Review: Diet for a Hot Planet

"Diet for a Hot Planet:  The climate crisis at the end of your fork and what you can do about it," by Anna Lappe, is a shot across the bow of the industrial farming interests that currently control, not only almost all of today's food production but, all of the dialogue we hear regarding food production.  In this highly researched book Ms. Lappe pits the large industrial farms against todays emerging organic farming community and comes up with some surprising conclusions that go against the prevailing ideas we hold about our present first world farming system.

According to Ms. Lappe the organic farmers can match crop yields for most crops and do so sustainably and in a climate friendly way.  Along the way she suggests many ways we can make changes to our lifestyle to minimize the climate threat.  For instance, she strongly suggests that we need to get rid of our need for meat as it is a primary source of methane, one of the worst chemicals in the climate change battle, and a very inefficient use of our arable land.  I was looking for a bit of a warning about the need for organic farming in a world of reduced availability of hydrocarbons.  There wasn't that kind of a message but it was clear that organic farming is a much lower consumer of hydrocarbons and therefore should be better positioned to weather the peak-oil storm.

Ms. Lappe is clearly a strong advocate for the organic farming revolution.  I hope that she is successful in her quest.  I am pessimistic, however, as I think there are far too many corporate, big money interests in play for this kind of effort to take place peacefully.  Eventually, all farming will be organic, there is no other long term option.  But until we have run up against the wall of hydrocarbon scarcity, we will be stuck with the system that is preferred by the power brokers.

Thinking about Sustainable Behavior

I accept peak oil as a fact. Having done that, I am forced to concede many other consequences that must surely follow. One of those consequences is a future of significantly reduced consumption for everyone. That follows both because the production of consumer goods will be limited directly by energy constraints and also because we will be spending a greater share of our resources in acquiring the energy sources and thus will have less to direct towards the consumption of other things. Here in the U. S. that reality will be particularly jolting since our per capita level of consumption is so high compared to the average world consumption and is treated as a social entitlement.

No matter how much we grumble, however, as energy limits are reached we will be forced to retool our thinking and behavior with regard to consumption and sustainability. I have spent many an hour imagining how I personally, and we collectively, might approach this new reality. One of the realizations that I came to was that we have developed some pretty bizarre assumptions in our pursuit of profit in a world of “unlimited” resources (that itself, of course, is the most bizarre). One such example, is the notion of “planned obsolescence.” This, to me, is the bi-polar opposite of sustainable behavior. Intentionally designing a product to have a limited life cycle (presumably for the purpose of increasing production/sales/consumption of the product) screams out idiocy in a rational world of real world limits.

Overtly planned obsolescence is a particularly vile example but there are many, more subtle, examples of essentially the same idea. Consider the intent of fashion or style. Fads are the epitome of this construct. This is really planned obsolescence as well, however cleverly it is woven into the social fabric. Nothing should become “so last year” in just a year. Even the marketing concept of trading off quality for price (think of post-war Japanese fare) feeds this insidious cycle of consumption. If you really think it through, you realize that we have structured our entire economic existence on a doctrine of non-sustainable behavior. Harmless enough, and surely profitable, but only in a surreal world of limitless resources.

What would product design look like if we were really interested in sustainable behavior. Let’s try “planned permanence.” A truly sustainable world would use non-renewable resources as if they were precious artifacts. A product that was produced in such a world would be intended to last forever or for as long a possible. These products would be perfectly functional, durable, repairable, maintainable, upgradable and in the end completely recyclable. There would be no economics of scale. Only those that were needed would be made. Finally, when you obtained such a product you would expect to keep it for as long as you had a need for such a product. Imagine inheriting your grandfather’s toolkit and having the builder’s grandson tune it up for you. Until you can accept such a way of life you won’t be happy in a truly limited resource, recyclable world.

Petrophy

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Population Growth Must Stop

 

Population, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow until we either face up to the fact that there are limits on our finite Earth or we are confronted by a catastrophe large enough to turn us from our current course.

I have written about population before.  Most mainstream media sources still won’t touch the subject but it finally appears to be a subject worth approaching in some quarters.  I have a feeling the “population question” will become more loudly discussed in the future.

Most of us don’t want to worry about population.  If we can afford to raise a child, or many children, that should be the end of the discussion.  Why should anybody care?  I live in, and love, America.  In America we are free to make those kinds of personal decisions.  I don’t want to think that it is anybody else’s business either. 

But there are other concerns if we care to think about ourselves as members of the human race.  In fact, living in America means that our babies are going to be using up an enormous share of the resources available to all of mankind.  We like to think that we are free to do that too, if we can afford it.  If everyone in the world consumed as we do in the U. S., however, worldwide consumption would have to increase by nearly an order of magnitude.  It is somebody else’s business I’m afraid.

At some point the unbridled growth in population and the cultural need to consume ever more resources as a mark of the good life will run headlong into the absolute finiteness of our supply of resources.  At precisely that point we will have to answer the “population question” or we will be handed the default solution.  It would be nice to think that we might find a cultural or social way out of this dilemma.  I am not optimistic.

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Population Growth Must Stop

In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig

 

New government and BP documents, interviews with experts and testimony by witnesses provide the clearest indication to date that a hodgepodge of oversight agencies granted exceptions to rules, allowed risks to accumulate and made a disaster more likely on the rig, particularly with a mix of different companies operating on the Deepwater whose interests were not always in sync.

In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig - NYTimes.com

I haven't said anything about the oil spill yet. I couldn't really decide how I felt about it. I was shocked of course. I was saddened. I was mad. But most of all I was scared.

