contain more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had. That night I looked up the statistics. According to the USGS (2001) ANWR holds roughly 10.4 billion barrels. In 2007, the United States consumed 7.54 billion barrels of oil. Thus, it would take only 10.4 bbl/7.54 bbl/year = 1.38 years for Americans to consume all of the oil. For the maximum estimate of 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR it would take 16/7.54 = 2.1 years. Considering our rate of consumption of oil is continuously increasing, an estimate of two years supply is a reasonable upper limit.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[iii]</a> Actually, if as stated previously "One kilowatt-hour per day is roughly the power you could get from one human servant”, then I calculate that it is 888 h as follows: if E = P*t, then t = E/P = 37 kWh/(1 kWh/d) = 37 d * 24 h/d = 888 h</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-16710748675369426532010-11-04T07:27:00.000-05:002010-11-04T07:27:48.627-05:00Peak Oil 2: Oil Formation, Exploration, and Recovery<p>To understand why the amount of oil stored in the ground is finite, and the amount that we can retrieve is even smaller, we need to review how oil forms and how we recover it from the ground. The oil stored within the earth initially formed hundreds of millions of years ago when plants used photosynthesis to store the sun’s energy, died, were rapidly buried, and transformed under heat and pressure into oil. The energy stored in oil molecules is therefore ancient trapped sunlight. Oil can form from buried plants only under special conditions in the <i>oil window</i> at approximately 3-6 km depth, and only when oxygen is not present to react with the carbon to form carbon dioxide (respiration). Oil is usually found only in sedimentary rocks that are less than 500 million years old, because land plants did not exist before that time. Because oil takes millions of years to form, it is considered a non-renewable resource.</p> <p>Oil <i>source rocks</i> are the fine-grained organic-rich sedimentary rocks, usually shales, where oil forms over millions of years. Because it is a low density fluid, oil does not usually remain in the source rocks but tends to migrate upwards through permeable rocks. A <i>reservoir rock</i> such as a sandstone or coral reef has sufficient permeability to let the oil flow into it and porosity (empty space) to store the oil. An impermeable <i>cap rock</i>, often salt beds, can trap the oil beneath the surface. Petroleum geologists look for oil in places where cap rock (salt) lies above potential reservoir rock (sandstone), which in turn lies above potential source rock (shale).</p> <p>Because oil is “liquid gold,” oil companies have spent billions of dollars perfecting techniques for oil exploration and recovery. Over time, exploration shifted from the surface to the subsurface. Each drilled well provided information about the subsurface. From drill chips, geologists could identify rock types and microfossils and assess their potential as source, cap, or reservoir rock. After drilling a series of wells, a geologist could interpolate the subsurface structures (sedimentary layers, faults, etc.) between wells so they could estimate the depth of reservoir rocks in undrilled locations, and therefore how deep they would have to drill a potential well.</p> <p>To improve their oil-finding capabilities further, oil companies developed methods for wire line logging, gravity surveys, and subsurface seismic profiling that greatly increased the success rate of expensive drilling and allowed exploration geologists to find small patches of oil at great depth. These techniques greatly lowered the costs of exploration; they also greatly increased the amount of oil delivered to the market. Both factors helped to keep the price of oil low. These techniques were so effective that oil discoveries skyrocketed until 1965 (Figure 1) but have fallen ever since, suggesting that most or all of the abundant oil supplies have been found.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRmQ7lqzAVe9o88eFaVBSAV7Q6hMAqorfUVq14VU7M7jgHQelsAqLg2YOSjn_gWarL4szzm55_fnj05tbNlD__9FL8dMs66oeUI7iN9md_bEQnl02mbZ2OY3yt5a1cnvNQ1Oe_tD0R9JG6/s1600-h/clip_image002%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image002" border="0" alt="clip_image002" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYJCb2M3C246H4SmUWKobxVi_gZtDdmfkTPqFW6S-7WIF7kdTiR7fY6ZX7BPVw3BxmTfScxLdm9fVEBMnbGmFsafO-P3ICTYewb7D2lx4c4er0heYi8gAis0ctN3NRgZqBy6PYutZbdXJ1/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="197" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276362664">Figure </a>1. Crude oil price per barrel (2009 U.S. $) over time. Data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2010).</p> <p>Experts debate how much oil remains, and how much we can recover. In his book “Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage” Princeton geologist Kenneth Deffeyes (<a href="#_ENREF_1">Deffeyes 2001</a>) claimed that the total recoverable amount of oil was 2.1 trillion barrels in 2001, and that we had used roughly half of that, so that roughly 1000 billion barrels remained. In 2006 we consumed oil at a rate of 31 billion barrels per year. If that rate remained constant, it would take 1000/31 or ~32 years from the time of Deffeyes’ estimate to consume all of the remaining oil, i.e., we would deplete oil reserves by the year 2033. However, the oil consumption rate is increasing exponentially because population is increasing at an exponential rate. Furthermore, it is not the timing of ultimate exhaustion of the resource that concerns us, but the timing of peak oil production. After oil production peaks, a gap will develop between continuously increasing demand and decreasing supply, and the price of oil will skyrocket (Figure 2). This will occur well before ultimate depletion occurs.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhS5XI_vkkN8c1lAwtwKeYc2xRhS-FMTjbTLcMGuBUtibUyg34_rWBO98Vl7L9Zu_xB50NpCkFNwf5yreC3HBjubYcDu4wYQ6GeUswp04RoUvoaLgY95VHNtmAMcmDkf_s6q-jSb3aikYF/s1600-h/clip_image004%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image004" border="0" alt="clip_image004" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeGPkkmlsvLPe1cyyEk90PTQzJ3satgkRPyKFPk42_cp2Q2PXh3qfOlBb0ZEAUD8Vhmi4sPcdbUUmVKDIGGENqSkxE0BF4PGpYLsZuRo52EaY1OtsmcvGOrYMpe1jmArOYfErq8m6aVB1P/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="169" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276362719">Figure </a>2. Peak oil and the supply-demand gap. After Keller (2010).