Archive for May, 2008

More Insanity from Our Political ‘Leaders’

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

By David L. Brown

Yesterday I wrote about the members of our hapless Congress and their almost complete inability to do anything but point fingers of blame and politicize everything under the Sun while posturing for the TV cameras and trying to take credit for all kinds of phony BS. I was focusing on the “problem” of high gas prices, something that is the result of natural economic forces.

The Oil Peak, no matter how much everyone seems to want to deny it like ostriches with their heads in the sand, has almost certainly arrived. World oil production can no longer rise to meet demand, and according to a basic law of economics, when demand rises beyond the available supply, the price will be bid up until the demand is quenched. It is as sure as the morning sunrise, and there is nothing that can be done about it except to either pay the price or forego buying the product.

Now I read that the members of our House of Representatives have voted 324 to 84 in favor of taking direct action to deal with $4 gasoline. The action they demand (and remember that most members of the House are attorneys) is to sue the bastards. Actually, to sue the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to force them to turn back the clock and make the good times roll again with lots of cheap oil.

Unfortunately, some legislators seem to think they have the power to change even the laws of economics and nature through the power of legislation. I am reminded of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of a Tennessee state representative some years ago who is alleged to have introduced a bill to change the value of the mathematical number Pi from an inconvenient irrational figure (3.14159….) to the nice round figure 3.00. (That apparently didn’t get too far, although it might even be taught in some schools today alongside intelligent design, but never mind.) It’s a great idea, since it makes it much easier to calculate the area of a circle (although somewhat inaccurately) and easily perform other otherwise difficult math calculations. If only legislators could actually change natural laws, what a wonderful world it would be.

Don’t worry, the Congressmen who have voted to sue OPEC probably don’t really think that will do any good — they just want to impress the clueless voters back home so that they will keep on returning them to office term after term. It’s all about politics as usual and keeping the old Pork flowing to the dulcet sounds of “Roll Out the Barrel” played by a quartet of kazoos and jew’s harps. And if you can’t provide those barrels of pork, just spread blame about something and pretend to be solving insoluble problems.

Somehow I am on the email list of Sen. Mitch McConnell, and he wrote to me today about the subject of high gas prices. McConnell is one of those few legislators who wants to do something concrete about the problem of declining oil resources. A bill he has drafted (S.2958, the American Energy Production Act) would, in the words of his email: “increase domestic exploration for oil, encourage the development of alternative energy sources, and create good jobs here in America — all while lowering energy costs.”

Sounds like a good idea, right? Spot-on I’d say, but wait…

“Unfortunately,” Sen. McConnell adds, “the last time I introduced this bill, partisanship reared its ugly head and only one Democrat voted for it.”

McConnell is a Republican, you see, and in our Congress total war has been declared between the two parties. Nevermind that all of them, whether Democrat or Republican, have (theoretically) been elected to represent the collective best interests of the American people. But no, most of them are there representing the best interests of, first themselves, and second their sacred political parties, all with the solid support of lobbyists and special interest groups that provide a flood of money and perks.

This is an atrocity and most Americans know it. Today, according to a running opinion poll, just 18.4 percent of our citizenry approve of the Congress, while 75 percent disapprove. It might surprise you to learn that the same poll shows George W. Bush with a 30.8 percent approval rating. Congress, it seems, is viewed somewhere down there in the same general stratum as sleazy used car salesmen, prostitutes, industry flacks and drug dealers.

To paraphrase Henry Higgins, why can’t a politician be more like a human being? These are supposed to be the leaders of our nation, and they act like participants in a barroom brawl, a race riot, or a guerrilla war. When is it going to end? Well, we know the answer don’t we, and that is that members of Congress are destined to continue to play politics as usual until there is nothing left of our country to fight over.

So we know that suing OPEC won’t do anything except to produce sound bites and electioneering snippets for politicians. After all, OPEC has no control over how much oil is left in the ground or how difficult it will be to extract, or what the demand will be from emerging economies such as China that have mega-bucks to spend on the stuff. Sadly, though, the facts have been there all along for anyone to see, whether politician, oil mogul, Arab sheik or government economist. It was spelled out by M. King Hubbert over a half century ago when he accurately predicted Peak Oil. But was he listened to? No, he was treated like one of those mentally deranged individuals who used to walk around wearing sandwich boards declaring that the end of the world is nigh. Nobody wanted to have him raining on their parade!

Well, Hubbert wasn’t deranged and now that the end really is nigh for cheap and plentiful oil, our political leaders can do nothing but point fingers at the opposite party, the administration, the Arabs, and that suspicious looking man over there behind the tree. Sigh. Sometimes it makes you feel like shedding tears for the future of our nation.

As my readers know, I am a contrarian who believes that we actually need these higher oil prices. We need them because otherwise there will never be any significant change until it is far too late — no rapid movement toward renewable and alternate energy sources, no premium on efficiency and conservation, no massive investments in future energy security. Unless those changes are made (and it is far past time already), the world economy and especially that of the United States would run off a cliff. It may already be too late to turn things around, but at least the incentive is now there in the form of higher oil prices.

Four dollar gas is a strong signal for our nation to get moving with change. Five dollar gas will be an even clearer sign, and at six, seven or eight dollars we will really know that the good times are over at last. Meanwhile, will Congress still be pointing fingers, laying blame on everybody and their crazy uncles, and crafting faux solutions aimed at getting sound bites on the evening news? Well, yeah. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said long ago that “nothing changes but change itself.” In Congress, not even change seems to change; it just keeps rebooting itself in the same endless pattern of corruption and conceit — and nothing is ever their fault, it’s always the other guy.

Pork Pushing Pols Punish Petroleum Peddlers

Monday, May 26th, 2008

By David L. Brown

Congress recently raked oil company executives over the coals about high oil prices. I am not entirely sympathetic toward the Lords of Big Oil, but to see members of Congress pandering for the cameras while pointing fingers at the oil companies, the Bush administration, and anyone else except themselves is, well, just disgusting.

The oil biggies made a pretty spirited attempt to defend themselves, pointing out that it is that very Congress that has passed law after law to prevent oil exploration and development across our fair land. And this illustration shows the percentages of present gas prices that are due to oil company profits vs. government taxes on average. The rest, of course, comes from the underlying world price of oil, which is a fungible natural resource that is immune to local price control and for the most part in the hands of greedy OPEC member states.

1exxon.jpg

It’s easy to see that if we are going to point fingers about high gas prices, the supposedly greedy oil companies are not exactly acting the role of Jesse James or Pretty Boy Floyd here. In fact, the costs of buying, transporting, refining, delivering and marketing the oil as gasoline are enormous, and the largest share of all goes into the pockets of the America-hating thugs that run places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.

It was our Congress that not only has systematically blocked development of oil resources here at home, but has also allowed Big Auto to slip through a convenient loophole in the CAFE mileage standards to keep producing gas guzzling SUVs labeled as “light trucks.” It is also the same Congress that has failed to fully support research and development of alternative energy systems, that has consistently voted to support evil regimes such as the Saudis, and that has hindered efforts to respond to the threat of global warming that is in large part due to the excessive reliance on fossil fuels to power our economy.

In its typical fashion, Congress seems inspired to punish Big Oil for high gas prices by decreeing special “windfall profit” taxes. Gosh, how will the oil companies pay for that? Well, perhaps by reducing their investments in developing more efficient systems, alternative energy, or undertaking other forward looking initiatives. Or, most likely, by raising prices even more to pass along the cost to consumers. Oh, perhaps the all-wise Congress will see that one coming and pass a law preventing them from passing along the tax. Then Big Oil will definitely have to cut back on R&D, or possibly give up their profits and go into bankruptcy. That will solve a lot of problems — not!

The only winner here will be the members of Congress, who will earn plaudits from naive voters while getting their greedy trotters on even more money to squander on Pork Barrel programs aimed at impressing even more voters in an endless cycle of political chicanery.

(more…)

Asking the Right Questions About Global Warming

Sunday, May 25th, 2008

By David L. Brown

What are the right answers to global warming and climate change? It depends on what questions are asked — and even more important, how the questions are structured. Vague or what might be called partial questions can bring forth what may seem to be correct answers that are still far off the mark.

To illustrate this, let me weave a little story borrowing some familiar characters (apologies to J.K. Rowling).

