Thursday, October 15, 2009

ENERGY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE INDIGNANT DESERT BIRDS OF WILLFUL SELF-DESTRUCTION


The enemy of realism is hubris.
- Reinhold Niebuhr -

It takes a special humility to understand our place in the natural world. Yet our mythology places us on a pedestal and speaks of human beings as having dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, over cattle and every creature that creeps upon the earth, even over earth itself.

In our American history texts, we read of Manifest Destiny and the relentless expansion from sea to shining sea in search of territory, resources, and prosperity ... where our sense of freedom is predicated on abundance.

Notions of freedom and abundance turned the gears of the Industrial Revolution, which relied upon the labor of immigrants who arrived in waves to partake of the American Dream.  For them, dreams of freedom and abundance outweighed all deprivations including discrimination by race, religion, ethnicity, and class.

World War II turned America into an economic superpower. After the war, America possessed almost two-thirds of world's gold reserves, more than half of the world’s manufacturing capacity, and exported two-thirds of the world’s goods. The relationship between freedom and abundance was no longer the privilege of the few but had become the birthright of the many.

It is ironic to note how rapidly fortunes change ... and how the sudden scarcity of a once abundant resource leads to economic decline.  By 1970, as the demand for oil outpaced domestic production, America turned into a net importer and, within a generation, the largest creditor nation in the world turned into the largest debtor nation.  Today, our nation has 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of the world's oil and emits 40% of the world's pollutants.  With proven petroleum reserves of 21,317 million barrels, the Unites States has a 3 to 5 year supply beyond which our nation will be totally dependant on imports (source).

Of course, there are critics, pundits, and politicians who rally around the flag with chants of 'drill, baby, drill!'  Drill off the coasts, they say.  Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. More opinionated than informed, what they do not know is that ANWR contains less than a year's supply of oil at current consumption rates … and production is a decade away.  There are others who want to strip mine the Bekken oil sands of North Dakota and the oil shale slopes of our Rocky Mountain States. At least 30 or more years of oil, they claim, but what they do not know is that less than 3% is recoverable … resulting in colossal environmental damage for negligible gain.

Grow our way out of the energy crisis, still others say. Distill ethanol from corn and switchgrass; but what these advocates have not considered is the enormous spike in food prices as agricultural land is diverted from food to energy production. Furthermore, a 70% increase in food production will be needed just to keep pace with projected worldwide population growth. Ethanol offers no solution beyond a good stiff drink.

Even our friends at Google have joined the ranks of Internet punditry with this expression:


What it means is 'renewable energy for less than the cost of coal.'  It is a statement about energy economics but little else. It tells us that any hypothetical alternative energy source must compete with coal, the cheapest commodity available, to be economically viable.  It says nothing about why non-combustible sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and geo-thermal) must be considered within the context of global climate change.


We cannot separate the energy crisis from the climate change crisis. In economic and environmental terms, these are two sides of the same coin. From the Industrial Revolution to the present, energy consumption has lead to a substantial rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Levels of carbon dioxide, which account for 62% of all greenhouses gases, have nearly doubled since 1750. Methane, which accounts for 20% all greenhouse gases, has risen 155% during the same period. Most disturbing of all, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a 52% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 … a mere 20 years away (source).

We approach global climate change as just another problem to be solved with good old American ingenuity. We cite the Manhattan project, the national highway system, and the space race as shining examples of past glory. However, global climate change is more than merely a technical or structural problem. It has deep historical and cultural roots and a system of unspoken values instilled from the beginning of civilization and passed from generation to generation.


“America is addicted to oil,” declared former President George Bush in his State of the Union address on January 31, 2006. Was the President signaling a dramatic shift in American energy policy, or were these merely pious words meant for the history books?  Scarcely a day after the speech, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman issued this disclaimer:  Don’t take the President literally.  In other words, there will be no rehab for America's addiction under this president.

The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 was the first of several warning shots.  Almost 40 years later, we are still dithering as if our energy policy paralysis is the sum total of our mythology, our culture, our national heritage, and a cowboy lifestyle that refuses to face reality.  More than these, our energy debate mirrors our healthcare debate: There are entrenched interests hell-bent on protecting their hordes of filthy lucre.

