Peak Oil Optimist has a nice dissection of the latest call to water down SEC standards for reporting oil reserves. Right now the SEC forces companies to report proven reserves. These are reserves you can pull out of the ground and sell profitably at current prices using current technology. Careful investors have always known that oil and mining companies have another category of resources called "probable." And, these investors have invested in companies that had large probable reserves with a note of caution. After Shell startled investors with big reductions in its reserves recently, it seems advisable for the watchdog for investors to continue to insist on a conservative definition of reserves. Let the savvy investors take risks on what is probable, not average Joes.
But, the real agenda it seems is to get the unsuspecting and naive involved in what is a truly risky game and thereby pump up prices for the savvy players (to sell into, naturally). It's always important to ask whose ox is getting gored.
If one of the aims (and this seems doubtful) is to assess world oil reserves for international energy planning purposes, there are better ways to do this that don't involve putting investors at risk.
(Via Flying Talking Donkey)
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Monday, February 28, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
The 'soft' collapse
WorldChanging has a worthwhile piece on Joseph Tainter and Jared Diamond and the notion of societal collapse. While there is much to provoke thought in this essay entitled "Collapsing Upwards", I think it wrongly conflates current geopolitical laments (i.e., the reckless foreign policy of the American Empire) and the proposed solution (i.e., more cooperation and less arrogance) with the notion of the collapse of complex societies. The United States could (and should, in my opinion) pursue a more multilateral and humble foreign policy. The rich nations could pursue a more magnanimous role in helping the poor nations. But, it is not any one of these societies which is in danger of collapse. It is the entire complex worldwide system of resource exploitation and trade which is in danger. Tainter is explicit about this. The world is now one interconnected complex global society, and the next collapse won't be one isolated to a particular region or country, but rather will involve the entire world. The writer acknowledges this.
But, then he makes the case for more egalitarian relations between countries. It seems to me quite pausible that 20 or 30 years hence nation-states won't have much significance. Our relations with one another will be region to region or locality to locality. Creating better relations between nation-states is a helpful notion now, but I'm not sure how applicable it will be in the future.
That brings me to my second point. The piece also confuses "centralized" with "complex." It's true that the world economic system is highly decentralized. In a sense, that's what makes it robust. No central administration stands in the way of allocating resources to their most profitable use. (Notice that I didn't say best use.) But, that same system is highly complex and highly sensitive to moderate perturbations. It depends literally on billions of connections to function properly every day in order for it to work. Its highly sensitive nature would be quickly demonstrated by an oil price of $150 a barrel. Shortages of key minerals would shut down factories worldwide. A major grain harvest failure in the United States and Canada would result in widespread starvation. So, while the operation of the worldwide economic system is decentralized, its functioning remains highly vulnerable because of its interconnectedness and complexity. A decentralized system doesn't necessarily imply a system of low complexity. But, I would contend that a reduction in scale almost always means lower complexity, and that is where I believe we are headed.
The writer properly points out some strategies for reducing complexity in a way that would not lead to a sudden and catastrophic collapse. But, those strategies mean a major downsizing of the world trade system, one that is unlikely to happen except in the face of a crisis. Even then, we may be able to employ strategies for a more localized economy, but it will, of course, be under duress that we do it. Some people are getting a head start by promoting more local agriculture, retail, food processing, renewable energy production, and even handicrafts and manufacturing. What we learn from these efforts now will become the most precious knowledge on the planet in the face of a worldwide energy challenge that forces us to live simpler lives in a simpler society.
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
But, then he makes the case for more egalitarian relations between countries. It seems to me quite pausible that 20 or 30 years hence nation-states won't have much significance. Our relations with one another will be region to region or locality to locality. Creating better relations between nation-states is a helpful notion now, but I'm not sure how applicable it will be in the future.
That brings me to my second point. The piece also confuses "centralized" with "complex." It's true that the world economic system is highly decentralized. In a sense, that's what makes it robust. No central administration stands in the way of allocating resources to their most profitable use. (Notice that I didn't say best use.) But, that same system is highly complex and highly sensitive to moderate perturbations. It depends literally on billions of connections to function properly every day in order for it to work. Its highly sensitive nature would be quickly demonstrated by an oil price of $150 a barrel. Shortages of key minerals would shut down factories worldwide. A major grain harvest failure in the United States and Canada would result in widespread starvation. So, while the operation of the worldwide economic system is decentralized, its functioning remains highly vulnerable because of its interconnectedness and complexity. A decentralized system doesn't necessarily imply a system of low complexity. But, I would contend that a reduction in scale almost always means lower complexity, and that is where I believe we are headed.
