moonshine

Most first time visitors are struck by the beauty of San Diego. Glistening in the sun, bordering the blue pacific and decorated with gently swaying palm trees, San Diego looks like paradise on earth. Multi-million dollar mc mansions are perched atop its mesas and busy shopping centers and freeways dominate its valleys. Scantily clad women and blonde hair surfer dudes strut alongside its side-walk cafes where people bask in the warmth of the Southern California sun. This is beach boy country.

What was once a windswept dust bowl bordering swamps out in the middle of nowhere is now a highly prized real estate development. Huge three car garage homes hide scenic docks with luxury boats. Here in middle of the Central Valley is another paradise where every home has its own dock and all have access to the pleasure ground known as the delta. The wind still blows and occasionally brings in dust, but most of it is neatly covered up under the manicured lawns and leisurely winding roads.

All over California and the West this scenario is repeated. What was once zero-value land, bone-dry or swampy marsh, battered by dry winds and blasted by dust devils has been turned into valuable real estate, selling upwards of half a million dollars per tiny parcel. Much of it is gated communities with sweet sounding names attached in big bronze lettering near the entrances. Inside, the green is blinding and dazzling in the desert sun.

Underlying this magical transformation is oil and water brought in by virtue of cheap energy. Access requires more energy and is only possible thanks to the miracle of the automobile. And there are plenty of those, most of them high end sports cars, luxury SUVs, or tough looking military style assault vehicles. When water is nearby there are docks and pleasure craft galore. At night thousands of lights blot out the stars and create an aura of luminescence like a faraway galaxy.

Nowhere is this artificial glow more powerful than in nearby Las Vegas. The meadows that gave this city its name have long since gone. They weren't much of meadows in any case. More like some patches of crabgrass in a depression in the endless wasteland. Now there is a golden glow of high rises and silver linings called freeways. And surrounding it, miles and miles of suburban development. It is growing like a mold on a piece of dry particle board.

It is as if someone has laid a thin veil of fertility over the barren desert. A mask that can only be maintained by copious energy delivery. A skin that breathes greenhouse gases. This is the real Disney Land, the happiest place on earth. As long as the water flows and the oil is plentiful that is. Because without it, it will quickly return to its native state. An inhospitable environment where humans would have trouble surviving for more than a few hours.

climate horse trading

A new round of climate talks is about to start in Hawaii. Not surprisingly, no major breakthroughs are expected. What is expected though is that the US will try to force developing countries to drop their tariffs on green technology. Such a move would benefit multinational corporations with US headquarters, like GE, CAT, and others. The aim of the talks is thus to shift more wealth into our pockets, not to fix the climate issues. In other words, these are trade talks just like any others.

It may be that our leaders don't get it. Maybe they think it is easy to fix. It may also be that they don't care. Or maybe they think their enormous wealth will protect them no matter what and so they better add something to it before it is too late.

In any case, the upshot of all the green talk will be more economic activity, not less. More activity translates into more resources consumed and more energy used. No matter how you do that it means trouble. No matter how efficient or green or renewable the resources and the energy, it is not what we need. As a matter of fact it is the opposite of what we need now.

It may be hard for people to understand but our problem is very simple. There are too many humans on the planet using too many resources. In doing so, these humans are pushing the limits of what is possible. In many instances the limits have already been pushed beyond natural boundaries into what is known as "unsustainable" territory. That means it cannot go on forever.

How long it can go on for is anybody's guess, but chances are "not as long as we would like." To be more specific, many predictions show breaking points around 2020, 2030, or 2050. To be sure, some of these will be wrong. We often over and underestimate what can happen. But let's assume that we are totally off and that 2120 is the correct number. Does that make you feel any better about us as a species ?

There are also unforeseen events that may cause accelerations or decelerations. If the world plunges into a deep recession, the time would be extended. If population growth slowed significantly, ditto. The same could happen if pandemics kill large numbers of people or if afflictions such as sedentary life-styles, obesity, and diabetes shortened life-spans considerably.

The mere fact that people are told also matters. It causes shifts in behavior that affect the outcome. But either way, trouble is ahead. There are just too many variables that are too close to the edge. The current population growth curve cannot be supported, no matter how successful we are at solving problems or finding new resources. It has to slow down.

The key issue is whether it can stay where it is when it levels off, or whether it will have to go down from there. There are reasons to believe the latter is far more likely. And that is based not just on estimates, but on the simple fact that it is quite common for growth to overshoot. It happens all the time and it happens to nearly every growth parameter.

The unfortunate fact is that a massive retreat in population would be a very painful thing to experience. So the sooner we stop growing the better. And the sooner we start cutting back on resources and energy consumption the easier it will be to avoid unpleasantness later.

peak hunger

For those of you who think aquaculture will save fish production, take a look at the New York Times article entitled "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler." The article is a gem in its own right and it clearly shows how our appetite for meat is accelerating environmental destruction by several orders of magnitude. The same is already happening to aquaculture.

Our farming methods are unsustainable in the long run. It takes us almost 10 calories to produce one calorie of food. Those ten calories not only represent a huge waste, they also come with a slew of environmental destruction. If one then uses these food calories to feed another animal, be it beef or fish, there is another 10 fold reduction in yield. And another 10 fold expansion in waste and pollution. Add to that an ever increasing population that wants these food items and one can see that the end is near.

Environmental destruction leads to less food production. First it affects yields and later on it destroys entire plots and renders them unusable. The process can sustain itself and may grow exponentially for a while. There is some evidence that it is already quite far along. Growth in production area is now accomplished by destroying valuable rain-forest, something that can only accelerate the destruction elsewhere. It is much like the negative amortization mortgages that were so popular a couple of years ago. It is a concept people do not understand, or do not want to understand.

There are some amazing parallels between the Green Revolution and the subprime mortgage crisis. Both were driven by greed instead of need. And both will cost us dearly. In both cases we took out loans against our equity. We overvalued our equity and took out huge loans. With cheap oil we greatly overestimated how much food we could grow in a sustainable manner. That is our inflated planetary property value.

Then we quickly spent the money. In one crisis we did so by buying more gadgets. In the global crisis we did so by acquiring more people. Uncontrolled population growth was the big spend of the previous century. It is a spend we cannot possibly pay back. In the meantime the value of our property has declined or returned to more normal levels and we are left with more debt than equity. In the case of earth the value of our property is how much food we can grow. That level was artificially inflated when we brought oil into the equation. We also did not account for the excess waste we were generating. We are about to lose the benefits of the oil while the waste is already affecting our yields. In the meantime, the people keep on consuming more.

Unlike the subprime crisis, the planetary crisis is yet to unfold. We are still in spending mode and we are still hopeful that we will be able to repay the balance. Unfortunately, while the US subprime crisis was somewhat contained, our planetary crisis is on a worldwide scale. There are also no outside regulators to stop the madness early on. No matter how bad the US mortgage crisis is, it was stopped long before really big problems hit. The same will not be true for our planetary binge. It will be paid in human lives. And it will be paid many times over.

peak oil

A movement is underway of people who think we have reached or are about to reach the maximum amount of oil production on the planet. What happens next is anybody's guess but nearly all scenarios are bad with severe disruptions in the economy, everyday life, and even survival. Peak oil is based on a theory by M. King Hubbert that dates back to 1956. Hubbert correctly predicted peak oil production for the US. That event happened in the 1970s.

Peak oil has many adherents from all stripes of life. That includes individuals who hold key positions in the oil industry. Nearly all agree that we have either reached peak oil or that it will happen within the next 20 years. Since successful mitigation requires a minimum of 20 years that means we are in big trouble. Even a 10 year head start on the peak would not give us enough time to adjust to declining production without major hiccups.

There are also those who believe peak oil is not going to happen in this century and maybe never. They are the optimists and include our friends at CERA, the research outfit previously mentioned in this blog. The optimists point at the past predictions of peak oil that turned out to be false. As early as 1920, the US Geological Survey sounded a warning that grossly underestimated the amount of oil left. They estimated it at 60 billion barrels. Today's numbers from the same agency are over 2,000 billion barrels.

One thing is for sure. Unless new oil is being formed, something that most scientists think is false, we will run out eventually. And probably much sooner than any of us like to think. We are using more oil everyday. Even though population growth has slowed there are now more people using more oil than ever before.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I think we will run into trouble before we run out of energy. There are of course many sources of energy, so I will venture that we will run into major problems even before we run out of oil. And I do think that if we keep going we will run into trouble fairly soon. Definitely before the end of the century. While it is always possible that people will come to their senses and voluntarily change, I sincerely doubt that this will happen. In my view, only natural disasters such as massive pandemics, or planet-wide turmoil -read war- could intervene in a meaningful way.

The reason for my worry is that we are currently running close to the edge in many areas. We have embraced a life-style that is not easy to change and that is totally dependent on overconsumption. Our life-style is literally embedded in stone and it is impossible to change even if people somehow wanted to. Short of abandoning our "beautiful" suburbs, or even entire cities built in the desert, there is little hope.

Furthermore, nearly all our trouble spots are densely interconnected and all are on a worldwide scale. There are few if any alternatives available once things start going wrong. We won't be able to switch to other sources of food, or find other places to dump pollution, as some earlier societies reportedly did to avoid collapse.

Several models predict an abrupt collapse without much warning. Historically speaking that seems to be the most likely scenario. It is also the one I consider the most realistic.

