Endangered Ogallala

Hello Everyone!

I'd like to talk today about a major environmental problem that almost nobody is talking about in the mainstream media. The Ogallala is not an endangered specie, but an endangered aquifer, or an endangered underground supply of water. And it basically supplies 30% of the groundwater used for irrigation, most of it in the Midwest breadbasket. And Ogallala water accounts for approximately 40% of the nation's grain fed beef-draw your own conclusions about that part.

More bad news? Maybe. Of course, water from this aquifer water isn't as non-renewable as oil. If it was depleted it would only take about 6,000 years to recharge. But considering that it's only been pumped on a large scale since WWII, our current use is not exactly sustainable.

Needless to say, that before the aquifer was tapped much of the current breadbasket was not as widely inhabited or all that productive agriculturally. Native Americans only went into that area seasonally in order to hunt and during the dry seasons went to the river valleys.

To take a broad view of things the drilling of both oil and Ogallala water in various parts of America has had some wide ranging effects such as decreasing global food prices, making the US the number #1 producer of corn, and drastically increasing the number of electoral votes owned by Texas.

And now a number of major decisions about it have to be made. Simply teaching farmers to conserve water is only part of the picture. Other issues may involve things such as agricultural policy at the national level. It could also mean that biofuels will be required to be grown on salt or brackish water rather than from dedicated corn crops. Nor is water depletion the only possible threat to the Ogallala. Like many underground water sources, the Ogallala may face some risks of contamination. Usually people wouldn't worry about that like they would worry about contaminating a lake, but maybe they should.

Furthermore, there may be technologies in the future that might try to recharge aquifers with recycled sewage or industrial water. But in the meantime it would be foolish to waste the huge free lunch that Ogallala has provided to America-and the world.


Say Goodnight Readers!

Alternatives to Energy Efficiency

There has been a lot of talk these days about the need for energy efficiency as a way to deal with global warming and energy shortages. However, not everyone who studies energy usage would agree that energy efficiency will decrease energy use.

Some economists point to a rebound effect, or a Jevons Paradox where it has been argued that energy efficiency actually increases the total consumption of energy. Basically the argument is that if appliances, automobiles, lightbulbs, buildings etc become more energy efficient, that the cost of operation on a per hour or per mile basis will decrease. Therefore people will drive more, put more lightbulbs in buildings and/or neglect to turn off the lights, buy more appliances and/or operate them more, and so on. In this scenario technological energy efficiency can look counterproductive from an environmental POV.

And certainly some readers are wondering by now, if this arguement is just another right wing debunkery/diversion tactic trying to confuse people just enough that no effective change will take place. Maybe, maybe not.

One drawback with this arguement is that many examples proponents point to such as the use of coal during the industrial revolution, when coal consumption was increasing dramatically along with technological efficiency of its use, or in the 1980's when Americans bought smaller cars, but also drove more. Of course, it sounds compelling, but correlation does not equal causation. In the case of the industrial revolution the increased use and increased efficiency occured at a time of extremely rapid industrial growth, high population growth, and the replacement of wood with coal as a fuel used for cooking, home heat, and even hot water for laundry and house keeping (with the Victorian obsession with germs going on!). And surely not every historian of that period will agree that coal efficiency was the sole cause of these things. As for Americans driving more during the 80's, it is also not simple to tell whether the reason for increased driving was actually efficient cars or whether it was caused by factors such as smaller households, crime fears discouraging transit use or prompting parents to drive kids to school, more people moving to distant suburbs, the materialistic attitude of the time generally, low gas prices, and so on.

In short, separating a Jevons paradox from other factors can be difficult. But either way it is certain that technological efficiency alone is not guaranteed to conserve energy or resources in a meaningful way.

So what are some alternatives?

One option is simply to apply taxes to fuel, electricity, water, methane, etc, in such a manner that price increases are guaranteed to adjust for increases in efficiency. However, this method has often been criticized for punishing citizens on mass for "virtuous" behavior.

Perhaps the oldest, simplest, and most unpopular method of curbing resource use is rationing. However, not all rationing methods are loophole free. And experience with this method outside of times of war or crisis is relatively limited.

Other suggestions include ideas such as a mileage tax for automobile miles, or imposing an annual cap on resource use and various systems of credits to regulate it. In the case of electric and water utitilties some critics have posed charging fees on a "curb", much like some teachers give out grades on a curb. In short, the people who consume the least electricity and water pay the lowest price for it, while those who consume the most get a higher price not just as a grand total, but per unit. That way, even as technology improves people will be rewarded or punished for better or worse habits to same degree. However such a system could become complicated due to factors such as differing household sizes or needs, as well as the increasing number of people who use solar panels, and a sell some electricity back to the grid.

