Wednesday, June 29, 2011

peak oil...continued...

In the book I write about peak oil and its consequences.  I just met an executive of an oil company at a book reading I did for The Failure of Environmental Education in Crested Butte.  His strong position:  there is ALWAYS more very low quality oil to be extracted (which becomes economically tenable when the price of easily extractable oil goes up as it dries up), and there is a LOT of coal.  He sees NO shortage of carbon.  Yes, it's going to cost more.  Yes, it's going to be messy.  But we're not going to run out.  He also believes that we shouldn't burn it all because of the environmental consequences.  He said that oil people know all about climate change and that he was fully in support of carbon taxes.  He (like me) believe that cap-and-trade would just make people on Wall Street rich and that progressive carbon taxes (higher taxes for lower grade, more polluting oil/coal) would be a reasonable disincentive for carbon extraction and emission.  I think such a tax would stimulate the development of carbon alternatives.

The one thing that I didn't discuss with him was properly pricing the externalities associated with low-quality carbon production...which would make extraction of low quality carbon even MORE expensive.

Interesting conversation!

Organic, healthy, and humane animals

The Crested Butte Sunday farmer's market has several local ranchers selling free-range, organic, and humanely raised animals at very competitive prices.  I need to ask them about how they're slaughtered and butchered, but superficially, everything, including the pork, looks very well-raised and cared for.  One of them only sells at the farmer's market and directly from their farm.  The other does not sell to stores.  This is too bad.  At my local Whole Foods in LA, these products would cost at least twice the price.  Why?  Clearly, these small farmers are doing well by paying careful attention to their animals.  Why can't more producers do this?  

I'm eating little meat these days but will probably buy some of this to try it out and to support folks who are treating their animals and their land with respect.  I wish they shipped to LA.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Sausage in red wine

I've been eating beans and vegetables and a bit of cheese since coming to Colorado.  Thus, a pasta with sausage dinner the other night with friends was a bit unexpected.  The whole sausages (pork and chicken) were cooked first in red wine (Spanish style) and then added to the pasta sauce.  I could not stop eating them and ate three...they were absolutely delicious and I'm going to cook all my sausage in red wine from now on.

When I serve sausage as a tapas (see book), I cut them into little pieces and stick a toothpick into each of them.  I find it is a form of consumption control that encourages us to enjoy meat as a flavorful condiment. 

Saturday, June 25, 2011

The consequences of a nuclear free Germany

My UCLA colleague Ann Carlson writing in the Legal Planet environmental blog noted that if Germany eliminates nuclear power they will not meet their 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Read Ann's OpEd, and then discuss the following.

How do you value the suspected and expected global risks and consequences of increased carbon in the atmosphere versus the risks of a nuclear meltdown, nuclear terrorism, and the problems of storing wastes for a long time?

Don't like how I've framed the question?  Discuss a future that doesn't rely much on carbon and doesn't rely on uranium-based nuclear fission.  What do we need to get there?

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Does development stimulate cooperation?

A common assumption is that development is good because with longevity comes care for the future.  Tim Flannery makes this point in his recent book, Here on Earth:  A Natural History of the Planet.  He argues that future discounting, the propensity to take what you can get now, even when offered that plus some interest at some point in the future, is more common in the poor, and disenfranchised who have a relatively lesser chance of living to the future and actually getting that interest.  Thus, by helping the poor, the sick and those without, we increase the population size of those that should care about taking care of the Earth. 

Indeed, what’s called the ‘demographic transition’--where a society goes from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates—is associated with a suite of development-related traits—education (particularly for women), increased life expectancy, increased financial security, and, the zinger—increased consumerism.

Here’s a hard thought that harkens back to Ehrlich and Holdren’s I = PAT equation:  with greater affluence comes greater impact.  Thus, do we really think that development will reduce future discounting and increase the likelihood of more people cooperating to solve the Earth’s problems, as Flannery argues, or will those people be more likely to (naturally) consume more and become a greater part of the problem? 

A few examples of the latter include China, India, and Brazil:  three examples of 'successful' development, but also examples of increasing industrialized societies that as a consequence of development are having a greater, not lesser, impact on Earth.

I’m not arguing against development:  I want more people to have greater economic security around the world.  But, I do think that it’s naïve to believe that development will necessarily lead to a more cooperative society that will inevitably be more predisposed to solve our environmental problems. 
Cooperation must be nurtured with incentives and regulated with punishment.  And we have to work hard to cooperate; time may be running out to take control of some scary environmental challenges. 

