The End of Cheap Oil, The Beginning of Change and The Future

In our last class discussion we talked about the global peak oil issue and it’s many subsidiary problems. The first issue we addressed was, is this “peak oil” hypothesis true or false, and does it matter? We all clearly concluded that this hypothesis is indeed true, but I believe that the second question had a less definite answer in the minds of many in the class; at least it did for me. While not does it matter, but WHEN will it matter?

“Peak Oil” is referring to the amount of oil that is in the ground around the globe. Basically when extracting oil from the Earth, a classical bell shape curve can be used to demonstrate the amount of oil extracted. Starting out little oil is extracted then it rises quickly until it “peaks”, then after the peak it gradually falls and tapers off on the other end. So this peak we are referring to signifies the point in time that the entire Earth’s oil has reached its maximum limit of extraction, and from there on in, no matter what methods used, that amount of oil will never be obtained again. Yes, this is clearly happening and many scientists are backing this statement. Some even predicted it many years ago (M. King Hubbert).

Now what does this mean for us? The first thing that came to my mind was that if indeed the world’s oil can be displayed on a bell-curve, and indeed this oil will peak, in lets say approximately 2010; then the amount of oil that could be extracted from the Earth in 2030 would be the same amount that we have extracted in 1990. Did we have an oil crisis in 1990? Well no, but the question is not that simple. While according to this bell curve the same amount of oil can be extracted and that may very well be true, but what about the difficulty of getting this oil. We are talking about “tough-to-get oil” now, the kind of oil that needs to be forced out of the Earth because it lays much deeper in the wells. This oil takes a lot more ENERGY to get to and more to extract it. More energy, more money, more possible conflicts, and more political and war turmoil. What happens in the future on the other end of this curve if we have not found another primary source of energy? I would predict war, already our country’s main military policy seems to revolve around oil rich areas in the middle east (coincidence?), so what about when there is a limited amount of oil for all of the Earth’s nations? Then what? I personally don’t want to know and hopefully no one will have to, if we make the CHANGE now.

So the United States, an empire built of the success of two world wars, creates a suburban lifestyle for all. A lifestyle where “one person, one car” is rule of thumb and people drive everywhere, to get food at the grocery store, to go to work, to school, to go to the movies, etc. We DRIVE, this uses gas, when the gas is gone, or very pricey (likely to come first), what happens? Do we continue to drive everywhere? What can we do?

There are a few promising options for a new primary energy source mentioned on this blog so please read up, but I would like to talk about the lifestyle change that is in-store for us. In the future things will most likely become much more local. This goes for all aspects of life; things such as driving to the store by highway will then be replaced by walking down to one’s town’s center. In this center or square would be everything you will need. There will be “local” businesses like deli’s, grocery stores, hardware stores, electronic stores, and entertainment, everything you can think of. People like you and I in the community will run these stores. People will have to learn to support each other within their community. We will depend on each other and not oil. This more primitive lifestyle may seem difficult or dull to some. What about those who want to travel? Well new means of “public” transportation will be used, and guess where it will be located? In the Town Square or center. Buses running on some new energy source will take people where they need to go. I personally think that this lifestyle will bring people closer together and people could be happier because each person will have an important job to service their community and everyone will be valuable. On the contrary, I do not want to get rid of my car and the freedom it brings me, or the freedom I THINK it brings me.

New Urbanism is the name of a community based, local lifestyle housing project currently in the works. Go to this link for some general information:

http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html

Stupidity versus Brilliance

Last class discussion was very productive and we talked about the different issues linked with diminishing oil and possible solutions to allow society to continue to thrive. However with these possible solutions also means change and large scale cooperation, and will pose questions such as “Risk vs. Safety,” will it mean the downgrade of society (classes merging), and what are the trade-offs. Many students in the class suggested some possible solutions that may help our future situation. I figured I might add to these ideas and make people aware of some of the other possible solutions that exist I have came across through surfing the internet and reading science articles on reliable websites. I came across two very interesting articles on the National Geographic website both discussing promising ideas for renewable energy sources and proving future hope.

Because I am interested in the newly developing field of nanotechnology myself I will discuss this article first, “Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough," written by Stefan Lovgren. According to the article, “Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy.” This is not unheard of in fact solar panels today use this technology (plastic solar cells) in collecting energy from the sunlight. However this is not the only energy the sun emits. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum which is sunlight, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum (which is non-visible radiant heat energy). Thus with these new plastic solar cells, using nanotechnology can also collect solar energy on a cloudy day; the first of their kind. This will increase the efficiency of pre-existing solar energy collecting technology from 6 percent to a staggering 30 percent according to Peter Peumans, an electrical engineering professor at Stanford University. "The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto, who was also one of the inventors stated in the article. He also states, "If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells, we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable." What can we do with these plastic solar cells? They can be sprayed onto virtually anything. Some ideas of their use suggested in the article include, sweaters coated with the material that could in turn power cell phones or other wireless devices. Also, a hydrogen-powered car painted with the cells could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery. They could possibly be incorporated into paints where entire building can be sprayed and in turn power themselves with the solar energy they absorb. Residential houses could be painted with the same paint, or windows could be coated with a film of the cells. The possibilities are quite broad, and obviously a breakthrough. In the article, it states that “researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.”

