March 16, 2010

Energy, Water, Food, Climate,

and the Capitalism that drives the tragic Trends

The Energy Problem

Energy Consumption: Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide humanity with 86 percent of the energy it consumes yearly. Table 1 summarizes humanity’s sources of energy.

Table 1: Primary Energy Consumption, by Source, World and the United States^(a)

(1 terawatts = 1 x 10 ¹² watts)^(b)

Fuel World (2006) United States (2008)^(c)

Terawatts Percent Terawatts Percent

Oil 5.9 37.3^(e) 1.2 37.1^(d)(e)

Coal 4.0 25.3^(e) 0.8 22.5^(e)

Natural Gas 3.7 23.3^(e) 0.8 23.8^(e)

Nuclear 0.9 5.7 0.3 8.5 Biomass 0.6 3.8^(f) 0.13 3.7^(f)

Hydro-power 0.5 3.2^(f) 0.08 2.4^(f)

Solar Heat 0.08 0.5^(f) 0.01 0.1^(f)

Wind 0.05 0.3^(f) 0.02 0.5^(f) Geothermal 0.04 0.2^(f) 0.02 0.4^(f)

Biofuels 0.04 0.2^(f) 0.01 0.1^(f)

Solar Photovoltaic 0.01 0.04^(f) 0.01 0.1^(f)

________________________________________________________________

Total 15.8^(g) 100 3.3 100

_________________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 1:

^(a) Wikipedia 2008 “World Energy Usage Width Chart,” pp. 1 and 3-4. Wikipedia 2010 “World Energy Resources and Consumption,” pp. 1 and 3-4. Wikipedia 2010 “Energy in the United States,” pp. 5-6. United States Government, Energy Information Administration 2010, p. 4. United States Government, Energy Information Administration 2009a, p. 1. Heinberg 2009a, pp. 3, 6 and 8. Wikipedia 2010 “Watt,” p. 1. Klare 2008, p. 9.

^(b) One watt is equal to one joule of energy per second. It is the work done when one ampere of electric current flows through a potential of one volt.

^(c) By sector, in 2008, primary energy consumption in the United States, was as follows:

Sector Primary Energy Consumption, U.S., 2008

(percent)

Electric Power 40.1

Transportation* 27.8

Industrial 20.6

Residential and commercial 10.8

Other 0.7

__________________________________________________________

Total 100.0

__________________________________________________________

* Oil accounts for 37.1 percent of the country’s energy consumption (see Table 1). Transportation, therefore, accounts for (27.8 / 37.1) x 100 = 74.9, rounded to 75 percent of the oil component of the country’s primary energy consumption.

^(d) The United States uses approximately 21 million barrels (882 million gallons) of oil per day.

^(e) World: Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide humanity with (37.3 + 25.3 + 23.3) = 85.9 percent of the energy it consumes.

Coal is the most polluting of the fossil fuels, emitting upon being burned carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur, mercury and radioactive elements. Providing 25.3 percent of humanity’s energy, coal is responsible for 40 percent of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

United States: Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide the United States with (37.1 + 22.5 + 23.8) = 83.4 percent of the energy it consumes.

^(f) World: Renewable sources total 8.2 percent of world energy consumption.

United States: Renewable sources total 7.3 percent of the country’s energy consumption.

Solar heat, biofuels and solar photovoltaic together account for 0.3 percent of energy consumption. I have arbitrarily assigned 0.1 percent to each of them.

^(g)In 2008, total world primary energy consumption was 15.0 terawatts.

Electricity Generation: Coal and natural gas provide the fuel for 63 percent of the electricity generated by humans. Table 2 summarizes the sources of electricity generation.

Table 2: Net Electricity Generation, by Source, World and the United States^(a)

(1 petawatt-hour = 1 x 10¹⁵ watt-hours)

Fuel Source World (2006) United States (2008)

Petawatt-hours Percent Petawatt-hours Percent

Coal 8.7 42.2^(b) 2.0 48.5^(b)

Natural Gas 4.2 20.4^(b) 0.9 21.6^(b)

Renewable Energy 4.1 19.9^(c) 0.4 9.1^(c)

Nuclear 2.8 13.6 0.8 19.7

Liquids 0.9 4.4 - -

Petroleum - - 0.5 1.1^(b)

____________________________________________________________________

Total 20.6 100.0 4.1 100.0^(d)

______ ______________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 2:

^(a) World: United States Government, Energy Information Administration 2009b, p. 3. Wikimedia Commons 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia 2010 “List of Countries by Electricity Consumption,” p. 2. Wikipedia 2010 “World Energy Resources and Consumption,” p. 16.

United States: United States Government, Energy Information Administration 2008a, Table 8.2a. Wikipedia 2010 “2008 U.S. Electricity Generation, by Source,” p. 2. Wikipedia 2010 “List of Countries by Electricity Consumption,” p. 2. Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2009, pp. 1 and 3. Tverberg 2008, p. 1.

^(b) World: Fossil fuels (mainly coal and natural gas) provide the fuel for 62.6 percent of world electricity generation.

United States: Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide the fuel for 71 percent of the electricity generation in the United States.

^(c) World: Most of this 19.9 percent of world electricity generation which comes from renewable sources, comes from hydroelectric power. It alone accounts for 16 percent of world net electricity generation.

United States.: In 2007, the distribution of the various renewable sources of electricity, was as follows:

Fuel Source United States, 2007

Percent of Percent of

Total Electricity Generation the 9.1 percent Renewables

Hydroelectric 5.8 64

Wood 0.9 10

Wind 0.8* 9

Waste 0.4 4

Geothermal 0.4 4

Solar 0.01 0.1

Other 0.8 9

__________________________________________________________

Total Renewables 9.1 100

__________________________________________________________

* In 2009, wind-generated electricity accounted for 2 percent of the total electricity generated, both for the world and for the United States (See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Wind Energy”).

^(d) By sector, in 2008, electricity consumption in the United States, was as follows:

Sector Electricity Consumption, U.S., 2008

(percent)

Residential 37

Commercial 36

Industrial 27

Transportation 0.2

_________________________________________________________

Total 100.0

_________________________________________________________

Table 3 summarizes greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.

Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation,

World and the United States^(a)

F u e l S o u r c e G r e e n h o u s e G a s e s g e n e r a t e d

(Grams of CO₂-eq./Kilowatt-hours of electricity)^(b)

World (2000) United States (2007)^(c)

Full Energy Chain (FENCH)^(d) Life Cycle of Energy Production^(d)

1990’s Technology 2000’s Technology

Lignite 1,151 -

Coal 1,140 -

Oil 853 -

Natural Gas 565 -

Solar Photovoltaic 190 22 - 49^(e)

Hydroelectric 23 - 237^(f) -

Biomass 46 -

Wind 26 -

Nuclear 15^(g)(h) 16 - 55^(h)(i)

________________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 3:

^(a) World: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2000, pp. 1-6. Ruppert 2009, p. 134. Wikipedia 2010 “Environmental Effects of nuclear Power,” p. 10. Sovacool 2008, p. 1. Klare 2008, p. 11.

Greenhouse gases included (with their chemical formula and warming potential in parenthesis) are carbon dioxide (CO₂, 1), methane (CH₄, 21), nitrous oxide (N₂O, 310), sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆, 23,900), tetrafluoromethane (CF₄, 6,500), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-134a, 1,300), chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-114, 9,300), and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC-22, 1,700).

United States: Fthenakis and Kim 2007, pp. 1, 3, 7 and 14.

Greenhouse gases included (with their chemical formula and warming potential in parenthesis) are carbon dioxide (CO₂, 1), methane (CH₄, 21), nitrous oxide (N₂O, 310), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s).

^(b) Grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per Kilowatt hour of electricity generated.

^(c) By sector, in 2007, greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation in the United States, were as follows:

Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation, U.S. 2007

(percent)

Electricity 34

Transportation 28

Industrial 20

Residential and Commercial 11

Agriculture 7

_________________________________________________________________

Total 100

_________________________________________________________________

^(d) Three types of analyses can be used to determine greenhouse gas emissions by commercial technologies. They differ with respect to the boundaries they draw for calculations – boundaries which are in any case always artificial:

* Input-output Analysis (IOA): This method of analysis considers the indirect emissions attributed to the different economic sectors which contribute to the creation of the final product, such as, for example, the electricity used in designing the technology, constructing it, and the labor used during its construction.

For technologies using fossil fuels, this approach may give greenhouse gas emission rates 30 percent higher than rates calculated using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). For nuclear power, the difference may be up to a factor of two.

* Full Energy Chain (FENCH): The Full Energy Chain (FENCH) method of analysis considers all the steps in the production of energy “from cradle-to-grave.”

In the study by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for the world, the Full Energy Chain considered the fuel supply chain, the power production stage, and the contributions from plant construction and materials requirements.

Note that for fossil fuels (lignite, coal, oil and natural gas), contributions from plant construction and materials requirements are minimal. These fuels provide most of the world energy used for electricity production, transportation, factories, and residential heating.

* Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), also called Process Chain Analysis (PCA), considers both mass (material) and energy flows throughout all stages of the life of technologies.

In the study by Fthenakis and Kim, for the United States, the life cycle of solar electricity generation (photovoltaics) considered material production (mining, smelting, refining, purification), solar cell and photovoltaic module production, balance of system production (inverters, transformers, wiring, structural support), system operation and maintenance, system de-commissioning, and disposal or recycling.

In the same study, the life cycle of nuclear electricity generation considered the mining and milling of uranium ores, fuel conversion, enrichment and fabrication, and the construction, decommission, operation, reprocessing, and waste disposal of the nuclear power plant.

^(e) The range 22-49 represents the average for the country.

Note that with the use of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis, greenhouse gas emissions from the solar and the nuclear generation of electricity (in the United States and with modern technology), are in the same range.

^(f) Temperate climate, 23; tropical climate, 237.

^(g) Calculations are for a light-water reactor.

^(h) In his meta-analysis of 103 life cycle studies, entitled, “Valuating the greenhouse Gas Emissions from nuclear Power – a critical Survey” (2008), Benjamin Sovacool, of the National University of Singapore, reports a range of emissions over the life-time of a nuclear power plant of from 1.4 to 288 Gms CO₂-equivalents/Kw-h of electricity produced, with a mean value of 66 Gms CO₂-equivalents/Kw-h. In general, errors in the lowest estimates were due to lack of comprehensiveness, while errors in the highest estimates were due to a failure to consider co-products. Sovacool notes that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases directly. Life cycle emissions occur during uranium mining and milling, and plant construction, operation and decommissioning.

It appears that none of the three sets of authors (the International Atomic Energy Agency 2000, Fthenakis and Kim 2007, and Sovacool 2008) considered:

* The needed security infrastructure, which can only be provided and overseen by a national government.

* The enormous amount of energy required to store nuclear wastes in ultra-safe containers, and monitor them for hundreds of thousands of years – a cost in terms of both emissions and money passed on to future generations.

⁽ⁱ⁾ Note that with the use of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis, greenhouse gas emissions from the solar and the nuclear generation of electricity (in the United States and with modern technology), are in the same range.

Energy Efficiency: Table 4 compares the energy returns of fossil fuels with the energy returns of renewable sources of energy.

Table 4: Energy Return on Investment, United States, 2005^(a)

Source of Energy Energy Return over Energy Invested (EROEI)^(b)

(units of energy returned per 1 unit of energy invested)

Oil (at wellhead)

Domestic

1930 100

1970 30

2005 17

Imported

1970 30

2005 18

Coal (at mine mouth)

Domestic

1954 177

1977 98

2005 65

Hydroelectric 30

Natural Gas 18

Windmill 17^(c)

Nuclear 10^(d)

Photovoltaic 8^(e)

Biodiesel 4

Biofuels 2

_________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 4:

^(a) Heinberg 2009a, pp. 148-149. Heinberg 2003, pp. 131 and 152; summarized in Hall 2004a (Poem), p. 9; and summarized in Hall 2004b, p. 13. Ruppert 2009, pp. 132-134. Hall, C. 2008, p. 2.

^(b)The EROEI (sometimes abbreviated to EROI), is crucial for civilization. The higher the ratio, the more people are freed from work in energy production (farming, drilling for oil, making solar panels) and can pursue other activities, such as building infrastructure (roads, tractors, tools, distribution systems), teaching, taking care of the sick, cooking, or inventing. This can be summarized as follows:

EROEI Number of People freed Effect on industrial Society

Ratio from Energy Production

100 (100 x 1) -1 = 99 -

50 (50 x 2) - 2 = 98 -

25 (25 x 4) - 4 = 96 -

12.5 (12.5 x 8) - 8 = 92 Industrial society is threatened.*

6.25 (6.25 x 16) - 16 = 84 Serious problems are apparent.*

3.13 (3.13 x 32) - 32 = 68 Industrial society is not viable.

1.57 (1.57 x 64) - 64 = 36 -

1 (1 x 100) - 100 = 0 -

_______________________________________________________________

* Between 6.25 and 12.5, there may be serious problems even for a non-industrial society. In 1949, archaeologist Lynn White estimated that hunter-gatherer societies operated on a EROEI ratio of 10.

^(c) Windmill: This figure is in agreement with the data of Charles Hall, Professor of Systems Ecology at State University of New York (SUNY), Syracuse, N.Y., who, in 2008, estimated that, in the United States, if the substantial issues related to storage are excluded, wind power has an Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI, abbreviated to EROI) of around 18 (Hall, C. 2008, p. 2. See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Wind Energy”).

^(d) Nuclear: This figure probably does not include the enormous amount of energy necessary to achieve the security of nuclear plants – a security infrastructure which can only be provided and overseen by a national government; and neither does it probably include the enormous amount of energy which will be required for hundreds of thousands of years to seal and monitor nuclear wastes – an energy debit passed on to future generations.

^(e) Photovoltaics: This figure is in agreement with the data of Charles Hall, Professor of Systems Ecology at State University of New York (SUNY), Syracuse, N.Y., who, in 2008, estimated that, in the United States, new generations of photovoltaic cells have an Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI, abbreviated to EROI) of around 8, but with great variability and uncertainty (Hall, C. 2008, p. 2. See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Solar Energy”).

Characteristics of Energy:

Energy:

Energy, not Money, is the Currency: Energy is the source of capital. As energy supplies diminish, capital declines, and as capital declines, energy production diminishes. Energy, not money, is the root of all economic activity. Money represents the ability to do work. It is a symbol for energy. It cannot be decoupled from energy, because without energy and what energy produces (food, for instance), money loses its value. Energy is what gives money its value. Energy and money are Siamese twins.

For industrial civilization, cheap energy has been the equivalent of what, for past civilizations, was free slave labor. Oil and the technology which it permitted, have been the driving forces behind the expansion of economies during the past century. Unlike slaves, money can be made to expand infinitely, but money has no value without energy to back it up (Wirth 2008, p. 1. Wirth 2009, p. 34. Ruppert 2009, pp. 15, 100 and 148).

In his article, “Oil’s not well” (2005), Australian Extractive Metallurgist Chris Shaw points to the connection between money and energy:

“Two thousand years ago [Jesus said] something about the danger of exchanging life’s necessities for tokens, then becoming bedazzled by the tokens themselves.”

“Oil is the supreme example of compact energy, so we have all enjoyed the abundance of [the] ‘spare’ energy [we had] left over [after expending the necessary energy to get a certain amount of oil from the ground]. As the easy stuff is used up, we arrive at the point where we must finally expend a whole barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil. Approaching this point, rising oil prices simply express the diminishing proportion of [the] ‘spare’ energy left over . . .”

“Once the net energy return is zero, it’s over, no matter how much oil is tantalizingly ‘still down there’ . . . At the finish, the price of oil is immaterial. One cent or a million dollars per barrel, it’s over.”

“Yet, in these twilight days of easy oil, we have economists who are saying to themselves, ‘If we use one $40 barrel of oil today to produce half a $160 barrel tomorrow, we will have doubled our money. Gee, that’s good business!’ . . . [The] economic dogma [is] that rising oil prices will regulate consumption.”

“[It is an illusion to think] that market forces will somehow deliver the best outcomes in an energy-depleted world . . . [But] the mind that understands the abstract chicanery of money, is a poor tool for chiseling out a daily existence in some sort of cooperative way.”

“The one true currency is energy . . . It always was and always will be. Economics is the game of tiddly-winks that we can afford to play only in the midst of easy, abundant energy” (Shaw 2005, pp. 1-3; partial quote in Wirth 2009, p. 34).

Lack of Interchangeability between Forms of Energy: Without expensive and lengthy modifications, one form of energy cannot be substituted for another. A shortage of one cannot be remedied by substituting another. Trucks and cars use only diesel or gasoline, not electricity or natural gas. Residential and commercial buildings use natural gas or oil for heating. Natural gas provides the raw materials for the manufacture of fertilizer, but not liquid fuel for transportation or mechanized agriculture.

Even available in unlimited amounts, electric power from coal, solar or nuclear sources will not solve the coming energy crisis (Wirth 2009, p. 33).

