www.AsymptoticLife.com

What Two Tons Means to Me

DJ — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:04:08 GMT

Last week, I calculated that a sustainable and equitable rate of CO2 emissions would be about 2 tons per person per year. Currently, the U.S. emits just over 20 tons of CO2 per person annually. Of this, according to EPA, 20% (4 tons) is caused by household energy use and about 27% (5.5 tons) is caused by four-wheeled passenger vehicles. The remainder, about 11 tons, is generated by the economy on our behalf, including manufacturing, agriculture, cement and steel production, and transportation of goods both for us and for export.

What would that mean to our lives if we cut back to 2 tons of CO2 per person per year?

First, let's assume that my hypothesis is correct: that 50% of the energy used in this country is wasted and could easily be conserved. That alone would bring our overall CO2 emissions down to 10 tons per capita. But that's still a long way from 2 tons.

Using my own household as an example, for two people we'd be aiming for 8,000 pounds of CO2. That means no more electric or fossil-fuel heat, we'd be limited to wood, solar and geothermal. And no personal automobiles (at least, none that run on carbon-based fuels). It also means that our diet would be both smaller and more localized. Rice and beef would be off the menu completely. And factories would virtually shut down unless they could find carbon-neutral ways to power their operations (solar, tidal, hydrogen, methane recapture, hydro, and geothermal).

An equitable CO2 emissions requirement would have major impacts on our lives-- for a while. But I'd bet that if U.S. industry had to find alternative sources of energy, it would. The technology already exists, market-ready or close to it. We would see our supply of cheap goods from China grind to a halt, because the CO2 emissions of moving them would exceed our CO2 budget. And we would see significant economic upheavals as economies and supply matrixes moved from global to local.

On the other hand, we'd see a resurgence of small businesses and small farmers. Opportunities for individuals would multiply (as would the pitfalls of not having a work ethic). The importance of community would resurface. And we'd see an upsurge in one of our nation's greatest resources: innovation.

Over the next few years, surging energy prices will assist us in reducing our CO2 emissions. But without an absolute cap, we're just too wealthy (and too spoiled) to change our ways. After all, we can afford to buy all that stuff.

What we really mean by that is, we expect someone else to live in squalor so we can live better. And that is a moral equivocation that I for one am having a hard time living with. I don't have a universal answer, but I'm going to continue to examine and adjust my own lifestyle with the goal of reaching an emissions target low enough that everyone in the world can do it.

Utah: On the Cutting Edge of Conservation

DJ — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:37:23 GMT

AP reports that Utah will become the first state in the nation to adopt a 4-day work week in order to save energy. The new schedule will affect over 70% of the State's 24,000 workers-- but not essential services such as police, fire, prisons, universities, or state liquor stores.

One administrative manager estimates that the new schedule will reduce CO2 emissions by over 3,000 metric tons each year. Not a bad start for a firmly-GOP state!

Baby Chicks

DJ — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:33:32 GMT

We raise Delaware chickens, a fairly rare breed, and order baby chicks each year to replace our retiring hens (the ones that have gotten too old to lay eggs). This year we had trouble finding them. Our local feed store ordered some for us, but they entered our phone number wrong into their computer and couldn't reach us when the chicks arrived, so they sold them to someone else. We tried our original supplier, but they didn't have any this year. We finally ordered some on the internet, but shipment was delayed for a month.

The new chicks finally arrived yesterday: twenty-five Delaware chickens and twelve Narragansett turkeys (a heritage breed). They came in by mail, hatched Monday and delivered Wednesday. They're all healthy and happy and eating and drinking. What more could we ask for?

The Bottom May Be Close...

DJ — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:31:00 GMT

"For the market as a whole we have not seen that capitulatory, cathartic purging that often spells the very final bottom." --David Darst, chief investment strategist of Morgan Stanley Global Wealth Management Group.

CNBC reports that Morgan Stanley feels a turnaround may be in our future-- but not yet. By year-end, the dollar may begin to improve and stocks (and the economy as a whole) may start to recover. But that's a long six months away.

In related news, the days of a Starbucks on every corner may be over: the company says it'll close 600 stores nationwide. IMHO, good riddance. I've never found the need for an espresso cappucino latte with a shot (or some such abomination) while paying for internet access. The recently-opened local Starbucks has put out of business at least three local coffeeshops that offered free internet access, leaving only one that I know of. As a believer in locally-owned and -operated businesses, I say, "Starbucks go home."

