History has seen the rise and fall of many large and powerful cultures. Romans, Mayans, Akkadians, none of these historic empires have lasted in much more than memory and artifacts. But their decline and eventual disappearance is often a source of intense study and speculation, since many of them don't have clear records of their declining years. However, recent evidence has shown correlations between shifts in the local climate and the disappearance of these large civilizations.
The Mayan empire existed in Central America for around 2000 years before it faded back into the mists of time. The reason? Well, that is still a matter of speculation, to some degree. However, there are some theories that are particularly prominent.
"Some believe that by the ninth century the Maya had exhausted the environment around them to the point that it could no longer sustain a very large population. Other Maya scholars argue that constant warfare among competing city-states led the complicated military, family (by marriage) and trade alliances between them to break down, along with the traditional system of dynastic power. As the stature of the holy lords diminished, their complex traditions of rituals and ceremonies dissolved into chaos. Finally, some catastrophic environmental change--like an extremely long, intense period of drought--may have wiped out the Classic Maya civilization. Drought would have hit cities like Tikal--where rainwater was necessary for drinking as well as for crop irrigation--especially hard."
If you take some additional time to look at these theories, it is easier to see that they could all be part of the same sequence of events. If we start with the drought, then that would lead to the exhaustion of agricultural supplies and means, as well as drinking water and possibly a primary means of transportation. No longer able to sustain the population that exploded with the preceding period of high rainfall and agricultural windfalls, the land began to lose potency, and the people began to suffer. This situation usually leads to civil unrest, and considering the leaders of the culture were also holy figures, they might even be seen as part of the cause of the people's misery. This would lead to the breakdown of government and trade alliances, as people stop listening to distant authorities, and start keeping supplies that might have been previously sent to the capital. As you can see, these possible causes don't have to be mutually exclusive, and in fact become more plausible when combined. This particular series of events has seen increased scientific evidence to its viability as well, with the time of the drought correlating with the time frame of the Mayan civilization's decline. As this hopefully demonstrates, a shift in the climate patterns can have a sudden and drastic impact on a society, to the point that it collapses.
Another example of such shifts in climate causing a societal collapse is the Indus (or Harappan) civilization that was established in the area of modern day "Pakistan, northwestern India and eastern Afghanistan." However, climate shifts also contributed to the establishment of the civilization, since the region was formerly inhospitable due to extreme weather and flooding that was strong enough to sweep away what people would try to build. However, as the monsoons responsible for this extreme weather became more gentle over the years, the flooding became gentle enough that it became an integral part of the farming process in the region. However, this process continued instead of halting in this "Goldilocks status," and since the river that supplied and nourished the region was apparently only fed by rain, with no large body source, the decline in rainfall also meant a decline in available water. In this case, as the river dried up, many people moved to other regions. Some were able to continue farming, since the rains still came, they just would not have been able to produce enough food to feed the city populations that had peaked during the prosperous period of the civilization's history. In this case, the fall of the civilization was a matter of time and circumstance. Unfortunately, without much cause to notice the gradual (oh so very gradual!) change in the weather patterns over the years, and no records to provide a warning (writing was developed during its time, but not from the start), the civilization was doomed to fall as the climate continued its drying trend. So, it becomes difficult to blame the fall of the civilization on their lack of foresight, when they didn't have much hindsight either. Besides, the society lasted for around 2000 years, which would probably span hundreds of generations of people, who didn't have any reason not to take advantage of such a pleasant, fertile region. At least their activities (supposedly) didn't contribute to the climate shift, since it was already part of an established trend.
Which brings up my last point- if a society can collapse due to climate shifts that are already occurring due to shifts in global temperature currents and the like, what will happen when something like this happens on a global scale? Unlike the Harrappans, we won't have anywhere to go if we are managing to afflict the climate processes of entire regions of the globe. We have already seen some of the warning signs of radical changes in the weather- the drought over the summer, Hurricane Sandy's impact on a region that normally doesn't see such violent weather, and generally rising temperatures. Unlike the civilizations of the past, we can tell what is driving the shifts in the climate now- heck, we can even identify contributing factors to their climate shifts. The question is, will we do anything about it, to prevent a permanent shift in global habitability, or will we simply continue along our current path of self destruction?