The writer properly points out some strategies for reducing complexity in a way that would not lead to a sudden and catastrophic collapse. But, those strategies mean a major downsizing of the world trade system, one that is unlikely to happen except in the face of a crisis. Even then, we may be able to employ strategies for a more localized economy, but it will, of course, be under duress that we do it. Some people are getting a head start by promoting more local agriculture, retail, food processing, renewable energy production, and even handicrafts and manufacturing. What we learn from these efforts now will become the most precious knowledge on the planet in the face of a worldwide energy challenge that forces us to live simpler lives in a simpler society.
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Friday, February 25, 2005
What if the Bush administration gave a party and nobody came?
I noted earlier the curious news that oil companies were dropping out of a coalition which is lobbying to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. This piece in The New York Times confirms my suspicions that the major oil companies don't think there is enough oil in the refuge to fight for it. No doubt the Bush administration will push ahead with the yearly ritual of trying to open ANWR to drilling anyway. Could environmentalists count it a victory if the administration got its way and nobody wanted to drill?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Can organic agriculture feed the world?
Now that the agricultural chemical industry isn't getting any traction from saying that pesticides don't hurt you, they have turned to another line of attack on organic agriculture: It can't feed the world. Never mind that in many places where farmers can't afford expensive chemicals it does feed the world. But the question needs to be taken seriously by organic enthusiasts. If turning every farm in the world into an organic farm tomorrow were to result in widespread starvation, few people would embrace such a move. That's why it is important to study whether yields can be made comparable. Already it's clear that profits for organic farmers can be higher since they don't have the huge input costs associated with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The lower costs and the premium prices for organic crops and animal products can make them quite lucrative even when yields are smaller.
The smattering of studies done so far offers hope on the question of yields. Click here, here and here to get a general idea of the research. The usual pattern is that yields fall initially, but over time as the soil is improved yields begin to improve, sometimes dramatically. Organic farming is something people learn to do by doing it. Like anything, they get better at it over time by paying careful attention to the soil, the insects and the crops themselves. An organic beef farmer I know claims he hasn't had a sick animal since 1986. He said his crop yields are comparable to conventional farming, and he gets very little loss to insects. The secret: The return of biodiversity in the fields naturally controls insect pests and the enrichment of the soil helps to create healthy crops that resist disease.
It's time to prove what many people know anecdotally in a way that is incontrovertible.
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
The smattering of studies done so far offers hope on the question of yields. Click here, here and here to get a general idea of the research. The usual pattern is that yields fall initially, but over time as the soil is improved yields begin to improve, sometimes dramatically. Organic farming is something people learn to do by doing it. Like anything, they get better at it over time by paying careful attention to the soil, the insects and the crops themselves. An organic beef farmer I know claims he hasn't had a sick animal since 1986. He said his crop yields are comparable to conventional farming, and he gets very little loss to insects. The secret: The return of biodiversity in the fields naturally controls insect pests and the enrichment of the soil helps to create healthy crops that resist disease.
It's time to prove what many people know anecdotally in a way that is incontrovertible.
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Even a skeptic recommends cutting greenhouse gases
John Walsh is a bona fide climate scientist from the University of Alaska--Fairbanks, he helped to write the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment for the International Arctic Council which was much in the news late last year, and he's a global warming skeptic. After saying that the warming we see might still be the result of natural variation, he admits that the evidence is building up that humans are part of the cause of global warming. While not convinced, he says at the very end of this interview that the prudent thing to do would be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.
If this is what a self-styled skeptic who is a genuine climate scientist thinks, what are we waiting for?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
If this is what a self-styled skeptic who is a genuine climate scientist thinks, what are we waiting for?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
The fight over the meaning of organic continues
Large industrial farms are finding the profit margins associated with the organic label just too tempting. As a result they are creating split operations--part conventional (pesticide- and antibiotic-laden) agriculture and part organic. Trouble is, they want to run the organic part more or less they way they run the conventional part.
In comes the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based advocacy group, to complain that some organic dairy farms are not providing pasture for their dairy herds as is required by the national organic standards. While there are no explicit restrictions on the size of an organic operation, some of the regulations make it impossible to run industrial-size farms. Apparently that doesn't bother several unscrupulous operators who are only in it for the money.
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
In comes the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based advocacy group, to complain that some organic dairy farms are not providing pasture for their dairy herds as is required by the national organic standards. While there are no explicit restrictions on the size of an organic operation, some of the regulations make it impossible to run industrial-size farms. Apparently that doesn't bother several unscrupulous operators who are only in it for the money.
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Environmental destruction through debt
Debt foisted on so-called developing countries by rich ones has forced them to hand over their natural resources at an ever-increasing pace to service that debt. More often than not the projects for which the money is lent are environmentally destructive. The PoloNoreste Project in the Brazilian Amazon which built a 930-mile road to open up the rainforest to settlement comes to mine. Noreena Hertz says that the environmental hazards that have resulted are coming home to haunt the industrialized world in the form of global warming, toxic chemicals in imported foods, depleted fishstocks, a huge destruction of species and virulent diseases creeping ever closer to the border. And, where developing countries have the desire to enforce high environmental standards, they lack money.
