This is a WTF moment for me. Greenpeace UK is protesting Shell drilling for oil in the arctic, and they say nearly seven million people agree with them. Fine. I get that. What boggles me is the irony of the message their photo conveys, which is “We cannot survive without oil.”
Drilling in the arctic is damn expensive. Shell would not be going there if they didn’t expect to profit from it. If oil’s demand falls, they will not be in the arctic.
Greenpeace should be leading the way by not using oil products.
Instead they use fuel made from oil to take them out to the arctic, climb an oil rig dressed in clothing made from oil, scale the oil rig using safety and climbing gear made from oil, and no doubt use propane to cook their meals and warm themselves while protesting the exploration of a product they show by their actions that they can’t live without.
Today, we look at one of the selling points of “green energy.” Pols and others say “green jobs” provide more jobs. The short of it, is that they need more people per kilowatt to do the job than fossil fuel or nuclear power do. At the extreme end of the kilowatt per person spectrum would be cyclists, such as in this video, pedaling to produce the power needed.
The 5,354 MW Belchatów Power Station in Poland – one of the world’s largest coal fired power stations. Photo credit: Wikipedia
There is little question that coal is dangerous. It is dangerous to mine. Its emissions are a problem; coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Yet coal is cheap, abundant, and the demand for it is vast. As Justin Lin wrote in 2009 on the World Bank’s blog:
There are roughly 1.6 billion people in developing countries–700 million of whom are in Africa and 550 million in South Asia–who lack access to electricity. Because coal is often cheap and abundant, and the need for electricity is so great, coal plants are going to be built with or without our [World Bank] support.
The question that should spring to everyone’s mind is “how many died in China from cold or indoor pollution before the electrification that the coal plant brought with it?” The Manichaeistic, black/white premise of something being all good (e.g., Renewable Energy) or all bad (e.g., Fossil Fuel) is at best, uncritical thinking, and at worst, lying.
Greenpeace, the report’s author, is of course fretting about climate change, and its answer is to turn back the clock. I am a luke-warmer in regards to climate change; I think the climate is much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than the Global Climate Models (GCM) that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest. But even a full-throated supporter of climate change, such as Mark Lynas, sees the need for coal in places such as China and India:
The costs of poverty – which includes millions of preventable deaths of young children, lack of access to water and sanitation, reduced livelihood prospects, large-scale hunger and malnutrition, and so on… are clearly much greater than the direct costs of coal burning, and this equation probably still holds even when the future damages from climate change are factored in. – Mark Lynas, 2014, India’s coal conundrum
To be clear, the possible deaths of people due to the burning of coal are regrettable. Scrubbers would ameliorate the particulates that cause the health problems; as China and India get richer their people will become more vocal in their calls for cleaner air. At the moment, jobs, cleaner drinking water, sanitation, and food on the table appear to be of greater importance.
The 5,354 MW Belchatów Power Station in Poland – one of the world’s largest coal fired power stations. Photo credit: Wikipedia
There is little question that coal is dangerous. It is dangerous to mine. Its emissions are a problem; coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Yet coal is cheap, abundant, and the demand for it is vast. As Justin Lin wrote in 2009 on the World Bank’s blog:
There are roughly 1.6 billion people in developing countries–700 million of whom are in Africa and 550 million in South Asia–who lack access to electricity. Because coal is often cheap and abundant, and the need for electricity is so great, coal plants are going to be built with or without our [World Bank] support.
The question that should spring to everyone’s mind is “how many died in China from cold or indoor pollution before the electrification that the coal plant brought with it?” The Manichaeistic, black/white premise of something being all good (e.g., Renewable Energy) or all bad (e.g., Fossil Fuel) is at best, uncritical thinking, and at worst, lying.
