Viewing entries in
The Environment
The biggest threat to biodiversity is loss of habitat. Agriculture is the main driver of habitat loss on the planet and a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change will reduce agricultural productivity unless crops become more resilient. GM crops require less land and are more resilient than conventional and organic crops.
The first thing I noticed was that CCDH conflated “disinformation” and “misinformation”. Standard definitions distinguish them: disinformation is deliberate and malicious, whereas misinformation does not imply an intention to deceive, being simply false or inaccurate information.
I want to know about studies that are reassuring as well as alarming. I don’t need to be a true believer unwilling to question articles of the faith to be very worried about climate change. So why should anyone else?
Countries that consume a lot of energy tend to have large populations, advanced economies, or both. However, high country-level energy consumption may be coupled with low per capita consumption, because some countries are populous but still developing and largely rural, as is the case with India and Brazil.
Per Part II of this series, atmospheric CO2 keeps rising at a steady pace. Lack of progress in the atmosphere most likely reflects lack of progress on the ground (allowing for some lag time and other complications). But some parts of the planet are doing better than others. Take a look…
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas, responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases (Lindsey/NOAA Climate.gov, 2022). The last time atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period when global surface temperature was 2.5–4°C (4.5–7.2°F) warmer than during the pre-industrial era and sea levels were at least 16 feet higher than they are today.
So are we making much progress in reining in atmospheric CO2?…
Total CO2 emissions are driven by four fundamental factors: 1) population; 2) average emissions per person; 3) energy intensity; and, 4) carbon intensity.
Small scale subsistence farming is a lose-lose proposition. It perpetuates poverty and degrades the environment. Smallholders cannot afford to be stewards of their environments. Between the vagaries of growing conditions and food prices, they can’t count on a stable income year to year, so they have little incentive to forego additional income or food now for better returns later. Larger farms are in a better position to ride out price fluctuations and to maintain the long-term vitality of their land.
Then again, the above chart makes the decline in cropland look bigger than it has been, which was just 5% over a period of 20 years. We can do better. Unfortunately, the federal government’s Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) undermines efforts to shrink US cropland further by subsidizing farmers to grow biofuel crops - mainly corn for ethanol - to meet biofuel mandates for transportation and heating fuel. Check out the next chart and guess the year RFS went into effect:...That would be 2006, or almost 10 million additional acres of corn ago. Now, nearly 40% of corn grown in the US goes to ethanol, up from 5% in 1996 (Saavoss et al, 2021).
In a previous post, I provided evidence that most Americans of prime working age (25-54) want to live in detached houses in low-density residential areas. Americans also prefer community and residential features such as limited street traffic, open space options nearby, large back yards and off-street parking. They especially want to live in quiet neighborhoods that are safe for walking and for kids to play outdoors. So is there a way to make low-density residential communities climate friendly?
“...you’ll see that mostly what we’re building these days is single-family homes. That form is inherently challenging when it comes to carbon emissions, and it’s made more so by the fact that we’re building much bigger houses than we used to…Simply put, you should build as small as you can for what you need, and if possible, you should avoid having a [concrete] basement.” - Professor Shoshanna Saxe/University of Toronto, quoted in Large carbon footprint of new house construction mostly due to concrete basements (2021)
It might be tempting to dismiss housing preferences as merely a matter of taste or culture, which can evolve with the proper incentives or education. However, global studies have consistently found that high-rise apartment living is a net negative for most people, especially families and children, and regardless of culture, nationality, or aesthetic traditions. Here’s a smattering of what researchers have found…
New legislation that would see planes forced to use "sustainable aviation fuel"… Overall, this is good, says Chelsea Baldino at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a non-profit research organisation. But several suggested amendments to the legislation widen the definition of sustainable aviation fuels to include food-based biofuels, she says. And it isn’t just about the climate. The loss of habitat is the main driver of biodiversity loss around the world. “The main message is that there should not be any food and feedstock biofuels,” says Baldino.
— EU plan for cutting emissions from planes could end up increasing them. By Michael Le Page/New Scientist April 27, 2022
Approximately 73% (over 94 million acres) of remaining grasslands in the Northern Great Plains are privately owned. While ranchers operate across a spectrum of sustainability, they all face pressure to convert existing grasslands into cropland, which—depending on market fluctuations—can yield better short-term profits than livestock can. This reality means that, when wheat and barley prices go up, ranchers may feel compelled to plow up and plant crops on large areas of intact grasslands. But in the long term, plains land is not well-suited for row crops. - Common Ground. By Di Tipping-Woods, World Wildlife Magazine/Summer 2022
The US drop in CO2 emissions is almost entirely due to trends in electric power, mostly improvements in energy efficiency and the growth of renewable energy. Emissions in the transportation, industrial, residential and commercial sectors are either flat or going up - and the price of oil appears to make little difference in projections for the next 30 years. Makes me doubt the efficacy of a carbon tax in changing people’s behavior, unless of course it’s a huge carbon tax. But a huge carbon tax is likely to backfire.
California farmers have a water crisis. Not enough of the stuff and the supply keeps shrinking. The coastal urban dwellers aren’t all that sympathetic. A common sentiment: they shouldn’t be growing crops that need so much water, not in such a drought-prone state. Tear up those almond orchards!
The earth’s biosphere is in the middle of a mass extinction event, thanks mostly to the loss of wild habitat to agriculture. We need to shrink the amount of land used for agriculture to expand wild habitat and protect endangered species. Since livestock farming destroys more habitat than other types of agriculture and cattle are the most destructive of livestock animals, it would make sense to go after cattle ranchers and their enablers, aka those who eat beef.
The growing demand for beef is coming mostly from Asia and Africa and no matter how impassioned the pleas from environmentalists and vegans, the people in those regions aren’t going to change their food preferences any time soon - not when memories and stories of widespread hunger still linger in their collective minds.
But demand is only half the equation….
The studies and density advocates are assuming that driving and residential energy use will continue to rely on energy sources that emit greenhouse gases. But what about remote work, online shopping, electric vehicles, renewables, smart nuclear, and carbon-capture? Aren’t these (and other) technological developments going to change the equation in the not-so-distant future? As within a decade or so?
Actually, a good number of Americans still want to live in cities. But that doesn’t mean they want to live in high-density urban areas. After all, most American cities have car-friendly residential neighborhoods, which aren’t all that different from suburbs.