Sri Lanka Journalists Protest

DJ — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:55:00 GMT

(BBC photo.)

"Hundreds of journalists have protested outside the residence of Sri Lanka's president, demanding an end to a wave of attacks on the media."

So reports BBC, noting that at least 12 journalists have been killed since 2005. Many others have been beaten, kidnapped, or otherwise intiimidated.

Despite the attacks, journalists dare to demand justice. It's good to see that years of repression and warmongering by the Rajapakse administration has not broken the spirit of the Sri Lankan people. Perhaps there is yet hope.

(Lest I be flamed by Sinhala extremists, let me add once more that I have little nice to say about the LTTE either. The two leaderships, now equally terrorist, have held the civilian population of Sri Lanka at gunpoint for decades. I hope for the day when democracy and human rights return to a country with so much promise.)

Free Hot Water Costs Too Much

DJ — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:54:44 GMT

With the recent sharp increase in the price of propane fuel, we've been thinking a lot about solar hot water. The manufacturers of the solar heat-exchange units claim we could cut our propane use by up to 90%. Though we have no way of knowing for sure, we estimate that more than half (and perhaps as much as 3/4) of our current propane use goes for heating water, so that sounded pretty good to us.

We called a local solar hot water installer and asked for an estimate. The result: $11,570. Ouch! And that's for a small system appropriate to a two-person household. (At the current price of propane, optimistically the system would take at least 40 years to pay for itself.

It seems like there ought to be a better way. We've got great sun exposure, even in the winter. But at that price, we can't afford to use it.

In the coming weeks, I'll be looking for other options-- including installing a system myself. Any suggestions will be welcome.

(Graphic from TrendsetterIndustries.com, the company that makes the system quoted.)

Queen of the Spool

DJ — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:45:37 GMT

http://asymptoticlife.com/2008/07/01/queen-of-the-spool.aspx

Even Nisha, the youngest, has learned how to jump up on the spools. When Luna jumps off, Nisha's queen of the spool (and loving it).

GOSL Claims Victory (Sort Of)

DJ — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:48:49 GMT

(AFP photo coutesy of Getty Images.)

"[The war] might continue as an insurgency forever." --Lt. Gen. Srath Fonseka, commander of the Sri Lanka Army.

Lt. Gen. Fonseka claims to have defeated the LTTE. Of the 7,000 - 8,000 estimated LTTE cadres at the beginning of the campaign, 9,000 have been killed and 4,000 - 5,000 remain. (That, acccording to the general, is because despite the successful campaign against them, the LTTE recruited enough new cadres to double its size. That doesn't sound like a defeated organization.)

Even the general admits that defeating the LTTE on the battlefield will not end the war, and that the LTTE would continue to recruit support and attack civilians.

To this, one of my team members responds,

Actually, I think Gen. Fonseka's assessment isn't too far off. If he is talking about defeating the LTTE as a conventional fighting force mounting set battles with "front lines," that is certainly within the capability of Sri Lanka's overbloated military, especially with the reforms that Fonseka himself instituted about two years ago.

However, the "conventional" aspect of an insurgency is only the visible tip of an iceberg. In every conflict around the world, the governments go against the "conventional" forces against them -- because its the only part of the conflict they can see.

This war in Sri Lanka is poised to get a LOT BLOODIER, precisely because LTTE may lose its conventional forces (or see them greatly diminished). An insurgency could spread mayhem throughout the entire society. Multiply the recent bus bombings by 10 or 20 to give you an example of what could happen. The only defense is to turn the entire society into an armed camp, in the name of "security". It's a pretty high cost, for Mahinda to keep his boast to the hardline element of the SL population...

To prevent two or three more decades of civilian carnage (on both sides), it is imperative that [we] move dramatically forward in our efforts to transform the society and therefore transform the conflict. If the money that is currently being poured down the rat hole of war (on both sides) was applied to the uplift of society (on all sides), SL could quickly move to a society beyond war.

One of our supporters, a university professor, adds, "The conventional method of 'fighting terrorism' through military strategies is tragically counterproductive in that it plays to the fight or flight response and revenge."

The good news is, our group seems to have regained its focus. Despite (or perhaps because of) the recent violence, peace is back on the agenda.

