3 Cats Stalking

It Is Time To Blame Our Society For Climate Change

This evening I sat in front of the TV watching scenes of the devastating floods in Pakistan. The stories are about spreading disease, malnutrition, polluted water, lack of toilets and unsanitary conditions -- all the results of those floods. The country has not seen such a bad flood and this kind of disaster in recorded history -- until now.

This morning I read of the opening of the Northwest Passage through the ice of the Arctic for the fourth year in a row, another event not seen in recorded history -- until now.

Last month there were record-setting hot temperatures throughout northwestern Russia covering an area nearly as large as the USA, along with devastating wildfires and a drought that destroyed the wheat harvest, events not seen in recorded history -- until now.

I continue to hear shrill arguments that these problems are not the result of climate change caused by human activities. Denialists keep saying that there is nothing we can do; it is not "our" problem. I really cannot understand the logic, or lack of logic, these people use.

The primary reality is that climate change is happening, and it is the root cause of the devastation and record changes we are seeing in our world. To argue that it is not "our" problem is absurb. At the very least we have to live with the changes that are happening. We must become proactive rather than reactive. We need to act in anticipation of what most probably will happen, rather than act in desparation when something comes along and wrecks our world.

If you disagree with me and say we should keep our heads in the sands, I am quite willing to leave you there with your head stuck where the sun don't shine while I look for a better alternative. You find your fate, I will find mine -- just don't say I didn't tell you so.

I believe the second reality is that the evidence that the emissions of green house gases by our society are causing this change is too solid to be ignored. The human race, and our western economic society in particular, should accept responsibility for causing those changes, and we have a moral requirement to adjust our style of living to limit further change.

As part of this second situation, I have decided to place the blame for climate change directly on our way of life. I plan to call it like I see it, without apologizing if I step on someone's toes. I have friends who don't want to be blamed for the mess of devastation that is happening in our world, but I will quit trying to avoid ruffling their feathers. It is time to blame our society, and the way we live, for climate change.

And back to the first situation, things are changing, and I and you should get busy deciding how we need to change our lives to adjust to the new conditions coming down the pike at us. For instance, use solar power and use the LEDs that make solar a viable alternative.

That's it for now. More thoughts along this line will follow

Sam Penny, the Prudent RVer

 

 

Deflation When the Environment Changes

We live in a time of deflation. The grease we call money that keeps the economic machinery running is simply disappearing. US citizens are paying off their debts (or walking away from them) and when they can, they are saving money for a rainy day. The country's GDP appears heading for another stumble as there is no longer sufficient increase in production to keep up with the growing demands of the citizenry.

Our various federal, state, and local governments try to encourage economic growth while showing bipolar attitudes toward government indebtedness. Many seem at a loss on what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. In fact, for the most part they cannot agree on what the problem is. I don't think they can really control the deflation that is going on. Deflation is happening, and I expect it will continue to happen for some time.

Those who stand back and look at the historical perspective tell us that this has all happened before, and things will eventually work out. We may have to "muddle through" for the next couple or ten years, but eventually, everything will return to normal. That has always happened in the past, so it will happen again in the future. They say it just takes patience.

The kicker in this plan for the future is my three cats: peak oil, climate change, and population growth. These three trends are more and more rapidly changing the environment our economy works in.What worked in the past does not work the same way in the future.

In the more recent past (couple of hundred years), there has been more and more energy available, and its flexibility has increased while its cost has fallen to unprecedented lows. The climate has been mostly stable. It has become dependable enough for us to build huge agro-industrial complexes. The population has been increasing, but at a rate that provided the increasing number of workers to needed to match the continuing growth in the economy of the world. 

The resistance to growth has been minimal, and we have become so accustomed to growth that we think it is always here. Some contend it is one of the inalienable rights of mankind.

Imagine a world where the resistance to growth increases. Peak Oil means the cost of energy, especially fuel for transport, begins to rise at an increasing rate. Imagine that it keeps on increasing -- $3/gal, $5/gal, $10/gal, $25/gal, $100/gal -- When do you cry "Uncle," and quit transporting anything because it simply costs too much to do so.

