John's World
Welcome back...
As an ex-nuke myself, I have long lamented the illogical choices people made to stop the development of nuclear power. Poor science training, negligible risk balancing skills and inflammatory rhetoric meant the US lost out on decades of low-risk, environmentally friendly energy, choosing to burn coal instead.
But one thing about science - it tends to be self-correcting and over time, good ideas persist. Nuclear power is officially back. Since 2001, we and just about every other business publication have written stories on the coming nuclear renaissance. It’s a development that was seen as almost inevitable. The country needs more electricity. And with coal plants being blocked or cancelled because of concerns over global warming, nukes were looking more and more attractive. Sure, there are still lingering worries over waste disposal and nuclear proliferation, but the new generation of plants are safer and, the industry expected, cheaper to build. The question was, who would take the first leap? Now we have an answer. It’s a Princeton, NJ-based utility named NRG. On Sept. 24, the company and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new nuclear units at the site of two existing nukes in Texas. "We think the nuclear renaissance is finally upon us," says NRG CEO David Crane. [More] The nation will be watching closely to see how construction goes. The design is well-proven and the opportunity could not be brighter for this form of energy, I think. NRG has chosen Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology for the new units to be built at the STP site. The 12,220-acre site and 7,000-acre cooling reservoir were originally designed for four units. The two new units will be built adjacent to the currently operating STP units 1 and 2. ABWR technology is certified by the NRC and has an impressive construction and operational track record. This includes setting world records for construction time and bringing the units in on budget. Four ABWR units have been successfully commissioned in Japan, with another three units under construction in Taiwan and Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. has more than a decade of experience in ABWR operations and has provided their expertise to supporting STP’s planned two-unit expansion. [More] The availability of cleaner electricity could shift the energy balance for transportation as well. Any kind of carbon tax could raise the reward for hybrids and plug-ins. Such an economic influence would change the mix of cars in cities at least, and certainly impact the demand for transportation fuels.Labels: energy, environment
I think "consensus" is the right word...The slowly dying debate on anthropogenic climate change has had one feature that I find puzzling. Climate change skeptics tend to trot out handfuls of scientists and claim there is no "consensus" in the scientific community. But the proof in scientific circles takes place in scientific literature - not talk shows, or even blogs.And there the statistics are clear.2) The blog reports of the Schulte piece misrepresent the research question that we originally posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that. [More]
[My emphasis] If there was credible disagreement across science on the very high probability of anthropogenic climate change there would be career-enhancing studies being published in bunches.
I support the right of individuals to hold differing opinions about this phenomenon. But as Sen. Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Labels: environment, global warming
There is good news and, umm....Inappropriate news, in the parlance of today. Remember those weird frogs with congenital deformities that scientists suspected as victims of pesticides? They were wrong. The cause now appears to be an involved cycle of parasites and nutrient (N, P) runoff. The study showed increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus cause sharp hikes in the abundance and reproduction of a snail species that hosts microscopic parasites known as trematodes, said Assistant Professor Pieter Johnson of CU-Boulder's ecology and evolutionary biology department.
The nutrients stimulate algae growth, increasing snail populations and the number of infectious parasites released by snails into ponds and lakes. The parasites subsequently form cysts in the developing limbs of tadpoles causing missing limbs, extra limbs and other severe malformations, Johnson said.
"This is the first study to show that nutrient enrichment drives the abundance of these parasites, increasing levels of amphibian infection and subsequent malformations," said Johnson. "The research has implications for both worldwide amphibian declines and for a wide array of diseases potentially linked to nutrient pollution, including cholera, malaria, West Nile virus and diseases affecting coral reefs." [More] Keeping nutrients in place is largely a matter of keeping dirt in place, and the ethanol-spurred demand for corn does not bode well for better conservation measures. No-tillers are already reluctantly ripping fields to accommodate continuous corn.My guess is we'll see nutrient limits and/or fertilizer taxes in our future that will limit fertilizer application. Of course, prices are already causing many of us to reflect on how much we need. It's one more thing we can look to Europe and see the future possibility.Labels: environment, production
The search for the environmental GUT...The Grand Unification Theory - long the Holy Grail of physicists - is grounded in the perhaps inborn desire for one explanation for everything. But physics isn't the only arena where the goal of tying everything together seems irresistible until finally adherents overreach.Environmentalists, for example, often try to link disparate causes under one big umbrella. Not always with results that please everybody. Take global warming and vegetarianism.Matt Prescott, a spokesperson for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, asserted last month that "you just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist." PETA's pronouncement is part of a cooperative campaign among a number of animal-rights groups. Their message is that meat production exacerbates global warming.
PETA will lead the charge by dispatching an operative in a chicken suit to tour the country in a Hummer. The group will also deploy billboards nationwide with a mocking cartoon depicting climate-change hero Al Gore eating a drumstick, next to the words "Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming." PETA's recent bleating has attracted substantial attention, including a recent story in The New York Times. [More] My guess is the broad attack approach will be far less effective than engaging people in the one thing they really get worked about. I don't think - judging from the widespread denial of the energy crisis as an energy consumption problem - people are quite ready to embrace the big, albeit pretty obvious solutions.Labels: environment, food
China hasn't caught on yet, but ...On a global level the economic miracle that is modern China is far more involved than immediately apparent.Like the NIMBY affluents they are, the developed world has been happy to let China become the nineteenth-century Pittsburgh of the world, hosting nasty, smelly polluting facilities and shipping the products out.China has become so good at being the forge of the world, the rate of pollution is literally breath-taking.But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics. [More of a brilliant NYT article] Free-trade foes should ponder how much we want those dirty jobs back. While employment for undereducated Americans was a godsend when our industrial age was dawning, pushing Americans to get more education and shift to non-manufacturing jobs isn't all bad either. Our economy demonstrates this positive aspect of globalization.But factories and power plants have to be somewhere, and I think China is awakening to the fact that what we have really outsourced to them is our environmental problems.
