OK, so there you have my three major worries (global warming, peak oil and water) and a bit of explanation about why they're all so worrisome to me despite the best efforts of the optimists and the in-denials.
They're not the only things on my mind day in and day out but they have been powerful influences pushing me towards full-on depression, and from what I've read and observed I don't think I'm terribly unusual in that sense. Still I've managed - just - to keep my head above the water and I'd go so far as to say I may even have kindled a glimmer of hope that my kids might be living well in 2050 and beyond.
My kids: Joshua's too young to understand any of this but his sheer energy for life is infectious. Caitlin, though, has amazed me with her willingness to embrace the kinds of values and behaviours which if adopted broadly throughout the global community might just be sufficient to ensure the future of human civilisation.
In there I think are the makings of my hope. I'm drawing inspiration from others who show what can be done if we put our minds to it. I'm enjoying the challenge of changing my lifestyle and doing "my bit". And I'm loving the renewed feeling of purpose which has been missing for too long.
Soon I'm going to start sharing some of the things we're doing in our family to reduce our energy consumption, our dependence on oil, our water usage, our greenhouse emissions, our waste production and our contribution to a myriad other problems which threaten or at least diminish the quality of life on Earth.
But I'll also be 'fessing up to things which we aren't doing so well and things which don't turn out the way we'd hoped.
Now the initial flurry of "worries" is over look out for "brags" and "confessions" starting shortly. I also plan to keep posting about some of the issues as they develop, I'll be looking out for "hopes" to share whenever possible, and I'll introduce you to some of the other people who are helping to inform and inspire me.
Time for sleep here. Bye for now.
Monday 30 April 2007
Sunday 29 April 2007
Water
Australia is suffering a devastating drought. We have no idea whether it's a temporary abnormality or a new weather pattern caused by global warming which is going to stick with us for the long term.
Brisbane's water storages have dropped to under 20% capacity. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on water infrastructure in this region alone, including new dams, pipelines, desalination and reclamation (recycling). It's appalling that our response to a drought which may be caused by global warming is a massive project which first burns oil to power the construction machinery and then coal to power the desal plant and all the pumps. It may in fact be our only option to survive the present conditions but still...
The nation's major food producing region (the Murray-Darling basin) has just been informed that in the absence of significant rain in the next couple of months there will be no water available for irrigation later in the year. If this eventuates, future recovery would take years as long-established trees and vines are likely to die.
All these water woes aren't restricted to humans though. Environmentalists have been telling us for years that our abuse of water destroys ecosystems upon which we all depend. Now the pressure on the environment is coming from both sides: what little rain there is is being consumed by us, with basically nothing left.
Brisbane's water storages have dropped to under 20% capacity. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on water infrastructure in this region alone, including new dams, pipelines, desalination and reclamation (recycling). It's appalling that our response to a drought which may be caused by global warming is a massive project which first burns oil to power the construction machinery and then coal to power the desal plant and all the pumps. It may in fact be our only option to survive the present conditions but still...
The nation's major food producing region (the Murray-Darling basin) has just been informed that in the absence of significant rain in the next couple of months there will be no water available for irrigation later in the year. If this eventuates, future recovery would take years as long-established trees and vines are likely to die.
All these water woes aren't restricted to humans though. Environmentalists have been telling us for years that our abuse of water destroys ecosystems upon which we all depend. Now the pressure on the environment is coming from both sides: what little rain there is is being consumed by us, with basically nothing left.
Saturday 28 April 2007
No Silver Bullets (re Peak Oil)
My previous post was about the tension between the growing demand for oil and predictions of declining availability, and the relationship of oil consumption to global warming.
I expect that many people reading that post would quickly reassure themselves by thinking about one or more of the following:
- biofuels (especially ethanol for use in existing cars)
- electric, hybrid or hydrogen-powered vehicles
- coal liquefaction (literally converting coal into a fluid form similar to oil)
Here's why none of those make me worry much less, if at all.
1. Biofuels
The basic idea is neat: instead of giving carbon a one-way trip from oil to the atmosphere, lets grow plants to take CO2 out of the air then convert it to fuel which when burned puts the carbon back where it came from. The overall amount of CO2 in the air stays constant and we don't need oil.
