I love salmon

The Alaskan wild salmon fishery has been threatened by overfishing, fish farming, and climate change

I mean it. Salmon is my favorite fish- but wild salmon only. Now, it along with several other fish I enjoy are off my table. Mercury, toxins, fish farms have limited my consumption, but now there just aren't any fish. Wild chinook salmon have collapsed. Last week California and Oregon announced what some had been speculating for the last month - the chinook salmon had collapsed, and the coho population was about to collapse. Less than 6% of the normal run is expected this year. All commercial fisheries are closed (putting many fishermen out of work) and the sport fishery is going to be small, and extremely regulated. How did we get here? We have known about declining salmon runs for years.

And why wasn't this tragedy screamed across the headlines of North America? In a time when sustainability is heard on every street corner, why didn't every newspaper pick up this story? Instead, I heard about it in a class, and then an astute student, Robert Walker, brought an article to my attention. Thank you Robert.

The collapse is being blamed on ocean temperatures and the use of water in California (irrigation) along with the usual culprits: destroyed habitats and pollution.

Many biologists believe a combination of human-caused and natural factors will ultimately explain the collapse, including both marine conditions and freshwater factors such as in-stream water withdrawals, habitat alterations, dam operations, construction, pollution, and changes in hatchery operations.

Fish varieties live best in a narrow range of temperatures. Though overfishing had a great deal to do with the collapse of the cod in the Grand Banks 15 years ago, the no-show return of the cod has been blamed on the change in ocean temperatures. Cod have a very narrow range, and the Grand Banks have changed, and scientists are learning more about why the cod are not repopulating the banks. global warming, ocean temperatures, and wild annual fluctuations of fish - all of this encompassed within theories of the non-linear progressions of weather and its relation to global warming, have caused havoc in the seas. Now salmon could also be another victim of global warming.

And California's need and lack of water. With 38 million people (1/8 of all Americans) and the largest agricultural economy in the nation, the need for water has always been a stumbling block for the state. Despite years of stealing water, diversions, and conservation, the state has found itself in a drought again (the state has a history of droughts), and water and fish have been victims. The state and federal regulators are diverting so much water to irrigate the farms, the fish have been dying.

The Bush administration says that the reason for the sudden collapse of the Sacramento fall Chinook stock is "not readily apparent," but fishing, tribal and environmental groups point to massive water exports from the California Delta in recent years and rapidly declining water quality in Central Valley rivers as the key factors behind the fishery collapse. Although the ocean conditions were undoubtedly poor, many of the fish never made it to the ocean because they were sucked into the massive state and federal export pumps in the Delta or starved as they migrated through the estuary, due to the collapse of the Delta food chain.

Where are we heading as a civilization? Should everyone read Collapse and get the message? How many more signs do we need?

• cod collapse
  
• deforestation
• desertification
  
• Arctic pollution
• Arctic warming
• rising prices
• resources exhaustion
• oil peak
• global warming
• extreme weather events
• weakened immune systems
• human population explosion
• honey bee collapse
  
• salmon collapse

According the Diamond's Collapse the reasons for collapse are

1. Environmental damage caused by humans
2. Climate change
3. The presence of hostile neighbors
4. The absence of trading partners
5. The nature of a society's response to points 1-4

What do you think? Is living sustainably an answer? Can sustainability reach far enough, deep enough in to the minds of people to make the changes that are necessary in the time that we have?

Chinese Smog in LA

That is LA down there. I return to LA each year and the smog is still there. But did you know that some of that smog is coming from CHINA?

For years now the United States has sent its polluting industries out of the country, Why? Because it would be AWAY and not HERE. We all know that there is an invisible wall that stops all pollution at the national border. Well, here is the rub. The invisible wall isn't there.

It seems that Los Angeles smog, which is of course, caused by the insane amount of cars on the road, is caused by the insane number of cars, BUT that is not the only reason. The smog is being imported along with all the other things we import---from China. That is right, coal burning power plants in China are creating so much pollution that it is being carried by the winds across the Pacific Ocean to the west coast of America. China is the most polluting country on earth.

Experts once thought China might overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2010, possibly later. Now, the International Energy Agency has said China could become the emissions leader by the end of this year, and the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency said China had already passed that level.