Without warning in this context means without overt trouble or change. There are plenty of warning signs and plenty of warning calls, but all currently go unheeded. One can ignore the token efforts of installing solar panels, buying hybrid cars, and eating organic produce. These are nothing more than window dressing. Our society at large has not changed. If anything it is more determined than ever to stay the course. Witness the recent Detroit auto show. Gas guzzlers dominate the picture, while imaginary feel-good alternative fuel prototypes keep the guilt at bay.

Abrupt in this context means over a span of 15-30 years. Within this time-frame the standard of living could drop from its present Western level to below that of your average poor country in Central America. I suspect it may be worse. And that is the good scenario.

deceptive resilience

Whenever disaster strikes one of two scenarios unfold depending on where it happens. In poor societies, the casualty rates are very high, the devastation is widespread and may continue to grow in the following days and weeks. In such areas, recovery is extremely slow. People often keep dying for weeks or months afterwards. The landscape shows signs of devastation for decades to come. Similar disasters in civilized societies on the other hand are remarkably different. Casualties are several orders of magnitude lower and cease within hours after the incident. The devastation is highly contained and quickly controlled. Recovery is swift and efficient.

It is clear that advanced societies are very resilient when it comes to acute events. We can cope with large scale disaster. Our societies are better prepared, they can respond quicker and they have the resources to remedy problems. Even a disaster as devastating as Katrina is followed by a relatively quick recovery. That is if you take into account that Katrina hit two Americas. One America, that of the thriving middle class, living in the touristy French quarter and surrounding areas, recovered almost overnight. The other America, that of the poor and disenfranchised is still suffering much like a third world nation would. Katrina exposed the widening fault line in American society. But that is another story altogether.

The rich America is where we live. There we may get the impression that we can deal with everything that gets thrown at us. And that is probably true. Short of a planetary scale event, we can probably survive almost any disaster and come out ahead. The same is true for any war or conflict. Even a war with the former Soviet Union would have played in our favor. No matter what the media tell you, superpowers are never really threatened by such incidents. And that may be one reason we feel so confident that global warming, global pollution, or resource depletion won't get us. It is misplaced confidence. History shows that therein lies the weakness of all empires. They over-reach and crumble from within.

water foibles

It has been said that water will be the new oil. Severe water shortages are predicted for large parts of the world in the decades to come. It is but one side-effect of global warming and one that is generally ignored in the press. More people know of the dangers of polar ice melting with a resulting rise in sea-levels. Rising sea levels evoke images of flooding and an abundance of water. But sea water is salty and the more sea levels rise the further salt will intrude into rivers and streams. From there it goes into the groundwater. Salt water is killer for many plants, including food crops. For a land that relies on irrigation, rising salt water is deadly.

Meanwhile in California, we are getting dumped on like there is no tomorrow. The runoff is about to start flooding communities that just recently recovered from devastating floods. It is also causing mudslides, road closures, power failures, and other havoc to people's lives. However it is filling up reservoirs and that is good news for next summer. No matter how bad it gets in winter, we all know California will go through five to seven months with not a drop of rain to be seen.

I can't help but wonder why people let all this water go. Why California does not have mandatory rain water collection. Adding an underground storage tank that holds 1,000 gallons or more would not be that hard to do. But unless code requires it I cannot see many builders going ahead and doing it. Even though it would add at most a few thousand dollars to the price of the home. Given that homes (still) sell for upwards of $500K around here -and most are upwards of $1MM- it would seem trivial to add a $5,000 expense.

Unfortunately water tanks are not sexy. Not like granite countertops, "professional kitchens," and hardwood floors. All items that show a great indifference towards natural resources. Why people need professional kitchens beats me. Most go out several times a week for dinner alone. And the other nights they probably heat up a take-home pizza. But that is another story, much like driving an eight cylinder four wheel drive in everyday commute traffic.

An underground tank alone is not sufficient to solve all problems but it is a start. We would also need to add an irrigation system that uses the tank and the tank only. Since we have sun whenever it does not rain, a solar pump would do just fine. Irrigation with rain water is a first step. Even better would be to lay plumbing so toilets and showers can use rainwater too. That gets a bit more involved. Another item that would work well is washing machines. Most commonly used top load models are real water hogs, something that you would notice if you ever tried to fill a machine with hand carried water.

The current wave of storms is predicted to dump anywhere between 4 and 7 inches on the SF Bay Area. It is the second big storm wave of 2008. The previous wave dumped an equal amount and caused a ton of trouble. I read somewhere that 1 inch of rain on a 1,000 sq foot roof yields 600 gallons of water. Most houses around here have more roof area than that. Whatever the true number may be, an average middle class home in Marin could collect in excess of 4,200 gallons per storm. That is enough water to fill a small pool. The drier parts of the Bay Area would still collect 2,400 gallons or more. Yesterday I filled a 55 gallon rain barrel in less than two hours using runoff from just one waterspout.

Rain barrels are a great way to get into rain water collection. The best part is probably the education because they are not all that practical in California. The barrels are simply too small and the dry period too long. One would need in excess of 50 barrels to achieve some real results. But barrels are a great teaching tool and I would recommend that you get some. If nothing else you will learn first hand how much water a storm dumps. And how much water we waste going about our everyday routines.

I would recommend that you start carrying some water around. It will give you a feel for the power needed to haul heavy items. A better appreciation for the wasteful nature of our existence, and what it will be like when we run out of resources.

an economic stimulus package

A bipartisan group got together and wants to put some money in your pocket. Although it won't arrive until later this year, lawmakers hope it will motivate you to start spending right away. And guess what, people interviewed on the evening news were all too eager to do their patriotic duty and consume more. Only one person, no doubt found after interviewing dozens of candidates, said they would save the money. Go figure.

Surprisingly enough, the package is mostly aimed at the middle classes. And that is right because they are large in number and numbers is what we need to get spending going. But don't hold your breath. Before this becomes law, the rich and superrich will make sure they get their "fair" share and then some. It is all part of a kinder capitalism.

Already the Journal of Greed has published calls to extend the largesse to those who least need it. Because they are the ones "who create the jobs." Just how naive do these guys think we are ? Most jobs in America are created by small and mid-size businesses run by thrifty entrepreneurs. If anything the superrich lay off workers to jack up their earnings per share and line their pockets even more.

In another provision that is sure to delight many, lawmakers want to extend the conforming loan limit to over $700,000 from the current $300,000 or so. While it is aimed at staving off foreclosures -we doubt it will have any effect- it is yet another indicator that the government is serious about supporting oversized and hugely overpriced housing. Whatever it takes to extend the unsustainable patterns for a few more years.

It has been said that humans are problem solvers. That our brains are good at solving complex issues. And that therefore we should not worry about things like climate change, pollution, threats to the food supply, etc. In due time, we will "solve" all these problems. Our intelligence and technology will bail us out.

I have no doubt that humans are extremely good at solving puzzles. I have no doubt that many of us could solve the big problems that are looming ahead. But I sincerely doubt that we will. A close look at history shows that people don't. What happens over and over again is that powerful societies run headlong into the wall and collapse.

Because greed is many times stronger than rational thought or intelligence. Instead of keeping energy prices high, politicians and economists will go out of their way to reduce prices and stimulate excess waste. Instead of facilitating a return to a normal economy -one of necessities- lawmakers dole out money to spend on unnecessary items. Up to 70% of our economy is now dependent on unnecessary spending. If you think this will keep going, think again. No country no matter how rich can keep this up for very long. But the longer they do, the harder they crash.

King of Greed wants to be a White Knight

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bill Gates, the king of greed, will issue a call for "kinder capitalism" in Davos this week. The man the journal calls "famously competitive" suddenly wants to stop bankrupting people and aid the poor. Mr. Gates whose practices were, if not illegal, then at the very least unethical, is ready to teach us how to be kinder and gentler towards our fellow human beings. It reminds me of these cartoons showing Bill and his cronies waterboarding would-be competitors. Now Darth Vader himself reveals his soft touch. Surely he must think it is just another episode of Star Wars ?

Gates has won praise as an innovator despite the fact that neither he nor his company ever innovated anywhere. Everything they marketed they got from somewhere else. If anything, Gates and Microsoft have smothered nearly all innovation and done everything they could to stand in the way of industry cooperation. Now "The Man" will show us how to work together to "find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well."

Maybe he should start by cleaning up Guiyu, the e-waste capital of the world. That would only be proper since a large part of the mess is his doing. By colluding with Intel to make PC's obsolete in the shortest possible time, he helped create a mountain of trash that is polluting a huge region and poisoning its people. And what for ? Is your new excel any better than the 1990's version ? It is certainly a lot more bloated.

And when it comes to creating quality, I always remember the words of an auto-industry CEO who said that if they made cars that crash as often as Windows, they would be out of business. More than anything Microsoft took to heart the lesson that Henry Ford so famously put forth when he sent his engineers to junkyards to find left-over parts of the Model T. Anything that survived longer than the duty cycle of the car was obviously over-engineered and could be replaced by something of lesser quality. It is one lesson Mr. Gates never forgot.

Gates the man whose company asks "where do you want to go today," which really means "where do WE want you to go today," is going to take us on a humanitarian mission into Africa. He has put aside some of his billions in a foundation named after him and his wife Melinda. With assets in excess of $30B they are going to save the world and spread a kinder capitalism. The billion points of light, anyone ?