It is a fine Tuesday morning at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Professor MacGonagall, dressed in her long green robes, is standing before an attentive Transfiguration class of fourth year students.

“Successful transfiguration requires a clear knowledge of how things are put together,” she says. “To test your knowledge of human anatomy, here is a question for you: How many spaces are there between your toes?”

“Blimey,” says Ron, sticking up his hand. “That’s an easy one.”

“Yes, Weasley?” Professor MacGonagall recognizes him.

“There are four spaces between my five toes,” Ron announces with a grin. But his face falls as Professor MacGonagall shakes her head and tells him that his answer is incorrect.

Smirking, Harry raises his hand and provides what he is certain is the correct answer. “There are eight spaces between my toes,” he asserts triumphantly, elbowing Ron in the ribs and whispering “You’ve got two feet, you moron!”

But MacGonagall is shaking her head again. “No, Potter, that is not the correct answer.” Harry’s jaw drops as Ron elbows him back with a snicker.

Now Hermione raises her hand, giving Ron and Harry a superior glance.

“Yes Miss Grainger,” says Professor MacGonagall. “What is your answer?”

“There are nine spaces between my toes,” Hermione says. The class reacts with looks of surprise and a few giggles that travel around the room; Draco Malfoy snorts loudly. But the room grows quiet again as Professor MacGonagall smiles and nods.

“Please explain how you arrived at the correct answer,” she asks Hermione.

“It’s simple, Professor,” replies Hermione proudly. “There are four spaces between the toes on each of my feet, and one space between the toes of my left foot and my right foot. That is a total of nine.”

“Very good Hermione,” says Professor MacGonagall. “Ten points for Gryffindor.”

The lesson in this little story is that to get the right answers, you need to ask the right questions because Hermione won’t always be available to see through the confusion and straighten you out. The broad spectrum of mistaken ideas about global warming seems to suffer under a Confundus Charm (to continue our analogy) because people keep asking the wrong questions, asking confusing half-questions, or asking questions that completely miss the point.

(more…)

Flying the Unfriendly Skies into Oblivion

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

By David L. Brown

The stark headline on the BBC web site read “Oil hits $100 barrel.” For months, even years that moment had been feared and awaited with trepidation, not least by the airline industry with its enormous appetite for fossil fuels and a market that could not survive significant increases in fares. And at last the unthinkable had happened.

And the historic date when that hundred dollar benchmark was passed? January 2, 2008, just a few months ago.

As we entered this epochal New Year, it didn’t seem that it could get any worse than that … and yet today crude oil hit the $135 mark and seems poised to continue to rise.

For a long time I have marveled at the blind chutzpah of the airlines, an industry that continued to expand, investing in new and bigger planes, cycling more and more capital into a business model that absolutely depended on the continuation of cheap and plentiful oil far into the future. A jet aircraft is not a short-term investment, particularly the latest generations of planes such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the massive A380 double-decker from Airbus that are now coming down the supply pipeline. Yes, the newest planes will be somewhat more fuel efficient, but they still suck jet fuel like a Hoover sucks dirt. Here is a pie chart that illustrates the huge operating costs of running an airline:

airlinecosts.jpg

With Peak Oil looming, how could the managers of those airlines be so certain that there would be a future for their metal birds, that the continuing flood of passengers would grow larger each year, and that they could continue to offer cheap and convenient travel? There is only one possible answer: They did not know, or did not believe, that oil would someday soon be in diminishing supply. They must have accepted the lies and duplicity of OPEC thieves and oil company executives who assured them there was plenty of oil and always would be. They brushed aside the voices of caution that warned that the future must be different, that a world that has run on oil would someday run out of oil.

Now the airlines are like deer in the headlights of an onrushing freight train. An article on the FoxBusiness.com web site today telegraphs its message in the headline: “$135 Oil Means Airline Bankruptcies Inevitable.” Yes, the specter of $100 per barrel oil just a few months ago was bad enough to send shudders down the backs of airline executives … so think how they must feel now? Here’s a sample from the Fox story:

“The airline industry as it is constituted today was not built to withstand oil prices at $125 a barrel, and certainly not when record fuel expenses are coupled with a weak U.S. economy,” said [American Airlines] Chairman and Chief Executive Gerard Arpey in a statement.