ExxonMobil gave $1.6 million to the American Enterprise Institute in an attempt to undercut the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a report widely regarded as the most comprehensive review of climate change science. The Bush administration sought to further undermine public awareness by censoring the key findings of climate scientists. Thus, our government, under pressure from the oil lobby, suppressed meaningful data to skew public debate.

Manipulating public opinion is easy when you are the CEO of Big Oil with money and lobbyists and politicians in your pocket. In the weeks and months ahead, Big Oil will be staging Astroturf events to protest new climate change legislation … groups such as Energy Citizens organized by the American Petroleum Institute whose members include Anadarko Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, among others (source).

Let me digress for a moment to tell another Genesis story. It begins 400 million years ago, between the Devonian and Carboniferous Periods, when the earth was still hot and humid ... long before the polar ice regions formed.  As newly evolved forests drew carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fell where they stood, their carbon buried under layers of sedimentary rock, the climate cooled and glaciers formed.

Hundreds of millions of years later, a peculiar Pleistocene creature walked the earth and learned in short order how to dig up and burn those fossil fuels to cook food, warm homes, build cities, drive Hummers, make microchips and Barbie dolls and a myriad of trinkets to delight the fancy ... but far removed from basic survival needs. In less than 25 generations, these peculiar Pleistocene creatures released into the atmosphere as much carbon as earth had sequestered over hundreds of millions of years. This is what is known as the anthropogenic cause of global climate change.



Meanwhile, the National Defense Institute explored the potential impact of global climate change as a threat to national security.  Its conclusion: Vulnerable regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the island nations of the Pacific will face food and water shortages, catastrophic flooding, unprecedented refugee crises, religious conflict, and the spread of contagious diseases. These will demand massive humanitarian aid efforts and/or a military response (source).

There will always be voices in the crowd who keep hearing messages the dead have stopped sending. There will always be voices arguing, not for the common good, but from pure self-interest. Implementing public policy changes are always difficult at best, and we can understand these quirks and follies of human nature with some sympathy, but the climate bomb is ticking and time is running out.  Our worst nightmares have yet to unfold.

10 comments:

  1. (O)CT(O)PUS, there's no better case in point than Appalachia. The mountaintops that Massey keeps blowing up could produce wind energy forever -- but instead, they're being destroyed to get at the last small seams of coal. The region is already past "peak coal" -- and rapidly destroying its energy future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The debate over climate change has become yet another polarized, conceptual political talking point.
    The reality is, whether one believes in global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate remains the same, we ALL have a responsibility to carefully manage our resources and take care of our "house." Even dogs know better than to shit where they sleep and eat. Keeping our waterways clean is a no brainer for anyone.
    Alternative, renewable energies are about CONSERVATION not SOCIALISM.
    The argument that one doesn't believe in global climate change so therefore they should go on wasting and polluting is irresponsible and slovenly -
    And Al Gore needs to close his mouth and straighten out his own house - he stands as the global warming poster boy and yet he lives in a energy sapping Mcmansion driving gas guzzling SUVs. Come on; try just a little to not look like an idiot. Even former President Bush has made an attempt to go green at his ranch house.
    I drive a gas guzzling truck, at the moment, there is no alternative if I want a "work" truck to haul stuff and drive off road, etc. As soon as there is an alternative fuel vehicle that does the job, I'll own it. I've decided to keep my old car until I have a fuel choice. I'm sick of supporting the Middle East whose burning desire is to use that money to kill me.
    Recycling is something that is second nature if you grew up with frugal parents - you don't waste anything.
    So many little things each of us can do - turn off unneeded lights, make a list of errands and preplan a route to save steps and fuel, repurpose containers and other materials that don't recycle, join a freecycle group and give it away; if everyone named one thing we could do, this list would be endless. And really, the effort is minimal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The saddest part of all this is that the green revolution should have begun in the days of odd/even plates at the pump, which I am old enough to remember.

    In Europe, VW makes a car (the Polo) that runs on 3 cylinders and gets 75mpg. Why is it we don't have that here?

    Could it be because we'd buy less gas?

