NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES: Author argues that society will benefit from high gas prices

Posted on August 18, 2009

I believe a society can benefit from high gas prices, but only if it has access to alternatives. These alternatives must be developed through smart and effective policies that are driven by the federal government, since market forces alone cannot prepare societies in advance for high-energy prices. When gas reaches $15 or even $20 dollars per gallon, there will be winners and losers. Obviously, winners will include early adopters that have accepted the inevitable truth—that we increasingly make certain energy sources unavailable forever through indiscriminate or inefficient uses. Losers will include the poorest of developing countries, especially those countries that do not have a stable government where conflict and war constantly destroys precious infrastructure (or prevents infrastructure building in the first place). A new book explores a hypothetical world benefited from $20 dollar per gallon gas. From the New York Times:

It’s notoriously hard to predict gas prices. Who would have thought in 2006 that we’d be paying $4 a gallon in 2008? Or, as prices peaked last year, that we’d be filling up for $2.50 a gallon this summer?

That said, civil engineer and Forbes reporter Chris Steiner argues that prices will rise precipitously over the next few decades. (It would probably make as much sense to argue that electric cars will take over and gas prices will fall, but that’s another argument for another day.) In his book $20 Per Gallon Steiner talks about how super-expensive gas would change everything — from the cars we drive to the price of sushi (if you can still buy it at all); whether Wal-Mart stays in business, and how often the average family can afford Disney World (if it still exists).

On balance, Steiner argues that dramatically high gas prices would actually be good for society. He predicts what would happen if gas prices rise drastically, and explains why he thinks that could actually be good for society. (Related: see this quorum on suburbs.) We asked him to give us his predictions for what our lives might look like with gas at $8 and $18 per gallon, respectively.

An interesting interview with Chris Steiner, the author of $20 Per Gallon

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

CONSERVATION: New online toolkit is available for fighting sprawl through the ballot box

Posted on August 17, 2009

This blog post was made through a news or press release.

So many of us watch helplessly as local farms are converted into McMansions, or a patch of woods becomes a shopping mall, or a new network of subdivisions and roads carve up aquifer recharge lands. But through direct political action, there is a way to rein in sprawl. A nationwide grassroots movement seeks to preserve our connection to nature and the character of our communities through voter initiatives that dedicate new public funding for land conservation. You can make a difference in your own community by using a new web-based portal of tools, information, and advice called the Conservation Campaign Toolkit—available via www.conservationcampaign.org.

The Toolkit was created by the Conservation Campaign (TCC), which is the only national organization that focuses solely on political action to gain public funding for conservation. Since TCC was founded by The Trust for Public Land (TPL) in 2000, it has supported more than 300 conservation funding initiatives in communities around the country, while helping to generate billions of dollars for land conservation. The Toolkit draws on lessons learned by these local campaigns as well as the expertise of TCC and TPL field staff. The current lull in development offers a last chance in many places to acquire and protect open space, at prices that may never again be so low. The Toolkit can help you get the funds needed to preserve the natural and human ecosystems that sustain your community.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

SALMON: Proposed coal mine threatens salmon streams

Posted on August 17, 2009

This blog post was made through a news or press release.

Studies: Coal mine would destroy Cook Inlet salmon streams

Analyses show that damage from PacRim’s proposed Chuitna strip-mining operation would be irreversible

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Three new scientific reports conclude that critical salmon fisheries along the Chuit River will suffer severe long-term damage and never fully recover from the impacts of PacRim Coal LP’s proposed Chuitna coal strip-mine.

The scientists who completed the analyses concluded that PacRim’s plan to strip-mine for coal directly through 11 miles of salmon-bearing streams would significantly damage local wetlands and headwater streams in an area 45 miles west of Anchorage. Restoration of the fragile and valuable wetlands and streams that feed the salmon-rich Chuit River would be virtually impossible, they determined.

The researchers, whose expertise is in reclamation, restoration ecology and fishery and aquatic biology, based their findings on a review of PacRim’s hydrology reports and preliminary mining and reclamation plans. The reports are available online at: www.inletkeeper.org/energy/Chuitna90813.htm.

“There is no scientific evidence that wetlands or streams can be put back together to be living, healthy ecosystems after the kind of mining impacts described in the PacRim reports,” said Dr. Margaret Palmer, who analyzed PacRim’s restoration plans. “The science just isn’t there. Experimentation should not be confused with sound, science-based knowledge.”

