food shortage

The FAO thinks food production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years. It predicts that unless more land is used for food production, 370 million people will face famine by 2050. 370 million seems like a large number until you hear that the world population is expected to grow by 2.3 billion by then. Maybe we should hit the brakes somewhere? What if we only allowed a growth of 2 billion? That would go a long way to solve the problem it seems.

The FAO, like many other organizations and businesses does not think that way. To them the growth is a given if not a must. To businesses and politicians it always is. How can you grow a business if the population declines or stays the same? Ergo, come what may, we have to find a way to solve this problem.

The FAO thinks we need to increase agricultural investment in developing countries by 50% or $83 billion annually to avoid disaster. I am not sure if the FAO took into account the effects of declining fish stocks, scarcity of land and water, and the effects of increased levels of CO2 (with or without global warming) in the atmosphere. Research has shown that many crops, and especially those that Africans and Asians depend on for staples, dramatically reduce their yields when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. So even if the world does not warm, rising CO2 concentrations alone will spell disaster.

However, rest assured that the climate is changing. And climate change is predicted to causes losses of up to 30% in Africa and slightly over 20% in Asia. These are also the areas of the most intense population growth. Not surprisingly these are also the areas with the most young adults. And young adults without jobs and without food tend to get very antsy if not outright belligerent.

Something's got to give here, and it isn't going to look pretty.

Insanity

I drove through the central valley yesterday and I couldn't help but thinking we are all insane. It was hot as hell, with temperatures in excess of 110F, the air was so polluted you could barely see Mount Diablo from 20 miles away, and yet everyone was driving their monster SUV's as if there is no tomorrow. The freeways were packed even though it was Sunday.

Everywhere there were large scale developments of monster mansions baking in the sun. 4,000+ sq ft. homes that have air conditioners running full blast day in and day out for three quarters of the year. The other quarter they run heaters. Meanwhile, the occupants were probably out shopping in their gas guzzling 8 cylinders, buying more stuff to throw away before year end. No doubt their sprinklers were set to keep their huge lawns bright green too.

When you stop the car for more than a few minutes and get out in the open, you realize that this is no place for human habitation. It is as hot as an oven, there is no water, and there is nothing to do. Humans can only exist in a place like this because of cheap oil and coal. Oil and coal to generate electricity to run the air conditioners and bring in water. Just plain survival for more than a few hours in these conditions takes a fair amount of energy. Let alone doing so useful work.

And it is not as if the people living there realize their predicament or act what one could call responsibly. Far from it. They cool their entire houses to 72 degrees, they water football field-sized lawns, they take several showers a day, they fill swimming pools, they drive monster trucks, etc.

There mere existence comes at an enormous cost, yet they choose to live lavishly and luxuriously. One cannot shake the impression that they seem to enjoy wasting energy. They don't bother to live in a small house, or separate their room, or to turn off their cooler when they leave, or their lights at night, or anything else for that matter. They buy huge mansions, with open floor plans, and they heat and cool the entire spread continuously, whether it is needed or not.

In short, they behave as if everything is available in unlimited quantities. Any normal human looking at this objectively would have to conclude that they have lost their minds. Perhaps it is a good thing that so many of these homes will be foreclosed upon. At least it will cause a substantial cut in energy wastage.

Even so, it appears that sooner or later, this insanity will have to end.

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.

global warming wsj style

There is nothing the guys at the Wall Street Journal like better than to discredit the New York Times. Now that Rupert has taken the lead, this tendency has turned into a necessity for all Dow Jones affiliates. If Rupert had his way, the NYT would disappear from the face of the earth. That would be a shame because the NYT is without a doubt the best newspaper on the planet. 

Having said that I do not always agree with the NYT, nor do I always disagree with the WSJ. But it is clear that the latter is more obviously biased than the former. The WSJ is also more deviously biased, advocating a position that materially benefits the rich and powerful. I.e. the NYT editorials may stress a liberal point of view, but that point of view does not necessarily serve to make someone really rich. The same cannot be said about the WSJ. Here opinion is clearly in service of making money.

One area where the NYT and the WSJ like to do battle is global warming. It is a problem that is real and should concern us greatly. It appears all the writers and columnists at the Times grasp that, although not all think it is a real emergency. There is a range of opinions from, "We need to take action now," to, "Well maybe it won't be so bad if we contain it."

The WSJ has no such distinctions. Their stance is clear. Global warming is not a problem. Like mayor Larry Vaughn on Amity Island, the WSJ maintains there is nothing to worry about. The situation is under control. Not because they know or because someone says so, but because of business. If there was something to worry about, it would affect business and that would be bad. Ergo, there is nothing to worry about, period.

The latest salvo in this battle is Thomas Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded." It apparently tries to warn us of impending doom. Mr. Friedman thinks global warming is a key issue. Against that, the WSJ puts reviewer Bjorn Lomborg, author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."

I need to point out that "environmentalist" is not an official title and everyone from Mr. Lomborg to drill baby Guiliani can call themselves an environmentalist. Chances are that those who feel the need to do so have something to hide, but that is another matter.

In trying to make fun of Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lomborg uses the following line. "By 2030, will the evening news feature weather, other news and sports?" The WSJ was so taken in by this "absurdity" that they decided to highlight it by printing it in large letters as an excerpt in the middle of the page. Surely, nobody in their right mind would think this could happen?

Guess what, my friends, take a look at the evening news! The evening news in 2008 IS weather, other news, and sports. The evening news, especially on local stations such as KTVU Fox and others has been that way for years. More than five years ago, a "liberal" Bay Area weekly added up all the time spent on various stories on the local evening news. It found that more time was spend on weather -and obvious weather for that part- than any other story. Not only that but weather is often the first and key story on the news.

Obvious weather, such as KTVU reporters standing in the midst of Sierra snowstorm and saying, "Yes Julie, it is snowing here in Truckee." And that is in the Bay Area, a part of the country that has -according to Rand McNally- the best weather in America. One can only wonder what happens in places where there is weather.

