Provocations

Portland Oregon activates a plan for declining oil

Oil being a finite resource, the current price reduction can only be temporary (unless our technological society has a meltdown). Here's a report posted to the Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society's Listserve:

From a report by Richard Case:

Portland is the first US city to have completed a Peak Oil Task Force Report. A short follow-up report is also available. The first recommendation is "Act Big Act Now", followed by: . . . foster a resilient, interconnected community, reduce fuel use by 50% in 25 years, expand local food production and processing, expand conservation programs, preserve farmland, develop contingency plans for fuel shortages, beef up social and economic support systems, among others. It also predicts that implementation of the recommendations will have an overall positive social and economic impact.

Many other cities now have peak oil initiatives with reports due soon including (San Francisco, Berkeley, Austin, Denver, Hamilton, Oakland, Burnaby; and Bellingham, and at least a dozen more (see….) I’m told that Portland has plans and projects to rip up some paved parking lots, sidewalks, curbs and gutters in favour of swales and more permeable surfaces to improve rainwater infiltration and aquifer recharge. Buses and trolleys in the downtown core are free.

Organic vs Conventional. Lets get it straight.

Apples vs Oranges?

Yet another study - this time in today's Washington Post:
The environmental footprint of organic vs. conventional food
comes to a fairly simple conclusion: "Organic food is no better than regular food, a study finds."

I wonder how many will read what, as of this writing, is the sole comment. There's more understanding there than in the article itself. It stands on its own so I'll quote it here to give it a little more exposure:

Tawster wrote (italics mine):

You did something really subtle there. You changed the wording a bit there: The study is comparing "yields" and not "productivity". Big difference. I was scratching my head for a bit as I read because I knew that "productivity" of organic crops generally crushed conventional every time, though, dependent on the practice of the farmer, "yields" could be mixed.

Productivity is a measure of NET yield. I.e., after cost is factored in. Yields can be more or less than conventional, but the cost endured for conventional crop production is massive in comparison to organic. Costs include raw costs, like seed, fertilizer, fuel, herbicides, fungicides, labor. Those are a bit more for conventional generally, but it could be comparable in many cases. But where conventional falls face down is in *externalized* costs: ground water poisoning, air pollution, MRSA and virulent E. coli outbreaks, slurry lagoon breeches, soil loss, etc. etc.

i.e., The costs of conventional farming, often are more than the value of the crop they produce.

If you move to modern beyond-organic farmers, even their yields blow away conventional and organic and are the most yielding *and* productive farms on the planet.

This is trivially simple stuff. Why is the press not getting it right? I don't understand.

I think Tawster's being polite. It's actually not that hard to understand. The big money's not on organic, as evident in the attempt by Monsanto et al to defeat California's Proposition 37 (which seeks clear labelling of genetically modified products). Here's what it looked like as at the beginning of September. These are the companies seeking to prevent labelling of GMO foods in California; and the money they are spending to attempt to keep customers in the dark. Some are no surprise and some actually sell certified organic food. (Source: Big Ag Drops Another $13 Million to Defeat Food Labeling Prop)

1. MONSANTO COMPANY $4,208,000.00
2. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
3. PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
4. BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
5. BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
6. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
7. NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
8. COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
9. CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00
10. SYNGENTA CORPORATION $821,300.00
11. KELLOGG COMPANY $632,500.00
12. GENERAL MILLS, INC. $519,401.17
13. HERSHEY COMPANY $498,006.72
14. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $388,000.00
15. COUNCIL FOR BIOTECH. INFO. $375,000.00
16. GROCERY MFRS. ASSOCIATION $375,000.00
17. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION $374,300.00
18. BIMBO BAKERIES USA $338,300.00
19. PIONEER HI-BRED INT $310,100.00
20. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $301,553.21
21. PINNACLE FOODS GROUP LLC $266,100.00
22. DEAN FOODS COMPANY $253,950.00
23. BIOTECH INDUSTRY ORG. $252,000.00
24. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC. $248,200.00
25. WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY $237,664.90
26. RICH PRODUCTS CORPORATION $225,537.15
27. CARGILL, INC. $202,229.36
28. DEL MONTE FOODS COMPANY $189,974.61
29. KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $135,831.53
30. MARS FOOD NORTH AMERICA $100,242.69
31. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC $98,073.62
32. SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES $96,952.57
33. SARA LEE CORPORATION $96,833.22
34. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $70,454.91
35. SOLAE, LLC $61,207.43
36. MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC. $52,295.63
37. DOLE $45,580.05
38. C. H. GUENTHER & SON, INC. $24,189.18
39. LAND O'LAKES, INC. $21,513.78
40. HERO NORTH AMERICA $21,044.96
41. MORTON SALT $20,957.42
42. INVENTURE FOODS, INC. $11,343.80
43. GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC. $11,121.53
44. HOUSE-AUTRY MILLS, INC. $1,077.27
45. RICHELIEU FOODS, INC. $165.80

Some of these big names have organic food divisions or subsidiaries. This fairly recent chart will give you some insight:

Who Owns What in the Organic food industry.