    And then there are the idiots who claim it's all a 'hoax', which stretches the boundaries of both logic and a rational mind. How anyone can conceive that we aren't affecting the climate is beyond me.

    The analogy of the body is what I often use. Potassium is regulated very tightly by the body. If you take in, continuously, too much potassium, initially your body responds by excreting more. However, if you expect to continually be able to put more and more and more potassium into your body, eventually your body will not be able to cope, and severe sickness will result.

    How much carbon dioxide can you pump into the atmosphere while simultaneously cutting down trees (which absorb that carbon dioxide) and expect that everything will stay status quo? It boggles the mind, but the power of selfishness (to fix the situation, individual responsibility, the clarion call of the conservative, is required, and sacrifices to some degree by all)is what twists logic to this extent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt, here is a little known footnote unnoticed in the current debate. When a farmer in Iowa cultivates corn for ethanol production, the return is roughly $300 to $500 per hectare. A single windmill with a smaller footprint on the same farm can generate electricity and return several thousand dollars to the farmer in co-generation payments.

    Rocky, there is an interesting article, The true cost of coal, which I did not include in the above post (it was longer than I wanted). The article is noteworthy for calling attention to hidden costs such as deaths from mining accidents, substandard widow benefits, health costs to workers (black lung disease) and the general public; plus environmental damage (lost fisheries due to acid rain) and clean-up (the recent coal sludge spill in Tennessee), as examples. Market costs of delivered coal versus true costs are not perceived by the public ... in other words “disconnected” ledger accounts. When we view the total picture, these costs must be understood.

    Satyavati devi dasi, the Germans, indeed all European nations, are way ahead of the United States in energy conservation and leading-edge research. In Germany, you will find swivel windows that transmit heat in the summer and block heat in the summer; half flush toilets that conserve water, low emission vehicles, stringent recycling that requires manufacturers to reuse their corrugated boxes, and a petroleum surtax to encourage conservation. Seville Spain employs windmills for electrification and is almost totally energy independent (90%). Meanwhile Americans are still arguing …

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's no gee-whiz technology required to build a 75 mpg car, but it would take magic to sell it in the US. For one thing, we've been saturated in misleading safety statistics for decades and we're terrified of being killed (not enough to stop talking on the phone though) and indeed a micro car is scary on a road full of Escalades, Navigators and jacked up pick up trucks. It's bad enough driving a sports car when the average bumper height would decapitate me in any rear end collision.

    And then, in Europe they have long distance public transportation and few people would choose to drive 3000 miles, especially in a motorized skate board. We either fly or drive and flying is become less and less of a sane alternative. A car like that would be essentially useless to me since I'm far outside an urban area.

    Drive the 225 mile round trip to Miami on a road full of trucks doing 90? What about driving to see my grandkids in Chicago? I don't think so - and there's no train. It's drive or fly and flying in a jet uses a hell of a lot of fuel.

    If I can be an advocatus diaboli for a moment, I regard most conservation efforts as largely cosmetic or at best delaying tactics. Certainly programs like asking people to unplug cell phone chargers to save a microwatt hour per decade aren't worth the air time, but what good is it to save 10 or 20 or 30 MPG when the car population is expanding at such a huge rate? Think we can feed 10 billion people on organic farming methods? Think again!

    It's time to stop laughing at Malthus and pretending technology and trendy behavior can keep bailing us out while we breed and breed and breed. There is no way we can maintain anything remotely like our current affluence unless most of the world remains in poverty and yet if they do manage to elevate themselves, there aren't enough resources to go around.

    Sure, Europe with it's stable or declining population has it much easier than other places and they didn't make the mistake of taking away the railroads and generating massive population sprawl. For us, I think it's too late to reverse it and we've squandered too much to be able to afford it. Imagine 50,000,000 abandoned homes from people moving back to cities!

    My vision of the future? Nuclear fusion or bust.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Polo isn't a micro car. It looks just like a Rabbit or Golf, has 4 doors, a back seat and a hatch, and is roughly the same size as a Scion XA.

    VW has plans of releasing one here. But it's going to get somewhere in the realm of 40mpg, instead of the 75 it gets there. Why's that?