PacRim’s Chuitna proposal is in the advanced stages of permitting. If permitted, it would be the first strip mine in Alaska excavated directly through salmon spawning habitat. Despite the damage Alaskan communities will face from the PacRim proposal, almost all of the coal the Delaware-based company produces would be shipped to China and other Pacific Rim countries for their coal-burning power plants.

Key findings of the three analyses include:

Stream restoration following mining is not possible. PacRim’s reclamation plan is based on digging a “new stream” to replicate the physical appearance of the original. There is no evidence that simply restoring the shape of a channel will bring back salmon runs, riparian corridors or other essential biological functions. Past stream restoration projects involving channel modifications with much less damage have been unsuccessful, making PacRim’s plans a grand experiment with a stream that produces a significant portion of Chuitna’s salmon. (Palmer)

An extensive search of scientific literature, and discussions with stream restoration and in-stream flow experts did not yield a single documented example of strip-mined salmon habitat being successfully restored. (Trasky)

The company’s surface and groundwater studies are inadequate to determine impacts to the Chuit River drainage from strip-mining and groundwater pumping associated with mining or for restoring essential groundwater flow. Salmon are dependent on groundwater to bring nutrients and oxygen to eggs, and to keep water flowing in streams. (Trasky)

Re-creating the complex three-dimensional diversity of interconnected underground sediments in salmon habitat, such as Middle Creek, would be impossible. (Wipfli)

There are no data on the Chuit River’s food webs, including type of prey, where the prey comes from, and when and where they are important. There have been no studies on marine nutrients from salmon runs, wetlands, riparian corridors, or headwater streams in supporting the food webs, or how aquatic productivity will be affected by damage from mining. (Wipfli)

Because salmon populations fluctuate dramatically over decades-long cycles, the few years of data collected is not sufficient to determine natural ranges in salmon populations that would be affected by the Chuitna coal strip mine. (Trasky)

Commercial fishermen, subsistence users and local property owners oppose the mine on the grounds it will contaminate the Chuit River, which supports all five species of Alaska’s salmon and has been recognized as one of America’s most endangered rivers. They also fear it would destroy surrounding wetlands, wildlife habitat, tributaries and ruin traditional fishing grounds in Cook Inlet. This year, the Chuit River was one of the few rivers in the Cook Inlet region where fisherman enjoyed a healthy King Salmon run.

Terry Jorgensen, a commercial fisherman and Beluga resident, said the reports raise questions about Pac Rim’s claims that its mine won’t have significant impacts on the Chuit River, and the people who depend on it for their livelihoods.

“The law requires that the mined areas be returned to pre-mining condition after the coal has been extracted, but there is no scientific evidence that a salmon stream mined through in the manner PacRim proposes can ever be restored,” Jorgensen said.

Trustees for Alaska commissioned the reports and they were prepared for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition and Cook Inletkeeper. Full titles of the reports are:

“Report on Chuitna Coal Project Aquatic Studies and Fish and Wildlife Protection Plan,” by Lance Trasky, retired habitat biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

“Chuitna Coal Mine Baseline Monitoring and Restoration Plan Review,” by Dr. Mark Wipfli, Associate Professor of Aquatic Ecology & Fisheries, Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, an expert on riverine ecology and food webs.

“Report on Chuitna Coal Project of PacRim Coal,” by Dr. Margaret A. Palmer, Professor and Director of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland, author of “The Foundation of Restoration Ecology” and expert on watershed science and stream ecology and restoration.

###

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

PEAK OIL: You should be worried

Posted on August 16, 2009

We use oil throughout society. For example, it’s in the goods we use, and it supplies energy to make our cars move. No doubt, as a civilization, we’ve been lucky to have access to crude oil as a cheap and readily accessible energy source, because it has spurred economic growth and technological innovation. We even use oil to produce and deliver wind turbines and solar panels, and these things in turn capture renewable energy. However, reliance on this cheap energy source has its consequences, so perhaps oil has made things too easy.