While passengers may complain about being nickeled and dimed by the airlines [for example, by charging $15 for each extra piece of checked luggage], industry executives and experts have said they have no choice. The cost of jet fuel is up 63% from a year ago, according to the Air Transport Association, a trade group.

“The race is on to see if airlines can raise fares high enough to cover the fuel bills before they run out of cash,” [Roger] King [an airline industry analyst] said.

Northwest and Delta executives said last month that fares must increase by as much as 20% this year to break even. That was when oil was $115 a barrel.

I have news for the airlines: They are screwed. The pinch of high fuel costs will strangle them because the more they are forced to raise their fares, the fewer people will choose to fly. As fewer people travel, the airlines will be flying with more empty seats. That will lead to a vicious circle that cycles ever downward. Tourism feeds on low-cost fares and it’s a good guess that people who are already struggling to keep their SUVs fueled are going to think twice about flying away to some exotic locale.

Business travel likewise will dwindle as profits fade and bean counters tighten up the reins on corporate spending. Airlines will be forced to take planes out of service, but the lease payments will continue and there will be no customers for the used fuel-guzzling craft. A kind of economic Armageddon awaits the airlines, an industry that built its edifice on the shifting sands of cheap and abundant oil and Arab lies.

(more…)

Glimpsing the Emerging New World

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

By David L. Brown

Yesterday saw oil prices break through the $130 mark and continue to climb without even a pause. This morning it had already advanced to $135. The trend is unlikely to reverse itself anytime soon, and probably never. That is because the evidence is mounting to support the idea that so-called Peak Oil has been reached.

Here is a map showing present gas pump prices in the U.S. as we enter the Memorial Day weekend, the classic start of the Summer vacation driving season:

052208_feelingpain.jpg

Yesterday I bought a fill-up of 87 octane regular gas at the nearby Shell station, and paid $3.699. Diesel was at $4.549, and the premium grade of gasoline was over four bucks. No doubt the next time I need fuel it will be significantly higher, considering the rising cost of crude. And I live in central New Mexico, which as you can see has been moderately hit by rising costs, especially compared to places such as California, Illinois, New York and other regions that are already in the red.

The world runs on petroleum, and the world is running out of petroleum. These are two irreconcilable facts that equate to an economic trainwreck of epic proportions. As we have discussed here at length, the problem has no easy solutions and, worse, it is creating new problems such as the looming famine as Third World countries discover there is not enough rice and wheat to go around. Guess who won’t get any? And the anger will be intense as starving people learn more about the atrocity being committed by the Lords of Ethanol as they turn corn into fake fuel.

I have stated before that higher oil prices are a good thing, because that is the only stimulus for America and the world to change from its addiction to cheap energy. But that optimism focuses on the long view; there is no doubt that serious disruption is and will continue to occur in the present. The problem is that we should have prepared for the End of Oil beginning about 40 years ago.

The signal is becoming strong enough to have a real effect now. I would venture that many Americans will be changing their Summer plans and sticking close to home. It would be an unfortunate thing to be the owner of a resort somewhere in a remote location.

The makers of big RVs are in real trouble. Only the very rich or the very stupid are going to invest in a behemoth of a vehicle that is lucky to get five miles per gallon when fuel prices are shooting up like a Fourth of July rocket. And owners of campgrounds are probably facing especially slim pickings this season as existing RVs remain parked.

Some analysts are predicting that oil will hit $200 per barrel, and that in the U.S. pump prices might eventually reach $8 or $9 per gallon. Now that would really create some havoc, especially for those who have unwisely purchased homes far away from their workplaces and invested in inefficient SUVs to make the commute. There are many in this situation, driving 40, 60, even 80 or more miles each way just to get to work. Imagine a 160 mile daily commute in a vehicle that gets 14 m.p.g. and with gas at, oh let’s just say $5 a gallon, a price we may reach very soon. The fuel cost alone would be $57 per day, $285 for a five-day week, well over a thousand dollars a month.

There is one positive thing, though, and that is that traffic will definitely be thinner. A lot of those cars, pickups, SUVs and big rig trucks that we are used to seeing clogging the highways will be parked somewhere. Bicycle sales will be soaring. Work-at-home jobs will be the gold standard of employment. Detroit will be in chaos, stuck with multi-billion dollar investments in assembly plants geared to producing “light trucks” that avoid the government fuel economy standards.