While China is the fastest growing economy on Earth, it is also the most environmentally devastating. Just read about what the country is doing to make the Olympics be somewhat healthy, and what some athletes have done when they realize how unhealthy it is.
Click image for larger graphic

As we already know (at least I hope so) pollution from coal-burning power plants is damaging to health. For human health it harms the respiratory system, causes cancer, causes thousands of premature deaths. The land and air fare no better. It causes acid rain, sterilizing lakes, rivers, and streams.

There is a Dickensian feel to much of the region. Roads are covered in coal tar; houses are coated with soot; miners, their faces smeared almost entirely black, haul carts full of coal rocks; the air is thick with the smell of burning coal.

Yet, even as the air is filled with soot, and cancer rates have soared, the Chinese (and perhaps America if Dick Cheney has his way) continue to build more coal-burning plants. And they continue to do exactly as we did as our industrial might grew - subsidize the plants, the electricity, the lifestyle, so that they can grow all that much more. While they grow they cause more pollution, more global warming, more climate change, more CO2 more of the problems that threaten our lives in the twenty-first century.

At what point do we all just get it? When do we start to realize we all live on the same planet and there is no "away."

BioFuels and Global Warming

Surplus corn was seen across the Midwest in recent years, due to the US dependence on the grain. In 2007 it reached all time highs as farmers cashed in on the biofuel opportunities. But what was that all about anyway?

Anyone who drove through the Midwest last year couldn't help but to see that corn was growing everywhere. Acres were devoted to it far from the corn belt up near Traverse City, it was on every available acre that anyone could sow. The price was up and people were feeling good about helping global warming and the fuel, dare I say, crisis?

But what was going on here? It seems that everyone I spoke to who knew anything about corn, fuel, and the politics of biofuel, said the same thing. NO GO. And now the research is saying the same. Despite some supportive analysis, people are finding that those who knew what they were talking about, really did know. There are several interrelated issues with depending on corn for our future fuel.

For example, have you noticed the price of food lately? Have you any idea how much of our food is dependent on corn? (Read The Omnivore's Dilemma for a great analysis) More corn (27% in 2007, versus 20% in 2006) is being used to create ethanol. That means less is available, and supply and demand dictates that the price of corn will rise, as it did, and so did our food.

But there are now several references (this is the link to the Science article) to that fact that ethanol is not helping one of the main reasons we are moving in that direction - global warming is not reduced by using ethanol. Land use changes have released more carbon dioxide into the air. Unbroken soil is a great sequester of CO2. Oh yes, and since corn is a thirsty crop, it is straining already tenuous water supplies.

One of the new studies, however, found that due to the impact of plowing up new fields, corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse-gas emissions compared to gasoline and that fuels made from switchgrass increase emissions by about 50 percent. Not all biofuels were net losers, though. The study authors suggested that producing biofuels from waste products still makes sense. (Grist)

The studies continue on saying that there are better ways to convert fields to biofuel, better crops, and maybe even using less water. Corn uses a lot of water, and the varieties grown today are hybrids, dependent on fossil fuel based fertilizers.

But how did we get into this crazed mode last year when everything was coming up corn? Politics, in a word. Agriculture and farmers have been suffering over the past few decades, and anything that looks like profit will be followed by those who depend on subsidies in order to break even. The agricultural lobby LOVED the idea of more corn, and high prices, and pushed it on the farmers, and they bit without analyzing the economic and environmental costs. As it turned out it ended up costing the consumers higher food prices, and the environment with more global warming. Subjectively the farmers are always looking for something, anything, to make a profit. Agriculture is a rough and tumble industry. Farmers are played by the political forces, and objectivity (what is actually good for the people) is never really broached.

When will we learn to be objective? I thought that was what science was supposed to be all about. It is time to leave politics behind and begin find the best form of energy, and to learn conservation too. There are ways to be energy rich and be efficient too. We just have to buckle down and work. We are not entitled, we are responsible.

PS I am adding this on March 29. Just saw the new Time Magazine and corn and biofuels are on the cover. The clean energy myth.

Michigan elevates its wind power

A wind farm in the thumb has delivered the first large scale alternative energy to the state.