Discussion questions:  What do you think?  How do we rationalize helping others develop and have a better life (good things!) when this means that their ecological footprint is very likely to increase?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Ingredients, the film

We watched Ingredients, a documentary, the other night.  The film introduces us to people that produce high quality ingredients in a sustainable and organic fashion (meat and vegetables) and sell them to farmers markets and restaurants.  Beautifully filmed, it's a wonderful antidote to the doom-and-gloom food documentaries we normally watch and follows and features the production and consumption of seasonal ingredients. Highly recommended.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Societies can change quickly...

Predicting The Next Revolution: The Boiling Point Paradox

Dominic D. P. Johnson & Daniel T. Blumstein

As the chain of popular uprisings spreads around the Mediterranean, we face a bigger question that has puzzled society for generations: Why are revolutions so hard to predict? This is a pressing question because in the face of persistent authoritarian regimes around the world, history has to “wait” for revolutions to happen despite intense efforts to promote democracy.

The unpredictable nature of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and now elsewhere in the Middle East is especially puzzling because many of their leaders have been in power for decades. Why now? Why not ten years ago, or next year? This puzzle is not limited to the current political climate but is common throughout history. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, or the rise of Al Qaeda from small networks of Afghan veterans to a global transnational organization, are examples of other momentous but totally unpredicted events, taking by surprise even experts who worked on these cases every day. Amidst the noise of thousands of waxing and waning political movements across the globe, we are rarely able to pick out the ones that are going to blow up. In retrospect, one can identify potential contributing factors, but these do nothing to improve our future predictions.

One way to understand this unpredictability comes from the principle of “phase transitions”. These rapid transitions between stable states are common across a wide range of phenomena in mathematics, biology, ecology, chemistry and physics. Perhaps the best known example helped to make your coffee this morning—as pure water is heated, it gets hotter and hotter but stays in the same liquid state. But then, at exactly 100 degrees Celsius, water suddenly goes through a dramatic transition in which molecules separate violently and turn into gas. Retrospectively, we can understand this process in the physics of water molecules. We can even make it more or less likely to happen by changing the surroundings (e.g. air pressure) or altering the mix (e.g. adding salt). But when we experience it for the first time, or when dealing with a novel liquid, we can’t predict what will happen—each degree of increase in temperature does nothing to tell us what is about to happen.

In the same way, historians will be able to look back retrospectively and identify events that contributed to a boiling point in Egypt. They may be able to identify some instabilities or external factors that precipitated the uprising, but they cannot tell us where or when the next revolution is going to blow up. Every liquid has a different boiling point, just as every country and time period has different propensities for social upheaval.

This is not just a metaphor. Where rapid change occurs without obvious precipitant factors, we can use these fundamental principles to study the phenomenon. And if social dynamics are examples of phase transitions, then there are at least two important lessons for politics and society.

First, leaders that are interested in maintaining their grip on power, or international third parties and organizations that are interested in Obama’s wish for an “orderly” (and slower) transition to democracy, must recognize the fundamental problem that they cannot predict when or where the next revolution will occur. Once this problem is recognized, however, the solution becomes obvious: we must prepare flexible, adaptable, and resilient response mechanisms so that when a rapid change occurs—wherever and whenever that may be—the infrastructure is in place to absorb, deflect, or minimize the damage.

Second, for aspiring revolutionaries, the fact that we can never predict when or where they will be successful does nothing to dampen hope. There is a fundamental paradox here because, although some events are totally unpredictable, unpredictable events can nevertheless be made more likely to happen. How is this contradictory statement possible? Every day, marketing professionals design strategies to propel a new product or idea beyond a “tipping point”, to make it “go viral” and become the talk of the town. No one knows which product will take off, but many people know the secrets of how to increase the probability that it will.

Future revolutions remain likely in a variety of major countries around the globe, from Iran and Pakistan, to Saudi Arabia and perhaps even China. Where and when they may occur is fundamentally unpredictable, like phase transitions in so many other domains of life. But this realization suggests both strategies to prepare for them and ways to influence their likelihood.

Dominic D.P. Johnson is Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Edinburgh, UK.

Daniel T. Blumstein is Professor and Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles.