Archive for the ‘Social Breakdown’ 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.

Power chaos in South Africa

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

– Over the last week or two, I’ve seen a number of stories coming out of South Africa about power shortages there.

South Africa– Our societies and their infrastructures are like a house of cards in many ways. We build them higher and wider all the time and the number of interrelationships and dependencies within them grows as well. To keep it all going requires constant reevaluation to ensure that everything required is coordinated and working well.

– Apparently, the government in South Africa has dropped the ball with regard to ensuring the country has sufficient electrical power – a process that takes long-term planning and constant reevaluation.

– I think we can expect more of this because (1) it is getting more difficult to keep all our systems up and running as they get more complicated, (2) as the world becomes a tougher place, the ideologies of those moving up into power are becoming more demagogic and such such simplicity is not compatible with the requirements of running complex societies, and (3) the inputs to the systems we are trying to maintain in our societies are becoming less reliable. We have less food, less water, worse weather, more population and the list goes on and on.

– I think we need to expect increasing breakdowns.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Links to stories on the South African situation:

SA facing ‘critical’ power shortage

Supply of generators dries up

South African mines look for power shortages to end

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

Monday, June 4th, 2007

– There are people of every flavor with strong opinions about Global Climate Change out there. Just Googling the subject will expose you to the full range of supporters and deniers of the idea that mankind’s activities are changing the global climate.

– Amid all this controversy, I’ve chosen to align my beliefs with what the majority of the world’s scientists believe. And that is that humanity’s activities are affecting global climate and the changes are likely to be ugly (see IPCC Reports ➡).

– But there are other ways to get at the truth through all the rhetoric and hand waving and that is to ask yourself who is it that has a deep and vested interest in discovering the truth rather than pandering to political or monetary forces. Well, the insurance industry is one and military think tanks are another. Neither of these entities can afford to be wrong because the bottom line of their very survival is directly linked to their ability to discern the future accurately.

– Here’s a report from the CNA Corporation, a military think tank based out of Alexandria, Virginia. This is not the first time I’ve seen assessments of the likely impact of global climate change on national security matters and it won’t be the last, I’m sure.

— — — — —

During our decades of experience in the U.S. military, we have addressed many national security challenges, from containment and deterrence of the Soviet nuclear threat during the Cold War to terrorism and extremism in recent years.

Global climate change presents a new and very different type of national
security challenge.

Over many months and meetings, we met with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, business leaders, and others studying climate change. We viewed their work through the lens of our military experience as warfighters, planners, and leaders. Our discussions have been lively, informative, and very sobering.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are greater now than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and average global temperature has continued a steady rise. This rise presents the prospect of significant climate change, and while uncertainty exists and debate continues regarding the science and future extent of projected climate changes, the trends are clear.

The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects. The consequences of climate change can affect the organization, training, equipping, and planning of the military services. The U.S. military has a clear obligation to determine the potential impacts of climate change on its ability to execute its missions in support of national security objectives.

Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

To the full report:

To a number of news reports about this report:

, , , , ,

– All of these stories were drawn from the first page of a Google search for ‘National Security and the Threat of Climate Change‘. There’s a TON of stuff out there if you go looking.

– Thx to Michael D. for the lead to this story.

US generals urge climate action

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

Former US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts.

They appear to criticise President George W Bush’s refusal to join an international treaty to cut emissions.

Among the 11 authors are ex-Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan and Mr Bush’s ex-Mid-East peace envoy Anthony Zinni.

The report says the US “must become a more constructive partner” with other nations to fight global warming and deal with its consequences.

It warns that over the next 30 to 40 years, there will be conflicts over water resources, as well as increased instability resulting from rising sea levels and global warming-related refugees.

“The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism,” the 35-page report predicts.

More…

also

the report, itself, will be released here on April 16th.

Climate Change: Study Maps Those At Greatest Risk From Cyclones And Rising Seas

Monday, April 9th, 2007

“Climate change is not a natural disaster but has largely been caused by wealthy countries emitting greenhouse gases during their industrialisation,” says McGranahan. “Yet the poorest countries that have contributed least to the problem are most vulnerable to its effects. It is therefore incumbent on rich nations to help poorer ones to adapt to the changes ahead.”

—————————

Science Daily  The first global study to identify populations at greatest risk from rising sea levels and more intense cyclones linked to climate change will be published next month in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization.

The research shows that 634 million people one tenth of the global population live in coastal areas that lie within just ten metres above sea level.

It calls for action to limit the effects of climate change, to help people migrate away from risk and to modify urban settlements to reduce their vulnerability. But it warns that this will require enforceable regulations and economic incentives, both of which depend on political will, funding and human capital.

Key findings of the study by Gordon McGranahan of the International Institute for Environment and Development (UK) and his colleagues, Deborah Balk and Bridget Anderson, at the City University of New York and Columbia University, are that:

  • Nearly two-thirds of urban settlements with more than 5 million inhabitants are at least partially in the 0-10 metre zone.
  • On average, 14 percent of people in the least developed countries live in the zone (compared to 10 percent in OECD countries).
  • 21 percent of the urban populations of least developed nations are in the zone (11 percent in OECD countries).
  • About 75% of people in the zone are in Asia. 21 nations have more than half of their population in the zone (16 are small island states).
  • Poor countries and poor communities within them are most at risk.