Thirty-two wind turbines now provide power to Pigeon, a community of 14,000. After years of talk the state—the 14th windiest in the nation thanks to its Great lake frontage—has finally entered the alternative energy race. These turbines join the 4 or 5 others in the state, and change the wind energy ranking from 30th to 22nd. Still only 3% of all Michigan's power is renewable, (60% is non-renewable coal) but growth has been steadily increasing. Twenty other wind projects are proposed across the state. Michigan has the ability to produce 267 times the current wind power.

Governor Jennifer Granholm has been vying for additional additional alternative energy sources, 10% by 2015, and if she succeeds Michigan would join the 28 other states that have required a commitment. Not only that, but the demand for wind power (which currently has wind companies with a two-year backlog) could bring up to 17,000 jobs and $6 billion in investments. The new wind turbines were made in Denmark.

Another source of jobs and entrepreneurship is to develop the current transmission infrastructure to support the new energy sources. Current transmission limits the distance that the renewable energy can travel. The best place to build wind turbines is in rural areas.
States' wind power

The United States added 5,244 megawatts of wind power last year for a total of 16,800 megawatts nationwide. The states with the most installed wind power as of Dec. 31:

1. Texas... 4,356 MW

2. California...2,439 MW

3. Minnesota...1,299 MW

4. Iowa...1,273 MW

5. Washington...1,163 MW

22. Michigan...56 MW*

* As of March 2008

Source: American Wind Energy Association

The Rising Cost of Food

Have you noticed what has been happening to the cost of food? If you haven't you should, it is going up. Way up. Along with energy and fuel costs, and related to it (how does that artichoke get from California to Michigan if not for fossil fuel?) the American consumer is finding out what it means to live in a world that depends on fossil fuel to transport its food an average of 1500 miles, and has had a steadily declining value to its currency (the value of the dollar has halved in relation to the Euro in the past 6 years). In the past 12 months the cost of food has risen 5.1% the worst inflation since the early 1990s. For example in the past years increases include:

• Milk and dried legumes are up 17%
• Cheese 15%
• Rice and pasta 13%
• Bread 12%
• eggs 25% (and 62% in the past 2 years)
• chicken up 10%
• apples up 11.7%
  

Click on
image to enlarge

So what's a person to do? Well, many of us have been doing this for a long time already - grow a garden (also in the Freep on 3/14/08). It has always made a lot of sense. No more cardboard tomatoes, and a bounty of fresh fruit and veggies with nutrition intact.

Now many people are going to turn ever more toward the cheapest foods-processed foods, but be wary - they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Processed foods lack nutritive value, made with the cheapest ingredients, and preserved with chemicals that shouldn't enter one's body unless they are interred (and I even question that). Processed foods have all kinds of bad fats (they are cheaper) and are filled with sodium and or sugar(to enhance boiled out flavor). They travel thousands of miles to sit on your store shelves. AND eating processed meats or red meats are an established source of cancer (reduce your meat consumption).

It is just more sustainable to eat what you grow (and have control over), reduce fossil fuel transport that is not necessary, and have a healthy nation (less obesity, less cancer, less diabetes). Don't you think?

Climate Change, Transportation, & Jobs

I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, August 1, 2007. Is aging infrastructure something 'they' don't want to own up to? Should there be more funding? Can we afford it with a growing population and a growing expense for natural resources?

Maybe you have been wondering about all the so-called jobs that will come with accepting renewable energy and living in a world with climate change. Well, this article is not directly about jobs, but read it and think about what types of jobs will be required to answer the questions that this article is addressing. The jobs will be unique for the current time, because they will be "thinking" jobs, ones that are not the same old, same old. It is the youth of today who will answer these questions and think up new ideas. What an exciting challenge. And those of you who have been a part of these blogs are well on the way to living in this "new" world that is coming. I have been very impressed with your thoughts and ideas and feel that you are on the right track to exciting opportunities.

And so, what is this article? Transportation. Changes that will be required because of climate change. Specifically it notes:

• increases in very hot days and heat waves
• increases in Arctic temperatures
• rising sea levels
• increases in intense precipitation events
• increases in hurricane intensity.
  