The second article titled, “Can Earth Be Powered by Energy Beamed From Moon?,” written by Bijal P Trivedi, discusses something called a Lunar Solar Power System (LSP). “David Criswell, a physicist and Space Age veteran began looking into lunar-based power systems over 20 years ago during a decade-long stint at the Lunar Science Institute, which is now the Lunar and Planetary Institute, established in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson to maintain interest in the moon.” According to the article, “While he was there he participated in the administration of peer-reviewed proposals on lunar and planetary science, thus he had a constant exposure to lunar-related research and development.” In other words, he is a moo expert and the man for the job if there is somebody. Stated was that, “Between a half a billion and a billion dollars was spent to analyze moon rocks during the 1970s and 1980s, collected during the six Apollo moon landings. It was revealed that rocks contained an abundance of silicon, magnesium, aluminum, and titanium—the basic material required for building solar cells.” How convenient. With that being said Criswell is confident with the cooperation of the nation and the world, we would be able to utilize resources on the moon in order to successfully set up LSP. The article explains that “His idea is to use lunar materials to build bases on the moon that will collect solar energy and convert it to microwaves, which would then be beamed to a several thousand receivers around Earth. The microwaves subsequently are converted into electricity sent to local power grids.” More specifically, the system would require between 20 to 40 power bases located on the eastern and western edges of the moon, from Earth’s perspective and Criswell estimates that in 2050, a population of about 10 billion would require about 20 terawatts of power. Because the moon receives more than 13,000 terawatts of solar power, by just harnessing one percent of this plentiful energy source, we could easily satisfy Earth's power needs, states Criswell in the article. The problem however is of course cost.

I believe the combination of these ideas, as well as various others also suggested in class can result in a major turnaround for the future of our planet. In fact by just making people aware of these different perspectives and suggested solutions that they may never have heard of opens their eyes to hope and perhaps will drive them to work towards one or their own. How do you think I became interested in physics and nanotechnology? Simply by reading articles and watching channels that discuss scientific breakthroughs. What could be more important or interesting than contributing in some way to determine the outcome of our future planet I ask myself? Doing something is 100 times better than doing absolutely nothing but shooting down ideas. Physics and science was frowned upon by the church for the longest time, if those great physicists and scientific thinkers simply quit, where we would be today. As much as many viewed their opinions as lunacy or heresy, past scientific discoveries set the foundation for what we build upon today. Yes it may cost a major change in our way of living, and require much cooperation as a nation and world to make all of these ideas successful, to implement renewable energy resources on a large scale, but is it not worth taking that leap? Rather than stay our course of certain demise we are on now?

References

• Article 1
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html
• 
  Article 2
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0426_042602_TVmoonenergy_2.html
  

Future Famine?

The major limiting factor of the human population, always has and always will be, the available food supply. Agricultural methods today make use of petroleum in pesticides and machinery to grow crops as well as being used in the vehicles that transport the food. With the current problem of being at the stage of peak oil and the world population rapidly growing, a catastrophe could be waiting to happen if nothing is done.

As available oil drops, our dependence on it remains the same while and the demand for it increases. For this reason we need to start coming up with a plan to make our food system less oil dependent. This means using less chemical pesticides and fertilizers and more natural ones, reduce the amount of food transportation that occurs while making the transportation that does occur more efficient, and possibly even going as far as to use draft animals like horse to plow fields etc. instead of using farming machinery. This also would require smaller communities and communities that are more self sufficient to reduce the amount of food transportation. This could be an issue in places where the land is not very arable such as Las Vegas however.

Finally if the government were to get rid of the subsidies on certain crops like corn, the money could be put into something more beneficial and bring this plan to fruition. It will by no means be an easy task to carry out a plan like this. To completely change not only our way of life but the entire world's would be extremely difficult and would need everybodies cooperation, but as difficult as it is, it gives the human race a better chance at survival than what we are doing now.

http://archive.richardheinberg.com/archive/159.html

What's Fair is Fair

In our class discussion we mentioned the history and current use of exploitation to make a profit. It’s not surprising that capitalist and imperialist nations thrive from the control of cheap energy, raw materials, and labor because they insure a large profit. Nearly all developed countries have used these ideals to establish their prosperity.

