Archive for the ‘Peak Oil’ Category

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

– This article gives a great overview of how human consumption of meat is affecting the world. It is one of the many stories, woven of interconnections and interdependencies that form the world around us, that so many of us are ignorant of.

– I think the article is over optimistic, however, about people getting smarter about meat consumption.

– The world’s richer people will continue to consume meat much as they have. And the world’s nouveau rich, in India and China, among other places, will also step up to the table and attempt to match the meat consumption patterns of the US and Europe. This will, inevitably, drive up grain prices to feed all of these feed-lot animals and that, along with the current fad of growing crops for ethanol fuels, will further raise the prices poor folks have to pay for their food.

– So long as the rich can pay for higher priced food comfortably and so long as they hope that growing crops for ethanol will allow them to avoid the consumption down-sizing that Peak Oil implies, these trends will continue. And long before the rich say, “enough”, the poor will have been priced out of the food market and the resulting social unrest will be well underway.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

A SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in livestock production.”

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.

More…

– thx to Mike M. for pointing this story out to me.

– This article is from the NY Times and they insist that folks have an ID and a PW in order to read their stuff. You can get these for free just by signing up. However, a friend of mine suggests the website bugmenot.com :arrow: as an alternative to having to do these annoying sign ups. Check it out. Thx Bruce S. for the tip.

‘Huge’ gas field found off Brazil

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

– I personally don’t think that a Peak Oil crises is going to come to a sudden head.  So long as global systems remain mostly intact, those who produce oil will work ever harder and harder to meet demand as prices rise – driven ever onward by the rising prices.

– No, when things unravel, I think it will be from a series of small cuts that will begin to impact the functioning of the overall system.  And, as their cumulative impact builds into a positive feedback cycle, we will find that the transition happens rather quickly.

– The way that  the current financial crises is developing, one could imagine that it could progress to the point where it begins to feed back strongly on itself and the results could be bad.

– But, that’s not why I’m writing this piece.   I wanted to tell you about a new gas field that’s been found off the coast of Brazil.  it’s the second major find there in recent months.

– It is these kinds of things that makes me think that the Peak Oil crises will come on slowly and that long before we feel deep pain from it, something else will have unraveled to much greater effect elsewhere.

= = = = = = = = = = =

A huge natural gas field has been found a short distance off Rio de Janeiro’s coastline, Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil company, says.

The company believes the new field, Jupiter, could match the recently discovered Tupi oil field in size.

Tupi is thought to be one of the largest fields discovered in the past 20 years.

But Petrobras officials say further work needs to be done to establish Jupiter’s exact dimensions.

The new field is located just 37km (23 miles) from Tupi, some 5,100m (5,600 yards) below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, around 290km from Rio de Janeiro, Petrobras says.

While not providing any specific details on the size of the new reserve, Petrobras said “its structure could have dimensions similar to Tupi”.

Petrobras estimates Tupi contains between five and eight billion barrels of light oil.

More…

Massive wind farm ‘turned down’

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

– The logic of the authorities in the British Isles is amazing, to say the least. 

– Back on 12Jan08, I wrote a piece on the folks in Wales going ahead with the biggest open coal mine in the British isles.

– And now, here in Scotland, they’re refusing to build wind mills for power generation because they want to preserve the local wetlands.  Bloody amazing.

– One has to wonder how much the coal industry may have supported the one and opposed the other with big money back-room arm-twisting.   

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Plans to build one of Europe’s biggest wind farms on the Isle of Lewis are set to be turned down, BBC Scotland understands.

The BBC’s Gaelic news service, Radio nan Gaidheal, has learned that Scottish Government ministers are “minded to refuse” the 181 turbine scheme.

More than 5,000 letters of objection to the proposals were received by the Scottish Government.

It is believed environmental concerns are behind the decision.

An official announcement from the Scottish Government is not expected for a further two or three weeks.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “No final decision has been taken and ministers are working towards finalising and announcing a decision in the near future.”

