The first is an item from the Independent in the UK. (here). It starts "To you it is a bag of salad, dropped into the supermarket trolley with the weekly groceries. But to farmers in Kenya starved of the water extracted by large scale agriculture to grow it, it may spell destitution. The world is running out of water and British supermarket shoppers are contributing to global drought, according to environmental pressure groups." Items such as Spanish tomatoes, Kenyan flowers and Egyptian potatoes are intensifying the shortage of water, our most precious resource. In Kenya a single bag of mixed salad, as sold in Supermarkets, uses 50 litres of water in its production. But whilst the growers and the country become richer, the inequalities in society worsen. Substistence farmers and fisherman are loosing their access to water and Lake Naivasha is beginning to dry up. There is an excellent NASA Eathobservatory page illustrating the changes in and around this lake here.
In Spain, vast greenhouses use desalinated water, requiring large energy inputs and causing coastal salinisation. Half of the UK's winter supply of cut flowers is grown in Kenya. A biologist. David Harper, said "Naivasha is being sacrificed because we require too much water. Almost everybody in Europe who has eaten Kenyan beans or Kenyan strawberries or gazed at Kenyan roses has bought Naivasha water. It is sucking the lake dry. It will become a turgid, smelly pond with impoverished communities eking out a living along bare shores."
Forty years ago, there were dire warnings about the unsustainable increase in the human population as predicted from the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford University biologist, in his book The Population Bomb, but an agricultural revolution saved humanity, much of which driven by large scale and unsustainable irrigation. Fred Pearce, the author of When The Rivers Run Dry, says: "Today the world grows twice as much food as it did a generation ago but it uses three times as much water to grow it.......two-thirds of all the water abstracted from the environment goes to irrigate crops. This use of water is massively unsustainable and has led many people to conclude that the apocalypse wasn't averted, it was merely postponed."
Jacob Tompkins, the director of Waterwise, has suggested that supermarkets sell dry-tolerant varieties of vegetables, and that customers to press supermarkets to stock low-irrigation products. The article goes on to list some other environmental issues related to food and horticultural production in poor countries for rich customers - chemicals used in flower procuction in Equador is poisoning water supplies, coffee in Vietnam is over-exploiting water supplies, similarly agricultural production in Tanzania destined for Europe.
Water issues do not belong only to third world countries or arid areas of the world. The Waterwise site mentioned above it the internet presence of a UK NGO, an organisation set up by the UK government to improve water use in the UK. There has for instance been a relative drought in the UK recently, with the south of England experiencing its driest period since 1933, but with a much greater population since then, who use a much greater amount of water, 50% more than just 25 years ago.
Water issues around the world, worsened by such practices outlined above, increasing population and water usage, and pollution, are, along with oil depletion, going to define politics, economics, and society in this century. Wars will be fought for it, and millions will die from lack of it. To explore this further, you can visit these sites: BBC World Water Crisis (Link) World Water Forum (link) Yahoo World Water Issues and News (Link), UNESCO Water in Focus (Link), Ministry of Environment NZ Water issues (Link)
I have recently posted two articles that are relevent to this one. My review of the book So Shall we Reap by Colin Tudge, and the National Radio programme on water problems in Canterbury. There is a major problem here, and the underlying cause is the distorted and unsustainable economic framework in which such enterprises "thrive", but at the expense of the local ecology, the local economy, the local population and the long-term future of all of these. It is my belief that with our present capitulation to the market economy, very strong here in New Zealand, including in the Labour administration, we will not be alter this distorted economic framework until the issues become overwhelming, either with oil depletion, global warming, environmental damage or economic collapse. And of course by then it will all be a bit late.
Petrol fuels politicians brains.
On the oil depletion front, still mislabled by the media as the oil price increase issue, here are a few snippets.
I'll start with a letter I sent to the Dominion Post in reply to an article on the front page of the paper's business section, this was entitled Over a Barrel, and purported to explain the background and issues related to the recent increase of oil price to $75 per barrel (If these words survive say fifty years, I imagine they will raise a good blast of laughter). The purported explanation contained all the half-truths and evasions that is part of the media's attitude to oil depletion around the world, such as oil prices are high because of lack of refining capacity, political problems in Nigeria, threat of war on Iran, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita or price gouging by oil companies. Now none of these things are untrue in themselves, each is undoubtedly a factor in oil pricing, but the major issue, the imminence of "peak oil" is almost never mentioned, except sometimes as an aside, such as "some people ascribe to the theory of peak oil" as for instance in a recent BBC internet article. My letter was published 26/4/06.
