Corn boom could expand ‘dead zone’ in Gulf

JEFFERSON, Iowa - Because of rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than at any time since World War II. And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price.

The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing "dead zone" — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot.
More.

Our Addiction to Oil: One Molecule Could Be The Cure

From Wired.com:

On a blackboard, it looks so simple: Take a plant and extract the cellulose. Add some enzymes and convert the cellulose molecules into sugars. Ferment the sugar into alcohol. Then distill the alcohol into fuel. One, two, three, four — and we're powering our cars with lawn cuttings, wood chips, and prairie grasses instead of Middle East oil.

Unfortunately, passing chemistry class doesn't mean acing economics. Scientists have long known how to turn trees into ethanol, but doing it profitably is another matter. We can run our cars on lawn cuttings today; we just can't do it at a price people are willing to pay.

Enzymes

The problem is cellulose. Found in plant cell walls, it's the most abundant naturally occurring organic molecule on the planet, a potentially limitless source of energy. But it's a tough molecule to break down. Bacteria and other microorganisms use specialized enzymes to do the job, scouring lawns, fields, and forest floors, hunting out cellulose and dining on it. Evolution has given other animals elegant ways to do the same: Cows, goats, and deer maintain a special stomach full of bugs to digest the molecule; termites harbor hundreds of unique microorganisms in their guts that help them process it.

No walk in the park

For scientists, though, figuring out how to convert cellulose into a usable form on a budget driven by gas-pump prices has been neither elegant nor easy. To tap that potential energy, they're harnessing nature's tools, tweaking them in the lab to make them work much faster than nature intended.

Addicted

While researchers work to bring down the costs of alternative energy sources, in the past two years policymakers have finally reached consensus that it's time to move past oil. The reasoning varies — reducing our dependence on unstable oil-producing regions, cutting greenhouse gases, avoiding ever-increasing prices — but it's clear that the US needs to replace billions of gallons of gasoline with alternative fuels, and fast. Even oil industry veteran George W. Bush has declared that "America is addicted to oil" and set a target of replacing 20 percent of the nation's annual gasoline consumption — 35 billion gallons — with renewable fuels by 2017.

But how?

Hydrogen is too far-out, and it's no easy task to power our cars with wind- or solar-generated electricity. The answer, then, is ethanol. Unfortunately, the ethanol we can make today — from corn kernels — is a mediocre fuel source. Corn ethanol is easier to produce than the cellulosic kind (convert the sugar to alcohol and you're basically done), but it generates at best 30 percent more energy than is required to grow and process the corn — hardly worth the trouble. Plus, the crop's fertilizer- intensive cultivation pollutes waterways, and increased demand drives up food costs (corn prices doubled last year). And anyway, the corn ethanol industry is projected to produce, at most, the equivalent of only 15 billion gallons of fuel by 2017. "We can't make 35 billion gallons' worth of gasoline out of ethanol from corn," says Dartmouth engineering and biology professor Lee Lynd, "and we probably don't want to."

Eat or Drive?

Cellulosic ethanol, in theory, is a much better bet. Most of the plant species suitable for producing this kind of ethanol — like switchgrass, a fast- growing plant found throughout the Great Plains, and farmed poplar trees — aren't food crops. And according to a joint study by the US Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we can sustainably grow more than 1 billion tons of such biomass on available farmland, using minimal fertilizer. In fact, about two-thirds of what we throw into our landfills today contains cellulose and thus potential fuel. Better still: Cellulosic ethanol yields roughly 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

For more visit Wired.com

Kunstler: Right Now

Right Now
I got a letter last week from a reader complaining bitterly that the stock market hasn't crashed and blaming me for predicting that it would. He didn't say, but I hope he hadn't been out there on a shorting spree. In case any of you haven't noticed, 2007 is not over yet.

The markets have been on an extraordinary spring run. The Dow finished 23 out of the best 26 days on the upside -- some of them pretty way on the upside. This is the biggest US stock market up-streak since a 19 for 21 streak in July of 1929, prior to the October crash. Bill Fleckenstein points out a similar run on the Tokyo exchange -- 32 upside trading days out of 38 -- just prior to its 1989 tanking.

While this kind of behavior seems ominous, I'm not claiming it necessarily has predictive value. One can say that the financial markets per se are running in an impressive state of structural distortion and imbalance and that systems way out of balance do not stay that way forever. But I risk more opprobrium by stating the obvious.

I think the persistence of this gross imbalance can be accounted for in large part by the current global energy situation. The world is at peak energy, peak oil especially, and the world runs on oil. Peak is peak. The most. There are about 84 million barrels of oil a day flowing around the industrial economies of the world. It is running a lot of activity.