Gas Prices and Hardship

DJ — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:35:00 GMT

An AP poll showed 9 in 10 Americans say high gas prices are causing them "hardship." I guess I'd be one of the few who wouldn't say that. I've seen hardship (in my life and the lives of others). The effect of $4.25 gasoline on my life is nothing in comparison.

In Sri Lanka, a gallon of gasoline costs 2 days of the average wage. In Utah, even at $4.25, it costs 33 minutes.

Much of Europe already paid $8 to $10 per gallon last year, before the latest round of increases.

Now we're whining about $4.00 gas. Sure it hurts the poorest Americans, who can no longer afford to drive to their minimum wage part-time jobs. But on the whole, all this complaining makes us sound like a nation of spoiled two-year-olds.

Belly Dancing in Southern Utah

DJ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:15:00 GMT

Saturday night we went to one of the local parks for a belly dancing performance-- a potluck hosted by one of several amatuer dancing troops in the area. The food was perhaps unusual for such an event (everything from couscous and curry to barbecued pork and fried chicken), but the performances were fun. Here a soloist does a sword dance.

Who says there's no cultural life in Utah?

More Goat Play

DJ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:05:00 GMT

http://asymptoticlife.com/2008/06/30/more-goat-play.aspx

Nisha climbs the wood pile. "Mom, are you sure goats are supposed to do this?"

Hay, the Price Went Up!

DJ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:24:00 GMT

Last September, we bought alfalpha hay at $125 per ton. Today I asked one of the local suppliers how much he's selling hay for. The answer: $220 per ton, and it's all sold already. He did offer me last year's hay for $180 per ton. (Goats don't much care for old hay, so we passed on that.)

What's caused this 76% increase in just nine months? The price of hay has risen due to both production costs and strong demand. The continuing drought in California means west coast farmers are looking far afield for hay to feed their horses and cows. Plus the rising price of fuel means it costs more to plant, irrigate, cut, bale, and transport the hay. Reports from California indicate that prices there have risen from $165 per ton last year to $240 per ton this year, a 45% increase. It's likely to go higher as demand outstrips supply and the hay travels increasing distances from producer to consumer.

Also in the agriucultural sector, thanks to high fuel prices and loss of ammonia processing capacity, the price of fertilizer (primarily derived from natural gas) has skyrocketed as well. That means corn and soy both cost more to raise. Some farmers are converting some of their land from crops to livestock so they can use the manure as fertilizer to save money.

Fertilizer cost is only one reason corn-based animal feed went up 49% in a year. The price of corn was expected to rise further even before the recent floods wiped out huge tracts of corn and other crops. With corn already hitting record highs, fertilizer costs up, and hay starting to move skyward, look for the results at the grocery store-- not just in meat and dairy, but across the board.

Religion Demands Politics

DJ — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:38:55 GMT

"I could not be leading a religious life unless I identified myself with the whole of mankind, and that I could not do unless I took part in politics. The whole gamut of man's activities today constitutes an indivisible whole. You cannot divide social, economic, political, and purely religious work into watertight compartments. I do not know any religion apart from human activity." -- M. K. "Mahatma" Gandhi

Each religion has a political vision-- not necessarily a vision of government, but a vision of how people interrelate. Buddhism has nonharm, Christianity its communalism, Hinduism its stratified social organization, and Judaism justice for the poor.

Yet each religion also contains paradox-- indeed, the very growth of religion (that which binds us together) out of spirituality (the quest to know what is beyond ourselves) suggests a certain level of inherent paradox. Thus Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity also have their self-image as the "chosen people"-- and even Buddhism sometimes displays this trait (as in Sri Lanka). Thus, within each religion lies the seeds for both liberation and oppression. To take one example, Manifest Destiny and Liberation Theology both grew out of New World Christianity, yet are complete opposites, at times violently opposed to one another.

The more I read the Bible, the more aware I become of its political nature. Not all the writers agreed with one another. (The prophets, for example, were quite critical of David and his reign.) Yet the book as a whole calls me to change my relationships with those around me-- not only my family and friends, but people I dislike, and even (or perhaps especially) people I don't know.

As I grow older, my idealism wanes. I know I cannot feed all the hungry people, nor stop all people from dying in war. Yet the writers of the Bible demand that I not surrender those ideals, as impractical as they may seem. The Kingdom of God (talk about a political metaphor!) is not something that happens after we die-- it is something we create (or fail to create) with every interaction we have with every person we encounter.

