Save and Conserve

Part 2, Section 3 of Thomas Friedman's new book Hot, Flat and Crowded should be required reading for every single American. Titled "Our Carbon Copies (or, Too Many Americans)", Friedman graphically describes the trouble we are in if the emerging middle classes of China, India & others scale up to live exactly like Americans do (which is a scary thought in its own right).

The result would be troubling to say the least & most likely game over for the climate. The world just can't take another several Americas worth of consumption & trash.

Here are a couple of choice nuggets from that chapter, but honestly you should read it yourself. It makes the case for the need to change how & what we are doing better than anything I could ever write ...

In the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, a single Sam's Club sold roughly 1,100 air conditioners in one hot weekend in 2006. I would bet that is more than some Sears stores in the US sell during a whole summer.

Chinese developers are laying more than 52,700 miles of new highways throughout the country. Some 14,000 new cars hit China's roads each day.

By 2020, China is expected to have 130 million cars, and by 2050 - or perhaps as early as 2040 - it is expected to have even more cars than the US.

In 2006, more than 34 million Chinese traveled abroad, a 300 percent increase from the year 2000.

The Indian economy had lifted 94 million people out of absolute poverty during that period (the past decade) - that's 12 million more people than the entire population of Germany, the most populous state in the EU.

And it goes on & on like that. We better awaken to the dire straits the world is really in relative to energy & climate ASAP. The very foundation of our existence is at stake.

Posted by tom c. at 7:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been reading about the oil dependency problem in the US for at least 3 years, and I don't often find new ground being covered when I read websites & the news & watch cable. That's why I am so intrigued by the Pickens Plan.

Boone Pickens is a legendary oil man who has made billions & lost hundreds of millions in the oil business over his lifetime. He is currently throwing his weight behind wind energy, investing huge amounts in wind farms in Texas. This is a lifelong oil man putting his money into renewable energy. That should show you right there that the US can't drill its way out of the current oil crisis.

No, we need something more radical than additional drilling or emergency releases from the SPR. Pickens has a novel idea that seems to fit the bill. He wants to increase the amount of electricity produced from wind dramatically. A huge increase in wind energy will free up the natural gas supply to be used as a transportation fuel, taking some of the pressure off of oil imports (dependency). If you no longer need the gas to run power plants, you can use the resource to run cars.

Interesting idea. The Pickens Plan website has more info & I would recommend checking it out. I know some will say the notion of using natural gas to power our cars is not really a fix. However, it would reduce our imports of oil & potentially buy us more time to bridge the gap over to a new way of doing things & a new way of running daily life.

As Pickens says in the video on his site, we just can't afford to transfer $700 billion each year to foreign governments & expect our economy to work well for us. We need to start changing immediately. Pickens seems like the type of individual that the renewable industry has been looking for to spearhead change. He's well known in financial & political realms. He has a pantload of money to work with (just watch his slick ads & website). He is well-respected. I wonder if he can make this happen & get the Congress on board.

Since Congress appears to be ready to finally do something (anything), this is looking pretty interesting.

Posted by tom c. at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's official. China is now pumping more CO2 into the air than we in the US are.

This is an enormous problem. Even if the people & government of the US got religion on global warming & started to cap and/or reduce carbon emissions, it wouldn't matter. China is now the 500 pound guerilla pounding the Earth like it's an American Tourister suitcase.

And we can't really ask China to stop, either:

The world's carbon dioxide emissions increased 3% in 2007, and China was responsible for fully two thirds of that increase, according to the report. It now emits 14% more than the United States every year, and that figure is expected to grow as the country continues to burn coal, clear forests and make cement to fuel its own economic boom, while manufacturing the world's disposable goods.

The more you learn about the climate crisis, the more you realize it's more about economic growth & population than anything else. You can't expect to radically reduce the CO2 emissions if you still want people to drive, to be mobile, to eat, to go to school, to live. Plus, it becomes even harder if the number of those people who want to do those things keeps increasing. It's like trying to plug the ever-lengthening cracks in a failing dam.

The scale of the problem exceeds any one country's ability to cope effectively with it. This is a global shitstorm ... one without any simple or quick fix that has been made much more difficult to deal with now that Chinese economic growth has "gone plaid".

Posted by tom c. at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From the author of "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs & Steel", a very worthwhile opinion piece in today's New York Times. Totally on the money.

