The Cheaper Option - Doing Something About Global Warming  

Somewhat surprisingly, The Australian has begun singing Rupert's new song, reporting that Climate change inaction will cost 'trillions'. I wonder if this means their stable of loony global warming deniers like Andrew Bolt and Piers Akermann will now have to eat their words and admit "we're bog ignorant, idelogically driven nincompoops who simply parrot the party line aggressively without considering the truth of the matter" - though I imagine they'll simply do an Orwellian about face without missing a step. May the day when they agree carbon taxes are the path to salvation won't be too far away...

FAILING to fight global warming now will cost trillions of dollars by the end of the century even without counting biodiversity loss or unpredictable events like the Gulf Stream shutting down, a study said today.

But acting now would avoid some of the massive damage and cost relatively little, said the study commissioned by Friends of the Earth from the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University in the United States.

"The climate system has enormous momentum, as does the economic system," said co-author Frank Ackerman. "We have to start turning off greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid catastrophe in decades to come."

The study said the cost of inaction by governments and individuals could hit £11 trillion ($27 trillion) a year by 2100, or 6 to 8 per cent of global economic output then.

Most scientists now agree average temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius by the end of the century, driven by so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.

Already at two degrees they predict a massive upsurge in species loss and extreme weather events like storms, droughts and floods, threatening millions of lives. Polar icecaps will melt, raising sea levels by several metres.

Beyond that, the world enters into the unknown with the possible shutdown of the life-giving Gulf Stream and possibly catastrophic runaway change due to so-called climate feedback.

By contrast, spending just £1.6 trillion a year now to limit temperature rises to two degrees could avoid annual economic damage of around £6.4 trillion, the Tufts report said.

The report came the day after oil major Shell said business should see the challenge of climate change as a chance to make billions of pounds due to the demand for new technologies and products to slash carbon emissions.

"For business, tackling climate change is both a necessity and a huge opportunity. We have to step up to the challenge," Shell UK chairman James Smith said.

One anonymous commenter noted that yesterday's picture from The Times came from New Scientist's feature story "Imagine Earth without people".

Humans are undoubtedly the most dominant species the Earth has ever known. In just a few thousand years we have swallowed up more than a third of the planet's land for our cities, farmland and pastures. By some estimates, we now commandeer 40 per cent of all its productivity. And we're leaving quite a mess behind: ploughed-up prairies, razed forests, drained aquifers, nuclear waste, chemical pollution, invasive species, mass extinctions and now the looming spectre of climate change. If they could, the other species we share Earth with would surely vote us off the planet.
“15,589 Number of species threatened with extinction”

Now just suppose they got their wish. Imagine that all the people on Earth - all 6.5 billion of us and counting - could be spirited away tomorrow, transported to a re-education camp in a far-off galaxy. (Let's not invoke the mother of all plagues to wipe us out, if only to avoid complications from all the corpses). Left once more to its own devices, Nature would begin to reclaim the planet, as fields and pastures reverted to prairies and forest, the air and water cleansed themselves of pollutants, and roads and cities crumbled back to dust.

"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California. But would the footprint of humanity ever fade away completely, or have we so altered the Earth that even a million years from now a visitor would know that an industrial society once ruled the planet?

Jason at Anthropik has an interesting post on Chinese agriculture and the rise and fall of Chinese empires (including a horrifying passage about formalised cannibalism during famines) - Oriental myths. Jason has also been remixing theories on soil depletion and collapse by Richard Manning and Joseph Tainter in posts like The Age of Exuberance and The Middle Ages & Roman Collapse: Similarities & Differences.

In the West, we have often nursed a romantic fascination with all things "Oriental." We imagine the civlizations of the East to be older and wiser than our own. We mythologize them as paragons of ecological sustainability and grace. Indeed, there is as much to admire in Eastern cultures as in Western. Taoism can only be described as "ecological" in the emphasis it places on balanced forces, while Buddhism has as much to offer spiritually in its own way as Western Gnosticism. However, we have a tendency to take this much too far, and to gloss over the fact that these are still civilizations, and still bound by the same dynamics of constant growth as any Western civilization.