Now, I happen to think that oil production probably peaked about a year ago, but we are still so close to it that the net available energy remains immense. Even if 2007 averages out to 83.5 million barrels a day instead of 84 million, it will still seem like a lot. Markets may be dumber than we think. All they see is a vast amount of cheap energy for manufacturing plastic salad shooters, for powering tourist jet charters to Cancun, for running WalMart, Walt Disney World, and Taco Bell. All that energy is here right now.

Among the many tragic elements in the human condition is this tendency toward short-term thinking, the inability to imagine how our arrangements will work in a time that is not right now.
Interestingly, the main effect of post-peak oil on markets and economies is that it will produce shocking instabilities in complex systems dependent not just on the energy itself, but on the expectation for continuity of the energy. Financial markets are especially sensitive because they operate on sheer expectations. The Dow Jones doesn't manufacture salad shooters, or haul tourists to the Mexican beaches, or build suburban houses. It just relays a dumb signal that says "we expect more" and investors respond. The trouble will start when the signal changes to "we don't expect more." That moment will be when the recognition of peak oil galvanizes the public's attention. It will manifest as a simple societal binary switching mechanism. When that happens, the markets will exhibit the dumb herd behavior that they are famous for.

Of course, I have argued previously that the stupendous run-ups of market indexes themselves represent a kind of instability (those distortions and imbalances), as do also the supernatural flows of "liquidity" -- notional money extended to investors for harvesting future notional profits -- and I would stick to that observation. After all, if the world is "high" on oil -- and I would argue that it is zonked out of its mind -- then it would naturally spring way up off the diving board before swan-diving into the empty pool below.

Me, I'm keeping my eye on things like the production figures coming out of Mexico, the North Sea, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They're all sliding down. Mexico is especially interesting because it is our Number 3 source of oil imports and its production is crashing so hard that a couple of years from now it may not be able to send us a single drop of oil. What do you think of that? Maybe the Walton family will buy Iowa so they can keep WalMart running on ethanol.

Meanwhile, US oil refineries are running above 90 percent production capacity to keep up with the gasoline demand for Happy Motoring. The stress on these complex operations is unprecedented. It gives them no slack time for routine repairs. The results are liable to interesting, too, between the Fourth of July and Labor Day.

From www.kunstler.com

Kunstler: Grunting and Gnashing

from www.kunstler.com:

Sexual Abstinence

Where our tax dollars go: WASHINGTON, April 14 (AP) — Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress. Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex about the same age as other students — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc. The federal government spends about $176 million a year promoting abstinence until marriage. Critics have repeatedly said they did not believe the programs worked. Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study. . . .

Green Smoke

April 16, 2007
Tom Friedman, celebrated New York Times columnist and author of The World is Flat, riffed on (or around) the issues of climate change and energy in that newspaper's Sunday Magazine this week ("The Power of Green"), and managed, in the process, to misunderstand just about every implication these conjoined problems present. Friedman's specious thinking is symptomatic of exactly what is wrong with our public discussion of these matters generally, and their presentation in mainstream media in particular.

I'm fond of saying that if America could harness the power it wastes blowing smoke up its own ass, we could magically escape our energy-and-climate-change predicament. I say this repeatedly to counter the increasing volume of lies we tell ourselves in order to maintain the illusion that we can continue living the way we do. Like so many other commentators suffering from cranial-rectosis, Friedman believes that we can keep on running our Happy Motoring utopia if we just switch fuels. Friedman gives no indication that he understands the fundamentals of the global oil situation. He writes:

People change when they have to -- not when we tell them -- and falling oil prices make them have to. That is why if we are looking for a Plan B for Iraq -- a way of pressing for political reform in the Middle East without going to war again -- there is no better tool than bringing down the price of oil.

This is a fascinating statement. It's predicated on the idea that the US can achieve "energy independence," which is itself predicated on the further idea that we can accomplish this by switching out gasoline for ethanol. This is such an elementary error in thinking that it would be funny if it wasn't the lead story in the flagship of the mainstream media. As a Pennsylvania farmer put it to me in February: "It looks like we're going to burn up the last remaining six inches of Midwest topsoil in our gas-tanks." Friedman's statement also ignores the facts that running cars on ethanol would make no material difference in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, or that ethanol is 20 percent less efficient than gasoline, meaning we would have to produce and use that much more of the stuff just to stay where we are.