It has implications for their ag sector as well.
Perhaps an even more acute challenge is water. China has only one-fifth as much water per capita as the United States. But while southern China is relatively wet, the north, home to about half of China’s population, is an immense, parched region that now threatens to become the world’s biggest desert.
Farmers in the north once used shovels to dig their wells. Now, many aquifers have been so depleted that some wells in Beijing and Hebei must extend more than half a mile before they reach fresh water. Industry and agriculture use nearly all of the flow of the Yellow River, before it reaches the Bohai Sea.
The surge in US pork exports to China that experts attribute to Chinese swine disease problems and Beijing Olympic stage-dressing could be just the first indicator of an important trend. We saw something like this as the Soviet ag sector crumbled, but this time the customer is loaded with cash.
Labels: environment, pork, trade
Limited shelf life...Just when you think high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is out of the woods...High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been singled out as having special properties that make Americans fatter than sugar and other energy sources with identical calorie contents. But an analysis by the University of Maryland Center for Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy (CFNAP), now appearing online in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, says there isn't enough research to conclude that high fructose corn syrup contributes to weight gain any more than any other energy source, including sugar and fructose. [More] something like this pops up.Sodas sweetened with high fructose corn syrup contain high levels of a potentially dangerous compound often found in the blood of diabetics, a new study concludes.
It could be cause for concern, experts say, because the "reactive carbonyls" in these sugary drinks could bump up diabetes risk, particularly in children. [More] This ongoing medical witchhunt could eventually stumble onto a witch, but for the time being let's just juxtapose this debate with another:Bottled water sales in the U.S. have skyrocketed in recent years, and with it consumers aren't making a concerted effort to recycle, adding more plastic to the nation's garbage dumps.
An environmental movement is mounting in some states against the one-and-done nature of bottled water, and negative myths about tap water quality. [More] Sometimes you just get a feeling that that a certain "lameness" or un-fashionability has seeped into a product or even an idea - that it is soo over, ya know.I'm getting that feeling on both these.Labels: culture, environment, food
This could be the biggest farm story today...Hats off to the hog industry in North Carolina. Legislation there will phase-out open hog manure lagoons. While this will be expensive, by sitting down together, hog producers will be able to get up to 90% of the cost picked up by government, and one of the biggest impediments to maintaining our hog industry will be diminished.In 2000, pork butchers Smithfield Foods Inc. and Premium Standard Farms Inc. agreed to pay $17.3 million for research on new ways to handle the waste. Last year, researchers at North Carolina State University offered five alternatives that did reduce ammonia and pathogen emissions but were up to five times more expensive than a lagoon system.
The new legislation creates a cost-sharing program for farms that agree to convert to the new technologies. For the next five years, the state will cover 90 percent of the cost, or up to $500,000 for each applicant. The state share drops to 80 percent in 2012 and to 75 percent in 2017.
The hope is that the cost will drop as the systems are improved and demand for them grows.
Justice said she has fielded numerous calls already from farmers interested in the program and companies that believe they can develop still more systems that will meet the new standards.
"The market is wide open," she said. "(Farmers) are ready to go." [More] If other states don't use this as a template, I will be very surprised. Well done, indeed. Our current methods of manure handling border on indefensible.Labels: environment, pork, production
When local is worse...Part of the new intuitive, agrarian approach to food may fail the test of simple mathematics. The local food movement derives legitimacy in large part from the seemingly obvious merit of food traveling fewer miles. Except it likely travels those miles very inefficiently.But a gathering body of evidence suggests that local food can sometimes consume more energy -- and produce more greenhouse gases -- than food imported from great distances. Moving food by train or ship is quite efficient, pound for pound, and transportation can often be a relatively small part of the total energy "footprint" of food compared with growing, packaging, or, for that matter, cooking it. A head of lettuce grown in Vermont may have less of an energy impact than one shipped up from Chile. But grow that Vermont lettuce late in the season in a heated greenhouse and its energy impact leapfrogs the imported option. So while local food may have its benefits, helping with climate change is not always one of them. [More] Local food of course has other valuable attributes: freshness, taste, uniqueness, etc. And the market can value them with consumer input. But claims of greenhouse gas emission reduction need some real numbers.[via Free Exchange]Labels: environment, food
Wait 'til Ken hears this...When we were shooting the video segments of the Farm Journal Corn Navigator series, agronomist Ken Ferrie was trying to convince me that earthworms drag surface residues into little "condominiums".I am not making this up - ask him! Or watch the video when we post it.Anyway, between Ken and Jan I have been thoroughly indoctrinated into deep reverence for earthworms. Only to read this sad science report from Germany:"We have concentrated on getting waste out of landfill and into worm composting systems but they can actually produce more greenhouse gases than landfill sites produce," Frederickson told Materials Recycling Week, a leading publication for the recycling and waste-management industry. [More] It seems the slimy dudes produce nitrous oxide - which is a tremendously powerful greenhouse gas."The emissions that come from these worms can actually be 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide and 20 times more potent than methane. In all environmental systems you get good points and bad points."