Inter-dependence of various Forms of Energy: The production of each form of energy is highly dependent on other forms. Shortages or high prices for one form limits the production of other forms. Oil, in particular, is critically important to the production of all forms of energy. A shortage of oil will give rise immediately to shortages of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, and, in time, to shortages of coal (the mining and transportation of which depends on oil), electric power (the generation of which depends on oil or coal), “tar sands oil” (the production of which depends on natural gas), and even natural gas (for lack of spare parts for infrastructure repair) (Wirth 2009, p. 33).

Sources of Energy:

Oil:

Renewables are oil-dependent: To date, all large-scale sources of renewable energy are dependent on petroleum inputs – for example, for powering construction equipment, and transporting both workers and materials. Renewables are, in fact, oil-derivative sources of energy (Wikipedia 2010 “Peak Oil,” p. 8. Tverberg 2008, p. 1).

Energy Density: The energy density of oil is 35 Megajoules per liter [125,000 British Thermal Units (BTU’s) per gallon]. One liter is the equivalent of a slave working between 5 and 16 days, at 8 hours a day (one gallon is the equivalent of a slave working between 19 and 63 days, at 8 hours a day). No alternative source or combination of sources comes even remotely close to this energy density (Savinar 2009, p. 6).

Importance: Oil provides the raw materials for manufactured products, including plastics, tires, paints, latex, chemicals, asphalt, synthetic fabrics, building materials, medicines, Styrofoam, Formica and some 300,000 other products (Wirth 2009, p. 2).

Industrialization under the capitalist system depends upon continual growth – to date, made possible by ever more easily available cheap fossil fuels. Oil is the most flexible and convenient of these fuels. It currently provides humanity with 43 percent of its fuel consumption, and 95 percent of its transportation energy (Wirth 2009, pp. 14-15).

The United States consumes oil at the rate of 21 million barrels per day (Wirth 2009, p. 17).

Peak Production: Global oil “production” (meaning extraction and refining) has probably peaked during the period 2005-2010 at 85 million barrels per day. (This includes about 10 million barrels per day of various forms of combustible liquids, such as biofuels, which are usually counted as “oil”). Henceforth, as production declines, humanity will be running out – first, running out of cheap oil, and eventually, running out of oil completely and irreversibly. By 2015, the decline may be at least 2 percent per year, with prices per barrel in the hundreds of dollars (Wirth 2009, pp. 9, 13, 24 and 29-30. Whipple 2010, p. 2. Wikipedia 2010 “Peak Oil,” pp. 15 and 20. Savinar 2009, p. 20. Heinberg 2009a, p. 4. Heinberg 2007b, pp. 93, 151 and 153).

Demand will continue to increase, and at present prices, would be 97 million barrels per day in 2015. Production costs grow exponentially as depletion progresses, both because the remaining oil is of lower quality, and because it must be extracted from deeper in the earth, often in deep water off-shore sites (Wirth 2009, p. 13).

For the United States:

* whose 21 million barrels per day consumption is 25 percent of global oil production,

* whose domestic production peaked in 1970,

* which, in 2005, imported 75 percent of its oil,

* and whose economy is dependent on ever-increasing amounts of cheap oil,

the consequences of the peak in global in oil production, may be dire (Wirth 2009, pp. 4-5 and 30. Brown 2009, p. 71. Klare 2008, p. 9).

The “Quicksand Effect”: Australian Extractive Metallurgist Chris Shaw has called the exponential increase in production costs as depletion progresses, the “quicksand effect.” An increasing amount of energy is expended on producing oil which contains a decreasing amount of energy. The peak net oil production, therefore, is earlier than the peak of total oil production (Wirth 2009, pp. 13-14 and 30).

Per capita Oil Production: World population is growing, and the per capita oil production will decline faster than total production. Table 5 summarizes actual and projected per capita production for the world and for the U.S., 1900-2040.

Table 5: Oil Production, World and the United States,

past and projected, 2007 ^(a)

Year World Production U.S. Production

(barrels per capita per year)^(b) (barrels per capita per year)^(b)

1900 0.1 1.0

1920 0.4 4.0

1940 1.0 10.0

1960 2.5 14.5

1980 4.5 13.6

2000 4.0 7.0

2020 (projected) 2.7 2.2

2040 (projected) 1.4 0.0

______________________________________________________________

^(a) Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas 2007, pp. 5-6. A reproduction of the present table (Table 5) also appears in Wirth 2009, p. 31.

^(b) A barrel contains 42 gallons.

Consequences of Peak Oil: Energy is the resource used to exploit all other resources. The consequences of peak oil will touch all aspects of human society. Increasing worldwide demand together with increasing production costs, will result in increases in the prices of gasoline, diesel, heating oil, transportation, construction, manufactured goods, food, and all products based on oil. For the United States, the disruption can be anticipated from the fact that 88 percent of its labor force travels to work by car, and that its food production depends on 8.5 to 10 calories of fossil fuel for every one calorie of food consumed (Wirth 2009, pp. 14-15. Brown 2009, p. 71. Savinar 2009, p. 3. Wikipedia 2010 “Energy Crisis,” p. 4. Heinberg 2009c, p. 14. Heinberg 2007b, p. 48).

Inflation, high unemployment and financial instability will deepen over time. Declining tax revenues will force governments to cut basic services. Economic, social and political chaos will result (Wirth 2009, pp. 14-15).

Robert Hirsch, primary author of the report by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to the U.S. Department of Energy, Peaking of World Oil Production – Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management (2005), warns:

“As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social , and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist, on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking. Unfortunately, nothing like the kind of efforts envisaged has yet begun” (Quote in Wirth 2009, p. 15).

For the United States, the decline in the supply of oil is likely to be far more accelerated than that projected in global oil depletion scenarios. The United States is the world’s largest debtor nation, and as the price of oil increases, it will lack the financial resources to buy the oil needed to sustain its economy.

After reviewing the potential of oil, natural gas, coal, coal gas-to-liquid, solar energy (on earth and from space), wind energy, hydroelectric power, biofuels, ocean energy, shale oil, tar sands, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), and nuclear power, Clifford Wirth, former (1985-2008) Professor of Energy Policy at the University of New Hampshire, explains, in 2009:

“Alternatives will not provide significant amounts of liquid fuels. Thus, it is not feasible to ramp up alternatives to replace oil. There are no viable mitigation options on the supply side regarding the Peak Oil crisis” (Wirth 2009, p. 32).

“With increasing costs of gasoline and diesel, along with declining [general] tax [revenues] and gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel- and gasoline-powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts – large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables – from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid, virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, the pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, water distribution systems, waste water treatment, and automated building systems” (Wirth 2009, p. 2).

Natural Gas:

Importance: Oil and natural gas undergird manufacturing, transportation, employment, building construction, cement manufacturing, central heating and air conditioning, and food production (planting, irrigating, harvesting, processing, and the provision of petrochemicals for fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides) (Wirth 2009, p. 2).

Oil and natural gas are the life blood for economic development, urbanization, globalization, technology, a high standard of living, leisure time, health care, nutrition, travel, control of infectious diseases, solid waste removal, water purification, water distribution and waste water treatment (Wirth 2009, p. 2).

In his article, “The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy” (2005), Michigan geologist Dale Pfeiffer points out that in the United States, at present, all free hydrogen which is generated is derived from natural gas (hydrogen is stripped from the methane molecules by boiling the gas with water). The efficiency of the process is 40 percent. The energy returned over energy invested (EROEI) ratio is 0.8 (Pfeiffer 2005, p. 2. Also quoted in Wirth 2009, p. 19).

Peak Production: World production of natural gas is likely to peak about 10 years after the peak of oil production. Regional shortages are already appearing, however, as imports are limited by the need to liquefy the gas before transport. Natural gas is transported by sea in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) (Heinberg 2009a, p. 4. Klare 2008, p. 11).

Natural gas provides 23 percent of the energy supply of the United States. North American natural gas production has peaked. Importation of natural gas is limited. The United States is likely to have a shortage of natural gas within a few years. Shortages threaten particularly residential heating, industrial production, electric power generation and fertilizer production (Wirth 2009, pp. 1 and 16).

Coal:

Importance: Humanity relies on coal for 25 percent of its primary energy needs, 40 percent of its electricity, and 66 percent of its steel production (Heinberg 2007a, p. 1; quoted also in Ruppert 2009, p. 123. Heinberg 2009a, p. 2).

Peak Production: In the Energy Watch Group study commissioned by the German Parliament, Coal – resources and future production (2007), authors Werner Zittel and Jorg Schindler estimate that the peak in global coal production will be reached between 2020 and 2025. China is likely to experience peak production between 2012 and 2022, then a steep decline. The United States passed its peak production of high quality coal (with a high energy content) in 1998, and suffered a 4 percent decline from 1998 to 2005. Specific productivity per miner has been declining since 2000 (Heinberg 2007a, p. 2. Wirth 2009, p. 27. Heinberg 2009a, pp. 23 and 113. Heinberg 2007b, p. 3).

In the study by the Institute for Energy, of the European Commission, Joint Research Center, The future of coal (2007), authors B. Kavalov and S. Peteves ask and answer their question as follows:

“Will coal be a fuel for the future? . . . Under current economic and operating conditions, the world could run out of economically recoverable reserves of coal much earlier than widely anticipated . . . An increase in price can be expected . . . [This price increase may discourage the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies, for in poorer countries] producing cheap and affordable electricity [will be considered] more important than producing environmentally friendly electricity” (Quote in Heinberg 2007a, pp. 2-3. Wirth 2009, p. 28. Ruppert 2009, pp. 124-125 and 235. Heinberg 2009a, p. 27).

In 2009, former Professor of Energy Policy at the University of New Hampshire, Clifford Wirth, warned:

“The U.S. government is unprepared for the multiple consequences of Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas, and Peak Coal. Multiple crises will cripple the nation in a gridlock of ever-worsening problems. Within a few decades, the U.S. will lack car, truck, air, and rail transportation, as well as mechanized farming, adequate food and water supplies, electric power, sanitation, home heating, hospital care, and government services” (Wirth 2009, p. 1).

Pollution: In addition to greenhouse gases, coal combustion emits sulfur, mercury, radioactive elements, and particulate matter. It produces a lot of solid waste. In her book, Coal ash—the hidden story: how industry and the EPA failed to stop a growing environmental disaster (2009), Kristen Lombardi reports that in the United States, 130 million tons of ash accumulate yearly (Brown 2009, pp. 252 and 336).

As of 2008, no coal power plant on the planet was burning coal in a climate-safe manner (Heinberg 2009a, p. 6. Klare 2008, p. 10. Ruppert 2009, p. 120)

Environmental Damage: Mountain top removal is extremely detrimental to the environment (Ruppert 2009, pp. 125-126).

Transportation: Per unit of energy, coal is 1 ½ to 3 times heavier than oil. It is, therefore, more energy-intensive to transport than oil (Ruppert 2009, p. 124).

Water: Coal-fired power plants require 21 gallons of fresh water per Kilowatt-hour of electricity produced (Ruppert 2009, p. 125).

“Carbon Sequestration”: In “carbon sequestration,” also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), powdered coal is combined with steam and turned into a gas. The carbon is then stripped away from the gas, and eventually buried. It is a tricky and costly technique which, as of 2008, had yet not been fully tested (Ruppert 2009, p. 120. Klare 2008, p. 10).

“Carbon sequestration” uses a large amount of additional energy to heat and process the CO₂. The price of the process itself is $8 per ton, which is not cost effective. This price includes neither the compression of the CO₂, nor its transport over long distances to either under-water caverns, geologic formations, or empty natural gas wells. The process leaves untouched the CO₂ emissions and toxic water resulting from mining (Ruppert 2009, pp. 120 and 122).

Availability of Coal: The availability of coal may be specified according to various levels of certainty. The word “resources” refers to the amount of coal thought to be in the earth’s crust, regardless of whether it can ever be mined. The word “reserves” refers to the amount thought to be extractable using present technology, at a profit. Table 6 summarizes these degrees of availability of coal in the United States. The total is 3,631 x 10⁹(billion) metric tons.

Table 6: Availability of Coal, United States, 2005^(a)

Degree of Availability Amount

(billion metric tons)

Resources:

Non-identified 1,380

Identified 1,542

Reserves

Proved recoverable 445

Proved (estimated) recoverable 247^(b)

Recoverable at active mines 17

___________________________________________________________

Total 3,631

___________________________________________________________

^(a) Wikipedia 2010 “Coal Reserves,” p. 2. Wikipedia 2010 “Coal,” p. 19.

^(b) This is the figure used for the calculation of potential carbon dioxide emissions from the United States, should all of its proved recoverable reserves of coal be burned (See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Coal,” “Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves,” “Table 9: Proved recoverable Coal Reserves, and potential Carbon dioxide Emissions, World and the United States, 2006”).

Energy Density of Coal: Carbon is by far the most important ingredient which gives coal its energy. In the metric system, the energy density (heat value) of coal is measured in terms of joules per Kilogram of coal. One joule is approximately the energy required to lift a small apple one meter up. A Megajoule is 10⁶ joules (one million joules). It is approximately the kinetic energy of a one-ton vehicle moving at 160 Kilometers per hour (100 miles per hour) (Wikipedia “Joule,” pp. 3-4).

Since, in 2006, coal powered 42 percent of the world’s electricity, the energy density of coal is also often expressed in units of power (energy per amount of time). One watt is equal to one joule of energy per second. It is the work done when one ampere of electric current flows through a potential difference of one volt. One Kilowatt is 10³ watts (1,000 watts) (See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Electricity Generation,” “Table 2: Net Electricity Generation, by Source, World and the United States”).

The power of electrical appliances is often measured in terms of the number of watts they can maintain (joules per second) over the course of a certain period of time (such as a number of hours). The work they can maintain is expressed in Kilowatt-hours. To better represent this, the density of coal is then expressed in Kilowatt-hours per Kilogram of coal. The conversion factor from joules to Kilowatt-hours is 3.6 Megajoules = 1 Kilowatt-hour/Kilogram of coal.

Table 7 summarizes the energy density of various types of coal.

Table 7: Energy Density of Coal^(a)

Type of Coal E n e r g y D e n s i t y

(Megajoules/Kg) (Kilowatt-hrs/Kg)

Anthracite 30 8.3

Bituminous 24 6.7

Sub-bituminous 17 4.7 Lignite 10 2.8

_____________________________________________________________

Average 22⁽^b) 6.1 _____________________________________________________________

^(a) Wikipedia 2010 “Coal,” pp. 14-15. Heinberg 2009a, p. 20. United States Government, Environmental Protection Agency 2004, p. 3. Wikipedia 2010 “Watt,” pp. 1 and 6.

^(b) This is the figure used in the calculation of potential carbon dioxide emissions, should the world’s proved recoverable coal reserves be burned (See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Coal,” “Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves,” leading up to “Table 9, “Proved recoverable Coal Reserves, and potential Carbon dioxide Emissions, World and the United States, 2006”).

Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Combustion: Carbon dioxide emissions from coal burning are not directly correlated with carbon content because other ingredients in coal have their own effect on heat production. On a dry basis, the carbon content of coal ranges from more than 80 percent for anthracite down to 60 percent for lignite. Commercial coal has a carbon content of at least 70 percent. Other ingredients of coal include principally water vapor, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur (United States Government, Energy Information Administration 1994, p. 2. Wikipedia 2010 “Coal,” p. 15).

Table 8 summarizes carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion in the United States.

Table 8: Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Combustion,

United States, 1994^(a)

Type of Coal Direct Carbon dioxide Emission

upon Combustion (U.S. Average)^(b)

(Kg CO₂/Megajoules)

Anthracite 98,390

Bituminous 88,480

Sub-bituminous 91,380

Lignite 93,220

________________________________________________________

Average 92,868^(c)

________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 8:

^(a) United States Government, Energy Information Administration 1994, pp. 2 and 4-5. United States Government, Energy Information Administration 2009c, p. 5. Wikipedia 2009 “Coal,” pp. 15-16. Redefining Progress undated, p. 1.

^(b) Carbon dioxide emissions weigh 3.67 times the weight of the original carbon in the coal. During combustion, each atom of carbon (atomic weight, 12) combines with two atoms of oxygen (atomic weight, 16), to produce CO₂, with an atomic weight of [12 + (2 x 16)] = 44. The carbon dioxide emitted, therefore, is 44 / 12 = 3.67 times the weight of the carbon in the coal.

For instance, coal with the average energy density of 22 Megajoules per Kilogram has a carbon content of approximately 80 percent. Each Kilogram of this coal burned emits [80/100] x 3.67 = 2.93 Kilograms of carbon dioxide.

^(c) This figure is for the United States, in 1994. For the calculation of potential carbon dioxide emissions, should all proved recoverable coal reserves be burned, the average world figure of 90,500 Kilograms CO₂ per Megajoule was used (See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Coal,” “Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves,” “Table 9: Proved recoverable Coal Reserves, and potential Carbon dioxide Emissions, World and the United States, 2006”).

Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves: In 2006, the planet had 909 x 10⁹(billion) metric tons of proved recoverable reserves of coal. (One metric ton is 1,000 Kilograms).

On average, coal has an energy intensity of 22.155 x 10⁶ joules (million joules, Megajoules) per Kilogram. This can be expressed as 22.155 x 10⁹ joules (billion joules, Gigajoules) per metric ton.

Upon combustion, the coal emits 90.5 Kilogram of carbon dioxide per 10⁹joules of energy it contains.

Therefore, should the earth’s proved recoverable reserves of 909 billion metric tons be burned, the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, would be:

(909 x 10⁹ metric tons)

x (22.155 x 10⁹joules / metric ton)

x (90.5 Kilogram / 10⁹ joules)

= 1,822,570 x 10⁹ Kilograms of CO₂.

Thus, almost 2 x 10¹⁵Kilograms (2 PetaKilograms) of carbon dioxide would be released, should humanity burn the earth’s proved recoverable reserves of coal. The data are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Proved recoverable Coal Reserves, and potential

Carbon dioxide Emissions, World and the United States, 2006^(a)

Type of Coal W o r l d U n I t e d S t a t e s

Reserves Potential CO₂ Reserves Potential CO₂

(billion (billion (billion (billion

metric tons) Kilograms) metric tons) Kilograms)

Anthracite and bituminous 479 960,408 111 222,558

Sub-bituminous and lignite 430 862,162 135 270,679

__________________________________________________________________

Total 909 1,822,570^(b) 247 495,242^(b)

__________________________________________________________________

^(a) Reserves data in British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2007, reproduced Wikipedia 2010 “Coal,” pp. 19-20 and 26. Other sources include Heinberg 2009a, p. 20. United States Government, Environmental Protection Agency 2004, p. 3. Redefining Progress undated, p. 1.

^(b) World: The figure of 1,822,570 billion Kilograms would more commonly be stated as 1,823 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Rounded off, it would be 1,800 billion metric tons.

United States: The figure for the United States would be 495 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.

James Hansen is Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), New York, N.Y. In his book, Storms of my grandchildren – the truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity (2009), Hansen summarizes the earth’s climate during the past 65 million years. Some 55 million years ago, a regular, minor astronomical event (the warm phase in the oscillation of the earth’s temperature due to the change in its orbit around the sun), triggered the melting of methane clathrate crystals in ocean sediment, causing runaway warming. The warm period is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

Over the course of 2,000 years, 11,000 billion tons (11 PetaKilograms) of carbon dioxide equivalents were injected into the atmosphere. Methane crystals in ocean sediments melted, causing warming which itself caused more melting and more warming. The earth warmed by 5 to 9 degrees. Extinctions were massive.

Methane clathrate crystals are the frozen form of methane gas. On continental shelves, so much organic material rains down on the ocean floor that bacterial decomposition is anaerobic, producing methane (CH₄) instead of carbon dioxide (CO₂). At low temperature, the methane freezes into clathrate crystals.

Each methane clathrate crystal is one methane molecule enveloped in a crystal of frozen water (ice). Methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Released into the atmosphere, it easily starts a vicious cycle, whereby warming causes more warming.

Hansen points out that, at present, the amount of carbon stored in methane crystals in ocean sediment, is huge. Its rapid and full release into the atmosphere, is the risk we face today [Hansen 2009, pp. 107, 141, 144, 146-150, 153, 155-163, 234-135 and 258-259, summarized in Hall 2010 (Poem), pp. 1-11].

Table 9 shows that burning coal reserves would inject almost 2,000 billion metric tons (2 PetaKilograms) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, over (geologically-speaking) a very short period of time – hundreds of years. Such release might well precipitate the melting of the methane clathrate crystals, and runaway warming (See the present document under “The Climate Problem,” “Tipping,” “Table 14: Major Tipping Elements, and Temperature at which Tipping could occur,” “Permafrost”).

Table 10: Assessing the Danger of runaway global Warming –

A Comparison with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum^(a)

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Now

(55 million years ago) (2010 C.E.)

Deep Ocean Temperature

at polar Latitudes

(degrees Celsius) 11 0

Precipitating Event Warm phase in Earth’s Fossil Fuel Emissions:

orbit around the Sun^(b) 1751-2006:

1,200 billion tons CO₂

Potentially (Reserves only):

6,000 billion tons CO₂

Potentially (Reserves + Resources):

17,000 billion tons CO₂

Rate of precipitating Event A regular astronomical Annual Rate:

event with a cycle of Fossil Fuels:

100,000-400,000 years^(b) 29 billion tons CO₂

All anthropogenic Sources:

50 billion tons CO₂-eq.^(c)

Release of CO₂-eq. from

Methane clathrate Crystals^(c) Actual: Potential:

11,000 billion tons 18,000-37,000 billion tons

Period of CO₂-eq. Release from

Methane clathrate Crystals^(c) 2,000 years ?

Rate of CO₂-eq. Release from

Methane clathrate Crystals 5.5 billion tons/year ?

Global Warming

(degrees Celsius) 5-9 ?

Extinction of Species Massive ?

______________________________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 10:

^(a) All data:

Hansen 2009, pp. 107, 141, 144, 146-150, 153, 155-163, 234-135 and 258-259, summarized in Hall 2010 (Poem), pp. 1-11.

Exceptions:

Precipitating Event:

Warm phase in Earth’s orbit around the Sun: Guido 2008, p. 1.

Fossil Fuel Emissions:

1751-2006:

The figure 1,200 billion tons CO₂ is from United States Government, Department of Energy 2009, p. 1.

Potentially (Reserves only):

The figure 6,000 billion tons CO₂ comes from my own calculations which are based on a conservative estimate of coal reserves (See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Coal,” “Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves,” “Table 9: Proved recoverable Coal Reserves, and potential Carbon dioxide Emissions, World and the United States, 2006”). Rounded off, coal reserves could potentially emit 2,000 billion tons of CO₂.

Dunlop 2008 (p. 25) gives oil and natural gas resources as potentially emitting 2,600 and 1,800 billion tons CO₂, respectively. From the three fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), the total CO₂potentially emitted would be (2,000 + 2,600 + 1,800) = 6,400 billion tons – rounded off to 6,000.

Potentially (Reserves + Resources):

The figure 17,000 billion tons CO₂ is from Dunlop 2008, p. 25.

Annual Rate:

Fossil Fuels: The rate of 29 billion tons CO₂ (in 2006), is from the United States Government, Energy Information Administration 2008b, p. 1.

All anthropogenic Sources: The rate of 50 billion tons CO₂-eq. (in 2010, estimated) is from Hall 2009b, pp. 15 and 17, and Hall 2010 (Poem), p. 9.

Release of CO₂ from Methane clathrate Crystals:

Potential:

The figure 18,000 billion tons CO₂-eq. is from Hansen 2009, p. 163. The figure 37,000 billion tons CO₂-eq. is from Dunlop 2008, p. 10.

^(b) Three astronomical cycles, known as the Milankovitch cycles, impact the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) from the Sun to the Earth. The precession (wobble) completes a revolution about every 20,000 years; the tilt (obliquity) completes a cycle about every 41,000 years; and the eccentricity (elliptical shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun) completes a cycle every 100,000-400,000 years. At times, the combined effect of these three changes reduces insolation (precipitating glacial advances), and at other times, it increases insolation (precipitating warmer periods).

^(c)CO₂-eq. is the abbreviation for carbon dioxide equivalents. The warming potential of carbon dioxide is defined as “1,” and the warming potential of other gases (in this case methane) is measured in relation to that of carbon dioxide.

Coal-to-Liquid: In the coal-to-liquid process, coal is converted to a liquid fuel (Ruppert 2009, p. 123).

Direct Liquefaction: The process of dissolving the coal in a solvent at high temperature and pressure is highly efficient, but the liquid requires further refining to achieve the characteristics of a high-grade fuel – a diesel fuel which can power cars and trucks (Ruppert 2009, p. 126. Klare 2008, p. 10).

Indirect Liquefaction: In indirect liquefaction, coal is first converted into “syngas” (synthetic gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). By means of the “Fischer-Tropsch” process (condensation over a catalyst), it is then liquefied into in a high quality, ultra-clean fuel. The process is very expensive. In the United States, in 2006, the Department of Energy refused a proposal for development submitted by the National Coal Council. As of 2009, the process was not under development (Ruppert 2009, pp. 123 and 126. Wirth 2009, p. 26).

Coal gas-to-liquid (GTL) production is very expensive, emits carbon dioxide, uses enormous amounts of water, damages the local environment, and is limited by both the reduced availability and the rising cost of coal (Wirth 2009, pp. 27 and 32).

Tar Sands: Tar sands contain neither tar nor oil. The sands contain bitumen from which synthetic oil can be produced.

Environmental Damage: Canada has tar sands located in Alberta province. The bitumen is strip-mined, a process which destroys pristine boreal (northern) forest. It takes two tons of tar sands to produce one barrel (42 gallons) of synthetic oil.

In 2008, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production of a barrel of tar sands “oil,” were three times the emissions resulting from the production of a barrel of conventional oil. The process of extracting the bitumen from the sand uses enormous amounts of natural gas and water. The waste water accumulates in toxic tailing ponds and contaminates local water supplies (Ruppert 2009, pp. 128-129 and 235. Wirth 2009, pp. 26, 32 and 38).

Energy Balance: The energy ratio of obtaining “oil” from tar sands is 1.5, meaning that 1 ½ units of high quality natural gas must be expended to obtain 1.5 unit of low quality oil energy. Even this low ratio is misleading high, however, because it does not include the natural gas which must be used to process and refine the “oil”; it does not include the oil and natural gas which were used in the manufacture of trucks, processing equipment, pipelines, new houses for workers, and airplanes used for worker transport; and it also does not include the oil and gasoline used by trucks, processing equipment, airplanes and pumps (Wirth 2009, pp. 25-26 and 38. Savinar 2009, p. 20).

Production and Cost: In 2008, the production of synthetic oil from Canadian tar sands was 1.3 million barrels a day (representing 7 percent of the total U.S. oil consumption of 20 million barrels per day). Production becomes cost-effective only when conventional oil is priced at $90 per barrel. Despite the investment by the United States of $65 billion worth of steel, equipment and labor into the project (the only direct investment expected until 2010), the logistical, technical, environmental and social issues are such that the total production estimate by 2015, is a maximum of 3 million barrels per day. This is less than twice the 1.6 million barrels per day growth in global oil demand projected by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for 2010. [The International Energy Agency is an affiliate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of wealthy, industrialized nations] (Brown 2009, p. 73. Wirth 2009, pp. 25-26. Wikipedia 2010 “Peak Oil,” p. 6).

“Shale Oil”: Shale oil is a misnomer. The “shale” is actually a hard rock called marl, and the “oil” is an organic material called kerogen. Heated to 450 degrees Celsius (842 degrees Fahrenheit), in the presence of hydrogen, the kerogen can be extracted and converted into a substance somewhat similar to petroleum. When heated, the rock pops (like popcorn), so that its volume after the extraction is greater than the original volume.

The procedure is very expensive, emits carbon dioxide, and damages the local environment. It takes several barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. At best, the net energy recovered is low. As of 2009, production was not profitable. “Oil shale” is present worldwide in great quantities. The largest world deposits are in the Colorado Plateau, a region markedly poor in water (Ruppert 2009, pp. 129-130. Wirth 2009, pp. 23-24 and 32).

Solar Energy: The development of solar power is limited by:

1. The limited availability of areas with ample sunlight.

2. The large amount of energy used in constructing solar panels and running power lines to far away cities.

3. The degradation of vegetation and animal habitats produced by the spreading of solar panels over large areas, particularly in deserts and semi-arid areas which are inherently fragile.

4. The reduction of water reaching into the ground, as it falls on steel and aluminum panels.

5. The oxidation of the panel supporting structures, causing the leaching of metal oxides into soils and aquifers.

6. The road construction and vehicular operations required over large areas of ecologically fragile land for the cleaning and maintenance of vast arrays of solar panels.

In 2008, Charles Hall, Professor of Systems Ecology at State University of New York (SUNY), Syracuse, N.Y., estimated that, in the United States, new generations of photovoltaic cells have an Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI, abbreviated to EROI) of around 8:1, but with great variability and uncertainty (Hall, C. 2008, p. 2).

The present production of solar power is low. Production is expensive. In 2009, rare metals specialist Jack Lifton judged solar cells, at present, not to be economical:

“They cost more per watt of output than [the] fossil fuel production of electricity. Solar cells today are only manufactured and sold through taxpayer subsidies. The Cap and Trade promoters have overlooked the increase in costs their regime will bring to the metal mining and refining industry” (Lifton 2009, p. 11).

Solar power is not suitable for either transportation or food production (Wirth 2009, p. 17. Ruppert 2009, p. 118).

The full potential of solar power will not be realized until technology develops to the point where:

1. Energy can be stored when the sun is strong, and released it when it is not.

2. Areas of reliable sunshine are connected with areas of greatest need (Klare 2008, p. 11).

In the United States, solar power contributes 0.01 percent of grid electricity and approximately 0.1 percent of total electricity consumption (Tverberg 2008, p. 2. Biello 2010, p. 2).

Wind Energy:

Production: Wind-generated electricity accounts for about 2 percent of the total electricity generated, both worldwide and in the United States. Table 11 summarizes the extent of production of wind-generated electricity.

Table 11: Wind-generated Electricity, World and the United States, 2009^(a)

Electricity World United States

(terawatt-hours) (terawatt-hours)

Total Production 17,000 3,951

Wind-generated 340 71

Percent wind-generated 2 2

_____________________________________________________

^(a)Wikipedia 2010 “Wind Power,” pp. 17-18.

Development: The development of wind power is limited by:

1. The restricted availability of areas with ample wind.

2. The large amount of energy used in constructing wind turbines and running power lines to far away cities.

3. The degradation of vegetation and animal habitats produced by the spreading of wind turbines over large areas (Wirth 2009, p. 17).

In its report, “The Economics of Renewables” (2008), the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords, U.K., notes:

“The full costs of wind generation (allowing for intermittency, back-up conventional plant and grid connection), although declining over time, remain significantly higher than those of conventional or nuclear generation – even before allowing for support costs and the environmental impacts of wind farms. Furthermore, . . . the probable power output at the time of need is very low, so [wind power] cannot be relied upon to meet peak demand. Thus, wind generation needs to be viewed largely as additional capacity to that which will need to be provided, in any event, by more reliable means” (Wikipedia 2010 “Wind Power,” pp. 25-26).

In 2008, Charles Hall, Professor of System Ecology at State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y., estimated that, in the United States, if the substantial issues related to storage are excluded, wind power has an Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI, abbreviated to EROI) of around 18:1 (Hall, C. 2008, p. 2).

In The economics and politics of climate change (2010), Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy, Oxford University, UK, and Cameron Hepburn, Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford University, caution that the intermittency of wind-generated electricity is a major problem. Both the “dash-for-gas” or a “dash-for-coal” which it may engender, would have a negative impact on Europe’s energy security (Wikipedia 2010 “Wind Power,” p. 26).

The full potential of wind power will not be realized until technology develops to the point where:

1. Energy can be stored when the wind is strong, and released it when it is not.

2. Areas of reliable wind are connected with areas of greatest need (Klare 2008, p. 11).

Hydroelectric Power: Hydroelectric dams are ecologically damaging to rivers and estuaries. Both the Union of Concerned Scientists and the United States National Academies of Science and Engineering oppose the expansion of this source of energy. There are few rivers remaining which can be dammed for hydroelectric power generation (Wirth 2009, pp. 16-17).

Biofuels: In the United States, net energy returns from corn ethanol is 0.7 – 1.5 (that is, either a negative or a small energy return per unit energy invested). For comparison, at present, gasoline yields 15 units of energy per unit of energy invested – a ratio which is declining, however. Gasoline also produces more carbon dioxide emissions (Wikipedia 2009 “Ethanol Fuel Energy Balance,” pp. 1-4).

In Brazil, the production of ethanol from sugar cane has an energy return of 8. However, the present method of production depletes the soil of nutrients and, therefore, is not sustainable (Wikipedia 2009 “Ethanol Fuel Energy Balance,” p. 4).

The production of biofuel from sources other than corn, such as cellulosic biomass, faces serious technological barriers. In any case, a significant increase in biofuels requires a movement away from food crops. Ethanol cannot be shipped in existing gasoline pipelines, and, therefore, is presently transported principally by rail or by tanker truck (Wirth 2009, p. 17).

Ocean Energy: Ocean energy includes wave, tidal and off-shore wind energy. In the United States, at present, these three technologies produce about 0.2 percent of the country’s electricity consumption (2,000 Megawatts out of a total consumption of 1,000,000 Megawatts) (Wirth 2009, p. 29).

Tidal Energy: The development of tidal energy is limited by:

1. The necessity for a coastal location.

2. The unpredictability of the waves.

3. Possible damage to power plants during extreme weather.

4. Interference with sea life.

5. The corrosive effect of salt water on metal (Ruppert 2009, p. 119).

Thermal Energy: Ocean energy also includes thermal energy. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is now in the research stage (Wirth 2009, p. 29).