</p> <p>The prospects for finding large new oil deposits to erase the supply-demand gap are not good. Theoretically we can recover large amounts of oil from smaller oil fields, but it is not economically feasible; oil companies make most of their money from giant oil fields. Today ~85% of total production comes from less than 5% of production fields (<a href="#_ENREF_1">Deffeyes 2001</a>). Oil companies made all but two of the major oil discoveries before 1940, so the rate of discovery of large oil deposits (spikes in (Figure 3)) has greatly decreased.</p> <p><a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/TNHFOHwmKZI/AAAAAAAAC5k/Fob46v0vOTo/s1600-h/clip_image006%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="clip_image006" border="0" alt="clip_image006" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGBuoT40Tm2usw0sVoorycmAIUs-cVrb-y2UhF0UrVoI8B8e7chYikV3TVlp8uJkzPcS0z4L5MfsMeFCno57OtroF1ule1wi3kRqQj5gZqv-nPRVwyXuBRY-jNI-oHloDctZofwkdXdzBh/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="208" /></a></p> <p><a name="_Ref276362772">Figure </a>3.</p> <p>Enhanced oil recovery is also unlikely to significantly increase supply. Primary recovery, which uses natural reservoir pressure, extracts no more than 25% of the petroleum in the field. Enhanced recovery, which requires manipulating the reservoir pressure by injecting gases and liquids, extracts up to 50–60% of the petroleum. Despite more than 50 years of research on how to improve recovery rates, we still leave more than 40% of the oil underground. This is unfortunate, because worldwide we are now abandoning more wells than we are drilling.</p> <p>References</p> <p><a name="_ENREF_1">Deffeyes, K. S. (2001). <u>Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage</u>. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.</a></p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-21250826981099115372010-10-21T10:15:00.000-05:002010-10-21T10:22:50.623-05:00Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining<p>In October 2010 I traveled to eastern Kentucky to learn about the effects of mountaintop removal (MTR) mining on the community.  We were fortunate to be able to tour an ICG coal mine in Hazard, KY, and to meet with some prominent opponents of MTR, including Tom Fitzgerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council, and Erik Reece, author of "Lost Mountain."  Most of the community clearly supported coal mining, but a vocal minority of opponents included people like Beverly May who had to fight coal companies to save their homes.  After saving her neighborhood from MTR coal mining, Beverly became an activist with Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and was featured in the documentary "Deep Down."  Her story made me wonder if coal supporters would become opponents like Beverly if coal companies threatened their homes.  Why are people willing to let corporations destroy their neighbors homes and write it off as "progress?" <br />The devastating effects of MTR mining became apparent when we toured the property of Daymon Morgan, an army veteran who has been fighting for decades to prevent a coal company from destroying his land. Because he is too old to walk through his forested backyard, he hopped in his ATV to take us for a tour.  He showed us the herbs and trees that grow in the wild.  Then he took us over the ridge to see his neighbor's property: it was a bald patch of rock and dirt, with rubble strewn along its length.  The contrast between the beauty of Daymon's forest and the horror of the coal mine was so overwhelming that a student started crying. <br />Traveling through Hazard, KY made me realize the scale of MTR mining.  When I started teaching Geology, I would tell amazed students that the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens blew 1300 feet of rock from its top. In Hazard alone I must have seen ten mountains that had that much rock removed from their tops.  Humans have exceeded nature in destructive capacity. <br />Perhaps we could live with MTR mining if coal companies returned mine tailings to their original location at the top of the mountain rather than dumping them into stream valleys where they contaminate the water.  If coal companies restored the land surface to its "approximate original contour" and then replaced the soil and planted new trees, the environmental and aesthetic objections would mostly disappear.  However, coal companies insist on using the cheapest mining methods, and don't view "restoring the land" as part of their job.  Thus, they continue to turn much of Appalachia, one of the most beautiful areas I've ever seen, into a wasteland.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-89431127708549076012010-10-21T09:13:00.000-05:002010-10-21T09:21:29.683-05:00Peak Oil: Background<p><em>Climate says we should change, but peak oil says we will be forced to change</em> (<a href="#_ENREF_1">Hopkins 2008</a>).</p> <p>Oil is an amazing liquid, and an ephemeral, invaluable gift<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a>. It has been the world's most important source of energy since the mid-1950s. But evidence suggests that demand for oil will soon outstrip supply, and in the face of shortages of energy, especially for transportation, we will be forced to change our lifestyles.</p> <p>Oil is effectively a non-renewable resource because it forms much more slowly than we consume it. Thus, by definition our dependence on oil is unsustainable. Oil will become a “scarce,” expensive resource when the world production rate reaches a maximum, an event called <i>peak oil</i>. After that peak, oil production will decline and oil prices and the cost of living will begin a long-term increase.</p> <p>Currently we have no adequate substitutes for oil. It is the only high energy density liquid that can fuel our current forms of transportation. Coal is used to produce electricity, natural gas for power and heating, but there is no substitute for oil for transportation. The only other liquid fuels that could potentially substitute for oil are hydrogen and biofuels, and both have significant drawbacks. Hydrogen is not a source of energy but a carrier of energy. Hydrogen production requires other forms of energy, usually fossil fuels, and hydrogen vehicles are not energy efficient (<a href="#_ENREF_2">MacKay 2009</a>). Biofuel production requires large amounts of land because the efficiency of photosynthesis is low. In most countries biofuel can only be produced by converting land for food to land for fuel, but even if we converted all agricultural land to biofuel production it still could not meet our transportation fuel needs. For example, if Britain converted all of its agricultural land to biofuel production, it still would not supply enough energy (36 kWh/d per person) to meet demand from cars (40 kWh/d per person - see (<a href="#_ENREF_2">MacKay 2009</a>) pp. 43-4). After peak oil, we will think twice before hopping in the car for joyrides or frivolous errands; those activities will be too expensive to continue.