Here is a good fix: "companies should create businesses that focus on building products and services for the poor." Products like Internet Explorer no doubt ? That is probably the real reason Microsoft gave it away for free. To save the world from the evil doers at Netscape who only wanted to extort the poor. Or Windows for PDAs and cell phones, so the poor can use the internet and GPS and locate the nearest supermarket and not waste any unnecessary driving.

If Bill Gates really wants to save the world he should start at home. Rather than riding into Africa as a white knight in shiny armor, he could try plugging the ever widening gap between the rich and poor at home. He could start by paying more taxes, rather than using every loophole to sequester money so he can dole it out himself. Isn't that the real reason for philanthropy ? To stroke his already super-inflated ego.

He could move out of his $50 million palace and start living in a more environmentally sustainable home. No doubt his mansion could house most if not all of Seattle's poor and provide them shelter and warmth. He could sell his cars and ride a bicycle to work. He could refrain from flying and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. He could use his wealth to set aside part of the Amazon rain forest and help protect biodiversity.

If Mr. Gates really wants to lead, let him lead by example and not by words. Talk is cheap, even when you happen to be a billionaire.

the R word

Recession is hitting the US and by extension many world markets. As usual nobody wants to say the bad word and anyone who warns of recession qualifies their statements with conditionals so as not to upset the markets. Sweet talk aside, it seems pretty clear that we are already in recession and that this recession will be a lot worse than any we have experienced in recent memory. We have reached the end of the line when it comes to overvalued assets. First we had stocks and when stocks crashed we were "rescued" by housing. Now housing and with it credit and lending are heading for the toilet.

Experts predict housing prices in overvalued markets such as California, Arizona, and Florida could fall 30% or more. Other, less speculative markets could see drops of 20-25%. That is enough to send a chill down anyone's spine. Stocks too need to give up a lot of artificial gains to be in line with corporate earnings. Bad as that all sounds, I am afraid it is just the beginning. Our biggest bubble is one of artificial prosperity and stability. It is one that siphons wealth away from everyone to fill up the coffers of the very rich.

We have an economy that is largely based on discretionary spending instead of necessities. While some see this as "advanced," it is fundamentally flawed. It is also unsustainable in the long run due to population pressures. Such an economy needs ever more people to feed the greed of those on top. That is one reason women had to join the workforce in the latter part of the last century. It was called emancipation. It is truly ironic how all signs of trouble are given labels that denote progress.

It did not stop there. Ever more hungry for worker bees, we turned to India and China, our new source of cheap goodies. And that move puts us on a collision course with China and India. It is our real foreign policy issue. Not terrorism whose impact is largely symbolic. Terrorism is a political bubble. One whose importance has been inflated beyond reason.

While feeding this frenzy, America has developed large internal fault lines. Some talk about two Americas. The reality is more like three Americas. There is the America of the super-rich, who are continually getting richer by forcing ever more unsustainable policies, aided by the media and puppet politicians. Media control has assured that their success has been better than expected and we have seen what is probably the longest run of "rich getting richer" the country has ever experienced.

The second America is that of the middle class who are struggling to keep up appearances. Their wealth is largely a mirage. Sure there are big mc mansions, oversized SUV's, and other gadgets to show of to the neighbors. But where is the value in all that? The value is in perception. Homes in the desert can only exist by virtue of life-lines. Their intrinsic value is nil. They are in effect subsidized. Subsidized by cheap energy. Cheap energy that brings in water and allows for air conditioning, heating, and a lot of driving. Equally without value are the overpriced trucks called SUV's. And everything else that clutters the big house and uses inordinate amounts of energy. Cheap energy has created a dependent life-style that can only persist by ever longer supply lines supported by oil.

The third America is the America of the disenfranchised and poor. That America extends into the largest prison population of any civilized country. The prisons is where we put the young people, who would otherwise make too much trouble. The streets is where we put those who are neutralized by drugs and alcohol. And the projects and inner cities is where the rest hangs out. forever waiting for a better future.

All in all the inner cities are still a cut above the rest of the Americas, except for Canada. That is why we have to build a fence on the border. A fence that is supposed to keep out terrorists. Given that all known terrorists, including the famous 9-11 gang are well-educated, solidly middle-class and above youth, the rationale seems odd. These are not guys that would survive or thrive in Mexico or Central America.

The next move is probably a fence to keep the poor out. Such fences already exist and are called "gated communities." Another label that evokes images of progress. How long will it take before the gated communities develop real gates, with watch towers and armed guards? And army convoys to protect the supply lines.

lengthening supply lines

Any military commander will tell you that long supply lines are a bad idea. Long supply lines played a major role in Germany's defeat in Russia during world war II. They also figured prominently in many other unsuccessful military campaigns throughout history. While we are not at war -unless you figure the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on cancer, and other phony wars-, there are lessons to be learned here.

These lessons are more important because we are under stress right now. In the present case the enemy is not another fighting force. Rather it is droughts, diseases, hurricanes, rising sea levels, and other climate change and pollution events. By the way, take a close look at military history and you will see that environmental factors often played a bigger role in the outcome than any strategy or tactics. I would venture that the role of the environment in the demise of societies is the most underestimated cause of all. In the West we like to attribute success and failure to individual choices. We have built a personal cult around this notion and re-written our history accordingly. Our history is one of great leaders and evil villains, whereas the reality is far less sexy but a lot more compelling. It is a story for another day.

Let's focus on supply lines. Here is a typical example of what we are doing. I will use the example of a story that was on NPR recently. It is about a French village where farmers grew gherkins (cornichons) used as a condiment. Originally the village and its environs had about 30 farmers growing the delicacy and supplying a nearby packing plant with goodies. Then the people at the packing plant figured out they could buy gherkins -actually a related species that some say does not taste as good- from India for less money. You can probably guess what happened next. The plant started buying its gherkins from India and nearly all the farmers went out of business and joined the "service economy."

No doubt economists would think this is a good example of progress. Free traders rejoice when hearing such an uplifting story. They will argue that it is good for the consumer. The plant can now save money, get a better return for its investors, and pass some savings along to consumers. You and I can eat cheaper gherkins. So where is the catch ? Why should we not do this ?

If this story sounds like magic to you, it is because there is a trick here. A trick not unlike the ones magicians on stage use all the time. The "trick" is cheap oil. And oil is cheap because nobody pays the true cost of oil. We only pay for exploration and retrieval. Nobody pays for pollution and environmental damage, at least not yet. This hidden credit makes it possible to do something that is very stupid indeed. Shipping gherkins all the way from India to France, when local goods are available that not only taste better, but cause less damage to the environment, and provide local jobs, is idiotic beyond belief. Yet we do it all the time. And all major civilizations before us have done it too. Does that mean it is right ? Just take a look at what happened to those civilizations. There is a reason they perished.

Lengthening supply lines is always a dumb thing to do. It adds costs and vulnerabilities. First there is the cost of oil. As we depend on it more, we use more and prices will go up. Then there is the hidden cost of oil that resides in environmental destruction and ultimately less productivity. That cost is about to hit us big time as pollution is now on a global scale. But there are many other hidden costs that cause us to pay for our savings many times over. And these costs have nothing to do with pollution -although they do result in more pollution.

We have to protect our supplies. That means we have to sign agreements with the suppliers. We have to offer goodies in return. In many cases we need to offer military support. All that adds up and it eventually wrecks our economy. Sure, we get cheaper gherkins. But we pay more taxes elsewhere. Taxes to support our military in Iraq so we can guarantee oil supplies. Trade agreements that put more of our people out of business in return for more short-term -read short-sighted- savings.

If you read this and feel despair, remember this. You can help stop these idiotic behaviors. Buy local, especially when it comes to food. Join the locavores. And while you are at it, resist the temptation to buy cheap widgets made in Asia and other far away countries. Pay more for local goodies. It keeps the jobs at home, restores the true economy -one of essential goods and services instead of discretionary spending-, and it may ultimately save our living environment and the future of mankind.

efficiency is irrelevant

Often when talking about climate change, people will bring up energy efficiency as a solution. Unfortunately, energy efficiency does not matter and increased efficiency is frequently counterproductive. To see why that is, take a good look at the problem. What matters is how much greenhouse gas we put in the atmosphere and how quickly it can get absorbed, scavenged, or otherwise removed. What is not removed stays there and that leads to increased heat retention and warming.

The same applies to resource depletion. What matters is how many trees we cut down and how quickly they can re-grow. Again, how efficiently we use the wood from those trees is irrelevant. You could argue that a very efficient process may provide wood to more people, and that is certainly true, but since there is no rule that says how much wood people need, it is not relevant.

In all cases, the total amount matters, not how efficient or inefficient the process is. There are no brownie points for efficiency. The same is true for all other forms of pollution or resource depletion that are threatening us. Global warming is but one effect or symptom of a much larger problem. Apart from climate change there are many other symptoms and signs of trouble. Resource depletion is another key issue we will have to deal with sooner or later.

The more wasteful we are, the faster we will deplete or poison our livelihood. It will take very drastic changes in our way of living to prevent major disasters. And these changes will need to be implemented soon, because the longer we talk, the more greenhouse gases accumulate, and the more natural resources that vanish. But let's go back to efficiency.

The trouble with efficiency is simple: it is driven by the wrong mindset. We get more for less and so we save money. That immediately makes the item affordable to more people and it compels us to use more. In the end the net effect is negative. Every time we look at an efficiency gain, and there have been many significant ones, we see the same pattern. First there are some savings, but very soon all gains are lost.