As a result, there are several reasons why we can’t continue to burn fossil fuels: (1) it’s a nonrenewable energy source with a high energy content, so it should be strategically conserved and used as needed; (2) burning oil, or the products that are made from crude oil such as gasoline and diesel, release pollutants into the atmosphere, thus making the air we breathe dirty (Los Angeles is synonymous to congested traffic and the resulting smog); and (3) carbon dioxide is released when we burn fossil fuels such as oil, and increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide creates a warming effect. No doubt, in order to avoid economic and social crises, the smartest policy would be to quickly move away from our dependency on oil. Certainly, passing substantive climate change legislation, modernizing our electricity grid to a smarter grid, implementing meaningful renewable energy portfolios, and producing sustainable alternative fuels, in addition to promoting energy conservation, can be remedies to our dependency on oil and alleviate the pain of peak oil. From Roger Diamond:

Peak oil follows this scenario as there is a finite amount of oil in the earth and until now we have been producing more and more every day, which has allowed economic growth based on growth in available energy and oil being the primary energy source for our society. Between 2005 and 2015 we have or will probably experience peak oil. From then on, energy is not so easy to get.

. . .

Peak oil is not about suddenly having no power and no goods — it’s about having less and working harder to get that smaller amount. Enter EROEI — energy return on energy invested. The original large oil reservoirs exploited in the first half of the 20th century had EROEI of over 100:1. That means for every joule of energy you spent digging, drilling, processing and transporting you got more than 100 joules in return. It’s a bit like working for one hour and being paid enough money to cover your expenses for 100 hours. The easy life!

EROEI on oil shales, tar sands, deep oil and other remaining oil-like resources is less than 10:1 and even down at levels like 3:1 or worse. The results of this are that high-energy activities or products are going to go up in price, substantially. Think of flying, cement, aluminium, cars, hi-tech gadgetry, imported goods and virtually everything we take for granted in the average suburban Westernised existence.

Your life is going to change and the sooner you can prepare yourself for it, the better. This is not a doomsday prediction of instant civil war and living off cans of dog food. Just be warned that the oil age will wane and our lives will change along with it. Maybe for the better?! It all depends on our capacity to work and change together.

More peak oil analysis comes from Lester Brown at TreeHugger:

One way the oil prospect can be analyzed is by separating the world’s principal oil-producing countries into two groups—those where production is falling and those where it is still rising—is illuminating. Of the 23 leading oil producers, output appears to have peaked in 15 and to still be rising in eight. The post-peak countries range from the United States (the only country other than Saudi Arabia to ever pump more than 9 million barrels of oil per day) and Venezuela (where oil production peaked in 1970) to the two North Sea oil producers, the United Kingdom and Norway, where production peaked in 1999 and 2000 respectively. U.S. oil output, which peaked at 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970, dropped to 5.4 million barrels a day in 2004—a fall of 44 percent. Venezuela’s output has dropped 31 percent since 1970.

The eight pre-peak countries are dominated by the world’s leading oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Other countries with substantial potential for increasing production are Canada, largely because of its tar sands, and Kazakhstan, which is still developing its oil resources. The other four pre-peak countries are Algeria, Angola, China, and Mexico.

The biggest question mark among these eight countries is Saudi Arabia. Its production technically peaked in 1980 at 9.9 million barrels a day and output is now nearly 1 million barrels a day below that. It is included as a country with rising production only on the basis of statements by Saudi officials that the country could produce far more. However, some analysts doubt whether the Saudis can raise output much beyond its current production. Some of its older oil fields are largely depleted, and it remains to be seen whether pumping from new fields will be sufficient to more than offset the loss from the old ones.

This analysis comes down to whether production will actually increase enough in the eight pre-peak countries to offset the declines under way in the 15 countries where production has already peaked. In volume of output, the two groups have essentially the same total production capacity. If production begins to fall in any one of the eight, however, world output could decline.

Another way to consider oil production prospects is to look at the actions of the major oil companies themselves. While some CEOs sound very bullish about the growth of future production, their actions suggest a less confident outlook.

One bit of evidence of this is the decision by leading oil companies to invest heavily in buying up their own stocks. ExxonMobil, for example, with the largest quarterly profit of any company on record—$10.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005—invested nearly $10 billion in buying back its own stock. ChevronTexaco used $2.5 billion of its profits to buy back stock. With little new oil to be discovered and world oil demand growing fast, companies appear to be realizing that their reserves will become even more valuable in the future.

Closely related to this behavior is the lack of any substantial increases in exploration and development in 2005 even with oil prices well above $50 a barrel. This suggests that the companies agree with petroleum geologists who say that 95 percent of all the oil in the world has already been discovered. “The whole world has now been seismically searched and picked over,” says independent geologist Colin Campbell. “Geological knowledge has improved enormously in the past 30 years and it is almost inconceivable now that major fields remain to be found.” This also implies that it may take a lot of costly exploration and drilling to find that remaining 5 percent.

Images found here and here

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::