Take that commuter I mentioned above, with the 14 m.p.g vehicle. He or she would become pretty serious about buying an ultra-economical car. If they were to be driving a Prius that got 55 m.p.g., the daily fuel cost would be just $14.50 in my example. That would represent a saving of $42.50 a day, $212.50 a week, $850 a month. Pretty tempting. But those efficient vehicles are in short supply and it would take years for the major auto makers to develop and manufacture large numbers of more economical cars. Meanwhile, commuters will just have to suck it up.

Oh yes, there will be a different world, thanks to oil prices that make the profligate use of gas and diesel fuel no longer feasible for most Americans. The chaos in the meantime will be uncomfortable, to be sure, as we go through cold turkey withdrawal from the oil addiction. But at some point in the future, as we all become recovering oilaholics, the foundations will be laid for a sustainable energy future.

Economics and the Rabbit of Unreasonable Hope

Sunday, May 18th, 2008

By David L. Brown

Readers of this web site may have noticed that I sometimes have the effrontery to raise doubts about the soundness of economic thought. In general, economics pretty much appears to be a matter of simple common sense. And yet, in some instances economists make what seem to me to be irrational judgments based on patently unsound assumptions, reaching conclusions that are completely beyond the bounds of common sense.

A key example is the practice of refusing to accept the obvious physical fact that natural resources are not in infinite supply. Economists blithely assume that any resource that becomes depleted will immediately and seamlessly be replaced with an alternative that is just as good. This is posited as a basic tenet of economics. On that ground, economists have the arrogance to discount to zero any future asset, and then to build elaborate economic models on this quicksand of muddled reasoning. If future resources have no value, then they are “free” and nothing but good times must lie ahead.

Thomas Carlyle labeled economics as “the dismal science” and yet it is not a science at all but rather an amalgam of ideas relating to monetary and financial effects of capital combined with political philosophy. In fact, the field we now call economics was originally known as “political economy,” which gives us a strong clue to its non-scientific genealogy. Early practitioners of political economy included John Locke, David Ricardo, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

Another pioneer in the field, and the first person to be appointed as a professor of political economy in England, was none other than Thomas Malthus. It is his ideas about eventual limits to population that have kept Malthus’s name looming in the background of world events for more than two centuries. Simply stated, Malthus predicted that population would someday, inexorably, outstrip the ability of the planet to support the mass of human numbers.

Most interpretations of this Malthusian vision paint a dire picture of catastrophe. That is not entirely fair, for Malthus in actuality believed that natural forces would prevent human population from rising beyond the limits of agricultural production and that a natural balance would result. Despite that, it is an image of disaster that has been connected with his name. — and since it is in the interests of human peace of mind to deny bad news (i.e., by “killing the messenger”), it is not surprising that his theories have been ridiculed, discounted, and lampooned almost since he first published them in 1798.

It can be argued not only that Malthus had a point, but that the situation that now exists in the world is more dire by far than even Malthus himself could have foreseen. (As background to this discussion you might be interested in reading my essay “Malthus’s Classic ‘Essay on Population’ Revisited,” posted here October 29, 2006. I wrote that posting in the form of a book review after having read and dissected his work. As an aside, I have concluded that most, and perhaps nearly all of the people who refer to Malthus have not bothered to actually read his words, and that includes professional economists.)

Why should we be especially concerned about the danger of Malthusian disaster today? There are several key reasons, based on developments that Malthus could not have predicted. First is the emergence of industrial agriculture, based on the lavish use of energy to replace man- and horsepower as in Malthus’s times. The application of cheap oil, in particular, has made it possible to increase agricultural production in order to keep up with a soaring human population. Following World War II, the application of horticultural science made possible the so-called Green Revolution, even further expanding farm output and thus keeping food production ahead of the growing population.

Powered by cheap and abundant oil and improved plant and animal genetics, the world’s population has continued to climb and is now fast approaching seven billion. In numerical notation, that is 7,000,000,000, or seven thousand million — a very large number indeed, and one made possible only through the exploitation of limited natural resources to keep ramping up food production.