    I drive a pickup truck that gets 24mpg, because we need to have a truck. I also live 10 miles from the nearest gallon of milk and 31 miles from my job. A car that gets 75mph would cut my gas consumption by 2/3. I would definitely be going for that, if it were possible for us to do without the truck.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Probably because the German version has a nasty little turbocharged diesel and the US version will probably use an easier to drive, more flexible and quieter gas engine.

    Tiny cars have been around since the beginning and they've yet to find much of a market. I remember the King Midget, the Kaiser, the Isetta, the Messerschmidt and a dozen others. They came and went because like the Yugo - they were bloody awful to drive and had no room.

    I've driven 2 and 3 cylinder cars. Bucking, lurching, vibration and noise are what they're about. I once had a Fiat 600 that wasn't much better and needed a tailwind to do better than 65. If you need speed or to climb a hill you might get worse mileage than a bigger displacement car that doesn't have to work as hard.

    All I'm saying is that I think the problem with domestic gas consumption has less to do with cars and vastly more to do with SUV's and big, heavy trucks -- and with the necessity to drive 40 miles to work and drive children around to this and that half the day.

    If I made enough short trips to make a third car worth having, I'd opt for an electric - they're very drivable and quiet and some are quite fast. But driving 5000 or less a year, it wouldn't make sense and in Florida I'm better off with a scooter that gets 150 mpg. I could use it to drive to my boat which gets 0.8 mpg!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Personally I think the problem with domestic gas consumption has to do with the oil companies doing everything they can to keep us using it.

    During the oil crisis of the 70's we got an idea of what could happen. Hydrogen technology didn't come about overnight-they've been working on this. Electric cars aren't new. Suddenly everyone's pushing out a car that gets 30 mpg. This is not new technology.

    What's the real reason we don't get cars that are actually economical to drive?

    One is marketing. Americans love muscle cars-they always have. We want bigger, better, faster.. if a V12 wasn't so prohibitively priced I'm sure a lot more people would have them.

    We inundate the market with SUVs and trucks, posit safety ratings to boost customer interest. We talk down little cars, make fun of them, value flash over substance.

    And tell me, who powers all this mass-marketing fodder for the sheep?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, I agree that the car industry sold us the need for trucks, but public aversion to tiny slow and bare bones cars is no different in my opinion than anyone's aversion to living in a tiny house with no amenities. People don't wear the worker's minimalist clothing in China anymore either now that it's not required.

    It's not only because it's natural not to seek a position where people look down on you, but it's restrictive. If I were forced to rely on a bicycle, I'd still rather have a good one. If I had to live in a tent, I'd want a good one with some room in it.

    I reiterate my feeling that the deliberate destruction of a rail transportation system that was the envy of the world in favor of a national highway system was the root of our car dependency, our unique suburban sprawl making us commute long distances and our reliance on unreliable, expensive and polluting air transportation.

    Have you even ridden the French TGV or the Chinese 300 mph magnetic levitation trains? That would reduce our fuel consumption dramatically while getting us around better and it would allow people like me to get by with a car poorly designed for long distance travel. 75 years ago, I could walk to a train station 2 miles away and go anywhere in North America quickly and comfortably - no more. We're in the dark ages and we can't afford to catch up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Captain Fogg: “My vision of the future? Nuclear fusion or bust.”

    We had a nuclear fusion research program at the Princeton Plasma Physic Labs. The holy grail of fusion research is to get more energy out than it takes to start the fusion reaction. The researchers at Princeton had reached parity, a milestone in this effort. In the same year this was achieved, the program was shut down due to budget cutbacks, i.e. the unholy alliance between then President Bill Clinton and then Speaker of the House Newt Gin-grinch to balance the federal budget.

    After the Plasma Physics Lab was closed, all researchers sought jobs in Europe. Some went to Oxford, England. Others went to the Nuclear Research Center in Grenoble, France. One ran for Congress: Rush Holt, a physicist and former researcher at the lab.

    Thus, at the threshold of discovery, the American research effort was discontinued … resulting in a brain drain. What a tragedy!

    Some of these researchers were personal friends of mine (Princeton being my home town before I moved to Florida).

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.