Low Food Security and The Siege Of St Petersburg  

Business 2.0 has a profile of William "The Ecotect" McDonough - and his green buildings vision, which is about to become the subject of a Steven Spielberg documentary. There is also a video on "The Future Of Design" in the sidebar.

It is interesting to see that Google have hired McDonough to guide their energy efficiency efforts - I wondered where all this solar roof and efficiency in the server room stuff was coming from.

Last spring, green-design guru William McDonough got a mysterious call from Steven Spielberg. Though Spielberg didn't explain why, he invited McDonough to visit him in Los Angeles. McDonough went - and learned that the Hollywood icon wanted to produce a documentary about McDonough's work.

"He'd just seen Al Gore's movie and felt it would be great to make a film about what people are doing about [global warming]," McDonough tells me. "The ending of Gore's film is tragic, because after showing the scale of the catastrophe, he says, 'There's some hope here,' but the hope is what? Buy hybrid? Change your lightbulbs? It's not enough!"

Certainly it's not enough for McDonough - the former dean of the University of Virginia School of Architecture and head of two pathbreaking design firms in Charlottesville, Va. - whose eco-friendly schemes are sweeping, radical, and "head-twisting," as McDonough puts it. Recyclable cars. Server farms powered by wind. Entire cities with factory roofs covered with vegetation.

Yet, far-out as all this sounds, McDonough's ideas are gaining currency in unexpected places, from corporate boardrooms to the Chinese government. And while some of his dreams are unlikely to become reality, they point the way to a future where business and the environment are friends, not foes; where innovation and conservation are entwined; where maximizing profit and saving the planet are synonymous.

McDonough, 55, studied art and architecture at Dartmouth and Yale, where he was heavily influenced by Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalog. He made a name for himself in 1985 with his design of the New York headquarters of the Environmental Defense Fund - one of the country's first green offices.

His signature projects since then have included offices for Gap Inc. (its grass-covered roof absorbs storm water and damps the sound of jets flying overhead) and Herman Miller (the building's solar cooling and lighting design cut the company's energy costs by 25 percent), as well as the ongoing $2 billion redesign of Ford's River Rouge complex (which features a 10-acre green roof and a system that converts paint exhaust fumes into electrical power).

When I visit McDonough in Charlottesville, he delights in showing me miniature models and vivid renderings of his current projects. To my untrained eye, they seem fanciful to the point of fantasy. "We get paid to dream," McDonough says. "Our job is to imagine the exquisitely perfect in order to achieve the practically impossible."

For McDonough, that motto applies equally to his work beyond architecture. In Cradle to Cradle, the book he coauthored in 2002, McDonough called for perfectly regenerative products: "Every element should either go back to the soil safely" - be nontoxic and biodegradable - "or go back to industry and be infinitely recyclable," he says. To encourage companies to this end, he has set up a certification process to bestow on products that meet his standards a cradle-to-cradle label.

What sets McDonough apart from standard-issue greens is his belief that business, driven not by altruism but by pragmatism, is increasingly in the vanguard of eco-progress. Here he points to Silicon Valley. "It's becoming clear the dematerialization of information is not a benign environmental event," he says. "The Internet is going to be one of the largest power consumers in the world... The awareness in companies is intense. It's driving costs; it's a contingent liability just waiting to strike."

McDonough has his own ideas about how to address this problem. ("I'd put the server farms in the Great Plains," he says. "You could run them using windmills, and hey, guess what, it's cold in Minnesota - and what do server farms need? Cooling."). But, not surprisingly, he expects that Google will emerge as a powerful environmental innovator. Why? Because the company recently hired one of McDonough's firms to work on its campus.

McDonough's faith in business doesn't stop with entrepreneurial outfits. He thinks corporate titans - Ford, Procter & Gamble, Wal-Mart - can be even greater forces for good. "If a company wants to do business in Sweden and India, they're going to have to adopt the Swedish standards," he explains. "We've seen this already with Coke and Pepsi, which are effectively out of business in parts of India because the Indians woke up one day and said, 'The water quality you guys use in Germany is at a higher standard than in India. Are Germans more important than Indians?'"

