(Image: "megabn"-Flikr) The earth's population of 6,500,000,000 people are inextricably joined together in dependency for survival. The forces of weather, available sources of energy, and environmental health are woven together as survival factors for our planet.
Everybody talks about the weather. Yesterday saw big storms in the central and southwestern part of the United States. Around where I live residents were warned of local flooding. Fire threatened the famous "HOLLYWOOD" sign in southern California. Today the snow in Wyoming is unusually deep.
Around 300,000,000 of us share the U.S. water supply. Today it seems over-abundant. But things are not always as they seem. A few weeks ago this was the headline of a (2/22/07) story in the Financial Times: "Scientists warn of US water shortages." To quote,
Severe water shortages are likely to constrain future expansion of population, agriculture and industry in the south-western US, the fastest growing part of the country, according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences.Six and one-half billion of us share the depleting energy resources of the earth. And we are not using the limited resources very wisely. China, for example, will probably miss hitting its energy efficiency target of 2010. And experts warn that meeting future energy resource needs will be damaging to the earth's environment. A 2/18/07 Financial Times headline reads, "Study sees harmful hunt for extra oil." To quote from the article,
The study focused on the Colorado River, which supplies water to about 25m people and millions of acres of farmland in seven states. It concluded that droughts would be longer and more serious than had been previously assumed.
. . . computer modelling of future climate shows man-made global warming will further reduce rainfall and river flows. As a result, the south-west “is going to have to face increasingly costly, controversial and unavoidable trade-offs among water managers, policymakers and their constituents,” said Ernest Smerdin of the University of Arizona, who chaired the NAS panel.
All the world’s extra oil supply is likely to come from expensive and environmentally damaging unconventional sources within 15 years, according to a detailed study.[We live in the middle of this highly energetic natural gas field over the Barnett shale.] Quoting further,
. . . The study makes clear the shift could come sooner than many people in the industry had expected, even though some major conventional oil fields will still be increasing their production in 2020. Those increases will not be enough to offset the decline at other fields.
“It becomes unclear beyond 2020 that conventional oil will be able to meet any of the demand growth,” Wood Mackenzie said. The report added that natural gas products such as liquids and condensate would also become important sources of growth. The increasing reliance on unconventional oil will require a substantial reshaping of the energy industry.
. . . On the gas front, Devon Energy last year spent $2.2bn (€1.7bn, £1.1bn) expanding its already sizeable position in Texas’s Barnett shale by acquiring Chief Oil and Gas. The development of such shale deposits is expected to help the US get 40 per cent of its production from unconventional sources by 2020.About 126,000,000 of us will vote for a new president, if normal trends hold for the 2008 elections. The candidates' stands on the environment, global warming and energy policy will be key issues for many voters. An recent article from Politico, "Climate Change Politics," gives an excellent analysis of how it might play out. To quote,
The 2008 presidential campaign will mark a coming of age for the issue of global warming. Just two election cycles after President Bush questioned whether it was a real phenomenon, global warming will be a premier topic that all candidates agree needs urgent attention.The European Union's population is estimated at a little over 493,000,000. And residents of individual member states struggle with how much control to give over to central EU authority. The blogger who writes EU Referendum posted "The curse of the Eurobulb," from which I quote,
. . . While consensus about the threat has grown in this field of candidates, it is unclear if global warming will pay off politically, particularly in the critical four early primary and caucus states, where warming presents different threats and calls for different solutions.
. . . But there is now a full-fledged political debate about global warming in the presidential fields of both parties, and it's a debate that many environmentalists have long pined for. Now that it has begun, they are priming and prepping their members in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina to keep it going when White House candidates come calling.
It was exactly two weeks ago when we noted that the UK no longer had the power to require the use of high-efficiency light bulbs. This, under Single Market rules, had become an exclusive EU competence.EU Cap and Trade numbers coming out - Reuters carried a story about how perilous it is to make a cap and trade system work in the EU. For some reason the countries have not been able to act in good faith to make the plan work. Perhaps it is because of the same issue as the blogger has - unwillingness to give over control to a central authority. The story is headlined, "EU lays out 2006 emissions data release plan." I quote,
. . . This, frankly, is unacceptable – there are many areas in my own home where I do not want these high-efficiency bulbs. And while I would be prepared to accept the writ of my own elected Parliament, should it decide to ban incandescents, the same does not apply to the EU - which lacks any democratic legitimacy.