The Energy Blog points to another Google Tech talk - this one "In Favor of the Plug-in Hybrid Diesel".

Google Tech Talks September 20, 2006" has an excellent presentation, Better Than Ethanol? BTL in plug-in hybrid diesel vehicles, by Reed Benet a PhD student at UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies that makes a strong case for the plug-in hybrid diesel vehicle. The plug-in is combined with biomass-to-liquid diesel fuels, (versus ethanol, cellulosic or otherwise) and is presented as the best medium-to long-term solution for our dependence on foreign oil and our transportation accelerated global warming. Provides a whirlwind historical and prospective tour of transportation, vehicles, fuels, infrastructure, business models, motivations and options.

The presentation emphasized that the diesel is 30% more efficient than the gasoline engine, that the net energy balance for gasification/Fischer-Tropsch process is 10x vs much lower values for conventional biodiesel or ethanol and that the technology is much closer to reality and less costly than hydrogen/fuel cell cars. The added expense of the vehicles can be justified by the V2G capability of the vehicles and the fact that they can be charged at night using off-peak power.

Another claimed advantage of this model is that the big-oil companies might be interested in it and could provide the necessary capital investment and development know how, because of the scale of size and because they can add prorietary technology to the BTL process. The oil companies are able to afford the longer payout period of the BTL process, compared to that of the conventional biofuels processes and thus take advantage of the greater efficiency. As an example Shell has invested in the Choren gasification process.

The Energy Blog also quotes a report that says the U.S. is to become an exporter of ethanol. Jim makes some salient points about the future of the US ethanol market.

According to this article the U.S. will have an excess of ethanol in the 2007-2008 time period, leading to a virtual stoppage of imports and the need for exports.

This prospect of exports is made difficult because the cost of producing corn ethanol in the U.S. is $1.10 to $1.40 per gallon, compared to $0.90 per gallon for sugar ethanol in Brazil, the largest exporter of ethanol. At these production costs, U.S. corn ethanol is competitive with $55.00/barrel oil. However the U.S don't have significant storage capacity for ethanol, which creates a need for exports.

Thus we will have a period of time when the need for more E85 stations and increased production of flex fueled vehicles will become desirable. The economic reason for expanding the ethanol market will be largely driven by the desire to reduce oil imports. Non-economic reasons, such as reduced global warming, are usually not important in the market place unless mandated by law.

This will continue until the cost is ethanol is reduced by lower production costs through the use of improved technology, primarily cellulose ethanol technology. Does this mean we should maintain our $0.55 tariff on imports of ethanol, except for duty free ethanol from the Caribbean? or does it mean that we should maintain our subsidies for the production of ethanol?

I believe the subsidies and tariff should be reduced or eliminated depending on the price of oil to put pressure on American producers to keep their costs low and still provide a motivation to produce more ethanol to reduce our imports of oil. Once the cost of cellulose ethanol is lower than corn ethanol subsidies on corn ethanol should be totally reduced to keep farm acreage from being overused for ethanol production. At the oint that ethanol becomes competitive with gasoline I woud support a mandate for 10% ethanol in gasoline with the percentage increased as more vehicles become capable of using higher percentages.

One last one from The Energy Blog - "Forbes 2007 Energy Outlook". The Forbes special looks pretty interesting, though I haven't had time to read most of it - but I would note that I'd take anything Forbes has to say about energy witha big grain of salt, given previous examples of Steve Forbes saying one thing publically and another thing to private clents on the subject of the oil price.

It also features perennial cornucopian Michael Lynch predicting oil too cheap to meter (as he has been doing throughout its rise over the past 6 years), noting the "one trillion barrels of oil from tar sands and 2.8 trillion from shale oil". This greenhouse fantasy world will remain a bizarre form of wishful thinking thankfully - I often think Lynch makes some good points if you read him in isolation from other oil seers - but then he spouts crap like this about snake, sorry, shale oil.