</p> <p>Besides its importance for transportation, oil a critically important part of our industrial agriculture system, and is the raw material for many chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics; the 16% not used for energy production is converted into these other materials. Peak oil advocates such as Deffeyes argue that we should save our remaining oil for more valuable applications than burning it up in our cars. For example, we can’t make most plastics without oil. An oil shortage could cause shortages in all these materials:</p> <p><b>Table 4.1: Things we may have to do without* after Peak Oil</b></p> <p>* or fall back on less adequate or more expensive substitutes</p> <ul> <li>Most forms of plastic including PVC and polycarbonates </li> <li>Wax </li> <li>Asphalt used to make roads </li> <li>Tar </li> <li>Many lubricants </li> <li>Many solvents </li> <li>Many detergents </li> <li>Many adhesives </li> <li>Resins and epoxies </li> <li>Fibers (polyester, acrylics, nylon, etc.) </li> <li>Synthetic rubber </li> <li>Agrochemicals: Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides </li> <li>engine coolant and aircraft deicer fluid (propylene glycol) </li> <li>Styrofoam </li> <li>Many personal care products including perfumes, cosmetics, </li> <li>Oil-based paints including polyurethanes </li> <li>Materials for electronics (electrical insulation, capacitors, transformers) </li> <li>Many inks and dyes </li> <li>Many food additives including flavorings, colorings, and fragrances </li> <li>Many pharmaceuticals </li> </ul> <p>Thus, an oil shortage could have a major impact on the way we live. In the next post we will explore the evidence for peak oil.</p> <h3>References</h3> <p><a name="_ENREF_1">Hopkins, R. (2008). <u>The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience</u>, Chelsea Green Publishing.</a></p> <p><a name="_ENREF_2">MacKay, D. J. C. (2009). <u>Sustainable Energy - without the hot air</u>. Cambridge, England, UIT Cambridge Ltd. </a><a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/">www.withouthotair.com</a>.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[i]</a> Note that we use the term “oil” synonymously with petroleum</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-6599395923055028322010-08-24T11:31:00.001-05:002010-08-24T11:31:21.127-05:00Cuba’s transition from a peak- to a post-petroleum world <div style="padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 10px; display: inline; float: left; padding-top: 10px" id="scid:5737277B-5D6D-4f48-ABFC-DD9C333F4C5D:dacb1ec3-b1d8-450a-81f9-dddd8b443d32" class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent"><div id="9e8f2052-aa82-45aa-9cf3-ff2151aa6304" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VHt5QchfdQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" target="_new"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/THPz2CWLFRI/AAAAAAAAC5Q/1nO5JNEBqLI/video7236b7576a36%5B20%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" style="border-style: none" galleryimg="no" onload="var downlevelDiv = document.getElementById('9e8f2052-aa82-45aa-9cf3-ff2151aa6304'); downlevelDiv.innerHTML = "<div><object width=\"479\" height=\"384\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/-VHt5QchfdQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&hl=en\"><\/param><embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/-VHt5QchfdQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&hl=en\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"479\" height=\"384\"><\/embed><\/object><\/div>";" alt=""></a></div></div><div style="width:479px;clear:both;font-size:.8em">Excerpts from “The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived the Peak Oil Crisis”</div></div> Cuba’s "Special Period" was an economic depression that began in 1991 after the collapse of Cuba's primary sponsor, the USSR. The depression peaked by the mid-1990s and decreased in severity by the end of the decade. Cuba also experienced an energy famine when oil imports dropped from 13 to 4 million barrels per year. Thus, Cuba was the first country to face the peak oil crisis, even though it was an artificial peak. This crisis transformed Cuba's society and economy, as exemplified by the Cuban governments change of its 30-year motto from "Socialism or Death" to "A Better World is Possible", and led to the nationwide adoption of sustainable agriculture. Cuba's successful transition from a peak- to a post-petroleum world teaches us many lessons that will be useful when our own countries are forced to make this transition in the near future. <p>Because most of Cuba's electricity was produced by burning oil, the oil shortage led to widespread blackouts. People could no longer rely on refrigerators, so their only option was to eat fresh food when it was available. Food shortages became the first problem to develop during the Special Period. To understand why, it helps to know that Americans consume 10 barrels of oil per year producing food, 9 on autos, and 7 on houses. Food shortages were exacerbated by an intensification of the U.S. embargo, which led to an 80% decrease in food imports. After the Green Revolution Cuba's agricultural system was the most heavily industrialized in Latin America, but the oil shortage meant that they couldn't use energy-hungry tractors or combine harvesters or transport the food great distances to consumers. Thus, farmers had to completely transform the agricultural system by relocalizing it and changing farming methods from those of industrial agriculture to permaculture. Society became more decentralized as people moved from cities to farms. People became more self-sufficient as they learned to produce their own food. This took 3-5 years, during which there were constant food shortages, and Cubans lost an average of 20 pounds. Government food distributions & rationing kept people from starving. </p> <p>But Cuba had some advantages: it had 2% of the population of Latin America but 11% of the scientists. Prior to the Special Period scientists had conducted research on sustainable organic farming, and once the need arose they implemented these methods nationwide. It took 3-5 years to make damaged soils fertile and productive again through systematic application of green manure (plowing green matter in) and compost and use of crop rotation. Nationwide farmers decreased oil-derived pesticide use from 21,000 tons to only 1,000 tons per year by using crop-interplanting methods and biopesticides. Now 80% of the food produced in Cuba is organic. The Cuban diet has changed in response: it is now more vegan-like, with greatly decreased consumption of meat, sugar and dairy products and increased fiber content.