A bit of context: I am reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars. It is, I don't know how else to say it, saturated with ideas. Ecology is one of the big ones. A reference to Herman Daly in Green Mars got me to this blog post. If its interesting to you, I recommend getting your hands on the Mars trilogy.
Today, reading Daly and Farley's book Ecological Economics, I learned about Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). In brief, a stock of renewable natural resources can tolerate only up to a certain amount of harvest while still replenishing itself to levels from before the harvest. There is a an amount of stock somewhere between critical depensation (the minimum viable population) and carrying capacity that allows for the most stock to be sustainably skimmed each harvest. This is the MSY.
The MSY is clearly important to long term resource economics. We all want to get as much as we can from a stock, and (hopefully) more and more of us want to do so without jeopardizing our children's and children's children's ability to enjoy the same bounty. So, MSY is the place to be.
If we only knew where it is. Alas, the complex interaction of factors that makes up an ecosystem defies our grasp. Summing up the research, Daly and Foster put it succinctly: "We cannot scientifically estimate MSY accurately enough for use in resource managements."
Let that sink in a bit.
At stake is the depletion of a stock of potentially-irreplaceable resources. Overshooting even a little bit could spell disaster, since ecosystems have a nasty habit of reacting non-linearly to our interventions (that pesky trait of complex systems). Given the risks, what is the rational and moral way to define our limits? Very, very, very conservatively.
***
UPDATE: Bad news. Critical depensation is also next to impossible to determine. Meaning, we can push species below a threshold from which their population cannot return, without even realizing. Our ignorance before ecology is a loaded gun.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Al Gore dishes it in Sunday's NYT
I love Al! Here is his rockin' Op-Ed from Sunday's NY Times. A smattering of my thoughts:
a) He focuses on energy production and delivery infrastructure. And focus is good. But don't forget the important role of more efficient transportation such as rail. Simple physics dictates that even the filthiest smoke-belching diesel locomotive pulls ten times the weight of a truck for the same fuel. And electrified rail could run cleanly on top of the energy infrastructure he proposes!! ... be still, my beating heart.
b) Al Gore don't beat around the bush (no pun intended): its all about "putting a price on carbon." The best incentive for reinvestment will be making carbon more expensive.
c) Clean Coal is a fantasy. Fairy fuel. President Obama, you better be more in the know on this than your constant mentions of this technology in your campaign would seem to indicate.
d) The last two paragraphs give me chills. Read them and read them again.
--------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum -- including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers -- agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America's darkest hour, "The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew." In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop "the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources." His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And -- not coincidentally -- it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds -- and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and "clean coal" technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting "clean coal" technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here's what we can do -- now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis -- and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with "smart" features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings -- and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way -- indeed the only way -- to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama's campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.
View online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
a) He focuses on energy production and delivery infrastructure. And focus is good. But don't forget the important role of more efficient transportation such as rail. Simple physics dictates that even the filthiest smoke-belching diesel locomotive pulls ten times the weight of a truck for the same fuel. And electrified rail could run cleanly on top of the energy infrastructure he proposes!! ... be still, my beating heart.
b) Al Gore don't beat around the bush (no pun intended): its all about "putting a price on carbon." The best incentive for reinvestment will be making carbon more expensive.
c) Clean Coal is a fantasy. Fairy fuel. President Obama, you better be more in the know on this than your constant mentions of this technology in your campaign would seem to indicate.
d) The last two paragraphs give me chills. Read them and read them again.
--------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum -- including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers -- agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America's darkest hour, "The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew." In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop "the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources." His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And -- not coincidentally -- it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds -- and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and "clean coal" technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting "clean coal" technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here's what we can do -- now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis -- and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with "smart" features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings -- and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way -- indeed the only way -- to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama's campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.
View online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/
Monday, November 10, 2008
Climate change means letting go
A weird optimism has improbably prevailed in this post-"Inconvenient Truth" era. Breathless as I am at the possibilities of the Obama presidency, I can't shake the feeling that people still just don't get what the consequences of stopping climate change are. The enthusiasm surrounding the "green economy" might be making things worse. Building the infrastructure to generate, transmit, and conserve clean energy can and will doubtlessly generate scores of jobs. And, yes, as lots of folks have pointed out, these jobs typically cannot be outsourced: turbines and windmills are so massive they must be manufactured nearby, and shipping your house to China to be reinsulated isn't exactly practical. But thinking of climate change as just another challenge for the market to meet conceals the disturbing reality. A real turnaround in carbon will likely require changes in the American way of life nothing short of massive.
Pushing for these changes from the office of the president is both crucial and likely to be politically unpopular. As Bill McKibben says of President-Elect Obama, "It might well wreck his political future, because it would involve — directly or indirectly — raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now." And that is exactly the point. All the jobs a green economy will produce does not change the fact that the United States currently consumes about a forth of the world's energy. We are living way, way beyond our means.
The necessary reductions in consumption will not be popular because we have gotten used to having our cake and eating it too. The Economist gets right to the point:
This means letting go. Letting go of the sense of entitlement to energy. We have been treating a precious and finite resource as a birthright and a given, and we will be made to see the consequences. Our choice, to intervene in the economy and let the power of price move us away from fossil fuels, or to maintain the status quo and invite disaster. Either way, we will eventually be made aware of our outstanding debt. Let us hope our revelation is the disappointment of not being able to drive as much rather than the loss of something far more dear.
Pushing for these changes from the office of the president is both crucial and likely to be politically unpopular. As Bill McKibben says of President-Elect Obama, "It might well wreck his political future, because it would involve — directly or indirectly — raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now." And that is exactly the point. All the jobs a green economy will produce does not change the fact that the United States currently consumes about a forth of the world's energy. We are living way, way beyond our means.
The necessary reductions in consumption will not be popular because we have gotten used to having our cake and eating it too. The Economist gets right to the point:
To have a big impact on America’s emissions, Congress will either have to spend a lot of money or dramatically increase the price of fossil fuels. The first option will add to an already enormous deficit; the second is tantamount to raising taxes. So many congressmen will see the first option as unaffordable in a fiscal sense, and the second as unaffordable in a political one.President Obama will need to go over the heads of moderate Democrats elected by oil-hungry constituents to commit a political sin without precedent: deliberately raise the price of oil. Cap-and-trade, straight oil tax, whatever. Oil consumption must plummet and to accomplish this the price of oil must go up, up, up.
This means letting go. Letting go of the sense of entitlement to energy. We have been treating a precious and finite resource as a birthright and a given, and we will be made to see the consequences. Our choice, to intervene in the economy and let the power of price move us away from fossil fuels, or to maintain the status quo and invite disaster. Either way, we will eventually be made aware of our outstanding debt. Let us hope our revelation is the disappointment of not being able to drive as much rather than the loss of something far more dear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)