Another fact of which Malthus was unaware when he predicted that population and farm production would eventually come into equilibrium was the concept of overshoot-and-collapse. This phenomenon was first recognized by ecologists in various localized situations where populations of animals outgrew the sources of food available to them. The pattern was one of continued growth in numbers, culminating in a peak followed by a catastrophic decline. The same principle applies to analyses of failed human societies, such as the case of Easter Island or the vanished Mayan civilization of Central America.

(more…)

Are Humans the Earth’s Worst Enemy?

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

By David L. Brown

A new meta-study of climate change literature has delved into 30,000 different subjects and come to the conclusion that not only is global warming real but that “it is highly unlikely that any force but man-made climate change can be blamed.” The study appeared in the journal Nature and was reported on the United Kingdom’s Daily Telegraph newspaper web page yesterday (you can read it here.)

The study involved research reports dating back as far as 1970, concluding that “man was responsible for changes that ranged from the loss of ice sheets to the collapse in numbers of many species of wildlife.” The Telegraph news story continued:

“Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming world is causing impacts on physical and biological systems,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The effects on living things include the earlier appearance of leaves on trees and plants; the movement of animals and birds to more northerly latitudes and to higher altitudes in the northern hemisphere; rapid advances in flowering time and earlier egg-laying in Britain; and changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia.

On a planetary scale the changes include the melting of glaciers on all continents; earlier spring river run-off; and the warming of oceans, lakes and rivers.

The study analyzed data from published papers on 829 physical systems of the Earth, such as glaciers and ice sheets, and a staggering total of 28,800 plant and animal systems. The authors, including Ms. Rosenzweig and other specialists from ten institutions around the world, created a picture of the climate changes taking place on each of the world’s continents. They concluded that change was the most evident in North America, Asia and Europe, but concluded that was mainly because far more studies have been done in those regions. They called for more work in South America, Australia and Africa.

Here are brief highlights from the Telegraph report:

In North America, the researchers found that 89 species of plants were flowering earlier, such as the American holly and box elder maple; a decline in the population of polar bears; and the rapid melting of Alaskan glaciers.

In Europe, they found evidence of glaciers melting in the Alps; earlier pollen release in the Netherlands; and apple trees producing leaves 35 days earlier in Spain.

In Asia they reported a change in the freeze depth of permafrost in Russia; and the earlier flowering of ginkgo in Japan.

In Antarctica, the population of emperor penguins had declined by 50 per cent. In South America, the melting of the Patagonia ice-fields were contributing to a rise in sea levels.

The paper goes farther than last year’s report from the IPCC, stating unequivocally that climate change is the result of human actions, and that “natural climate variations cannot explain the changes to the Earth’s natural systems.”

Ominously, many climate scientists agree that although the changes that are being observed are significant, we may have seen only a hint of what is to come. As we have discussed here many times, the very real possibility exists for the climate to reach tipping points and feedback effects that could spin the planet into runaway change.

For example, last year’s IPCC report concluded that the Greenland Ice Sheet was unlikely to melt for up to 1000 years — and yet recent events hint that the ice could break up much faster. A large lake of meltwater on the surface of the mile-thick ice was recently observed to rapidly drain through a fissure, with water gushing down through the ice at a greater rate than Niagara Falls. There have been other hints that the ice sheet might not melt but rather break up into thousands of icebergs. In Antarctica, too, floating sea ice that has been stable for thousands of years has been breaking up and floating away, leaving flowing glaciers free to speed up their race to the sea.

There is no doubt that the Earth is in the throes of sudden and unprecedented change. We live in a perilous and challenging time, a time when the world as we know it may be approaching an end.

When Robert Frost wrote his well-known poem “Fire and Ice” I suspect that he had no inkling that the cataclysm on which he pondered could happen anytime soon. Of course his real subject was human foibles, using an end-of-the-world analogy. Here are his words:

Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

The analogy is interesting in light of recent developments, because the present prospects for climate change contain elements of all that he addresses. Fire, of course, in the sense of a planet growing warmer. And ice is playing a major role, too, not only in the disappearance of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice, but also for example if the Atlantic conveyor that cycles tropical heat to Western Europe should reverse and plunge that region into a new Ice Age while other parts of the planet heat up. And not to overlook human failings such as desire (in the sense of greed and avarice) and hate, which are not only part of the picture but as the new study concludes are critical to the entire unrolling environmental disaster.