Yes, folks, that is what is happening to America. A constant barrage of non-events interspersed with commercials to dumb us down. Take a look Mr. Lomborg. The future is here! You don't have to wait until 2030. 

Enjoy!

gender and peak oil

I've been reading some blogs and some comments on blogs that refer to peak oil. As I have said before, I strongly believe pollution and other side-effects will get us way before we run out of oil. There is plenty of oil around. Sure we are pumping and consuming like mad dogs, and we may well have reached a peak in production, but we are by no means at the end of oil. Oil will be here for a while to stay. It is hard to see what, if anything, could replace it. Without oil we would have to forego our life-style, our economy, and all the other stuff we are so addicted to.

But onto gender. Apparently, the male response to peak oil is the Rambo-style, get your guns out and go build and live in a fortress on the land to prepare for the upcoming struggle. Maybe too many road-runner movies? The female response on the other hand is the calm, get ready, can the vegetables and make jam-type. One blogger compared it to expecting a child. Rosemary's baby?

Well, I am sorry to disappoint you. I am male and I am in no mood to go Rambo-style into the woods. I don't even own a gun, nor have I ever felt the need to own one. Nor do I think it would do me or anyone else much good. I am also not in the mood to start making preserves or can veggies. I have occasionally made jam and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially when it came to eating it, but I think making jam is not going to save us from what is about to happen.

Unfortunately it appears we are going to run into a concrete wall at 100 mph without ever putting on the brakes. I don't say that lightly and I feel bad thinking about it, but I fear it is all but unavoidable. History shows it has happened before and we humans tend to repeat history over and over.

Like other animals, we are opportunistic and opportunism is deeply ingrained in us. It is because it enables us to survive in an uncertain world. We grab what we can when we can. Male or female. With guns or with jam containers, we are out there to grab it and run with it. Because you never know what could happen tomorrow. Better be prepared.

Sadly, when we discover too many goodies it can be as bad as discovering none. And it appears that is what happened. We found an efficient way to harvest and release the energy that was stored in plants for over millions of years. And as any good opportunistic creature, we have been burning it as if there is no tomorrow. We have also multiplied like weeds. I guess when religious groups said, go out and multiply, they could not have foreseen the trouble they were asking for. Always remember to be careful what you wish for, lest you might one day get it.

So here we are, flush with wealth, and eager to consume it. Hey, if we don't do it, someone else will. There will be no stopping people. It would be like asking an addict to pass up the coke. It ain't going to happen. Not until it is way too late.

You can already see it. Rather than welcome high gas prices, people are crying foul left and right. Where are all those in favor of carbon-taxes? This, my friend is a carbon tax, and this is what we need. We need to make it expensive for people to consume. Very expensive. That is the only way to stop it. Unless items are expensive, nobody treats them with respect. It applies to gas, to water, to food, you name it.

And who can do this? Who has the power and the determination to enforce it? While staying away from it themselves! And who would be willing to submit? It is asking too much. Even if we found a group of leaders, what would stop the "followers" from overthrowing them forthwith? 

Environmentalists in their Volvo's are as eager to start offshore drilling as the most hardcore Texas oil man. Even if they realize it won't affect gas prices and will only further pollution and global warming. Sorry, got to drive the kids to school! Walk? Oh no, my kids cannot walk to school. Too far, too dangerous, too cold, too hot, too whatever.

Greed is not good. It cannot possibly end well if we keep going this way.

missing the point

John Tierney is a would-be scientist who writes a column and a blog for the NY Times. The blog is called TierneyLab and he uses it "to check out new research and rethink conventional wisdom about science and society." It appears John prefers the court of public opinion over peer review. Not that peer review is all that much better, mind you. TierneyLab takes a conservative middle of the road position on most topics but has a definite "laissez-faire" bias when it comes to the environment. John likes to reassure us that all is well.

Now John has a short list of "10 Things to Scratch From Your Worry List." Numbered lists like these are very popular with the public and they pervade periodicals, magazines, and do-it-yourself books. Who has time to read a real book these days? What we need in "today's fast paced society" is action items. You know how the ad goes. You've seen it a million times. Still, it is hard to put down these valuable lists. It is not often that you can learn so much in so little time. Smart learning or smart bombs?

Unfortunately, numbered lists frequently miss the point. Their main purpose it seems is to either rally the troops, or to lull everyone back to sleep by telling them that they are doing just fine. Whatever the flavor, lists convey little useful information and they allow the writer to get away with pushing opinions without having to make a solid case for them. In short, lists are not just easy on the reader, they also benefit the lazy writer.

Here are some examples of non-information from today's list. 

#3. John thinks you need not worry about forbidden fruits from afar. This one fits in the category of condoning your bad behavior while giving you some ammunition to fight off your more environmentally conscious friends. The argument is that food from other countries is often produced and shipped "much more efficiently" than domestic food. Note that the local producers haul their wares around in small trucks. The argument is not just false, it ignores the big picture in favor of pushing an image of inefficient local producers clogging up the highways with their pickup trucks trying to deliver inferior food.

Never mind that the "efficiency" of foreign growers is largely due to predatory practices, lax environmental regulation, excessive use of pesticide and fertilizer, mono-culture driven to the extreme, exploitation of cheap labor, enforcement by the military, and most of all, cheap oil. There is a reason bananas are cheaper in the US than locally grown apples. 

John prefers to stick to apples from New Zealand having a smaller carbon footprint than apples in the UK. The NZ argument avoids nasty problems with banana republics. But it misses the point. The point is that efficiency does not matter. There are no brownie points for eating apples with a smaller carbon footprint. Certainly not if those apples are cheaper and hence we eat more of them. 

Shipping foods over long distances is an environmental disaster and no amount of whitewashing will cover it up. Becoming a locavore is the best thing you can do for the environment.

#5. Here is another one, evil plastic bags. In this case John again condones bad behavior and once again his argument is totally beside the point. He says, the EPA thinks paper bags are no better for the environment than plastic bags, and that is true. It is true that the EPA thinks that way, but who can trust the EPA any longer? Unfortunately, it is also true that paper bags as they are currently used are just as bad for the environment. The issue is that throw-away bags, be they paper or plastic, are to be avoided.

Americans are wrappers of the worst kind. Everything we buy is wrapped and sealed and packaged and bagged many times over. We put boxes in boxes and bags in bags. We use so much packaging that the weight of the package rivals that of the goods inside. We use more wrapping than an Egyptian mummy. And all of it is one-time use and gets discarded promptly. We are consumers of bags and wrappings as much as we are consumers of goods that we don't need. 

Yes the plastic bags are evil. And yes you should worry about it. As a matter of fact you should worry about ALL bags, boxes, wrappings, sealing, etc. It is all a huge waste of resources.

To top it all of, in #8, John thinks we need not worry about the missing Arctic ice. And in a clever juxtaposition he also thinks we need not worry about the universe's missing mass (#9). There is no doubt these two are listed in succession because the second one makes the first one look silly. The universe's missing mass is a scientific issue. The mass is not missing in a real sense, we just don't know (or don't agree) where it is. And it is only missing if you accept the leading hypothesis of the birth of the universe. It is an academic problem, and you need not worry about it unless you dream of winning a Nobel prize.

The missing ice in the Arctic is a different matter. It is missing. Granted it is happening far away. But it is real and it is a sign that something is going terribly wrong. Something that will have major repercussions, if not on our lives, then certainly on future generations. The ice is missing because it is melting. It is melting because our climate is changing. And regardless of your beliefs about the cause of global warming, climate changes are serious business.

Despite the drama of comets and other Hollywood-like extinction scenarios, mass extinctions were probably due to climate changes and not to acute events. Even if you doubt that, rest assured that most if not all successful human civilizations collapsed because of climate changes and over-taxing the local environment.

I would say it is the one thing you definitely do need to worry about.

food prices

According to the FAO data, the current spike in food prices is quite modest. When adjusted for inflation and compared to other data over the last 50 years, the price hike is barely noticeable. In the 1970's for example, rice, wheat, and other cereals were anywhere from double to almost four times as much as they are today. Yet, corn has risen 31% over the past year, while wheat has gone up a whopping 130%, according to Bloomberg.

Several factors have been blamed for these price hikes. Oil prices play an important part as most food stuffs are transported over large distances. I read somewhere that the average food item travels over 1,500 miles before it reaches your table. Oil also powers farm equipment and irrigation devices, that are both needed and used extensively to grow food on an industrial scale. Petroleum is key for fertilizers and pesticides that are an equally integral part of the production process.

It seems likely that oil prices will continue to move upward over the long term. On top of that we will no doubt see several spikes -as the one we are currently in- and drops -that will surely follow-. But the underlying trend will be up and up. Hopefully, that trend will remain "visible"enough so people have some incentive to change their life-styles before the whole rigamarole comes tumbling down in one big collapse.

Apart from oil, there are other factors. One is the biofuel craze, or growing crops for fuel production. More fuel production means less farm land is available for food. This trend is unlikely to persist for long but in the meantime it is giving rise to a fair bit of speculation. Wild promises also make it less likely people will think conservation.

Another factor is the shift in eating habits. That shift is especially pronounced in developing nations such as India and China, that are now changing to Western eating habits. Never mind that such habits come with definite health concerns. The key shift is towards more meat. In China meat consumption per capita has gone from 20 kg in the 1980's to over 50 kg today. Given how inefficient meat production is, and how wasteful it is with resources, that is not good. This trend however is likely to continue for as long as beef is available and people have money to pay for it.

Considering all these factors it may surprise you that FAO predicts food prices will stabilize in the next decade. Not just stabilize mind you, but remain low compared to historical trends. If that is so, there will be no stopping the predicted population boom. Estimates are there will be 9.2 billion people on the planet by 2050.  But then again, people thought US real estate prices would rise forever too.

I am willing to bet we are in for a big surprise. By mid-century the world will be a different place. And it won't be the rosy predictions people have grown accustomed to from watching Star Trek and similar shows.

the 100 year flood

I read somewhere that the MidWest is experiencing its fourth 100 year flood in 35 years. Clearly something is amiss here. Maybe someone misplaced the zero? Already a debate has started whether or not global warming is to blame. Remember Katrina? We are at it once again.

I want to sidestep the global warming issue because it is likely to lead to unproductive debates. Instead of pointing fingers, let's take a look at the facts. Nothing but the facts, ma'am. If four hundred year floods occur in less than forty years then we are really dealing with 10 year floods. And if every 10 year flood is as devastating as this one, we aren't going to do so well in the long run. It is not just a matter of poor statistics we are talking about. It is something that wrecks the livelihood of many good people.

Once again the problem is that people are trying to live in areas where they should not live or do things there that they should not do. I am not saying we should refrain from changing our environment, but there needs to be a limit somewhere. Humans like all animals try to modify their environment, and doing so is a good thing to do. I am absolutely positively in favor of making life better. And if there is some collateral damage, well so be it.

Changing the environment makes it so we can enlarge our niche and it protects us from danger and makes it so we can live more comfortably. But that also imposes a good limit. A cost/benefit limit. Clearly floods like these every ten years or so do not make us comfortable. They do not make it safer for us to live there. We are asking too much.

Every time you ask this much you should also ask yourself, why? And here the why is obvious. It is called greed. We live in the plains because it allows us to grow cheap food that we can transport easily via the river to far away places. But location is not enough. These plains, while enormously productive would not be so without cheap oil. Once again, cheap oil is allowing us to do things we better not do.

The floods are but one symptom. They inundate the land that we grow food on and make it so our yields drop. But in "normal" years the runoff from pesticides and fertilizers make it so the Gulf of Mexico is becoming a wasteland where food (here fish) is disappearing quickly. It appears this situation is one of extremely high cost, with very little benefit. Unless you think high fructose corn syrup is a benefit. The only benefit we can see is dollars flowing into the pockets of some very rich farmers. That is called greed. For the time being the profit is quite literally underwater. 