Few people look at globalization and see a race to the top in environmental standards. Even fewer study China (in this context) and detect, as McDonough does, "a harbinger of hope." His reasoning is that if China adopts solar power to meet its vast and growing appetite for energy, it might drive the price of solar below the price of burning coal, spawning mass-produced technology that could be deployed around the world.

"It's an amazing gift that China could give us," McDonough says.

Before you dismiss him as a Sino-Pollyanna, understand that McDonough knows a lot more about China than you do. He and his people have been helping to design seven new Chinese communities (six cities, one village) using rigorous standards of ecological sustainability.

In one, they're developing a water strategy for a town with open sewers; in another, a solar-powered central city. For still another, McDonough conceived a ground-up master plan in which displaced farmland is moved onto the city's rooftops.

"We got three responses," he says. "'You're totally nuts!' 'How do you do that?' 'Fabulous, let's try it!' Pretty much the same three things that we always hear."

The latest STCWA newsletter came out today and Dave has done a good job of picking up all sorts of interesting items I hadn't noticed - so a fair chunk of tonight's links are taken from there.

Gazprom are probably going to be the world's largest company in a few year's time (with Putin making the jump from semi-authoritarian president of Russia to the biggest, baddest corporate honcho going - I wonder what life in second place will feel like for Exxon - or will they just merge with Chevron and name themselves Standard Oil again). Gazprom are currently trying to build a small city that will dominate the old imperial capital of St Petersburg.

Gazprom City is coming to St. Petersburg. But what will it look like? Six internationally known architects have submitted their designs. But locals are worried the city will lose its soul.

Ruffling feathers has become something of a specialty for the Russian gas giant Gazprom. As the state-controlled company -- owner of 16 percent of the world's gas reserves -- expands into Europe, accusations have mounted that it uses gas prices as a political lever. Its recent decision to more than double the price paid by Georgia for gas, and its plan to quadruple prices for Belarus -- both price hikes seen as a punishment for those countries' efforts to seek more freedom from Moscow -- have only cemented those concerns.

Now, though, the energy leviathan has raised hackles closer to home. Gazprom this week released architectural designs it is considering for its new headquarters. The new building is to rise at least 300 meters (985 feet) into the sky and symbolize the growing power of the firm. It is also to be situated just opposite the famed 18th century Smolny Cathedral on the Neva River in historic St. Petersburg.

The criticism is not directed at the designs themselves. Gazprom solicited plans from some of the world's leading architects, including Jean Nouvel, Herzog & de Meuron, RMJM, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind and Massimiliano Fuksas. They range from a corkscrew tower rising up from the bank of the river to Libeskind's airy, almost floating N-shaped vision.

"It will be a super project. It will be a masterpiece," says St. Petersburg Governor Walentina Matwijenko. The shift of Gazprom's headquarters to St. Petersburg from Moscow would mean additional tax revenues for the northern city of some €5.85 billion annually.

Critics, though, are worried about what a 300-meter tall tower will do to the city itself. The Russian Union of Architects boycotted the tender in protest. And Mikhail Piotrovski, director of the world-famous Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, has urged that the project be blocked.

St Petersburg residents aren't the only people worried about Gazprom's plans - so is NATO.

Nato advisers have warned the military alliance that it needs to guard against any attempt by Russia to set up an “Opec for gas” that would strengthen Moscow’s leverage over Europe. A confidential study by Nato economics experts, sent to the ambassadors of its 26 member states last week, warned that Russia may be seeking to build a gas cartel including Algeria, Qatar, Libya, the countries of Central Asia and perhaps Iran.

The study, by Nato’s economics committee, said Russia was seeking to use energy policy to pursue political ends, particularly in dealings with neighbours such as Georgia and Ukraine.

On Monday night, Dmitry Peskov, deputy Kremlin spokesman, insisted there was “no substance at all” to the suggestion that Russia was seeking a gas cartel. “I think the authors of such an idea simply fail to understand our thesis about energy security,” he said. “Our main thesis is interdependence of producers and consumers. Only a madman could think that Russia would start to blackmail Europe using gas, because we depend to the same extent on European customers.”