Even more radical arguements claim that energy consumption would be best controlled indirectly through mechanism such as city planning or land use policy. Namley if people are encouraged to buy large houses in far flung suburbs, that they are more likely to drive more and to use more energy at home. Similarly, some water conservation advocates argue that agricultural policy is more important towards water conservative than more obvious methods of water conservation, because agriculture uses so much water, and because some crops are much thirstier than others. Some even suggest that we might have to redesign modern economies in such a manner that they don't require endless growth to ward off recessions.

Does that mean you shouldn't buy those LED lightbulbs? No. But purchasing technological solutions, for energy efficiency and conservation may not by itself truly solve the problem.

Terminating Commonsense: Making A Post Apocalyptic Robot War Look Cool

Hello Everyone!

Having seen the trailers for the fourth Terminator movie, I can't help but comment on the strange twist that the portrayal of nuclear war has taken. Many people missed the irony of "Der Governator's" character going from the bad guy in the first movie to the good guy in the second and third. Even more, I'm sure will miss the irony of a Russian immigrant playing Kyle Reese the future father of John Connor, and the good guy of the first film-which was shot during the most dangerous decade of the actual Cold War. The former underscores the ability of a Hollywood persona to completely overshadow the deeper and more complex messages in many films. The latter seems to symbolize how little society's thinking about nuclear weapons has changed, even after the Cold War has ended.

And I can already here the objections to this sort of conversation coming. "But surely people aren't going to see the movie Terminator Salvation and think that living in the aftermath of a nuclear war is going to be cool." One would definitely think so. And hope so. But I've learned not to take any such thing for granted. As one long time author and activist noted, even much darker portraits of even conventional war don't deter every youngster who sees them.

Nor is it sensible to not question post-apocalyptic portraits that gloss over the likely realities of radiation sickness, contagious diseases, horrific filth, starvation, inability to dispose of decaying bodies, exposure, and other horrors. I have not yet seen the movie, but I've noticed that the humans in that post apocalyptic world generally look rather healthy, show relatively few signs of a history of serious illness or injury, and even have nice teeth. Very few appear to be malnourished, or (genuinely) look like they scavenged their clothes and possessions. Most of the people do not shows signs of chronic or terminal illness, disability (ei blindness, burns, or TBI), and those who appear young enough to have been born after "Judgement Day" do not appear to have problems like stunted growth, congenital deformities, or any mental or physical disabilities. All likely to be massive issues in a world after a nuclear war. (If humanity is around that is.) And while plant life appears to be scarce in this "post Judgment Day" world, I suspect that there will be little serious reference to how the ecology of earth might have been affected, while the attention goes to a high special effects portraits of warfare between humans and machines.

Of course the term "Judgement Day" for a nuclear war itself deserves a bit of questioning. What does it mean in the context of a predominantly Christian culture, where many people buy into a literalist interpretation of the Bible? Of course, no credible theologian or Biblical scholar would take this literalist view seriously, but a shockingly high portion of American society does. Many of these individuals hold major positions of power, including a certain individual who as of this time last year had the power to use the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. Also last fall another, a woman with an even more extreme version of this belief system, was a contender to be the second in command and first in the line of succession if a very elderly man replaced this individual. Could having this equation in the culture convince voters that a nuclear war might be somehow preordained or even a good thing? Or at a minimum cause a lot of people to resign themselves to the idea that such an "end" is inevitable at one level? Certainly this blog is not the first source to notice the fact that the attitudes of most people seem to react to the threat of nuclear warfare with a certain schizophrenia between denial and fatalism.

Another disturbing aspect to the Terminator serial is the idea of a war against machines. In my mind, this is perhaps the ultimate glorification of warfare, because it avoids the most troubling aspect of warfare: People killing other people.

However, I see no reason for people to engage in denial, fatalism, or glorification of such grim fates. There is a history of resistance to the fate of a nuclear Holocaust, and even a new President who seem radically hospitable to such resistance.

This is Amy Scanlon, and if you are reading this you ARE the campaign for nuclear disarmament.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Change For a New Generation?: Logos and the Politics of Marketing

Now many people reading this blog will remember the jingle "The Choice for a New Generation"'. Every child of the 80's worth his salt can tell you that it was once a Pepsi slogan.

Theoretically at least, we were that new generation and it was considered clear to the pundits of the time, be it gloatingly from the right or ruefully from the left, that our choices were more or less a foregone conclusion. Basically it was assumed to be a foregone conclusion that we would grow up to be "Reagan's kids", summoned from our parents by the Pied Piper of Conservatism, with his films like "Rambo", "Iron Eagle" and "Red Dawn". A true generation of little Alex P. Keatings we were said to be. With our sobbing liberal parents would stand by helplessly as they "paid the Piper" for supposedly treating us so horribly with their "self-indulgent sixties values", and all the child hating working mothers among them.

Of course, little attention was paid to voices who suggested waiting until we grew up and started voting to draw any firm conclusions, or even more radically actually asking large numbers of children and teenagers what they thought about all this. After all, who had time for the prosaic and boring business of fact finding, when you have such a sensational tale to tell? Especially one that had such sweet poetic justice in it, to more than a few conservatives.

Theories about the children of the baby boomers, who grew up in in the Reagan era began when the boomers first started catching their parents' criticism (which is to say long before the sixties began!!). After many long decades of trying to guess whether we'd become dope fiends or ultra-conservative investment bankers, the age breakdowns of election 2008 can provide some answers. Namely that most of us choose Obama over McCain.

Now after this "unexpected" series of historical events, I couldn't help but notice the irony when I saw the new Pepsi logo. Is it possible to deny that the new Pepsi logo looks a lot like the Obama campaign logo?

Some right wing bloggers and commentators have suggested that Pepsi "covertly" trying to advertise for the Obama administration. But realistically the company has donated much more money to the Republicans than to the Democrats, as do most bottling and beverage companies. Pepsi's official spokesmen claim that the resemblance is purely coincidental. The most likely answer however, is that Pepsi is trying to "ride the tide" and perhaps capitalize on the association between their logo and the 2008 campaign logo. As the older Pepsi "choice for a new generation" slogan indicates there is nothing new about advertisers trying to capture the "spirit of the times".

But what does it mean for society when the same beverage company tries to capitalize on two totally different eras? What would they have tried when Lincoln or Washington were President? Or FDR? Or Kennedy? And if the soda industry was gone tomorrow would somebody else try to imitate political logos?

Is there a difference between a soda company trying to capitalize on the "spirit" of a political change that they by and large did seem to support at the donation level (as with Reagan), as opposed to doing so with one where they by and large did not support it?

In the larger sense does this mean that corporate marketing machines are effectively deciding what the conventional wisdom (accurate or not) about a particular generation or age group, will be? And are these "decisions" being made about young adults, teens, or even children? By labeling a certain generation in a certain way, can it create a self fulfilling prophecy for at least the more conforming individuals?

Is it even ethical to create a situation where the psychologists at the advertising and marketing departments, often end up deciding how a particular age cohort will defined, what it will be called, and what sort of people they are expected to become long before most of them have any real chance find out who they are based on their own experiences? And is accepting this situation blindly as "just common sense" a way of allowing advertising to colonize the common understanding of history and political imagination? And could it make rebels out of the most prosaic of fact finders?

That's all for tonight, and remember that sometimes a beverage is just a beverage.

Say Goodnight Readers!!

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?: Buzz on the Pollinator Crisis.

Hello everyone!

Some of you might have heard about the concern over honey bees and the future of pollinators in agriculture. In particular honey bees in the US, Europe, and Britain are being threatened with a problem called "Colony Collapse Disorder". While, it may sound like it was invented by some mid-20th century British General, it refers to a rather mysterious problem where honey bees seemed to simply abandon the hives and their Queen. Often there is no open sign of disease.

Although, one set of researchers thinks they have found the parasite causing the problem and a relatively simple treatment, I'd like to use this as an opportunity to discuss the ways in which some people find reasons to not take these sorts of problems seriously. Of course, the solution may or may not be as simple as the article suggests. Various other researchers have looked at the varroa mite, the insecticide imidacloprid, climate change, cell phones, and other possible causes. Namely that one article described the idea of a pollination crisis as a "myth". Now the article didn't deny that colony collapse disorder exists. But rather he suggested that it wasn't that serious of a threat to the world food supply because:

1) Most agriculture doesn't depend on insect pollinators, which are only used for "luxury" foods.

2) The disorder does not seem to be common outside of North America and Europe.

