06-28-2006
The global-warming scientists who provided the data for this page's left column have not yet updated their annual average carbon-dioxide (C02) level for 2005 (I keep checking).
These atmospheric C02 levels derive from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The CO2 record is particularly reliable because of the pristine conditions for sampling chemicals in the air; there are not a lot of local polluters around, for instance, to distort the data. So what's the current CO2 level? Why should we care?
Due to the heightened recent attention paid to global warming, partly triggered by the crazy current weather conditions in the U.S. and the fine film "An Inconvenient Truth," I thought I'd snoop around the web for any CO2 data updates.
This BBC science article from March 2006 notes that the Mauna Loa reading for 2005 was about 381 parts per million (up from 377.38 ppm in 2004). This is a reasonably reliable data source to use as a point of reference, until the Scripps Institution of Oceanography provides the 2005 level on their web site.
These levels have steadily been going up since 1958, in recent years, by around two ppm per year. This means that we are roughly 10 years away from 400 ppm, a possible tipping point for positive feedback loops over which mankind has no control.
"Positive feedback" is a fancy way of referring to "global warming that itself generates more global warming."
As the earth heats up, permafrost melts, soils dry out, and more water evaporates from lakes and oceans. These tons of natural greenhouse-gas emissions in turn amplify global warming, no matter what CO2 levels mankind itself emits. In addition, the melting North Pole ice causes far less of the sun's energy to reflect back into space, representing another feedback mechanism of great concern.
It is impossible to determine an exact CO2 ppm threshold at which "run away" global warming occurs; a bit like estimating how many cigarettes a person has to smoke in a lifetime before they get lung cancer.
A January 2005 international scientific report, however, estimated a "point of no return" average global temperature increase of two degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels (about 3.6 degrees F.). The report associated this temperature increase with a CO2 level of about 400 ppm, according to Jeremy Leggett's book The Empty Tank (pages 76-77).
So we have about 19 ppm to go, probably less than ten years. It's a vital target for mankind to avoid.
06-14-2006
The basis of civilization rests with the ability of farmers to generate a surplus of food to support the non-farmers in their midst. This point is underlined by Jared Diamond's very good book Collapse, which really is not as gloom-and-doom as it sounds.
The book depicts various examples of decision-making over the course of history, good and bad, in terms of managing civilization's life-support system (the local ecology) and dealing with climate change. In the U.S., on average, every farmer supports about 125 other people, including overseas folks who eat our exported food (page 164 of Collapse). Farmers represent only two percent of our population. You could think of most citizens like me, a writer and software developer, as parasites on the farmers, Diamond points out.
Industrial processes based on the use of fossil fuels as feed stocks for fertilizers, as well as the global economy, have revolutionized food production. This is the reason I can walk into my local supermarket and be overwhelmed by abundance and variety, including apples that were grown thousands of miles away in Chile. There is obviously nothing bad at all about a tremendous variety of healthy foods, which I then bring home to my family. Except for the fact that it is in all likelihood a fool's paradise.
The massive production and transportation of food in the U.S. is entirely dependent on readily available and cheap fossil fuels like natural gas and oil. I won't belabor the point that we essentially eat oil (Google that phrase, and then sample the articles).
Now that we are in all probability facing permanent oil depletion, and its consequent effects on long-distance food production and transportation, it becomes imperative to love and patronize your local organic farms.
I found it interesting that one of the only local farms in my area of the world (north of Boston, Massachusetts, USA) that was not significantly affected by the flooding rains we just experienced was Cider Hill Farm in Amesbury, MA. This is because they are growing vegetables in greenhouses, rather than depend upon the fickle and changing external climate to grow food. Smart!
Another smart decision is to erect at least one wind turbine on their property to begin generating some of their own energy. I just got back from Cider Hill; you can bet that I will be supporting them and other local farms as much as I can over the years.
In a crisis, citizens become entirely dependent for essential calories on their own ability to grow and store food, and on their local farms. What happens if the main supermarket in town shutters for a long period? I have already scanned the headlines about some food-trucking companies living on the margins due to $3 per gallon gas; what about the effect of $10 per gallon? For a few harrowing and real-world accounts of other advanced civilizations that made bad decisions, cautionary tales, pick up a copy of the book Collapse.
06-13-2006
When you turn on a light bulb in your home, where is that electricity coming from? Our electricity is ultimately not generated in Massachusetts, that's for sure. In fact, a portion of the natural gas from which in part electricity is generated in New England derives from Trinidad and Algeria, according to a Boston Globe article. This is a dangerous overseas inter-dependence that we all too familiar with in the oil realm, particularly when it involves something so basic as turning on a light or heating up a pot of water.
New England's electricity, specifically, derives from 44 percent oil and gas, 33 percent nuclear, 11 percent coal, and then from sources like the burning of trash. The fossil fuels, that 44 percent, are increasingly imported from far overseas. Obviously this unsustainable and unreliable mix must change.
Other than generating your own electricity with wind and solar, what else can you do? One alternative I've opted for is called New England GreenStart. You pay a little extra on your utility bill; about 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), and the power company must match the electricity generation associated with your monthly usage with 100 percent local, renewable sources.
GreenStart represents an abstraction that is similar to carbon off-sets or even a automobile gas tax. I do not have a 100 percent guarantee that the electricity I use derives from small hydropower, wind, and solar. All of the electricity generated for New England, including dirty sources like coal, oil, and natural gas, goes into a giant pool from which my house derives its power.
The utility, however, must derive a portion of its power that matches the investment that consumers are making, via their utility bills, in renewable energy.
The cost to me? Last month we consumed 893 KWh. This represented an extra $21 invested in GreenStart-related renewables. An option exists to participate in 50 percent GreenStart, which makes the investment $12 per month (a couple of Starbucks coffees?). If no one participated in GreenStart, the thinking goes, then the power utility would use far fewer renewables, because wind, solar, or small hydropower still cannot compete on price with dirty and imported energy resources, like oil.
So whereas I cannot walk around with my head held high and claim that most of my electricity, beyond a shadow of a doubt, comes from small hydro and wind; we can point out that in the aggregate, with other GreenStart participants, we're making a big effort to invest in Massachusetts renewables.
Now, on to the local solar installation I was working on...
06-02-2006
An intriguing study of deep sub-sea Arctic sediment, as written about in a June 1, 2006 New York Times article, lends even more credence to the weight of evidence pointing to the link between greenhouse gases and average global temperature.
The study found that about 56 million years ago the Arctic had tropical conditions. These high temperatures were associated with an atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 2,000 parts per million (ppm).
The scientists can only speculate about what caused these high concentrations; perhaps a disruptive geological event that released methane hydrates from the deep ocean. Today, the CO2 concentration is about 380 ppm and steadily rising. This is another study that can help put to rest the wishful notion that the tilting of the earth's orbit and other planetary factors, which conveniently let the human race and the American lifestyle off the hook, are causing global warming, and not excess greenhouse gases like CO2.