This is because worms used in composting emit nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. Just great - now earthworms are killing the planet. Those Germans just love to break bad news I think.Labels: environment, science
Are the locks worth it?...While this idea is as close to blasphemy as a corn grower can get, I think we should seriously rethink spending $2,200,000,000 to upgrade the Mississippi locks. I'm not alone in wondering where the payback will be.When the economists fed the information into their computer model, there were some signification predictions that resulted:
• World trade in grain would increase from the current 264 mmt up to 561 mmt in 2060, however US export volumes would grow from the current 101 mmt to 122 mmt in 2010 and then decline.
• The shift is for increased corn from Argentina and Eastern Europe, soybeans from Brazil and Argentina, increased wheat from Australia and Canada; and reduced wheat from Argentina and the United States,
• US exports initially increase as a result of increased planted acreage and availability of grain to export, as well as a decline of Chinese exports. The subsequent decline in US exports results from increasing competitiveness from other exporting countries and domestic use of corn for ethanol. Wheat exports drop and soybean exports increase.
The economists studied the impact of what would happen if the lock and dam infrastructure on the Mississippi between Cairo and Davenport and the Illinois River were upgraded by 2020 to handle greater volumes of barge traffic. “The results indicate a change in barge shipments by about +4 mmt by 2020, nearly all of which would be for corn and soybean in equal amounts. Thereafter, the change in barge shipments would be about +1 mmt to +2.5 mmt, with most of it being soybeans.”
They also found that when volumes of grain increase because of reduced delays and costs on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, total barge shipments decrease on the Ohio River. [More of a great summary from Farmgate] Note the costs of delays mentioned later in the report: 1-3 cents per bushel. Delay costs, in aggregate, are comprised of the lower delay costs that would occur at
current capacity, plus the volume effect. The impact of expansions on delay costs are in the area of $61 million, inclusive of both direct effects. Most of this is accrued on Reach 4, followed by Reach 2 and 1. Expansion results in an increase in barge costs due to the increase in volume, a decrease in rail shipping costs, and a slight increase in ocean shipping costs. In total, the impact of expanding locks is a decrease in costs by about $52 million. [More] How long to payback billions at that rate? $52M won't make the interest payment on $2.2B. If farmers had to fund this from the ag budget it would be forgotten pronto, but as long as it simply goes on our tab for the next generation(s) to pick up, we'll keep fighting for those tax dollars long after the market has moved the grain elsewhere.The big problem perhaps is how to stop lobbying for something without risking looking foolish. Instead we just keep firing the same bullet points long after the target has moved. Given the conservative assumptions of this study, we could fix the locks and see less use.This is a time to realize ethanol has changed all the spreadsheets and courageously whisper, "Never mind".Labels: environment, policy
In a dry and thirsty land, where no water is...It's half a globe away and far from our attention, but our colleagues in Australia are looking at the Mother of All Droughts.John Howard, Australia's prime minister, arrived here in February and urged the four states through which the Murray-Darling flows to hand their authority over the river to the federal government. After seven years of drought, and many more years of over-exploitation and pollution, he argued that the only hope of restoring the river to health lies in a complete overhaul of how it is managed. As the states weigh the merits of Mr Howard's scheme, the river is degenerating further. Every month hydrologists announce that its flow has fallen to a new record low (see chart). In April Mr Howard warned that farmers would not be allowed to irrigate their crops at all next year without unexpectedly heavy rain in the next few months. A region that accounts for 40% of Australia's agriculture, and 85% of its irrigation, is on the verge of ruin. [More]
I suppose we could entertain a little shameful shadenfreude, especially if you grow wheat, but this disaster becoming almost biblical in scope. And in its wake, a new pattern of water allocation will likely emerge that could presage similar outcomes in other water-short areas.All water use from the Murray-Darling other than for domestic needs will be banned from July 1 and there will not be enough water for environmental flows or allocations to irrigation. The report recommends further battle plans to make sure towns do not run out of drinking water. These include the suspension of the usual water-sharing deals between the states and examining whether Snowy Hydro Ltd could release water from the Snowy River to help the Murray-Darling. [More] In the western US - not to mention other places - a similar situation could arise. My own thought is democracy will override the legal precedence of water law and deliver the fluid to the people. And the West is going to have the people.But the booming South and West regions show some of the most dramatic environmental stresses, according to the report. For example, the four fastest-growing states -- Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah -- all have areas of acute water shortages. [More] It may not be acres that places the final limit on ag production in the US. It could be water.Labels: environment, production
Climate change update...To refresh memories, I agree that humans are a significant cause of global warming via greenhouse gas emissions. This has been an evolving position, but my belief is grounded largely in the opinions of those I have come to trust. Two new developments reinforce my convictions.Bjorn Lomborg, whose weighty tome, The Skeptical Environmentalist, I almost made it through, offers his take on what we should be doing rather than debating: RAY SUAREZ: But you do accept the proposition that human activity is changing the climate of the planet?
BJORN LOMBORG: Absolutely. I think, as you also mentioned, we've seen huge U.N. climate panel reports come out, and they've been ever more certain that climate is changing. We do have an impact. And, therefore, it's also important that we address the question, what should we do?
But we've also got to remember, just like we know that it's CO-2 that causes a part, at least, of climate change, we also know that HIV causes AIDS. We also know that mosquitoes cause malaria. We know that lack of food causes malnutrition.