I'm going to keep Tawster's comment handy for when I encounter the next blinkered article, claiming organic is more expensive than conventional agriculture.

Compact fluorescents vs incandescent light bulbs - an update

This is an update on a post from 2007. I think most of what I wrote and reproduced on the blog still stands. But apparently the Canadian Government doesn't think so. It has removed all the information I copied from their web site (available below). Pretty much all you find now is information extolling the virtues of compact fluorescents. Yet, still no comprehensive plan to dispose of damaged and expired CFLs (they contain toxic amounts of mercury).

A few updates and additions, courtesy of Wikipedia:

1. CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new.
2. The current price of CFLs reflects the manufacturing of nearly all CFLs in China, where labour costs less.
3. Because of delays when used outside in cold weather, CFLs are not suitable for motion-activated lighting.
4. If individuals are exposed to the light produced by some single-envelope compact fluorescent lamps for long periods of time at distances of less than 20 cm, it could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage.
5. In the past decade, hundreds of Chinese factory workers who manufacture CFLs for export to first world countries were being poisoned and hospitalized because of mercury exposure.
6. In some places, such as Quebec and British Columbia, central heating for homes is provided by the burning of natural gas, whereas electricity is primarily provided by hydroelectric or nuclear power. In such areas, heat generated by conventional electric light bulbs significantly reduces the release of greenhouse gases from the natural gas. Ivanco, Karney, and Waher estimate that "If all homes in Quebec were required to switch from (incandescent) bulbs to CFLs, there would be an increase of almost 220,000 tonnes in CO₂ emissions in the province, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 40,000 automobiles."

Buy incandescents while you still can. The price is already going up as demand is exceeding supply.  Despite resolutions and requests from many representative bodies, many governments seem determined to go ahead with a ban on incandescent bulbs.

A Canadian government that claims to believe in minimal interference in our lives is telling us how we can light our homes.

An interesting video showing CFLs perfom worse than incandescents in many situations:

-------------------------------------

HERE'S WHAT I POSTED IN 2007:

I'm up there when it comes to minimizing energy use but remain leery about the much-touted compact fluorescent. Interestingly, it took a fair bit of online research to find out the difference in colour spectra of the two. In the end, it was a Government of Canada web page that told me that the old incandescents continue to provide more accurate colour rendition.

The Colour Rendering Index (CRI) of a lamp reflects how accurately the colour of an object can be determined under a given light source. Compact fluorescent lamps have a CRI of 82 (out of 100), which is considered excellent for fluorescent sources and good for artificial light in general. Incandescent lamps have a CRI of 97. Incandescent lamps provide excellent colour rendering because of the full spectrum of colour wavelengths present in the light they produce.

and that compact fluorescents, are affected by temperature, getting less efficient as the temperature moves above or below 25°C

Low temperatures pose the greatest problems for CF lamps. Not all compact fluorescent systems are equally susceptible to low-temperature problems, but in general, as temperature drops, so does light output and efficacy. At very low temperatures (below 32°F or 0°C), lamp output can decline to one-third the rated value or less. It is important to note that some CF lamps will have to warm up a while before producing sufficient light under cold conditions, some may take several minutes to ignite, and some won't start at all.

High ambient temperatures can be produced around enclosed CF lamps in interior lighting applications. In addition, less-efficient ballasts will introduce more heat into fixture enclosures. The IES Lighting Handbook points out that a 1% loss in light output (for fluorescent lamps in general) can be expected for every 2°F (1.1°C) above the optimum ambient temperature of 76°F (25°C). Efficiency can also drop, to some degree, at these higher temperatures. Ventilated fixtures for CF lamps remove excess heat from the enclosure.

. . . and that compact fluorescents deteriorate quicker with increased frequency of on-off switching.

While incandescent lamps do not suffer any reduction in service life from switching, fluorescent lamps do to a small extent. Consequently, the costs of shortened lamp life should not be overlooked when considering CF lamps in applications requiring frequent switching.

