Peak oil solutions: Is simpler better?

Is complexity bad for us? Is simpler better?

Joseph Tainter first posited in his book, "The Collapse of Complex Societies," that complex societies most frequently attempt to solve their problems by increasing their complexity. This usually requires the input of additional energy from people or fuel sources or both. This strategy may be a good one when returns from complexity are high. But, such a strategy may also subject a society to collapse. Returns tend to diminish as complexity increases. Ultimately, returns go negative. In short, more complexity isn't necessarily better.

For Tainter there are many reasons to believe that contemporary civilization has reached the point of diminishing returns from complexity. If he is correct, this calls into question proposals for technical fixes for our energy problems since by definition those fixes will increase complexity in an energy-starved world. Will solar platforms in space or a vastly increased number of nuclear power plants lead to a more stable, sustainable society? There are many ecological reasons to doubt this in the long run. But there are historical reasons to believe that these things might not even work in the short run, say, the next several decades. Increased complexity may result in less resiliency in our current world system making it vulnerable to novel or persistent shocks. Terrorist attacks on infrastructure and proposals to militarize space are just two that relate to the examples given above.

The alternative would be to simplify our systems. This may necessarily lead to a lower standard of living and to decentralized forms of social, political and economic organization. That will be hard to sell to a population accustomed to having giant international corporations and central governments organize large parts of their lives. These same corporations and governments also propagandize their customers and citizens into believing that material wealth is the only true wealth. Even harder will be breaking through a belief in the magic of technology. Hidden from most people is the fact that technology has its greatest effect at low levels of complexity; new technologies may fail to deliver the promised results when societies have become too complex.

Tainter likes to say that resource depletion is not the direct cause of societal collapse. It is the inability of social and political institutions to adapt to resource depletion that leads to collapse. As we approach the peak in world oil production--whether now or sometime a decade or two down the road--we will certainly test whether one more round of technical fixes will work. Those cheering for technical fixes will likely include environmentally minded people who want to believe that "green" energy and ultralight hypercars will allow us to continue to live the way we do now by using sources of energy and methods of efficiency that we haven't exploited to date.

If the technical fixes fail us and we have made no plans for a less complex and thus lower energy future, we may be faced with a hard and devastating collapse--one that might have been mitigated by a more skeptical response to promises of technological deliverance.

What a pity it will be if the first civilization to publish a thoroughgoing analysis of the dynamics of collapse chooses to ignore that analysis altogether.

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

Bad education: Are we teaching our young people to be ecological illiterates?

Environmental educator David Orr makes the case in a 1991 commencement address that the typical college graduate knows nothing about ecological principles. Quite the opposite. What that graduate has learned to do is to wreak more havoc on the planet while calling it by pretty names that add up to something named "success." Perhaps most jarring is Orr's assertion that ignorance is not a solvable problem. More knowledge is not more wisdom. And with any knowledge gained--he uses the example of the discovery of chlorofluorocarbons--some is also lost: No one bothered to ask the ultimate destination of these gasses which turned out to be the ozone layer.

He offers instead six principles for a proper education:

1. All education is environmental education.
2. The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one's person.
3. Knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world.
4. We cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities.
5. The importance of "minute particulars" and the power of examples over words.
6. The way learning occurs is as important as the content of particular courses.

Can any college or university say it is teaching using these principles today?

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

Europe isn't freezing over anytime soon

Thanks again to RealClimate, a blog run by climate scientists, for giving us excellent if somewhat complex information about recent reports concerning the slowing of the Gulf Stream and the possible effect of that slowing on European climate. As the writer and subsequent commenters explain there are several things which contribute to the warming northern Europe including the shape of the jet stream and the movement of warm surface waters toward the region. The Gulf Stream is technically only part of a larger set of heat transporting currents and the one alluded to in the recent Times of London story is actually the North Atlantic Drift.

The RealClimate piece explains how the currents work and that they show significant variations in strength from decade to decade. While there is precedent in the geologic record for short-term dramatic slowdowns and even stoppages, that is not what is now being observed. It appears to be a gradual process that may take a long time, perhaps a century. Nevertheless, the author warns, the situation bears careful watching since the data available is difficult to gather in the icy climes of Greenland and its associated seas and conditions could change for unforeseen reasons.

The situation is a little less alarming than the reporting would make it seem. On the other hand, the slowing noticed so far is occurring sooner than expected. The trick will be to establish whether this is a normal variation or the beginning of a breakdown in the heat-transporting currents.

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

Clueless in California

The Unplanner, a planning official for a county in central California, has for weeks been preparing us for the moment when he would broach the subject of limits on energy supplies to his boss. What followed when he did should scare everyone. If planning departments throughout the United States are this clueless about the energy challenges we face and remain so, we will walk right off the edge of the energy cliff without warning.