More…

Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms

Wednesday, April 4th, 2007

The world’s richest countries, which have contributed by far the most to the atmospheric changes linked to global warming, are already spending billions of dollars to limit their own risks from its worst consequences, like drought and rising seas.

But despite longstanding treaty commitments to help poor countries deal with warming, these industrial powers are spending just tens of millions of dollars on ways to limit climate and coastal hazards in the world’s most vulnerable regions – most of them close to the equator and overwhelmingly poor.

Next Friday, a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that since 1990 has been assessing global warming, will underline this growing climate divide, according to scientists involved in writing it – with wealthy nations far from the equator not only experiencing fewer effects but also better able to withstand them.

Two-thirds of the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that can persist in the air for centuries, has come in nearly equal proportions from the United States and Western European countries. Those and other wealthy nations are investing in windmill-powered plants that turn seawater to drinking water, in flood barriers and floatable homes, and in grains and soybeans genetically altered to flourish even in a drought.

In contrast, Africa accounts for less than 3 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel burning since 1900, yet its 840 million people face some of the biggest risks from drought and disrupted water supplies, according to new scientific assessments. As the oceans swell with water from melting ice sheets, it is the crowded river deltas in southern Asia and Egypt, along with small island nations, that are most at risk.

Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic“, said Henry I. Miller, a fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “A much higher fraction of passengers from the cheaper decks were lost. We’ll see the same phenomenon with global warming.“

More…

——————

– research thanks to John P. and Lisa G., both of whom forwarded a link to this story 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, 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.

Study Details Catastrophic Impact Of Nuclear Attack On US Cities

Thursday, March 22nd, 2007

– Sobering stuff:

“The hospital system has about 1,500 burn beds in the whole country, and of these maybe 80 or 90 percent are full at any given time,” Bell said. “There’s no way of treating the burn victims from a nuclear attack with the existing medical system.”

———————————

Science Daily A new study by researchers at the Center for Mass Destruction Defense (CMADD) at the University of Georgia details the catastrophic impact a nuclear attack would have on American cities.

The study, which the authors said was the most advanced and detailed simulation published in open scientific literature, highlights the inability of the nation’s current medical system to handle casualties from a nuclear attack. It also suggests what the authors said are much needed yet relatively simple interventions that could save tens of thousands of lives.

“The likelihood of a nuclear weapon attack in an American city is steadily increasing, and the consequences will be overwhelming” said Cham Dallas, CMADD director and professor in the UGA College of Pharmacy. “So we need to substantially increase our preparation.”

Dallas and co-author William Bell, CMADD senior research scientist and faculty member of the UGA College of Public Health, examined four high-profile American cities – New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Atlanta – and modeled the effects of a 20 kiloton nuclear detonation and a 550 kiloton detonation. (For comparison, the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the 12 to 20 kiloton range). Bell explained that a 20 kiloton weapon could be manufactured by terrorists and fledgling nuclear countries such as North Korea and Iran, while a 550 kiloton device is commonly found in the arsenal of the former Soviet Union and therefore is the most likely to be stolen by terrorists.

More…

070320 – Tuesday – Multiculturalism – Not!

Tuesday, March 20th, 2007

This is going to be a piece some folks are going to find offensive. I’m going to attack the idea of universal multicultural tolerance. And note the word ‘universal’ because I am decidedly not against all cultures other than my own. And, in fact, there are aspects of my own culture that I think the planet would be much better off without.

I am sorry that these ideas may offend some because I don’t like offending people. But, these are things that need to be said. I am most definitely open to alternative view points and I welcome your comments and I will respond to them.

I believe that when people immigrate to a new country, they should make a conscious decision to embrace the culture of that country before they go. If they want the benefits of living in the new country, then they should accept its culture as well. If they don’t like its culture, then they should stay home.

Immigration should be encouraged but it should also be controlled. A country’s culture can absorb a certain number of new members with harm or confusion but there is an upper limit and the government should be sensitive to not cross that limit. If too many people come in at once, the country’s self-identity can become confused and the result is that it can become like a person with multiple personalities.

And when large numbers of people are allowed come in without having made a conscious decision to embrace the culture of their new home, the danger of the nation developing multiple personality disorder is magnified exponentially.

In my opinion, Britain, France and Germany have already crossed this fatal line and may never recover. They have let in too many people from other cultures who have brought their native cultures along lock, stock and barrel and setup cultural enclaves within their new nations. Australia is beginning now to grapple with this problem.

Here’s a quote from an editorial in an Australian newspaper that illustrates my point:

Many Britons are concerned that multicultural policies that have discouraged assimilation have divided their society and created what one commentator called a “voluntary apartheid”. In the age of terrorism, this is a worrisome trend, especially considering that a recent survey of British Muslims suggested 100,000 of them felt the 7/7 attacks were justified and that one in five felt little or no loyalty to Britain.