Greenpeace, the report’s author, is of course fretting about climate change, and its answer is to turn back the clock. I am a luke-warmer in regards to climate change; I think the climate is much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than the Global Climate Models (GCM) that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest. But even a full-throated supporter of climate change, such as Mark Lynas, sees the need for coal in places such as China and India:
The costs of poverty – which includes millions of preventable deaths of young children, lack of access to water and sanitation, reduced livelihood prospects, large-scale hunger and malnutrition, and so on… are clearly much greater than the direct costs of coal burning, and this equation probably still holds even when the future damages from climate change are factored in. – Mark Lynas, 2014, India’s coal conundrum
To be clear, the possible deaths of people due to the burning of coal are regrettable. Scrubbers would ameliorate the particulates that cause the health problems; as China and India get richer their people will become more vocal in their calls for cleaner air. At the moment, jobs, cleaner drinking water, sanitation, and food on the table appear to be of greater importance.
Over at the Serial Monography site, Jeff Benson (yes, the name is no coincidence) looks for an authentic experience: he wants a Flat White coffee like he had when he discovered it in Bali. He tries one at his local Starbucks…
…by the time I had finished drinking it at home, my enthusiasm had dissolved…Because although Starbucks made the same drink I remembered, they had utterly failed to replicate the experience I had when I first drank a flat white. This is, I admit, an unfair standard to hold a coffee chain to. They’re in the business of selling caffeine and sugar to overworked Americans, not reproducing a Balinese coffeehouse.
As I see it he is touching on at least two maybe three ideas here:
Authenticity. It is one of those ideas that has probably been around since people have been telling stories. No matter what the time or place, [insert place name here] always was more about twenty years before. It’s like Yogi Berra used to say, “Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.”
Experience of the moment. It is not just the the act but who was around and where. A can of Safeway Select beer may have been the best beer you ever had in your life, if the place, people and the time was special. If you haven’t eaten for a week, a bowl of oatmeal will be an unforgettable feast.
Globalization. Globalization is often the bugbear of modern life. Trade brings with it the Walmartization/McDonald’sization of a place. Big Macs in Paris. Nike shoes in Zimbabwe.This goes back to Authenticity. Ever since humans learned to trade one thing for another thing (the first trade was probably between the sexes, men hunt and women gather, generally), we have been modifying our environment to make it better for our lives.Without globalization he would not have been able to get a Flat White (an Australian invention) in Bali.
Or maybe it’s none of those things, as Freud might have said, “Sometimes a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee.”
Over at the Serial Monography site, Jeff Benson (yes, the name is no coincidence) looks for an authentic experience: he wants a Flat White coffee like he had when he discovered it in Bali. He tries one at his local Starbucks…
…by the time I had finished drinking it at home, my enthusiasm had dissolved…Because although Starbucks made the same drink I remembered, they had utterly failed to replicate the experience I had when I first drank a flat white. This is, I admit, an unfair standard to hold a coffee chain to. They’re in the business of selling caffeine and sugar to overworked Americans, not reproducing a Balinese coffeehouse.
As I see it he is touching on at least two maybe three ideas here:
Authenticity. It is one of those ideas that has probably been around since people have been telling stories. No matter what the time or place, [insert place name here] always was more about twenty years before. It’s like Yogi Berra used to say, “Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.”
Experience of the moment. It is not just the the act but who was around and where. A can of Safeway Select beer may have been the best beer you ever had in your life, if the place, people and the time was special. If you haven’t eaten for a week, a bowl of oatmeal will be an unforgettable feast.
Globalization. Globalization is often the bugbear of modern life. Trade brings with it the Walmartization/McDonald’sization of a place. Big Macs in Paris. Nike shoes in Zimbabwe.This goes back to Authenticity. Ever since humans learned to trade one thing for another thing (the first trade was probably between the sexes, men hunt and women gather, generally), we have been modifying our environment to make it better for our lives.Without globalization he would not have been able to get a Flat White (an Australian invention) in Bali.
Or maybe it’s none of those things, as Freud might have said, “Sometimes a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee.”
For most of humanity’s existence, our kind have worried about getting enough to eat. So we may see it as a good sign that now some of our species are worried about not getting organic milk in their lattes and frappes. “Where oh where shall I ever find a frappe made with organic milk?” one supposes they say. “If only Starbucks made their lattes and frappes with organic milk; it would be so healthy!”
Or as one over-achieving Organitrepreneur put it:
“Consumers are increasingly looking for organic milk. I stopped drinking Starbucks lattes once I found out the health implications of consuming non-organic milk.” Vani Hari, creator of FoodBabe.com.
Caffeine
Though its advantage is far from clear, for the sake of argument, let’s say that organic milk is healthier than conventionally produced milk.
Putting organic milk in coffee is akin to putting lipstick on a sow: the pig is still ugly (and with lipstick, quite silly looking) and the coffee is still full of (natural) chemicals with long and complicated names that should scare the mocha off any chemophobe’s lips.
If you’re someone who says that you won’t put anything in your mouth that you can’t pronounce, put down that cup. But if you’re someone who knows that dose makes the poison, well, bon appétit!
For more on coffee, its chemistry and physiological effects see the Royal Society of Chemistry’s, “Chemistry in every cup.”
For most of humanity’s existence, our kind have worried about getting enough to eat. So we may see it as a good sign that now some of our species are worried about not getting organic milk in their lattes and frappes. “Where oh where shall I ever find a frappe made with organic milk?” one supposes they say. “If only Starbucks made their lattes and frappes with organic milk; it would be so healthy!”
Or as one over-achieving Organitrepreneur put it:
“Consumers are increasingly looking for organic milk. I stopped drinking Starbucks lattes once I found out the health implications of consuming non-organic milk.” Vani Hari, creator of FoodBabe.com.
Caffeine
Though its advantage is far from clear, for the sake of argument, let’s say that organic milk is healthier than conventionally produced milk.
Putting organic milk in coffee is akin to putting lipstick on a sow: the pig is still ugly (and with lipstick, quite silly looking) and the coffee is still full of (natural) chemicals with long and complicated names that should scare the mocha off any chemophobe’s lips.
If you’re someone who says that you won’t put anything in your mouth that you can’t pronounce, put down that cup. But if you’re someone who knows that dose makes the poison, well, bon appétit!
This is from GettyImages. It is a circa 1920s photo by photographer Darius Kinsey (1869-1945). The GettyImages site says Kinsey, “was a photographer active in western Washington State from 1890 to 1940. He is best known for his images of loggers and all phases of the region’s lumber industry.”
Dickson Despommier shares his ideas about how “vertical farming” can help reduce hunger by changing the way we use land for agriculture. photography by kris krüg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Agriculture has one hell of a footprint, occupying 37.6 percent of earth’s land area, or about 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) per person to feed our world’s current population. “There is no activity that humankind engages in that has a bigger impact on the planet than agriculture,” Jack Bobo, Chief of Biotechnology and Textile Trade in the Department of State’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs wrote. “This is true in terms of impacts on land and water resources [agriculture accounts for some 70% of our freshwater use (PDF)] as well as in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.” Dr. Pamela Ronald agrees, “The worst thing for the environment is farming. It doesn’t matter if it is organic [or conventional]…You have to go in and destroy everything.”
We humans have reduced our agricultural footprint; while both the world population and productivity have increased the area devoted to agriculture has decreased. Today’s agriculture’s land use of 0.7 ha./person is a monumental improvement on the land needs of hunter-gatherer societies of about 1000 ha./person.
The increasing agricultural productivity continues. According to Jesse Ausubel, the director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, “From one hectare, an American farmer in 1900 could provide calories or protein for a year for 3 people.” By the turn of the 21st century, the top farmers could feed 80 people for a year from the same area. This has freed up agricultural land. In fact, Ausubel announced last year that the world may have reached (or nearly reached) “peak farmland.”