But fear not, those farmers will go to Congress and you and I, the taxpayers of America will bail them out. Whether we like it or not. And that is wrong.

clean energy

Arnold, our governator had some good news for all Californians. Tesla, a company he called "the sexiest car company," will build its second generation electric vehicles in California. The first generation were built in England but the second generation was up for grabs. New Mexico was in the running, and so were other states. But the governator, who bought a Tesla, stepped in with some generous tax breaks. No doubt many are delighted that we are taking a step in the right direction. When it comes to electricity, California is a low carbon emitter. The state produces just 47.24 million metric tons or about as much as Wyoming. The low figure is no doubt due to all the hydro-electric dams in the state. We wrecked one of the most productive salmon fisheries in the nation by doing so, but hey one has to make sacrifices somewhere.

When it comes to transportation and residential use though, we don't do so well. As you might imagine, transportation is really killer. 227.78 million metric tons, the highest in the nation and surpassing Texas at 192.34 by a "healthy" margin. Time we switched to electric cars, don't you think? Although electric is emission free for the car, it is not pollution free as some seem to think. It is also not a shortcut for using less energy.

It takes a certain amount of energy to move a 3,000 pound metal box over a given distance. More so when you also have to lift it, as most of California is far from flat. Barring minor differences in efficiency, it does not matter much how this energy is delivered, be it by coal, gas, hydrogen, electricity, or gravity. More or less the same amount of energy is needed and an equivalent amount of harmful byproducts is produced. In many cases, less carbon, but more toxic heavy metals. Pick your poison the saying goes.

The only way to change the equation is by making the box lighter or not moving it as far or as high. In other words, drive a smaller car and drive less. That is the only solution. Unfortunately, the best way and so far the only way to insure that this will happen is to make energy more expensive.

The same is true for heating and cooling. It takes a certain amount of energy to deliver a quantity of heat or remove it from a building. Both are "needed" a lot in California apparently. You might not think so given our great climate, but reality is different indeed. Many Californians insist on living in normally uninhabitable places. Many also "require" 3,000 plus square foot housing and a wide variety of appliances to deal with inconveniences such as cold shower walls and the like. When it comes to residential carbon emissions, California is second only to New York with 30.27 million metric tons versus 38.02.



When it comes to housing, smaller dwellings would make a huge difference. Better insulation would help too. And not heating or cooling the entire residence when only a few rooms are in use is another idea. While we are at it, abandoning housing that is far away from centers of activity, or located in inhospitable places such as the Coachella valley is also worth considering. When it comes to location, it appears that the subprime crisis will lend a helping hand here.

There is a lot we can do folks, but remember not to deceive yourselves. When it comes to energy use, self-deception is easy to do. Turning off the A/C and opening the car windows may seem like a smart idea, until you consider the increased drag at highway speeds. There are many other examples. Remember the laws of thermodynamics, succinctly summarized as "there is no free lunch!" Don't try to be clever with energy. Substitutions don't work.

a lasting green legacy

This just came across my desk. It is in a month old Costco magazine, but I think it needs some highlighting. PepsiCo's CEO wants to leave a lasting legacy. A legacy of what? Obese diabetic Americans? The maker of high fructose-spiked waters and cereals, not to mention over-salted and spiced chips thinks she lived "wisely, agreeably and well." The CEO of the world's fourth largest food and beverage company is quoted as saying, hopefully without blushing or blinking:" We try to leave as minimal an impact on the environment as we can." You got to be kidding right ?

Did I mention that PepsiCo won the 2007 US Environmental Protection Agency Energy Star Partner of the Year award? That's a mouthful isn't it? Almost as wasteful with words as with energy I might add. The award was for outstanding energy management and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Wow !

Look people, it is quite simple really. Selling water in bottles is not environmentally sound. It isn't healthy either, especially when that water is spiked with high fructose corn syrup or any other sugar. This type of water is an addictive substance much like cigarettes. And probably just as bad for your health and well-being.

Shipping water in any shape or form, whether in glass bottles, eco-containers or plain plastic is not good for you and it is not good for the environment either. Water is heavy and it takes a lot of energy to ship. That is an absurd thing to do when everyone has access to clean water in their homes. No matter how many experts praise the company or how many awards get bestowed on this enterprise, it is not an environmentally clean business. It is based on a fundamentally flawed concept and should be abandoned right away. Shipping water in little containers is immensely wasteful and irresponsible.

The only green in PepsiCo and its competitors is in the money they make polluting you and the environment around you. Their lasting legacy are the "green"house gases that will affect our climate for centuries to come; the plastic bottles and bags that will clutter our landfills for an equally long time, and the overweight and obese children and adults driving around wasting more energy in the process. All that maybe agreeable, or well, but it is certainly not wise.

burning man

Take a look at the NASA pictures and you can see that the Northern part of the Central Valley is covered in smoke. Over 1,000 fires are burning all over Northern California. The air is so thick you can barely breathe. You can look straight at the sun. An orange ball high in the sky. Sort of like a perpetual sunset. A preview of things to come?

Wildfire is an integral part of California's ecosystem. It has been here for as long as we know. But human intervention has clearly changed the equation. And not for the better I might add. Whereas periodic smaller fires cleared out the underbrush on a regular basis, intense fire-fighting efforts have stopped the natural process in its tracks. Always eager to protect their homes and the surrounding scenery that is responsible for home-values, humans have put an end to a natural form of growth control. Instead of many little fires, we now get fewer enormous ones.

We also interrupted the natural cycle of fire that many native species need for reproduction. As a result native species with good fire-resistance have disappeared and were quickly replaced by non-native species that in many cases burn hotter and are more destructive. But we did not just shortchange reproduction. In many cases, we destroyed the natives outright. California redwoods were turned in mansions and replaced by fast growing, resin and oil-filled Eucalyptus. Ever seen dry Eucalyptus burn? They explode.

Meanwhile fire fighters are doing whatever they can to save the rich McMansions. Battling night and day until exhaustion sets in. Hoping to make it out alive. With the constant whir of helicopters overhead, dumping water that we don't have or can ill afford onto the towering flames. "We have the best fire fighters in the world," says Arnold the governator. What else is there to say? We are engaged in epic battles against nature. An ill-suited form of nature that we have created and sustained.