And:

While tolerance is certainly a positive virtue that should be strived for, it cannot be a cultural suicide pact. A culture that is tolerant of those who are intolerant of its freedoms is ripe for destruction, and bit by bit will see all it values eroded. And radical Islam knows this. Just as an Australian wouldn’t go to Saudi Arabia to wear a bikini on the beach and drink beer in the corner pub, those who see the proper role of women as subservient, anonymous and under cover should not expect a postmodern secular democracy such as Britain or Australia to accommodate these beliefs.

It may be too late for Britain and much of Western Europe to maintain coherent cultures but Australian politicians have been speaking up of late:

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to [Australian Prime Minister] Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. “If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you“, he said on National Television.

I’d be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia; one the Australian law and another Islamic law, that is false. If you can’t agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that’s a better option“, Costello said.

If you examine cultural tolerance in many places in the Islamic world, like Saudi Arabia, it is nearly non-existant. They believe their culture is the right one and they are not going to let other cultural practices corrupt theirs. This is their country and they have the right to preserve their culture. Why should they come to our cultures and expect to practice theirs within ours? If cultures are tolerant of each other, then they can and should mix but intolerant cultures should not expect to get the same treatment.

UN chief warns on climate change

Sunday, March 4th, 2007

This is a theme I’ve seen before and that I subscribe to. I’d take it a step further than the Secretary General, however. He fears war, chaos and instability as the result of Global Climate Change. I fear that many of the problems enumerated under the Perfect Storm Hypothesis could, if they manifest, lead to war and instability. Things are too deeply interconnected and too deeply interdependent for a major change to not trigger other changes.

– To see what he’s talking about, however, consider that in our unbridled drive for short term corporate profits, we will continue to emit greenhouse gases which will alter the climate. As the climate becomes warmer and more unstable, the oceans will rise and in the poorer low-lying third world countries millions and millions of environmental refugees will be displaced. They in turn will overwhelm the abilities of the receiving areas and nations to deal with them causing food, water and general resource problems for their people in turn. As the weather becomes warmer, the glaciers will continue to melt and disappear and the winter mountain snow packs will lessen year by year and these, in turn, will lead to severe water shortages. Water shortages will lead to food shortages because irrigation will be curtailed and as food becomes more expensive, the poorer nations and peoples will be priced out of the market and starvation will result. Starvation will result in political instability and chaos and war will arise because people will not starve quietly. And these wars, in turn, will lessen the ability of existing infrastructures to deliver critical resources to hard hit areas and the vicious circles will tighten.

– Humanity is near the edge now of the planet’s ability to supply sufficient fresh water and food for humanity. As global climate change begins to interfere with our delicate and peace dependent distribution systems, they will begin to come down like a house of cards and as they fall, secondary effects will ripple into tertiary effects and before it is done much of the third-world will be in chaos and the first-world’s borders will be bristling with barbed wire. The systems we have in place now have a certain amount of ability to deal with stress and chaos – such as when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. But this ‘flexibility’ has limits and beyond these limits, things will come apart faster than we can paste them together again and a cascade will result. And, as we’ve edged closer to the planet’s ability to provide us water and to feed us, we’ve also been trimming away the saftey margins of our systems. The closer to the edge of chaos we move, the easier the push it takes to send us over.

– As the third-world goes ‘off-line’, globalization will lose its relevance and many of the first-world nations will have to regress back to producing their own consumer products and food and that will not be an easy transition to make quickly as so many of the required infrastructures have been dismantled by our dependence on the fruits of globalization and easy international transportation and distribution.

– Changes of this magnitude will not leave the economies of the first-world nations unscathed. Severe recessions will result and chaos will reverberate through the markets. This will lead to economic disasters which, in turn, will lead to foreclosures, unemployment, homelessness and hunger much as we experienced in the Great Depression – and perhaps much worse.

– But he’s pointing this out to a world that’s never seen it happen quite like this before and thus disbelieves that it will. I’m afraid he may be shouting into the wind.

—————————————

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned that climate change poses as much of a danger to the world as war.

In his first address on the issue, Mr Ban said changes in the environment were likely to become a major driver of future war and conflicts.

He urged the US – the world’s biggest producer of greenhouse gases – to take the lead in fighting global warming.

Mr Ban said he would focus on the issue in talks with leaders of the G8 group of industrialised nations in June.

The UN is also due to hold a conference on climate change in Bali in December.

UN environment officials have been urging Mr Ban to take up the issue, says the BBC’s Laura Trevelyan in New York, arguing that global leadership is needed and that he could make an impact.

Speaking to schoolchildren at a UN conference in New York, Mr Ban said his generation had been “somewhat careless” with the planet but that he was hopeful that that was changing.

“The majority of the United Nations’ work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict,” he said.

“But the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming.”

Last month, a panel of scientists organised by the UN published a report showing that human activity was “very likely” to be causing climate change, and predicted rises in temperatures and sea levels.

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: