Earth shopping

Since my last post, mainstream climate talk has eased from the biofuel debate into how to best use standard economic models to promote green technology. While these theories have a wealth of good intention behind them, at present it seems like the people making decisions want to continue the status-quo while giving the impression that they are catering to the public's [unrealistic] desire for a feel-good romantic comedy: where big business has not only learned the error of its ways, but also figured out a way for the rest of us to live guilt-free in pristine surroundings with meaningful, well-paid employment for everybody.

I'm all for that finale (realistic or not). But there is no magic way to get there. It starts with the human race understanding that the Earth's resources aren't free. Since the beginning of human history 50,000 years ago, we have been using water, land, minerals, plants and animals as gifts; freely given and to be freely taken. The only cost we paid was in getting to and extracting these riches. Shoplifting at its finest. And nobody trying to catch us anyway.

Fifty thousand years is a long time. The notion of free is a hard one to overcome. But that is our first step.

Land use proportional to energy production needs?

Another article from Science, 29 May 2009, Vol. 324.

Most scientists and policy makers are in agreement: Limiting CO2 emissions is an important next step in ameliorating climate change. However, the scientific, cultural, political and economical viewpoints are often at odds with one another. International communities have different agendas and competing interests at stake. When imposing and evaluating policy it's always nice to have a little science behind it, no?

Researchers at the University of Maryland completed a modeling study assessing (and titled) "Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy." Their question: does a policy limiting terrestrial emissions, in addition to fossil fuel and industrial emissions, make a difference? They looked at two scenarios, one where anthropogenic carbon emissions from fossil fuels, industry and terrestrial ecosystems were imposed with a restriction on the amount of CO2 emissions allowed. The second scenario only imposed limitations on fossil fuels and the industry sector.

Their findings whole-heartily suggest that teresterial ecosystems play an important role in overall emissions; a policy restricting only fossil fuel and industry emissions would devalue conservation and all other land uses except for biofuel production. While, in reality, it is improbable that society would allow all available land to be used for crop production, the theory is that different types of land use need to be taken into consideration before dedicating land to biomass production.

The big picture IS important. How we treat our land, what we do with it have implications for how we run our lives, how we see our landscape, and what we truly value in society. But will we follow their advice?

Biomass: Reseaching crops and crap

I recently read three articles from Science magazine on Biomass and its implications for a clean energy future. (Science Vol 324, 22 May 2009 and two articles in Vol. 325, 17 July 2009). Let me preface by saying the force and blindness we asserted in upscaling corn production for biofuel use in the US was wishful thinking at best, and a dire mistake all around. In my travels to the midwest in 2007, I noted signs at the entrance of various towns proclaiming something along the lines of, "X is Green! We grow corn!"

It was simply laziness and greed that led to this assessment by agricultural communities, whereby they could keep planting and harvesting corn - and even increase their production and land-use with the government's blessing - while raking in government subsidies, and on top of this, they could call themselves stewards of the environment! Of course it blew out of proportion; people took advantage of some government and media lingo to promote their own agenda and make themselves look good all at the same time.

The recent articles from Science talk about a more broad yet directed use for the production and consumption of biomass as biofuels. As Tilman et al. asserts, there is a delicate balance between growing biofuels, avoiding land-clearing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Choose the wrong angle and biofuels become more of an environmental hazard than relief. Choose, investigate and monitor your assumptions wisely, and biomass/biofuels can lead to land conservation and a reduction in emissions when compared with conventional fossil fuels.

Ohlrogge et al. poses that biomass converted to electricity is 20 to 25% more efficient when powering a vehicle than converting biomass into ethanol, or fuel. Given the relative inefficiency of the internal combustion engine (less than 20% of gasoline energy is transformed into mechanical work) and accounting for its widespread use, this allows for massive savings of GHGs.

People are idiots

Painters at my parents' house, working on the vinyl siding. They dump the stain mostly in a container and then pour the rest in my parents' garden, turning the plants white. I asked them about it and their response was that most was dumped in a container and it won't harm the garden. When I commented on it getting in the soil and groundwater the response was,"Ah, it will go down the drain."

And the painters don't think this is a problem.