Fires in California, flooding in the mid-West, what's next? Hurricanes in the Gulf? All are aggravated by our present neglect of the environment. And all are made worse by our insistence to build in areas that are not well suited for human habitation. At least not the type of human habitation that we like to see. Unfortunately that is not how proud home owners feel. They feel it is their right to build wherever and however they want. They also feel we should defend their homes against any and all disasters even if they had a hand in making them worse. And they also feel entitled to ask for money so they can rebuild their dwellings. And every time they rebuild, they rebuild bigger and better.

That is what happened in Oakland, in Tahoe, and wherever else fire has struck. Rebuild but rebuild bigger. What else is there to do with the insurance money, the FEMA money, the emergency funding and all the goodwill and sympathy lavished on the victims?

oily banana split

I read an interesting op-ed column about food and energy yesterday. It was written by Dan Koeppel in the NYT and is entitled:"Yes, We Will Have No Bananas." It brings up lots of interesting issues. What is really interesting is how cheap oil has distorted our world view, mine included. I used to buy a lot of bananas -I won't anymore now that I have read this. For some reason it never occurred to me that bananas are way too cheap. And despite the term "banana republic" (not the clothing brand) I always ignored the role of our military in providing us with artificially cheap food. Talk about national security.

Here are the key points, which I will list but you really ought to read the Koeppel story because he has a wonderful way of explaining it.
1. Bananas are produced thousands of miles away. They are a locavore's nightmare. Refrigerated food that is shipped in half way across the planet.
2. Bananas are perishable. They do not keep well and need to be refrigerated.
3. Bananas don't have seeds (they are sterile) and they are a mono-culture. A mono-culture that has been struck with devastation before and it is only a matter of time before it will happen again.
4. Banana culture leads to rainforest devastation.
5. The bananas we eat look good but they are an inferior-tasting variety. Out of the 1,000 or so varieties that exist, producers chose the one that is hardy, looks good, but has inferior taste.
6. Foreign policy plays a key role in keeping bananas cheap by supporting exploitation of workers.
7. Our military backs up that foreign policy agenda, beating up revolting workers if necessary to ensure cheap prices.
8. All that results in bananas being cheaper than apples, a local fruit that is hardy, keeps well, and needs no refrigeration.
9. Bananas are one of the most popular fruits in the US.
10. Not part of the article, but interesting nonetheless, bananas are little more than sugar-rich fruit. In many countries their calorie-rich, low nutrition value leads to malnutrition.

So now you know. Next time you see the yellow fruit beckon at 59c a pound, please abstain. You will be doing the environment a favor. You will also be saving oil and reducing greenhouse gases.

the ideal solution

Most people are aware of climate change and most are smart enough to agree with the prevailing scientific view that humans are causing global warming. Those that don't, either don't get it, or more often perhaps, don't want to get it. They prefer to be left alone and continue doing the things they have always done and more. Those that do seem to care and argue against, are often misguided but sometimes it appears the issues are simply too complex for them to understand. Or perhaps they think that by endlessly repeating the same argument, it will somehow become reality.

Regardless of whether you "buy into" global warming, it is clear enough to those willing to look that we are faced with a myriad of problems that all find their roots in having too many humans wasting too much stuff. We are running out of fish, our only way to produce enough meat is unsustainable, the forests are disappearing, the coral reefs are turning to wastelands, and everywhere you look pollution is rampant, etc. etc. The list is endless and what is more important, these items are perhaps easier to understand than climate science. You may not buy that the world is getting warmer, but you can certainly see that it is getting hopelessly polluted and that our natural resources are being depleted at breakneck speeds.

But enough already, let's assume you are sensible enough to see the obvious. The question is how to fix it? It appears that the ideal solution is also the least palatable one. Many people who do understand the seriousness of our predicament, will nonetheless object to the only proven solution. That solution is also the most elegant of all and it requires no technology breakthroughs, or alternative energy, or what have you. Simply make things more expensive. Raise prices. The only way to make humans appreciate the value of resources is to make it so they can ill afford to use them. Only then will they modify their behavior and act sensibly. It appears we aren't smart enough to stop ourselves. We are like addicts who cannot refuse another drink, no matter how bad it will be for our health. And worse, even if we tried to abstain and not touch the drink, as soon as someone else did, we'd be all over them with envy and all hell would break lose.

Rising prices have several beneficial effects. Not only do they reduce consumption, they also have a negative effect on population growth. And right now, that is very important. We are near the limit of what the planet can sustain. Especially if we all live or want to live the way Americans do. If that is the goal, it would probably be better if we reduced the size of the world population by a good 30-40%. If we could somehow all agree to live sensibly, we could perhaps keep the total near 6 or so billion, but not too much more. That scenario is however extremely unlikely.

Oh, and one last thing. If we don't have the stomach to make the necessary changes, they will be made for us. That, my friends is going to start happening soon enough for most of us to notice.

dirty laundry

In addition to flushing clean water down the toilet, we use it to wash our clothes. Approximately 15%-25% of daily water use goes into laundry according to some sources. A top rated energy saving washing machine uses as much as 5,000 gallons of water per year or about 14 gallons a day according to Energy Star ratings. Energy Star ratings are issued by the government and assume a healthy amount of washing. Actual numbers are probably a bit lower, although you never know. A recent UK study found that the average UK household uses 21 liters or 6 gallons a day to do laundry.

Washing machines maybe practical but they are enormously inefficient. According to the same British study, a washing machine uses about 35 liters (or 35 kgs) of water for every kg of laundry. I am assuming this refers to front-loaders that are ubiquitous in Europe. Front-loaders use a lot less water than the more common top-loaders favored in America. Hey, we live in the desert so why worry. Whereas front loaders spin the wash through a layer of water at the bottom, top-loaders soak the entire tub. In doing so they use 3-4 times as much water.