CO2 Emissions: The Harsh Truth

DJ — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:31:09 GMT

Listening to Radio West yesterday, I heard a guest make an interesting point: if we tell poor people around the globe that they can't live the way we do, we're trying to prevent global warming by forcing people to continue to live in poverty. That is, for most of us, morally unacceptable.

Our current attitude seems to be that we can afford to buy all that energy and emit that CO2, and "they" can't. Too bad, but bully for us. Yet our economic and political philosophies are based on spreading prosperity and democracy throughout the world-- something we've done with some success. But we can't have it both ways. If we're going to benefit (in the form of corporate profits) from helping others use more energy, we're going to have to use less.

What would it look like to create an equitable and sustainable per-capita CO2 emissions policy? Assuming everyone emitted the same amount of CO2, how much could we all emit without frying the planet (and all of us with it)?

Let's assume that, to keep CO2 concentrations low enough to avoid catastrophe, we limit CO2 concentration to 350 ppm-- down from today's 385 ppm. That means cutting CO2 emissions by 50% of their current levels. At 2004 levels, the world generated 27 billion metric tons of CO2-- more than 20% of that by the U.S. alone. That means we'd need to reduce to about 13.5 million metric tons worldwide.

The world population is currently 6.8 billion people. That means each person would be allowed to emit 2 tons of CO2 per year. For 88 countries in the world, that's a step up-- more than they currently produce per capita. But for we priviledged few in the U.S., that means cutting our per capita emissions (currently over 20 tons per person per year) by 90%.

There is an alternative: if the world population was half what it is now, we could all emit 4 tons of CO2 per person. But it isn't, and few people want to talk about the effect of exploding population on resources.

Even if the earth's population did reduce by half, we Americans would still need to cut our emissions by 80%. So far, we haven't even demonstrated a willingness to stop our rate of incease, much less begin to decrease. Which means that, whatever consequences global warrming brings us, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame.

Fuel from Trash

DJ — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:18:53 GMT

(Wiki photo: the pilot plant has been operating for three years.)

A new plant in Bryan, Texas will use technology developed at Texas A&M University to turn tons of municipal waste into ethanol and gasoline. The plant will be operational in Septemeber. And it's cost effective! Says its developer,

"We can actually sell gas for a slight profit for $1.15 a gallon."

That contrasts sharply with corn ethanol plants, which require subsidies to produce their product. (One report says ethanol costs $1.74 per gallon to produce, and requires more energy than it contains, while gasoline at the time of the report cost only $.95 per gallon to produce.)

Trash is something Americans create in abundance: we send well over 100 million tons per year to landfills, so there's little danger of running out. In addition, Wiki reports that because of the unique process used, yields will be higher and CO2 emissions lower than in fermentation-ethanol processes.

(Thanks to reader Clint Richards for the tip.)

Goats Playing on a Tire

DJ — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:29:00 GMT

Luna & Nisha play on a tire.
http://asymptoticlife.com/2008/06/27/goats-playing-on-a-tire.aspx

Supreme Court Overturns Handgun Ban, Fails to Settle the Issue

DJ — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:06:46 GMT

The Supreme Court has by a 5-4 ruling overturned the ban on handguns in Washington DC. While this is good news for rural westerners who feared Nancy Pelosi was out to take their hunting rifles away, the ruling represents perhpas the first major modern decision on the Constitution's Second Amendment ever-- and it may or may not clarify what has been a contentious and muddy issue.

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Wiki's discussion of the history of this Amendment bears reading, but can be summarized as indicating that before and at the time the Amenndment was drafted, soldiers (especially local and State militais) were often required to supply their own weapons. There was also a history in England of limiting weapons ownership based on wealth and religion, meaning the poor and certain religions could not legally defend themselves or their communities. The founders intended that such would not be the case in the United States.

However, the purpose behind the Second Amendment went further: to ensure the ability of the citizens and the States to defend themselves against the tyranny of the new Federal government. That may be difficult for some to comprehend today, but it should be remembered that prior to the Constitution, the U.S., existed as a confederacy of loosely aligned states only recently independent from a tyrannical Parliament in which they had no representation. The move to federalism was both necessary and frightening-- and the framers chose to ensure that the States and its citizens would always retain the abiliy to prevent tyranny by the central government. The Federalist James Madison wrote:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."