I am reminded me of a unique experience I was privileged to have a few years ago. I went to Belize, Central America to participate in humanitarian work for a few weeks during summer vacation. Our team has been involved in building schools, distributing food and farming tools, and educating the people in more efficient farming techniques.

During my trip, I met men who worked in sugar cane fields making only a couple dollars a day. My team leader bought sugar cane and habanero fields, unlike other US agricultural pimps; his goal is not to exploit this land for its resources. He pays fair wages, in fair working conditions, and has a plan to sell it to a group in the community and supervise its entrance and commitment to the fair trade market. Fair trade “empowers farmers and farm workers to lift themselves out of poverty by investing in their farms and communities, protecting the environment, and developing the business skills necessary to compete in the global marketplace.” Products are bought at a fair price. There are fair labor conditions, which mean there is no child labor, safe working conditions, and respectable wages. The farming methods are also environmentally sustainable! (TransFair USA)

I am not comfortable with knowing that some of the products I enjoy most are holding a community in the death grip of poverty and are destroying land. Therefore, I make the choice (as much as possible) to buy fair trade products. Sometimes, I have to pay a little more money but it’s so worth it! Imagine- If the masses choose fair trade products? Impoverished communities all around the world have the opportunity to improve their quality of life. There may be agricultural changes in the States because businesses are no longer profiting from whoring the third world. They would have to pay the workers more, along with the cost of all that energy for machines and transportation. Businesses may also choose to use methods that will preserve the ecosystem just to compete and please consumers. This could lead to an enriched global community and a healthier planet.

http://www.transfairusa.org/content/about/overview.php

I am uncertain if the farm in Belize is certified by Transfair USA; this organization was used as a resource to better understand all that fair trade stands for.

A Small Town Girl's Perspective

I grew up in a town called Springfield Center in Central New York State. I lived in a modest house--often referred to as a log cabin--that was deliberately built to save energy. It has a southward facing peaked roof (which cuts back dramatically on heating and cooling costs due to natural processes), is double insulated, and is heated with a pellet stove. We have a compost pile on our 4-acre plot of land which we regularly churn to make sure that waste is decomposing in a safe and beneficial way. We grow much of our own food in raised-bed gardens that my dad and I built together when I was very young. Though our gardens are not certified organic(the certification process is long and rigorous), we use only organic soils and natural methods to repel pests, such as planting specific herbs, flowers and vegetables next to each other.
The land across the street from my house is a farming field--often used to grow corn. On the far side of that field is a small forest where many hunters catch food for their families that can easily last through the winter. To the left and right of my house are vacated lots whose owners died from old age. Behind us is a hill that grows several crops including alfalfa and soy beans. If you walk in the field behind my house, there is a hidden path from when I was young. My sister, brother and I used to run with our dog through the field to a creek where we played for hours catching crayfish and swimming. My dad mowed paths through the tall grass(which is half of my yard or about 2 acres) for the horseback riders to use.
Down the street is a farm. It is owned by a very well respected farming family, the Richardsons, who are extremely kind, warm, welcoming people. Though they never rotate their crops and therefore deplete their soil of any nutrients, no one has the heart to tell them(because they're so nice). A little further down the road is a lake--Otsego Lake--which has been made famous by the James Fenimore Cooper novel series(including Last of the Mohicans and The Deerslayer). I don't know how many people have visited this area, but it is absolutely breathtaking. In fact, at the other end of the lake is Cooperstown, which is often referred to as "America's Most Perfect Town"(which, by the way, is totally inaccurate). A trip around "the block" for me is about 3 1/2 miles, and it's certainly not block-shaped. Most importantly, two houses down the road from me is my grandmother...my hero.
My town is full of rich and vibrant history, including my own family history. I live on the land that was once a part of one of the largest dairy farm in Springfield--Glimmerloch Farms. It belonged to my grandfather who was a graduate of Cornell University. They(Cornell) often asked him to teach classes at their university, however, he always declined. He instead would allow college students to work with him throughout the summer on his farm and in return would give them shelter, food, and good company.
I know you're probably wondering why I'm writing all of this. It's extremely personal to me, and is very hard for me to so openly and publicly discuss. However, this is the only way that anyone could possibly understand anything that I say or think.
Many of us come from very different backgrounds. We were immersed in entirely different cultures from the time we were born. I was taught to respect the earth. I was taught that all creatures are equal...in fact, I even place other creatures above humans. I see my town, my home, my family's history changing a little bit every year as winter rolls around. Every year there is less snow, the flowers aren't as bright in the spring, the peepers aren't as loud in the summer, and the stars aren't as outstanding in the fall.
There are changes occuring on this planet that are simply unnatural. I feel it in my bones....I mean, doesn't everybody? Denying these changes will only make life harder later on. I don't see this as a difficult transition, maybe because I've lived so differently than most people my whole life. But I'd like to offer some words of encouragement, even comfort: life as I've lived it is wonderful. I have had so many incredible experiences--things that people go to movie theaters to watch. This is possible for all of us. This is inevitable for all of us...it's something we should be celebrating. After all, who REALLY wants to watch reality TV, anyway??