Now, we know a lot of these things. We don't fix all problems in the world right now. And so I urge people to start thinking, not just to go for the most fashionable problem, but to actually ask the very fundamental question of saying, if you can't do it all -- and clearly we don't -- where can you do the most good first? [More]
Meanwhile, science writer Carl Zimmer, points out the shortfalls in climate-change news coverage. Months ago a report came out suggesting plants were contributing enormous amounts of methane and thus greenhouse gases were a natural, not anthropogenic, problem. It later proved to be erroneous.Some pundits didn't heed the scientists, though. At Foxnews.com, columnist Steven Milloy declared that deforestation ought to reduce global warming. "Our understanding of global climate system is woefully insufficient to support the rush-to-judgment advocated by celebrity-backed global warming alarmists," he claimed. The folks from the Wall Street Journal editorial page declared that "this is causing big problems for the tree-huggers." Rush Limbaugh sarcastically said, "Well, hot damn. God is to blame for global warming."
Fast-forward eighteen months. A group of Dutch researchers put the Max Planck team's conclusions to the test by tracing radioactive carbon isotopes through plants. Their conclusion: "There is no evidence for substantial aerobic methane emission by terrestrial plants."
The paper went online today, published in the journal New Phytologist. (It's free here.) The publisher sent out a press release, but my search has turned up almost no news coverage. There were three stories that were nothing more than cut-and-paste copies of the press release. I found just one piece of original reporting, at a site called Chemistry World, which I now intend to read regularly. The article casts the new paper as the first in a series of new publications that support both sides of this methane vs no-methane debate.
I do not expect that Rush Limbaugh will bother mentioning this paper. The world of punditry leaves me generally baffled. But as a science writer, I'm disappointed that this paper is not getting reported more in the press. If the original paper was so important that it should go on newswires and appear in newspapers and magazines, then what makes this new one less so? [More]
The intense politicization of climate change has hardened positions on both sides. Meanwhile the real debate seems to be: how can we make a buck out of this?Labels: environment, politics
I think we knew this all along...Bottled water makes no sense, just money. "Bottled water is a classic example of the market ignoring the environmental cost of the product," Angel says. "Free trade is meant to be good because you're getting cheaper products from another country, but of course this never takes into account the environmental cost."
This point was illustrated earlier this year by Pablo Paster, a sustainability engineering consultant from San Francisco, who calculated that producing and transporting a one-litre bottle of Fijian water to the US consumed 6.74 kilograms of water and produced 250 grams of greenhouse gases. Paster says that getting that same bottle from Fiji to Sydney consumes six kilograms of water and produces 153 grams of greenhouse gases. [More]
Another argument for including external costs somehow into consumer prices.Labels: economics, environment
For debate lovers...I received several thoughtful remarks on my various posts about anthropogenic climate change. As I said in the comments, this engineer has taken a position and is moving on to other work. To those who like the back-and-forth of Internet debate, I offer this website to link you to any number of information sources.Ordinarily I'm not a big fan of the Gristmill, but this effort seems well done, IMHO.Labels: environment
OK- this is getting seriously weird now...I have mentioned the bee problem before. Perhaps it's the instant attention (to which I contribute) provided by the Internet, but it seems any small issue can become fair game for strange ideas. They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well. The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up. [More]
Still, between the Freeze of '07 (will we say "aught-seven" in our dotage?) and CCD, I'm going to enjoy every blueberry I can get this year. There are some skeptics on this subject.Some of the most hilarious congressional testimony of the past thirty years has come from the lobbying organizations associated with American beekeepers. If the quinennial farm bill is the Olympics of Pork, then these boys are the gold medal winners. Every five years, we get to hear how the honey subsidy is the only thing preventing the complete die-off of all agriculture in America, as the domesticated bee population is responsible for most crop pollination, and gosh darn it, the lil’ buggers can’t make it on their own. I’m not exaggerating; the bee lobby’s rhetoric, particularly in the mid-1980s, really has included apocalyptic claims of this sort. The University of Kansas debate team achieved significant competitive success during that time period using positions built around the wilder claims of honey-subsidy enthusiasts. [More]
Man - that' s the real problem with subsidies. You end up having to defend them even when they don't make sense and look like a doofus.The real problem here is this could be a real problem.Labels: environment, production, science
A question of belief...Our age of criticism is based on one teeny logical flaw: Ideas need not be perfect to work. While I have no pretensions of being a man of science, I have come to respect deeply the power of Science - the inclusive search for objective truth. Engineers like me put scientific results to work, and we rely upon scientific method to continue to serve as as it has in the past. Even if our understanding is incomplete.Hence my position on anthropogenic climate change. I have written several times ( here, here, here, here, and here) about the evolution of my position from general skeptic to acceptance of the position favored by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. In short, I believe in wise crowds.The recent predictions by the IPCC - even after watering down - reinforce my conviction. I would offer four other reasons why I embrace the position that humans are causing a significant portion of the now verifiable global warming.- The flip-floppers seem to be all flipping one way. (OK, Mitt Romney is an exception, but is there any issue he is not steering hard right on?) If anthropogenic climate change was still in a hazy cloud of uncertainty, shouldn't scientists be changing their positions in both directions? Farmers have another issue as well: biotech acceptance. How can we deride those who overlook the consensus of science saying biotech plants are safe when we refuse to acknowledge the consensus of science on global warming?
In any case, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that current varieties of genetically enhanced crops are safe to eat and don't pose unusual risks to the natural environment. But that isn't stopping Greenpeace from waging a global "Say no to genetic engineering" campaign or the Friends of the Earth from demanding a GM Freeze. Perhaps the idea of scientific consensus is not all that it's cracked up to be. After all, scientific consensus does not mean "certain truth." Whatever the current consensus of any scientific issue is can change in the light of new research. Nevertheless, environmentalist ideologues accuse those who question the climate change consensus of bad faith and worse. But aren't they exhibiting a similar bad faith when they reject the broad scientific consensus on genetically modified crops? [More]
- The politics of resistance to human-causality now overshadows the science. Thank you very much, Al Gore. Many on the right are cut off from objective thought because it could lead to idealogical apostacy.
As I see it, the opponents of action on climate change fall into two camps. In one camp are the ideologues. These are people with a knee-jerk negative reaction to any kind of environmental regulation—or, for that matter, any kind of government regulation. They are also people who never met an international treaty or institution that they felt was worthy of U.S. support – apart, perhaps, from the International House of Pancakes. Getting this group to support U.S. action on climate change and/or U.S. participation in any kind of national or global response to this issue is, in short, a lost cause. [More] Since global warming has become a political issue, we decide by politics - although to be fair, the performance by pseudo-conservatives in power in other arenas (economics, foreign policy, etc.) is making this less of an issue. - Real businesses betting real money. Seriously wealthy board members on large corporations are betting fortunes that the climate problem is real. Some want to make money fixing it, some want to avoid losing money because of it, and some simply think it it the right way to act. Climate change is on the agenda.
- The skeptics are becoming shriller and stranger. The tenor of the debate has become paranoid in the opposition. Conspiracy and even weirder threads fill the void left by decreasing rebuttal evidence.
Several readers have offered links to the opposing viewpoints, which I have carefully read, and used to check my own position. Find them here and here. Science, in the course of history, has been self-correcting and productive. Neither can be said for religion or ideology. I'm going with the scientists on this one.But I support your right to choose otherwise.Labels: environment, global warming, politics
Truth endures...It has been my conviction that many controversial public decisions eventually get made by elimination, not inspiration. Bad choices unravel over time as their illogic or faulty assumptions become their own undoing. In the same way evidence has piled on to buttress the case for anthropogenic climate change, data is also reducing fears and highlighting positive attributes of solutions that were rejected out of hand a few years ago: nuclear energy, biotech, industrial agriculture and population growth.Stewart Brand has become a heretic to environmentalism, a movement he helped found, but he doesn’t plan to be isolated for long. He expects that environmentalists will soon share his affection for nuclear power. They’ll lose their fear of population growth and start appreciating sprawling megacities. They’ll stop worrying about “frankenfoods” and embrace genetic engineering. [More]
Brand is simply one example of a committed environmentalist coming to terms with pragmatic solutions. At the Commodity Classic last week (from which your blogger is slowly recovering) during the General Session, Greenspirit spokeman Tom Tevlin offered similar observations about how the environmental movement, as it gains adherents is evolving to a more mature, and realistic approach - at least away from the fringes.Farmers can help this process, I believe, by avoiding the loaded language and assumptions before we hear from environmentalists. We don't improve communication by habitually referring to "tree-huggers" and "eco-nuts". Remember, our teeth are set on edge by labels like "factory farms" (although I find it OK) and "chemical farming".To solve the environmental problems we are facing will require all of us to consider what we will allow In My Back Yard, as well as what we won't. It will also mean taking responsibility for our actions individually and as a profession and being willing to submit to objective standards even when the science does not favor our position.Brand offers a cheerful example of how public figures can acknowledge previous positions and move on to new opinions even in the face of withering derision of "flip-flopping". (Of course, sometimes such heckling can be valid criticism.)“It is one of the great revelatory bets,” he now says. “Any time that people are forced to acknowledge publicly that they’re wrong, it’s really good for the commonweal. I love to be busted for apocalyptic proclamations that turned out to be 180 degrees wrong. In 1973 I thought the energy crisis was so intolerable that we’d have police on the streets by Christmas. The times I’ve been wrong is when I assume there’s a brittleness in a complex system that turns out to be way more resilient than I thought.” Agriculture could do worse than embracing similar flexibility and above avoiding any hint of gloating on these issues. Our environmental choices have been made based on real data and our best estimate of the truth. Time will mostly prove us right as opponents gradually discover. Simple patience and humility could enable us to add to our ally list and speed resolution of pending problems.Labels: energy, environment, population, science
More on the environment and evangelicalism...[This is a re-post from March 2006]Two interesting developments in the area of environmental thought seem to be on a collision course. Green advocates have evolved their passion into something resembling a religion, and religion is taking another look at stewardship.Just as the complexity of environmental issues is a barrier to hasty and uncritical statements by evangelical leaders, neither can this complexity be an excuse for Christians to remain silent about God's wonderful gift of creation. In this way, evangelical environmentalism can be a biblically-sound, politically-informed approach to the task of Christian stewardship. [More] Of course it need not be a collision - it could be more of a meeting on common ground, where both sides speak with respect and listen to each ohter's point of view before judging.It could, too.
Labels: environment, religion
Farm policy from the pulpit...I had posted before about the seemingly odd dialog between evangelicals and environmentalists. A reader asked about my definition of "evangelical". I do not purport to be the "decider" of the meaning, but will use what I believe to be the common understanding of the word.Evangelical as it is commonly used today refers to a particular segment of Christians:John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, found in the 2004 American Religious Landscape Report [1] that despite many variations, evangelicals in the United States generally adhere to four core beliefs: - Biblical inerrancy
- Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus and not good works. (in particular the belief in atonement [2] for sins at the cross and the resurrection [3] of Christ)
- Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation.
