carbon credits

It has been interesting to watch the Obama administration come to terms with our current predicament. It is for sure that we are in the worst crisis any of us have ever seen. This is no longer a recession. It is a true depression and a depression of the sort that only comes around every 100 or so years. A 100 year flood.

First the president was more or less realistic. I say more or less because he did paint too rosy a picture. That was before the State of the Union. At the State of the Union, he was extremely optimistic and hopeful and it was probably necessary because the previous tone (which I call the rosy picture) was no doubt too depressing for the general public to bear. 

Then he unveiled a budget with some positive steps. Unfortunately it is still a budget that focuses on the wrong ideas. It does not call for less energy consumption, it calls for alternative energy. It does not call for the abandonment of car traffic, it puts money into rebuilding highways. Obama calls it his "work on the foundations," but it appears the work is of a restorative nature only. It is not about rebuilding the foundations. It is about patching up and shoring up the existing foundations. And that is unfortunate. Because we need to rebuild those foundations.

We are slipping and sliding deeper into depression. From an environmental perspective that is truly good news. The consumer economy that was built on horrendous over-consumption and waste was a real environmental disaster. And I am not talking about the Bush policies per se. I am talking about ordinary citizens driving several large SUVs, building enormous McMansions and vacation homes, roaming around the globe on numerous vacations, buying goodies left and right only to trash them and replace them with newer goodies in a few days.

The Bush policies only did what could be done to support to this idiotic destructive behavior. The very people who despised Bush for his environmental record, were driving SUVs, filling up trash cans, and destroying nature as if there were no tomorrow. But perhaps because they threw some of their trash in the recycling bin, they felt better about themselves? Who knows?

The Bush policies made it possible for the consumer economy to do what everyone wanted it to do. These weren't Bush's ideas either. It all started with a man, many now consider a hero and one of the best presidents we ever had: Ronald Reagan. If there was ever a man who truly believed in environmental rape and destruction it was good old Ronnie. Unfortunately the world will all pay for the excesses of Ronnie's hare-brained ideas for many decades to come. 

Maybe good old Ron did not know any better? Suffering from Alzheimer's and coming from Hollywood make-believe, the cowboy of Santa Barbara may have thought the world was really all about glamour and indulgence. He may have truly believed it was his destiny to turn America into a giant movie-studio where people live the lives of fantasy, unaware of the destructive impacts of their actions. He may have thought prosperity was all about replacing real life with one big movie. A place where everyone can escape from reality.

Unfortunately, the movie is over now. The screen is dark, the nasty room lights are on, and we are kindly ushered back onto the cold and rainy streets. Places where things are tough, where reality bites, where people suffer real hardship and die real deaths, where mortgages have to paid, and where no one can wait for a knight in shining armor to magically fix all problems. No Hollywood endings here.

We are talking about some real work on the foundations. Work needed to put those foundations back into reality and away from Disney make-believe. Work needed to build foundations that can withstand a real flood.

rain water

I was visiting some friends the other day and found out they had a big underground storage tank to collect rain water from the roof. It is apparently pretty rare although I was told it is quite common in some parts of the world. Probably those parts where it rains a lot and people have plenty of water to begin with, as in the UK and parts of Northern Europe.

It has always struck me as ironic that places like California, parts of Australia and even South Africa sell bottled drinking water and juices. In case you did not know, these are largely desert areas. So why are they selling water? And why do people find it so exotic and attractive to buy water from dry places?

In any case, my friends had a very nice set-up, where the rain water was used automatically for clothes washing and for flushing toilets. I could not tell and if they hadn´t told me I would never have noticed. They have a dual system, and when the rain water runs low, they can switch to the utility by flipping a switch.

Their main reason for doing this was to save their equipment. Where they live the water is quite hard, or high in calcium. Calcium deposits ruin things and appliances need frequent treatment to keep them in good working order. Where we live the water is quite soft, although even I noticed that rain water is better for washing clothes. Apparently, when water is hard, the difference is even more pronounced. Plus you need a water treatment or the machine will die a premature death.

So, it can be done. The question is why doesn´t everyone do it? Why do we think of desalination and other excessively wasteful and expensive options when everyone could just collect their own rain-water? Is it because of the way one ends up paying for things? I.e. big upfront versus monthly? Or maybe, like so many other things, water is just too cheap here in California?

missing the point

Monday's Wall Street Journal had a section on green energy. In the lead article, the authors lamented the fact that the current recession is preventing ordinary people from implementing "green technologies." It actually went a bit further than this and stated that the recession would prevent conservation, i.e. that it would be bad for the environment.

This is a well rehearsed refrain and the Journal has had earlier articles pointing out that the recession would stop industry from developing green technologies. The recession is stifling innovation. It is a set-back for the environmental movement. The cheap price of oil and gas makes  "green technology"  non-competitive.

I have pointed out before the irony in all this, yet very few people seem to see it or want to acknowledge it. Perhaps it is too obvious? Or else nobody feels like they have anything to gain from pointing it out? Maybe they fear it would expose what many see as a fundamental weakness? Yet it is so simple: the less people consume the better our environmental record will be. Consumption is what causes environmental destruction, and the more we consume, the worse off the environment will be.

There is also another irony. A strong belief that technology will save us all. A strong belief that technology reduces the environmental impact we have. Our strong belief in the power of technology -our religion of technology- is at the core of all this. And it is supported by numerous reports showing efficiency gains. Everything we build becomes more efficient, hence it must be better for the environment.

Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true. Technology has done nothing but greatly increased our capacity to damage the environment. And it has done so in many ways, not in the least by making it possible to have so many humans on the planet. The more humans we have, the more of a footprint we leave behind.

Efficiency too has the opposite effect of what is advertised. Efficiencies make it easier for people to afford things, so they buy more, use more and waste more. Efficiency is of no value to the environment. Nature does not "care" how efficiently we use our energy sources. All it "cares about" is how much we use.

Sadly enough, the depression is good for the environment. Even if it causes people to use less-efficient older items. As a matter of fact, it is good because it forces people not to throw out old stuff. It forces them not to buy new items, or travel or otherwise leave a big footprint. That is the good news.

greed

Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to find some morons with credentials who will sing the praises of greed, excessive bonuses, and unlimited pay. Or bemoan the country for "railing against the rich."

I have stated before that I don't have a problem with people pocketing ridiculous amounts of money -there is no way to stop them in any case, so why worry?- but I do have a serious problem when these individuals try to justify their bounty. Not only are these guys greedy, they also display hugely inflated egos and profoundly anti-social behavior. This is borderline psychopathic at best.

Arguments in favor of excessive compensation are totally bogus. Nobody in their right mind can claim that their efforts, insights, wit, or genius is worth three orders of magnitude in extra pay. Those who believe such things need to have their minds checked out. Face it, all these guys have going for them is that they happened to be in the right place at the right time. It may have taken them some maneuvering skill to get there,  but that is a far cry from the outrageous assertions they make.

Furthermore, recent events have shown that financial geniuses paying themselves millions not only do not create anything of value, they cause nothing but trouble. As one economics professor explained: they sell manure. Their great "contribution" to humanity was that they managed to temporarily convince everyone that it was rose-water.

At the very best financial wizards lubricate an unsustainable economy of waste and destruction. More often they just cause pain and hardship for everyone without producing anything of value in return.

There is a good reason why all religions think of greed as a sin. Greed is bad for humans. Not just for the greedy ones, it is bad for all of us. It lowers our chances of success as a species and it impacts our ability to survive.

Greed is like drug use gone wild. Some amount of selfishness is good and beneficial, much like an occasional glass of wine. But excessive consumption and addiction quickly becomes a threat not just to the well-being of the individual who engages in it, but also to those around them.

It is not just bad form for a prominent paper such as the Wall Street Journal to commend greed, it is reprehensible. Much like advocating addiction, or other destructive behaviors. Even they should know better.

wrapper nation

Have you ever taken a look at the amount of wrapping we do? Buy some Orowheat bread at Costco and you will find not one but three wrappings. First there is the big bag, and because it carries the bar code that the cashier needs, you cannot leave it behind. In it you stuff two loaves, each wrapped in another bag. Then inside that bag, there is a shrink-wrap type plastic sheet that surrounds the bread itself. I am done buying Orowheat. 

I am not sure why bread gets wrapped in the first place. It is not as if nobody touches the loaf. If you do not want to eat a loaf that others touched, you better not eat bread. When I was a kid we would go to the bakery and buy bread. It was always handed to us bare-handed, no bag or anything. These days people insist bakery shop workers wear latex exam gloves to handle bread. Our local baker would have fallen over laughing at such idiocy. If you really thought he never touched the bread, you must be from Mars.

We carried our bread, all exposed in a little net-like shopping bag that was reused until it literally fell apart. Years later "progress" appeared and the bakery acquired a bread slicer. Now they had to bag the bread lest if fall apart. Today, nearly all bread is pre-sliced. It is a bad idea really as the bread spoils faster, is easier to consume, and deprives people of some much needed exercise. The industrial bakeries think it is all improvement. The more bread gets eaten or spoils, the more they can sell.

Wrapping and bagging has become so second-nature, one has to be super-aware when shopping. It is not enough to bring your own shopping bags. Plastic baggies are everywhere. Veggies are all individually bagged, otherwise the check stand people get confused. There is also no way to keep items like apples together on the roller band they have, plus it annoys the checkout folks if your oranges roll away.

If you really want to save on packaging, I recommend that you use the self-checkout stands that are now popping up everywhere. Here you can actually place bananas and apples on the scale yourself, and then pop them in your re-usable bag, without ever needing one of those plastic baggies that nobody can do without.

Check stand people have other bad habits. I am sure management contributes to these because so many of them seem to do it almost without thinking.  They routinely put meat -which is already packaged in styrofoam with plastic top- in a little plastic bag, and some even put ice-cream containers in plastic before they add it to your shopping bag. Bagamania at the supermarket. One more reason to avoid supermarkets whenever you can.

In my experience only the folks at Whole Foods seem to care and are responsive and attentive to less bagging. At other stores, one frequently has to fight personnel to stop crazy wrapping. At the very least you get dirty looks for being a non-conformist.

car trouble

The numbers for January 2009 are in and it does not look good. (Except for the environment;)). 

US car sales are way down, Ford at 40% is faring better than GM at 49% and Chrysler at 55%. All in all, US consumers bought 657 thousand light vehicles in January of 2009. That is roughly one vehicle per 160 households. If the trend holds up, one in twelve households in the US will buy a new car this year. That is still an astoundingly large number and an enormous carbon footprint. But let's focus on the economy now.

All of it casts a dark cloud over the economy and the newly announced bail-out package. It seems clear that GM and Chrysler are in deep trouble. So deep in fact that many have questioned whether it makes sense to keep these company's afloat. Chrysler seems all but doomed.

The company said it may only sell 1 million vehicles this year, but it has capacity to produce 2.2 million in its 11 North American assembly plants. Maybe that sounds awful, but Chrysler only sold 62 thousand vehicles in January. Last September it sold slightly over 100 thousand. It's been all downhill from there, so it appears one million maybe too optimistic. It could be closer to 750 thousand. To make matters even worse, the company has 360 thousand vehicles piled up. Just selling those would take 151 days or almost half a year. New production? Sounds more like half a million max to me.

If you don't see huge layoffs and much pain in the coming months you need to have your eyes checked out pronto. The average plant has 3,300 workers. It appears at least half will have to go, no matter what. Such a reduction would ripple through related industries causing huge additional "collateral" damage.

Not all assembly plants are in the US of course, and Chrysler has plants in Canada and Mexico as well. Canada may well offer some assistance, and the company has already received funds there, but don't count on Mexico, except to absorb losses. The wonders of capitalism.