First of all, you might be wondering what exactly they mean by luxury items. As it turns out bee pollinators aren't involved in the production of caviar or diamonds. Luxury according to the authors of this article apparently includes most fruits, vegetables, beans, and tree nuts. And lest you think the authors must work for the Weston Price Foundation, alfalfa and a lot of pasture plants that are used to feed animals also depend on largely insect pollinators. Of course, wheat, rice, and corn are largely able to function without insect pollinators. Potatoes of course can be grown without pollination. However, in order to gain any biological diversity one does need to grow potato seeds and flowers some small portion of the time. And as history tells out low diversity crops, including potatoes, have been known to bring severe consequences.

Do the authors expect humanity to subsist entirely on cereal grains and cornfed beef? Does this article mean that "the masses" ought to get their vitamin C from supplements or fortified milks and cereals?

Then there's the issue of not considering it a problem because so far the problem doesn't seem widepsread outside of North America and Europe. In addition to assuming that it won't spread, does that mean that it would be OK in the longer term of if all the fruits and vegetables in the US and Europe had to be imported from somewhere else? Do the authors expect fruits and vegetables to be shipped from Latin America, Asia, and Africa to Europe and North America as luxury goods? Or do they expect North Americans and European to simply do without and satisfy and nutritional gaps with supplements and fiber tabs?

One can't help but be reminded Bush I's then famous "Ray Ban Plan", back when Ray Bans were still considered very stylish. (Hi Bro!), where the administration seriously proposed dealing with ozone depletion not by cutting ozone depleting pollutants, but by educating the public about the use of hats, sunblock, and sunglasses!!

Another aspect of the pollinator crisis that has not been talked about is the fact that North American pollination is heavily done by European Honey Bees, who are not actually native to the continent. By some estimates, native and wild bees can also be effective.

The trouble is that a good deal of wild bee habitat has been threatened by development. And there is no consensus on whether or not, other types of bees can fill in the gap. Nor is their much knowledge on the effect these events may have on wild plants, and ecosystems.

So that's my take on the pollinator crisis. See you later. And.

Say Goodnight Readers!!

Aporkalypse Now

Hello Everyone!

Of course in looking at the news one can't help but notice the H1N1 flu virus, previously known as the "Swine Flu". Certainly this would come as a surprise to those of you who expected the next pandemic to be the "Avian Flu".

So what are we to make of it all? Last week people around the world were asking questions ranging from whether civilization as we know it was about to end, to whether or not they should get rid of their pet pigs. Others felt that since the Avian Flu was a false alarm that all these warnings about pandemic flu are just so much paranoia.

The fact of the matter however, is that pandemic flu is unavoidable. At least as long as the world has plenty of networks for the virus to hop from continent to continent. New strains of flu are bound to show up every so often whether they mutate from a pre-existing human flu, or from a virus in birds, pigs, or sometimes other species. All we can do is be prepared for it.

Does that mean that sooner or later we will have another epidemic like the one in 1918-1919? Yes, probably. However, with modern medicine the death rate is likely to be lower. Even without new antivirals for influenza, it is likely that many of those who died of 1918 pandemic could have been saved with treatments such as antibiotics, modern respiratory treatments, or IV therapies. After all, many of the actual deaths appeared to have resulted from not just the virus but dehydration and/or secondary bacterial pneumonia. One of the unpleasant realities is that antivirals might only go to the sickest people, while the others just have to tough it out-as long as they will probably survive.

Another reality that pandemic flu brings to the forefront is the difficulty of manufacturing and distributing a vaccine even when the procedure for developing one is pretty standard. What many parents reading this blog may already know, but others might find shocking is that we've had a lot of shortages of even very standard vaccines in recent years. In the US there have been recent shortages of the MMR, Tetanus shots, and even human grade rabies shots in some regions. Reasons for these shortages have included production problems, thimersol phaseouts, an increasingly small number of companies that actually make vaccines, and lack of funds for stockpiles. Indeed with a lot of basic infrastructure for manufacturing vaccines declining it will be interesting to see how vaccines for pandemic flu or possible future vaccines for diseases such as HIV, malaria or an improved TB vaccine will be affected.

Currently science is researching ways to make the process of mass vaccine manufacture faster and cheaper, but in the meantime we might have to endure a pandemic flu with a limited stockpile of antivirals, supportive medical care, basic emergency plans and lots of hand santizers.

That's about all I have to add about the recent swine flu.

Be nice to your friend's pet pig. And

Say Goodnight Readers!