Although there is disagreement over whether Russia could create any such cartel, the report highlights the deepening tensions between Western Europe and Moscow over energy security. Energy company executives say the biggest threat to gas prices comes from Russia’s own investment shortfalls and possible moves by Moscow to convince other producers, such as Algeria, to limit investment.

While some people are worried about Gazprom throttling supplies to Europe, it seems that St Petersburg residents may not fare much better on the supply front (maybe the Gazprom citadel will have its own distinct feed).

St Petersburg this month gets a badly needed new power station. Russia's second-largest city is booming and is desperate for more generating capacity. But the $500m plant may not work. There is no spare gas to fire it. Despite having the world's largest gas reserves and portraying itself as an energy superpower, domestically Russia faces a shortage of gas. Gazprom, the dominant gas supplier that frequently doubles as a Kremlin foreign policy arm, is not producing enough for an economy growing at more than 6 per cent a year.

Gazprom's three biggest fields, which account for three-quarters of its output, are in steep decline, the one large field it has brought on stream since the end of the Soviet era is reaching its peak and overall gas production is virtually flat.

On an only slightly related note, I listened to a podcast of one of Cory Doctorow's stories recently called "After the Siege", which is a science fiction story about a siege of a city based on his grandmother's recollections of the siege of Leningrad in 1940.

Meanwhile, UK experts are warning of energy shortfalls, Qatar plans to nearly double Japan LNG sales and Saudi Aramco is charging a premium for 2007 diesel and jet fuel.

There has been further confirmation that Burgan in Kuwait, the world's second largest oil field, is now past peak.

It was an incredible revelation last week that the second largest oil field in the world is exhausted and past its peak output. Yet that is what the Kuwait Oil Company revealed about its Burgan field. The peak output of the Burgan oil field will now be around 1.7 million barrels per day, and not the two million barrels per day forecast for the rest of the field's 30 to 40 years of life, Chairman Farouk Al-Zanki told Bloomberg. He said that engineers had tried to maintain 1.9 million barrels per day but that 1.7 million is the optimum rate.
Kuwait will now spend some $3 million a year for the next year to boost output and exports from other fields.

However, it is surely a landmark moment when the world's second largest oil field begins to run dry. For Burgan has been pumping oil for almost 60 years and accounts for more than half of Kuwait's proven oil reserves. This is also not what forecasters are currently assuming.

Last week the International Energy Agency's report said output from the Greater Burgan area will be 1.64 million barrels a day in 2020 and 1.53 million barrels per day in 2030. Is this now a realistic scenario?
The news about the Burgan oil field also lends credence to the controversial opinions of investment banker and geologist Matthew Simmons. His book 'Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy' claims that ageing Saudi oil fields also face serious production falls.

Tom Whipple's latest article at the FCNP is on "Picking the Peak" (while I'm no longer particularl fussed about exactly when this occurs its still useful interesting information to determine of course).

The purpose here is not to critique the CERA report's shortcomings for within hours of the press release's issue, numerous voices from the Internet had torn the CERA report, its logic, and argumentation into a thousand intellectual shards.

In case you are interested, there was nothing new in the report that CERA has not said many times before. The heart of their argument is that their parent company has a secret database of the world's oil fields. After studying this database, depletion rates, and likely new sources of oil or oil-like hydrocarbons, they conclude that world oil production will continue growing right on up to 130 million b/d by 2030. After that, production will bounce along on their famous "undulating plateau" for decades giving us plenty of time for future generations to go out and find some other source of energy. You should be aware, however, that several other individuals and organizations have done similar analyses and have come to far more alarming conclusions.

Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong in an organization examining a problem as complex as peak oil and coming up with an optimistic judgment that we have 25 years of plenty ahead. They start to get out of line however when they mischaracterize what serious students of peak oil are really saying and follow this up with dubious assumptions that technological advances in the near future will turn all manner of carbon deposits into affordable fuels.