</p> <p>The urban agricultural movement was also effective. It started as a survivalist response on the part of individuals, but grew when entire communities began to convert idle neighborhood plots of land to community gardens. These communities used permaculture methods to create natural gardens on roofs and patios. Each neighborhood has a kiosk to sell fruits and vegetables. </p> <p>The impact of Peak Oil during the Special Period extended far beyond agriculture. To be politically independent Cuba had to be economically independent, which in turn required energy independence. Cuba now uses its own crude oil (which unfortunately is dirty and bad for the environment) and biomass to produce electricity, and Cubans now use one-eighth of the amount of energy that Americans use. Cubans now would rather sell their oil than use it.</p> <p>The collapse of the economy meant that money became worthless, and people were forced to switch to alternative currency systems such as bartering. People had to abandon their cars. In small towns people turned to horses for transportation. For transportation over short distances city dwellers could walk or use bicycles. For longer distances Cuba had to develop a mass transit system overnight. Even now mass transportation in cities is inadequate, so the current trend is to build mixed-use communities that are self-reliant because all amenities are local.</p> <p>Increased exercise and a switch to a healthier diet of fresh vegetables caused the health of Cubans to improve. Health care became decentralized, with doctors and nurses living in the same neighborhoods as their patients and paying house calls. Universities decreased in size but increased in number so they could serve local populations.</p> <p>The people of Cuba demonstrated impressive resilience during the Special Period. They were forced to live with less and to change their way of thinking and way of life, but they successfully adapted, and are still happy. Cubans survived despite their government's planned economy; perhaps during "long emergencies" such as the Special Period it doesn't matter what form of government you have as much as how resilient communities are. </p> <p>For more information see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period</a> and the video "<a href="http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php" target="_blank">The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived the Peak Oil Crisis</a>"</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-53187976957739956252010-08-23T16:32:00.000-05:002010-08-23T16:33:42.282-05:00Solar Cookers for Haiti<p>I recently purchased a panel reflector solar cooker for $130. The HotPot was designed and developed by Solar Household Energy (<a href="http://www.she-inc.org">www.she-inc.org</a>) and is manufactured by Integrated Logistics Solutions (<a href="http://www.ils.com.mx">www.ils.com.mx</a>) in Monterrey, Mexico. Its design uses simple scientific principles. The reflector focuses sunlight on a black pot containing food. The pot is enclosed in a transparent glass "greenhouse" that traps the heat absorbed by the black pot. The HotPot is excellent for slow-cooking vegetables, rice, legumes, and fish (and meat for my wife). Twice per week I buy locally grown organic produce at the Farmers Market, come home, cut it up, and toss it in the HotPot. It can cook up to 9 pounds of most foods within 3 to 4 hours. Preparation usually takes no more than 15 minutes of cutting and tossing into the pot. No liquids need to be added except for rice and beans because water is "sweated" out of the food. Cooking is even easier; I just set it outside facing the sun, and then rotate it twice to track the sun across the sky. Afterward I simply fold up the reflector, wash the black pot, and store them with the glass pot. Solar cooking requires no fossil fuel energy, is good for the environment, and requires minimal cleanup. In addition, the dishes I prepare are healthy and are excellent as leftovers.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaILtM_X_uL-jeDI6dMj9GzwH3L40LOhubbgcg57RZFSwM7JXTjlIimek5802uzDdmlbUuDXszM9lPrNc71_pZHe9t8ADef2zRtUKhlTWasC-LRcCMn38pIa1qPMFpkkbZ2ce1FLZiBbU1/s1600-h/solar_cooker%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px" class="wlDisabledImage" title="solar_cooker" border="0" alt="solar_cooker" align="left" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_abmSNJQJjngMM9htnKBiY5tJ2OzP1amWDFA2MOG3I36hPEQBUYvhVM1js_fd82wHm9p9P3TgYB_N6odExQnPoUq35IfQaH5BUDMxuSTt8thahL7miL6pyUFH86OycolJXbuZO0fUFQ_F/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="184" /></a></p> <p>Solar cookers can help solve two of the biggest problems in Haiti, deforestation and lack of clean water. Deforestation primarily results from poor people chopping down trees to make charcoal to fuel their stoves. Women often spend many hours every day collecting wood to make charcoal. A simple solution is to provide solar cookers with instructions to the women in each household. Haiti has abundant sunshine, and to become sustainable the Haitian people need to make use of this valuable, free resource. Solar cookers eliminate the need to cut down trees for charcoal. The time saved could be used by women and girls to improve the situation, perhaps through education. An additional benefit is that solar cookers can be used to effectively pasteurize water, thereby preventing water-borne diseases. Solar cookers are an extremely cost-effective solution to the problems of deforestation and water contamination. Solar Cookers International (<a href="http://www.solarcookers.org/">http://www.solarcookers.org/</a>) has an aid program to distribute solar <a href="http://solarcookers.org/catalog/cookit-p-44.html">CooKits</a>, pots and <a href="http://solarcookers.org/catalog/waterpasteurizationindicatorwapi-p-42.html">Water Pasteurization Indicators</a> (WAPIs) in Haiti. This is an example of high-impact philanthropy, meaning charitable donations are used to maximize benefits by leveraging existing resources.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-86744233888667594722010-08-20T10:00:00.000-05:002010-08-21T08:30:24.869-05:00The Simpleton’s Guide to Sustainability<p>From general to specific. Items in lists within good cells improve to the left from good to better to best. Any suggestions for additions or deletions?