Each of these climate change results will create infrastructure headaches (and even a few 'good' things, like being able to sail the Arctic!). Things break, things age in the normal course. With climate change it will no longer be the old normal, but a new normal, one that is seemingly random or chaotic - until we have minds that begin to work WITH the changes, instead of trying to do the "conquering of nature" as we have in the near past.

Each of these challenges will require people who are thinking outside the current box, and creating a new box (which, of course, will also require going outside of it). People will need to be expert in various transportation modes, climate change and effects, as well as working with one another to adjust the infrastructure.

Infrastructure. A majority of the roads, bridges, highway, and tunnels in America were completed in the 1960s. That is now getting to be close to 50 years old. Everywhere there are problems with infrastructure that is aging. Roads with potholes, bridges falling down or on the cusp of failure, tunnels losing panels due to poor construction quality, highways congested and worn out. Not only to they all have to be corrected, but rethinking how to proceed into the new sustainable future. Do we all have to have cars ALL THE TIME? Is there a way to share some transportation, or heaven forbid, live nearby our work? Can we change the way we live? As we rethink our infrastructure we will need to also rethink how we live and can we continue as we have been? Do we need to rethink our patterns in life? Hey! we can use a few geographers and urban planners for that.

There are many jobs that have not yet come to be, but if you keep reading the many issues and new opportunities in the sustainable world we are shaping, then, you will find your way.

Making Renewable Energy Affordable -Michigan

Twenty five states have requirements that more electricity is to come from renewable sources. Michigan is not one of them, but Governor Granholm would like Michigan to be come the 26th state. Unfortunately she has faced a very partisan legislature, which has stymied her every move. According to an article in the Sunday March 9, 2008 Free Press

Some Republican lawmakers are reluctant to mandate green power.

The majority of Michigan's power is coal generated (60%)and new electricity sources are needed. According to the article:

No matter which fuel is used to generate electricity, costs are going to go up because state regulators say Michigan needs at least one new multibillion-dollar power plant by 2015, and another nine could be needed by 2025 if demand grows as expected.

Granholm believes that Michigan has the potential to become a regional manufacturer of renewable energy sources - something that would bring in much needed capital ($6 Billion) and create 17,000 jobs.

The problem is that it will cost consumers more to move toward renewable energy. The House is considering capping resident's additional costs at $3 monthly over 20 years.

Granholm wants to require power companies to produce 10% of electric power by 2015, and 25% by 2025. Currently, about 3% of Michigan's electricity is renewable.

So should Michigan become a "green power" state? Is this important for our economy? Is there a future is a renewable economy? And....do we need to continue to grow our use of electricity, or should we learn to conserve power, rather than continue to grow in its use? The US consumes almost a third of world power, but is only 4% of the total population.

United Arab Emirates Going Green?

The World Islands . 300 artificially created islands in the shape of the world. Each island will have an estimated cost of $25-30 million.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) have made a LOT of money off of the sales of crude oil. The desert country (the western boundary is so desert the boundary remains undetermined even today) has decided to use its wealth to become the biggest and best of everything. Dubai has made many headlines with its over the top construction projects including artificial islands (as seen above and below) that represent palms and a map of the world.

This is Dubai, a city-state that has been on a rampage to make the biggest everything in the world, the biggest artificial islands (that is a one of their "palm islands" housing thousands of millionaire homes), largest indoor ski mountain, largest amusement park, largest shopping mall, highest building etc. etc.

Not to be outdone by Dubai, Abu Dubai (pop. 1.8 million) has decided to build a $15 billion development, Masdar City - the greenist outpost on the planet. The new city is advertised as the first totally sustainable city–a car-free, zero-carbon, no waste development running on alternative energy. They are building it because as the CEO of the development, Sultan al Jaber says, "because we can, and because we should."

The United Arab Emirates is located at the entrance of the Persian Gulf to the south of Iran. The federation is formed from 7 Arab Sheikdoms that are city-states. The country is one of the wealthiest in the world and has been cited repeatedly for human rights abuses and discrimination.

What are your thoughts on the development in the Arab states?

• Is building a green city the best way to spend their money?
  