Seen in that light, the Second Amendment is a bit frightening today. The U.S. military is armed not just with rifles and cannon, but with machine guns, artillery, aircraft, smart bombs, nuclear weapons, unmanned drones, and surveillance technology unimagined by our nation's founders. Imagine a world in which the citizenry of this country had weapons equal to those of the military-- privately owned and at their disposal. That is what the Second Amendment proposes.

I'll be the first to admit that, much as I mistrust our current leaders (and doubt their commitment to our freedom), I am not comfortable with my neighbor keeping a nuclear weapon in his barn. The potential harm to society is, to my mind, far too great to allow weapons of mass destruction into private hands. (I have my doubts as to whether our government or any government ought to have them, but that's another discussion entirely.) But where do we draw the line?

The Supreme Court ruling holds,

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

However, it does note that the right is not unlimited, and it does define that right as applying to "the sorts of weapons protected [which are] those 'in common use at the time.'" The question of in common use by whom was not addressed-- can an individual posses any weapon in common use by the military, for example, as the founders seem to have intended? Can I buy a machine gun? (Actually, as a Utah resident, I could; I'd just have to pass the background check and come up with the money.) Can I possess one in California or Massachusetts?

The ruling, on its face, seems to be just: under the law, handguns should not be banned completely. Yet the ruling also opens the door to future suits by what I would consider pro-gun extremists. In short, it settles one question and opens the door to many others.

According to EIA, We're Toast

DJ — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:29:00 GMT

The federal Energy Information Adminstration (EIA) issued a long range prediction for fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. To paraphrase their predictions: we're toast.

EIA assumes there will be no global agreement to cap greenhouse gases. They see the annual carbon dioxide emissions "51 percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago." Yikes! In other words (in their view), severe global climate change is inevitable.

If that's not bad enough, they predict dozens of new nuclear power plants in nations already plagued by terrorism and lack of control, including India and Russia.

Of course, they also see oil use rising by a third. Given that production is already plateauing, one wonders how that would be accomplished. Perhaps once again EIA is somewhat out of touch with reality.

My reaction: if that's the best we can do, we're doomed as a species anyway, so bring it on. But I continue to believe we can do better. (Seriously, even living in a yurt is better than not living at all!)

IRS Keeps Stimulus Rebates

DJ — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:54:00 GMT

The text of the Economic Stimulus bill didn't tell us, but common sense did: if you owe money to the government, they'll keep your rebate check and apply it against your debt. In fact, a few of my clients shorted the IRS by the amount of their rebate. Their attitude: "I want the money now, you can keep the rebate."

USA Today now confirms: about $2 billion in rebate checks so far has been kept by the government to pay off delinquent state taxes, child support, student loans, and other similar (non-IRS) debts. That's from $64 billion in payouts so far. Surprisingly (to me, at least), about 55% of this is for delinquent child support. That's over a billion dollars going to kids across the country. No word yet on how much has been kept to pay off federal taxes owed.

Meanwhile, IRS took staff away from enforcement (read: audits) to handle to deluge of questions about the rebates from taxpayers. Its projected cost: half a billion dollars in lost tax revenue. I wonder if Congress figured that into the cost of the bill?

Exxon Still Hasn't Paid

DJ — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:26:00 GMT

(AFP photo of a 10-year anniversary march in 1999, courtesy of Getty Images.)

In March 1989, under command of a pilot impaired by alcohol, the Exxon Valdez hit a reef off the coast of Alaska, creating one of the worst man-made environmental disasters in history. Exxon was assessed compensatory damages of over $500 million and punitive damages of $5 billion. The punitive damages were later reduced by subsequent courts to $4.5 billion and then $2.5 billion. Today, the Supreme Court tossed out the punitive damages altogether.

There's much to be dismayed about in this case. Firstly, punitive damages are intended to ensure that the damaging behavior is too expensive to be repeated. $2.5 billion is only five times the compensatory damages, certainly not an excessive ratio when compared with, for example, BMW v. Gore. Reuters notes that in 2007, Exxon earned $2.5 billion in revenue in just under two days. In that light, though the company claims $2.5 billion exceeds any previous punitive damage award, it hardly seems excessive.

But perhaps more disturbingly, Reuters reports that Exxon has not yet "set aside any legal reserves for possible damages." In other words, nearly twenty years after the spill, Exxon has yet to pay a dime in compensatory damages. The wheels of justice grind slowly-- and a dollar today is worth only about 60 cents compared to 1989.