It doesn't stop there. All that water has to be pumped and heated and that is no small matter. Water is heavy and it has some of the highest heat capacity of any commonly used substance. Calories, a measure of energy are defined as the amount of energy it takes to heat 1g of water by 1 degree centigrade. To heat 35 kgs of water by 35 degrees takes 1,225 kcal or 4,800 BTU. But that is only half the story. Once the wash is done, people use even more energy to get those same clothes to dry.

Although most households in the US have ample sunlight to dry clothes, nearly everyone these days uses a dryer. In some communities, hanging one's laundry to dry is against home owner association rules. God forbid that the neighbors would have to look at your laundry. That is simply not acceptable. Much better to waste tons of energy to dry your clothes. This is, after all, the land of plenty. The added benefit of course is that your clothes won't last as long, which is good for business too. But let's turn to more sensible approaches.

I read today that a UK company, spun out of Leeds University plans to introduce a "waterless" washing machine. The machine uses as little as one cup of water to run a load of laundry. The magic ? Plastic chips ! The company is appropriately named Xeros, derived from the Greek word dry, and it plans to start selling machines next year. The added benefit is that your clothes won't be wet so there will be no need to use the dryer or to face the ire of the neighborhood moral enforcers. It remains to be seen how successful the machine will be. So far, all we have is a press release.

Given that major cities like Barcelona in Spain are now forced to ship in water by boat, and that entire provinces in Spain are drying up and becoming part of the Sahara's northward expansion, this is a timely invention. Hopefully Americans will be smart enough to import these machines should they become successful in the UK and Europe. Until then, try to conserve water if you can. Experts predict it will be the next battleground.

diapers, tires, and a global crisis

Oil prices are surging and soon the effect on the economy will become noticeable to all, not just drivers and travelers. Oil is not just used for transportation. It goes into everything from diapers, paper towels, laundry products, plastics to tires. Already many companies are switching back to the natural products that made up these goods before the advent of petroleum. Natural rubber, palm oil, and other natural commodities are making a huge comeback. But these items are not cheap either and prices are rising everywhere.

The reason is simple. Global warming is not our only problem. Not by a long shot. Global warming is but one symptom of a much larger problem. A problem that won't be so easy to ignore or deny. While it takes some understanding of mathematics, statistics and probability -not something most people excel at- to understand climate science and modeling, it won't take a PhD for people to see that nearly everything will soon be in short supply. Why? Too many humans, all acting as if they have infinite resources. Wasteful overindulgence on a global scale.

There have been other times in human history where people acted just as irresponsibly as we do now. Times of plenty, when excess and gluttony were the norm. Invariably such times were followed by rather dramatic collapses where the overall standard of living dropped significantly. The collapses were dramatic because they did not just affect the poor and the "middle classes," but also the rich and the very rich. In short, these events were not pretty and very few were immune.

Never before though have we experienced a global crisis. Even though previous crises affected all of the then known world, their scale was small compared to the planet. That is no longer true. We are now faced with global crises. That has never happened before and so in a very real sense, all bets are off. We are facing shortages in energy, natural resources, water, food and nearly everything imaginable. Furthermore, most of these problems are interconnected, so there is no telling which way the dice will roll. Food production is dependent on cheap oil. So is irrigation. The list goes on and on.

While it is certainly possible that we make a soft landing as slowly increasing prices eventually cure most excesses, I would not bet on it. The probability of that happening is close to zero. Soft landings are the stuff of dreams. Too many people's livelihoods depend on these excesses. Their jobs will have to go. It won't be as simple as designing eco-bottles to put water in. The whole bottled-water business has to disappear. And many other businesses too. That cannot be done without millions of job losses.

Given how many humans we have, and how long these humans live, these crises will not be resolved without some very bloody fighting and cruel warfare. Nobody is simply going to roll over and accept a much lower standard of living. And it appears the standard of living will have to drop rather dramatically from what we are used to today. It also appears that the population will have to shrink in a very real sense.

energy policy

The more I look into the energy issue the more optimistic I become that we can solve our problems. Theoretically at least the solution seems straightforward and simple. We are consuming resources in an incredibly wasteful manner and we are living life-styles that are seriously out of touch with our surroundings. If we simply paid more attention to our energy use and did not attempt to live artificial lives, we would be able to reduce our resource consumption to levels needed to stave off long term ill effects. What that means is serious cutbacks from where we are, but not the type of cutbacks that would send us back to the stone age.

Although I feel much more optimistic about our ability to fix things, I am also increasingly pessimistic about the prospect that it will really happen. I fear that we will just continue to hold on to our life-styles for as long as we can, and thereby forego our only chance to solve problems before they go out of control. We will cling to the promise of technology much like the ancients clung to their religious icons. It will prove to be equally ineffective.

History shows that civilizations tend to run almost unchecked until they hit the wall and collapse. The premise of Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" was that some civilizations manage to avoid disaster by taking action, while others do nothing and fail. But upon closer inspection of the case studies we see that those civilizations that survived, did so not by changing their wasteful life-styles, but by finding new resources to exploit and new places to dump their waste. Those that failed lacked that option.

Unfortunately, these types of solutions arew not available once the problems are planet-wide. We are faced with global crises now: global warming, global deforestation, global destruction of ecosystems, global shortages of food, water, and oil. There are no outside places to dump and no other planets to mine. At least not within the reaches of our current technology. Even if that technology grows exponentially fast.

Furthermore, the real situation is a bit worse. We are faced with mechanisms that exhibit long lag times and have the potential for autonomous growth and positive -in the engineering sense that is- feedback. Our problems too can grow exponentially as Mr. Kurzweil forgot to point out.

We have set in motion processes that will affect us for centuries to come. Even if we stopped polluting, the CO2 that we have already put out will continue to exert long term effects. Some of these effects are still unknown to us, but at least some are active processes that may amplify or cross thresholds without any further intervention. It is clear that we have already crossed the threshold of CO2 homeostasis. We have started a fire. Now we are making it worse by feeding it some more.