A spokesman for Lewis Wind Power said they welcomed the Scottish Government’s commitment to make a swift decision on the application.

He said: “We continue a dialogue with Scottish Government officials about our application.”

Campaigners had warned the wind farm would cause “irreversible damage” to one of the country’s most important wetland sites.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds also opposed the project, disputing job figures put forward by developers Lewis Wind Power and raising concerns about the farm’s impact on local wildlife.

Supporters of the turbines pointed to potential economic benefits, claiming more than 400 jobs would be created during construction.

More…

Oil Map of the World

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

Great article on The Daily Galaxy discussing the distribution of oil in the world.

Where the world’s oil is

Read the article here:

A New, Global Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories

Saturday, January 19th, 2008

KUANTAN, Malaysia — Rising prices for cooking oil are forcing residents of Asia’s largest slum, in Mumbai, India, to ration every drop. Bakeries in the United States are fretting over higher shortening costs. And here in Malaysia, brand-new factories built to convert vegetable oil into diesel sit idle, their owners unable to afford the raw material.

This is the other oil shock. From India to Indiana, shortages and soaring prices for palm oil, soybean oil and many other types of vegetable oils are the latest, most striking example of a developing global problem: costly food.

The food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, based on export prices for 60 internationally traded foodstuffs, climbed 37 percent last year. That was on top of a 14 percent increase in 2006, and the trend has accelerated this winter.

In some poor countries, desperation is taking hold. Just in the last week, protests have erupted in Pakistan over wheat shortages, and in Indonesia over soybean shortages. Egypt has banned rice exports to keep food at home, and China has put price controls on cooking oil, grain, meat, milk and eggs.

According to the F.A.O., food riots have erupted in recent months in Guinea, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

“The urban poor, the rural landless and small and marginal farmers stand to lose,” said He Changchui, the agency’s chief representative for Asia and the Pacific.

A startling change is unfolding in the world’s food markets. Soaring fuel prices have altered the equation for growing food and transporting it across the globe. Huge demand for biofuels has created tension between using land to produce fuel and using it for food.

A growing middle class in the developing world is demanding more protein, from pork and hamburgers to chicken and ice cream. And all this is happening even as global climate change may be starting to make it harder to grow food in some of the places best equipped to do so, like Australia.

In the last few years, world demand for crops and meat has been rising sharply. It remains an open question how and when the supply will catch up. For the foreseeable future, that probably means higher prices at the grocery store and fatter paychecks for farmers of major crops like corn, wheat and soybeans.

There may be worse inflation to come. Food experts say steep increases in commodity prices have not fully made their way to street stalls in the developing world or supermarkets in the West.

More…

– research thanks to Rolf A.

– This article is from the NY Times and they insist that folks have an ID and a PW in order to read their stuff. You can get these for free just by signing up. However, recently, a friend of mine suggested the website bugmenot.com :arrow: as an alternative to having to do these annoying sign ups. Check it out. Thx Bruce S. for the tip.

Biofuels ‘are not a magic bullet’

Friday, January 18th, 2008

Biofuels may play a role in curbing climate change, says Britain’s Royal Society, but may create environmental problems unless implemented with care.

In a new report, the Society suggests current EU and UK policies are not guaranteed to reduce emissions.

It advocates more research into all aspects of biofuel production and use.

The report says the British government should use financial incentives to ensure companies adopt cutting-edge and carbon-efficient technologies.

“Biofuels could play an important role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions from transport, both in Britain and globally,” said Professor John Pickett from Rothamsted Research, who chaired the Royal Society’s study.

“But it would be disastrous if biofuel production made further inroads into biological diversity and natural ecosystems.

“We must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change.”

Variable savings

Biofuels – principally ethanol and diesel made from plants – are one of the few viable options for replacing the liquid fuels derived from petroleum that are used in transport, the source of about one quarter of the human race’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Vehicles, and the infrastructure for delivering fuel through filling stations, can be modified at marginal cost – certainly compared with the price of a large-scale switch to hydrogen or electric vehicles, even if they were to prove technologically and economically worthwhile.

Hence the adoption by Europe and the US of policies to stimulate biofuel production and use.

But a number of recent scientific studies have shown that the carbon savings from using biofuels compared with petrol and diesel vary hugely, depending on what crop is grown and where, how it is harvested and processed, and other factors.

More…

EU Rethinks Biofuels Targets As Criticism Mounts

Friday, January 18th, 2008

The EU has admitted that it failed to foresee problems raised by its policy to encourage motorists in Europe to drive vehicles which run on fuels derived from plants as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions.

The European Union’s environment chief said the bloc would rethink new draft rules on boosting the production of biofuels amid growing criticism by green campaign groups that the move could lead to rainforest destruction and social dislocation.

 

“We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully,” Stavros Dimas told the BBC on Monday, Jan. 14.

 

It would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment, Dimas said.

 

In March last year, EU leaders agreed that 10 percent of the bloc’s road fuels should come from biofuels by 2020 as part of wider efforts to combat climate change and slash CO2 emissions. That goal was to be anchored in concrete legislation.

 

Too many negative consequences?

 

But criticism has grown steadily in past months about the negative impact of large-scale production of biofuels.

 

Critics have warned that expanding the growth of agricultural products such as corn, soybeans and rapeseed to make biofuels can lead to environmental damage, drive up food prices and lead companies to drive poor people off their land to convert it to fuel crops.

 

More…

 

 

Biofuels: An Advisable Strategy?

Friday, March 9th, 2007

– I’ve been reading about Biofuels for some time now and I’ve seen that they are creating a lot of hope and optimism that they may ‘save’ us from, or at least help alleviate some of, our coming energy problems.

– I’ve had my doubts. Back behind the glowing articles have been a few darker ones which don’t seem to be getting the same degree of ‘play’ as the optimistic ones.

– These ‘other’ points of view have been pointing out that most of the world’s arable land is already in use and that to grow biofuels to cut our dependence on Oil and Gas, we cannot help but begin to cut into the land we’re using now to grow the food we eat. So, in the end, if we grow significant quantities of biofuel, we will grow less food – and this will drive food prices up strongly.

– It is true that to grow food or to grow biofuels is to use renewable resources but the renewability concept has its limits. You cannot use trees from the forests or fish from the seas faster than they can replenish themselves and you cannot grow more than a certain amount of crops on the earth – given that the total amount of arable land is limited (and will continue to diminish as global warming and desertification continue).

– The European Union has, up until now, been sanguine about integrating biofuels into their crop mix. But, now they’ve done a careful full-cost analysis of how effective biofuels really are and they are beginning to have their doubts.

– The summary from the end of this article is especially interesting:

Summing up, biodiesel cannot contribute to the solution of the problems related to the high dependency of our economy on fossil fuels. The idea that biodiesel could be a solution for the energy crisis is not only false, but also dangerous. In fact, it might favour an attitude of technological optimism and faith in a technological fix of the energy problem. We should never forget that if we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels there is no magic wand: the only possible solution is to modify consumption patterns.

– Read on, dear reader.

———————————————-

Science Daily Biofuels have been an increasingly hot topic on the discussion table in the last few years. The main argument behind the policies in favour of biofuels is based on the idea that biofuels would not increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, a more careful analysis of the life cycle of biodiesel reveals that the energy (and CO2) savings is not so high as expected. It might even be negative.

In 2003 the European Union introduced a Directive suggesting that Member states should increase the share of biofuels in the energy used for transport to 2% by 2005 and 5.75% by 2010.

In 2005 the target was not reached and it will probably not be reached in 2010 either (we are in 2006 at approximately 0.8%), but in any case, the Directive showed the great interest that the European Commission places on biofuels as a way to solve many problems at once. The new European energy strategy, presented on 10th January 2007, establishes that biofuels should represent at least 10% of the energy used for transport .