But already we've hit a fatal flaw with biofuels: in fact the production of ethanol from, say, corn requires massive inputs of oil in the form of fertilisers, pesticides and fuel for agricultural machinery and transport. It also requires significant electrical input which - especially in Australia - basically means burning coal. So we're still consuming oil and adding CO2 to the atmosphere even before the ethanol gets into our petrol tanks.
Fatal flaw #2 is so obvious I'm stunned we are even bothering to attempt growing fuel. Our cars and trucks and planes and ships consume enormous amounts of fuel. Even if we dedicated all the productive land on the planet to growing fuel crops we would only manage to produce a fraction of the fuel we need to keep everything running at the current pace - let alone meet the exponential demand predicted for the future.
There is some research being done into growing algae in tanks or ponds as an alternative to land-based fuel crops. This may lead to a significant, sustainable biofuel industry and I'd be encouraged by that. But from what I've read it's still not likely to ever be enough to match our current appetite for oil.
2. High tech cars
It's true. We can make cars which don't need to burn oil.
Some people are keen on cars similar to the ones we have today but which burn hydrogen gas (H2) instead. There's no "C" in hydrogen, so when you burn it you just get H2O. Water vapour. But hydrogen gas is highly explosive (can you say "Hindenburg"?) and it's very difficult to handle. Oh yeah, and water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.
So there's a lot of attention on using hydrogen in fuel cells - basically little modules of hardware that generate electricity through chemical reactions and which you'd either swap in and out of your car like rechargable batteries in a camcorder, or top up with additional hydrogen. Fuel cells are real enough (they're used in the Space Shuttle, for example) but the technology needs a fair bit of development before it's suitable for use in everyday transportation.
Sounds good, huh? Uh-oh, here it comes.
Hydrogen's fatal flaw when it comes to the global warming / peak oil dilemma is that it generally isn't a source of energy but a carrier of energy. Hydrogen can't be mined*, it has to be produced. The simplest way to produce it is to push an electric current into water so that you give the hydrogen atoms the energy they need to escape their bonds to the oxygen atoms. That's how it acquires the energy which we want to use later on when we burn it in an engine.
Fuel cells and electric vehicles get lassoed with the same rope now. All these vehicles depend on large inputs of electrical energy. Hopefully you recall that our electrical consumption is already a major concern because of the CO2 we emit when we generate it. Unless we come up with a revolutionary large-scale way to produce electricity, these cars would simply drive us from the peak oil frying pan into the global warming fire.
3. Coal liquefaction
I only learned about this one recently, but it's old technology. During one of the Great Wars the British were astonished that their attacks on the German sources of oil didn't bring the Nazi machine to a halt. The Germans had prepared by switching to production of liquid hydrocarbons from coal.
The world does have heaps of coal (though calculations for "Peak Coal" are already being debated) and I get the impression that it's relatively simple and efficient to convert it to a liquid. On the positive side, this may help alleviate the shortage of raw material for plastics and fertilizers etc. But of course burning the stuff in cars is just as bad as burning it in power stations. As a greenhouse-friendly replacement for oil, coal is also fatally flawed.
Three bullets: shiny-looking, but definitely not silver.
* I am simplying things a fair bit with regards to hydrogen as an energy carrier but it's generally true that getting usable H2 on a very large scale would require massive energy input and that would predominantly come from coal at this point in time.
I expect that many people reading that post would quickly reassure themselves by thinking about one or more of the following:
- biofuels (especially ethanol for use in existing cars)
- electric, hybrid or hydrogen-powered vehicles
- coal liquefaction (literally converting coal into a fluid form similar to oil)
Here's why none of those make me worry much less, if at all.
1. Biofuels
The basic idea is neat: instead of giving carbon a one-way trip from oil to the atmosphere, lets grow plants to take CO2 out of the air then convert it to fuel which when burned puts the carbon back where it came from. The overall amount of CO2 in the air stays constant and we don't need oil.
But already we've hit a fatal flaw with biofuels: in fact the production of ethanol from, say, corn requires massive inputs of oil in the form of fertilisers, pesticides and fuel for agricultural machinery and transport. It also requires significant electrical input which - especially in Australia - basically means burning coal. So we're still consuming oil and adding CO2 to the atmosphere even before the ethanol gets into our petrol tanks.