Geothermal Energy: Geothermal energy is available only to countries which have the appropriate resources. In the United States, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) currently generate 0.4 percent of the electric power, a percentage unlikely to rise significantly in the near future (Wirth 2009, pp. 28-29).

Nuclear Energy:

Fission: The development of nuclear energy is limited by:

1. The availability of uranium. In 2004, global production of uranium was 58 percent of demand, the difference being made up from stockpiles. Peak production of high-grade uranium ores is likely to occur between 2040 and 2050 (Ruppert 2009, p. 132. Heinberg 2009b, p. 5).

2. The expense and time to build reactors. The cost is $2.5-6 billion per plant. The plants take ten years to complete.

3. The enormous amount of fossil fuel energy required for building the generating station and enriching the uranium, with a corresponding emission of greenhouse gases.

4. The toxic waste, including the radioactivity which lasts for hundreds of thousands of years.

5. The risk of disastrous accidents.

6. The needed security infrastructure, which can only be provided and overseen by a national government.

7. The amount of energy required to enclose and monitor the wastes for hundreds of thousands of years – a cost passed on to future generations (Ruppert 2009, pp. 131-132).

Fusion: A review of the possible generation of electricity from controlled fusion, entitled, “Overview of Fusion nuclear Technology in the United States” (2006), concludes that any possible practical use of controlled fusion is decades away (Wirth 2009, p. 29).

Unsuitable for Transportation: Nuclear power is unsuitable for transportation (Ruppert 2009, p. 132).

Energy – Conclusions: In his essay, “Renewable Energy – What are the Limits?” (2003), Ted Trainer, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Australia, concludes:

“The evidence on existing and probable future efficiencies and costs [of renewable sources of energy] indicates that it will not be possible to derive [from them] sufficient electricity or liquid fuels to sustain the present high per capita rates of consumption, let alone growth” (Trainer 2003, p. 2).

In his article, “The Energy Challenge of our Lifetime” (2008), Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College, NH, warns:

“The United States relies excessively on oil to supply its energy needs, at a time when the future availability of petroleum is increasingly in question. Our most abundant domestic source of fuel, coal, is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, when consumed in the current manner. No other source of energy, including natural gas, nuclear power, biofuels, wind power, and solar power, is currently capable of supplanting our oil and coal consumption . . .” (Klare 2008, p. 9).

In his article, “Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?” (2009), Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, Sebastopol, CA, states:

“My conclusion from a careful survey of energy alternatives, then, is that there is little likelihood that either conventional fossil fuels or alternative energy sources can be counted on to provide the amount and quality of energy that will be needed to sustain economic growth – or even current levels of economic activity—during the remainder of this century.”

“This conclusion is echoed [by], for example, Ted Trainer, in his 2007 book, Renewable Energy cannot sustain a Consumer Society” (Heinberg 2009c, pp. 9 and 20).

The Water Problem

Water Scarcity: Water scarcity is manifesting itself in many ways:

1. In 2008, 884 million people had inadequate access to safe drinking water.

2. In 2008, 2.5 billion people had inadequate access to sanitation and waste disposal.

3. In 2007, 88 percent of all diseases were caused by unsafe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and/or poor hygiene. For the citizens of many countries, contaminated water was the only water available. Such countries (with their population in parenthesis) included Sudan (12.3 million), Venezuela (5 million), Zimbabwe (2.7 million), Tunisia (2.1 million) and Cuba (1.2 million).

4. Water-borne diseases are the leading cause of death for children under age five. People with water-borne diseases fill half of the world’s hospital beds.

5. In the mid-1990’s, 80 countries, comprising 40 percent of the world’s population, were suffering from moderate to high water stress – defined by the United Nations, as water consumption exceeding 10 percent of renewable fresh water resources.

6. Water deficits are driving the import of “virtual” water through grain imports. The water used per Kilogram of grain produced, is 3,450 liters for rice, 1,450 liters for wheat, and 1,400 liters for corn (maize).

7. The excessive appropriation of surface water by humans, is harming biodiversity, disrupting the ecological functions which the appropriated water would have performed.

8. The excessive use of groundwater is diminishing agricultural yields, and, in many countries (including China’s northern region, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan and the United States), is causing water tables to fall.

9. Regional conflicts over scarce water resources are increasingly degenerating into armed conflicts.

10. In 2000, the domestic consumption of water in developed countries was 6 times that in developing countries – 500-800 liters per person per day in developed countries compared to 60-150 liters per person day in developing countries.

Agriculture uses a large amount of water. It takes an average of 1000 cubic meters (m³) of water per day to provide a person with the 2,800 daily calories needed for adequate nourishment.

11. Among the most significant consequences of global warming, will be its impact on the Earth’s hydrological cycle.

In 2007, approximately 2.4 billion people lived in the drainage basin of the Himalayan glaciers – from West to East: the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers. The glaciers are melting rapidly due to global warming. Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China are likely to experience both floods and droughts in the coming decades.

Just in India, the Ganges provides water for the drinking and farming of more 500 million people. The west coast of North America, which gets much of its water from glaciers in the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada, will also be affected.

(Wikipedia 2010 “Water Crisis,” pp. 1, 2, 4-5, 8 and 10. Gleick et al 2009, pp. 1, 5-6, 9-12 and 338. World Resources Institute 2000, p. 1. United Nations, Educational, Social and Cultural Organization, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies 1999, pp. 1-2, 4-5 and 7. United Nations, Educational, Social and Cultural Organization, International Year of Fresh Water 2003, pp. 1-10 and 15-18. United Nations, World Water Assessment Programme 2003, pp. 11 and 17).

The human appropriation of the Earth’s Fresh Water: Table 12 puts in context the appropriation by humans of the fresh water on the Earth, which is both accessible and renewable.

Table 12: Human Appropriation of the Earth’s fresh Water, 1995^(a)

[Cubic Kilometers (Km³)]

T h e W a t e r o f t h e E a r t h

Total Fresh

Total Percent

The Earth’s Water Resources

Total (salt and fresh) 1,400,000,000

Fresh 35,000,000 100.0

Inaccessible fresh

Glaciers/permanent snow cover 24,120,000 68.9

Groundwater^(b) 10,780,000 30.8

Accessible fresh

Lakes and rivers^(c) 105,000 0.3

Fresh Water appropriated by Humans

Total runoff: 40,700 100.0

Geographically inaccessible, flood

flow, non-renewable water 28,200 69.3

Geographically accessible,

stable, renewable flow^(d) 5,741 14.1

Geographically accessible,

stable, renewable flow

appropriated by humans^(d) 6,759 16.6

Total evapo-transpiration of plants: 69,600 100.0

Used by non-human ecosystems 51,365 73.8

Appropriated by humans 18,235 26.2

__________________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 12:

^(a) Allan 2006a, pp. 1-2 and 6-8. United Nations, Educational, Social and Cultural Organization, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies 1999, pp. 1-2.

^(b) Soil moisture and deep underground aquifers not accessible to humans.

^(c) This consists of the water in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and underground sources which are shallow enough to be tapped at an affordable cost. Of the Earth’ s water resources, only this water is regularly renewed by rain and snowfall, and is, therefore, available on a sustainable basis.

^(d) Stable renewable flow includes non-flood runoff (base river flow), renewable ground water, and large dams storage capacity. Total geographically accessible, stable, renewable flow is (5,741 + 6,759) = 12,500 Km³.

Sources of fresh Water appropriated by humans:

Runoff: The terrestrial flow of fresh water which is (1) geographically accessible to humans, (2) stable, (3) renewable, and (4) appropriated by humans, totals 6,759 Km³. This is the source of all human withdrawals for irrigation, industry, municipal uses, navigation, dilution, hydropower, and maintenance of aquatic life (including fisheries). This water, appropriated by humans, represents [6,759 / (5,741 + 6,759 = 12,500)] = 54 percent of the total geographically accessible, stable and renewable flow.

Evapo-transpiration: Terrestrials evapo-transpiration (evaporation and transpiration) from plants totals 69,600 Km³. It represents the water available to all non-irrigated vegetation, both natural and cultivated. Humans appropriate 18,235 Km³of this water – that is, (18,235 / 69,600) = 26.2 percent of the total terrestrial evapo-transpiration. The remaining 51,365 Km³ (73.8 percent) must meet the needs of all other terrestrial ecosystems.

Fresh Water appropriated by Humans: In 1995, therefore, the fresh water which humans had at their disposal, was 6,759 Km³ from runoff and 18,235 Km³ from evapo-transpiration – a total of (6,759 + 18,235) = 24,994 Km³.

Projected Increase in Demand due to Population Growth: In 1995, world population was 5.7 billion. The 2010 medium projection by the United Nations, is a population of 8.0 billion in 2025 – an increase of 2.3 billion from 1995. Assuming an unchanged average per capita water demand, and adjusting only for the pollution dilution (28 liters per second per 1000 population) required for the additional population, means that, in 2025, the added appropriation demand will be [(28.3 x 10^-12 Km³) x (60 x 60 x 24 x 365 = 31.5 x 10⁶) x (2.3 x 10⁹)] / 1000 = 2,050 Km³.

It is not realistic to increase the human appropriation of evapo-transpiration because of the conflict with other, needed ecosystems.

The increase of water to meet the needs of the new population must come from runoff. Added to the 1995 appropriation of runoff, total demand will be (6,759 + 2,050) = 8,809 Km³, representing [(8,809 / (5,741 + 6,759 = 12,500)] x 100 = 70 percent of the total geographically accessible, stable, renewable flow (instead of the 54 percent in 1995). This is an unrealistically high percentage.

Possibilities for increasing human Appropriations: The principal option for increasing the human appropriation of the geographically accessible, stable, renewable flow, is to capture a greater proportion of flood water. However, even disregarding the impact which dams have on the environment and on global warming (due to the greenhouse gases which the reservoirs release), and disregarding the high evaporation rate from reservoirs, the option of constructing more dams is very limited.

Were, from 1995 to 2025, the construction of dams to increase by 350 large (more than 15 meters in height) dams per year, with the average size of reservoirs equal to that of dams constructed during the 1950-1980 period, the total accessible runoff, in 2025, would be raised by only 1,200 Km³ (from 12,500 Km³ in 1995, to 13,700 Km³, in 2025). The total human appropriation of geographically accessible, stable, renewable runoff would be (8,809 / 13,700) x 100 = 64 percent of accessible runoff. This is still a very high percentage, and points to the limit of renewable fresh water for humans.

Yet, even now, billions of people lack basic water services and scarcity manifests itself in numerous ways, including armed conflict (Allan 2006a, pp. 1-15).

Desalination: Present day desalination relies almost entirely on the combustion of fossil fuels, and is extremely energy intensive – the energy used is 4-22 Kilowatt-hours per cubic meter (m³) of fresh water produced (one cubic meter = 1,000 liters). The intake destroys marine life. The discharge of the waste (“brine”) into the ocean destroys marine life both because of its high salt concentration and its high temperature. The transportation of massive amounts of fresh water over long distances is extremely costly (Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources 2010, p. 2. Wikipedia 2010 “Desalination,” pp. 1-5).

The Food Problem

Food Scarcity:

Undernourishment:

Chronic Hunger: From 1990 to 2007, worldwide, the number of chronically hungry (“undernourished”) people increased by 10 percent, from 842 million to 923 million.

Between 2007 and 2008, the number increased by another 11 percent, from 923 million to 1,020 million.

Between 2008 and 2009, the number increased by a another 10 percent, from 1,020 million to 1,120 billion (Wikipedia 2010 “Malnutrition,” p. 16. Wikipedia 2009 “World Summit on Food Security, 2009,” pp. 1 and 3).

Child Mortality: In 2008, worldwide, malnutrition contributed to 68 percent (6 million children) of the total under-5 years child mortality (8.8 million children) (Wikipedia 2010 “Malnutrition,” pp. 6 and 17. Wikipedia 2010 “Child Mortality,” pp. 1, 3 and 5).

Food from the Land:

Net Biomass Production: The general term “production” refers to the creation of new organic matter on Earth.

Primary production refers specifically to the synthesis of organic molecules by photosynthetic organisms. The process of photosynthesis creates new organic matter by converting light energy into chemical energy, which is stored in plant tissue. Primary production adds new plant biomass to the Earth system. Its rate is limited. All animals derive their energy from primary producers, either directly (herbivores), or indirectly (predators).

The rate of photosynthesis, and hence the rate of primary production, can be derived from the rate at which a plant fixes carbon dioxide. The term “gross primary production,” refers to the total amount of carbon dioxide fixed by a plant during photosynthesis. The term “net primary production” refers to only that part of the fixed carbon dioxide which the plant has not used for its own respiration.

The Land Biomass appropriated by Humans: Humans appropriate a larger proportion of the Earth’s biomass than any species has ever done in the history of life on Earth. The land biomass appropriated by humans is in the range of 39 percent of the total terrestrial biomass – 58 billion metric tons out of a total net primary production of 150 billion metric tons. The consequences of this high co-optation of the terrestrial biomass by humans include environmental degradation, species extinction, and an altered climate (Allan 2008, pp. 3, 4 and 25-28. Allan 2006a, p. 6. Allan 2006b, p. 6. For the ocean biomass appropriated by humans, see the present document under “The Food Problem,” “Food from the Ocean,” “The Ocean Biomass appropriated by Humans”).

Grain:

Importance for Humans: In 2006, wheat, rice, maize (corn), millet, and sorghum provided 70 percent of the human food energy (calories) consumption, and up to 90 percent of the human protein consumption.

Some grains, particularly corn and soybeans, are also the primary feedstock of industrial livestock production (Allan 2006b, p. 5. Worldwatch Institute 2007, p. 1).

The global Harvest: Corn, wheat and rice account for 85 percent of the global grain harvest. Sorghum, millet, barley, oats and other grains account for 15 percent.

Of the total grain harvest, 48 percent, is consumed by humans directly, 35 percent is fed to animals, and 17 percent is used to make ethanol and other fuels (Worldwatch Institute 2007, pp. 1-2).

Production per capita: During the period 1962 to 2007, global grain harvest increased by a factor of 2.6 – from 900 million tons, to 2,300 million tons. Population increased by a factor of 2.2 – from 3.0 billion to 6.6 billion. On a per capita basis, in 1962, the grain availability was 270 kilograms per person. It peaked in 1984 to 342 kilograms per person, and has been declining since then. In 2007, grain availability was 311 kilograms per person (Worldwatch Institute 2007, p. 1. Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, p. 2. Earth Policy Institute 2008, pp. 1-3. Heinberg 2007b, p. 10).

Genetically-engineered: In 2001, 46 percent of the soy crop, 11 percent of the canola crop, and 7 percent of the corn crop was genetically-engineered. Planting with identical genetically-engineered seeds, reduces genetic diversity (Global Education Project, Biotechnology, undated, p. 3. Allan 2006b, p. 4).

Claims promoting genetically-engineered crops are being rapidly undermined. In the United States, by 2010, nine species of weeds had developed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup), and two types of insects had developed resistance to Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2010, p. 1).

Grain Reserves:

Diminishing Reserves: Between 1962 and 2007, the world grain stocks-to-use ratio decreased from 1.2 to 0.14. This means that at the close of the 2007 season, the global grain stocks of 318 million tons were equivalent to just 14 percent of annual consumption – 7 weeks (Worldwatch Institute 2007, p. 2).

The Implications of low Reserves: Stocks-to-use ratio measures grain reserves by comparing the level of carry-over stock to the total use of the grain – the term “use” including not only human consumption, but also all other end-uses of the grain, such as animal feed, seed or waste.

The mathematical formula is:

(Beginning Stock + Total Production - Total Use) / Total Use

Low reserves mean an increased risk of high grain prices, to which the urban (market-dependent) poor are more vulnerable than the rich.

The 2007/2008 spike in grain prices caused political unrest in at least 19 countries (Mexico, Honduras, Peru, Argentina, Haiti; Morocco, Senegal, Guinea, South Africa, Cameroon, Mauritania, Egypt, Somalia, Mozambique; Uzbekistan, Yemen, India, Bangladesh, and Indonesia). The unrest occurred particularly in cities. The combination of factors which gave rise to the high grain prices included:

1. Low harvests.

2. A very low level of grains stocks.

3. An increased demand for animal grain feed to meet the rising demand for meat in China and India.

4. An increased use of grain for biofuel production.

5. An increase in the price of petroleum, which led farmers to plant for biofuel production, even beyond the level needed to meet government mandates.

6. Financial speculation on grain prices (Keystone Marketing Services undated, pp. 1-3. Wright 2009, pp. 1-2, 15, 32-33, 44 and 58. Wright and Bobenrieth 2009, pp. 2, 3 and 7. Brauch 2009, p. 50).

Land – the agricultural Base:

Land per capita: Worldwide, available arable land has decreased from 0.42 hectares per person in 1961, to 0.23 hectares per person in 2002.

In 2000, David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., estimated that the minimum area of cropland essential for the production of a diverse, healthy, and nutritious diet of plants and animal products, such as that enjoyed in the United States and Europe, is 0.5 hectares (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, p. 1).

