invisible damage

The BBC has an article today highlighting a Science report about the dismal state of the planet's coral reefs. To anyone who has ever gone snorkeling or scuba diving, the influence of humanity is nowhere as visible as in coastal reefs. The closer a reef is to civilization, the more damaged it is and the more it looks like a wasteland.  Damage to coral reefs is something that jumps out at you. Once you've seen a healthy reef you won't bother going to Florida, or most of Hawaii for that matter. Those are the places where the sparse little fish come to look at all the humans wearing diving gear.

Climate change, overfishing, coastal development, and agricultural run-off are all to blame for damage to the reefs. As soon as the first beach villas go up, all the large fish disappear. The lush growth of coral is replaced by a few patches here and there. To the naive eye an occasional small but colorful reef dweller may look miraculous, but anyone who has gone to healthy reef, with big fish swarming all around you, will know different. Unfortunately, like smog, people adapt and their expectations adjust accordingly.

It is not just beauty that is leaving us, to be replaced by concrete, mega-mansions, artificial lawns, SUV's, motor boats and jet skis. Our very survival may be at stake. As the reefs go, so goes the fish and fish is an important source of protein for much of the world's population. Greenhouse gases like CO2 threaten reefs in two ways. The warmer seas destroy many species and the higher acidity -caused by dissolved CO2- damages even more.

As is usual however, our assault is multi-pronged. Agriculture develops behind the mansions and fertilizer run-off quickly causes algae to bloom. These algae kill off both fish and reefs. Finally, there are the "improvements" in fishing technology. The same "improvements" that allow us to increase our yields, and (temporarily) feed more people. The type of improvements that did away with Monterey's sardines and many other fisheries around the globe.

For many years, coastal people have relied on fishing to survive and thrive. Until they suddenly got access to cheap oil and managed to take fishing to a whole new level. A level that is clearly incompatible with the survival of the fish and the food sources that fish depends on. Big trawlers scoop up all the fish, damage the sea bottom -where food sources for fish are- and thrash coral reefs. The BBC website has a great video showing the destruction of reefs by trawling nets.

It has been estimated that most wild fish stocks will be depleted by mid-century. Some of it will no doubt be replaced by fish farming, but it remains to be seen what the long term viability of fish farms is. Already there are signs that these enterprises accelerate destruction instead of curing it. 

We might be in for a big surprise.

water use so far

Here are my water use figures for the year. This is for a 3,200 sq ft home near the California Coast, with four inhabitants and a small vegetable garden. Initially, while it was still raining, we used rain barrels to collect water for both indoor and outdoor use. That included all uses except drinking water which we get through the "normal channels." 

It rained reasonably regularly during the first two billing periods, but during the last one, we did not have a single drop of rain, and none is expected until at least mid-October. To deal with no new water, we are actively recycling grey water and use grey water for everything, except drinking, showers, and cooking.

During the first billing period (about 2 months), our average daily use was 39 gallons a day. During the second period, it was 36 gallons a day, and during this last period it was 50 gallons a day. The increase reflects the absence of rain.

I would say that this was done without resorting to extreme measures and without any real restrictions. Nothing that affected our quality of life or imposes hard labor. Some people may find recycling water objectionable but it is actually quite easy to do, and takes little or no extra work.

For those of you who are minding your expenses, I have to say that saving water, unfortunately, does not result in much dollar savings. It is not worth it and we are not doing it to save money. Unlike gas and electricity, our "water" bill has so many other items (sewage, altitude charges, seismic improvements, etc.) that have remained fixed that the savings is negligible. That is very sad indeed. 

Here we are in the middle of the second year of a drought and there is really no incentive for people to save water. We hear on a daily basis how officials are discouraged by the weak popular response to a call for conservation, but nobody should be surprised. Instead our good citizens are enraged that they have to save some 10% over previous years, while other water districts have not imposed any such measures or higher rates. Grow up, people !

It is absolutely shameful and embarrassing the way California wastes water. Not to mention the many impediments they put in the way of people trying to save water. Many health officials are using the West Nile virus "threat" and other excuses to discourage people from using rain barrels or installing collection systems. There are no incentives and no houses are being built with rain water collection, even though this would add a minimal cost to a house that will be priced way over $1MM.

I wish the governator would take notice. There are plans in the works for desalination plants in Southern California, and other "grand engineering" schemes that will waste tons of energy so people can flush perfectly good water down their toilets. We have already destroyed one of the most productive salmon fisheries on the Pacific Coast, but there is no end in sight to the destruction people want to inflict just to have a green lawn in the desert and outdo their neighbors.

fat and fatter

In the 1990's China had one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. Obesity in the rural population stood at less than 1% and in Beijing, it was 4% for men and 8% for women. Today, the BBC reports that obesity levels in China are surpassing 25%, with the poor and rural being more commonly affected. Some consider the rural pattern counter-intuitive, but is in line with that of other developing nations. Many had assumed that the richer urban populations that increasingly switched to Western diets would be more susceptible and more obese. Not so. 