Holy Carp!

After watching the video in today's class about diminishing supply of fish and destruction of oceanic habitat I was stunned to say the least. The ocean, is...well flipping humongous for lack of a better word and we have only just begun to explore its deepest depths. Yet we've managed to begin destroying what little parts of it we understand.
I had not heard of this issue until today and I'm very upset by that. Where was mainstream media on this? I am currently a Journalism Major and I feel such topics are incredibly important but our culture seems to be so obsessed with Hollywood, no one wants to read about conservation. What doesn't sell isn't reported on and I feel that model is fundamentally flawed. The only way to prevent a dismal future is to communicate and we cant do that if all our media is worried about is their next big check.
I started to write this before our discussion on Wednesday but I think I can roll both messages together.
Communication is the key.
But I don't mean just simply spitting out all your ideas as if they are the only possible way. Communication has to be a balance between listening and understanding your opponent and then speaking your own ideas. We cannot go about demanding corporations bend to our ideas with no exceptions, these are multi-million dollar companies who, if they want, can simply drown out what you're saying. The small movements must attack corporations with understanding and compromises that will eventually lead to a sustainable and yet profitable life.
The same way it would be difficult to argue with someone in french if you don't know french, it is impossible to argue with someone in "environmentalist language" if they only know the language of profit.

The Not So Shocking End To Suburbia

After watching The End of Suburbia I was shocked. It opened my eyes to the fact that the lives we lead will soon be very very different. I entitled my blog The Not So Shocking End To Suburbia for two reasons. The first being that after reflecting a bit i realized that the news delivered in the movie should not be so shocking. We have been talking about recycling and fossil fuels since we were in elementary school and it has be going on long before that. The second reason is because our government is fully aware of what is going on and what is projected to happen yet still they do not properly inform the public. I feel they should be taking more action than they currently are. Gaylord Nelson the founder of earth day felt the same way. Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, proposed a national protest in 1970 "to shake up the political establishment and force this issue onto the national agenda. " "It was a gamble,but it worked." he said. Earth day and that first protest lead to the creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency and to the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species acts. Since the 70s there have been more agencies and acts passed although they have proven to not be enough. We saw this in The End of Suburbia. The suburbs grew quickly in the early 1900s and the population and growth of the suburbs has not stopped over a hundred years later. In my history class with Professor Wittern-Keller we learned about the US in the 1900s. The rapid immigration to the country lead to and insane growth in cities and than the suburbs and we did not have a strong enough government to deal with the growth at the time. There was hardly any government regulation in those days and I feel that our current situation definitely has contributing factors from this period of time and everything onward in history. During our class discussion it became clear that the different things we are reading and watching are all very interconnected. The class video we watched entitled Stuff addresses consumerism and displays the amount of waste and excess things we have. It also explained the cycle of how things are made and all the flaws in the process. Humans make and consume entirely too much stuff. The creation and consumption of all of this stuff uses our finite supply of fossil fuels. The processes we use for all of this pollutes the earth. The growing number of people on the planet who consume and pollute is stressing the planets resources and all of these things will ultimately put end to "suburbia" and life as we know it. Reading for class and watching these films has opened my eyes to this situation that i along with many others have been ignoring. Being in this class for only two weeks makes me want to get up and do something about it while will still can. I feel like if other people were are informed as we are going to be by the end of the semester they would be willing to do something about it and more things would get done.

http://www.earthday.net/node/77

The End of Suburbia

Stuff

Eye Opener

School has only been in session now for about three weeks and our class has only met about six times. With that being said, I find it amazing how much this class opens up your eyes to the harsh realities of our planet’s health and what that means for us. Even after the first reading assignment, especially The Party’s Over, I became much more self-aware of how temporary our way of life is now and how much it is going to change, whether we like it or not. I’ve never been ignorant to how badly we are treating our planet, over-population, and the oil crisis however after getting some of the facts and numbers; it really puts things into a different perspective for me and forces me to think deeper about these issues and much more often. I know this may sound corny but I feel like my new favorite conversation starter is about Nitrogen based fertilizers, and the funny thing is it actually does make good conversation. For a moment there I said to myself, wow I’m such a nerd why am I bringing up this conversation with people, but I began to realize how interesting and how “in the dark,” so many students and people really are. I feel like by conversing with them about these issues, they too were shocked and have now opened up their eyes up a bit to this harsh reality that so many are simply ignoring until it is too late to do anything. People are very self-centered.