Airplanes are more efficient now and so flights are more affordable and more people fly more miles. In the end, air travel ends up polluting more than it did when planes were inefficient gas-guzzling machines. Car engines have become much more efficient over the past 30 years. The result is that more people can afford to drive and those who drive can afford bigger and heavier cars. In the end, more people end up driving more miles.

And that is just taking into account the use of the energy saving device. The real effect is bigger than that because it extends to our entire existence. When people spend less money on basics they have more disposable income. And disposable income is synonym with waste and overconsumption. Especially in the West, where few people actually save their money. Instead they spend it on vacations, larger homes, luxury items, amenities, electronic gadgets, etc. Each and every one of these uses involves more resource depletion and more energy use.

The more disposable income people have, the faster they deplete resources and add pollution. This activity is called "the economy," and we have come to think of it as positive. When "the economy" is good, life is good. When "the economy" goes into recession, life is bad. Unfortunately, when it comes to our long-term survival, the opposite is true. Recessions and depressions are good for us as a species. Good for our long term survival on this planet.

It is up to us really to decide to curtail this "economy," or replace it with something better. If we don't, nature will do it for us. And in a much more unpleasant way I should add. But for all of you efficiency-gurus out there, rest assured that it will happen in a much more efficient way.

Irvinitis

We were traveling through Sacramento, Citrus Heights, and Roseville today. More Irvine-like oversized mansions, in artificially idyllic settings, far away from everything -except the other monster houses. Gated communities with poetic names and bronze lettering. With wide drive-ways, cul-de-sacs, and designed-for-cars-only hallmarks.

It is just crazy. This country went on a building spree the likes of which it has not seen for many decades. And this time around, all houses are oversized, overstuffed, with three and four car garages, and all of them are pedestrian unfriendly to the max.

There is no place to walk in these neighborhoods. Despite the many nicely-curved walking paths that are weaving around irrigated plants, and lighted with accent lighting but lead to nowhere, this is the most pedestrian-unfriendly wave of construction I have ever witnessed. And one that will soon prove ill-designed. This is car country. Humans are not welcome here, except as occupants of oversized SUV's and this new type of too-tall car they call a cross-over vehicle.

The first signs of decline are already visible, even before the new gloss fades. There are for sale signs everywhere and many have attached labels that read, price reduced, bargain, etc. The irrational exuberance of this building spree is there for all to see. What is not so visible yet is how these environmentally-destructive dwellings are soon going to go the same way as the oversized dinosaurs that preceded them. Extinction-prone.

We can only hope that people will be rational enough not to be tempted to buy into these bargain deals. A house like this is like a ball and chain. It forces you to pollute and waste energy no matter what you do. It is for addicts only. And like a huge box of coke, for some it will prove impossible to resist.

sensible steps

There are many sensible steps you can take to save energy and reduce your carbon footprint. Perhaps the easiest for people living in the sunbelt is to retire your clothes dryer. It is a strategy that can work anywhere in the country with some careful planning.

Dryers use up a significant amount of electricity and there aren't very many ways around it, i.e. there aren't energy saving dryers. On the other hand it is easy to dry your clothes in the sun (and wind) and they will look better and smell fresher too. And you won't need any anti-static wipes either. All you have to remember is to shake them out before you hang them. You also have to be careful where you put the clothespins so as not to pinch certain visible parts. It is all common sense but these days people are so unaware of basics that it is good to mention it.

A clothesline and clothespins are a minor cost and the savings are immediate. Apart from an outdoor location, it is good to also have an indoor backup location. Best are rooms or large closets that house the furnace and the water heater. These locations are always dry and warm. Most homes are large enough for a drying room.

The other thing you have to consider is your drying capacity. Chances are it will be less than you had with the dryer. So you need to make sure not to do all your laundry all at once. You may also want to reschedule if rain intervenes. If not, you will run out of space and end up with wet and wrinkled clothing. It is easy to avoid and the change to your routine is minor really so it shouldn't cause any undue hardship. A bonus is the fact that, if you run out of time, you can leave clothes hanging when dry.

Your second best bet is to replace your old refrigerator/freezer with a more up to date model. Consult energystar.org to see which models will save you the most. A slightly smaller box will save even more. It is good to remember that you are probably putting too much stuff in your refrigerator anyways. A great many items do not need refrigeration because you will consume them soon enough. Never mind the warnings on the packages. These are just there to avoid legal liability. Most things will last one week at normal room temperature. That is true for almost all prepared items like jams, preserves, etc. All these items are the way they are because of the need for preservation without cooling.

And here is another idea. One that will go a long way towards fighting obesity as well. Keep sodas and drinks out of the fridge. Not having cold soda will stop you from overconsumption. It would be even better if you stopped buying sodas altogether. Soda is nothing but packaged sweetened water and the amount of energy that goes into producing, storing, cooling, and shipping these is just plain outrageous. And about the only thing these drinks will do for you is add fat to your body. They are not good at quenching thirst and they do not provide any valuable nutrition. They are just drugs for your sugar fix.

And when you buy that new fridge, remember to keep it closed. The less you open it and the less long you open it for the better your savings will be. Think about what you want before you open the fridge and then fetch it quickly. That too will help with your weight. Don't look at your fridge like a candy store full of goodies. It shouldn't be.

burning gas to flush the toilet

There is good news and bad news today. The good news is that wind and solar power generation are growing rapidly. Perhaps more rapidly than first expected. The Southwest states especially, are committed to make green energy work. These are also the states where solar and wind have the best potential. And where good paying jobs are needed. It appears the alternative energy crowd is providing these jobs.

The US wind-power industry grew by 45% last year, adding more than 5,000 megaWatts or 1/3 of all new generating capacity in the country. Solar grew at nearly the same rate, adding more than 300 megaWatts, and perhaps more importantly, making significant headway in commercial projects. In California, commercial installations now exceed home installations. While all these numbers are still ridiculously low, the growth rate is encouraging.

But not all the news is good. And speaking of California, we read that the city of Carlsbad is contemplating adding a desalination plant soon. Poseidon Resources Corporation won a key regulatory approval to build a $300 million water-desalination plant there, the largest in the Western Hemisphere. It would produce 50 million gallons of water per day, enough to supply about 100,000 homes. To do so, the plant will use a lot of electricity, about $1.1 worth of it per 1,000 gallons. At 10c per kWh that means about 11 kWh per 1,000 gallons, or nearly 5,000 pounds of CO2 for every 1,000 gallons of water. Let's do some more math here to see why that is scary.

It is estimated that one person uses about 80,000 gallons of water a year, most of it to flush the toilet, take showers, and water the lawn. If the Carlsbad project goes ahead we will have people producing 400 million pounds of CO2 per year to flush their toilets and sprinkle their patches. Assuming that these frail Californians are not going to take cold showers, more CO2 will be needed to heat their daily splash.

And if that does not worry you, it appears California has as many as 20 proposed sea water projects waiting in the wings. The state is already using more than the output of one nuclear reactor to ship water into the Los Angeles basin. All we need now is to add another 20 or so energy inefficient desalination plants. That will eat up renewable energy additions faster than we can build them.

I am sure it will surprise nobody that the cities of Southern California will do all this without demanding that their customers be more sensible in their water use. Far from it, the Metropolitan Water District plans to subsidize the difference between the cost of desalination -at $950 per acre-foot- and the cost of shipping water -at $700 per acre-foot-. If nothing else, these subsidies will ensure that the water hungry Southerners will not have any excuse to cut back on their excessive demands. Talk about teaching good manners.

The other bad news today is the growth of airline travel. Flying is another one of these things that we better leave to the birds who have developed an environmentally acceptable solution. Our ingenious mimicry, often praised as one of the breakthroughs of the human mind, turns out to be nothing but an excessively wasteful and destructive activity. And like most such activities, a highly addictive one to boot. Just one long distance flight produces as much carbon dioxide per passenger as a 6 month metropolitan commute.

I guess if you don't mind emitting millions of pounds of CO2 to flush your toilet, you won't mind emitting millions more to go see the sights. Sights that your travel habits are in the process of destroying. Bon voyage.

we have more folks, come on in

For all you worrying oil addicts out there, take heed, we received good news today. Cambridge Energy Research Associates, CERA for short, says new projects will make up for the decline in existing oil production. That decline is estimated at nearly 5% per year, although some think it is much higher than that. 5% is about as much oil as Iran supplies in one year. Not to worry, says CERA there is more oil out there and what's out there will more than make up for the declines we see.

CERA's research is surprisingly one-side. They focus on new oil and how to exploit and mine it. They do not worry about burning it. That is the "other end," the pollution and greenhouse gases, and why would we worry about that? As long as we have enough to burn who cares? Conservation is not part of their research program.

Conservation may be the mantra of the politically correct, but it is not a reality. Global demand for oil is estimated to increase by 2.3% this year alone. According to the International Energy Agency, IEA, Asia will "require" an extra million barrels a day by the end of the year. A million barrels is one eight of the current Saudi production. And given where Asia is compared to the US, there is still plenty more room for "growth."

Anyone watching the Detroit auto-show got the message. For you politicians and dreamers, we, the car producers have an array of project cars that use alternative fuels. None of these are for sale of course. We probably won't even bother building them. But now that you are here take a look at our new supercharger, our new F-150, our bigger Tundra CrewMax, our 599 GTB, our LP640 roadster, our new Viper. All heavier, bigger, and better than last year's models. And all of them need more gas, not less.