- All Christians are commissioned to evangelize and should be publicly baptized [4] as a confession of faith.
In regard to "Biblical inerrancy", a notable American summit on Bible inerrancy was held in Chicago in 1978. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed by nearly 300 noted American evangelical scholars (see main article). There is no absolute consensus among evangelicals regarding Biblical inerrancy; however there is a general acceptance of Biblical authority. [More]
My personal beliefs are not far from the above with the exception of Biblical inerrancy. I respect and read the Bible. I choose not to worship it, considering such as a form of idolatry. [BTW - I have started listening to lectures from Great Courses during my 3 hour commute each week to South Bend to tape US Farm Report. I have just ordered "The Story of the Bible". I'll let you know what I think after I get into it.]Evangelicals have become a political force, especially within the conservative wing of the Republican party. Indeed, what was formerly (pre-1980 or so) as religious classification of believers dedicated to evangelizing, that is converting non-believers, became a cohesive body whose major concern was to enforce the conduct of personal life in accordance with proscribed rules. The ability of Karl Rove to mobilize and motivate this group helped them become the most important electoral faction for the Republican party.In fact, some critics charge, and I tend to agree, that the politics has become the core issue, not the religion. Andrew Sullivan coined the term "christianist" to indicate the politicization of belief. The evangelical movement is led by strong voices like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and to a decreasing extent, the slightly loopy Pat Robertson.I am not attracted to nor convinced by their thundering broadsides of sanctimonious cant against abortion, homosexuality, or evolution. Evangelicals in turn tend to despise those of us who have doubts about our faith, but are struggling to apply it to our lives nonetheless.In recent years, the evangelical movement has raised some more moderate voices, notably Pastor Rick Warren, the famed author of "The Purpose-Driven Life". I find this development and this new ministry approach encouraging. The biggest difference for me and self-described evangelicals seems to be I strongly support their right to disagree with me, and I am willing to entertain the thought that on some matters they may be right. Evangelicals for the most part cannot reciprocate that sentiment.Which gets us finally to farm policy. While the Evangelical Lutheran Church (one example known to me) has long been involved in farm policy debate, the more political evangelicals have had little time for non-core issues. That may be changing, thanks to the linkage between environmentalism and farm policy.The mellowing of evangelical Christianity may well be the big American religious story of this decade. The evolution of the evangelical movement should not be confused with the rise of a religious left. Although the margin of the Republican Party's advantage among white evangelicals is likely to decline from its exceptionally high level in the 2004 election, a substantial majority of white evangelicals will probably remain conservative and continue to vote Republican. But the evangelical political agenda is broadening as new voices insist on the urgency of issues such as Third World poverty and the fights against AIDS and human trafficking. Among the most prominent advocates for a wider view of Christian obligation is Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., and author of "The Purpose Driven Life." In the meantime, Rich Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (and a self-described "Ronald Reagan movement conservative"), has been a leader in urging evangelicals to make environmental stewardship a central element of their political mission. This has earned him attacks from such prominent leaders on the Christian right as James Dobson. [More]
Note also the issue of Third World poverty. Relief groups such as Oxfam have made strong cases that our farm subsidies contribute to poverty in poor countries. Now attach that concern to people who contribute time, money and prayer to mission work, and you have perhaps the seeds for change among those who formerly did not care much whether I got an LDP or not.
One of those listening on Bono's speaking tour was Shayne Moore, a 35-year-old mother of three in Wheaton, Illinois. Ms. Moore, a graduate of Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian school near Chicago, says she "couldn't figure out what my conservative alma mater was doing giving Bono a voice." But "that night changed my life. Bono said something like, 'Politicians get nervous when rock stars and soccer moms get involved.' Well, I thought, I'm a soccer mom." She traveled to Honduras and Kenya at her own expense, and also to last summer's meeting in Scotland of the leaders of the countries known as the Group of Eight, a trip that was paid for by aid groups. Back home, she tells groups what she has seen. "The person picking cotton in rags is just as important as the person picking cotton in an awesome combine," she says in an interview. "I don't begrudge him the awesome combine, but not at the expense of the farmer in rags." [More]
While some see this newfound global concern as temporary - a distraction from the goal of returning America to godly living - others view it as a maturation of belief, or even a true effort to attend Scripture and apply it to our lives.To be sure the environmental movement is morphing at the edges into something like a religion. The strange (to me) Gaia hypothesis is typical of a kind of nature reverence that is profoundly appealing in our technological world. I cannot see these two groups truly bonding, but I can see their individual influences complementing each other politically. They need not merge to be effective. My personal conjecture is that concern for the environment and other people could prove to be an entry to faith, rather than a distraction for believers. At any rate, it certainly should rank low as a threat to Christians.The test will come when from rural pulpits convicted Christian leaders mention the farm bill the same way they do other matters of social justice. Regardless of which side of the farm bill debate you are on, it will introduce a new influence into the discussion.Labels: environment, farm bill, religion
Blurring the lines...Back in the day, you knew who was on what side. Conservatives - especially evangelicals - were over here, and Birkenstock-wearing eco-loonies were over there. Not any more.DALLAS — Texas' largest Baptist group is taking a rare step into environmental advocacy, working to block Gov. Rick Perry's plan to speed the approval process for 18 new coal-fired power plants. The Christian Life Commission, the public policy arm of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, is mobilizing Baptists against the coal-fired plants and urging the convention's 2.3 million members to voice their opposition to state lawmakers. "A lot of people felt like our industries, our policy leaders, are going to take care of these big issues like air quality, (and) it's not going to be something our local people are going to have to get up every day and worry about," said Suzii Paynter, director of the commission. "It can't be left to big interests to make these decisions in our behalf." The Baptists stress that they are not jumping into full-blown activism, but even a small move toward environmentalism is significant. [More]
Nor is this an isolated example. Neither should we find it particularly surprising.Indeed, the surprise isn’t that environmentalists and evangelicals might find common ground. It’s that we haven’t noticed how much common ground they’ve long shared. Evangelicalism and environmentalism are global movements of activists concerned about the salvation of the world through both social action and individual conversion. They also share that peculiar mix of cynicism about current social practices and optimism about transforming those practices through faith, reason and hard work that is found in all idealists.