Climate change means that established patterns of living and farming suddenly don't work as well as before. Real dust bowls come back. Fires burn most of the timber in the mountains, Major coastal cities and industrial sites may be wiped out by rising sea-levels and more and more gigantic Hurricane K-K-Katrinas.

And what happens when the earth's population exceeds the capacity of the world to distribute food to everyone, especially at those higher transport prices. In fact, there are already nearly one billion of the people on earth today that are underfed, and that number is expected to grow.

What has happened is that the worldwide environment for our society and economic structure has changed, and it will continue to change as time progresses. Growth as we have seen it in the past is destined to become a relic of that past. Growth in the future will happen only in very specialized niches, and not everyone will have access to those niches.

Our current economic path is a one of deflation. What most people ignore is that we are also moving out of the smooth plains of plenty where things can be like they were before. Now we are moving into the deserts, hills and mountains of scarcity, change, and adversity. Our environment is changing. Our future will require solutions different from before. It is time to start mapping those different solutions. People who wait will be left behind.

Sam Penny
with LEDs at www.prudentrver.com

Alternative Energy

One of the more interesting posts I read recently was Nine Challenges of Alternative Energy from The Oil Drum. The original post provides a good summation of the problems facing us as we try to go to alternative energy sources.

The author points out that alternative energy falls into two categories: substitutes for liquid fuels (primarily for transport) and generation of electrical power. One of the first things I noted was the absence of nuclear power in the list of alternates on electricity.

One of the first challenges is scalability and timing. How can we get enough alternative energy soon enough to do any good? Things do not look very promising -- there isn't enough on the horizon to replace what we have and expect to lose.

Commercialization is a challenge in our market driven economy. It typically takes 25 years to get a new process going, and we may not have that much time left with our present energy sources.

Substitutability (strange word!!) is an issue, because we want a drop-in replacement, like for gasoline or diesel, and there is not really one. That means a new infrastructure will be required to support the new energy mode.

Material Input Requirements pertains to what are the raw materials necessary to obtain the new energy source or process. The scarcity of certain metals and rare earths bring to question the feasibility of some energy-centric ideas. Even LEDs may be come a problem because of the special materials needed to make them.

The author sees the intermittancy of various energy sources as being a major challenge in their adoption. The wind does not always blow, so what do you do when it doesn't if you are depending upon wind turbines. At least the sun shines, except on cloudy days. Only nuclear power can achieve a 100% availability factor.

Energy density is an issue. Fossil fuels are among the most energy dense compounds available. When you compare gasoline with battery weight, the difference is orders of magnitude. Only nuclear fuels come close to the same density.

Water is a challenge, because for the most part every alternative considered needs water, and that is becoming one of the most precious commodities. Will there be enough water to produce the alternative, or the means to do the alternative?

Receding Horizons is a real issue, because we have been waiting around for so long we are losing the race for not starting it. The cost of doing things keeps going up, so our comparisons of when it will be possible to do something keeps slipping further into the future.

EROI is a factor. If you must spend more energy creating energy than what you get out, you can never make it up. Already, studies are showing that tar sands, grain ethanol, and biodiesel may cost more energy than you can get out of them -- you are ahead if you don't produce them.

The comments that follow the blog post are also most interesting. Take a look at the original article and those comments.

sam

What's With the Weather?

Weather in the last couple of months has not performed as expected. After a prediction of the most active hurricane season in years, it has been quiet, even as the Surface Sea Temperatures (SST) climb to near-record levels. Russia has experienced a month-long hottest period on record, and that has produced a great many wildfires and a drought that has destroyed much of the country's wheat harvest. Pakistan and India and China have received record rainfalls from the monsoons that has left huge areas flooded. Even the eastern part of the USA did not escape the hot spell.

Weather, however strange and unexpected, is not climate change. However, strange and unexpected weather can be a consequence of climate change. We just don't have a good enough theory of weather and climate to be able to say for sure what the relationship is.