This all leads to the question of just what is going on here? Why is CERA putting out the same old claims -- this time wrapped in some name-calling about the inadequacies of the people who believe that peak oil is imminent? Why is CERA ignoring reams of solid evidence that world oil production is indeed approaching a peak and that there is unlikely to be any technological quick-fix? Why are they doing this now?

Of course, some cynics suggest CERA is just a mouthpiece for Exxon, but I'm sure their intentions are honourable, just like they are in the debate over how to address global warming.

Meanwhile, Kurt Cobb is wondering if The Oil Drum is threatening CERA's market share ?

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) fired another missile at the peak oil movement last week by releasing a report attacking the notion of an imminent peak in world oil supplies and projecting an "undulating plateau" in oil production starting sometime after 2030. To rework a now shopworn phrase coined by the group's president, Daniel Yergin, this is not the first time CERA has attempted to undermine those concerned about a nearby peak, it's more like the fifth.

CERA is a profit-making business that sells its consulting services and specialized reports to a narrow, well-heeled audience. Why would it care about the pronouncements of a relatively small band of peak oil Internet vigilantes, some mostly retired oil company geologists, a few energy analysts and some concerned citizens who still constitute only the tiniest fraction of the public? The answer could lie in the accessibility, credibility and packaging of their message, a message that can be examined in detail for free by anyone (including CERA clients) at The Oil Drum, Energy Bulletin, The Oil Depletion Analysis Center , the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, and myriad other places.

No one who is reading this needs to be told how much the Internet has revolutionized the dissemination of information. And so, the question I ask in the title of this piece is actually more than half serious. Companies whose business is the collection and dissemination of specialized information are having a harder and harder time competing with the free resources that are now available online. They are also having a harder time keeping their information offerings under wraps since those who receive them often write about them on the net. In addition, if that information impinges on important public policies, its authors may find the information dissected by an army of volunteers whose expertise and depth may collectively approach or exceed that of the issuing company.

The Oil Drum itself has Khebab's latest update on world oil production and peak oil models.

New forecasts added:

* The shock model (Crude oil + NGL, 2004)
* The GBM model (Crude oil + NGL, 2006)
* Deffeyes (Crude oil + condensate, 2004)
* Jean Lahèrrere (All liquids, 2006)
* Forecasts from CERA (All liquids, 2006)

Grist has a post on the latest update to the ITER fusion reactor project.

Nuclear fusion gets a boost as 31 countries sign reactor agreement

After years of debate, 31 countries have agreed to build the $12.8 billion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in southern France. (Ah, "experimental reactor" -- was there ever a more comforting phrase?) Deemed "the victory of the general interest of humanity" by French President Jacques Chirac, the fusion plant -- backed by Russia, China, India, the U.S., the E.U., Japan, and South Korea -- will seek to turn seawater into fuel by imitating the sun's atom-combining processes.

Ideally, fusion releases 10 million times the energy of, say, a chemical reaction generated by burning fossil fuels. But scientists have yet to reach that hoped-for point. "Fusion could become the dominant source of electricity on Earth in a century or so -- we have to work to try to get it," says ITER's Jerome Pamela. "Not doing so would be irresponsible." Critics ask why the world isn't pouring resources into proven alternative-energy technologies instead. But where's the fun in that?

In nuclear news down here, the Sydney Morning Herald reckons that the radioactive Rodent has had a "Dr Strangelove" moment. The Switkowski blueprint is for 25 nuclear reactors to be built along the east coast in heavily populated areas with good water and rail access. I anticipate local residents of these areas to be thrilled and to welcome this "too cheap to meter" power source with cries of joy. After all, nuclear is the cure for global warming - Johnny says so - its "clean and green" - just like solar, wind and tidal energy.

TAXPAYERS could be forced to subsidise the nuclear energy industry to the tune of several billion dollars as well as facing higher electricity prices, to get the industry up and running in Australia, energy experts say.

A Federal Government-commissioned report published yesterday underestimated the current operating costs of nuclear energy, and put too low a price on the carbon pollution generated by coal-fired power, critics said. Alternative forms of energy will only be able to compete with coal if coal pays for its greenhouse gas pollution.