What it means is that we have to act quickly and decisively. We have to drastically reduce our consumption in absolute terms. All the talk about efficiency is meaningless. It is meaningless to discuss whether flying cross country is more efficient than driving. What we need to ask is whether we honestly need to travel there. What counts is not CO2 per capita, but CO2 in absolute terms.

Unfortunately, all proposed solutions are to phase out pollution over several decades, and they are not sensible. These are politically palatable band-aid "solutions" whose aim is to defer actions that voters find objectionable. These will not work even if they are implemented and the likelihood of that happening is actually quite small. Experience shows that when politicians approve actions that affect future generations, these generations quickly undo such actions when their time comes. And that is the bad news.

The good news is that you, dear reader, can do something about that. And you can start right now. You can reduce your energy consumption right away. No alternative energy or other kool-aid. Reduction is the only option. It will make a huge and lasting difference and it maybe the best thing you can do for humanity.

fashion and waste

It has been said that fashion is a uniquely Western idea. According to historians it originated sometime in the 14th century, although there were distinct changes in dress happening well before that time. The Romans had their fashions, and so did others that lived prior to the 14th century, but the changes were rather slow and occurred over several generations. These changes appear to have been driven by societal changes and other events. Clearly those fashions are not equivalent to modern fashion. In modern fashion, the idea is to throw out perfectly good items and replace them by similar items that look slightly different, either in color, or in length or in cut or in a combination of all these. Fashion is not just limited to clothing and the most apparent historical record of fashion exists in building styles.

In the Middle Ages, buildings as well as clothing were strongly influenced by fashion and the richer cities would often tear down town halls, churches, and cathedrals and build new ones in the latest style. Less well to do cities had to stick to tearing down the bell tower and adding a new one or modifying another smaller part in the latest fashion. The poor ones whose fortunes had shifted, were forced to keep their old churches to the delight of historians and tourists alike. Cities that ran out of money often had buildings under construction for many centuries and these buildings too are an amalgam of fashions. In such cases, we may find that one or two styles were skipped resulting in some very interesting mixes.

But fashion really expanded its reach in the last couple of centuries. It is now a worldwide phenomenon that affects nearly everything we buy from clothing to computers, to cell phones, to cars. Fashion is a major driver of consumption and it is the best way to promote wasteful spending. How else can you convince sane people to throw away perfectly good items and replace them with new copies that are nearly identical?

Some areas of society have managed to keep away from fashion's onslaught, but they are few and far between. Dress that is less susceptible to fashion is now labeled traditional dress and it is largely reserved for festivities and festivals. We all know about Dutch wooden shoes, Scottish kilts, Andalucian traje corto, and other traditional outfits. These outfits do change over time, but much more slowly. In any case they are not subject to the fashion stranglehold that dictates replacement every season. Traditional outfits are kept until they are beyond use and repair. As such they are exempt.

For all its glamour fashion is an unsustainable and waste producing industry. It has little or no redeeming value and its only purpose seems to be to promote waste. No wonder it has become so deeply entrenched in Western economies. And no wonder we are so eager to export it around the world, where more eager producers and customers can't wait to get their hands on it. Progress it is called. And progress as we all know, means waste. The only goal we are progressing towards seems to be extinction. Fortunately, we will all look good when we finally do go down ! We will go out in style.

alternative energy: drink the kool-aid before it gets warm

It is amazing how powerful the belief in alternative energy really is. And how much people are banking on it. Perhaps it is not surprising, but it never seems to occur to people that cutting back on energy and resource use is the only sensible solution. We are using too much and we are wasting too much. This is not sustainable. It is not so much a matter of what energy source -or even what resource- we use, but how much of it we use and how much of it we waste. That is what really has to change. And it won't be easy.

There is no such thing as "clean energy." Some forms are cleaner than others and some have a ways to go in filling their specific pollution niche, but ultimately all forms of energy are polluting. By pollution we mean, all forms of energy create byproducts that end up harming us. Some forms, like fossil fuels produce gases that are now accumulating at high rates leading to serious consequences. But other forms, like solar or wind, will have other consequences that are equally damaging. It is just that these forms have a ways to go before they get there. But if we attack solar and wind like we did oil, it won't be long before we are faced with another crisis. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

For some obscure reason, people seem to believe that using more energy means progress. They equate the size of their mansions, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, the size of their refrigerators, the number of cars, boats, and jet skis parked in their garage, with success. Ironically enough, it is fairly easy to show that these measures are largely meaningless. They do not correlate with happiness, and if anything they strongly correlate with deteriorating health. Obesity is but one sign of deterioration.

All that is happening here is people taking advantage of an abundant resource by using as much of it as quickly as possible, irrespective of whether such use provides any benefit. Sure, some people do benefit but they are a very small minority. The rest are suffering the consequences.

As a species we are opportunistic. That much is similar to other species. Unfortunately though, we found ourselves with sufficient technology to exploit an abundant resource, called fossil fuels. As any opportunistic species, we "exploded" in numbers and in appetite to quickly absorb whatever there was to absorb. The world population skyrocketed. Energy use per capita did too. We built entire infrastructures around this waste. We colonized uninhabitable areas such as deserts, and arctic regions. To say nothing of distant suburbs. All this infrastructures was built based on the premise of a never ending supply of cheap oil. It is all dependent on abundant cheap oil.

Now we are bracing ourselves for the coming collapse. Sadly, our longevity and the longevity of our infrastructure means that any retreat will be extremely painful. The longer we postpone, the more painful it will be. And the higher the price we will pay. Not surprisingly, few are willing to face up to it. They would prefer to keep going. They are driven to strongly resist any movement towards a sensible solution. They are quite likely, afraid of what might happen. But in doing so they are only making matters worse. Time to wake up America. Time to cut back.

change your life style

Sooner or later, all of us in the West will have to change our life-style. Unfortunately, it seems highly likely that when we finally get around to it, it will be too late. Too late to stop a rather dramatic drop in our standard of living. A disaster of rather epic proportions.

The reason for the delay is that people only change when they have no other alternatives left. However, with so many of us on the planet, late change is a dangerous adaptation and will not reach its intended goal. It becomes akin to turning around an aircraft carrier. If you want to turn around, better start before you have to.