The theories of climatology that are being developed are becoming stronger and stronger in their ability to predict what the longer-term affects on weather will be. For instance, there is enough evidence to reliably say that the intensity of Atlantic storms will become stronger as the SST rises, and there is increasing evidence that these rising SSTs may create blocking patterns in the jet stream that may be associated with the Russian and Indian sub-continent extreme weather.

Everything I read and hear indicates that we should expect the weather to become more extreme, whether it is rain or storms, floods or drought, heat or cold, gales or calm. Just expect the weather to be more violent. But how should we respond?

Learn to live with it. I suggest you work at making yourself less dependent on the "grid" of our civilization. Conserve, use less power, adopt a sustainable lifestyle, don't stay in areas that are at risk from weather (like flood plains). Plan ahead. And I always suggest, use LED lighting, like found at www.prudentrver.com. What you do does make a difference.

Sam Penny, the Prudent RVer

Matt Simmons, 1943-2010

Part of what caught my interest several years ago was the news about the new book "Twilight in the Desert" by Matt Simmons. He talked with authority about the possibility that the Saudis and other middle east countries would not be able to continue to produce oil at the increasing rate being demanded. He got enough publicity that he raised the awareness of people like me to the concept of Peak Oil.

Over the years he published a variety of papers and studies about the problem. Many of those concerned about the issue have looked to him for advice and leadership.

He died this last weekend of a heart attack at the age of 67. We will miss him.

Sam Penny

Wither Goes CO2 ppm?

One of the responses in The Oil Drum Drumbeat today was from majorian commenting on Tad Patzek's article in which he contends Predictions of Coal, CO2 Production Flawed, Says Latest Research . He/she (majorian) is a frequent commenter at TOD, and has a terse, pointed style with a strong reliance on quoting numbers and calculated results. The following comment illustrates that style.

Patzek calculated the EROI of ethanol wrong and he's doing his phoney prophet shtick again.

But let's assume the PO CC skeptics are correct in their estimates.

There are currently 3000 Gt CO2 in the atmosphere with a level of 392 ppm.
Since 1800 when there was 2000 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere we've added a net of 1000 Gt of CO2.

If we take the Peak Oil FF estimates we come up with;
450 Gt coal(a 75 year supply at current rates) x 2tCO2 per ton=900 Gt CO2
plus
1000 Gb of crude(a 37 year supply at current rates) x .37tCO2/t=370 GtCO2
plus
6600 Tcf of natural gas(a 63 year supply) x .053tCO2/1000cf=350 GtCO2

We will put 1.6 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 75 years
as we have in the last 200 years of industrial civilization.

Total=1620 Gt CO2 additional within the next 75 years leaving 4620GtCO2 in the atmosphere or 647 ppm; 280 ppm x (2000+1000+1620)/2000

At this level of CO2 the IPCC simulation average gives a year 2100 temperature rise of 2.3 degrees C(4 deg F) over 1990 and a final equalibrium temperature of 4.1 degrees C(7.5 degF) over 1990 in a a couple of centuries(who cares!).

I cannot think that such a simple analysis could not occur to Rutledge and Aleklett, which raises the question 'why are they raising the FALSE notion that we will escape GW because we will run out of fuel?'.

It is fairly obvious to me that our massive world population based on productive temperate zone agriculture cannot survive 4-7.5 degrees hotter ON AVERAGE than we have now.

After the polar ice caps go the next zone most effected will be the temperate zones which rely on a wide flucation of annual temperatures.

Can we please stop this pointless messing about and get down to the hard work of reducing CO2 emissions and increasing energy from renewables?

I think the argument majorian is making fits with my previous post on the limited number of economists who will consider resource depletion in their theories. In other words, most economic theory in use today is seriously flawed.

Sometimes you have to make a decision and act, even though you cannot find consensus amongst all who argue. Since it looks like the CO2ppm will inevitably climb to a level that is untenable for the human race (as it is now composed), we have to find alternative solution(s) rather than continue BAU.

My suggestions: get everyone to work reducing CO2 emissions, and learn to live a sustainable life (but one that fits in a much hotter world). My actions are to promote LED lights and live off the grid when I can. What actions are you taking?

Sam Penny, the Prudent RVer