Degradation: The world’s total land area is 150 million square Kilometers (Km²). A study prepared for the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), by World Soil Information (ISRIC), Wageningen, The Netherlands, estimated that, in 2003, agricultural land (arable land, farmland, cropland) accounted for 12 percent of the Earth’s total land area – 18 million Km² (1,800 million hectares). Of this agricultural land, 20 percent was degraded. Land degradation is defined as a decrease in climate-adjusted net primary productivity (United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization 2008, p. i. McDermott 2008, p. 1).

The above proportion of degraded agricultural land is consistent with a 1994 study by David Pimentel (see above) and Mario Giampietro, Senior Researcher at the National Research Institute for Food and Nutrition (INRAN), Rome, Italy. These authors estimated that during the prior 40 years, approximately 30 percent of the world’s cropland [15 million Km² ((1,500 million hectares)] had been abandoned because of soil erosion and degradation.

It takes 500 years to replace 25 millimeters (1 inch) of topsoil lost to erosion. The minimal soil depth for agricultural production is 150 millimeters. In terms of the human life span, soil is a non-renewable resource (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, pp. 3-4. Heinberg 2007b, p. 13).

Causes of Degradation: Worldwide, over-grazing accounts for 35 percent of the total land degraded, deforestation, for 30 percent, and agricultural practices, for 28 percent. Over-exploitation for fuel wood, and industrialization account for 7 and 1 percent, respectively (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, p. 4).

Risk to the Land Food Supply:

Loss of genetic Diversity: In 1994, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro reported that 90 percent of the world’s food was derived from just 15 plant and 8 animal species (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, pp. 1 and 4. Allan 2006b, p. 5).

In 2002, a paper submitted to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, concluded that 75 percent of the genetic diversity of crop plants had been lost during the 20^th century (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, pp. 1 and 4).

Diseases:

Ug99: An epidemic caused by a new, virulent race of the fungus responsible for wheat stem rust, has been spreading across the globe. More than 80 percent of the world’s wheat crops is susceptible. In 2007, wheat was the world’s third most widely grown crop (607 million tons), after maize (784 million tons) and rice (651 million tons) (Wikipedia 2010 “Malnutrition,” p. 4. Los Angeles Times 2009, p. 1. Wikipedia 2010 “Wheat,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2010 “Food Security,” p. 8).

The “Ug99” fungus, as it has been named, was first detected in Uganda, in 1998, and formally identified in 1999. It reached Yemen and Sudan, in 2006, Kenya and Iran, in 2007, is now spreading across East Africa and the Near East, and is poised to move across Central and South Asia – leaving behind fields of shriveled wheat plants. Spores are air-borne, or are carried on clothing. Mutations have increased the virulence of the pathogen. One mutation was recognized in 2006, and another in 2008.

The United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, warns:

“The entire world will be affected by the loss in wheat yields, either not finding enough to eat at the market, or paying the increasing prices that will come from scarcity” (United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization 2010, pp. 1-2)

Rick Ward, Coordinator of the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat Project, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., notes:

“A significant humanitarian crisis is inevitable” (Los Angeles Times 2009, p. 1).

Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: Since 2007, the collapse of bee colonies has threatened the many agricultural crops worldwide which are pollinated by bees. The disappearance of bees has multiple causes, all related to the industrial use of bees for pollination. Their disappearance represents a serious threat to the world’s food supply (Wikipedia 2010 “Malnutrition,” p. 4. Wikipedia “Colony Collapse Disorder,” 2010, pp. 1-33).

Reliance on Petroleum:

Industrial Agriculture: Industrial agriculture relies on oil and natural gas to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides, produce its machinery, and power its machinery for planting, cultivating, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting and marketing food (Global Education Project undated, World Energy Supply, p. 6).

Fertilizer: In particular, the production of nitrogen for fertilizer requires a large supply of natural gas. In the United States, natural gas accounts for up to 90 percent of the total costs of nitrogen fertilizer production (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, p. 2).

Irrigation: Irrigation not only uses a large amount of fresh water, but it also relies on a plentiful oil supply. Worldwide, between 1961 and 2002, the proportion of agricultural land under irrigation doubled, from 1.39 million Km² (139 million hectares) to 2.77 million Km² (277 million hectares). In 2002, globally, 20 percent of the agricultural land was under irrigation (Global Education Project undated, Food and Soil, p. 1).

Food from the Ocean:

The Ocean Biomass appropriated by Humans: The appropriation by humans of the ocean net primary production, is in the range of 2 percent of the total aquatic biomass – 2 billion metric tons out of a total net primary production of 92.4 billion metric tons. Thus, even though major fish stocks are heavily fished, and many coastal areas are severely polluted, the human impact on the seas is less than that on land. Fish, however, are a major source of high-quality protein for both humans and animals (Allan 2008, pp. 3, 4 and 25-28. For the land biomass appropriated by humans, see the present document, under “The Food Problem,” “Food from the Land,” “The Land Biomass appropriated by Humans”).

Fisheries:

The Collapse of Fisheries: In 1993, 69 percent of the major marine fish stocks were either being fished at their biological limit (44 percent), over-exploited (16 percent), depleted (6 percent), or recovering from over-exploitation (3 percent) (United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization undated, p. 2).

Wild Fish Catch per Capita: From 1997 to 2003, the global wild fish catch from oceans, streams and lakes declined by 11 percent, from 87.1 million tons to 77.7 million tons. World population grew 9 percent, from 5.8 billion to 6.3 billion. On a per capita basis, the wild fish catch declined by 17 percent, from 14.9 Kilograms per person to 12.3 Kilograms per person (Worldwatch Institute 2006, pp. 26-27).

End-uses of the wild Fish Catch: In 2002, 30 percent of the world’s wild fish catch was “reduced” to fish oil and fish meal (dried, ground fish from which the oil has been removed), used to feed livestock (poultry and pigs) and farmed carnivorous fish. The increasing use of fish oil and fish meal is threatening the fish used for these purposes – fish populations which are already under the threat of collapse (International Food Policy Research Institute 2003, p. 2).

Fish Farming:

Production: From 1997 to 2003, fish farming (aquaculture) increased by 53 percent, from 35.8 million tons to 54.8 million tons. Salmon and carp are the two fish groups most often farmed (Worldwatch Institute 2006, pp. 26-27).

Environmental Consequences: Fish farming requires a high energy input, and its deleterious effects are similar to those of industrial agriculture and livestock factory farming. In general, fish farming causes:

Habitat: Loss of natural habitat, particularly detrimental to endangered species.

Diversity: Loss of genetic diversity.

Salmon Farming:

Major Producers: The countries which produce the most farmed salmon are Norway (33 percent), Chile (31 percent), European producers other than Norway, particularly the United Kingdom (Scotland) (19 percent), and Canada (10 percent).

General environmental Consequences: The physical consequences of salmon farming include:

Ecosystem Pollution: The pollution of pristine marine ecosystems.

Waste: The production of a large amount of waste which causes blooms of algae in the surrounding water. These are toxic to wildlife, and in addition, lower the water oxygen concentration, thereby smothering benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms.

Sediment Pollution: The accumulation of heavy metals, particularly copper and zinc, on the sea floor.

Threat to Fish Food Availability for Humans: Salmon farming threatens three groups of fish – wild salmon, the forage fish, and the predators of forage fish. All three groups can be eaten directly by humans.

The specifics of these threats are as follows:

Salmon Mortality: On average, more than 50 percent of native salmon coming into contact with salmon farms, die. Reasons include:

1. The high concentration of pathogens and parasites around the farm which impacts the wild salmon (and other native species).

2. The offspring from the inter-breeding of native salmon and farmed escapees, having a very low survival rate (among other causes, because of the passing on of such traits as larger bodies and smaller fins).

Forage Fish: The industrial scale extraction of wild forage fish for feed, depletes the forage fish. Whereas wild salmon feed on deep-ocean krill and other small fish generally not eaten by humans, farmed salmon are fed anchovies, sardines, menhaden and herring, which are generally eaten by humans. The ratio of feed per pound of salmon flesh produced, is 4: 1.

Predator Fish: The industrial scale extraction of wild forage fish for feed threatens the predators of the forage fish. Large fisheries are thereby depleted, reducing the amount of fish available for direct human consumption. Already, 75 percent of the world’s large fisheries are at the limit of, or have exceeded their maximum sustainable yield.

Toxicity of farmed Salmon: Fish, such as salmon, concentrate the pollutants in their feed and in their environment. Salmon are usually fed fish meal and offal from poultry and hog processing. They swim in their own wastes. As a result, their tissues contain high concentrations of:

Carcinogens: Cancer-causing substances, including dieldrin, dioxins, toxaphene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s).

Antibiotics: The antibiotic oxytetracycline, used to prevent disease epidemics. This may results in resistance to this antibiotic in the consumer.

Fungicide: “Malachite green,” a fungicide which causes cancer, genetic mutations, and harm to the reproduction system.

Dye: Canthaxanthin, the dye which is most commonly used to make the flesh of farmed salmon (typically grayish white) look “salmon” pink. The dye causes eye defects and retinal damage in humans.

Industrial Contaminants: Other industrial chemicals and by-products present in the small fish (caught close to the shore, and hence likely to be contaminated), from which the fish meal fed to the farmed salmon is made.

The nutritional Value of farmed Salmon:

Fat: The flesh of farmed salmon has a relatively high percentage of fat – 27 percent compared to one percent in wild salmon flesh.

Protein: The flesh of farmed salmon has a relatively low percentage of protein – 15 percent less than the flesh of wild salmon.

Shrimp Farming – Consequence for the Environment: In Asia, particularly, the destruction of natural mangrove ecosystems by shrimp farming, is widespread.

(Global Education Project undated, Fishing and Aquaculture, pp. 2-4. National Geographic News 2008, pp. 1-2. Wikipedia 2010 “Aquaculture of Salmon,” pp. 1, 8-9, 11 and 13. Farmed Salmon Exposed 2009, pp. 1-2. Nutrition Action Healthletter 2004, pp. 1-4).

The Climate Problem

Observed Warming: From pre-industrial times (1880) to the present (2007), average global temperature has risen by 0.76 degree Celsius.

This extent of warming is the warming to which the climate system has reacted to date. Specifically, it does not include the inevitable warming to which the planet is already committed, but which is being masked by aerosols and ocean thermal inertia (Ramanathan and Feng 2008, p. 3. Hall 2009b, p. 29. See the present document under “The Climate Problem,” “Inevitable Warming” ).

Prospective Warming:

Present Greenhouse Gas Concentration: The present atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration is 430 parts per million by volume (ppmv) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂-eq.).

Stabilization Scenarios: Global temperature stabilization at:

* 350 ppmv CO₂-eq. would provide an 83 (67-100) percent chance of the average global temperature not exceeding a 2 degrees Celsius rise.

* 450 ppmv CO₂-eq. would provide a 52 (26-78) percent chance of the average global temperature not exceeding a 2 degrees Celsius rise.

Stabilization at this level could be achieved only by having emissions peak around 2015, and then maintaining reductions of several percent per year for the rest of the present century.

* 550 ppmv CO₂-eq. would provide a 19 (1 to 37) percent chance of an average global temperature not exceeding a 2 degrees Celsius rise.

As in the case of the 450 ppmv scenario, stabilization at 550 ppmv could be achieved only by having emissions peak around 2015, and then maintaining reductions of several percent per year for the rest of the present century (United Nations Development Programme 2007, p. 46, summarized in Hall 2009b, p. 30. Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, p. 2).

Unless extremely radical measures are taken to make deep cuts in emissions before 2015, between 2050 and 2100, a probable global warming of more than 3 degrees Celsius is likely.

In their paper, “Reframing the Climate Change Challenge in Light of post-2000 Emission Trends” (2008), authors Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK, warn:

“The current framing of climate change cannot be reconciled with the rates of mitigation necessary to stabilize at 550 parts per million per volume (ppmv) CO₂-equivalents, and even an optimistic interpretation suggests [that] stabilization much below 650 ppmv CO₂-eq. is improbable” (Quoted in Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, pp. 2 and 84).

The lack of determined action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions means that we are already committed to the “dangerous climate change” associated with the 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise which has been taken as the official default threshold (Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, p. 2).

Climate Sensitivity: A climate “forcing” is an imposed perturbation (disturbance) of the energy balance of the planet which tends to alter global temperature.

Climate sensitivity refers to the global temperature change produced by a specific climate forcing. It is a measure of the how sensitive the climate is to either a negative (cooling) or a positive (warming) forcing. Because of climate feedbacks, the curve representing climate sensitivity is U-shaped. The two upward swings of the U show that the larger the climate forcings, the more they are amplified, whether on the negative side (causing snowball Earth), or on the positive side (causing runaway global warming). The bottom of the U represents the effect of small forcings. Amplifications are minor and the climate responds approximately proportionately to the size of the forcing.

Earth absorbs 240 watts of sunlight per square meter (m²) of its surface. Computer simulations show that in order to reach either snowball Earth or runaway warming, an atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) forcing need be the equivalent of no more than 10-20 watts per m². During the period 1750-2000, CO₂forcing was 1.5 watt per m² [a third of it (0.5 watts) occurring from 1980 to 2000]. Including other greenhouse gases [methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) and ozone], the total forcing, 1750-2000, was of 3.0 watts per m². For CO₂, an annual increase of 2 ppmv (in 2007, the actual rate was 2.14), raises the forcing by 0.03 watts per m² per year. Positive feedbacks are already evident, and the greater the forcing, the more amplifications there will be. Table 13 summarizes anthropogenic forcings.

Table 13: Climate Sensitivity and anthropogenic Forcings, 2000^(a)

Forcing Magnitude

[Watts per square meter (m²)]

Climate Sensitivity:

Sunlight (averaged over day and night) 240

Needed to cause runaway warming 10-20

Anthropogenic Forcing:

1750-2000

Atmospheric carbon dioxide 1.5^(b)

Other greenhouse gases 1.5

Total 3.0

Carbon dioxide increase of 2 ppmv/year 0.03/year _________________________________________________________________

^(a) Hansen 2009, pp. xi, 5, 9, 104, 107 and 226-227. Greenlivingpedia 2010, p. 1.

^(b) One third of this forcing (0.5 watts per m²) was from 1980 to 2000.

expected rate of change: The 10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch has been a period of remarkable climate stability, making possible settled life, farming – and ultimately civilization (Hansen 2009, p. 50. Dumanoski 2009, pp. 81 and 177).

The transition into the future will not be smooth. The consequences of greenhouse gas emissions are complex, mutually interacting, and far-reaching. The future cannot be extrapolated from the past.

The future is likely to be characterized by a number of thresholds which, once triggered, will result in significant step changes in the level of impacts. Large-scale, abrupt changes due to anthropogenic interference (climate “forcings”) have already happened. The Arctic Summer Sea Ice has declined precipitously, and the Greenland Ice Sheet has shown accelerating melt (Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, p. 2).

A linear Conceptualization: Even just a few years ago, many of the effects of global warming were conceptualized as linear – the effect worsening with increasing global temperature. This was so, for instance, for the expected fall in crop yields, the disappearance of glaciers, sea level rise, coral reef damage, the extinction of species, the intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves (Brauch 2009, p. 13).

Non-linear Reality: Climate sensitivity computer models show non-linearity between:

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations and global Temperature: The capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon dioxide is inversely related to the atmospheric concentration of the gas (Heinberg 2009a, pp. 119 and 121. See the present document under “The Climate Problem,” “Climate Sensitivity”).

Global Temperature Increase and Ecosystems: Ocean acidification, due to the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, threatens organisms at the base of the aquatic food chain – thus putting at risk, within a span of tens of years, all life in the seas (Heinberg 2009a, p. 120).

Non-linear phenomena affecting sub-continental components of the climate system, are called “tipping.”

Tipping: A number of thresholds along the way to global warming, once triggered, are likely to result in significant step changes in the level of impacts.

“Tipping Element”: A tipping element is a large-scale, sub-continental component of the Earth system which, under certain conditions, can be switched by a small perturbation into a qualitatively different state.

Tipping elements may lag in their response to global temperature rise. This means that at any level during the temperature rise, there may be tipping elements that:

* Have not yet been triggered, but inevitably will be.

* Have been triggered but have not as yet manifested it.

“Tipping Point”: The “tipping point” is that critical threshold, either in forcing or in a feature of the system, at which a given tipping element undergoes a non-linear, radical transition into a qualitatively different state, with:

* Consequences which are major, and, often, for all practical purposes, irreversible.

* A rate of transition which is determined by the climate system itself, not by the forcing agent which causes it. This results in rates of transition which may be either faster or slower than the precipitating cause.

* A possible lag in the transition. Some transitions may begin immediately after the passing the tipping point, others may begin much later (Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, pp. iii and 3. Hall 2009b, p. 44).

Table 14 summarizes the most likely self-perpetuating processes which could be triggered before 2050.