Dear Sir / Madam
Yet again, an article in your paper (Over a barrel, Saturday), fails to recognise the true reality of the oil situation. Least importantly, you estimate an increased cost of $370 for the average household, but you fail to acknowledge that our increased oil bill in the last year was about $1 billion, or $1000 per household, three times your figure.
But the main fault with your article is its continued emphasis that oil price increases are due to short-term geopolitical factors such as Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, refining capacity etc. when the overwhelming issue is oil depletion and "peak-oil", obviously now upon us. The continued refusal of politicians, business leaders and you, the media, to accept this fact, is the wonder of our age. We are entirely unprepared for the revolutionary economic changes this will bring and, once the reality sinks in, the public will be very angry indeed.
On the brighter side, one advantage of the major economic dislocation caused by oil depletion will be a better understanding of the finite nature of our planet and that our present economic and business model of unsustainable development can no longer continue, if humanity is to survive.
Your faithfully,
Yet again, an article in your paper (Over a barrel, Saturday), fails to recognise the true reality of the oil situation. Least importantly, you estimate an increased cost of $370 for the average household, but you fail to acknowledge that our increased oil bill in the last year was about $1 billion, or $1000 per household, three times your figure.
But the main fault with your article is its continued emphasis that oil price increases are due to short-term geopolitical factors such as Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, refining capacity etc. when the overwhelming issue is oil depletion and "peak-oil", obviously now upon us. The continued refusal of politicians, business leaders and you, the media, to accept this fact, is the wonder of our age. We are entirely unprepared for the revolutionary economic changes this will bring and, once the reality sinks in, the public will be very angry indeed.
On the brighter side, one advantage of the major economic dislocation caused by oil depletion will be a better understanding of the finite nature of our planet and that our present economic and business model of unsustainable development can no longer continue, if humanity is to survive.
Your faithfully,
In regard to Peak Oil as a "theory" it would be worth directing your browser here, to a talk by Republic Congressman Roscoe Bartlett and Dr Robert Hirsch, who is a senior energy analyst. It covers much of the usual ground, but is still worth listening to. Bartlett in particular, as a republican congressman, shows up all his colleagues for his vision and intelligence.
But there were some nicely entertaining articles and some wry observations on human behaviour this week. An article in the Daily Telegraph and another in the Independent covered the greenness of the new Tory leader, David Cameron, who exhibits his green credentials by cycling to Parliament. Impressive too, for a Tory, who would normally not wished to be parted from his Beemer, and to whom cycling is akin to tree hugging and wearing woolly cardigans. Except that he has been found to have his chaffeur following behind in his car, with his box of documents for his day's hard labour in the office. A spokesperson said "David Cameron has always enjoyed cycling and if he could carry all of the boxes of documents for work on his bike, then he would. But he has changed his car for one that has lower carbon emissions, and has also made other personal changes to help the environment, such as making his new home more energy-efficient and changing his electricity supply to renewable energy." A Liberal Democrat party MP has offered to send him a set of panniers to put his papers in.
The Tory party faced some further embarrassment when Patrick McLoughlin, the Conservative chief whip, sent all 196 Tory MPs a pager message advising those who drive big gas-guzzling cars to avoid the main entrance to the Commons on Parliament Square and to enter undetected via the House of Lords. Tory chiefs feared the sight of their MPs arriving in Land Rovers, Mercedes and BMWs would undermine Mr Cameron's "vote blue, go green" pitch ahead of the local elections in England next Thursday.
And in the US this article , entitle Going a short way to make a point, by Dana Milbank in the Washington post, takes a wry look at the car culture in US politicians. With gas prices about $3 per gallon, it's time for another round of Congressional finger pointing: "Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."" She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away. An inventory of the Senatorial car park produced the usual line of up of SUVs and high gas usage luxury vehicles, the Democrat's average fuel consumption was 23 mpg and the republican's 18 mpg, a useful difference, but not enough to save the world, probably.
But, according to Dana, maybe, lawmakers are starting to learn. When GOP senators had a lunch Tuesday a couple of blocks from the Capitol, many took cars. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the lunch looking for his ride when he spied The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray. Reconsidering, he set out on foot. "I need the exercise," he reasoned.
