Beetles and Bacteria Revisited

Not too long ago a respected biologist posed an interesting question: Is it better to be smart or stupid? For example, beetles and bacteria are much more successful as survivors than humans. Since the average life expectancy of a species is only 100,000 years, humans may be coming to the end of their time on earth. As we have evolved we have become extremely proficient at destroying ourselves both through our attacks on the environment and our cruel attacks on each other.

The Bush administration appears to be ignoring the serious environmental problems world-wide. But one governmental agency is taking the problem seriously. And who might it be? Believe it or not, the Pentagon. In direct refutation to the right-wingers in this administration, the Pentagon has issued a report declaring that climate changes, i.e. global warming, is a serious security threat to the U.S. It is most urgent, the Pentagon declares, and it requires immediate attention. Climate change can occur much sooner than originally thought and very quickly. For example, it could occur over a period as short as 3-5 years causing droughts and starvation. Incredibly it could cause another Ice Age. Europe could freeze over, our mid-west could become another dust-bowl and Southern California would be without water. Even the World Bank is debating a possible recommendation to stop financing oil and coal development both emissions of which can cause climate change. Investors in the fossil-fuel and auto industries aren’t going to like these conclusions but can they continue to ignore them? A special review commission involving third world governments and “indigenous people” has recommended that the World Bank stop all coal loans now and all oil loans by 2008. It also suggested that the bank increase renewal energy (wind and solar) loans by 20% per year. As it stands now the World Bank is lending 94% of its funds for fossil-fuel and only 6% for renewables. So far the bank has refused to change because fossil energy is the cheapest energy to pull third world countries out of poverty. But what good is it if the world is headed for weather changes that will cause chaos and starvation?

Individuals in the Bush administration and their conservative think tank cohorts, viz. the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, who may still believe the earth is flat and that evolution is not a fact but only a theory, are re-writing science. They are blacklisting scientists whose work threatens the profits of mega-corporations and who are major supporters of the Bush administration. In addition any scientist or engineer who disputes the anti environmental beliefs of the neo-conservatives is immediately suspect and viciously attacked. So extreme has this been that, according to Robert Kennedy , Jr., who works as an environmental lawyer, approximately 60 scientists, many who are Nobel Laureates have accused the Bush gang of distorting scientific facts “for partisan political ends.”

Let’s take, for example, the air quality in downtown New York City after the 9/11 tragedy. The EPA released nine press releases between September and December stating that the air was safe to breathe. We have since learned the EPA’s data was being doctored by the White House in order to re-open Wall St. as quickly as possible. So once again our government was lying to the public. Also shortly after 9/11 the E PA maintained that the asbestos level was very low in that area and perfectly safe to breathe. An independent study done by UC Davis at the time indicated that the levels of asbestos particulates were the highest ever seen world-wide. Another study showed that 78% of rescue workers had lung ailments and 88% had ear, nose and throat problems for months, sometimes a year, following the disaster.

Another extremely dangerous problem that the Bush administration is ignoring is global warming. The Bushites have consistently altered the facts regarding the serious case of global warming. Since the beginning of this administration there have been at least a dozen government studies on global warming that the White House has suppressed or discredited as a favor to the mega-corporations whose industrial emissions are a major contributing factor to the problem of global warming. The National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences and NASA have all presented studies on the effect of fossil fuel emissions on global warming to the administration and are ignored.

Halliburton, VP Cheney’s former company, has given millions to the Republican Party to protect itself from interference by government in a process that the company employs to extract oil and gas. Benzene is injected into the ground to aid in the process. The EPA discovered that the process could contaminate drinking water beyond the usual acceptable drinking water standards. Shortly after this was reported to a Congressional Committee, the EPA backed off saying that the benzene did not exceed government standards. EPA finally admitted that industry pressure had forced them to change their position.

The coal industry introduces large amounts of mercury into the environment. The EPA delayed for nine months a report on the tragic effect of mercury on the health of children. One in 12 women are carrying mercury in their blood stream to cause neurological damage and a lower IQ in their unborn children.

Or let’s take the case of Atrazine, a commonly used weed killer in America. Back in 1980 it was identified as a carcinogen that could cause prostate cancer. Tests by government scientists found large concentrations of Atrazine in the drinking water across middle America, primarily in the corn belt. UC Berkeley found that this chemical at “one thirtieth the government’s ‘safe’ 3 parts per billion” causes major deformities in frogs. Recently the University of Missouri found that male semen counts in farm communities were 50% below normal. What did the Bush administration do about this? It did not ban the chemical as was done in Europe but rather turned control and monitoring over to the manufacturer. With a perfectly straight face the spokesman for the manufacturer said, “This is one way we can ensure it’s not presenting any risk to the environment.”

Before going any further with the anti-environmental agenda of the Republican administration, let’s take another look at the Pentagon report on global warming and the resulting green house effect. The climate changes that are sure to occur if the use of fossil fuel continues would cause the Arctic ice to melt and since it is “less dense” than salt water would then flow into the Atlantic. This in a very short period would shut down the warm Gulf Stream. As a result, Western Europe and Eastern North America would become very much colder and Europe’s climate would become similar to Siberia. Now the reason the Pentagon is so concerned is the effect it would have on agricultural harvests. Thus, widespread starvation becomes a reality. Wars would then change in character and become struggles over natural resources rather than over ideology. Any changes in the causes of war would affect the way in which wars are fought. And that, of course, interests the Pentagon. Therefore, we need to look at some of the problems caused by the use of fossil fuels and what, if any, are the solutions?