Their fate is slowly becoming our fate. Will we do anything about it for their sake and ours?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Their fate is slowly becoming our fate. Will we do anything about it for their sake and ours?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Stupid beyond belief
The Bush Administration has proposed eliminating funding for Amtrak starting in October of this year. It admitted doing this as a ploy to get Congress to focus on its "reform" plan which turns much of burden of Amtrak funding over to the states. Of course, the Republican tax-cutters have been busy in the states as well leaving state government bereft of adequate funding even for basic public services. The only conclusion one can come to is that the Bush Administration's announced ploy is not its real ploy. Forcing states to shoulder most of the responsibility for Amtrak would be the same as ending the vast majority of Amtrak service, and that's what the adminstration really wants to do.
Consider that this is the administration that came into office talking about America's "energy crisis." What it meant, of course, was that oil and utility interests didn't have enough power. So, as has become the administration's pattern, it seized on a false crisis (the false electricity shortage in California brought to you by Enron and others) and then offered a solution that is what they wanted to do anyway: drill for oil everywhere in the United States. But, wait! The administration actually did stumble onto a real crisis without knowing it. Energy supplies are strained worldwide. Natural gas production is peaking in North America right now. Some experts say we have already reached peak world oil production and others say we'll be there within the next 10 to 15 years. Not much time to prepare.
So, one of the first orders of business, you might think, would be to build a decent mass transit system with an expanding intercity train service at its center. Not so. The feckless secretary of transportation, Norman Mineta, thinks that Amtrak should be run on a corporate model. Funny, he doesn't think the nation's highways should be run this way. But, then there are no huge contractors providing big campaign contributions for laying and maintaining Amtrak's right-of-way, are there?
No public rail system in the world runs at a profit. All of them are part of an integrated transportation system that offer options to people and create efficiencies in the movement of people and the use of fuel and resources. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that we will be needing a lot more rail service in the coming decades, not a lot less.
Amtrak has never been able to prosper because it has gotten too little money not too much. It has been forced to defer maintenance and investment just to keep daily operations going. Mineta tries to make Amtrak's decision to do this look like bad management. The bad management came from the transportation department and Congress.
But one thing is certain: This op-ed piece by Mineta in The New York Times has the right headline. Would Mineta do the same to the roadbuilding lobby, or say, his own children?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Consider that this is the administration that came into office talking about America's "energy crisis." What it meant, of course, was that oil and utility interests didn't have enough power. So, as has become the administration's pattern, it seized on a false crisis (the false electricity shortage in California brought to you by Enron and others) and then offered a solution that is what they wanted to do anyway: drill for oil everywhere in the United States. But, wait! The administration actually did stumble onto a real crisis without knowing it. Energy supplies are strained worldwide. Natural gas production is peaking in North America right now. Some experts say we have already reached peak world oil production and others say we'll be there within the next 10 to 15 years. Not much time to prepare.
So, one of the first orders of business, you might think, would be to build a decent mass transit system with an expanding intercity train service at its center. Not so. The feckless secretary of transportation, Norman Mineta, thinks that Amtrak should be run on a corporate model. Funny, he doesn't think the nation's highways should be run this way. But, then there are no huge contractors providing big campaign contributions for laying and maintaining Amtrak's right-of-way, are there?
No public rail system in the world runs at a profit. All of them are part of an integrated transportation system that offer options to people and create efficiencies in the movement of people and the use of fuel and resources. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that we will be needing a lot more rail service in the coming decades, not a lot less.
Amtrak has never been able to prosper because it has gotten too little money not too much. It has been forced to defer maintenance and investment just to keep daily operations going. Mineta tries to make Amtrak's decision to do this look like bad management. The bad management came from the transportation department and Congress.
But one thing is certain: This op-ed piece by Mineta in The New York Times has the right headline. Would Mineta do the same to the roadbuilding lobby, or say, his own children?
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
It's gross, but it works
A process called thermal depolymerization can turn just about any kind of waste into oil, minerals and water and in the process rearrange many bothersome chemicals into harmless molecules. The linked article shows how the process is used on waste from a turkey processing plant. The lead picture is not for the fainthearted.
(Thanks to Flying Talking Donkey for spotting this story.)
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
(Thanks to Flying Talking Donkey for spotting this story.)
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
On not seeing your national parks
A federal appeals courts sided with polluters to strike down a plan to improve the air and visibility in several national parks and wilderness areas in western states. Now the EPA has to go back to the drawing board. In the meantime, you might as well look at pictures before you go to many of our national parks because you may not see very much when you get there.
(Thanks to The People's Parks for sighting this story.)
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
(Thanks to The People's Parks for sighting this story.)
(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)