And, whilst I am writing this page, I have been listening to an item on the Sunday programme on National Radio. A four person panel discussion on cars. Interesting how one driver, in his small car for the first time, told of his experience with aggressive SUV drivers. Right on, a New Zealander in the street or in his home is a hospitable and generous person, but put him behind the wheel of a car, especially a large one, and he undergoes a most unpleasant metamorphosis into an aggressive, macho, selfish and frankly dangerous breed. As a driver of a small car myself (Daihatsu Sirion or Honda Jazz) I was glad to have had this impression of mine confirmed. According to Chris Laidlaw, 20 years ago, 40% of cars were under 1.6 litre, and now the figure is just 12%. High fuel prices are discussed, and a nod to a "fuel crisis" is mentioned, but it was suggested that fuel economy is only about 15th in importance in choosing a car in New Zealand, though the woman panelist said that economy would be higher on a female's preference list. One comment made that I do agree with is their rubbishing of hybrid vehicles, including apparently the cost of disposing of them. Discussing subsidies for small vehicles and CNG powered vehicles again rather misses an overall viewpoint and a feeling of urgency in regard to oil depletion. In fact four people spent half an hour discussing cars and motor transport and not discussing or even mentioning peak oil or oil depletion at all. and personal car preferences stated. A Peugeot for her (twin turbo of course), a Lexus IS 250 for him and for him and a diesel Golf for him, possibly fuelled with biodiesel.
To listen to this conversation click here.
Also, discussed this weekend is an examination of the (New Zealand) media's response to increase petrol prices. It's failure to examine the underlying issues is frightening, although this media's examination of the media was itself somewhat superficial. The second part of the item concerns the wider issue of the media's examination of the economy and economists. Brian Easton anwers some questions about this. I have a high regard for Brian Eston as an economist, much as I have an low regard for the vast majority of the breed. (I have put Brian Easton's site link on my home page). Brian explains how "bank economists" differ in their view points from other economists, such as reserve bank economists. We need to bear in mind where opinions come from. Is there a vested interest? Is there a restricted viewpoint? Of course these injunctions apply to anyone's expressed opinion, politicians, business leaders, economists, Joe Smith in the pub.
Brian Easton repeats the claim about there not being a shortage of oil but a shortage of refining capacity - sorry, I just don't believe this, Brain Easton's viewpoint notwithstanding. He goes on to say about reporters and their reporting of economics: "after watching 15-20 years of reporters, I am getting inured to their incompetence......the quick story, the lack of expertise in the journalists themselves, sometimes they make errors that are just so appalling......instead of "this is the issue, the public needs to be prepared", but journalism is very reactive."
To listen to this programme and the interview with Brian Easton, click here.
A desirable car for an ostriche.
And talking of economists.........
A few months ago I was posting some of my thoughts on oil depletion, and what follows is a reply to one correspondent, who denied that oil depletion was a problem, and subscribed to the "abiotic theory" of oil formation, (Briefly,this theory states that oil is not the transformed detritus of organic matter that lived millions of years ago, but was in fact supplied in vast quantities when the Earth was formed, reather like the methane that is part of the constituents of the giant planets and of Titan, Saturn's largest moon. Needless to say, no mainstream oil expert subscribes to this theory, but it exists at the fringes of science. If you subscribe to this theory then the oil we tap is merely the leakage upwards of oil from deep within the Earth, and it will never, practically, run out.) Needless to say also, I do not subscribe to this theory, hence my writing. He aslo posited that technology will always be able to deal with any oil depletion if it occurs." The stone-age didn't end because we ran out of stone" such people are apt to say, meaning our energy age won't end because we run out of oil. But in fact, this statement is completely meaningless, and even if it did mean something,it has absolutely no relevance to oil depletion. Following from this misunderstanding of the nature of energy, I included in my posting my explanation of who it was that cut down the last tree on Easter Island. My review of Jarod Diamond's "Collapse" includes some information about Easter Island - Jarod has also pondered who cut down the last tree. The riddle has now been solved. Read on.