</p> <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p><b>Bad</b></p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p><b>Good</b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Destroy</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Preserve</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Dependent</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Self-sufficient</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Ignorance</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Knowledge</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Opinion</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Fact</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Waste</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Conserve (reduce, reuse, recycle)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Spending</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Saving</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Consuming</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Producing</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Fat</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Thin</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Monoculture</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Polyculture</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Deficit</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Surplus</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Hidden costs</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Triple bottom line accounting</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Disposable</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Reusable, recyclable, biodegradable</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Noisy</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Quiet</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Polluting</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Clean</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Toxic</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Benign</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Clear-cutting</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Selective harvesting</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Coal</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Solar and wind energy</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Personal Automobiles</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Public transportation</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Beef</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Soybeans, farm-raised herbivorous fish</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Escalators, elevators</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Stairs</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Jet-ski</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>kayak or canoe</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Powerboat</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Sailboat</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Snowmobile</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Snowshoes</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Downhill skiing</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Cross-country skiing</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Recreational vehicles</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Tents and Cottages</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Industrial agriculture</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Organic Community Supported Agriculture</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Using a treadmill</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Walking outside</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Driving</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Running or bicycling</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Travel for meetings</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Videoconferencing</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="199"> <p>Daily commute to work</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="349"> <p>Telecommuting</p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-18331828219757918732010-08-17T12:19:00.000-05:002010-08-17T12:21:45.159-05:00Cutting government services doesn’t always save money<p>People are familiar with the concept that cutting corners often ends up costing more money in the long run: this applies to homes, cars, nearly every consumer purchase. But the same holds true with government services, which we purchase with our tax dollars. Many want the cheapest government possible, so the trend in the past few decades has been towards decreasing taxes. That trend combined with the recession beginning in 2008 has led to drastic cuts in government services. Those cuts, however, often lead to problems that cost money to remedy. One of many examples is the problem of violent patients in emergency rooms (Julie Carr Smyth, AP, 8/11/2010). Cash-strapped states have closed state hospitals and addiction programs and cut mental health jobs. As a result, ER visits for drug- and alcohol-related incidents increased from ~1.6 to ~2 million between 2005-8, and incidents of violence in ER rooms jumped from 16,277 to 21,406 between 2006-8. In response, hospitals have had to pay for expensive deterrents such as 24-hour guards, bulletproof glass, installation of "panic buttons", coded ID badges and scanners, and metal detectors. From a sustainability perspective, it makes more sense to invest in prevention of substance abuse and mental illness than in security systems to protect people from addicts and the mentally ill. Treatment and prevention increase social capital and may increase economic capital through cost savings; security and deterrence systems do not increase any form of capital.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-57176747795218315772010-06-25T11:08:00.000-05:002010-10-20T07:39:07.695-05:00Globalization and culture<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;">Much of the backlash against globalization stems from a fear that it will lead to a homogenization of culture. This process has operated throughout history, but electronic media and global transportation have accelerated the process because they have removed barriers to the exchange of information. Without barriers, random processes cause the entropy of the global social system to increase, eventually leading to homogenization. It's like the classic experiment that explains entropy and diffusion.