Forbes.com has much of this weeks issue devoted to a Special Report "2007 Energy Outlook", which has nine articles covering Consumption, A forecast for low cost oil, Discussion of oil supply from: Latin America, Russia, Europe and America, and China; The cost of standby by power, The worlds largest geothermal heat pump system at Fort Knox and an article on ethanol, from the investors viewpoint.

A timely and fairly interesting group of articles, especially for the novice. The article on consumption has a lot of statistics on how energy consumption is growing. Its too bad they did not include articles on plug-in hybrids or renewable energy. The slant of the articles is as you would expect from big business.

Past Peak points to an amazingly primitive diesel hybrid from China that is featured in "Make" magazine.



Past Peak also has a post on the possibility that the Israelis are "prepping public opinion for an attack on Iran" (presumably on behalf of, or in conjunction with, their friends in Washington).

Jonathan Cook, British journalist and writer based in Nazareth, Israel, writes in CounterPunch that Israel may be preparing to strike Iran, possibly using nuclear bunker-busting weapons. An Israeli documentary aired this week on the BBC, he says, preps public opinion for just such an attack. Excerpts:

The Middle East, and possibly the world, stands on the brink of a terrible conflagration as Israel and the United States prepare to deal with Iran's alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel, it becomes clearer by the day, wants to use its air force to deliver a knock-out blow against Tehran. It is not known whether it will use conventional weapons or a nuclear warhead in such a strike.

At this potentially cataclysmic moment in global politics, it is good to see that one of the world's leading broadcasters, the BBC, decided this week that it should air a documentary entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?". It is the question on everyone's lips and doubtless, with the imprimatur of the BBC, the programme will sell around the world.

The good news ends there, however. Because the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.

It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.

It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.

And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West.

Instead the programme dedicates 40 minutes to footage of Top Gun heroics by the Israeli air force, and the recollections of pilots who carried out a similar, "daring" attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in the early 1980s; menacing long shots of Iran's nuclear research facilities; and interviews with three former Israeli prime ministers, a former Israeli military chief of staff, various officials in Israeli military intelligence and a professor who designs Israel's military arsenal.

All of them speak with one voice: Israel, they claim, is about to be "wiped out" by Iranian nuclear weapons and must defend itself "whatever the consequences". [...]

Shimon Peres, the Israeli government's veteran roving ambassador, claims, for example, that Iran has made "a call for genocide" against Israel, compares an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp", and warns that "no one would like to see a comeback to the times of the Nazis".

Cabinet minister Avi Dichter, a former head of the Shin Bet domestic security service, believes Israel faces "an existential threat" from Iran. And Zvi Stauber, a former senior figure in military intelligence, compares Israel's situation to a man whose neighbour "has a gun and he declares every day he is going to kill you".

But pride of place goes to Binyamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister and the current leader of the opposition. He claims repeatedly that the only possible reason Iran and its president could want a nuclear arsenal is for Israel's "extermination". "If he can get away with it, he'll do it." "Ayatollahs with atombic bombs are a powerful threat to all of us." A nuclear Iran "is a threat unlike anything we have seen before. It's beyond politics" — apparently worse than the nuclear states of North Korea and Pakistan, the latter a military dictatorship and friend of the US barely containing within its borders some of the most fanatical jihadist movements in the world.

Apart from a brief appearance by an Iranian diplomat, no countervailing opinions are entertained in the BBC programme; only Israel's military and political leadership is allowed to speak. [...]

Overlooked by the programme makers is the fact that "fragile" Israel is currently the only country in the Middle East armed with nuclear warheads, several hundred of them, as well as one of the most powerful armies in the world, which presumably make most of its neighbours feel "fragile" too, with far more reason.