I have one friend that enjoys discussing things like this all the time with me. In fact the weekend before even reading chapter 2 of The Cartoon Guide to the Environment we brought up and discussed how everything humans know is knowledge continually passed on by other humans from our conscious perspective, not a trees or other living organisms that “aren’t able” to communicate or express themselves to us. Everything we know is discovered and perceived using our five senses; however certain animals have the ability to perceive things that humans simply cannot with their own unique senses. Therefore who are we to say that Earth is not a live, conscious being, that holds conversations everyday with other planets. We don’t know this simply because we don’t have the ability to communicate with Earth on that direct of a level. I was surprised to read about the Gaia theory invented in the 1970’s by British chemist James Lovelock and American Biologist Lynn Margulis in The Cartoon Guide to the Environment, something I’ve never heard of until then. Earth just like other organisms strive for homeostasis, “a dynamic steady state, full of flux and change, but ultimately tuned to optimize conditions for life.” My friend took this one direction commenting on how although humans may be facing an upcoming crisis in the near future with over population, pollution, and the oil crisis, humans have always prevailed and have come up with a solution in the past and will again during a time in need with further technological advancement. Perhaps hydrogen cars and more efficient use of solar power. In response I explained to him how this may have paid off if we started more serious use of these methods years ago. Now it is too late for these methods to be very effective because we need so much of our limited resources to actually get these systems successfully working on a nationwide level that we simply don’t have now. As stated by a speaker in the in class movie “The End of Suburbia,” “Before people realize what oil experts hypothesized it’s already in the next era of decline. We are not one step behind but four or five steps behind.” Another speaker states that during the upcoming oil crisis 7 million dollars will be lost out of the stock market, 2 million jobs will be lost, and the middle class will be no more. Food prices will sky rocket and variety of consumer goods will diminish. Violence and political upheaval is imminent. The speaker states that the Infinite War is here.

The other day my friends were watching a History Channel documentary on Nostradamus and his predictions. I know it is a bit far-fetched to take anything a long dead prophet has to say about our future as a fact but one of the things that was said to be predicted is a 27 year war approaching. Perhaps not so far-fetched after all. I certainly believe in war that will not end in our lifetime, nor our kids, and kid’s kids, etc. It only makes sense to me that as people lose their jobs, the diminishing of oil and life as we now know it, that people will once again revert back to their basic nature. Survival of the fittest and complete chaos will slowly take over. First on large scale government level than on smaller group levels we will kill each other off after there is no stable government left. When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, without the proper aid of the government, people did everything they could to survive and some even took advantage of the chaotic period of time to loot for their own benefits. Perhaps all of this chaos and self-destruction is simply the Earth’s plan to maintain its homeostasis and preserve its well being completely impartial to human life. Many other species have come and gone extinct before us, what makes us a special exception? What makes us think we won’t be replaced by a more advanced organsim?

This is a funny picture that I found on a forum through google images showing how ignorant people are.

References

• The Cartoon Guide to the Environment
• "The End of Suburbia"
• The History Channel

Image

http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ethanolcomic.jpg

Chemicals and Resources

I am currently a student of the State University of New York at Albany and working towards a Bachelors degree in Human Biology. My personal interest lies particularly in the growth and health of humans from the moment of conception to the adolescent years. Attending the first few classes made me realize the magnitude of relevance this class has with my interest. For example, the video "The Story of Stuff" explained, in detail, the production of our daily products from resources and paths these products take until the moment they reach our home and ultimately, to our families. 

The first major step of this detailed process is extraction. This is where natural resources needed for the production of our everyday materials is exploited. Recall that the next step was production, where "energy is combined with toxic chemicals" to produce our materials. It was clearly stated In "The Story of Stuff" that only a "hand-full of tests" were conducted to test the harmful effects of these toxins. I would like to argue that this problem surfaces first in the extraction step, were our resources are first exploited.    

The first topic that truly concerned me was the ability of pollutants to travel thru a food chain and eventually end up concentrating in the human body. I noticed that the video failed to mention our excessive pesticide use. We are using potentially harmful chemicals to grow many of our resources. So picture this, we have resources grown with the aid of pesticides. We exploit the resources and with energy and additional toxic chemicals, making them usable. We then either consume or use these materials in our everyday lives. I have yet to hear of any laboratory testing being conducted on the interaction of all these chemicals and their effects on the human body. My guess would be that it isn't anything good!