I have accepted the reality of hydrocarbon depletion for a long time now. I don't think I have, however, fully accepted the consequences of that until now. I know that there is no way BP would have been drilling in this incredibly risky environment, a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, unless we were running out of easy places to find oil. This behavior, and others like it, is a direct result of our impending hydrocarbon depletion. But suddenly, I have come to the realization that there is a face to that risky behavior. The end of the oil age is going to be ugly.

The bottom line, of course, is that we must have our oil at any cost. We, the industrialized world in general and the United States in particular, have become so enamored of the joys that hydrocarbon consumption can bring to our lives that we will no longer tender any thoughts of an alternate approach. That is not hard to understand since we are so populous now (thanks to all that oil BTW) that we would only be able to support a fraction of our present consumption without it. So we will continue to drill. We will drill until we have nowhere else to drill and you and I will pay whatever it costs to see that it happens.

Now we know, all of a sudden, what that means. It means things like giant oil spills. Look for more of these kinds of things to happen. Look for them to happen in spite of the increased regulation and additional fortunes spent on keeping it from happening. This is where we are. The rest of the oil is out there hiding somewhere. And we are going to find it. No matter how ugly it gets.

Economist Debates: Green jobs

Economist Debates: Green jobs - According to this post, a majority of readers support a government effort to develop green jobs. This is a good thing. It is important to keep the effect that we have on the environment in mind as we go about our daily business. But it is not enough. We must also find a way to reduce our consumption....period.


We have entered into a period in our history that will result in a continual reduction in our ability to extract resources from the earth's supply for the forseeable future. There will simply be less to go around as supplies dwindle and population (at least for awhile) continues to rise. In short, the days of growth in consumption are over. Somehow, we must find a way to wean ourselves off of our consumptive behavior if we are to make an acceptable journey into our future.

I would like to see society recognize that this is the case but I seriously doubt that it will happen. We are hooked, plain and simple. We know what we want and we will try to find a way to get it until the day we can't. Let's start thinking about an identity for a new stingy (and green) society. It will have to be invented from scratch. It has been a long time since it was last needed.

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science

William Kovacs, the US Chamber of Commerce's vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, last year famously called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate change.

As much as we need to find a way to curtail our use of hydrocarbons, this article points out why we probably will never solve our energy/climate problems. Our economy is based on the free flow of cheap energy. In a very real sense, all wealth (in modern society) can be traced back to the use of oil. The owners of that wealth, and those who stand to accrue more wealth as additional oil is burned in the future, are going to fight any efforts that might limit that oil consumption. Because these are the same people that hold all of the power cards in today’s capitalistic, free market world, I think we will not see any significant constraints placed on our use of oil.

It is too bad because all of our real problems are also related to the burning of oil. We are approaching a limit to the amount of oil that can be extracted from this old Earth’s crust and, at the same time, to the amount of residue, from burning oil, that can be absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere without critically disturbing the habitat we all depend on for life. We should be backing off in our use of oil (and other hydrocarbons by the way) in any case.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to spend our creative energy trying to devise a way of life that will not depend on oil, but rather sustainable methods, for the basics of life such as heating, transportation and food production leaving what is left of our hydrocarbon stock as a legacy to future generations. There are some things, such as medicines and plastics, that petroleum can provide that aren’t easily replaced. There are probably many other things yet to be found. It may not be possible to come up with a hydrocarbon-free alternative lifestyle that is acceptable to the vast numbers of people now living and projected to be living in the near future. We need to try, though, because the present lifestyle will certainly not be around for long.

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science Mother Jones

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu!

The cultural taboo on discussing overpopulation renders politicians, scientists and other opinion leaders reluctant to mention population when discussing both causes and solutions of modern challenges.

This is a good thought but I don’t think I give it much of chance for success.  Population control is very much like abortion.  There is absolutely no middle ground.  If the scientists speak out they will merely be ignored or, worse, scorned.

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu! « GrowthBusters

A Decade of Enormous Deficits May Alter American Politics and Power

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.

I was really excited when President Obama was elected. I did not agree with the policies of the Bush Administration and I was eager for the change that he promised. In the year that has passed since that moment of elation, I have come to reverse my optimism if not my support.

As this article points out we appear to be heading for an era of daunting deficit spending and national debt. When I voted for Obama I was hoping that he would be able to make some decisions and throw out some of the ridiculous programs and policies that he was left with and turn the direction of the country towards a more austere and less risky path. This to safely return the wounded economy to a soft landing. Rather than make those priority decisions, however, he seems to be trying to do it all. He is acting as if he can restore the glory that was the bubble.

I don’t think we have solved our economic problems. With the help of the bailouts, the financial sector appears to have manufactured a little in-house boom but the rest of the country still waits for the doorbell to ring. If we suffer a secondary downturn in the face of these deficits I am really afraid to think of where the United States might end up.

News Analysis - A Decade of Enormous Deficits May Alter American Politics and Power - NYTimes.com

Banks Brace for Bonus Fury

Banks Brace for Bonus Fury - WSJ.com – I read these kind of headlines with a heavy heart.  America’s largest financial institutions are playing with our country.  If there was any sense of patriotism or nationalism in the hearts of Wall Street’s leaders, most of the money that is going into those bonuses would be focused, instead, on the parts of the economy that are still struggling to maintain life.  Money would be made available to the credit arms of these financial behemoths so that small business and frantic homeowners would begin to see credit flow again.

But that is not happening, is it?  The money is going to those executives that are withholding that help so that the stockholders will feel better about the economy and likewise the company itself. 

It seems obvious to me that these actions show that the companies are not interested in the health of the United States at all.  So why should the government of the United States be interested in pleasing them?  We need to get our priorities straight.  We need to help those parts of our industry that are committed to helping the United States.  Regulations should be put in place to limit outrageous compensation and directing the efforts of the financial community towards facilitating a recovering American economy.