And Frost was probably wrong because the world seems unlikely to end with dramatic special effects, but rather in the manner described by another famous 20th Century poet, T.S. Eliot, who wrote: “this is the way the world ends … not with a bang but a whimper.”

The headline for the Telegraph article tells it all: “Mankind is the Earth’s Biggest Threat.” What a fine mess we’ve made of our only home in the vast and majestic Universe.

Catch 22 and the Polar Bear’s Dilemma

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

By David L. Brown

It’s official — the U.S. Department of the Interior has added the polar bear to the list of endangered species. The story is here on the N.Y. Times news site, which reports:

…the long-delayed decision to list the bear as a threatened species may prove less of an impediment to industries along the Alaskan coast than many environmentalists had hoped. While further protecting the polar bear from direct or immediate threats — like hunting — the Interior Department added stipulations, seldom invoked under the act, that will make it relatively easy for oil and gas exploration and development activities to proceed.

The decision builds on scientific evidence about the retreat of sea ice, which the bears use as a platform to hunt seals and as a pathway to the Arctic coasts where they den. But it does not directly link the threat to the bears to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Mr. Kempthorne [Dick Kempthorne, secretary of the Interior] said the Endangered Species Act was “never meant to regulate global climate change” and that it would be “inappropriate” to use the polar bear listing that way. He said he made the decision because “sea ice is vital to polar bears’ survival,” and scientific models show the rapid loss of ice will continue.

The secretary, who earlier in his political life was a strong opponent of the Endangered Species Act, added: “This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record, and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me,” he made “ the only decision I can make.”

Many fear that so-called “environmentalists” such as members of activist organizations like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, will use the listing of the polar bear as an excuse to bring legal action against any and all sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. As the statement above from the Interior secretary shows, the administration is aware of those possibilities and has attempted to put up firewalls against actions that could be detrimental to the economy. However, the fact that the Arctic sea ice is rapidly melting could no longer be ignored, and because the polar bear depends on that ice it is ipso facto endangered.

The problem with this is that there is nothing that humankind can do to change the basic fact. The “Big Melt” is well underway and will continue no matter what we do, even if all GHG emissions could be stopped in their tracks. The polar bear is not only endangered, it is probably doomed to extinction in its natural habitat because that habitat is going to disappear.

This situation is different from past examples of the effects of the Endangered Species Act, in which steps could be taken to preserve the environment required by the species in question, whether a spotted owl, some rare fish or amphibian, an insect or plant. Those have included such steps as preventing forest cutting, dam building, road construction, or real estate development that would impact he species’ habitat.

In the case of the polar bear, the only thing that we could do to mitigate the bear’s plight would be to reverse climate change and reinstate the Arctic environment. That is not possible.

Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel Catch 22 introduced the concept of bureaucratic nonsense concerning the fitness of military pilots to fly combat missions during World War II. The “catch” was that if someone were crazy he would not be allowed to fly — but if he were to admit that he had a problem, that would be considered as proof of sanity and he would be required to continue to fly. The term “catch 22″ therefore came to mean something self-contradictory. The case of the polar bear as an endangered species is a good example. No matter how crazy human-induced global climate change becomes, or what steps are taken to attempt to reverse it, those bears will continue to fly into possible extinction, just like Heller’s fictional pilots.

Here is more from the N.Y. Times article:

Few natural resource decisions have been as closely watched or been the subject of such vehement disagreement within the Bush administration as this one, according to officials in the Interior Department and others familiar with the process. After the department missed a series of deadlines, a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the decision had to be made by Thursday.

Barton H. Thompson Jr., a law professor and director of the Woods Institute of the Environment at Stanford University, said Wednesday that while the Interior Department gave itself “sufficient room” to list the polar bear, it did not provide “environmental organizations with a mechanism for trying to address climate change.”

He said that lawsuits challenging the connection between a factory’s greenhouse-gas emissions and the threat to individual polar bears might provide difficult to win.

“Interior has a reasonable case here that the connection is just too far removed,” he said.