President Bush too, was quite upbeat yesterday. After discussions with the Saudi King, the president held out hope for an increase in production. That from a man who once said America was addicted to oil. Clearly nobody was listening very carefully then. Or if they did, it was with the drooling lips and expecting eyes of addicts putting up with a little "keep it safe" lecture from the dealer. Anything to please the man as long as we get our fix at the end of it.

And in yesterday's column in the New York Times, economics professor Steven Landsburg explained to us how we are all better off when we outsource America's jobs to other countries. We save money he said and why would we want to make that illegal? It smacks of bullying and it is un-American. He used the M-word, morality. And when technical people do that, you know you are in trouble.

What Steven did not mention is the great enabler of all these savings: cheap oil. Cheap oil makes it possible to produce elsewhere and ship here. Cheap oil makes it possible to produce food in an unsustainable way. But that will only be true until the reality catches up with us. And in one form or another it will. And I suspect, quite a bit sooner than we think too.

the slush of oil

Not a day goes by without some wild swings in oil prices. And when oil goes so goes everything else. One day, supplies are tight and everyone is worried about inflation. Then the next day we have fears of recession and an oversupply of the black stuff. All of it makes for good news stories and there is no doubt someone somewhere is making a lot of money too.

Fluctuations such as these make people wonder whether there really is an underlying cause or not. But the fundamentals do not lie. There are more people on the planet and all these people are trying their hardest to consume more. And people live a long time. While appearances may change from day to day, or hour to hour, it is nothing but noise in the overall scheme of things. These people are not going to go away anytime soon. Their habits won't change overnight either.

In a very real sense, all the fuzz is an artifact of technology. Now that everyone is connected to everyone else, a new super herd is formed. And like any herd it ignores a great many things only to go thundering off at an unexpected sound somewhere. A stampede ensues with lots of collateral damage. When everyone is tired of running things calm down for a while before the process repeats itself.

To get a good view of what is happening we need to step outside for a while and take a bird's eye view. If you do that you can see that everyone is really on edge. This is not a happy herd. They are worried and they should be worried. Because things are moving in the wrong direction. Not because oil is too expensive or some other financial metric. The problem is with the fundamentals.

We are on an unsustainable path. Greed is not good. Overindulgence is not either. No matter what the ads say. These ads do not have your best interests in mind. They are just trying to convince you to buy more stuff, even if you don't need it.

And the sooner we realize it and start doing something about it the better. We are all getting fat and it is time for some serious dieting. And I am not talking about adipose tissue or bodily fat. I am talking about overconsumption. We are overdosing on resources. It is wasteful and unhealthy and we need to stop it. We need to go on a diet. There will be some sacrifice and some pain, but that is nothing compared to what will happen if we don't act soon.

Instead of trying to "save" the economy, we need to curtail it and save ourselves in the process. We need to reduce our consumption and our energy use. We need to start saving instead of spending. And we need to learn to enjoy the simple things in life. You don't have to be the Marlboro man or GI Joe. You don't need a 500 hp car to go grocery shopping or drive the kids around. You don't need a movie theater in your house. Or a green lawn in the desert.

If your happiness is tied to your paycheck, the size of your dwelling, and the amount of stuff you own, you are missing the point. You are addicted instead of happy. And like any addict you will always want more. You will always need more. Just to feel normal. Wake up, it is time to unplug the TV.

a detroit marlboro man

And there it was for all to see, complete with cowboys on horseback and cattle running around in the corral. The latest gas-guzzler truck from Detroit, called the 2009 Dodge Ram. Another indication of how cars are sold. Not because they are practical or useful, but because they evoke images of the Old West, freedom and the range. Ironically enough these cars will do their part in destroying that sensitive ecosystem that was once the American West.

Not to be outdone, Ford had its own blue-jeans clad cowboy leaning on the new F-150, another gas guzzling monster. Take a look at the NY Times image, where you see the dressed for success corporate type explaining the benefits of a red F150, complete with the new "Marlboro man." And just like Marlboro, this one is bad for your lungs too.

To show that it has something for everyone, Detroit also showed the Hummer HX concept car. That one for people who get off on military style transportation. No cattle here, although one can wonder why there wasn't a fake IED to give it a more realistic touch. Ouch ! I can sense we are crossing a line that few want to cross. We prefer to stay on the Rambo side of things, lest too much reality intrudes and douses our buying appetite.

Looking at all these bright images one wonders what car shows are really all about. On the one hand we had a dozen or so, hybrid, fuel-cell, electric and other alternative fuel cars that won't hit the markets until years from now if ever. As if to say, look we do have conservation in mind. We realize how unsustainable our life-style really is. We too are citizens of the world and we want to do our part -as long as the profits roll in that is. For now let's just imagine how things could be.

On the other hand we have gas-guzzlers galore. Oversized, overpowered, "performance" cars to be featured in America's never ending traffic jams. 450 horsepower idling in traffic at 4.5 mph, but sure to impress the girls and the neighbors. And like the Marlboro man, shiny and healthy looking on the outside, but sick and cancerous on the inside.

I challenge the Hollywood crowds and the upper classes to forgo this madness. To buy a small car. To drive less than 10,000 miles a year. To stop flying unless there is an emergency. To go live in a smaller house and turn the lights off at night. It would make so much more sense. And it would do no small part in ensuring we all have a future on this planet.

looking for an accusation that will stick

One of the unfortunate side-effects of the Iraq debacle is the growing power of Iran. While this was an entirely predictable outcome, the pros in Washington did not see it coming. So much for highly paid advisors with Ivy league pedigrees. The fact that these people expected the Iraqi population to welcome us a liberators shows how disconnected the video war games are from the real world. The real Iraqi's did not behave as our Iraqi Sims predicted.

In a very real sense, Iraq is the price we pay for mistakes the British made. Mistakes we subsequently compounded. Mistakes may be a big word, and it would perhaps be better to say, decisions the British made that looked good in the short term. So good that we reinforced them. This type of shortsightedness is quite common in empires. History shows that it eventually catches up with them.

An easy way to contain the Iran problem would be to "solve" Iraq. That is getting more difficult the longer we wait. Nevertheless, the solution to the Iraq problem is very simple indeed. Except that it is tantamount to admitting a big mistake was made. And we would lose face.

Our acceptable "solution" to Iraq is a Sunni dictator. The Sunni minority is the only group that can keep the country together. And the only way a dictator from a minority group can rule is if they have a solid base of support and a deep network of informers and secret police.

Acceptable means we hold Iraq together is because it is sitting on very large oil reserves. Those reserves are crucial to us if we are to persist in our luxurious and wasteful life-style. It is part of our energy dependence. Addiction is an even better word. If Iraq were to fall apart two large groups, the Kurds and the Shi'ites, would be let loose. These groups have natural alliances that can severely upset the balance of power in the Middle East.

Power in the Middle East means oil. For us, it is best if nobody has a majority stake and if there is some tension between the parties that control it. Some tension that allows us to chose sides and keep the situation in a fluid equilibrium. Every time someone gets too powerful, we side with the others to restore the balance. Today the balance is out of whack in a rather dangerous way. That part at least, the Washington elite is getting. The other part is more difficult. It means selling another war to the public.

One thing the American public requires is wars without casualties. That is without American casualties. The solution to low casualties is high tech. It lies in cruise missiles, smart bombs, remote control vehicles, surveillance, satellites, etc. While it is unrivaled at killing the enemy with little risk to our soldiers, it is proving rather inept at solving problems. High tech surveillance may pinpoint items with uncanny accuracy, but it is very poor at reading human emotions and alliances. It sends us into never ending quagmires.

Never mind all that for now. Now the emphasis is on selling another war. A war that can sufficiently weaken the Iranians so they no longer control the region. But not so much that we enlarge the already troublesome power vacuum. A vacuum that we created by destroying Iran's enemies East and West. And for no good reason really. Other than a bit of blood thirsty revenge for 9-11. Except that it was not directed at the real perpetrators.

paying for friendship

One side-effect of our oversized-everything life-style is that people are more isolated than ever. A great many live far away from their families, and some would argue that is a good thing. It certainly keeps arguments to a minimum, but it also deprives people of a bond they sorely need. Witness the urge many have to travel home during holiday season. Or the tendency of rich parents to shower their kids with goods. Solace for the guilt feelings no doubt.

Not everyone does well being away from family and childhood friends. And it isn't just the sprawl that breaks up relationships, although sprawl is a major contributor. The high-valued "mobility" is also to blame. The constant moving about destroys friendships and prevents the formation of deeper bonds. Unlike the nomads who travel with their immediate kin, modern nomads travel all alone. And they keep busy to fill the void.

While it is understandable that one may want to leave the family home to improve one's standard of living, such movement makes less sense in America, where living conditions are good to begin with. And that is where we get a little help from our friends in the media and the advertising industry. Luring us away with visions of paradise. El dorado.

There is no doubt that some people are forced to move. Big corporations constantly intrude on people's lives, and protections for the individual are few and far between. That in spite of America's worship of the individual. Corporations close down factories and uproot towns to save a few dollars here and there. Eminent domain can be used to oust entire communities. Farmers are driven from their land by debt and unscrupulous land sharks. But not all people move because they have to.