Can anyone make a dent in the planning establishment so that it will at least consider the uncertainties we face in the area of energy? If so, can it be done in time?

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

What's the big deal about biodiversity?

When most people think of biodiversity they think of endangered species that have been ridiculed in the media for holding up development projects or blocking logging or mining ventures. If that's all biodiversity meant, then we would have little to worry about. So poorly is the concept understood in the media that we get bland, almost meaningless journalism about something that is central to our continued existence as a species. Even the experts don't seem to get it saying that we should aim at "slowing" the loss of biodiversity.

What does biodiversity do for us? It cleans the air and the water and moderates the climate. It provides myriad products for medicinal uses. It is essential for the pollination and thus proper growth of many food crops we depend on. It essential for soil fertility. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a basic primer with additional links that will give you a good start in understanding this idea.

So, next time somebody starts talking or writing about biodiversity, don't let your eyes glaze over. Think instead, "My life is on the line here and so is the life of everything else on the planet!"

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

Hurtling toward the Stone Age in style

Our fossil fuels will run out some day, even if that day isn't soon. Then, the only way we will be able to keep many of our modern conveniences is to run the world on renewable sources of energy. Wind power is currently the most viable candidate in the renewable energy quiver. That may account for why it is now the target of the fossil fuel industry. Two U. S. senators, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Warner of Virginia, have introduced legislation that would end federal wind power tax credits and would prohibit or allow vetoes over the siting of wind farms in most of the prime wind areas of the United States.

Their supposed concern is aesthetics. It's a truism that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps they are in touch with the inner beauty of the coal-fired power plants that will have to be built instead and the coal from moutaintop removal that will supply them.

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

The most important story you didn't see

I've been waiting for major press outlets other than The Times of London to pick up the story about the slowing of the Gulf Stream, an event long predicted by global climate scientists who said it could result from global warming. The consequences of a halt to the flow of warm water from the tropics to northern Europe could be nothing short of catastrophic, pushing it into a deep freeze à la The Day After Tomorrow (though the changes would take place over a decade or more).

Instead, a Google search reveals virtually nothing except for the usual gaggle of environmental sites and blogs--and the occasional right-wing nut case site claiming that this proves somehow that global warming is a hoax. This story should be on the front page of every newspaper and leading every newscast. That's how big it is.

The Gulf Stream has already slowed by three-quarters its usual rate. A stoppage could create change of the magnitude that would not only affect Europe, but the entire world as Europe's economy including its agriculture would be deeply affected. Ultimately, mass migrations could take place from north to south. And, what's more is that no one expected the slowing to occur this soon. It is happening much faster and to a much greater degree that anyone thought possible.

To think through what might happen the Pentagon commissioned a study to analyze the national security considerations. It is grim reading.

So, why hasn't this story been widely reported? I can only believe that environmental literacy among the world's reporters and editors is so poor that they cannot understand the implications of the finding. After 30 years of environmental journalism, you would think that something like this would jump out at them.

CORRECTION: Commenter Sim rightly points out that the slowing was observed occurring in only one of three places where water sinks to the bottom. So it is incorrect to say that the Gulf Stream has slowed by three-quarters. Only in one area has the sinking of water slowed by three-quarters. As the article points out, "...there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these."

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

It's the sun's fault

A common ruse among global warming deniers is to blame that warming on the sun. RealClimate takes the most recent example of this to task. Perhaps the main inconsistency in the claim is that nighttime temperatures are rising more than daytime temperatures. If global warming is due to the sun, then one would expect the opposite. Those scientists and non-scientists arguing such points are often intellectually dishonest. They simply do not admit conflicting data or conclusions and therefore do not have to deal with inconvenient facts.

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

ExxonMobil calls a peak

ExxonMobil's executives have been reassuring the world that there will be plenty of oil to meet demand for decades to come. Now, they seem to have changed their minds. They now believe non-OPEC production will soon peak and say that OPEC production will have to rise by one million barrels a day each year after 2010 to meet demand, according to a study released by the company. That's equivalent to a new Algeria each year. They expect nothing from oil shale through 2030 and only 3 percent of demand to be met from Canada's oil sands.

ExxonMobil has traditionally been the biggest defender of the cornucopian idea in the oilfields. In this latest report they are even touting fuel efficiency as a necessary measure to moderate demand. Will the stodgiest of all oil companies be talking about alternative energy by this time next year?

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)

Wind power for the world

A new map based on extensive data from around the world has identified windy places that could produce far more electricity than the world currently uses. About 2.5 million turbines could supply the world's current needs; but because the wind is intermittent, other more reliable sources would be needed for backup.

(Comments are open to all. See the list of environmental blogs on my sidebar.)