And, as we are being persuaded how "fragile" Israel really is, another former prime minister, Ehud Barak, is interviewed. "Ultimately we are standing alone," he says, in apparent justification for an illegal, unilateral strike. Iran's nuclear reasearch facilities, Barak warns, are hidden deep underground, so deep that "no conventional weapon can penetrate", leaving us to infer that in such circumstances Israel will have no choice but use a tactical nuclear strike in its "self-defence". And, getting into his stride, Barak adds that some facilities are in crowded urban areas "where any attack could end up in civilian collateral damage".

But despite the terrifying scenario laid out by Israel's leaders, the BBC website cheerleads for Israel in the same manner as the programme-makers, suggesting that Israel has the right to engineer a clash of civilisations: "With America unlikely to take military action, the pressure is growing on Israel's leaders to launch a raid."

As should be clear by now, the Israeli government's fingerprints are all over this BBC "documentary". And that is hardly surprising because the man behind this "independent" production is Israel's leading film-maker: Noam Shalev

Billmon has a few comments on the difference between the US media published for local consumption and their international versions.

Wonkette -- or at least, the Gawker corporate clone of the old Wonkette -- discovers that idiocracy is here, now:

Once again, Newsweek’s U.S. editors have chosen a stupid cover for Americans while filling all three international editions with interesting, in-depth articles about disturbing topics Americans should know.

Last time — just three weeks ago — the international editions’ cover story was “Losing Afghanistan.” The U.S. dummies got a cover story about a lesbian who takes pictures of celebrities.

It’s even worse this time around . . . That’s why the new U.S. edition is filled with important little tiny short articles such as “Parties: How to Have Fun,” “Rock Music: Secrets of ‘Shredding’” and a very special 400-word article about how 77% of Americans spend most of their time praying to their dead relatives’ ghosts, which are everywhere these days.

Now this is a pretty ironic complaint considering that Wonkette isn't exactly the Foreign Affairs of the blogosphere -- that is, not unless the Council on Foreign Relations suddenly develops an obsessive interest in talking about anal sex.

But he/she is obviously right: the difference between the international and domestic editions of Newsweek (as well as its crosstown rival, Time) is like the difference between the mind of an international business executive wizzing across the Atlantic at 35,000 feet and that of a retarded chimpanzee thrashing around in own feces at the zoo -- except I think even the domestic edition of Newsweek is probably a little highbrow for Bush.

Tinfoil decoration - one again from the slightly misanthropic Kevin at Cryptogon: Peak Wheat ? (given the unnaturally high temperatures and increasingly severe drought here this isn't really tinfoil I guess - we've had 2 days over 36 degrees in Sydney and its supposed to be spring).

Becky and I just bought a 25KG sack of Demeter certified biodynamic wheat berries. We're going to be grinding our own flour with our Country Living grain mill that we brought with us from the U.S.

News like this makes those beautiful little grains of joy seem even more precious:

The world's stockpiles of wheat are at their lowest level in more than a quarter century, according to the US Department of Agriculture, which on Thursday slashed its forecasts for global wheat and corn production.

The lower forecasts were largely attributable to the severe drought in Australia, where the forecast for this year's wheat crop was cut by 8.5m tons to 11m. That is less than half of the 24m produced last year, of which about 17m went to exports.

As a result of the low Australian crop, AWB, the country's main wheat exporter, said it would suspend exports from the country's east coast due to the poor crop and review its export requirements.

To add to the global supply concerns, Ukraine has introduced licences and quotas on its wheat exports, effectively bringing shipments to a standstill. This has already halted Ukrainian wheat shipments of 50,000 tonnes to India. The USDA also lowered wheat output for China, Brazil and the European Union.

Wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade reached a new 10-year high of $5.51 a bushel before the release of the USDA report, which represented a rise of 18 per cent since last Friday. The December CBOT wheat contract eased 4 cents to $5.27 in early afternoon Chicago trade, a 56 per cent rise on the year to date.