Where climate change is concerned, this is a variation of the "Red Queen syndrome" (from Alice in Wonderland) in which one has to run faster and faster to stay in place. It also fails to take into account the tragic ramifications of setting up competition between food for humans and crops for motor fuels just at the point when a growing scarcity of oil-and-gas-based soil "inputs" (as well increasing climate problems in the grain belt) will drastically lower American crop yields. The symptoms of this unintended consequence have already begun to present themselves -- for instance, January's food riots in Mexico, which resulted from Mexican corn being sold to American ethanol distillers rather than Mexican cornmeal millers, who couldn't match their bids. Friedman goes on to tout Wal-Mart's mendacious campaign to "green" up its operations by, among other things, improving the mileage of its truck fleet from 6-mpg to 12-mpg. He writes:

Take Wal-Mart. The world's biggest retailer woke up several years ago, its CEO Lee Scott told me, and realized with regard to the environment its customers "had higher expectations for us than we had for ourselves." So Scott hired a sustainability expert, Jib Ellison, to tutor his company. The first lesson Ellison preached was that going green was a whole new way for Wal-Mart to cut costs and drive its profits.

The smoke Mr. Scott blew up Friedman's ass is leaking out of the columnist's pie-hole here. I've been to dozens of permitting battles over Wal-Mart in the planning boards of America, writing on suburban sprawl, and I can assure you that the the pro Wal-Mart factions in these fights uniformly couldn't give a fuck about anything except saving five bucks on a plastic salad shooter ("we want bargain shopping!!!"). Not to put too fine a point on it, but these are precisely the members of the American public who sold their own local economies down the river, who led their towns into destitution, and who believe with all their hearts that it is possible to get something for nothing (which is why this large cohort of citizens spends so much of its meager income on lottery tickets, trips to Las Vegas, and gets suckered into ruinous "miracle" mortgages).

Friedman's invocation of Wal-Mart here offers another layer of misunderstanding from the work he is best-known for, his best-selling book, The World is Flat, which asserts that globalism is now a permanent feature of the human condition. I demur from this view. I think we will discover (probably painfully) that globalism was a set of transient economic relations made possible by a half century of cheap oil and relative peace between the great powers, and that enterprises that rely on these transient mechanisms -- such Wal-Mart, with its 12,000-mile merchandise supply chain to China, and its "warehouse on wheels" of tractor-trailor trucks circulating incessantly on America's interstate highways -- will be on their knees in a few years as we enter the export crisis phase of post-peak terminal oil depletion and the great powers of the world act with increasing desperation to compete over the remaining supplies.

For someone operating at the top of journalism's food chain, Friedman is astoundingly ignorant. He asserts at another point in this article that climate change will require us to "[r]eplace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants." Earth to Tom: America's natural gas supply is arguably more tenuous and problematic than its oil supply. To put it bluntly, over the next five years, we will fall off a cliff with natural gas. Apparently Friedman hasn't heard. Nor are we going to make up for this loss by importing liquid natural gas from distant lands. Nor would it make any sense to burn expensive imported methane gas to run power generation turbines. So, you see, there is no chance whatsoever that we will do what Friedman suggests. In fact, the 17 percent of all electric power that we currently get from gas will be lost to us in the near future, which could leave us with Third World style electric service. (Incidentally, the terminal decline of our natural gas supply also means we will lose control of the crucial resource used for making nitrogenous fertilizers, with self-evident further implications for our crop yields and our ability to feed ourselves or manufacture alternative motor fuels.) Friedman's equations regarding continued industrial expansion in China and India are based on the assumption that they somehow will be immune to the global energy crisis and to the ecological catastrophes entailed by climate change. More likely: both nations will be overwhelmed by these things and the only question will be how desperate their political convulsions will be in response (or how rapidly they devolve back to twelfth century living standards). At the heart of Friedman's thesis is his notion that the current incarnation of "the American Dream" is a good thing and can continue. By American Dream he apparently means membership in the Happy Motoring Utopia, with all its accessories, furnishings, and usufructs -- the system broadly known as suburban sprawl. Here's the truth, Tom: suburban sprawl is a living arrangement with no future. It was a tragic mistake to squander the post World War Two wealth of our society to build it. It will come to represent an immense liability for this country's future, as it loses both monetary and practical value. And we will have to make comprehensive arrangements for living differently, if we want to continue this project of American civilization.

A telling omission in this article, by the way, is any mention of public transit. It's especially significant because the one thing we really could do right away to reduce our oil consumption would be to get passenger rail going again in this country. But this blind spot in Friedman's vision is only the flip side to his stupid belief that we can just keep all the cars running by other means.

Tom Friedman has no idea what the implications are of all these things. His fatuous advice to the nation -- served up by a confused and cowardly Times editorial staff -- will only spur more delusional thinking, which is, of course, the last thing we need. The showcasing of Friedman's article may represent an inflection point in the fate of the mainstream media -- the moment when it demonstrates most clearly its failure to make current events comprehensible, the moment when its lost legitimacy is finally recognized. That legitimacy has been passing to the Internet, where commentators have no advertisers to pander to and no need to defend any status quo.