So let’s start with the preeminent but problematic fossil fuel of our day—oil. Whenever I drive my compact car into the parking lot of the local supermarket, I invariably windup between a huge sport utility vehicle (SUV) on one side and an oversized pickup truck with huge tires and an exposed chassis on the other. I feel as though I have been dropped into the maintenance bay of a Greyhound Bus terminal. My visibility is totally obstructed and backing out requires a great deal of courage. The other day I was on foot and a “Grandma Moses” type approached me, believe it or not, in a Hummer and impatiently waved me out of the way so she could park this tank in a “Disabled Parking” space. Now these vehicles were originally designed for off the road use for people who need to use truck for that purpose. But studies indicate that only 1 in 20 owners take the vehicle off the road and only 1 in 10 carry anything in the back of the pickup. So these people are using the “gas guzzlers” (as low as 5 miles to the gallon and as high as 18 or any number in between) to carry a couple bags of groceries or to take the kids to the soccer field or a Little League baseball game. If they think they will be any safer in these tanks, safety studies show that the SUV in a crash is more likely to kill the occupants of the other car and it is also a danger to its occupants because it tends to roll over. Incidentally, the new Volkswagon bug introduced a few years ago actually has proved in tests that it is the safest car on the road and gets the best mileage.

So what is the American public seeking when it buys these huge vehicles. It appears to be a combination of conspicuous consumption, the desire of urbanites to appear macho and tough and for some just plain stupidity. The average fuel economy of all vehicles has dropped to less than 21 mpg, the lowest level since 1988, the peak year for fuel efficiency. The increased use of these vehicles has caused oil consumption to grow in the US from “17 million barrels per day in 1990 to 20 million today”. This could rise to 32 million in the year 2020.

The use of oil in the world by 2035 will leap to almost twice what it is today. Today we use 80 million barrels per day and that will increase to over 140 million barrels. Natural gas usage will increase over 120 % and coal by 60%. In countries like China and India, which are in the process of emerging industrially, consumption will grow exponentially. In a recent auto show in China it was reported that the crowds were elbow to elbow. No one had ever seen such a turn out. China is fast becoming “the hottest car market in the world.” The Chinese purchase of autos alone will raise the use of oil by 2 million barrels per day.

So are we going to run out of oil? And how soon? Let’s check out the Saudi oil fields where ¼ of the world’s oil is produced. Unquestionably modern civilization owes its development to the fossil fuel industry, i.e. oil, gas and coal. But what most people who live this comfortable life and take the energy for granted don’t realize is that the most popular energy, oil, has its limits. Some of the biggest oil deposits in the world, e.g. Saudi Arabia and the Baku deposits of the former Soviet Empire have already peaked. Once that happens production slows and eventually produces nothing. It’s at that point that a new oil deposit must be found. When the ground is broken and the new deposit is released the natural pressure is so intense that the oil shoots out similar to a geyser. But then after decades of use the pressure subsides so that in order to get the oil out of the ground water is injected to force the oil out. The oldest and largest oil field in Saudi Arabia first dug in 1953 originally produced 6 million barrels per day. Today that well requires water injection that produces oil with a “water cut” of 30%. A new well will produce almost pure oil with natural gas and only a trace of water. Eventually the well that requires water injection and produces as much as 30% water will in time produce nothing but pure water and the well has to be abandoned.

The world today requires more and more energy and there appears to be no end to our requirements. So oil production world wide is peaking. Take, for example, the oil wells on the Caspian Sea. 20 years ago the oil wells 2 miles into the Sea were gushing seemingly endlessly until they peaked and then depleted. Now there is nothing but rusted pipe lines and empty buildings. However, new wells were sunk but production is nowhere near the peak production of 1986. Given a few more years and all oil from that region will be gone permanently. There will be nothing left of the old Soviet Oil Empire. The same problem exists in Texas, Pennsylvania and Borneo. Self pressurized oil wells producing millions of barrels per day gradually deplete and new wells are dug elsewhere to replace the oil already used.

The problem is that it is getting harder to find oil deposits world-wide that are easy to produce. The oil that exists in the ground is in most cases today located in very difficult environments, i.e. under Arctic ice, Siberia and unstable African countries. As demand continues to rise, the cost of production also rises and so does the price of gasoline.

So what does “peaking” mean? It means that when half the oil in the ground has been pumped, we have peaked. Once half the oil is gone world-wide we cannot produce the same number of barrels required per day and we are faced with falling production. If we continue to use increased amounts of oil at the rate of 2% a year, we will reach our peak in 2030 if the estimates of oil in the ground are accurate. However, the numbers are suspect. The oil companies tend to conceal impending peaks in their current wells. And they do this for political or economic advantage. Therefore, most of the time their estimates for reserves are bogus. In reality, since 1995, the world has used much more oil than it has found in new deposits. (24 billion barrels annually vs. 9.6 billion barrels per year.) One study indicates that the energy industry is finding less than 40% of the new oil needed to support the known reserves. Thus depletion continues because there is less and less oil to be found despite improved technology. Oil producers continue to pump more oil than they can replace. And most of the world’s oil is still in the Middle East controlled by OPEC, a not very friendly cartel that controls production and prices.


References:

The Nation. 3/1/04. Mark Hertsgaard. A New Ice Age.
The Nation. 3/8/03. Robert Kennedy, Jr. Bush’s Jungle Science.
The New York Review. 6/10/04. Bill McKibben. The Real Climate Crisis.
Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil. Mariner Books. 2005.