It looks as if we will have to start stockpiling light bulbs, or looking for black market suppliers, all to avoid the curse of the Eurobulb.
The European Commission laid out plans on Friday for the rapid release of market-sensitive 2006 carbon emissions data in an attempt to avoid the haphazard process that contributed to a carbon price crash last year.Because the numbers seem huge is no reason to go into denial, as the current administration tends to do. But there are some things we can do. These include becoming better informed on the issues, living as "green" as we are able, believing what the weather tells us, and advocating for alternative energy resources. We are not yet technologically capable of immigrating to another planet when this one is ruined. One or two of us at a time, or millions at a time, we are all in this together here on our lovely big "blue marble."
. . . The scheme is the 27-nation European Union's key tool to fight global warming and meet commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. It sets limits on the amount of CO2 that big factories may emit and allows them to trade permits if they overshoot or come in below their caps.
Traders have eagerly awaited the 2006 data for further evidence that the first phase of the scheme from 2005-2007 is largely a failure. Carbon prices for that phase are trading at around one euro per ton of CO2, whereas prices for 2008 delivery are trading above 17 euros.
The Commission has cracked down on member states for the 2008-2012 trading phase, forcing most to make large cuts in the amount of CO2 permits they proposed to give to industry.
Reference: A previous post related to this subject is titled, "Helping the Environment - what states can do."
Technorati tags: articles business current affairs news news and politics science technology climate change environment energy
2 comments:
Let's be more specific about what they mean by "Severe water shortages are likely to constrain future expansion." This statement is true not only of the southwest US, but of the whole planet. I remember looking at charts and tables as a kid in school and hearing about how Earth's population had finally bloomed to 4 billion. Since I was in 4th grade, we have increased that number by one half.
So when articles casually add the verb "constrain" to the direct object "population" it's important to realize what that literally means. It means people dying by the millions of starvation, dehydration, and all the wars and diseases that these shortened supplies cause. It means, as humans crowd out other fauna and our farms crowd out other flora, an diminishing of the biodiversity that protects us from the ravages of epidemics and helps to provide new medicines to treat new diseases.
At 6.5 billion humans, the earth is already over-staffed; the food chain is top heavy. What's happening in Darfur is not a canary in the coal mine; it is not a warning of things to come. It's a symptom of a problem that already exists.
When the problems that beset Africa spread to Asia--where surely they must go next--we will not see a gradual decline in conditions as matters worsen bit by bit. Like Ken Lay, humans will able to live high on the hog right up to the moment that the consequences come crashing around us.
The world has been lucky so far. The African nations that suffer from malnutrition are weak and have only horses and jeeps and small arms to fight each other with. When the crunch comes to India and China and Indonesia, their neighbors may well feel the brunt of those pressures with far greater technological force.
Next time you see a news event about an earthquake or a tsunami or a monsoon or a drought or a war killing tens of thousands, remember it is overpopulation that is making those numbers high. Don't think that overpopulation will harm humanity one day. Overpopulation is murdering people right now.
--Bucky
(sorry for the grim tone; your entry bothered me)
Bucky, sorry I bummed you out, my friend. Your tone was not grim, but probably very rational. I was impressed by your very thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments. You are absolutely right about the dire implications, and the dangers of minimizing them, as the FT obviously did.
And as I reread my thoughts about what we all can do, my ideas don't look as if they will make much difference, given the larger picture.
But, because I am an incurable optimist, I do not feel hopeless nor helpless about this stuff. You have the wonderful challenge of teaching your kids to live green. We both have opportunities to reach a few readers. And humanity has the opportunity to make different choices, if we will.
Perhaps we are, however, all in denial and counting on our NASA neighbors to invent us a way out if we have to "get out of Dodge."
Post a Comment