Fatal flaw #2 is so obvious I'm stunned we are even bothering to attempt growing fuel. Our cars and trucks and planes and ships consume enormous amounts of fuel. Even if we dedicated all the productive land on the planet to growing fuel crops we would only manage to produce a fraction of the fuel we need to keep everything running at the current pace - let alone meet the exponential demand predicted for the future.
There is some research being done into growing algae in tanks or ponds as an alternative to land-based fuel crops. This may lead to a significant, sustainable biofuel industry and I'd be encouraged by that. But from what I've read it's still not likely to ever be enough to match our current appetite for oil.
2. High tech cars
It's true. We can make cars which don't need to burn oil.
Some people are keen on cars similar to the ones we have today but which burn hydrogen gas (H2) instead. There's no "C" in hydrogen, so when you burn it you just get H2O. Water vapour. But hydrogen gas is highly explosive (can you say "Hindenburg"?) and it's very difficult to handle. Oh yeah, and water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.
So there's a lot of attention on using hydrogen in fuel cells - basically little modules of hardware that generate electricity through chemical reactions and which you'd either swap in and out of your car like rechargable batteries in a camcorder, or top up with additional hydrogen. Fuel cells are real enough (they're used in the Space Shuttle, for example) but the technology needs a fair bit of development before it's suitable for use in everyday transportation.
Sounds good, huh? Uh-oh, here it comes.
Hydrogen's fatal flaw when it comes to the global warming / peak oil dilemma is that it generally isn't a source of energy but a carrier of energy. Hydrogen can't be mined*, it has to be produced. The simplest way to produce it is to push an electric current into water so that you give the hydrogen atoms the energy they need to escape their bonds to the oxygen atoms. That's how it acquires the energy which we want to use later on when we burn it in an engine.
Fuel cells and electric vehicles get lassoed with the same rope now. All these vehicles depend on large inputs of electrical energy. Hopefully you recall that our electrical consumption is already a major concern because of the CO2 we emit when we generate it. Unless we come up with a revolutionary large-scale way to produce electricity, these cars would simply drive us from the peak oil frying pan into the global warming fire.
3. Coal liquefaction
I only learned about this one recently, but it's old technology. During one of the Great Wars the British were astonished that their attacks on the German sources of oil didn't bring the Nazi machine to a halt. The Germans had prepared by switching to production of liquid hydrocarbons from coal.
The world does have heaps of coal (though calculations for "Peak Coal" are already being debated) and I get the impression that it's relatively simple and efficient to convert it to a liquid. On the positive side, this may help alleviate the shortage of raw material for plastics and fertilizers etc. But of course burning the stuff in cars is just as bad as burning it in power stations. As a greenhouse-friendly replacement for oil, coal is also fatally flawed.
Three bullets: shiny-looking, but definitely not silver.
* I am simplying things a fair bit with regards to hydrogen as an energy carrier but it's generally true that getting usable H2 on a very large scale would require massive energy input and that would predominantly come from coal at this point in time.
Peak Oil
The global warming prophets like to make graphs showing the world's predicted consumption of oil growing at an exponential rate through 2050. Their point is that we shouldn't be doing that because it will add so much more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and accelerate the warming.
However...
Another group of scientists and researchers reckon those graphs are plain silly because according to them there isn't enough oil left in the ground for us to consume at anywhere near that rate. Instead they predict that within a decade or two we're going to reach a point where oil extraction starts to steadily decrease as the wells dry up. They call that point "Peak Oil".
Some think we've already reached it.
So on the one hand there are predictions of skyrocketing demand and on the other they're talking about falling production. Those of you who owned a car in the 1970's might feel a sense of deja vu reading this. As I understand it at that time the constraint on supply was more political than practical but the effect is predictable: fuel prices went through the roof.
But the potential problem is much worse than high prices. Having a gap between demand and supply literally means there isn't enough oil to go around.
Transport would be the first thing to be affected. I was struck some years ago by a very simple phrase stuck to the back of a semi-trailer: "Without trucks, Australia stops." Think about it for a second or two. Then consider which is more important to you: the tractors and trucks which grow food and transport it to the shops, or the car which you drive to work to earn the money so you can drive to the shops and buy the food. In a world of diminishing oil, which one could you give up first? And what happens when the other one runs out of fuel too?