The world's oil supply is merely the summation of all the oil supplies of all the different oil provinces around the world, it cannot be anything else. We don't yet drill interplanetarily. The oil industry has searched every square inch of the US, there is no more oil, it cannot be found if it is not there. Same with the North Sea, Mexico, Kuwait etc. So why is that we can recognise and accept depletion in each individual province when it occurs, but then deny it can't occur on a world scale? It makes no logical sense. It is true, many new finds have been a useful addition to the world's resources, but as compared with the really huge finds up to about 1970, they are in fact quite small. The simple, and easily verifiable fact is that the peak of finding oil happened over forty years ago, and that we are now using 3-4 barrels of oil for every one barrel being found. You don't need to be a professor of mathematics to appreciate the significance of this very simple fact. Only economists, who have many years of highly specialised training in ignoring reality, and who live in some sort of parallel universe, are able to deny these simple facts. Only economists can find oil where it doesn't exist, employ technology that hasn't yet been invented, or can extract "unconventional" sources and ignore the appalling environmental effects of doing so, or the fact it may take more energy to extract it than it can usefully provide (in other words, ignore the laws of thermodynamics) or are able to imagine that the Earth is some sort of galactic bon-bon, a chocolate coated candy with an energy rich centre. Here's a story for you, which I wrote as a letter for our local newspaper recently, if anyone actually believes economists when they pontificate about such matters.
The Last Woodsman of Easter Island
When European explorers discovered Easter Island they were amazed - hundreds of great stone figures gazed sternly into the interior of a barren, treeless island, inhabited by a few hundred impoverished natives. The enigma of how these statues were made, transported and erected, when there were no raw materials to accomplish this, was only solved after painstaking archeological research. The answer was that Easter Island was originally, like other Pacific Islands, covered with a forest of immense trees. The timber and lianas provided the means to do these wonderful things, besides providing material for native dwellings and ocean capable canoes. But every tree was eventually felled and the fate of the island's population sealed. The soils deteriorated, water became scarce, the homes fell down, there were no canoes to fish, and there was no escape. It is not an original thought that Easter Island can be considered a metaphor for the world's present condition. Like Jared Diamond, I often wonder who was the last person to cut down the last tree and what he was thinking? The answer was provided when I saw the economist's blind faith in new technologies, market forces and economic manipulations to solve problems due to the finite limitations of the world's resources - it is the same as the last woodsman's of Easter Island. He too was an economist.
Postscript.
This week saw the death of J K Galbraith, America's foremost economist and a trenchant critic of monetarism and the excesses of capitalism. It was he that coined the phrase "conventional wisdom" in his book, The Affluent Society, which critiqued ever increasing material wealth as a sign of social and economic health. He was a good liberal in America, and remained so to the end, in a society where liberalism has become almost extinct. I mention him here, because in my own critique of economists above, I was accused by my correspondent of being unpleasantly derogatory to economists. Now, to be honest, whilst I had heard of J K Galbraith, I really didn't know much about him, and it was only when I read his obituaries, that I realised what a loss he was. Anyone who can say this about his own field of study, "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable", is worthy of the greatest respect. He also said, in regard to the monetarist "trickle-down" theory "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." He was a great man. I am firmly convinced that economists like him have, like the liberals in America, become almost an extinct breed. What we all now suffer in economics a hardness of intellect, a meanness of spirit, a narrowness of vision and a rigidity of thinking that utterly distorts the role of what economics in our society should be. Instead of economics being our tool for societal advancement, happiness, health, and sustainability it has become the means for our enslavement to a towering edifice of consumption and greed that will, within a very short space of time, bring us all down in the rubble of its own inevitable collapse.
PPS (7/5/06) (The "Economist magazine recently ran a series of articles relating to oil. These are not available on the internet without paying for them, but there is a critique here. One section is entitled "The Bottomless Beer Mug, which of course is a dig at Colin Campbell of "Peak Oil" who is want to use the analogy of an Irish beer mug in talking about peak oil, which strongly argues against peak oil theory. I haven't space here to critique all the points, but I can say in the whole article, and I stand to be corrected, there is not one mention of global warming and, for instance, great reliance is placed on unconventional oil sources such as tars and shales, without any consideration of their appalling local environmental effects, the effects on the climate, and the energy input / output ratios of the processing.)
PPPS For another view of J K Galbraith, see this article. For the record, I am not an anti-capitalist, but I am an anti-extreme capitalist, I am anti the environmentally negligant capitalist and anti-corporatist. Neither am I pro communist or pro extreme socialist. I am anti blinkered thinking, whether in economics, politics or business, whether on the left of politics or the right of politics. And there is a great deal of blinkered thinking around.