Table 14: Major Tipping Elements, and Temperature at which Tipping could occur^(a)

Tipping Element Tipping Point and Impact of Tipping

[Unless specified otherwise, all temperature data are stated in degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial (1880) mean global temperature]^(b)

1. Southwestern North America:

In Western North America, droughts have their origin in a strengthening of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation, which increases the surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean. (A lower aerosol level could also have contributed to recent droughts). Several signs of drying are already present, including rising winter air temperatures, a declining snow pack (due to more precipitation as rain instead of snow, and an earlier snow melt), and an earlier run-off (increased in the spring, and decreased in the summer).

In Southwestern North America (California and surrounding states), the transition to an intensified aridity, akin to permanent drought conditions, is either presently under way or imminent. Perpetual drought will be the new climatology, with levels of aridity similar to those seen in the 1930’s Dust Bowl, or during the multi-year drought of the 1950’s. While no threshold or tipping point has been identified, evidence suggests that the transition is either imminent or already under way, and will become well established in the coming years.

Other sub-tropical areas which will suffer from permanent aridity (drought conditions) in the coming years, include southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of South America (in particular, the whole of Mexico).

2. The Arctic Sea Ice: The tipping point for a melting of the Arctic Sea Ice is a global warming of 1.0-2.5 degrees. The tipping is due to the fact that the dark surface of the ocean reflects less sunlight than does ice. The warming of the ocean which this causes, in turn causes more ice to melt. It may already now be inevitable that within decades, the Arctic will be ice-free during the summer.

3. Greenland Ice Sheet,

Continental Ice Caps,

West Antarctic Ice Sheet: The tipping point of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a global warming of 1.5-2.5 degrees, that of the continental ice caps, 1.5-3.5 degrees, and that of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, 2.5-4.5 degrees. The aggregate global sea level rise would be 0.5 meter by 2050, a minimum of 0.75 meter by 2100, and an absolute maximum of 2.0 meters.

Much of the Hindu-Kush-Himalaya-Tibetan glaciers could melt before 2100.

India: India is vulnerable to the convergence of three factors:

a. Melt-water from Himalayan glaciers and snowfields, which currently supplies 85 percent of the dry season flow of the great rivers in the Northern Indian Plain, could be reduced by 70 percent during the next 50 years. This implies a (70% of 85%) = 60 percent reduction in dry season flow during the next 50 years.

b. The weakening of the Indian Summer Monsoon caused by the “atmospheric brown cloud” over the continent, is expected to double the 2 per decade drought frequency of the period 1800-2000, to a frequency of 4 per decade during the period 2000-2050. Of India’s cultivated land [1.4 million Km² (140 million hectares)], 68 percent depends on monsoon rainfall [See the present Table (Table 14) under “Indian Summer Monsoon”].

c. The already observed increase in amplitude of the El Nino Southern Oscillation is expected to cause an increased variation in the Indian Summer Monsoon [See the present Table (Table 14) under “El Nino Southern Oscillation”].

Northeastern United States: Globally, ice melt and ocean thermal expansion are expected to produce a sea level rise of 0.5 meters by 2050 (up to 2 meters by 2100). A localized sea level rise anomaly is predicted for the northeastern coast of the United States, which could experience a rise of (0.5 + 0.15) = 0.65 meters by 2050.

4. The Amazon Rainforest: El Nino Southern Oscillation events and a strong Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (the latter causing a warm North Atlantic Ocean) cause drying of the Amazon region.

The tipping point for an irreversible dryness of the Amazon Rainforest is 2.0 degrees of global warming. At that temperature, the drought frequency would increase 10-fold. At more than 2 degrees of warming, the drought frequency and lengthened dry season would increase die-back rapidly. At 3 degrees of warming, 70 percent of the Forest would be lost.

Such die-backs would be well-engendered by the time they could be observed. This lack of immediate visibility is due to the fact that changes in vegetation cover lag significantly behind changes in temperature and rainfall. As shown in Table 14a, at the time of temperature stabilization, only a portion of the eventual die-back is observable:

Table 14a: Lag between observed and eventual Amazon Forest Die-back, at each Increment of global Temperature Rise*

T e m p e r a t u r e R i s e F o r e s t d i e - b a c k

Observed at the time Eventual

of Temperature

(Degrees Celsius above Stabilization

the pre-industrial Level) (percent) (percent)

1.0 0 2

1.5 0 25

2.0 0 30

2.5 2 53

3.0 3 72

_____________________________________________________

* Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, p. 51.

The impacts of an Amazon Rainforest die-back include:

a. A loss of biodiversity. The Brazilian Amazonia contains 20 percent of the world’s estimated 1.5 billion species.

b. The release of carbon dioxide, which would amplify global warming. Covering 5.3 million Km² (530 million hectares), the Forest accounts for 38 percent of the total tropical biomass. The carbon dioxide equivalents it stores total 437 billion tons.

This total of 437 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents stored in the Forest, is of the same order of magnitude as the 495 billion tons carbon dioxide equivalents stored in today’s coal reserves in the United States (See the present document, under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Coal,” “Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves,” “Table 9: Proved recoverable Coal Reserves, and potential Carbon dioxide Emissions, World and the United States, 2006”).

Table 14a (“Lag between observed and eventual Amazon Forest Die-back, at each Increment of global Temperature Rise”) shows that, were anthropogenic emissions reduced to a level intended to achieve stabilization of global temperature at 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, then, over the course of decades, the die-back of 30 percent of the Forest would release (30 / 437) x 100 = 131 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents into the atmosphere – emissions which would prevent temperature stabilization from being achieved.

5. The Boreal Forests: The die-back of Boreal Forests may have a tipping point at a global warming of 3.5-5.5 degrees. Beyond this, the forests would be replaced by open woodlands or grasslands, which have a higher frequency of fires. As with the Amazon Rainforest, a die-back not observable at the time of atmospheric greenhouse gas stabilization, may nevertheless inevitably occur, and within decades be observable.

In Western Canada, an infestation of mountain pine beetle has already caused widespread tree mortality and an increased fire frequency.

6. The West African Monsoon: Drying in the Sahel originates either in a weakening of the Atlantic North/South sea surface temperature gradient, or a weakening of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation.

At a tipping point of 3.5-5.5 degrees global warming, the weakening of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation would be such as to cause the sub-surface North Brazil Current to reverse course, and thus engender an abrupt warming (with rainfall increase) in the Gulf of Guinea, and a shift of the West African Monsoon. Two alternative scenarios are then possible. The West African Monsoon could:

* Shift toward the West, and not reach the Sahel, causing it to dry.

* Wet the Sahel and parts of the Sahara, turning them back toward the green conditions which last prevailed 6,000 years ago.

Such transitions could occur within years. The extent of their reversibility is not known.

7. The Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation: The tipping point for the total collapse of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation is a global warming of 3.5-5.5 degrees. The transition to complete shut-off would probably take some 100 years. However, a weakening of the Circulation before 2100, is expected to cause a cooling of the North Atlantic, a warming of the Southern Ocean, and also affect other hydrological tipping elements.

8. The El Nino Southern Oscillation: The tipping point for a major shift in the El Nino Southern Oscillation is a global warming of 3.5-6.5 degrees. An increase in amplitude (but not frequency) of the Oscillation is expected, and will impact many regions and many other tipping elements, even within the next 50 years.

9. The Indian Summer Monsoon: The tipping point of the Indian Summer Monsoon is related to aerosol forcing rather than global temperature change. Indeed, global warming by itself would be expected to increase the Monsoon rainfall.

The present decrease in the Indian Summer Monsoon rainfall is due to a haze (an “atmospheric brown cloud”) which consists of a mixture of black carbon (soot) and sulfate aerosols. The haze increases the albedo (reflectivity) of the Indian sub-continent and surrounding region. Beyond a certain increase in regional albedo, it is likely that the Monsoon would tip, and collapse completely – triggering a doubling in the frequency of drought on the sub-continent [See the present Table (Table 14), under “Greenland Ice Sheet, Continental Ice Caps, West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” “India”].

A similar “atmospheric brown cloud,” particularly thick over Northeastern China, is causing the monsoonal precipitation of this region of China to shift southward.

10. Permafrost Permafrost (permanently frozen soil or subsoil) is melting rapidly – likely to be totally lost in Alaska within 50 years, and in Siberia within 100 years. Since it is unlikely that all of it would reach a threshold simultaneously, as a whole, the world’s permafrost probably does not qualify as a tipping element.

Frozen Loess: Frozen loess (windblown dust), in eastern Siberia, is an exception to the general view that permafrost does not qualify as a tipping element. Frozen loess may have a tipping point at more than 9.5 degrees of surface warming in eastern Siberia. While such an extreme warming before 2100 is unlikely, were the frozen loess to tip, it would release about 9 billion tons CO₂-eq. per year, for 100 years. (For purposes of comparison, in 2005, global anthropogenic emissions totaled 44 billion tons CO₂-eq. per year) (Hall 2009b, p. 15).

Methane clathrate Crystals: Any melting of permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – initiating a vicious cycle of more warming. This warming could de-stabilize the methane clathrate crystals which are underneath the permafrost. The melting of these crystals would release carbon dioxide and methane, compounding the vicious cycle of warming engendered by the melting of the permafrost.

In his book, Storms of my grand-children – the truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity (2009), James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), focuses on the methane clathrate crystals in ocean sediment, which, if they begin to melt, would initiate an unstoppable vicious cycle (Hansen 2009, summarized in Hall 2010. See the present document under “The Energy Problem,” “Sources of Energy,” “Coal,” “Potential Carbon dioxide Emissions from Coal Reserves”).

Notes to Table 14:

^(a) Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki. 2009, pp. iii-vi, 1-27, 39-44, 49-53, 60, 63-71, and 75-89. Hansen 2009, p. 153, summarized in Hall 2010 (Poem), pp. 1-11. Hall 2009b, pp. 44-50 and 61.

^(b) In almost all cases, authors Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki specify warming from the baseline of the mean global temperature during the period 1980-1999. From 1880 to 1990, the Earth warmed by 0.50 degrees. I have added, therefore, this amount of warming to their stated figure.

In the case of the Amazon Rainforest, the authors specify the tipping point as “2 degrees Celsius above the global pre-industrial temperature.” I have left this figure unchanged.

Inevitable Warming: Actually observed global warming to date, is 0.8 degrees Celsius. This is the temperature increase to which the climate system is reacting. The changes we see today, such as sub-tropical warming (notably in Southwestern North America), the disappearance of Arctic Sea Ice and Continental Ice Cap, and the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, are a response to 0.8 degrees of warming.

In actuality, however, greenhouse gas emissions already have made inevitable (have “committed us” to) a warming of 2.4 (1.4-4.3) degrees compared to pre-industrial times (1880).

The difference originates in the fact that the aerosols (“atmospheric brown clouds”) have masked 47 percent of the warming already engendered, and ocean thermal inertia has masked another 20 percent. The climate, therefore, has not reacted to the full impact of anthropogenic forcing. To date, it has only reacted to 32 percent of it. The masking due to the thermal inertia of oceans will be removed slowly. Aerosols, however, have a life time of a few weeks or less, and their masking could be removed rapidly – producing an abrupt effect on some climate elements. Changes in the “atmospheric brown cloud” over India, for instance, could cause wide variations in the strength of the Indian Summer Monsoon from year to year (See the present document under “Table 14: Major Tipping Elements, and Temperature at which Tipping could occur,” “Greenland Ice Sheet, Continental Ice Caps, West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” “India”).

Even the most aggressive carbon dioxide mitigation steps now envisioned, will only be able to limit further additions to the committed warming. They cannot reduce the already committed greenhouse gas warming of 2.4 degrees Celsius. Table 15 summarizes the components of the inevitable (“committed”) warming.

Table 15: Components of global Warming, 2005^(a)

Component Degrees Celsius Percent of Total

Observed to date (2005) 0.8 32

Masked by aerosols^(b) 1.1 47

Delayed by ocean thermal inertia 0.5 20

_________________________________________________________________

Total inevitable warming^(c) 2.4 100

_________________________________________________________________

(See notes next page)

Notes to Table 15:

^(a) Ramanathan and Feng 2008, pp. 1 and 8. Brook 2009, pp. 1-3.

Tim Lenton and Anthony Footitt, at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK, agree with the inevitable global warming suggested by Ramanathan and Feng. They themselves have found that historical greenhouse gas emissions since pre-industrial times, make inevitable (have “committed us” to) a total global warming of 2.1 (1.4- 2.8) degrees Celsius. Such warming includes the 0.8 degrees of warming which has already been realized, and a further warming of 1.3 (0.6-2.0) degrees. The high end of the range would occur, were there to be a decline in sulfate aerosols, which have a strong cooling effect (Lenton, Footitt and Dlugolecki 2009, pp. vi and 5).

^(b) Aerosols begin as urban haze or rural smoke, ultimately becoming trans-continental and trans-oceanic plumes called “atmospheric brown clouds.” These consist of sulfates, nitrates, hundreds of organic compounds, black carbon, soil dust, fly ash, and other aerosols. Sulfates and nitrates enhance the albedo (percent of incoming solar radiation reflected back to space) of the planet. Soot, on the other hand, absorbs solar radiation, thus warming the planet. The cooling effect of the sulfates and nitrates is much larger than the warming effect of the soot. “Atmospheric brown clouds,” therefore, have been masking the warming caused by greenhouse gases. Decreasing them will unmask the full effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

^(c) The figure 2.4 is the most probable extent of warming. (It is not the mid-value of the range, which is 2.9).

About 90 percent of the committed further warming (the 1.6 degrees, now masked by aerosols and ocean thermal inertia), will occur during the present century, the rate of warming being determined by both the rate at which aerosols decrease, and the rate at which oceans release greenhouse gases.

Inevitable tippings: The temperature range, 2.4 (1.4-4.3) degrees, which describes the inevitable warming which humanity has engendered to date, encompasses and exceeds the tipping temperature of several climate tipping elements. These include:

1. The sub-tropical drying of Southwestern North America (transition either imminent or already under way).

2. Arctic Sea Ice (tipping: 1.0-2.5 degrees).

3. The Greenland Ice Sheet (tipping: 1.5-2.5 degrees).

4. The Continental Ice Caps (tipping: 1.5-3.5 degrees).

5. The Amazon Rainforest (tipping: 2.0 degrees).

Interactions – Energy, Water, Food, Climate

Peak Oil: The end of the era of cheap oil will add significantly to both water and food scarcity. Without oil, humans will not be able to continue even their present appropriation of water. Industrialized agriculture will be impossible, and the ability to appropriate aquatic biomass will be severely limited.

Even were humans able to increase their fresh water and terrestrial biomass appropriations, this would be at the expense of further environmental degradation and species extinction.

The depletion of higher-quality fuels, such as oil and natural gas, might lead humans to burn dirtier fuels, such as coal, tar sands or “shale oil.” Per unit of energy obtained, a larger quantity of dirty than clean fuel has to be burned – with correspondingly greater consequences for the environment.

Peak oil may also hasten the time when humans will have to operate without sources of cheap, concentrated, flexible and readily available sources of energy. In most countries, the present greatest constraint on the expansion of coal production, is transportation – the lack of an adequate rail or road network, and the lack of shipping ports. Rising oil prices will increase these coal transportation problems – in effect, hastening the time when coal, though still in the ground, will cease to be an efficient source of energy. Peak oil may thus hasten peak coal (Heinberg 2009a, pp. 122 and 146)

Water: Even now, humanity is facing the end of the era of easy access to fresh water. Global warming will add significantly to problems of water scarcity. It will decrease the amount of water humans can appropriate in many ways – through an alteration of atmospheric circulation patterns, the expansion of arid regions, changes in seasonal patterns of rainfall and river flow, the diminution of winter snow, and the melting of glaciers. Extreme hydrologic events, such as droughts, hurricanes, and floods are already becoming more common. All fresh water systems will be affected.

Water quality will decrease as the higher water temperature of lakes, reservoirs and rivers lead to more algal and bacterial blooms, which in turn, will lead to lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen. More intense precipitation events will both increase rates of erosion, and wash more pollutants and toxins into waterways. In coastal systems, rising sea levels will push salt water further into rivers, deltas, and coastal aquifers (Gleick et al 2009, pp. xi, 40 and 43-44).

Food: Globally, agriculture accounts for 87 percent of the fresh water used by humans. Water scarcity will lead to food scarcity. The impact of climate change on agriculture is likely to be a loss of stability in production and an overall decline in food production (Allan 2006a, p. 3. Gleick et al 2009, p. 44. Energy Bulletin 2009a, p. 4).

Agriculture itself accounts for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (Energy Bulletin 2009b, p. 6).

Climate: Climate change will diminish the potential for civilization, as people’s energy will be turned instead to mere survival in the face of an uninterrupted series of catastrophes. The tipping for climate elements forebode a sequence of “surprises,” each of which is likely to have repercussions on energy, water and food supplies, as well as hasten the tipping of other climate sub-systems. India, for instance, is already at the mercy of three major climate tipping elements – the Himalayan glaciers, the Indian Summer Monsoon, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (See the present document under “The Climate Problem,” “Tipping,” “Table 14: Major Tipping Elements, and Temperature at which Tipping could occur,” “Greenland Ice Sheet, Continental Ice Caps, West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” “India”).