• What are your thoughts of building artificial islands in the Gulf?
• Should the US follow suit and build in our gulf?
  
• Is building a green city (built on oil money) in the middle of a desert the future?
  
• Should Houston be doing the same?
  

10 things

The first LEED platinum building in America, in Annapolis, Maryland.

A recent list of ten things the US need do to make us more energy independent shows some promise if our learning how life is evolving in the US. This is a viewpoint of the paper but is worth reading. It is more than turning off the lights or computers (those DO count though). We are developing a new philosophy, and this coming from Houston!

So here they are. What do you think?

1. Most of the oil consumed in the United States is for transportation. Congress recently raised fleet mileage (CAFE) standards to 35 miles per gallon. The mileage standard must continue to rise as swiftly as new technologies and concern for passenger safety allow.
2. Scholars and industry executives now agree that demand for oil will exceed supply in the next few years. U.S. energy needs demand that government and industry engage in a program to develop alternative energy sources — wind, solar and hydrogen, to name a few — that would rival the scale and national commitment of Project Apollo’s missions to the moon. Houston remains the world capital of energy technology and, as with the space program, is primed to play a major role in producing tomorrow’s energy.
3. The lead time for developing new energy sources will leave the United States dependent on the oil and gas industry for years, probably decades, to come. Industry should not be hobbled by a windfall profits tax that would only discourage exploration and production, limit supply and drive up consumer prices. Also, industry needs greater access to domestic oil reserves in the Arctic and off the East and West coasts. There is no reason why the western Gulf of Mexico and its adjoining states should solely bear the burden of supplying the nation with oil and gas pumped from beneath the sea.
4. Government has already raised efficiency standards for home appliances, but Americans need to voluntarily adopt conservation measures — both as a personal virtue, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it, and as a strategy to curb energy prices. And when buying a house, Americans should calculate commuting costs. The numbers might persuade homeowners to buy a smaller house closer to work, saving money and putting the hours spent driving to more rewarding use. Government, for its part, must provide urban commuters attractive mass transit alternatives, including a robust system of zero-emission light rail in Houston.
5. The U.S. nuclear energy industry has proved itself to be safe, reliable and free of toxic emissions. New technologies make plants more efficient and easier to build and operate. Environmental concerns dictate that nuclear power play a larger role. However, full exploitation of nuclear power plants demands that the government quickly provide a safe site for the disposal of radioactive waste.
6. Although China threatens to overtake us, the United States remains the largest producer of greenhouse gases. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system is the best means to decrease emissions without putting industry in a straitjacket. A carbon tax could finance mass transit and alternative energy research; a cap-and-trade system is likely to benefit Houston, with its long experience with energy trading.
7. The United States gets most of its electricity from burning coal. The U.S. government must revive its research into carbon sequestration so the country can safely continue to utilize this abundant resource.
8. States such as Texas, the nation's leading producer of energy from wind, need to invest in adequate transmission capacity to get clean, green electricity from the wind farms to the cities.
9. Congress must stop mandating use of ethanol made from corn as a motor fuel. The net gain in energy is small, while the demand for corn disrupts food markets and needlessly raises prices at the grocery store. When ethanol from more efficient sources such as sugar cane and switch grass becomes profitable on a large scale, then ethanol can play a constructive role and lower U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
10. So-called green buildings are gaining in popularity, both because of their energy and cost savings and their aesthetic appeal. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System should be incorporated into local building codes whereever reasonable.

Good News for America! Wind Energy is Up

Those wind towers in Fremont CA.

In a new study of wind power in the world, the United States was leading the world in new wind power installations in 2007! It's about time. Wind power has been growing across the world for three years running now and 5,244 megawatts of new electrical capacity was added last year. (One thousand small houses with their lights on, or one grocery store open for one hour uses one megawatt-hour of energy.)

As usual California leads the way. Los Angeles broke ground on the largest city owned wind plant in the US. The new plant will be on the edge of the Mojave Desert about 100 miles north of LA. Eighty wind turbines will produce enough electricity to power 56,000 homes.



Thirty eight states now produce 1 % of electricity. It is expected that 2008 will match last year's growth.