But a carbon price at least double that recommended by the taskforce, which was headed by the former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, would be necessary if nuclear power was to compete with coal, said Mark Diesendorf, a lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW.

On top of that, it was likely extra government support would have to be offered to private companies to encourage it to invest in the industry, a point even the taskforce conceded in its report.

"The difference between me and Mr Switkowski is that I don't think nuclear power will get up even with carbon pricing … I don't think it could compete with coal on a price of $40 a tonne of carbon," Dr Diesendorf said.

Based on Massachusetts Institute of Technology research, the Sydney academic has estimated construction of a 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor would cost about $3 billion. That does not take account of the cost of insurance, storage of highly radioactive waste and its eventual decommissioning.

Johnny also reckons the Vietnam War was "just" - I'm not sure if he mentioned this to his hosts at the recent APEC meeting - presumably he won't be changing his mind about Iraq when the death toll there reaches 3 million people too. I'm always amazed by people who refuse to learn the lessons of history.

Beijing is planning to build world's biggest underground transport network.

Beijing is planning to build the world's biggest subway and dramatically expand its bus network as part of efforts to combat the city's fast-increasing traffic grid-lock, state press has said. The Chinese capital will expand its subway system to 273 kilometers (169 miles) by 2010 and to 561 kilometers by 2020, surpassing London as the city with the world's most extensive underground, the reports said. The city's current metro rail system is 115 kilometers, with 54 kilometers of subway.

The city's newly approved five-year public transport plan will shift the focus from building roads for car use to constructing a high-speed public transport system to ease the growing grid-lock, the China News Service said.

"When Beijing citizens are in the city center, we want them to be able to get to places faster by using public transport than by using a car," the report quoted Liu Xiaoming, vice head of the city's traffic department, as saying.

Besides completing five new rail lines by 2010, including an already announced light rail connecting the city center to the airport, Beijing will also build 300 kilometers of specialized bus lanes, Liu said.

The Ukraine has put a halt to grain exports, which didn't amuse the Financial Times. There seems to be a bit of a rash of this happening, which will no doubt get worse with further global population growth, compeition between food and biofuel producers for grain and the effects of global arming induced drought on countires like Australia.

Announcement of ambassadors of Germany, the USA and Netherlands concerning limitations for grain export introduced by Ukraine: We, the Ambassadors of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the United States of America wish to convey our concerns regarding the implementation of grain export restrictions by the government of Ukraine. The Ukrainian government's efforts over the past month to limit exports of wheat, barley, and corn have unnecessarily disrupted the normal functioning of markets. The restrictions on exports are causing serious damage to Ukraine's economy, its investment climate, and its reputation as a reliable trading partner.

Ukraine's grain traders are already facing losses in excess of one hundred million dollars, while farmers have been denied access to world market prices and have incurred storage costs for unsold grain. Although the Government of Ukraine has promised that these polices are temporary, we believe that the situation on the grain market is now at a critical juncture, and recommend an immediate repeal of grain export restrictions. In the wake of the Economic Court's decision overturning the government's quota policy, we understand that all export of grain has come to a standstill.

The LA Times has an article on uranium contaminating the drinking water of Navajo Indians. I'm sure they'll be able to swap stories with some Aboriginals nere one day about the taste, once Johnny's radioactive paradise has been established.

In all her years of tending sheep in the western reaches of the Navajo range, Lois Neztsosie had never seen anything so odd.

New lakes had appeared as if by magic in the arid scrublands. Instead of hunting for puddles in the sandstone, she could lead her 100 animals to drink their fill. She would quench her own thirst as well, parting the film on the water's surface with her hands and leaning down to swallow.

Despite the abundant water, an unexpected blessing, her flock failed to thrive. The birthrate dropped, and the few new lambs that did appear had a hard time walking. Some were born without eyes.

Lois' husband, David, wondered whether the sheepdogs were mating with their charges. A medicine man, he also suspected witchcraft. He tried to fight the spell by burning cedar and herbs and gathering the sheep around the fire to inhale the healing smoke.