It is unclear what should be done to avert disaster. Saving the auto makers is like dumping water in a bottomless pit. Best would be to let them go under. However, given the debt Democrats owe to unions and workers, it appears this is not politically feasible. Even George W. did not want the automakers to fail on his watch.

Not that the Republicans are any better at providing solutions. The universal Republican remedy of tax cuts will be no more effective in this matter than school prayer. Or wishful thinking.

Surely we will need a job creation program of huge magnitude. A program that can put tens of thousands of workers to good use. Creating such a program is not trivial, even if funding exists. Maybe it is time to look into high speed rail? Wasting the money on more highways seems like the dumbest thing to do. When it comes to infrastructure, we should focus on sustainability, not more waste. How does that sound to you?

california: the long term forecast

Ever wondered what will happen to the Golden State in the next decade or two? Well, the trends are there for everyone to see. It does not look so good to say the least. Of course, any dismal outlook needs to be tempered by the notion that California is very important strategically for the US. 

So important that the young country went to great lengths to tame the badlands and near-deserts around what was once the dusty Pueblo de Santa Maria de Los Angeles. The impoverished pueblo became a metropolis known as Los Angeles. 

In the process the fertile Owens valley was laid to waste. So too was northern Baja California, but that is not our problem you say? It doesn't stop there though. Hundreds of dams were erected, the "other" Yosemite valley flooded, and the Sacramento river delta depleted of one of the finest salmon fisheries anywhere; its ecosystem forever changed. Such was the cost extracted to colonize the Southland and turn it into concrete and golf courses.

It is clear that the country will go to great lengths to preserve access to the Pacific and to keep California thriving. If something were to happen to California, a breakup of the US would become a reality.

I suspect the US will eventually break up, but it may be a long time in coming. The trends that affect California also affect the country as a whole and the forces driving towards a breakup are very strong. I am not speaking of political activism, acts of savvy business people, deeds of brave heroes, or overall sentiment. In my opinion these are only responses to, and outward appearances of a set of much  stronger underlying currents.

The first problem California will have to deal with is desertification. It appears that by 2030 the desert will reach well into what is known today as Northern California (but is in reality in the middle along the N-S axis). What that means is that droughts will be frequent and severe. Since Northern California not only supplies water to itself, but also contributes significantly to the Southland, that does not bode well for agriculture or human habitation.

Unless another mega-diversion project gets started, or unless we are willing to pump tons of energy into desalination, California agriculture appears on the skids. California's agriculture is entirely dependent on irrigation. The irrigated area is relatively small (smaller than Ohio's agriculture for example), but the value of crops grown here is very high. Agriculture is big business in the Golden State.

However, mega-projects are expensive and will only postpone the inevitable. California's long term outlook is poor. Over time, California will probably follow the example of Iraq. Once known as the Fertile Crescent, the cradle of civilization, the region between Tigris and Euphrates is now a salt-encrusted desert where barely anything grows.

The second trend is an aging population. This trend affects the whole country and is especially pronounced in the dominant ethnic group, Caucasians. California is seeing a shift as whites are already a minority in the state. This trend will only accelerate further. Influx into the state is dominated by non-whites. The non-Caucasians living here, also have much higher birth rates.

Newer populations will shape the state. They are more conservative, less well off, and more heterogeneous. The demographic trends will continue to erode the housing situation over the medium term. The State is now wildly overbuilt and its housing problems could well lead to an accelerated decline that further impoverishes the State. California may become a series of protected beach enclaves where rich people hide from the poor masses all around.

The third trend is an exhaustion of cheap resources. The climate for innovation is disappearing. Not because of any policies or politics, or the lack of smart people. Quite simply because the State is running out of cheap land, cheap water, cheap labor, and a large consumerist throw-away market. The key to Silicon Valley success was the ample availability of all four. The fourth is disappearing as quickly as the first three now that half of the American households are done spending on gadgets. Silicon Valley for all its fame and creativity depended heavily on consumers willing to throw out its goodies after a few years, so as to replace them with newer and "better" versions.

California, it appears, is riding into the sunset.