Scarcities will be reflected in higher prices. Most countries are now under some form of capitalism, which means that the poor are likely to die at much higher rates than the rich.

Our economic System

Capitalism and the Environment: There is a basic contradiction between capitalism and environmental sustainability. This contradiction is admitted, indirectly, by the many claims that present-day capitalism can be made ecologically-friendly by advances in science and technology, or by economic innovations, such as pollution credits and ecological tax reform (Sarkar 1999, pp. 3-4).

historical roots of capitalism: Historically, capitalism (private production for profit) has its roots in England, when the moneyed class “enclosed” (privatized) village pasture land held in common, and expelled small farmers from their small holdings, to convert the land into large-scale sheep farms generating high profits.

The process started around 1150, greatly expanded around 1400, reached a peak in 1675, and continued until around 1845, when there was essentially no more land held in common, and small farmers had been converted into swelling ranks of landless employed labor in urban factories. By means of this one act of “enclosure,” private capital had now brought into being the two factors of production it needs to make a profit – cheap natural resources, and cheap labor.

Capitalism encouraged industrialization, itself spurred, after 1492, by the vast influx of precious metals from the New World. In 1694, the creation of the Bank of England established capitalism as an economic system on a large scale (McMurtry 1998, summarized in Hall 2009a, p. 26).

Critique of Capitalism: Capitalism and its variants, such as “eco-capitalism,” “market socialism,” and “an eco-social market economy,” have the following characteristics:

Obliviousness to Justice and social Welfare: Capitalism is oblivious to issues of justice, equality, fraternity, cooperation, solidarity, compassion, morality, and ethics. The values it represents center on exploitation, competition, a focus on money, and the reliance on profit and greed as motivating factors. The spirit and logic of capitalism are in contradiction with concepts of justice and social welfare (Sarkar 1999, pp. 3-8).

Human Degradation: Capitalism degrades humans physically and psychologically, tending to reduce them to mere money-making machines. Human potentials which cannot be harnessed for profit-making, are neglected. The focus on self-interest, greed, and competition promote criminality. At best, the ethics of capitalism are limited to observance of the rules of the game and the laws of the state (Sarkar 1999, p. 150).

Narrow present-day Orientation: The time horizon of capitalism is a very limited present:

Self-interest: Capitalism depends on self-interest as a motivating force. It is not in the self-interest of anyone living now, to take care of someone who might be living 200 years from now. Environmental protection, however, needs a future orientation. The welfare of future generations is at stake.

Prices: In a free market, prices reflect the current relative valuations of living consumers. It does not include the valuations of future consumers. Were they at the table, future generations would certainly be interested in buying environmental amenities, and even depletion and pollution permits (Sarkar 1999, pp. 146-147).

Reliance on economic Growth: Capitalism is based on the promise of economic growth. It assumes that continuous economic growth is possible and necessary, and that affluence is necessary for a good life. Economies of scale drive entrepreneurs to expand their enterprise. Profits are based on sales, and sales increase when “the economy,” as measured by the gross national product (GNP), grows. Social problems are more easily dissipated if the economic pie grows for all.

But the GNP is not a measure of the benefits which have accrued to society. It is only a measure of the value of the goods and services which have been produced and sold. That is the only value of interest of entrepreneurs. The GNP grows when more resources have been consumed, more labor has been paid, and more goods have been thrown away rather than continued to be used or repaired.

And in the end, there can be no infinite growth on a finite planet (Sarkar 1999, pp. 3-8 and 151-153).

Globalization of economic Processes: The market tends to globalize economic processes. Large-scale technologies, refinements in the division of labor, and the benefits gained from the application of comparative advantage, all increase profits. Investors, therefore, seek capital mobility in a world market unfettered by patriotism. The curbing by nation states of this globalizing dynamic, will also curb economic growth. “Small is beautiful,” “regionalization of the economy,” “home market orientation,” are good for the environment, but not for market forces or economic growth (Sarkar 1999, pp. 153-154).

Industrialization: Compared to machines, labor is a very troublesome factor of production. Competition and the need to maximize profits drive entrepreneurs to replace labor with computers and automated machines. Labor productivity increases, the benefits of which are reaped fully by individual enterprises. Unemployment also increases, but the costs of maintaining the unemployed and the poor are externalized onto society.

Machines and industry, however, use principally non-renewable resources. While the operation of computers does not require much energy, that of industrial machines does – certainly more energy than the operation of manual equipment. Machines increase the society’s total consumption of resources, since the workers they replace continue to live, and thus consume energy and other resources.

From an environmental point of view, this drive toward industrialization must be curbed. Capitalism and industrialization generate homo economicus. What we need is homo ecologicus.

Claims of an “efficiency revolution” in the use of resources have little foundation. An economy which grows at the rate of 2 percent per year, triples in 50 years. If, during this time, resource consumption must decrease by a factor of 10 (that is, be 1/10^th of its original value), then resource productivity must rise by a factor of (3 x 10) = 30. This, surely, is not a realistic assumption (Sarkar 1999, pp. 89, 149, 151, 265, 270, 273-274 and 198).

Waste of Resources: Labor strikes and unemployment provide the most obvious proof of the inability of capitalism to use resources efficiently. Indeed, a reserve army of unemployed workers is advantageous to employers, generating a downward pressure on wages, and making labor both easily obtained and easily dismissed.

Other wastes of resources include unsold products, commodities destroyed to prevent a fall in market price, built-in obsolescence, non-reparable machines, advertising, individualized transportation, superfluous and robber-proof packaging, bankruptcies, and the criminality and vandalism which are spurred by poverty and a wide economic inequality (Sarkar 1999, pp. 147-148).

A SUSTAINABLE Economy: Since, by definition, a sustainable society is one that can persist over generations, ultimately, an economy can be really sustainable only if it is based wholly on renewable resources, consumed at a rate no higher than the rate at which they are being regenerated or replenished. Industrial economies are based primarily on non-renewable resources. Logically, then, a sustainable economy cannot be an industrial one (Sarkar 1999, pp. 137, 198-199, 221, 224-225, 247, 255 and 270).

A sustainable Society: Our aim should be to create sustainable societies, not just sustainable economies. A sustainable human society would be one characterized by:

1. A sustainable economy.

2. Acute poverty eliminated.

3. Meaningful employment for all able-bodied persons.

4. Guaranteed social security for the old, young and sick.

5. Guaranteed social and political equality.

6. Economic inequality reduced to a tolerable level.

7. A global scope, thus eliminating the incentive for aggression from other countries (Sarkar 1999, pp. 15, 138, 221, 248).

Equality and the Environment: Both on a world scale and within nations, equality is the best means we have to make acceptable the necessary cuts in standard of living for the rich, and the giving up by the poor of their aspiration to achieve the prosperity of modern Western industrialized countries. The fundamental principles of capitalism – self-interest and motivation driven by inequality with regards to money, status and/or power – are incompatible with the ideal of equality, or even with the ideal of diminishing inequality. At present, economic institutions are the strongest force in the world. The difficulty of achieving the necessary changes within the time we have available to make them, is daunting.

The poor will not remain peaceful under inconceivable and unequal hardship. It is likely that authoritarian and fascist regimes will make their appearance, should present degrees of inequality prevail while economies contract and resource consumption is curtailed (Sarkar 1999, pp. 172-174, 202, 207, 230, 239, 246 and 273).

Planning: Capitalist economies will have to plan, if they are to ensure an orderly retreat from their reliance on growth. Only an orderly planned retreat has a chance of absorbing the shocks of mass unemployment and the destruction of capital, and avert a societal collapse into chaos, civil war or international war. Planning, is of course, anathema to capitalism (Sarkar 1999, pp. 179-180, 201-202, 224 and 227).

Capitalism not up to the environmental Challenge: The very essence of capitalism is incompatible with the solution to the environmental crisis. Moral growth, ethical behavior, and cooperation are pre-requisites for any solution. The solution to the most fundamental crisis of present industrialized capitalist societies, requires a fundamental change in their economies and in all aspects of their societies. The air, rivers and forests know no international boundaries (Sarkar 1999, pp. 180, 212-213, 228-229, 248, 259-260 and 266).

The solution to the ecological crisis will remain elusive until the global human society is just and fair. Only then, will it possible to begin building a tolerably good human society (Sarkar 1999, pp. 3-8).

Progress: Progress must be measured in terms of such criteria as the probability of a sustainable peace, both within and between states; achieved low levels of crime and violence; the absence of class conflict, exploitation and oppression; the elimination of the subordination of women; the extent of democracy and participation in the economic as well as the political sphere; literacy; the quality of human relationships; and the ability to live in harmony with nature. On all these criteria, present modern societies are quite low (Sarkar 1999, pp. 232-234, 270 and 277-278).

Conclusions

OuR Attitude toward Nature: The attitude of Western civilization toward nature has deep roots. Western civilization is now global, and the attitude has ensnared all of humanity.

The Old Testament (c.1,250-c.200 B.C.E.):

Genesis (c.1,150 B.C.E.):

Chapter 1:

ABe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth . . . Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it@ (Quote in Ponting 1991/1992, p. 143, summarized in Hall 2007b, p. 36).

Chapter 2:

AEvery moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything . . . The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moves upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand, are they delivered@ (Quote in Ponting 1991/1992, pp. 143-144, summarized in Hall 2007b, p. 36).

Psalm 8 (c. 1,000 B.C.E.):

AThou hast given [man] dominion over the works of thy hands@ (Quote in Ponting 1991/1992, p. 144, summarized in Hall 2007b, p. 36).

Psalm 115 (c. 550 B.C.E.):

AThe heavens are the Lord=s heavens, but the earth, He has given to the sons of men@ (Quoted in Ponting 1991/1992, p. 144, summarized in Hall 2007b, p. 36).

Collapse has happened to others:

Easter Island (900-1700C.E.): Polynesians settle on Easter Island around 900 C.E.

The Island is 66 square miles. It is 1,300 miles from Pitcairn Island to the West, and 2,300 miles from Chile to the East. Its climate is mild and, due to the Island=s recent volcanic origin, its soil is fertile. The Island=s supply of fresh water is somewhat limited (Diamond 2005, pp. 79, 82-83, 86-87, 89, 106, 114 and 213, summarized in Hall 2007a, p. 92)

In 1,500 C.E., the population reaches a peak of 15,000 to 25,000. Inhabitants invest much energy in building giant stones statues (moai) and stone platforms (ahu). The statues are stylized, long-eared, legless human male torsos, most being 15-20 feet in height, but the largest reaching 70 feet. They weigh from 10 to 270 tons. Without the availability of cranes, wheels, metal tools, machines or draft animals, no means other than human muscle power, Easter Islanders transport these statues from Rano Raraku volcanic crater where they have carved them, to all along the coast of the Island where they raise them (Diamond 2005, pp. 80, 90, 95 and 97, summarized in Hall 2007a, p. 92).

In 1,700 C.E., deforestation of the Island is complete. The whole forest cover is gone. All of the native tree species and all of the native land bird species are extinct. All wild fruits are gone. Sea bird species have been reduced from 25 to 9, and those remaining no longer breed on Easter Island itself, breeding instead on a few rocky islets off the Island=s coast. Only a few, small-sized snails and shellfish remain. Without being able to build sea-going canoes from trees, the Islanders= principal sources of protein (porpoises, tuna and pelagic fish), are inaccessible. Rats are the only wild food source with unchanged availability. The population has plummeted by 70 percent B to around 6,000 (Diamond 2005, pp. 90-91 and 109, summarized in Hall 2007a, p. 92).

We have been warned:

World:

Oil and Natural Gas: In 1964, world oil discovery peaks.

Oil production peaks in country after country: Austria (1955), Germany (1968), United States (1970), Indonesia (1977), Gabon (1997), China (1999), United Kingdom (1999), Australia (2000), Oman (2000), Norway (2001), the North Sea (2001).

World natural gas discovery peaks in 1980.

In 1999, French oil industry consultant Jean Leherrere predicts that the world peak oil production will probably occur in 2008.

In 2003, financial analyst Richard Duncan writes, in the Oil and Gas Journal, that of the 44 significant oil-producing nations, at least 24 (55 percent) are past their peak of production.

In 2005-2010, world oil production peaks. There is no substitute in sight which comes close to matching the utility, convenience and low cost of oil and gas.

The Environment: In 1972, the United Nations establishes the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), to be based in Nairobi, Kenya. In 1988, it establishes the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to be based in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1992, it holds the first Conference on the Environment (“the Earth Summit”), in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Conference results in the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which, in 1997, would present the Kyoto Protocol for country ratification.

In 1999, David Pimentel, at Cornell University, estimates that it would require at least three times the earth=s entire resources and physical area to provide the world population with the material and energy consumed by an average North American citizen (Numerous sources, summarized in Hall 2006, pp. 2-41).

United States:

Oil and Natural Gas: In 1859, by digging a well 21 meters deep, near Titusville, PA, Edwin Drake discovers oil in the United States. In 1930, oil discovery in the lower 48 states, peaks. In 1956, Shell Company oil researcher King Hubbert predicts a peak in the country’s oil production between 1966 and 1971. Indeed, oil production peaks in 1970.

In 1980, in his State of the Union Address, President Jimmy Carter makes explicit U.S. policy with regards to oil:

AAn attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interest of the United States of America, [and] will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.@

In 2001, the country’s natural gas production peaks. In 2003, the United States invades Iraq.

In 2005, Robert Hirsch, at Science Application International Corporation, San Diego, CA, completing a study of peak oil for the U.S. Department of Energy, reports his findings:

AThe peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and without timely mitigation, the economic, social and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking@ (Quote in Heinberg 2006).

The Environment: In 1962, the book by Rachel Carson, Silent spring, is published. In 1970, the United States celebrates the first Earth Day.

In 1972, Donnella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens III, based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), publish their study commissioned by the Club of Rome. In The limits to growth, they conclude that, if prevailing growth trends continue, fundamental resource limits will be reached by the middle of the 21^st century B limits which are likely to precipitate a dramatic, uncontrollable collapse in social viability, as measured by such indices as population size and food production.

In 2001, President George W. Bush explicitly rejects the (1997) Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Numerous sources, summarized in Hall 2006, pp. 2-41).

Final Thoughts: The following poem describes my reaction to the content of the present document.

The End

The name of the crime is omnicide,

The level of civilization which generates it, is barbarism.

The level of consciousness which spawns it, is egocentrism.

The deed mirrors the state of the perpetrators’ souls.

In worship of mammon, humans are destroying

The ability of the sole planet in the universe which

Supports life, to continue providing life a home.

The miracle is being undone, torn apart.

We are the moths shredding Indra’s net,¹

The monsters who kill our own children.

Lower than worms in sensitivity,

Dante’s Hell is our legacy.²

We killed God and now we kill life.³

No species has ever so betrayed its mates.

We are a swarm of locust ravaging the Earth.

With us, evolution sprouted a dead end.

__________________________________________________________________

¹ In Hindu mythology, Indra is King of the Gods, and also God of War, Storms and Rainfall. The metaphor of Indra’s cosmic net was developed, during the 3^rd century, by the Mahayana School of Buddhism. The net is laced with jewels at every intersection, each jewel reflecting not only all the others, but also all the reflections which are in the others.

² Refers to the classic poem, the Divine Comedy, by Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321).

³ Killing God refers to the dictum of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), “God is dead.”

References

Allan, David,

2006a. “Human Appropriation of the World’s fresh Water Supply.” (David Allan is Professor in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI). January 4.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures. Accessed April 2, 2010.

2006b. “Human Appropriation of the World’s Food Supply.” January 4.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures. Accessed April 6, 2010.

2008. “The Flow of Energy – Primary Production to higher trophic Levels.” October 31.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures. Accessed April 16, 2010.

Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), 2007. “Oil Price falls.” ASPO Newsletter No. 81, Paragraph 858, September. (The ASPO Newsletter was founded, in 2000, by Colin Campbell, former chief geologist at many major oil companies, including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. Campbell writes the monthly ASPO Newsletter, available on the website of ASPO-Ireland).

http://www.ASPO-Ireland. Accessed March 23, 2010.

Biello, David, 2010. “Photovoltaic Breakthroughs brighten Outlook for cheap solar Power – Novel Materials might make harvesting Sunlight for Electricity affordable.” Scientific American. February 16.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=photovoltaic. Accessed March 20, 2010.

Brauch, Hans, 2009. “HS15332. Climate Change Impacts – Securitization of Water, Food, Soil, Health, Energy and Migration.” Free University of Berlin, and United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security. (The 19 countries are Argentina, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Peru, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Uzbekistan, and Yemen).

afes-press.de/html/pdf/Brauch_FUBerlin_091026.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2010.

Brook, Barry, 2009. “How much Warming in the Pipeline? Part II – It’s as tricky as ABC.” Brave New Climate. March 6.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/06. Accessed April 21, 2010.