The most disturbing of all was the segment of the video which explained how the toxins used in the production of our products accumulates in the human body and into the breast milk of breast feeding mothers, and in turn into the newborn. I was reading an article that explained how this was occurring. Basically, there are these toxins called Persistent Organic Pollutants. These pollutants like to bind to the fatty tissues in our bodies. And it is these fatty tissues that are a necessary source of nutrients for the production of a mothers milk. This leads me to wonder, how many toxins are we exposing our children to?  Why isn't this regulated? Why isn't the government protecting mothers and newborns? These are in fact, the next generation that will be running this country.

It is my belief that society is most familiar with the five major steps described in "The Story of Stuff", but what they really need to be educated on all the important factors that go into making each step, especially the use of toxins . The more knowledge the public has on these flaws, the more pressure will be placed upon the government to make changes and regulate the use of ALL these chemicals. The government was created for the good of the people, right? 

References:

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/default.asp

http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/envpoll.asp

First Blog Posting- The Earth, Gaia, and Life

So far, in just the first three weeks of class, my mind has been challenged by a much greater awareness of our life on Earth and the role we play in the evolution of us as a species, an individual, and of the Earth itself. Sometimes, after learning some scientific theories or so-called “facts”, I personally think that maybe I am better off being ignorant, and therefore happy or impervious. Thomas Grey once said, “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise. ” I think this quote greatly describes people on Earth; with intent or not many of us are unaware to the real problems our twisted existence has created by damaging the very planet we live on. We need to understand that our planet is not invincible and this is our only planet. There is only one Earth.

For myself, college has opened my mind up to so many different views and beliefs. Thus, I now choose wisdom over ignorance and seek a greater understanding of all things I deem important or that will affect the masses (earth, life, society). I understand that I, as an individual, am part of something much greater than myself. I am learning about the many “systems” that I am a part of, be they biological, chemical, or societal.

One particular theory that confounded me while reading the literature for this class is James Lovelock’s and Lynn Margulis’ “Gaia Hypothesis”. In chapter two of the Cartoon Guide to the Environment, on the cycles, I was first introduced to this theory- it states “Hypothesis: They suggest that the world is an interconnected, biological being, whom the scientists called Gaia after the Greek Earth Goddess. Earth as a being or entity? Never have I thought of this. The basic ideas of Gaia revolve around the biosphere, or the living world. It is theorized that the biotic world, the life of earth itself, is the driving factor for its self-regulation. This was theorized behind the observation of Earth’s atmosphere, which is part of the abiotic or non-living world. Earth’s atmosphere, chemically, as stated by Lovelock while he completed research with NASA on Mar’s atmosphere, is extraordinary. Mars ‘and Venus’ atmospheres are very abundant in carbon dioxide, but this is expected from knowledge of chemistry. On the contrary, Earth has many gases that are reacting constantly and working together to coexist to sustain life. These gases are from us, from living organisms. During this week’s lecture, we learned the cycles of nitrogen and carbon, from their gaseous forms down to usable molecules that are the building blocks of life, and then how they are put back into this circular cycle for future life.

The Gaia hypothesis remains controversial but “true” and “fact” or not, “alive” or not Earth may be but we are still going to have to deal with the problems our planet has for us, or the problems we create for our planet. One section from Cartoon Guide to the Environment says- “The Gaia theory says that whenever an abiotic condition begins to get out of hand, life responds in some way that pulls the condition back under control, damping down the fluctuation”, but what about the biotic world? What if Earth realizes with some subconscious or conscious mechanism, be it from the Earth itself or from the life forms we coexist with, that we are disrupting the cycles we are doing damage to life on Earth. Will some super-predator evolve to eliminate us? Or maybe the very bacteria and viruses that have evolved over time to be less virulent to reproduce and spread, will further evolve to become more virulent, to eliminate us. These are just some daunting thoughts that cross my mind when really thinking about this theory.

I am currently taking Dr.Wang’s class on Evolutionary Biology and Human Health and it also has introduced me to a new evolutionary perspective on matters. I tend to find myself relating information to and from this class. When I think of how the human form, the human “system” evolved, and how we have many individuals component’s (RBC, WBC, macrophages, etc.) each with a purpose or job, I compare this to the evolution of Earth. When you think of Earth as a being, it is comparable to human evolution. The thought of the components working for the greater good of something larger than itself, aware or unaware humans and red bloods cells may be- they do contribute. I would like to leave you with some interesting youtube videos that caught my attention that relate the theory of “Gaia”, and provided some of my information on the subject. One theory I found interesting is that the Earth is growing and this can be viewed in the second URL. This would work for the Gaia hypothesis and though interesting, I am not stating the validity of this theory, but it would create great controversy is ever proven “true”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI (on the Gaia Hypothesis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxMYRwwA2Zg&feature=related (on the growing Earth)

Back to the class discussion of how our food is made...