Posted by tom c. at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What happens when developing countries start shouting louder about the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of carbon dioxide emissions? It's only natural ... as we get more evidence of rapid climate change (which is now coming at us in a steady stream like this story for example), the areas, people and countries that are negatively impacted by the climate change will start to point fingers and ask for reparations.

This is asymmetric global warming. The warming is caused in one place or by one group, and the negative effects are felt in another place or by another group.

The article I linked to above discusses declining water reserves in South American countries who rely on glaciers and snowpack for the majority of their water. It contains some choice lines like the following:

"We're the ones who've contributed the least to global warming and we're getting hit with the biggest bill," laments Edson Ramirez, a Bolivian hydrologist who coordinates U.N., French- and Japanese-sponsored projects to quantify the damage exacted on fragile Andes ecosystems by richer nations that use more gas and create more pollution.

Bolivia, South America's poorest country, is responsible for just 0.03 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions that scientists blame for global warming, says Ramirez. The United States, by contrast, contributes about one quarter.

President Evo Morales, in an Associated Press interview earlier this month, said he'll seek legal remedies if rich countries don't agree to pay for the damage they've wreaked on the developing world:

"It's not a question of cooperation. It's an obligation," he said.

Legal remedies. Yeah, good luck with that, Evo. He might have the moral high ground, but he won't have much luck convincing the US to send him millions while Atlanta goes dry and New Orleans sinks further beneath sea level. He'll need to get a bit more creative than that.

Posted by tom c. at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I caught part of the Democratic debate on cable a couple of nights ago and was pleased to hear the candidates talking about energy. Even in the 2004 election, with the Iraq War in full swing, energy didn't really make it to the national level as a political issue. When you consider that the war is being fought on top of billions of barrels of oil, it's pretty incredible that it didn't become a flashpoint. C'est la vie. It's now on the table and my guess is that energy will become a critical issue in the 2008 election. With oil marching towards $100 per barrel and gas once again approaching $3 per gallon and no sign of an ease in global energy demand or a rise in global energy supply ... people are starting to wake up to reality.

The Consumer Federation of America released a new report and survey results that show Americans are beginning to understand that high energy prices are not temporary. The report found:

• Over the last five years, household energy expenditures (home heating and gasoline) have nearly doubled, and are now 50 percent more than health care expenditures and 23 percent more than spending on food.

• Three key energy provisions bottled up in Washington could save consumers more than $180 billion between now and 2020.

The survey results included the following points:

• Concern over U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East has grown dramatically and now almost equals concern about prices. Seventy-six percent of those asked express concern over imports (56 percent express great concern).

• An overwhelming majority (84 percent) supports three requirements in Congressional energy legislation: l) higher fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles; 2) the purchase of renewable energy by electric utilities, and 3) expanded production of biofuels.

• An overwhelming majority (75 percent) still supports these proposals after hearing arguments from opponents of the legislation.

• Opposition to these policies is meager (between 13 and 22 percent).

This report/survey shows that the average consumer has already transitioned mentally to a new reality. As has happened many times in the past, the people in the US are way ahead of the representatives on the issue. In a year, the American people aren't going to put up with a candidate who is not saying the right things about energy. It's time for the leadership to wake up and catch up ... ASAP!

Posted by tom c. at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

George Bush's position on Iraq hasn't changed much in the past 3 years; stay the course, refuse to deal with the reality on the ground and spend an incredible amount of money while you're at it.

Will Bush change his position on climate change and global warming?

The Washington Post is reporting that Bush might be ready to signal a change of position in his upcoming State of the Union. I'll be watching and listening eagerly for some leadership. As the op-ed says:

The key thing to watch is whether Bush talks only about energy security or whether he emphasizes climate. Energy security is mostly a dumb objective, but climate policy is crucial.

While a change in position around climate change appears to be a possibility, there is probably no chance that Bush will change policy towards Saudi Arabia - as Raymond Learsy calls for in this HuffingtonPost blog.

Learsy is essentially calling for the globalization of the oil resource the Saudis currently oversee. While he makes a valid point or two - especially with regard to the lack of data transparency with respect to oil reserves - most of the comments have it right when they say this is the definition of hypocrisy. The American system has raped and pillaged the world's resources in the name of growth and profit - not in the name of global stewardship.

Learsy has the balls to ask:

Perhaps the time is past where Sovereign Rights are sacrosanct and that this issue be opened to scrutiny and public debate.