Many move because they want to live the American dream. The utopia of living in a large house with a big lawn in a gated community. A house that is so big you need an intercom to find people. And even if you do find them, chances are they are watching their own TV or they are on their own phone talking to some other lonely dreamers.

In the dream house everyone has their own playroom, bathroom, and in some cases their own bedroom. A his and hers. And while this too may reduce arguments, it is definitely not a healthy sign. But it is good for the economy. And it is our patriotic duty to consume. Lest the terrorists get the upper hand. The terrorists who are out to destroy our life-style. You heard it from our very own president.

The more you isolate people, the more items they need. If everyone huddles in a small house, they are not consuming to their full potential. The more space the individual has the more space they have to fill up. A five bedroom house requires five sets of furniture. And five bathrooms. And five TV sets with DVR. And five stereos. And iPods and cell phones for everyone.

It is not surprising that these lonely people need help. They need a coach or a trainer or a therapist or all of the above. Because what they need most of all is human contact. Human contact that is so sorely missing in their huge mansions far away from everyone and everything. Americans use more personal help than any other people on the planet. Some see this as a sign of progress, a sign of achievement. And one thing about paid friends is for sure: they are always nice to you.

Like your unnaturally green lawn in the desert, your manicured but empty suburban streets, your spotless museum quality living room, paid friends are nice to you. They always smile. They never use foul language and they always do what you want them to do. They are in one word as perfect as all the other perfect things you own.

And some can even prescribe you chemicals to cope with the hardships of your everyday life. And that too is good for the economy. Some would even say it is healthy. They do call it mental health, don't they?

overheated

With all the talk about global warming it is easy to forget the essentials. Whether or not global warming is really happening -it is-, and whether or not it is caused by us -it is-, or even whether it will have a major impact -it will-, are all secondary to the real problem:overpopulation. Since the beginning of the 20th century, human populations have started a near exponential growth. It is the fabled hockey-stick graph that investors love so much.

Global warming is but one symptom of that ever increasing population using ever more energy and resources. And guess what, the resources are limited. In many cases we are already close to the limit. That is the case for so-called renewable resources like fish and seafood. It is also true for such essentials like fresh water. But even for some minerals the "end" is in sight.

When it comes to energy we are close too, but in a different way. To persist in our ways we need access to cheap energy in portable form. Not all sources lend themselves well to solve that problem. There is energy that is easily accessible, like solar and wind, but not very portable. You cannot drive a car with solar energy. You could convert solar into electricity and use the electricity to drive the car, but the conversions are not very practical and rather wasteful too. Furthermore it takes expensive resources to implement.

There are other energy sources that are currently too expensive to mine and extract. Although as prices go up, they may become economically viable. Examples are oil in shale and sands.

But before we get into all that, it is good to remember that releasing the stored energy creates byproducts known as pollution. And pollution adds a big additional cost. And one we have up until now largely ignored. The reason why we have cheap energy is because we do not pay the full cost. In reality we probably pay less than 1/10th of the cost. Pollution and waste will do us in before we run out of energy sources.

Another side-effect is that cheap energy allows us to be wasteful with other resources as well. We can pump and spray water everywhere. We can maintain lawns, pools, and artificial lakes. We can bring water to hot deserts where it evaporates at breakneck speed. We can extract metals like aluminum and use them for soft drink cans. We can produce plastic water bottles and move water around in what is probably one of the most wasteful and irresponsible activities humans engage in. We can fly to exotic spots and drown them in refuse.

Cheap energy may allow us to live like kings, at least for now. But we are living on credit. And one day the bill will come due. And it will be paid in blood and tears.

fatally successful

One key problem in the fight against global warming is that the two most populous nations on earth, China and India, are experiencing rapid growth. That means their populations, which together are more than double those of the developed world, are furiously increasing their spending and consumption. And with it their carbon output. Imagine over two billion people who up until now were largely poor and using few resources, suddenly becoming American-style consumers. Even if only a small percentage of them manage to rise up to our level it will be a disaster of global proportions.

"Improving" one's lifestyle means increasing the number of households as large families split up into smaller units. That translates into more housing and more space per individual. It is estimated that one individual living a Western life-style turns one acre of land into non-productive housing, roadways, parking lots, airports, shopping malls, etc. Even with no population growth China and India could put enormous stress on their land (read agriculture) resources if a substantial number of their people started living in smaller, Western-style households. And for China the impact affects other nations as well since arable land is at a premium here.

And it does not stop there. With the move comes buying and driving one or more cars, instead of walking and bicycling. When people spread out, distances increase and more transportation is needed. And that does not just apply to the people themselves, but also to their food, their waste products, and the goods and services they buy and use. It means more trucks to deliver and retrieve goods.

It means more ships and more planes flying around. And at the same time it also means eating more calories, and shifting one's diet from one that is largely vegetarian to one that contains a lot of meat and fish. And fish means aquaculture as even the most optimistic projections show that wild fish stocks will be depleted by mid-century.

Shifting to meat or fish introduces another organism in the food chain. Food is produced and then consumed by those organisms. Some of it goes into building muscle or "meat," but the vast majority of it goes into keeping the animal alive. The result is that it takes anywhere between 8-12 calories of edible material to produce one calorie of meat or fish. It also takes a lot of water. Water that is used not just for drinking, but increasingly also to keep clean and wash out intensive production facilities.

Granted animal meat provides higher "quality" protein, but the increased value does not come close to offsetting the excess losses. Switching a person from a vegetarian diet to a Western-style diet effectively requires more than seven fold more land and water to feed that person. Imagine what would happen if we switched half of India, or China.

It is clear that the Western life-style that has served us well, is not sustainable in the long run. It isn't even sustainable if we try to expand it to the current world population. And that is why some have said to the developing world, do not follow our example. While that makes a good headline it is utterly unrealistic. What model are the Chinese and Indians supposed to develop ? And how would they do it ? Don't forget that we count on them to buy our goods and services. And that we can only get economies of scale if everyone standardizes. And that is exactly what is happening. Everyone is following our model, not just because it is there but because there is no alternative.

The sensible solution would be to break the web. To reduce global trade and put up barriers. And for us to change our life-style to one that is more sustainable in the long run. Neither one of these is likely to happen. There is just too much immediate benefit for those who continue on the current path. And it is too easy to delude ourselves and believe that a magical solution will appear before we hit the wall.

The monuments of the past illustrate one thing clearly. Magical solutions do not appear. Civilizations do disappear. While we may marvel at the remnants of the Roman Empire, or the pyramids of Egypt, or any other wonder of the world, it would be good to remember that these are first and foremost testimony of failure. They are the bones of the dinosaur. And we are about to add ours to the collection.

let's not forget about india

With all the talk about China we sometimes forget that India too is growing at breakneck speed. And while that means good news for the world economy in the short term, it is bad news in the long run. Because, like China, India has a huge population. India is the "other" nation with a population in excess of 1 billion people. And that means that any minor change in the standard of living translates to huge amounts of extra consumption and waste. Keep in mind that standard of living primarily measures consumption.

Take the Indian car market for example. It is growing so fast, Western and Asian car makers are drooling like mad. Renault's chief executive was quoted as saying" "It offers significant potential for profit growth." That is an understatement to say the least. The Indian car market doubled since 2000 and it is set to double again in another 8 years. Today 7 out of every 1,000 Indians have a car. By 2010, the projected number is 11 in 1,000. And what is most frightening is that this explosive growth is nowhere near saturation. We are a long way from one car per person, as is common in the West.

More cars leads to more driving and more driving means more greenhouse gases. India is one of the nations rejecting pressure to cut greenhouse gases. Already in 2001, India ranked 5th in the world in terms of carbon emissions at 251 million metric tons of carbon. The number is expected to triple by 2020. India accounts for only 5% of the current global carbon emissions but its contribution to the emissions growth will be very significant. As a developing nation, India did not sign the Kyoto protocol.

More cars require more roads. And roads are being constructed at a rate of 14 km per day (almost 10 miles a day), double the rate of 2005. More roads not only destroy valuable forests and agricultural land, they also enable people to live bigger. More roads translates into more sprawl. And that means less land for food production. And for India that could translate into big time trouble.

India is a major food producer at nearly 3% of the world production. Slightly more than half the land is arable and there are considerable water resources. Many areas support year round irrigation and can produce two or three harvests a year. But India is one of the countries that is most severely threatened by climate change. A greater frequency of droughts and floods would have a devastating impact on India's agriculture. Experts have warned that the country is ill-prepared for such events. Effects of global warming will affect India more than China or the US. Any additional stresses from construction will only make matters worse.

India is risky for other reasons. It has a highly diverse population with large groups vying for power. Civil war is never far from the surface and when stresses mount, violence is common. Much of it is embedded in the country's religions, that are often at odds with one another. The crumbling caste system, India's public secret, is also adding significant tension and periodic uprisings by the untouchables or dalits are symptoms of larger ills. Additionally, India has a rocky relationship with its neighbor Pakistan, another nuclear power.

Like China, a furiously growing India could become a major world problem in the near future.

chinese miracles

I think it is time to go on record with another prediction. This is not a prediction like the ones fortune tellers give you. It is not vague and universally applicable like "good things will happen to you next year." But it also does not predict specific details. That would be impossible in any case. The future is by definition unpredictable. What we can do however, is extrapolate from current trends and see where that leads us. And currently we are on a collision course with China.

I can see three possible outcomes with respect to China -and to some extent India - if current trends persist. An example of a change in trends would be if China somehow decided to stop growing. Another change would be if we somehow started consuming less. Both are unlikely to the point of being ridiculous. Current trends means we are both persisting in what we are doing. The West continues to consume at its wasteful rate and China and India continue to move in the direction of matching us in wasteful consumption.

The first outcome, and maybe the best one for us -that means the West- is if China were to somehow implode. If it were to choke on its growth to the point where it had to stop. That will not happen voluntarily and it may not happen without a fight, but under this scenario the fight would be largely internal and have only a minor effect on the rest of the world. I spoke to some friends who go to China often and do business there and they think this could happen. But it is hard to say how likely it is. One key reason is because we do not have good data on China. Nor do the Chinese for that matter, except maybe some of the leadership, but even that is doubtful. It is a closed society and that means a lot is unknown.

The other two outcomes are much less appetizing. Both for us and for them. The second scenario would be war. It too is something that many consider likely. War could come as a series of regional conflicts and it may even resemble the cold war we had with Russia. It maybe fought in Africa, the Middle East or even SouthEast Asia. It may involve little direct or overt confrontation.

Or, it could be an all out world war scenario. At this time China is not ready for this type of all out war, but over time its readiness may improve. There is also little rationale for a war at this time. There is still a ways to go before resource limitations become critical. However, if war is the outcome, the sooner it starts the better. If tensions are allowed to mount to the point where an all out war is the only option, outcomes will be very poor. An all out scenario is very unlikely in any case, but one never knows.

The third outcome is a more global type of collapse or implosion. I like to envision it as a new middle ages. A generalized and profound drop in the standard of living for nearly everyone on the planet. This could also be the Club of Rome scenario, although the Club reports predicted conflicts and wars. But an implosion without conflicts or regional wars is almost impossible. So what distinguishes the "global collapse" scenario from the "war scenario" is that there is no overall winner in the former whereas the latter does imply someone would come out ahead -either us or them.

My intuition is that a new middle ages scenario is the most likely outcome. There are several internal weaknesses that could cause a collapse in our fortunes. And if we collapse, the rest of the world is likely to follow.

As for timing, that is much harder to predict, but I suspect events will start unfolding sooner than anyone realizes. The world will be a different place by the middle of this century for sure.

war a la woodward

I heard Bob Woodward speak yesterday and it made me think about war and what motivates people to fight wars. Woodward is a great speaker, who is very funny and very serious at the same time. He certainly spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what was behind the war in Iraq. He is now in the process of writing his fourth book on Bush's war and I spent some time yesterday reading parts of volume three. I also read some reviews on that book earlier last summer.

It got me thinking about the causes of war. And especially about why it is so difficult for people to see what the real drivers are. That is because people are good at hiding their motives. "People lie," Woodward said, although he also said he thought Bush did not lie when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Weapons of mass deception would be a better term. For anyone to think WMD had something to do with the war is quite naive really. People fight wars for one reason and one reason only: resources.

No it is not ideology, beliefs, or religion that lead to war. These things have very little do with it. What drives people is resources and the key resource of the twentieth (and twenty-first) century is oil. I have already highlighted how important oil is. Oil not only gives us mobility, heating and cooling, but also materials like plastics and polymers. And perhaps even more important, oil is essential for food. We put in 9-10 calories of oil for every calorie of food we harvest. Without oil, lots of people would starve, and many others would have to settle for unappetizing foods -or at least food they consider unappetizing.

Ideologies, beliefs and religions do play a role in warfare but mostly to do one of the following: to band and group people together, to justify the cause, to stir emotions, and to make news headlines. I have no doubt Woodward is right when he said Bush felt it was "his duty to liberate people (or set them free)." This is a great American header. Freedom is the American religion of choice. In practice though it means very little and history has shown that the US has supported dictators and other adversaries of freedom at least as often as more democratically minded politicians.

The US supports democracies -even those that follow from free elections -only when it suits our needs. Many times the US has helped overthrow freely elected governments in favor of ruthless dictators. But the header let freedom ring is a big crowd pleaser nonetheless. And one all presidents in modern history have resorted to in times of need.

It seems obvious that there would have been no Iraq war if Iraq were an African country without oil. There have been scores of atrocities, genocide, and other problems in Africa in recent years. Yet we never intervened other than maybe condemn the situation. As a matter of fact, often we have used the statement to bury the matter and keep a lid on it. This is a great political ploy and one the current administration is very good at using: talk about issues or agree to talk about them at a later time. In the meantime, you can just forget about it. If Darfur comes to mind, you are with me. But Washington also used a similar tactic to silence the global warming crowd. And with great success I might add.

Whatever convictions or justifications Bush and his bedfellows may have, it seems more than obvious that Greenspan was right when he said, "I thought it was mostly about oil." And anyone who is honest will agree.

election time

The economy has overtaken the war in Iraq in the minds of voters. Many no doubt feel the situation in Iraq has stabilized. Even though record numbers of troops died last year, there is a sense that things are improving. And there are a few reasons for this, not all of them a reflection of reality. First, the number of Iraq reports and the prominence of those reports has declined. That is because news organizations have new topics to focus on. The presidential campaign is one of these and campaigns always make for good stories. Especially, when come-from-behind candidates win races.

I am not sure if anyone has studied it, but it seems pretty clear that our perception of the situation in Iraq is directly related to the number of stories and the attention given to those stories in the press and on TV. When there are fewer reports and when new stories take a backseat to other news, our perception is that things must be better. We quickly forget about civil wars in other countries. Another key factor is saturation. We were pretty saturated with carnage from Iraq and it is unclear how much more we could take without yawning or switching channels. That is one reason the news organizations are so eager to switch.

There is plenty of other news of course, but not much that really interests us. Genocide in Darfur, bloodshed in Kenya, rigged elections in Georgia, and other stories fail to grab our attention. No Americans are involved and in any case, trouble elsewhere is to be expected. It just proves to us that we live in paradise.

The second war issue has a better connection to reality. Violence has indeed declined in Bagdad, where most news organizations are located. That is because there is a better troop and security presence there. Insurgents have been forced to relocate and their relocation has not been followed by the media yet. Dangerous travel conditions are one reason why. Journalists do not want to venture much outside the safe areas. And who can blame them? This war has been the deadliest in terms of press casualties. All in all, it is rather unclear what is really happening in Iraq, but my hunch is it is not very good.

There is additional trouble in Afghanistan and Pakistan but that is of lesser concern. Most feel we won in Afghanistan and that book is closed. As for Pakistan, well they do have their own troubles there, but then again so does everyone else.

When it comes to the economy, the focus is on energy. It is winter and a time when people use the most energy and are faced with the highest bills. For many it is unwelcome news. They have overextended themselves during the years of cheap credit and now they have trouble making ends meet. Energy is the item people pay for on a regular basis -every time they gas up for example- and so it quickly becomes a sore point. Ironically enough this shift is not a shift at all. The war in Iraq was about cheap oil and this new crisis is no different. All our crises are about access to cheap resources.

All of that is bad news for the environment. Rising energy prices have some effect on consumption but reducing consumption is not a virtue over here. It is not something people consider a viable option. Americans do not feel good when they have to cut back on their "essential" gas guzzling. Much like drug addicts they start showing signs of withdrawal. And like drug addicts they will go to extreme measures to make sure they get their fix.

And when that happens, companies are only to happy to oblige. Because addicts are the best customers. They are very loyal and dependable. And they are a path of minimal resistance and optimal profits. Because they aren't picky. As long as they can get enough of what they need, they go home happy.

saving the environment one step at a time

Minimizing one's environmental impact is quite easy to do. Especially in a country like America where the average person's impact is enormously out of proportion compared to the rest of the world. Americans easily consume and waste double of what their European and Japanese counterparts do. And since those countries have an equally high standard of living, and one that translates into a state of well-being and happiness that is similar if not better than ours, the facts confirm that our excesses are unnecessary and counterproductive. So what is keeping us from doing the right thing?

Many set out with good intentions only to be frustrated and disillusioned by a myriad of obstacles, rules, and practical considerations. Unfortunately, there is also a fair amount of peer pressure. Peer pressure that is not just limited to teenagers and young adults. In many cases, adult peer pressure is embedded in neighborhood rules and home owner association prescriptions. Peer pressure pushes us to buy bigger cars than we need, and maintain unnecessarily manicured lawns. It may force us to use dryers instead of hanging up our laundry. It may also compel us to leave our porch lights on all night.

Americans have a busy life-style. They are more on edge than Europeans or Asians. Many are so busy putting out fires left and right that they truly believe there is no other way. It is an excuse that is often heard, and one that the sufferer experiences as real even though there is little reality to it. In many cases people enslave themselves to become taxi drivers for their kids or friends. Many also feel a constant need to drive to shopping malls to take advantage of ever present sales. A great many drive to workouts and other leisure activities.

Here are some things to consider if you feel too busy. One, turn off your TV and your radio. The constant barrage of ads has a detrimental effect on you, urging you to spend more and eating up your valuable time. The whole rhythm of TV and radio shows is also meant to keep you on edge. The constant flashing and high speed music are not good for you.

Turning off your TV will save you money and carbon emissions. Especially if you turn off that TiVo box or HD cable/satellite receiver too. Be aware that these devices may need to be unplugged to achieve success.