The provision of the act that the department is using to lighten the regulatory burden that the listing imposes on the oil and gas industry — known as a 4(d) rule — was designed to permit flexibility in the management of threatened species, as long as the chances of conservation of the species would be enhanced, or at least not diminished.

Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of three groups that originally sued to have the polar bear listed as threatened, said Wednesday that the decision was an acknowledgement of “global warming’s urgency,” but that it fell short of helping the polar bear.

“The administration acknowledges the bear is in need of intensive care,” Ms. Siegel said. “The listing lets the bear into the hospital, but then the 4(d) rule says the bear’s insurance doesn’t cover the necessary treatments.”

The really good news in all of this is that the Bush administration, by this action on behalf of the polar bear, has finally and irrevocably agreed that global warming is real and that climate change is taking place. Although belated, this is a giant step forward so I guess it is better late than never.

It remains to be seen whether the bears can change their lifestyle to survive on land without the sea ice that is rapidly disappearing. As the Arctic Ocean becomes more ice free, 24 hour Summer sunlight will warm the open waters even more, leading to melting of adjacent tundra and dramatic changes in the region’s ecology. Most scientists believe the bears are incapable of adapting to such rapid and significant change, and they are probably right.

Big Dry to Keep Hammering World Food

Friday, May 9th, 2008

by Val Germann

An article today in The Brisbane TIMES illustrates the continuing climate disaster unfolding right in front of our eyes. The truly devastating lede reads thusly:

There is no end in sight to the drought afflicting the Murray-Darling Basin and the big dry could become a permanent feature of eastern Australia, experts warn.

This is not good because in the past OZ has been one of the world’s top exporters of wheat. But that won’t be the case ever again unless the current drought breaks. As it is now some of the descriptions read like science fiction, like this one from the CEO of the Murray-Darling watershed commission:

For the first time in recorded history, the water level of some inland lakes had plunged below sea levels, Dr Craik said. South Australia’s lower lakes were deteriorating particularly quickly.

And then there’s this:

Dr Craik says the drought is so bad in some parts of the basin that it has surpassed the worst climate change predictions for 2055.

So, if any of our readers are counting on a serious up-tick in Australian wheat production anytime soon, forget it. It looks like The Big Dry is here to stay.

Natural Resources Threaten Money Supply

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

By David L. Brown

The rising cost of natural resources, due primarily to increasing demand and faltering supply, is creating some serious problems in the world today. Here is a brief news item from the Associated Press that reveals one aspect of the problem:

WASHINGTON — The House has passed legislation designed to stop pennies and nickels from costing more than they are worth, a move that supporters say would save taxpayers $100 million a year.

The unanimous vote Thursday sends the resolution to the Senate, where its future is troubled. The Bush administration and its supporters oppose it because it does not transfer to the U.S. Mint Congress’ constitutional authority to decide what coins are made of. The measure also does not give the metals industry enough time to weigh in on the decision, opponents say.

The government is paying 1.26 cents to make each penny, and 7.7 cents to make each nickel, the Mint says.

Well, besides illustrating the problems caused by the rising cost of metals and other natural resources, this little news report provides an x-ray glimpse into the minds of our representatives in Washington, who seem to think that every problem can be solved simply by passing a new law.

When will they learn that you can’t legislate something that violates the fixed laws of nature and economics? Well, never of course, because nearly all of those esteemed members of Congress are educated as lawyers, not scientists or economists. Something about our law schools seems to filter out any residue of common sense that might linger in the minds of their students.

Note that the vote on this was unanimous, meaning that not a single member of the august body felt there was anything to question about the bill. And note also that it does not, at least as far as the AP reports, offer any specific solution to the problem, or even give the Mint authority to change the way coins are made. No, it merely demands that this problem be fixed, full stop.

There was a time, long ago, when most coins were made of precious metals including silver and gold. Pennies have been made of copper for as long as I am aware, and as the world’s supply of that useful metal gets used up it is natural that prices have continued to rise. Here is a graph showing the trend of cash copper prices over the last ten years, from May 8, 1998 to today, which I created from the database of the London Commodities Exchange:

coper-price-graph.jpg

Do you start to see the problem here? Um, yes, I thought you would. No wonder it now costs more than a penny to make a penny. The problem is pretty plain to see.

(more…)