It therefore seems rather obvious that the culprit is found in a new life style characterized by less activity and more "leisure time." As China's agriculture becomes industrialized and more people drive motorcycles, and cars instead of bicycles, obesity is on the rise. Another marker is also on the rise: the amount of time spent watching TV (munching cookies and drinking sodas no doubt).

The high fat, high sugar diets surely don't help matters but in China, diet changes are more extensive among the well off urban populations, who happen to be less obese. Be that as it may, nationwide obesity is an ongoing trend and predictions are that China's obesity rates could double within the next 20 years. That would bring China in line with the "civilized world."

One thing seems quite clear: what many would call progress and an increase in the standard of living, is really a double edged sword. It comes at a great cost to health and personal well-being.

Advanced societies as we'd like to call them have overweight and obesity rates higher than 50%. Nations on the path to such "luxury" are seeing their overweight rates grow to similarly high numbers. It appears therefore that, regardless of race, ethnicity, or culture, the price we pay for "progress" is that over half the population becomes distinctly unhealthy or chronically ill. As one Harvard researcher put it, obesity is defined in terms of adverse effects on health, not population norms. The latter goes without saying. Otherwise we would have adjusted our labels since the average and the median cases are now firmly in the overweight category.

And what about the food crisis you may ask? Although 25% of the world is malnourished, it appears that even more are over-nourished. Or maybe malnourished in the sense of excess calories.

gas guzzling culture

The NYTimes has a long article on the American Energy Policy, or lack thereof. The title is: "American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot." Apart from highlighting the obvious -i.e. that we have no policy other than to burn more- the article contains some memorable quotes. Take this for example, from Newt Gingrich: " Our culture favors driving long distances in powerful vehicles and the car as a social expression." 

The word culture is especially well chosen in this context. Powerful vehicles? Social expression? Wouldn't it be better to say oversized, overweight, and overstuffed living rooms on wheels?

Newt also thinks we are not like the Japanese or Europeans. That despite the fact that most Americans -or at least those in control- have a European or Asian ancestry. I.e. we are not "natives" to this continent, no matter what anyone says. Our ancestors may have come here because they were poor, underprivileged, or prosecuted in Europe and Asia, but we certainly cannot claim that European or Asian thinking is foreign to us. Maybe some of us have a chip on our shoulder and feel like we need to show the old country how much better off we are. 

The question is are we? And if we are, how much longer will it last. Here is a quote from Pete Domenici in the same article:"We've got to fix it or our standard of living will change within a decade." What we have to fix is our addiction to cheap oil, and "powerful vehicles."

Decades of advertising have warped the American mind. Decades of commercials telling us that we needed big cars, big houses, and big everything to be happy. That greed is not just acceptable but desirable. That shopping is our patriotic duty. That being wasteful is unavoidable and necessary in modern life. That it is an expression of freedom. That it shows we are better than those Europeans and Asians. 

Our standard of living is higher. What that means is that we spend more money. We buy more and consume more. We are not the American citizen, we are the "American consumer." We consume more, ergo we are happier, right?

Research shows otherwise. Europeans are happier than we are, despite $9 gas. Despite living in smaller homes, and driving smaller cars, and taking public transportation, and riding their bikes. Despite their "socialist" systems, and despite having "inferior medical care" and all that other baloney that the advertisers want to make us believe.

Unfortunately, it seems the European middle class is doing better than the American middle class. Granted they have less discretionary income and fewer "toys" than we do. But then again, they are not over their ears in debt. They don't need to work two jobs to make ends meet. They get five weeks of vacation a year. They take long holidays. Their kids get free education. They get free medical care. Their retirement is taken care off. They are not as overweight and not nearly as stressed as we are. Their jobs cannot disappear overnight and cities don't turn into ghost towns over there.

How about those protesters in Paris? And the German strikers? Is that what we see on TV?  TV, our source of information. Our window to the world. Brought to you by Coca-Cola and Exxon-Mobil.

Stay with us. Don't touch that dial, America ! We'll be back after this.

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.

energy use this year

I went through my energy bills so far this year and I thought it would be a good thing to share some with you to show you what can be done in real life. In a recent energy audit we did, we performed better than 99.9% of households in the region. Here is some background info.

We live in a 3,200 sq ft home, it is bigger than the average home in America but reasonably average for the neighborhood we live in (California Coast). The house is new but not all that well insulated. It has some CFL's but most bulbs are of the old incandescent variety. There are four people in our household. They all turn off their lights and other appliances but nobody goes to extremes to conserve energy. We watch TV like everyone else. Only some of our appliances are energy star rated. The others are older and by no means efficient.

All in all, we have a normal existence with all the amenities of modern life. We certainly have gadgets galore and as you can tell, we do use computers. Here are the hard data.

Electric in Kwh total and Kwh per day

Jan 218 7.5

Feb 232 8.0

Mar 222 7.2

Apr 204 6.8

May 202 6.7

June 203 6.5

Gas usage, in Therms, Therms per day

Jan 35 1.2

Feb 33 1.1

Mar 16 0.5

Apr 13 0.4

May 13 0.4

June 10 0.3

All this works out to an average energy bill of $55 a month, give or take a few cents.

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.