Lake Mead has only a few years left

Lake Mead in 2005. The white "bathtub ring" is how far it had dropped at that time. It has only gotten worse since then.

According to an article in Yahoo Lake Mead, the source of water for much of the dry Southwestern states is drying up. Reasons are global warming and the thirsty, and growing population in this part of America. Lake Powell is also losing water. Both are at 50% capacity after many years of drought. The water of the Colorado River system is also responsible for hydroelectric power throughout the area. Chances are 50/50 that by 2017 there will not be enough water to produce electricity.

A former student who remembered my predictions of problems sent the article to me, and asks do you think they will still try to take the Great Lakes water now? We are tlaking less than 10 years, and radical cutbacks during this time. Phoenix issing water as they have in the past, though Las Vegas has a water czar who has een working to cut back on water usage. For example green lawns are no longer allowed to be planted in Vegas, and they will pay you to take your lawn out.

What are your thoughts?

Michigan: If you build it, they will come

Detroit's economy has been based on fossil fuels. That is OVER, and a new way is about to begin.

Headlines today are more talk of recession. This New York Times article is based on more people are losing their jobs, something where Michigan has everyone beat. We have been called a "single state recession" for years, and the rest of the states are finally catching up. Good to take the lead from California in something.

So what does outsourcing jobs to another country where people work for far less money do for us? I think we are beginning to see the answer. And it isn't about losing more manufacturing jobs, but creating more. Clean jobs. Jobs that don't require a PhD but require hard work and belief in the company you work for. Jobs that you can invest in because they are an answer to sending the jobs overseas in countries that do not honor environmental health. Jennifer talks a good talk, but hasn't done a thing. Education is still number 50 for her. And as the NY Times says:

Government employment pulled the job market into negative territory, contracting by 18,000 jobs, mostly at state universities and community colleges.

Time to teach what green is and the ways to get there. Time to do rather than say. Definitely NOT the time to cut educational funding.

It is about doing what Nature needs, instead of what humans want. Time to stop conquering and living in peace with our world. Time to stop sending our war against the environment to other places and start creating jobs that are eco-friendly, "cradle to cradle" and balanced.

Those of us who still have jobs aren't doing much better, as prices continue to climb and our paychecks do not. As the article says, we are working longer hours and making less money. This isn't about a $600 stimulus package (wohoo!), this is about faith and the belief that there is another way and being brave to go there and lead the world once again, but not in raw, hubris filled power, but in doing the right thing, and rising above the fray.

Am I wrong?

Tell me what you think about working with the environment instead of against it . Tell me about the kinds of jobs we can create to change. Tell me about how geography plays an important role. Working WITH not against the places we inhabit. Let it start here.

EU Sets Targets to Reach 20% Emissions Cut

Germany is number one in wind power in the world.

In a move toward sustainability the EU has set a goal that one-fifth all energy be renewable by 2020. It is the most ambitious plan to counter climate change ever proposed. Investing in renewable energies is also seen as benefiting new energy technologies, creating jobs and establishing a world wide market, though some industrial groups have expressed concern about the costs and potential damage to competitiveness of European industries, possibly making some leave Europe for less regulated countries. The EU also mandated that 10% of transportation be run on biofuel by 2020.

So the question is, should the United States and Canada follow the lead? Already Germany is the most wind energy efficient country and continues to build on its energy expertise. Though wind energy and other alternative sources have increased in the US and Canada over the past decade, they are no where near European commitments or practice. Is there a future for alternative energy in America, or is it a waste of time and energy?



This news item was brought to my attention by William Austin in our lecture class. I am interested in other important sustainable items that impact the United States and Canada.

The Niagara Falls Story

Niagara Falls and Rainbow

This week in class we had conversations about Niagara Falls and IF they actually "turn them off" at night to create hydropower at nearby US and Canadian generation plants. So I went traveling across cyber space to see what I could find. Not as good as actually being there, but for now.... let's see what you can find too. Right now I submit http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/21/tech/main1916244.shtml
a news story from 2006 about drilling a new tunnel to create more power, and diverting more water, though they say it won't be noticeable, I have a hard time believing that 50 - 75% diversion isn't. What do you think? And should they be creating more hydropower, an alternative energy source, by diverting falls water?