Oil is also a critical feedstock for industry. According to Wikipedia, it is "the raw material for many chemical products, including solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics; the 16% not used for energy production is converted into these other materials." The cost and availability of all these things and anything which depends on them would also be badly impacted.
It's kind of ironic that the worst predictions of CO2 emissions growth might never come to pass, due to us simply running out of hydrocarbons to burn. Lucky us.
However...
Another group of scientists and researchers reckon those graphs are plain silly because according to them there isn't enough oil left in the ground for us to consume at anywhere near that rate. Instead they predict that within a decade or two we're going to reach a point where oil extraction starts to steadily decrease as the wells dry up. They call that point "Peak Oil".
Some think we've already reached it.
So on the one hand there are predictions of skyrocketing demand and on the other they're talking about falling production. Those of you who owned a car in the 1970's might feel a sense of deja vu reading this. As I understand it at that time the constraint on supply was more political than practical but the effect is predictable: fuel prices went through the roof.
But the potential problem is much worse than high prices. Having a gap between demand and supply literally means there isn't enough oil to go around.
Transport would be the first thing to be affected. I was struck some years ago by a very simple phrase stuck to the back of a semi-trailer: "Without trucks, Australia stops." Think about it for a second or two. Then consider which is more important to you: the tractors and trucks which grow food and transport it to the shops, or the car which you drive to work to earn the money so you can drive to the shops and buy the food. In a world of diminishing oil, which one could you give up first? And what happens when the other one runs out of fuel too?
Oil is also a critical feedstock for industry. According to Wikipedia, it is "the raw material for many chemical products, including solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics; the 16% not used for energy production is converted into these other materials." The cost and availability of all these things and anything which depends on them would also be badly impacted.
It's kind of ironic that the worst predictions of CO2 emissions growth might never come to pass, due to us simply running out of hydrocarbons to burn. Lucky us.
Friday 27 April 2007
Global yawning
OK, let's get this one out of the way.
I'm mentioning global warming as the first of my Big Worries because it's so obvious. You're probably well and truly sick of hearing about it. Just so there's no uncertainty I need to let you know I'm currently in the "this could be really really bad and it looks like it's our own fault" camp.
There are plenty of other places where the causes and impacts of the ever-rising thermometer are being debated and I'm not intending to enter into that here. But I will keep an open mind about it all and let you know if my position changes in any signficant way.
Now there are plenty of unpleasant predictions but for me the scariest thing about the world getting hotter is the thought of what would happen if the unbelievably large masses of ice currently sitting above sea level on solid ground in Antarctica and Greenland were to melt or slide off into the ocean. I've heard estimates of global sea level rises of as much as 60 metres as a consequence of that happening. No idea how reliable those estimates are, but even as I type this my stomach is clenching just a bit at the thought.
According to Google Earth my home is about 8m above sea level. Frankly I don't think I could possibly survive this if it did happen, even if I sold up today and moved to higher ground and joined a commune. For starters, both Michelle and I are pretty much dependent on modern medicines to keep us alive and functional (my heart and her thyroid gland) and I reckon things like drugs would be pretty hard to come by with most of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne etc permanently under the waves.
Of course I have no real idea how likely that is. The vast majority of us can only see a tiny glimpse of the overall picture through our personal experience - like I can tell you that winters just don't feel as cold as they did when I was a kid. But when the people with full-time jobs analysing this stuff tell me there's a chance it'll happen, who am I to tell them they can't possibly be right?
It'd take a lot more than six billion people crossing their fingers to hold back the tide. For the sake of my kids, as well as my own chances of seeing 2050, "a lot more" is what I'm willing to give to try and prevent the ice from melting.
I'm mentioning global warming as the first of my Big Worries because it's so obvious. You're probably well and truly sick of hearing about it. Just so there's no uncertainty I need to let you know I'm currently in the "this could be really really bad and it looks like it's our own fault" camp.
There are plenty of other places where the causes and impacts of the ever-rising thermometer are being debated and I'm not intending to enter into that here. But I will keep an open mind about it all and let you know if my position changes in any signficant way.