The question both groups must take up is whether idealism is adequate to the task of addressing the problems of global warming, environmental degradation and species extinction. After all, whether any of us would use either label to describe ourselves, the vast majority of us think recycling is generally a good idea—though we’re still likely to throw that empty soda can into the trash. Our problem isn’t that we disagree with the goals of environmental health; it’s that our actions don’t necessarily lead toward achieving them. So if environmentalists and evangelicals really want to do something together, they might think less about convincing us about what we ought to do and more about motivating us to do it. [More]
Voting groups rarely stay put for any length of time. The collective action of millions of people is observed like poeple watching water vapor molecules in the sky. Look, we say, it's a pony. But minutes later it's a map of Florida.
Many who were firmly on the right are re-examining their beliefs. And many of us are shifting our vote on what is really, really important. This fluidity is what excites the media because if few ever changed their minds, what would be the point in persuasive prose?
The success of evangelical churches leads them to similar but not identical paths as older faith bodies. The issues of the world eventually have to be addressed - even those fraught with controversy. When pastors like Rick Warren lead believers to discuss our response as Christians to creation, he fulfilling the duties of all leaders: to confront the challenges they feel are most important to their followers.
This will not occur without cost. Already the evangelical movement is struggling with the politics of environmentalism. My guess is several leaders like James Dobson would just as soon take pass on global warming and concentrate on issues like gay marriage.
It will be interesting to watch which shepherds the flock follows.
Labels: environment, politics, religion
I think we can label this "bad press"...A searing indictment of Smithfield Farms ran in the Rolling Stone magazine. Not pretty. We climb to 2,000 feet and head toward the densest concentration of hogs in the world. The landscape at first is unsuspiciously pastoral -- fields planted in corn or soybeans or cotton, tree lines staking creeks, a few unincorporated villages of prefab houses. But then we arrive at the global locus of hog farming, and the countryside turns into an immense subdivision for pigs. Hog farms that contract with Smithfield differ slightly in dimension but otherwise look identical: parallel rows of six, eight or twelve one-story hog houses, some nearly the size of a football field, containing as many as 10,000 hogs, and backing onto a single large lagoon. From the air I see that the lagoons come in two shades of pink: dark or Pepto Bismol -- vile, freaky colors in the middle of green farmland. From the plane, Smithfield's farms replicate one another as far as I can see in every direction. Visibility is about four miles. I count the lagoons. There are 103. That works out to at least 50,000 hogs per square mile. You could fly for an hour, Dove says, and all you would see is corporate hog operations, with little towns of modular homes and a few family farms pinioned amid them. The viewpoint is far from even-handed, and the language is masterfully accusatory. However, discounting these fully still yields a pile of bad news and worse projections. Most troubling to me is the concluding paragraph about plans for Eastern Europe. When Joseph Luter entered Poland, he announced that he planned to turn the country into the "Iowa of Europe." Iowa has always been America's biggest hog producer and remains the nation's chief icon of hog farming. Having subdued Poland, Luter announced this summer that all of Eastern Europe -- "particularly Romania" -- should become the "Iowa of Europe." Seventy-five percent of Romania's hogs currently come from household farms. Over the next five years, Smithfield plans to spend $800 million in Romania to change that. Even though I consider myself an industrial farmer, I support strong efforts to control environmental externalities caused by CAFO's (or any agricultural activity). We can find other methods of husbandry and we can endure higher meat costs to fund them.States like North Carolina have the right to manage such economic activity as they choose, but they may be surprised what the increasing population density on the East Coast can do even against powerful business interests.
Labels: environment, pork
Refuting the Gospel of Helplessness...I use the label for the apocalyptic philosophies so prevalent today but so short on evidence. The Gospel of Helplessness is also the undergirding of our farm policy - farmers are incapable of coping with reality or creating their own future. That aspect of the Gospel has now become agri-dogma.The GOH also extends to matters environmental. It is not useful to merely attack the adherents as wrong-headed, some alternative vision should be offered. Here is an excellent view on humans and the environment and how we are creating a future very different from the GOH:The logic for Reversal and Restoration is obvious and deep. Intelligent humanity made revolutions in productivity sweep all industries in the 20th century. We now stamp out cars like tin ducks and microchips too. Unnoticed by many, revolutions in productivity also penetrated forestry and farming. Combined with more efficient production chains and changes in consumer taste, rising yields began to allow us to meet demand for food, fiber, and fuel while using less land: the Great Reversal. The enlarging forests and abandoned farms in the US and in many other nations show it. Because cities will take a few hundred million hectares more land for the 10 billion people of 2070, we need the Reversal to spread to more nations and for it to extend into a Great Restoration. In the US, foresters may offer 70 million hectares for nature and farmers that much or more. The net effect should be to allow a restoration of nature on land in the US exceeding the size of 100 Yellowstone National Parks or twice the area of Spain. Regional and national case studies could build a global picture. Reflecting the diffusion of productivity through industries around the world, the Great Reversal will surely happen at different times in different places and with different potential. Setting goals, such as a 300 million hectare or 10% expansion of the world's forest area by 2070, may help. Accomplishing the Great Restoration is the work of the 21st century for foresters, farmers, scientists, engineers, and all the other participants in the wood and food businesses. While avoiding the dangers of intensive cultivation, wise humanity can lift average yields toward the present limits and lift the limits even more. By sparing cropland, we can also spare water and nitrogen.