The livestock were not his only worry. A mysterious sickness was affecting the couple's two youngest daughters.

Laura, born in 1970, had a weak right eye and was prone to stumbling. Arlinda came along the following year and developed ulcers in her corneas by age 5. A few years later, she was walking on the sides of her feet.

At the Indian Health Service hospital, doctors were mystified. Experts concluded that both girls suffered from a rare genetic disorder.

There was another possibility, but no one considered it until many years later.

The Prometheus Institute has an interesting essay on the "Myticism of the market" and how traditional libertarianism needs to be civilised a little to make it more prgmatic (and thus popular) - which requires jettisoning the loonier fringe of Randian objectivists. I'm not quite sure where libertarianism ends and liberalism starts, but anything to attract disgruntled conservatives away from the fold is a good thing in my book. Any socialist readers will probably hate this article though (just a warning for those tempted to click on the link).

It is the regard for Ms. Rand’s work at a level any higher than mere entertainment that we find inappropriate. We’d say, Thanks for the nice stories, Ayn, now would you kindly leave the discussion of public policy to the professionals?

Shrugging off Atlas

William F. Buckley, to his credit, recognized this. It was his passionate criticism of her work, even while they were both pro-market, that separated them, drove Mr. Buckley’s conservatives to prominence and legitimacy, and thankfully resigned Objectivism to the lonely back-alleys of extremist political thought. Unfortunately, it met libertarianism in the same alley.

Clearly, for libertarianism to be publicly successful, a similar divestiture must be made. The perceived synonymity, among the elites and the public, of libertarianism and Objectivism must be forever reversed.

Despite Miss Rand's own assertions that she was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, her reception within the philosophic and political community has been far less enthusiastic. From Objectivism's ephemeral apogee of popularity in the 1950s, it has, for several good reasons to be discussed in this editorial, since failed to make any dent in the structures of respected thought.

The shortcomings of the philosophy, however, are completely lost on the evangelists at the Ayn Rand Institute. The institute entertains perpetual delusions of political relevancy, even offering a large MediaLink section on its website, as if American cable news shows desired a guest to come and extol the virtues of human greed and selfishness.

There is a good reason Miss Rand’s main points, especially her core assertion of the universal morality of capitalism, are widely ridiculed and ignored.

The market made me do it

Contrary to her infamous assertions, the free market is not implicitly moral. Nor is it, as claim the socialists, immoral. It is amoral. It merely reflects the preferences of its participants, whatever they may be. It can be corrupt when unctuous Enron executives happen to be releasing financial information, or it can be humanitarian when Warren Buffet happens to be allocating his charitable contributions. It can be sinfully hedonistic when it is selling porn and amazingly heroic when it is developing innovative cancer medication. And depending on whether you are watching cable TV or going to church, it can be either undermining or strengthening America’s “moral fabric.”

Blaming the market for immorality is as foolish as crediting it for morality. Societies, much of the time, don’t like owning up to their own shortcomings so they blame the market. This type of foolishness is called socialism.

Yet despite the failings of socialism, to argue that any form of perfection is found in the free market, as Miss Rand and other anarcho-libertarians do, is to attempt the impossible. There will always be dirty bastards injecting corruption, selfishness and dishonesty into the markets of the world. But we have no interest or need to defend them any more than the socialist wants to defend, for example, Che Guevara’s well-documented affinity for brutally executing political prisoners. Can we get over it already?

And to close with some tinfoil, Cryptogon reports that hunger can affect anyone - except in the US - where they just have very low food security.

The US government has tweaked its terminology in referring to the nearly 11 million Americans who face a constant struggle with hunger to refer to them as people with “very low food security.”

According to a report released this month by the US Department of Agriculture, roughly 35 million Americans had difficulty feeding themselves in 2005 and of those some 10.8 million went hungry.

But unlike last year’s report on hunger in America, which labeled families who don’t get enough to eat as having “food insecurity with hunger,” this year’s report referred to them as having “very low food security.”

The change in terminology has angered groups that fight hunger who say it is aimed at hiding a stark reality.