It is easy to see what is wrong with our current life-style. It is easy to do something about it as long as one is determined and persistent. In the long run, I can assure you, you will save lots of money, feel a lot better about yourself and be a lot healthier too. Therein lies the main reason for change. Not to save the planet or other lofty goals, but to be happier and live a better life. To save yourself a lot of unnecessary trouble. Not convinced ? Take a look at what we are doing today.

The trouble is that we have become hyper consumers. We have optimized consumption to such a high degree that we do it continuously, effortlessly and painlessly. We think we need to consume to be happy. In many cases, we have gone so far as to convince ourselves that we could not possibly live any other way. And to keep up with all that runaway consumption, most of us have to work like maniacs. Even those of us who can afford not to work, drive themselves nuts in a never ending rat race. However, the high rate at which we are depleting our resources and the high prevalence of life-style-induced diseases and mental health problems shows that we are deluding ourselves.

The first step to take is to isolate oneself from the constant barrage of advertising. That is easier said than done. It is however, a necessary step, because all of us, no matter how confident we feel or how strong our sense of self is, are very susceptible to advertising. Advertising is a billion dollar industry and there is a very good reason for it: it works. It works even if you think you are immune to it. Really, if you feel immune, chances are you are a helpless victim. Try to stop, if you can.

Advertising constantly tell us how much more successful we will be, and how people will look up to us, and how much happier we will be if we buy this or that item or spend money or this or that vacation, or treatment, or massage. It reminds us of how much money we will save if we just buy something now. How big bargains are slipping away before our very eyes, and how we should rush to the store and load up on everything and anything that is offered for sale. It tells us our perfectly good items are outdated, out of fashion, useless, and ready for the garbage dump. Time to upgrade.

Advertising and fashions remind us to look our best, to show off, to let others know that we are at the vanguard, that we are cool, that we are important. And invariably we need to throw away perfectly good stuff and change into a slightly different shade of green, or blue, to do so. We need a GPS to find our way home, a DVD player to entertain the kids, a cup holder for our starbucks. Ever thought how nice it would be if you didn't need to go anywhere? But even at home we are outdated. That dark green patio furniture is so passe, so old-fashioned, so yesterday. Today's successful individuals buy light green. Light green shows that you are young, sexy and with the times. It communicates success.

At first it may seem hard to swim against the tide. It may appear impossible. But if you just manage to wean yourself from the ads, you will see that it is quite easy really. And you will see an astonishing truth. It is you who are original, interesting, and self-confident. It is you who are different.

No doubt you will say, so what? I may be different but the others can't see it. They think I am outdated. Patience my friends. Of course your friends and neighbors react this way. They are conditioned to do so. They have to revolt against anyone who does not want to go with the flow. That too is what advertising does to you. Or addiction for that matter. What happens when one addict decides to come clean? His or her friends revolt. But over time -very little time- they will see the light. That is where determination and persistence comes in. Without it you won't succeed.

Whereas the others slavishly follow the herd and trample all over one another be better, to be different and to be cool, you are the one above it all. The independent thinker, the one with self-confidence. Ironically enough that is exactly what the advertisers promised you if you followed their lead.

The root of all our problems, global warming, pollution, obesity, drug-addictions, oil-addictions, wastefulness, lies in our desire to stand out from the crowd. Our deep-seated wish to be special, to be desirable, to be above the crowd. Isn't it funny that we constantly attempt to do so by eagerly following that very same crowd? We rush into supermarkets, department stores, luxury stores, to find those magic items that will bring us success. That special watch, that awesome SUV, that stylish dress, that cookie-cutter item that we are led to believe is so unique, so special, so you.

We travel to exotic destinations to seek an ephemeral holy grail. We endure overcrowded airline flights, being treated like criminals and searched, forced into long delays, eating endless bags of peanuts, subjected to abusive industry practices. We gladly endure it all to feel better about ourselves. Self-flagellation is alive and well my friends. Maybe it is time to wake up and smell the real coffee.

whining about gas prices

One front-page story after another paints a picture of how high gas prices are killing Americans. You would think it is the end of the world. Prices are around $3.50 a gallon average nationwide -over $4 in the Bay Area, and, if we are to believe the media, Americans are having trouble making ends meet. Somehow that does not make a lot of sense to me. This is the richest country in the world and people are whining about $3.50 gasoline?

Suffice it to say that the rest of the civilized world has been living with $3.50 a gallon gas for decades now. Decades during which consumption has steadily risen, despite the high price. Prices in Europe have always been this high and these days they are more than double the amount Americans have to pay. Yet Europeans are living well and they are happy. They often strike me as being happier than us Americans. Maybe it is because the Euro is so high and they feel rich when they are staying over here. In any case, they are not in distress like we supposedly are.

When I look around, all I can think is that gas is way too cheap. Traffic density has barely budged. We read that people are driving less, carpooling more, and -god forbid- are using public transportation, but I still see way too many cars on the road. And way too many big cars with just one occupant. I used to think gas had to be at a minimum of $5 a gallon, but now I am tempted to believe that even $5 is way too cheap if we are to ever wean ourselves of our oil-addiction.

This week the WSJ suggested that we stop filling the national petroleum reserve and sell gas instead. That would make us some money which we desperately need to pay for our adventure in Iraq. And it would ease gas prices. So far so good. But then, in a twist of logic one can only find in the WSJ, the author suggested that this might actually help the environment by spurring investment in alternative energy. Go figure. Make gas less expensive so people can keep up their wasteful gas guzzling and we will save the environment by promoting alternative energy. Only in the journal baby!

No way folks. The only remedy for global warming is steady high gas prices. Think of all the tax money we will collect. It can be used to help education, social security -our next disaster, universal health care, highway repair, better city planning, and what have you. No need to sell petroleum from our national reserve. Just tax those who guzzle gas. A new sin tax. It is the American way. We did it to tobacco and it worked. Time to focus on a more devastating addiction and one that leads to greater ills.