<span style=""> </span>Divide a box into two chambers and fill each with a different gas. When you remove the divider, Gas A molecules begin to diffuse into the Gas B chamber, and vice-versa. The entropy, or disorder, of the system increases as the two chambers change composition from pure gas to increasingly similar mixtures of A and B molecules. When the process is complete, the two chambers have the same compositions. Both entropy and stability are at their maximum values. </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;">Likewise, geographic and communication barriers have historically divided world cultures. A diverse array of cultures developed in isolation, which led to decreased stability and increased conflicts. The modern removal of communication barriers inevitably reversed the process of cultural divergence by increasing the efficiency of information exchange and removing cultural obstructions. Theoretically, the subsequent cultural 'blending' will ultimately (over long periods of time) lead to cultural homogenization and societal stability, but in the short term the process can be disruptive and painful.<span style=""> </span>However, the force driving this process is relentless, so stopping the process would be difficult or impossible, and undesirable since it leads to an increase in stability. As long as humanity has affordable global travel and digital communication, fighting against cultural homogenization on a global scale would be futile. The only way to slow or prevent it is to slow or stop the exchange of information, which is neither desirable nor acceptable.</p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;">Just as a homogeneous mixture of two gases is more stable than the segregated pure gases, cultural homogeneity should encourage stability. Removal of cultural differences and barriers increases understanding, which decreases fear and hatred, which increases stability. However, we also previously argued that decreased diversity leads to decreased resilience. A system is most resilient when diversity is at a maximum. For example, ecosystems with high biodiversity are more resilient than those with low biodiversity. In a farm or garden, a polyculture is more resilient than a monoculture. Reasoning by analogy, high cultural diversity corresponds to greater resilience. Cultural diversity makes it more likely that society will find solutions in the face of global threats such as global warming. In the past, some cultures were better prepared to deal with adversity, while other less adept civilizations collapsed. For example, in contrast to the Easter Islanders who practiced unsustainable logging practices until no trees remained, Japanese leaders successfully dealt with timber shortages in the mid-17<span style="vertical-align: super;">th</span> century.<span style=""> </span>They<span style=""> </span>invoked Confucian principles of limiting consumption and accumulating reserve supplies to develop sustainable forest management (Diamond 2005).<span style=""> </span>In our global society, one culture may provide the seed of knowledge or understanding that will lead to the preservation of global civilization. What if that culture were wiped out during cultural homogenization? Global homogenization of culture would decrease the resilience of humanity. </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;"> </p> <p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11pt;">Therefore, sustainability requires stability <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>diversity. We must maximize the two at different spatial scales. A community containing people with similar cultures and beliefs can be stable; a country containing diverse communities can be resilient if those communities respect each other’s differences. To promote sustainability, society should adopt policies that reduce intracommunity diversity and increase intercommunity diversity.<span style=""> </span>For example, many cities in the northeast like Buffalo, where I grew up, have multiple ethnic neighborhoods (Polish, Italian, and Irish in Buffalo), and these neighborhoods have coexisted peacefully for more than one hundred years.</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-29277758983170048852010-05-20T09:04:00.000-05:002010-05-20T09:05:29.206-05:00Simple Science is Sometimes the Best Science<p>Many people think that important science always involves sophisticated mathematics, high-powered supercomputers, or expensive technical instruments. A recent book demonstrates that this is not always the case. David MacKay, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University, published a very influential book in 2009 titled "Sustainable Energy: Without the hot air", available for free download at <a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/">http://www.withouthotair.com/</a>. A review in Physics World stated it is 'a book every budding physicist should read - and perhaps also ... the one every working physicist would like to have written.' This book has probably had a greater impact on science and society than any other scientific publication in the last couple of years, but it involves physics no more complicated than application of Newton's laws of motion. MacKay uses data, logic, and simple math to arrive at important conclusions. He systematically calculates the maximum amounts of energy that can be produced by renewable energy sources in Britain and shows that it is not physically possible to meet Britain's energy needs using renewable energy alone. This conclusion is very important, but MacKay also shows why some forms of renewable energy such as solar are much more promising than others such as biofuels. His conclusions will help determine where future scientific research funds will be funneled and therefore what path research on renewable energy will take. Though the science MacKay used is simple, the conclusions are important enough that he was appointed as the chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change shortly after the book was published. Britain is now conducting studies to decide whether to support large-scale deployment of tidal power, the form of renewable energy that MacKay most strongly endorsed for Britain in his book.</p> <p>The enormous impact of MacKay's book may help dispel some misconceptions about science. Important science doesn't need to be expensive or complicated, and sometimes it is published in books rather than scientific journals (remember "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin and "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" by Isaac Newton?). Society needs clear-headed thinkers like David MacKay to show us how to address some of the pressing scientific problems of our time such as global climate change and peak oil. And the general public can learn a lot about the future of society by reading MacKay’s book.