“Humanity now stands at Peak Farmland, and the 21st century will see release of vast areas of land [PDF], hundreds of millions of hectares,” Ausubel writes, “more than twice the area of France for nature.” The trend in the percentage of land in agriculture has been downward over the past five years. How redundant land will be used lies beyond the scope of this post. If it is not needed to grow food or fiber what will the land be converted into? (If in fact we can continue the trend)
Obviously, not needing animals to plow and produce manure, better targeted pesticides, irrigation, bioengineering, and synthetic fertilization of crops have had much to do with increased yields. The tradeoff is more impact on a yet smaller area to keep wild land from conversion to agriculture. But, yes, this system has meant problems, including runoff from the fields polluting waterways. It is a smaller footprint than it otherwise would have been. “If we were to try to feed the present population of 6.8 billion people using the methods of 1960,”Matt Ridley writes, “we would have to cultivate 82% of the land area of the planet instead of 34%…That would mean ploughing an extra area the size of South America minus Chile.”
Additionally, growing food and fiber where it grows best and trading for other food, fiber, and goods has also lowered the overall footprint. Certain areas have a comparative advantage for growing a specific crop; so the best practice is to grow food and fiber where it grows the best, usually a rural area, and then transport it to an urban area. Why grow bananas in Reykjavik when you can buy them for less from South America? This system of using an area’s comparative advantage for growing and then shipping has been around a long time. The Romans grew much of their food in North Africa and shipped it across the Mediterranean.Today huge container ships which lower the cost per mile of shipping goods have contributed much to the lowering of the carbon footprint.
Could our agricultural footprint be reduced even further?
Columbia University professor Dickson Despommier thinks so. He made his case in 2009 at ScientificAmerican.com, “Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist.” He quotes Mark Twain: “Buy land. They’re not making it any more.” Additionally, he says, farming pollutes places with “fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and silt.” He envisions vertical farms in skyscrapers. The Economist magazine wrote about his ideas, “A wide variety of designs for vertical farms have been created by architectural firms. (The idea can arguably be traced back as far as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, built around 600BC.) So far, however, the idea remains firmly on the drawing board. Would it really work?”
The idea so far works only on a limited basis (without high rises) for niche markets. For example, in Japan, “a plant physiologist,” writes Allison Floyd, “has turned a former Sony semiconductor factory into a farm illuminated by special LED fixtures made by GE. At 25,000 square feet, the farm is nearly half the size of a football field and, since the fixtures emit light at wavelengths that spur plant growth, already is producing 10,000 heads of lettuce per day.” According to “Shigeharu Shimamura, the expert behind the farm…the farm is 100 times more productive for its size than an outdoor growing operation.”
Moving the growing areas of where food and fiber are produced from rural to urban could make redundant some or all arable land currently used for agriculture. The first to move indoors would be the fast-growing, high-value plants. “Obviously, it won’t be apple trees, but arugula, sprouts, basil, cilantro,” Dr. Kevin Folta told Floyd.
The appeal of moving growing food closer to where people live is obvious. As already noted, agriculture occupies nearly 40 percent of the earth’s land area, whereas cities occupy only 0.5 percent [PDF], and now hold more than half of the world’s human population. Demographers expect by the year 2050 that 80% of us will live in cities.
There is a feeling of déjà vu to all of this. “Perhaps the most celebrated past local ‘urban farmers’ were the Parisian maraîchers,” says Pierre Desrochers, co-author of The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet. “Through the use of about one-sixth of the city’s area, supporting technologies (from greenhouses to cloches and cold frames) and very long hours, they grew more than 100,000 tons of produce annually in the late 19th century.” They exported some of their produce to London. By the turn of the 20th century however, better transportation able to deliver food and fiber from places better suited to growing coupled with better paying job opportunities for the workers killed their market and made the Parisian truck farm system unsustainable.
Whether we build farms within old factories or stack them vertically, we still need to make the enterprise profitable. Economic sustainability, more than any technological problem, remains the highest hurdle for farming factories.
Nullius in Verba 