Brown, Lester. 2009. Plan B 4.0 – mobilizing to save civilization. Earth Policy Institute. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton.

Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse – how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2007a. “Demographic Collapses – Lessons for today.” August 17 (205 pages, unpublished).

Dumanoski, Dianne. 2009. The end of the long summer – why we must remake our civilization to survive on a volatile Earth. New York, N.Y.: Random House/Crown.

Dunlop, Ian, 2008. “Peak Oil, Climate Change and the global Sustainability Emergency.” Slides from a presentation to Engineers Australia, Southern Highlands and Tablelands Group, Mittagong, New South Wales, Australia, June 26. (Ian Dunlop is Governance and Sustainability Advisor, and Deputy Convener, Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO-Australia), Sydney, Australia.

http://www.aspo-australia.org.au. Accessed April 3, 2010.

Earth Policy Institute, 2008. “World Grain Production, 1950-2007.” Sources: Grain Production: United States Government, Department of Agriculture. Population: United Nations.

http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/update72_11.xls. Accessed April 14, 2010.

Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources, 2010. “Energy Requirements of Desalination Processes.”

http://www.desware.net/desa4.aspx. Accessed April 3, 2010.

Energy Bulletin,

2009a. “The Links between Food Security and Climate Change.” (Kanayo Nwanze: Copenhagen Official Site). November 17.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50732. Accessed April 2, 2010.

2009b. “Promoting Climate-smart Agriculture.” FAO Press Release. November 17.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50732. Accessed April 2, 2010.

Farmed Salmon Exposed, 2009. “Farmed Salmon and human Health.”

http://www.farmedsalmonexposed.org/2009/health.html. Accessed April 14, 2010.

Fthenakis, Vasilis and Hyung Kim, 2007. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from solar electric and nuclear Power – a Life-cycle Study. Energy Policy (Elsevier), Volume 35, pp. 2549-2557, April.

http://www.oneplanetfellows.pbworks.com/f/. Accessed March 11, 2010

Gleick, Peter, with Heather Cooley, Michael Cohen, Mari Morikawa, Jason Morrison and Meena Palaniappan. 2009. The world’s water, 2008-2009 – the biennial report on freshwater resources. (Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, CA). Washington, D.C.: Center for Resource Economics/Island Press. [The chapter “Peak Water” (pp. 1-16) was written by Peter Gleick and Meena Palaniappan].

Global Education Project, undated. (Mansons Landing, B.C., Canada).

“Biotechnology.”

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth. Accessed April 8, 2010.

“Fishing and Aquaculture.”

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth. Accessed April 8, 2010.

“Food and Soil.”

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth. Accessed April 8, 2010.

“World Energy Supply.”

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth. Accessed April 8, 2010.

Greenlivingpedia, 2010. “Carbon dioxide ppm Levels and Targets.”

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org. Updated February 7. Accessed April 27, 2010.

Guido, Zack. 2008. “Climate Controls.” Southwest Climate Change Network, September 14. (Zack Guido is at the University of Arizona).

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/climate/global/controls. Accessed April 4, 2010.

Hall, Charles, 2008. “The Energy Return of (industrial) Solar – Photovoltaics.” The Oil Drum. Posted by Nate Hagens, April 29, 2008.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2910. Accessed March 14, 2010.

Hall, Francoise,

2004a. “Convergence.” (Poem). July 3 (unpublished, 10 pages). (See Heinberg 2003).

2004b. “Energy today.” July 10 (unpublished, 20 pages). (See Heiberg 2003).

2006. “The brief and disastrous Reign of Homo petrolatum.” September 30 (61 pages, unpublished).

2007a. “Demographic Collapses – Lessons for today.” August 17 (205 pages, unpublished). (See Diamond 2005).

2007b. “Balancing Demand and environmental Degradation.” October 14 (117 pages, unpublished). (See Ponting 1991/1992).

2009a. “The Ethics of global Capitalism.” May 4 (unpublished, 76 pages). (See McMurtry 1998).

2009b. “Global Warming – pre-Copenhagen.” June 21 (108 pages, unpublished).

2010. “After Copenhagen.” (Poem). February 17 (11 pages, unpublished)

Hansen, James. 2009. Storms of my grandchildren – the truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity. Illustrations by Makiko Sato. New York, N.Y.: Bloomsbury.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2010. “After Copenhagen.” (Poem). February 17 (11 pages, unpublished).

Heinberg, Richard.

2003. The party’s over – oil, war and the fate of industrial societies. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2004a. “Convergence.” (Poem). July 3 (unpublished, 10 pages).

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2004b. “Energy today.” July 10 (unpublished, 20 pages). (See Heiberg 2003).

2006. Speech to the Eugene Perma-culture Guild, Eugene, Oregon, January 29. Broadcast on Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org. Accessed in October 2006.

2007a, “Peak Coal – sooner than you think.” Energy Bulletin. May 21.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919. Accessed March 26, 2010.

2007b. Peak everything – waking up to the century of declines. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society.

2009a. Blackout – Coal, Climate and the last Energy Crisis. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society.

2009b. “World Energy in Crisis.” MuseLetter No. 205. May.

http://www.archive.richardheinberg.com/taxonomy/term/14. Accessed March 7, 2010.

2009c. “Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?” MuseLetter, No. 208. August 6.

http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/208. Accessed March 7, 2010.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2000. Department of nuclear Energy, Planning and economic Studies Section. (Spadaro, Joseph, Lucille Langlois and Bruce Hamilton). Published in the IAEA Bulletin, 42/2/2000.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/articles4.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2010.

International Food Policy Research Institute, 2003. “The Future of Fish – Issues and Trends to 2020.” (Delgado, Christopher, Nikolas Wada, Mark Rosegrant, Siet Meijer and Mahfuzuddin Ahmed).

http://www.ifpri.org. Accessed April 13, 2010.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2010. “What we don’t know about GE Crops – The National Research Council Report, 2010.” Think Forward. April 13.

http://iatp.typepad.com/thinkforward/2010/04. Accessed April 19, 2010.

Keystone Marketing Services, undated. “Stocks to Use Ratio.”

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/learning. Accessed April 9, 2010.

Klare, Michael, 2008. “The Energy Challenge of our Lifetime.” Tomdispatch.com. November 10. Reproduced in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), ASPO Newsletter No. 96, December 2008, pp. 9-12. (Michael Klare is Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College, NH).

http://www.ASPO. Accessed March 21, 2010.

Lifton, Jack, 2009. “The Tellurium Supply Conjecture.” The Jack Lifton Report. July 9.

http://www.jackliftonreport.com/2009/07. Accessed march 10, 2010.

Lenton, Tim, Anthony Footitt, and Andrew Dlugolecki, 2009. Major tipping Points in the Earth’s climate system, and consequences for the insurance sector. November. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund); and Munich, Germany: Allianz S.E. (a global financial service provider). (Both Tim Lenton and Anthony Footitt are in the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK. Andrew Dlugolecki is with Andlug Consulting.

http://www.knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/downloads/TP_Final_report.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2010.

Los Angeles Times, 2009. “A ‘Time Bomb’ for World Wheat Crop.” (Karen Kaplan). June 14.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/14/science/sci. Accessed April 11, 2010.

McDermott, Matthew, 2008. “Agricultural land Degradation increasing, affecting new Areas, FAO reports.” New York, N.Y., July 10.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07. Accessed April 9, 2010.

McMurtry, John. 1998. Unequal freedoms – the global market as an ethical system. Toronto, ON, Canada: Garamond.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2009a. “The Ethics of global Capitalism.” May 4 (unpublished, 76 pages).

National Geographic News, 2008. “Farmed Salmon decimating wild Salmon worldwide.” (James Owen). February 12.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/080212. Accessed April 14, 2010.

Nutrition Action Healthletter, 2004. “Farmed Salmon under Fire.” (David Schardt). June.

http://finfarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0813/is_5_31/ai_n6126794. Accessed April 14, 2010.

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009. “ClimateTechBook, Electricity Sector Overview, Electricity Emissions in the United States. Figure 2: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by Sector, 2007. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

http://www.pewclimate.org/technog/overview/electricity. Accessed March 25, 2010

Pfeiffer, Dale, 2005. “The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy.” Radical Noesis – thinking outside the Box. June 30.

http://www.radnoesis.info.rnarchives/2006/01/04. Posted by Rowan Wolf, January 4, 2006. Accessed march 20, 2010.

Ponting, Clive. 1991/1992. A green history of the world – the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Group.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2007b. “Balancing Demand and environmental Degradation.” October 14 (117 pages, unpublished).

Ramanathan, V. and Y. Feng, 2008. “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System – formidable Challenges ahead.” Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. Vol. 105, Number 38. September, pp. 14245-14250. (Both Ramanathan and Feng are at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego).

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.short. Accessed April 24, 2010.

Redefining Progress, undated. “Calculating fossil Fuel Footprints – Step 2: Calculating Carbon Emissions from fossil Fuel Combustion.”

http:rprogress.org/energyfootprint/energy_footprint/?id=1b. Accessed March 30, 2010.

Ruppert, Michael. 2009. Confronting collapse – the crisis of energy and money in a post-peak oil world. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green.

Sarkar, Saral. 1999. Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism – a critical analysis of humanity’s fundamental choices. New York, N.Y.: Zed Books. (Saral Sarkar is an Indian author and environmental activist, presently living in Cologne, Germany).

Savinar, Matt, 2009. “Are we ‘running out’? I thought there was 40 Years of the Stuff left.” Life after the Oil Crash. (No month or day stated).

http://www/lifeaftertheoilcrash.net. Accessed March 12, 2010.

Shaw, Chris. 2005. “Oil’s not well.” Speaking Freely, Asia Times. March 15.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GC15Dj01.html. Accessed March 21, 2010.

Sovacool, Benjamin, 2008. “Valuing the greenhouse Gas emission from nuclear Power – A critical Survey.” Energy Policy, Volume 36, pp. 2940-2953. (Benjamin Sovacool is in the Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalization, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore. His article is available on the website of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD).

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2010.

Trainer, Ted, 2003. “Renewable Energy – What are the Limits?” September. Reproduced by Minnesotans for Sustainability.

http://www.mnforsustin.org/trainer_ted. Accessed March 26, 2010.

Tverberg, Gail, 2008. “The Path from Petroleum Shortages to Electricity Shortages.” The Oil Drum. August 13. Reproduced in Energy Bulletin.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46238. Accessed March 8, 2010.

United Nations,

Development Programme. 2007. Human development report 2007/2008 – fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise 2009b. “Global Warming – pre-Copenhagen.” June 21 (108 pages, unpublished).

Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 1999. “Freshwater – Facts for All: Water Resources.” Kanagawa, Japan.

http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/contents/eLearning/waterdemo. Accessed April 2, 2010.

International Year of Fresh Water, 2003. “The UN World Water Development Report just released!”

http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3129&URL. Accessed April 2, 2010.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),

Undated. “Fisheries at the Limit?”

http://www.fao.org/docrep/U8480E/U8480E0f.htm. Accessed April 11, 2010.

2008. “Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement – 1. Identification by remote Sensing.” Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement (GLADA) Report 5, Version November 2008, prepared by World Soil Information (ISRIC), Wageningen, The Netherlands. (Bai, Z., D. Dent, L. Olsson, and M. Schaepman).

http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/dmdocuments/GLADA_international.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2010.

2010. “Wheat Rust – Threat to Farmers and global Food Security.” Plant Production and Protection Division (AGP), Wheat Rust Disease Global Programme.

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests.wr. Accessed April 11, 2010

World Water Assessment Programme, 2003. Water for people, water for life. United Nations World Water Development Report. Executive Summary. September 18

http://www.wateryear2003.org. Accessed April 4, 2010.

United States Government,

Department of Energy, 2009. “Global Fossil Fuel CO₂ Emissions – Trends.” Carbon dioxide Information Analysis Center. (Boden, R., G. Marland, and R. Andres). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob. html. Accessed April 3, 2010.

Energy Information Administration,

1994. “Carbon dioxide Emission Factors for Coal.” (B. Hong and E. Slatick). Quarterly Coal Report. January-April.

http://www.eia.doe.gove/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html. Accessed March 28, 2010.

2008a. “Annual Energy Review. Table 8.2a: Electricity Net Generation, Total (all Sectors), Selected Years, 1949-2008.”

http://eia.doe.gov/aer. Accessed March 24, 2010.

2008b. “Table H.1co2: World Carbon dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2006.” International Energy Annual, 2006. Posted December 8.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html. Accessed April 5, 2010.

2009a. “Energy explained.”

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy. Updated July 13. Accessed March 21, 2010.

2009b. “International Energy Outlook 2009.” May 27. Report #DOE/EIA-0484(2009).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html. Accessed March 24, 2010.

2009c. “Frequently asked Questions – Environment.”

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp. Updated June 30. Accessed March 29, 2010.

2010. “Annual Energy Outlook, early Release Overview.”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html. Accessed March 21, 2010.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. “Unit Conversions, Emissions Factors, and other Reference Data.” November.

http://www.epa/gov/appdstar/pdf/brochure/pdf. Accessed March 30, 2010.

Whipple, Tom, 2010. “The Peak Oil Crisis: 2014 – the Year of Transition.” National Commentary, Falls Church News Press, Falls Church, VA. March 17.

htto://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/6093. Accessed March 17, 2010.

Wikimedia Commons, 2008. ”Electricity Production in the World, 2005.” September.

http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File. Updated September. Accessed March 24, 2010.

Wikipedia,

2008 “World Energy Usage Width Chart.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File. Updated June 16. Accessed March 20, 2010.

2009. “Ethanol Fuel Energy Balance.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 28. Accessed March 19, 2010

2009. “World Summit on Food Security, 2009.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated December 22. Accessed April 12, 2010

2010. “2008 U.S. Electricity Generation, by Source.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File. Updated January 20. Accessed March 24, 2010.

2010. “Aquaculture of Salmon.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 28. Accessed April 14, 2010.

2010. “Child Mortality.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 15. Accessed April 15, 2010.

2010. “Coal.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 29. Accessed March 29, 2010.

2010. “Coal Reserves.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 21. Accessed March 29, 2010.

2010. “Colony Collapse Disorder.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 10. Accessed April 10, 2010.

2010. “Desalination.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 28. Accessed April 3, 2010.

2010. “Energy Crisis.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 5. Accessed March 8, 2010.

2010. “Energy in the United States.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 10. Accessed March 20, 2010.

2010. “Environmental Effects of nuclear Power.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 15. Accessed March 15, 2010.

2010. “Food Security.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 9. Accessed April 12, 2010.

2010. “Joule.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 26. Accessed March 31, 2010.

2010. “List of Countries by Electricity Consumption.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated January 26. Accessed March 24, 2010.

2010. “Malnutrition.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 8. Accessed April 8, 2010.

2010. “Peak Oil.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 19. Accessed March 17, 2010. (No error in the dates).

2010. “Water Crisis.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 31. Accessed April 3, 2010.

2010. “Watt.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 30. Accessed March 29, 2010. (No error in the dates).

2010. “Wheat.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 14. Accessed April 14, 2010.

2010. “Wind Power.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 15. Accessed March 15, 2010.

2010 “World Energy Resources and Consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated March 13. Accessed March 20, 2010

Wirth, Clifford.

2008. “Peak Oil – Alternatives, Renewables, and Impacts.” October 29, 2007, updated July 5, 2008. (Peak Oil Associates is Dr. Wirth’s consulting firm).

http://www.peakoilassociates.com. Accessed March 14, 2010.

http://alternativenenergy.procon.org.view.source.php?source. Accessed March 14, 2010.

2009. “The Peak Oil economic Depression has arrived.” Originally published as “Surviving Peak Oil – Planning, Preparation and Relocation.” March 6. Reproduced in Energy Bulletin.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48275.

World Resources Institute, 2000. “Freshwater use by Sector, at the beginning of the 2000’s.” Based on “World Resources, 2001 – The fraying Web of Life: People and Ecosystems, 2001,

Table FW1.” World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. [GRIDA-A is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) communication site, based in Arendal, Norway].

http://www.maps.grida.no/go/graphic. Accessed April 2, 2010.

Worldwatch Institute,

2006. Vital signs 2006-2007 – The Trends that are shaping our Future. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton.

2007. “Grain Harvest sets Record, but Supplies still tight.” (Brian Halweil). December 12.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5539. Accessed April 9, 2010.

Wright, Brian. 2009. “International Grain Reserves and other Instruments to address Volatility in Grain Markets. Slides for a Presentation to the World Bank, October 26. (Brian Wright is at the University of California, Berkeley, CA).

http://www.siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/102609_wright.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2010.

Wright, Brian and Eugenio Bobenrieth, 2009. “The Food Price Crisis of 2007/2008 – Evidence and Implications.” United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Food Outlook, Global Market Analysis, Special Feature. December. (Brian Wright is at the University of California, Berkeley, CA. Eugenio Bobenrieth is at the University of Concepcion, Chile).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/ak341e/ak341e13.htm. Accessed April 10, 2010.

***