This thinking must represent the deepest, darkest worry in the minds of the Saudi royals. Deep down they must know that - were it clear that peak oil was real and oil became scarce - the Americans will flip policy quick and claim the time of Sovereign Rights past. A chilly thought ...

Posted by tom c. at 9:43 AM | Permalink

manage, v.

- To direct or control the use of; handle: manage a complex machine tool.
- To exert control over.
- To make submissive to one's authority, discipline, or persuasion.
- To direct the affairs or interests of: manage a company; an agency that manages performers.
- To succeed in accomplishing or achieving, especially with difficulty; contrive or arrange: managed to get a promotion.

Does society have the ability to manage the coming net reduction in total available energy without persuasion?

Can society successfully control its use of fossil fuels in light of global warming?

Will society represent and fight for the good of the greatest number?

Is negative utilitarianism possible given the operating framework of capitalism?

Posted by tom c. at 9:16 PM | Permalink

in an earlier post i riffed about a scenario in which american leaders are peak oil-aware and, as such, might be trying to slow the global economy so the chinas of the world don't sink america's ship.

interesting to consider, but has to be wrong, right?

unless the top leaders of public government are brainwashed or robotic, i don't think such a scenario holds water in light of george bush & tony blair's G8 conversation. unaware that they were being recorded, it's safe to assume both guys were caught in their natural state ... speaking their minds off-the-cuff, if you will.

needless to say, off-the-cuff bush is 100% cringe-worthy. he may have sounded like a diplomatic lightweight ... or he may have sounded like a playground bully pushing blair around. but in this glimpse behind the curtain, he certainly didn't sound like the man with the plan.

my expectation from a "real" conversation was that we'd hear some juicy stuff. get some real insight. instead, we see how uninterested bush really is by all of this stuff. it reminds me of his detachment during the katrina episode. there was no anti-black conspiracy there ... the guy just doesn't care.

or maybe he is that dumb and powerless and there is a group calling the real shots. if that's the case, they couldn't have found a better man than george bush to convince everyone that our leaders are intellectually incapable of leading cabals & conspiracies. what we learned from the open mic convo was that private bush is much the same as public bush.

Posted by tom c. at 3:16 PM | Permalink

did anyone catch the nytimes sunday mag article about china's booming car culture? the velocity at which china is becoming a mini-me of the US is startling. and, in this case, i don't think the US is liable to look at china with doe eyes and state: "you complete me!"

per the article, china has 233% more passenger cars on the road in 2006 than it did in 2000. that's gotta be kicking out a nice plume of co2. although the lines al showed us in an inconvenient truth were literally climbing off the charts, i wouldn't be surprised to see them go much much higher in light of what's happening in china right now. china now has the second highest number of highway miles in the world. second to you know who and growing fast.

this is the ironic thing about the rise of the global economy. we got our 10 years of cheap products and labor out of the deal ... but you have to wonder at what price. globalism has led to a "they've gone plaid" chinese metamorphisis . it really can't get any faster, can it? oh it probably can and will ...

if co2 really is behind global warming, it's difficult to see how we're going to right the ship. it will be difficult to turn this massive boat around with any kind of speed. like the titanic, we're steering through difficult waters too quickly. we need to slow this thing down somehow

Posted by tom c. at 3:22 PM | Permalink

i just read a cynical post on a blog devoted to peak oil that stated something along these lines:

assume american leaders are peak oil aware and believe the peak is happening now or will happen very soon (within 1 year). assume that global oil supply can no longer grow. assume that china, india and emerging economies will continue to grow fast if left unchecked. that implies america would be privy to a smaller slice of the oil pie.

doesn't it stand to reason that it would be in america's interest to raise interest rates in order to trigger a global economic slowdown? slowing down economic growth should equate to slowing down demand for energy, especially liquid fuels. slowing down china & india would allow america to maintain the same slice of the oil pie for a longer period of time. a slow down would, of course, bring hardship and suffering to a lot of americans (think unemployment + $8 gas). but the situation would probably look more like a slow squeeze than a full blown depression.

choking oil supply is the only thing that is going to get lots of people conserving energy. choking implies pain. it implies shortage. choking americans is something american leaders want to prevent. however, choking the rest of the world may not be a bad move if the peak looks sharp and the downslope steep.

interesting to ponder ...

Posted by tom c. at 4:13 PM | Permalink