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-65709952026347481172010-05-02T08:44:00.000-05:002010-05-02T08:48:08.741-05:00Economic growth can be too fast, leading to attacks against children in China<p>Change as rapid as China is experiencing is destabilizing. Imagine you are Chinese peasant whose lifestyle does not change while everything changes around you. Your friends who became wealthy will no longer be friends with you; the girl you hoped to marry now spurns you because her family is now wealthy. The landmarks you grew up with have been torn down and replaced with modern buildings. You feel alienated and disempowered. What do you do? Perhaps these changes can explain the strange rash of copycat crimes in China that started in March 2010, when a man stabbed eight children to death while they waited for a bus outside their elementary school in the southeastern city of Nanping. At his trial the man said he was angry because he was jilted by a woman and treated badly by her wealthy family. On April 28 he was put to death, and on the same day the second attack occurred: a man in the southern city of Leizhou wounded 15 students and a teacher in a knife attack. The third attack occurred the next day in the eastern city of Taixing when a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard with an 8 inch knife. The following day a fourth attack occurred in Beijing, where a farmer attacked kindergarten students with a hammer, then burned himself to death.</p> <p>According to experts, "outbursts against the defenseless are frequently due to social pressures... and growing feelings of social injustice in the fast-changing country. An avowedly egalitarian society only a generation ago, China's headlong rush to prosperity has sharpened differences between haves and have-nots (Bodeen, AP, 4/29/2010)". Change can be too fast for systems and people to adapt; even seemingly positive change like rapid economic growth is unsustainable because it is destabilizing and causes social upheaval.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-14126578256390008142010-03-31T15:57:00.001-05:002010-03-31T15:57:11.826-05:00A Message to Science Educators and Students about Global Climate Change<p>A recent poll of climate scientists by the University of Illinois found that 97% now accept that human activity is causing climate change (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html</a>). Yet many high school and university science educators who are not climatologists remain skeptical, and pass that skepticism on to their students. What science educators need to realize is that they are teaching their students to be skeptical not about one scientific theory, but the entire scientific process. If science educators don't accept the overwhelming consensus of scientific experts, why should their students or the public? My concern isn't so much whether students learn and accept the scientific consensus on global warming; my concern is that they will conclude that science isn't a legitimate source of knowledge, and that it shouldn't play a role in public policy decisions. If scientists don't trust science, if they don’t believe it is the most effective method for discerning the truth, then why should anyone else? Frankly, I feel sorry for science educators who dedicate their lives to a process that they don't trust. They do science and their students a disservice by not having an unbiased expert present the facts so that their students can form their own opinions.  All of us should avoid giving opinions on subjects we are not qualified to evaluate.</p> <p>Now climate contrarians are allying with creationists to keep the teaching of global climate change and evolution out of the public schools (see “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets”, Kaufman, published March 3, 2010 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html</a>). For over a century creationists and their predecessors have fought against earth scientists about the age of the earth, biologists about evolution, and astronomers about the age of the universe. Now the same anti-science groups are fighting climatologists about global climate change. Scientists in these fields need the support of other scientists; we need them to take the time to learn about these issues; we don't need them to undercut science by voicing their opinions rather than presenting the facts to students.</p> <p>Students of science: Don't believe anyone who states opinions about scientific issues without presenting supporting facts, including me. If your teacher or Professor makes an unsubstantiated statement challenging the consensus scientific view, be it on evolution, global climate change, or any other topic, challenge them to explain what evidence they base their opinions on. On global climate change, ask them why they think they know better than the 97% of climatologists who believe the evidence shows that the earth is warming. Ask them how all of those climatologists could be wrong. If the response is not based on science, but on something else like politics or religion, call them on it. If they claim that the scientific experts in that field are unreliable or have all committed fraud, ask them why you should trust any scientific authority.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-72577330114955678252010-02-22T07:39:00.000-06:002010-02-22T07:41:48.559-06:00Taxes can promote sustainability<p>The majority of U.S. citizens favor low taxes because they want to decide how to spend their money rather than letting the U.S. government decide. However, most Americans don't realize that taxes are useful not just for raising revenue but also for discouraging undesirable choices.  For example, gas taxes discourage gas consumption, which reduces our payments to countries that sponsor terrorism, reduces pollution and emission of GHG, and increases national security by preparing America for future gas shortages. If the proceeds from these taxes are used to remedy other chronic societal problems, and in doing so increase the quality of life of all Americans, we get a win-win situation. For example, the three E's of sustainability are environment, economy, and equity. Raising gas taxes is an investment in the environment, and it improves the economic situation of the federal government, making it more sustainable. If the revenue is used to provide health insurance and education to poor children, we've made a wise investment in human capital and increased equity, making our society more sustainable. Many people would rather not have to pay the gas tax, and use the money they save to buy stuff like HDTV's.  