Biofuels are not competitive with fossil fuel-derived products if left to the market. In order to make their price similar to those of petrol and diesel, they need to be subsidized. In Europe, biofuels are subsidized in three ways:

1) agricultural subsidies, mainly granted within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy

2) total or partial de-taxation, which is indispensable, because energy taxes account for approximately half of the final price of petrol and diesel

3) biofuels obligations, which establish that the fuels sold at the pump must contain a given percentage of biofuels

These three political measures need financial means, which are paid for by the European Commission (agricultural subsidies), by the governments (reduced energy revenues), and by car drivers (increase in the final fuel price). For this reason, an integrated analysis is needed in order to discuss whether investing public resources in biofuels and employing a large extension of agricultural land is the most advisable strategy to solve the problems associated with fossil fuels.

More…

Jump in Chinese defence spending

Sunday, March 4th, 2007

– I’ve written before that the coming shortages in oil and gas supplies are going to create greater competition for these ever scarcer resources. This competition may begin politely but I fear it will not end that way. Nations are not likely to take the end of their increasing wealth and power lightly. Japan, for example, imports over 90% of all the oil and gas it uses. Without it, it will be driven back into a medieval economy. India and China are not likely to go quietly into that dark night of preindustrialization either. And, dear readers, why do you think the US is in Iraq?

—————————————————–

China’s military budget will increase by 17.8% in 2007, the spokesman for the National People’s Congress has said.

Jiang Enzhu said that military spending next year would amount to 350.92bn yuan, an increase of 52.99bn yuan.

The rise was announced the day before Chinese lawmakers were due start their annual parliamentary session.

Mr Jiang said the money would be used to increase wages for military personnel and to upgrade weapons, but gave no further details.

China says its military budget rose by 14.7% last year to $36.6bn (£18.6bn), but the US and other observers believe the actual figure may be two or three times that amount.

Correspondents say China is seeking to modernise its huge but often poorly-equipped military forces by building or purchasing new ships, missiles and fighter planes.

More…

Related:

Russia Plans New ICBMs, Nuclear Subs

Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

– The big patterns are what’s important. The world’s major powers have quietly recognized that without oil or a viable replacment for it, their engines of economic prosperity and their political and military powers are going to gradually diminsh and then disappear. Japan’s a great example. Something like 90% or more of the country’s oil is imported. What will the economic miracle of Japan do if the oil tap begins to run dry? Go back to medevil farming? Not likely. No, the US, Japan, China, Russia, the EU and a host of others are quietly but intensly thinking about how to position themselves to either gain acess to oil, hang onto the oil they have or align themselves with someone who has it or can get it. As oil gets scarce and our dependence on it remains intractable, there’s going to be no other game in town, folks.

———————————

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia’s defense minister on Wednesday laid out an ambitious plan for building new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly aircraft carriers, and set the goal of exceeding the Soviet army in combat readiness.

Sergei Ivanov’s statements appeared aimed at raising his profile at home ahead of the 2008 election in which he is widely seen as a potential contender to succeed President Vladimir Putin. But they also seemed to reflect a growing chill in Russian-U.S. relations and the Kremlin’s concern about U.S. missile defense plans.

Ivanov told parliament the military would get 17 new ballistic missiles this year – a drastic increase over the average of four deployed annually in recent years. The purchases are part of a weapons modernization program for 2007-2015 worth about $190 billion.

The plan envisages the deployment of 34 new silo-based Topol-M missiles and control units, as well as an additional 50 such missiles mounted on mobile launchers by 2015; Russia so far has deployed more than 40 silo-based Topol-Ms.

Putin and other officials have described the Topol-M as a bulwark of Russia’s nuclear might for years to come, and said it can penetrate any prospective missile defenses. Last week, Putin dismissed U.S. claims that missile defense sites Washington hopes to establish in Poland and the Czech Republic were intended to counter threats from Iran, and said Russia would respond by developing more efficient weapons systems.

More…