Recycling of ballasts is another issue. Is this the old nuclear energy argument in a nutshell: great energy but serious pollution/disposal problems?

So, while I want them to succeed, I'm being very conservative in switching, presently having only two: one in our crawl-space and one providing supplementary lighting for some indoor plants.

UPDATES:

• UV light fear over 'green' bulbs
• Low-energy bulb disposal warning
• Low-energy bulbs 'worsen rashes'
• Low-energy bulbs 'cause migraine'
  
  

  High CRI LED Lighting - check it out. Time to say goodbye to CFLs. Our options are running out. 

Study: Politically conservative brains geared for fear.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

So much for personal choice!

I'd be interested in who the exceptions are - those who've gone beyond thier genetic programming. My guess is they would have a more enriched understanding and outlook.

Read the article

A graphic dose of fossil fuel reality

Bad news and good: the cavalry ain't coming - but this is not a job for the cavalry.

Richard Heinberg's been putting this stuff out for a very long time. I know this in more detail than most because I ran his web site for a few years. Sad to say, while his message is updated, it's not that different from what he was saying ten years and more ago. Scientists have known for a lot longer that we are heading for a fuel crisis that is threatening the foundation of most developed economies and cultures as well as the viability of our planet as we know it. But, what do scientists know? Just find one doubter with a degree in something and we can dismiss the seriousness of the situation and continue heading in the same direction.

Solutions are around but, for now, here's a little tool that may help us face the facts. Gotta do that first. My names Jeffrey and I'm a fossil-fuel-aholic. A 12-step process for governments? Maybe. My country's Canada and it's a fossil-fuel-aholic.

Motivations in Copenhagen Climate Change talks

Take three minutes to listen to some simple thoughts on the Copenhagen talks from Naomi Klein.

Simple depiction of where our planet is in the global warming cycle

Are you and/or people you know overwhelmed by the apparent enormity and complexity of global warming? Here's a simple presentation of the situation we now face on our planet. Watch it and then consider showing it to open-minded/concerned friends and especially decision-makers in your immediate and larger community.

More about this video

Canadian elections and climate change

With all the he-said she-said stuff, it's important to keep the basics in mind:

See also: Sierra Club Canadian Voters' Guide ranks parties

Hospital drips over-used

Even in Canada - known for its functioning public health system - quality and availability of service is falling. It's always been important to play an active role in ones own healing process and doctors are gradually getting used to us more activist-type patients.  However - with doctors and support staff increasingly pressured to produce more results - treatment and even surgeries, can feel more like assembly lines. The process can tend to become so standardized and "efficient" that any adjustment for specific patient needs is kept to a minimum. Take, for example, that almost standard procedure of inserting the "drip" (or cannula) as soon as you get that gown on.  Surprise! It turns out that about a third of us do not need this little device which can also add to the risk of infection and blood clots. This according to a BBC report on a study in the UK, so I guess results would vary somewhat in other "developed" countries. From the BBC report:

Of the patients studied - who were all treated in the acute medical assessment unit of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary - 91% of patients had a cannula inserted. But 28% of the tubes were never used. The researchers also found that in 71% of patient records there was no documentation of a cannula being inserted, while in 57% there was no documentation of it being removed. Four patients had developed blood poisoning, which infection control specialists said was likely to be linked to the cannula.

It may be time to begin asking: "Do I really need that?"

Sierra Club Canadian Voters' Guide ranks parties

From the above, it's pretty clear that Canada is lagging seriously in taking action on its greenhouse gases. With an election about to be called in Canada, The Sierra Club of Canada has come out with a Sierra Club Voters' Guide on what they call The Climate Crisis Election, which includes the above image and a ranking of the contesting parties on the effectiveness of their policies to reduce greenhouse gases. 

From the CBC report:

The Green party's A- mark reflects a plan that "is very ambitious," national campaigns director Jean Langlois said at an Ottawa news conference.

The Liberals, who have made their environmental plan, dubbed the Green Shift, the centrepiece of their platform, received a B+. Their aim is to balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts.

The Bloc Québécois  received a B. "The Bloc have a target that reflects what needs to be done based on science. However, their plan is not very detailed," said Langlois. For instance, the party doesn't specify a price for carbon emissions.

The NDP received a B.  . . . lost marks for relying only on cap and trade for reducing emissions and forgoing a carbon tax.

The Conservative party received an F+ because the Sierra Club said it has chosen a "completely inadequate" target for reducing greenhouse gases and because it is relying on intensity targets to meet its goals.

See also: Canadian elections and climate change