Two, stop driving your kids to their "activities." Let your kids play. They will be happier and so will you. They will also learn more. Humans learn by playing and our brains are wired to learn. There is no need for extra stimulation here. It is bad enough that you drive your kids to school. Kids should walk to school or ride their bike. If they did, we would not have a childhood obesity epidemic.

Three, stop driving to the mall to take advantage of savings. They are taking advantage of you. You cannot save by spending. If you turn off your TV and radio, and dump your junk mail, you won't know about all the great savings and you won't be tempted to waste your time. If you have less stuff you will need less time to clean up and organize. Don't become a slave to your gadgets. They are wasting your time.

Walk, jog, or run around the neighborhood instead of driving to the gym. Ride your bike. This will save you gas, reduce air pollution, and keep you in shape. If everyone drove less there wouldn't be an asthma epidemic either.

Turn off your lights and throw away your nightlights. Darkness is good for you. It promotes restful sleep and you will be less tired the next day.

singing in the rain

California got hit by a major storm yesterday. The downpour was of biblical proportions, with the Northern part of the state being hardest hit. The storm, one in a series of three made all the news headlines. Downed trees and power-lines, overturned vehicles, customers without power, mudslides, flooding, you name it. It was all there. And while Californians should welcome the extra water, it is a shame how much of it goes to waste.

The waste is not just a loss, it is also responsible for most of the problems we have. Problems such as mudslides, flooding, traffic congestion and the like. Because in populated areas, much of the rain falls on roofs of buildings first. It is estimated that a single roof of 1,000 sq ft collects as much as 600 gallons of water for every inch of rainfall.

Yesterday some Bay Area counties saw more than 3 inches of rainfall. The average Bay Area roof is also well over 1,000 sq ft. That means an average home could have collected more than 1,200 gallons of water in that one day. At an average use of 100 gallons a day, that is enough water for 12 days.

Many people are probably unaware of the fact that California provides tax credits for rain water collection. In any event, it is quite surprising really that nearly all California homes come without a rain water collection system. Many homes in Western Europe, where drought is much less of a problem have collection systems. They have large in-ground cisterns that can collect thousands of gallons of rain water. Enough water to sustain a large lawn through a typical California summer. Not that I think lawns should be encouraged. They are, as I already pointed out, the number one environmental disaster in the country.

Surprisingly enough, in California, and much of the SouthWest, collection is seen as a weird idea or maybe even a bit old-fashioned. It is something the government and utilities should take care of for us. Why would anyone go through the trouble of collecting rain water when all you have to do is open the faucet and out comes clean water?

But collecting rain water has other benefits as well. Apart from conservation and reduced water bills for the home-owner, it can also have a major impact on runoffs, especially in hilly areas. And those are the areas where mudslides are common. Each year mudslides destroy hundreds of expensive homes. Something for your neighborhood or home-owners association to consider. Unfortunately though these folks are usually the ones who are the most opposed to any practical and reasonable solution. Because they see practical solutions as non esthetic and they think it would lower the value of the homes.

Many people equate luxury and well being with not having to work. And so they consider anything that reminds them of work as indicative of low class or lack of success. They should take a hint from Prince Charles. Here is a royal who is into compost piles and other conservation that the new rich despise. Maybe there is a role for monarchy after all?

solar adventures

I have been experimenting with some solar technologies over the past few months. One item that attracted my attention was solar air heaters. It is not a topic that is discussed often and one has to do a bit of digging to find out more about it. But there are commercial applications and some (small) companies sell heaters. Prices are high however, and ROI is not good. However, making a solar heater is easy and very cheap.

Essentially there are two types of solar heating: passive and active. Any system that uses a fan is active. Passive systems rely on the fact that hot air rises, a phenomenon known as thermosiphoning. The beauty of a passive system is that it works very well, is very cheap to develop and produces near immediate returns on investment. If nothing else, a passive heater is a cool science project for school children. This is how I started mine. Here is a picture of the early prototype.



The simplest passive heaters are based on the greenhouse effect. Construct an insulated box, whose insides are lined with a metal and painted black and cover the top with glass or plexiglass. Drill two holes in the box and connect the top one to your room in some fashion. I used a window kit that came with a portable air conditioner. It is an extendable piece with a round hole. You slide it under a double-hung window and attach a duct to the opening.

Expose the contraption to sunlight and you get free hot air flowing. This works in any environment that has plenty of sun, even if the outside air temperature is very cold. People use such devices in Colorado and Montana, where it gets very cold but there is plenty of sun. In mild climates like California, you don't need to connect the intake and you can just let outside air flow into the box. In colder environments you need an additional opening to let room air into the box.

A moderate size box can heat a 500-600 sq foot room on a sunny day. I found that such a box can add enough heat to keep our 3,000 sq ft house warm during the day and at night in winter. In December and January, our house is in the sun from half an hour after sunrise (around 7 AM) till half an hour before sunset (around 4:30P). On a sunny day there is enough exposure to heat the inside to near 68F even if the outside temperature is in the high 40s to low 50s. Depending on the weather the overnight may drop as low as 55F but 60F is more common. With the box, we can keep the inside over 71F during the day and above 65F at night. That means no heater.

There are a few things to consider. The box only works when exposed to sunlight. As soon as the sun disappears the output drops to zero. That means you need to install some sort of one way valve to prevent cold air from coming in. Even a thick cloud can stop the box. If the inlet is outside air, that means cold air will flow in during that time. So you need a valve.A flap valve is ideal as it is a totally passive device. When the air heats it will push the valve open, and when the temperature drops gravity will close it up.

I built my box for less than $100 and used nothing but off the shelf parts. My biggest outlay was for a box. I got a large planter box at Ace hardware and painted it black with Rustoleum barbecue black paint. It is important to get paint that can withstand high temperature without outgassing. I lined the box with two layers of fiberglass insulation and mounted pieces of aluminum flashing on top. The flashing needs to be painted black too. I covered the top with a piece of leftover plexiglass that I picked up for a few $$ at Ace. Make sure the box is sealed properly so no hot air escapes.

I drilled a 4'' inlet on the side (bottom end) and another 4'' outlet at the "top." I fitted a grille in the bottom mainly to slow the air intake and a 4'' flexible elbow pipe in the top. These are standard pieces of aluminum that you find in any hardware store. The planter box leans against the windowsill putting it at a near ideal 50 degree angle and fitting the elbow nicely through the window piece I described earlier. When the sun hits the device, hot air at 110-120F starts flowing into the house. The temperature depends on the flow rate and that in turns depends on the diameter of the channel.


My box is a simple rectangle. It can be improved upon by using a more squarish box and directing the airflow inside to loop around a few times. A longer path means more heating. It is rather easy to add a computer fan with a thermostat at the outlet to create an active device. If you are really clever you can use a small solar panel to drive the fan. With a fan the airflow will be faster but the air will be cooler. 85F is more common. Be advised that fast flowing 85F air feels cold to the touch so don't blow it in your face. Even though it feels cold, it does heat the room.

For commercial devices look at SolarSheat and Cansolair. These devices cost almost $2K and require professional installation (meaning you need to drill a holes in the wall). Permanent installation is preferred though because the "interface" is the place of greatest loss, especially at night. Unless you want to remove the box daily an insulated interface is key. And if you live in California, a storm proof design is also needed.

wall street star trek

The trouble with space is that it is large and largely empty. Watching popular shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, and others you may get the impression that there are plenty of planets, solar systems, and galaxies to visit and colonize. In these shows, it is but a short hop from one planet to the next. The reality is a bit different. There are lots of stars to be sure, but they are all very far away. Even with a little magic like faster-than-light travel, distances are unimaginably large. Finding another planet to colonize is not as easy as finding the Americas was in the 16th century.

The other trouble is that humans are extremely well adapted to earth. All kinds of earth-specific variables are deeply imbedded into our bodies and their operation. These are not things we can get around easily. Even moving around on our planet isn't trivial. There are good indications that dark skinned individuals encountered major trouble when moving away from the equatorial regions. Studies indicate that lack of vitamin D, due to darker skin color led to increased susceptibility to infection, metabolic disorders and possibly cancer. Similar problems are encountered by light skinned individuals moving to sunnier climes.

Again, our impressions are a bit misleading here. We like to think of ourselves as "universal machines." Machines that can survive anywhere. But the truth is that we are specific and highly adapted to the prevailing conditions where we grew up. So much so, that global warming will be a serious challenge for us to overcome. Space, even with all the clever tricks we have up our sleeves is a very inhospitable environment for humans. It is highly unlikely that we can thrive there for long enough to survive a meaningful journey.

So far, experience on space stations has been rather sobering. Humans staying there for more than a few months encounter all kinds of physiological trouble, a fact that NASA and other space agencies are aware of but rather not discuss. It will take a serious leap in technology to remedy these problems. And as any physiologist knows, six months is a rather short time for a study on "long term" effects of anything. To give a trivial example, most drugs that are taken off the market for life-threatening side-effects survive much longer than that. Problems with COX2 or Phen-Fen did not surface during the first couple of years.

Unlike story book tales, real life settlements require more than two humans of opposite sex. It takes a small army of people to have any reasonable chance of success. To say nothing about a trip that is likely to last many times longer than the life-time of any one human. All-in-all the whole space escape adventure is extremely unlikely. Any space tourism venture as a stepping stone towards intersolar travel is enormously naive. The only thing space tourism is likely to achieve is becoming another mega-source of CO2 to speed up our demise as a species.