Now there are plenty of unpleasant predictions but for me the scariest thing about the world getting hotter is the thought of what would happen if the unbelievably large masses of ice currently sitting above sea level on solid ground in Antarctica and Greenland were to melt or slide off into the ocean. I've heard estimates of global sea level rises of as much as 60 metres as a consequence of that happening. No idea how reliable those estimates are, but even as I type this my stomach is clenching just a bit at the thought.
According to Google Earth my home is about 8m above sea level. Frankly I don't think I could possibly survive this if it did happen, even if I sold up today and moved to higher ground and joined a commune. For starters, both Michelle and I are pretty much dependent on modern medicines to keep us alive and functional (my heart and her thyroid gland) and I reckon things like drugs would be pretty hard to come by with most of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne etc permanently under the waves.
Of course I have no real idea how likely that is. The vast majority of us can only see a tiny glimpse of the overall picture through our personal experience - like I can tell you that winters just don't feel as cold as they did when I was a kid. But when the people with full-time jobs analysing this stuff tell me there's a chance it'll happen, who am I to tell them they can't possibly be right?
It'd take a lot more than six billion people crossing their fingers to hold back the tide. For the sake of my kids, as well as my own chances of seeing 2050, "a lot more" is what I'm willing to give to try and prevent the ice from melting.
Thursday 26 April 2007
Welcome
This is a personal blog. It's for you. It's about you.
Odds are, at least to start with, that you're a part of my family or a close friend. As time goes by there's an increasing chance that you might be a neighbour, a work colleague or somebody I've met a few times.
I'm hoping (and if I keep blogging and you keep reading you'll understand why) that more and more of you are people who live somewhere near me, on the northern fringes of the lovely city of Brisbane on the east coast of Australia. That last bit was, of course, for the benefit of those of you from nowhere near here.
Whoever and wherever you are, welcome.
As you might have picked up from the blurb at the top of this page, I'm going to be posting about stuff that makes me worry about the future of civilization (sometimes almost to despondency) and what I'm doing about it. I mean that in two ways: what I'm doing about the stuff that worries me, as well as what I'm doing about the worry itself.
And that's why this blog is for you. If you haven't yet accepted that there are serious challenges facing humanity (and by association most other living things on this planet) then I hope you'll find some conviction here. If you've grasped the enormity of the problems and want to do your best in response then I hope you'll find some new ideas and inspiration here. And if, like me, you're finding the whole thing dangerously depressing my hope is that somewhere here you'll find some encouragement.
For the first few posts I'm going to lay out some of the big issues which have been weighing on my mind. I almost don't want to do it - the last thing I want is be a spout of doom and gloom - but these are the things which set the context and provide the basis for everything else I'm going to want to say, so it's got to be done. Bear with me for a bit and we'll get to the good stuff before too long.
And yes: I really did feel compelled to choose the green-coloured template for this site.
Odds are, at least to start with, that you're a part of my family or a close friend. As time goes by there's an increasing chance that you might be a neighbour, a work colleague or somebody I've met a few times.
I'm hoping (and if I keep blogging and you keep reading you'll understand why) that more and more of you are people who live somewhere near me, on the northern fringes of the lovely city of Brisbane on the east coast of Australia. That last bit was, of course, for the benefit of those of you from nowhere near here.
Whoever and wherever you are, welcome.
As you might have picked up from the blurb at the top of this page, I'm going to be posting about stuff that makes me worry about the future of civilization (sometimes almost to despondency) and what I'm doing about it. I mean that in two ways: what I'm doing about the stuff that worries me, as well as what I'm doing about the worry itself.
And that's why this blog is for you. If you haven't yet accepted that there are serious challenges facing humanity (and by association most other living things on this planet) then I hope you'll find some conviction here. If you've grasped the enormity of the problems and want to do your best in response then I hope you'll find some new ideas and inspiration here. And if, like me, you're finding the whole thing dangerously depressing my hope is that somewhere here you'll find some encouragement.
For the first few posts I'm going to lay out some of the big issues which have been weighing on my mind. I almost don't want to do it - the last thing I want is be a spout of doom and gloom - but these are the things which set the context and provide the basis for everything else I'm going to want to say, so it's got to be done. Bear with me for a bit and we'll get to the good stuff before too long.
And yes: I really did feel compelled to choose the green-coloured template for this site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)