But that use of money is not in the best interests of society, or even of those individuals.  I believe that the benefits of having a healthy, educated citizenry far outweigh the benefits of having more unnecessary stuff. Would you give up the chance to upgrade to an HDTV if it meant you might live longer (due to reduced pollution)? That you would pay less for your healthcare because hospitals would not have to charge the insured to cover the uninsured? That as an employer you could more easily find well-educated workers, which would improve your bottom line? That all Americans would benefit because a better educated citizenry would make our country more competitive in the global marketplace and our workers more valuable in the global workforce? And since we are now competing globally, a better educated, healthier workforce would make all U.S. companies more competitive and richer, which would make their employees richer, which would increase the amount of tax revenues flowing to the government, which might result in future tax reductions.  Thus our choice to raise gax taxes and invest the money in people rather than stuff improves environment, economy, and equity, making the whole country more sustainable.  Yes, not all taxes reap so many benefits, but we have to acknowledge that they have the potential to, and therefore be willing to pay them, recognizing that they are simply another form of investment.  Wouldn't you rather invest in people rather than stuff?</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2601297043822437069.post-23209824810900453182010-02-17T10:07:00.000-06:002010-02-17T10:11:19.251-06:00The Failure of the U.S. Government to Address Sustainability<p>The U.S. Government will fail to adequately address sustainability issues, and American citizens will have to abandon the top-down approach and rely on a bottom-up approach to solving these problems that affect our national security. I say this because Congress and the public have become so polarized along ideological lines that compromise and political progress have become impossible. As a result, moderate members of Congress are choosing to leave rather than run for reelection. On February 16, 2010 when moderate Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced that he would not seek reelection after two terms, he stated that "there is too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving" on Capitol Hill (Kellman and Jackson, AP, 2/17/2010). Nowhere was this more apparent than when the Senate in January rejected a bipartisan deficit commission that could have forced Congress to make painful budget decisions. Members of Congress are unable to agree to reduce capital outflows, but they refuse to increase capital inflows by raising taxes because that is politically unpopular. Most telling was the fact that some Republicans who originally supported the commission changed their votes after President Obama endorsed it. Clearly these members of Congress were acting in the interests of their political party rather than of the country they serve. </p> <p>By rejecting the establishment of a commission that could have taken the heat for such unpopular decisions, Congress essentially sealed the economic fate of the federal government. This plot shows the federal deficit over time. The total area under the annual deficit bars is a measure of the total deficit, i.e., the economic overshoot = outflows - inflows, which is also shown by the cumulative deficit line that is now approaching $6 trillion. The federal budget is seriously out of balance, but even worse, in most cases these deficits were planned. Unbalanced proposed budgets are passed every year now.</p> <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuISRZ76ZqRGqr7wHQMP0pLUk-bdZ22cAX5ImPhen49_Br2drX5INIPo-lUTCqUcwzO48kwx4CJU6ufMhEZu0ErCOaG4Z3sMQWmTOsuB5zO7db-ij-JIlhBmrhEUBVegsjVcM9x-lVDVVJ/s1600-h/clip_image001%5B6%5D.png"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="clip_image001" border="0" alt="clip_image001" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_W1goJxP73y4/S3wVJqIpbAI/AAAAAAAAC3o/j8zIL5Y0Ums/clip_image001_thumb%5B3%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="435" height="331" /></a></p> <p>In this plot I've shaded Republican administration years red and Democratic administration years blue. Notice that until Barack Obama took office in 2009 the red area was much greater than the blue area, meaning that until 2009 Republican administrations contributed more to the deficit than Democratic administrations. Of all of the Presidents since 1970 only Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget, ringing up surpluses in his last three years of office. In contrast, President George W. Bush changed the budget surplus of his first year in office, which was budgeted by Clinton, and turned it into record deficits within two years.</p> <p>As a result of the economic recession in President Obama's first year in office in 2009 the annual federal budget deficit rose to the highest level ever. It remains to be seen if the benefits of the money spent on the economic stimulus package to stave off the recession outweigh the harms resulting from the increase of the deficit, but if the trend continues, the federal government will soon be unable to meet its financial obligations, and this will likely result in an economic collapse. Most economists predict that interest payments on the budget deficit will consume 80% of all federal revenues by 2020 (Tom Raum, AP, 2/15/2010).</p> <p>And it will only get worse. In January the U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by political ideologues, voted to eliminate any limits to political contributions by corporations or lobbies. Most American citizens believe that members of Congress are already in the pockets of corporations. Now these corporations will have unlimited influence. The fate of bills will be decided by who has the deepest pockets. And when it comes to the three ABCs of unsustainability, who do you think will win when Congress tries to regulate Automobile, Beef, and Coal producers? Will members of the Senate ever vote to limit CO2 emissions when wealthy oil companies are paying them not to?  Congress is losing its integrity and its independence. Soon it will lose its economic power and therefore its influence. We can't rely on Congress to fix our problems.</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11500744203670265731noreply@blogger.com0