Malthusians are simply wrong. And for all the hatred extended to it by its beneficiaries technology continues to solve problems, increase productivity and improve lives - even correcting its own errors along the way.
And if we don't, I think life on Earth will find a way to adjust to that failure as well.
If you want a more bucolic version of the ecological future, consult a paleontologist. The paleontologists look further into the future to a time when the great evolutionary opportunities are not agricultural habitats, but are, instead, vast forests—to a time when the seas are again filled with large species—to a time when new large vertebrates roam new kinds of plains. They look forward in time to a world more interesting to us than our present evolutionary future. The paleontologists can do all this because they begin their discussions of future evolution with the statement, "once humans go extinct." [More]
Labels: environment, future
Beef - it's what's in the cross hairs...Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry. For example, consider this headline from Green Business News:Miliband muses on farm farts banand this excerpt:While it is unlikely that this will result in a "fart-tax" with civil servants chasing cows round with breathalyzer style methane measurers, Miliband did argue that farmers should act to reduce methane emissions by feeding cattle different food, breeding them to live longer, altering the handling of manure and getting farms to generate "biogas" or "biofertiliser" from animal waste. Extending the polluter pays principle to farming would likely lead to higher food prices, but Miliband insisted that climate change could provide an opportunity for farmers, as it has done in other sectors. [More] [My emphasis]
No, this is not some sophomoric humor rag, but a serious report on a speech in the UK. After we pause for rude jokes, I'll point out what did trigger some speculation on my part.The "polluter pays" principle is popping up more often in environmental discussions. I'm not sure I disagree. It is a straightforward way to get the cost of externalities included in the price of consumer goods.Oddly, the polluter-pays principle is accepted by both sides of the environmental issue. The right seeks to define it in terms of private property:A correct interpretation of the polluter pays principle would detine pollution as any byproduct of a
production or consumption process that harms or otherwise violates the property rights of others. The
polluter would be the person, company, or other organization whose activities are generating that byproduct. And finally, payment should equal the damage and be made to the person or persons being
harmed.
Inanimate objects and the environment do not incur costs, people: do. It is not merely the physical
property that is being damaged, but the interests of the owner. However, most advocates of PPP rarely
talk about harm to people. Instead, they misappropriate the economic theory by redetining the concepts
of cost and damage to apply to things rather than to people. The statement above is typical. Polluters
are said to be those who “damage” or impose “costs” on the environment. [More]
The more familiar version of this axiom accords more rights to the the physical world itself. That is where it gets tricky. As long as my actions on my property do no measurable harm to anyone else, am I polluting? Can I cut down all the trees and re-shape the land to suit?Strong property rights advocates have held this position for some time, but technology is catching up with them. Just as with the "cow-emissions" stories, we are now able to measure many more forms of "pollution" than before. And doubtless, attorneys are working to use those measurements to demonstrate downstream "harm" that would make recovery of damages legitimate - and the effort billable.So like many private property defenders, I'm thinking this is a good time to begin negotiations before all the effects of my activities can be traced clearly back to me. (At a visit Tuesday at the EPA, I learned of efforts to use bacteria-tracing to see whose animal doodoo is in the creek). For environmentalists, accommodation is not such a bad idea either, as we have now had enough examples of polluters simply committing corporate suicide (bankruptcy) when challenged adversarially.But back to the cows. As global warming unmistakably gathers momentum, I expect some of these now-silly ideas to be translated into costs for cattlemen. Either manure digesters or feedlot size limits or feed restrictions - the possibilities are significant.Now add in feed cost increases due to an escalating market demand for corn. (We are finding out DDG's are not the simple substitute for corn, BTW). Corn farmers could be the unwitting tools of animal activists who want to decrease meat consumption. Some health advocates would likely be smiling as beef prices especially escalate beyond frequent consumption range from most budgets.So do I think the beef industry is doomed? Oddly, I believe, not here in the US. Beef prices (retail) will rise, and consumption may stagnate, but our beef industry could still emerge strong if it is the best global competitor for the beef consumer dollar. Other producers/packers will have to battle our scale, efficiency and brand power to maintain market share.Still corn producer's fickle abandonment of their long-time #1 customer - the cow - is short-sighted. The problem is serious for poultry and hogs, but the feed-conversion ratios suggest that beef could be the hardest hit.On top of all that, factor the loss of grazing ground from conversion of CRP acres. Although that risk may be overstated.It may not be Marlboros that kill the cowboy - it could be corn farmers.
Labels: beef, environment
US Farm Report host John Phipps surfs the Web so you don't have to...
|