As we go through every class period, I find that the course holds a lot in common with a book written by Michael Pollan entitled "The Ominivore's Dilemma." I began to read the book before I started this course, I have yet to finish it, but already it helps me understand the course more.

Pollack tries to answer the age old question "what's for dinner?" in his book. One thing that specifically reminded me of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" was the film we saw in class, "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying." As we watched, we learned that our food is increasingly made with corn. In some shape, way or form, we can trace corn in just about everything we eat. Pollan adds that corn is also used in nonfood items we consume such as "toothpaste and cosmetics to the disposable diapers, trash bags, cleansers, charcoal briquettes, matches, and batteries, right down to the shine on the cover of the magazine that catches your eye by the checkout: corn," (Pollan, 19).

Before taking this course and reading this book I had no clue that corn was such a dominant presence in our lives. Pollan writes that most Americans would not consider themselves to be "corn people." We associate that term to indigenous people who grow their own food, or whose poverty leaves them with no other choice but to consume high amounts of corn. Yet when I realized the extent to which corn was involved in our lives, I would say that we are more "corn people" than the people we stereotypically label as such.

In "The Omnivore's Dilemma" I also read about Fritz Haber. He is a tragic figure, his invention is easily the most influential invention of our existence. Whether this influence is beneficial or harmful is extremely subjective. In my opinion it is difficult to commit to one side of this debate.

Reading "The Party's Over" has instilled a new fear in me that this life that I have gotten used to is only temporary, it is by no means a standard and available to me forever. We've been destroying the planet to live as comfortably as we can, and certain groups make money from creating this illusion that this lifestyle is what is necessary to the masses. I've been thinking lately, the term "retail therapy" is truly an expression of the triumph of this system that destroys the planet and exploits its inhabitants.

Problems Ignored

As we go through class, watching different movies about a multitude of threats facing our planet and its inhabitants there is one common theme.

Humans seem to be willing to ignore these threats until its almost too late. We as a species have become so arrogant in our ways that it takes disaster to convince people to change.

This is a huge problem regarding our massive reliance on non-renewable energy, with only 40 years left of oil and perhaps another 100 with coal (Cartoon Guide to the Environment) most people seem willing to continue on ignoring the problem.

The average American alone relies on 400 gallons of fossil fuel equivalents each year for food and more than a billion people rely on fossil fuels for food.(Pimentel, David and Giampietro, Mario, 1994) Also 1-2 billion humans use fossil fuels to obtain their food.This is a huge problem because a disaster regarding fossil fuels could cause incredible damage in the form of public disorder and death.

We aren't even at the scary stuff yet. With a current global population of 6.7billion(U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.php), the 1-2 billion doesn't seem too horrible. However that 1-2 billion rely solely on fossil fuels for food, this number doesn't include people whose diets are supplemented by fossil fueled foods. Just to give an idea, the U.S. uses 40% more energy then what is attainable by our plant matter. This means that a large portion of the American diet would be unavailable after the depletion of fossil fuels. So even though there are a few billion who depend completely on fossil fuel created food, the affects of fossil fuel exhaustion will be far more reaching.( Pfeiffer, Alan, 2004 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html).

Now consider the fact that our population is predicted to rise to 9 million people by 2050( U.S. Census). A population of this size cannot be sustained on fossil fuels simply based on the fact that our current population is to high to survive with out non-renewable energy. Of course a switch to renewable energy is in the works but who can say if it will be in time? We as a species have ignored this problem for far too long and now we are very close to making a "final stand".

If we ignored fossil fuel depletion for so long, how long will it take us to realize that exploding global population is perhaps the true threat?

Even with renewable green energy our earth itself is finite. With rapidly growing population, the demand for renewable energy will continually be on the rise, as it has with non-renewable energy. Not to mention there eventually wont be any more viable living space.

Human beings need to stop living life like everything is infinite because we live in a very finite world and must be vigilant to prevent disaster.

On Earth life was created before mankind and should we fail to protect our planet and its resources we will disappear. However, earth will recover, whether it takes a billion years or 10 billion the earth will most likely be here and life will start again. We need to think of ourselves as a finite resource, one which the earth can and will do without, its up to us to ensure our continued presence on this planet.



Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Pimentel, David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network, 11/21/1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page55.htm

Nitrogen Pollution

Today in class I thought it was interesting to hear that nitrogen is a pollutant and that its effects are as much of a problem as other well known pollutants like carbon dioxide. While nitrogen is a common naturally ocurring element, with nearly 80% of the atmosphere consisting of it and its availability in soil allowing plant growth, too much of it can have a negative impact. One source of excess nitrogen is the burning of fossil fuels, which causes it to be released into the atmosphere, contributing to respiratory problems like asthma. What goes up then comes down in the form of acid rain and is deposited in the soil. Even more nitrogen goes into the soil from the use of the nitrogen fertilizers that are commonly used in agriculture today. The excess nitrate leaches the soil, making it less arable and causing runoff into bodies of water. This eutrification causes rapid algae growth which uses up most of the oxygen in the water essentially suffocating other wildlife in the same body of water and creating "dead zones". In some areas of Sweden, nitrogen pollution from other parts of Europe has caused so much acid rain that deposition of nitrate can exceed 100 pounds per acre. To combat this Sweden has to add lime to nearly 8000 lakes to prevent the acidification of the water. This is an effective solution to this issue but is very expensive. Another idea that may prove to be helpful has emerged in recent research by LSU researchers of the effects of crop diversity. According to this research, "diverse farms tend to have smaller fields with more edges, which can mean there is a greater buffering effect on nitrogen runoff by surrounding grasslands and woodlands". This means that if farmers began growing multiple types of crops nitrate runoff would be reduced, unfortunately this goes against the government subsidizing the growth of specific crops like corn. Apparently to prevent problems like this we have to change quite a few things about our country.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1099/et1099s11.html

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/02/11/cropland.diversity.reduces.nitrogen.pollution.0

Staying Fat and Keeping Warm

Taxpayers spend billions dollars a year to pay for corn subsidies (Business Insider). In our government all things should be done in the interest of the people. It is irresponsible to pay off agricultural “fat cats” on monetary and health expense of the majority. They seduce both the uninformed adults and the innocent children with cheap poison that is not only destroying our bodies but our earth.

Corn ethanol is blended with gasoline to make a “renewable energy” source and a supposedly more environmental friendly substitute for traditional gasoline. This and other corn based bio-fuels are equally or more damaging to our environment as the gasoline we use everyday (Yale). The American fantasies of bio-fuel are a poor stewardship of money and agriculture. William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, boldly said, “More ethanol means more air pollution. Period” (Yale). It is projected that the U.S. will spend $33 billion dollars on our bio-fuels between 2009 and 2013 (Business Insider). If corn ethanol continues to be the concentrated effort to gain independence from foreign oil, a greener earth, and a security for the future, we will fail.

We as a nation and as a global community have sold ourselves and our livelihood to a finite source. We’ve built for ourselves picture perfect houses of sticks and straw and when our foundation proves weak, it will fall down. The research proves that these bio-fuels cannot efficiently sustain our lifestyles and will not lead to a healthier planet earth. So, what happens when our beloved oil begins to run dry? Oil prices, competition for remaining resources, manufacturing, and international tensions will rise while farming, manufacturing, and standards of living will decrease unimaginably.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2063

http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2009/01/07/inside-ethanol-subsidies-controversy

http://www.businessinsider.com/biofuel-is-going-bust-but-it-gets-the-most-subsidies-2009-8

The End of Suburbia

After the video on Wednesday on peak oil I began to realize how much of a “cluster-f***” we really are in. That video really has shown how greedy and ignorant our country really is, that we would turn our backs on something like the EARTH in order to live comfortably in our pretty houses with our gas guzzling cars and our over expenditure of material things. They don’t want to hear that gas is running out and in fact the government avoids the subject whenever addressed, but why??? Personally I want to be educated on how to be prepared; what things we can do NOW that will make it less of a catastrophe LATER. As it says in the video, when fossil fuel production declines it is very possible that people will fight over the remaining supply, leading to war and death. Wouldn’t it be better to find different ways of living rather then selfishly fight for a resource we shouldn‘t have even touched in the first place? Fossil fuel in itself has caused so much damage to the earth that we should be happy it is running out, that finally global warming from the vast amount of CO2 being pumped in to the air can finally slow its destruction to the earths ecosystems.
I mean we see those commercials on TV of the polar bears and their lose of habitat but isn’t it ironic that we are giving money to this fund when humans caused this climate change? Think of the drying up of the Amazon or the heat wave in Europe, are these not signs? If we hadn’t released Carbon dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, and Nitrogen oxide in the air these key ecosystems would not have been in this bad of shape, because of the thoughtlessness of oil production people have died from the repercussions. Of course not all the CO2 emissions come from these factories of production but the other sources are either from using that already produced product for fuel or from the deforestation of many forests. We have come to the end of being comfortable that as Professor Hirsch has stated we have to get a little more uncomfortable to deal with the depletion of our resources. Frankly I have no problem growing my own food or buying from a local farmer if it comes to that, I think that everyone just needs to buck up and stop ignoring something that is right in front of us.

The information on fossil fuels can be found here: http://www.solcomhouse.com/fossilfuels.htm

Other causes of CO2 emissions: http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

Also watched the show 6 degrees could change the world which was aired on the National Geographic Channel.

Be brave - post!

Is there really nothing to say?