Extra links:
Roman Empire studies
http://www.groundwatergo.com/blog/the-top-5-ancient-civilizations-destroyed-by-climate-change/
Decline of Akkadian Empire at start of 300 year long dry spell
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Put a Lid on It! Just Don't Forget the Seal
Cap and Trade seems like an interesting concept to me. The idea of establishing a system designed to limit atmospheric pollution through market forces seems like something that would work in the world of economics... except this is the real world (hey-o!). By setting up a market for limited emission permits, with a decreasing amount being sold every year, the hope is that businesses will have an incentive to prepare for the decrease by establishing systems to limit and stop emissions. As companies successfully make the transition, or even just reduce their carbon output, they can trade the excess allowances that they have to companies that have exceeded their expected emission levels. Supposedly, this system is supposed to be able to help ease the transition with less regulatory effort and spending. In fact, SO2 emissions (which contribute to the creation of acid precipitation) were actually successfully reduced to a target level before the target year, with such a system playing a significant role. However, when it comes to carbon emissions, it's not just industry that is responsible- most adults drive a car to and from work each day, and with the number of people who do this on a daily basis, it is not a negligible contribution to the equation. I'm not sure if the companies that produce the cars would be held accountable for this to some degree, however, so perhaps it has been considered.
California is putting a Cap and Trade system in place, where about 62 million allowances (each permitting a ton of carbon to be emitted) are going to be auctioned at the start of the program in a three hour window, starting at $10 each. With another auction set for February, it would seem that this will be a seasonal event. Any companies that opt to not purchase during the auction window will still be able to get them on the market from other companies, but this initial auction is being held by the state. Most large companies that practically depend of the emission of carbon pollutants get a break at the start of such programs, though- after all, if Rome wasn't built in a day, then how would you expect it to be remodeled and rebuilt in that time frame? With this consideration, "more than 400 of California's industrial heavyweights... will get 90 percent of their emission allowances free in the first two years, but the percentage of freebies will decline in future years." While I think 90% may be a bit much, at the same time, it at least allows for the companies to start making changes before they start risking the possibility of bankruptcy from the system. However, even with this, some groups are still unhappy:
"Business groups say California could achieve its goals of curtailing carbon without holding an auction. The state, they say, could simply give away all of the emissions allowances for free, and then enforce the cap. As companies move toward compliance, they will buy and sell the allowances among themselves and a price will emerge for carbon. But [fortunately] state officials reject that argument. The Air Resources Board says an auction is needed to jump-start the market and make sure a competitive price for carbon is established."
One of the main reasons why I am inclined to think that the officials are right to do this, is that if the system were set up as the business groups would like, there would be too much potential for racketeering as companies realize that cooperation could be easier than competition in this matter. Besides, as much as some like to tout the idea of market forces, emissions aren't the most tangible commodity. I'm sure many companies, thinking of the permits as a sort of imaginary trade, would be inclined to imagine up more to trade than they have (I believe that something like this had a role in the Enron shenanigans) to make a quick buck.
One of the big things that gets me about the whole system is that monitoring of the emissions is rarely described. Best as I can tell from a Wikipedia entry, monitoring is mostly at the level of the installation responsible for the emissions, and the output is reported to a regulator. This seems like a cause for concern on two levels. One: what is there to guarantee that the numbers being reported are accurate? What prevents the company from muddling their numbers in a way that benefits them? Two: How are they measuring the output? There are certainly many advanced systems that have been made to keep track of such things, but they aren't always installed in facilities. When that is the case, and the company opts to not pay for the system, is there a way for them to check? It just seems like there are too many ways for companies to dodge around this sort of regulation, short of an official audit being performed.
Overall, I don't think that Cap and Trade will work the way that those who endorse it hope it will. However, I also am inclined to believe that it has the potential to work, if things proceed without too much incident. But even if it works, will the effort be too little, too late? The system is in place to monitor and limit emission levels- even if they are decreased, that doesn't mean that the total atmospheric levels are decreasing, just that the rate of accumulation is. We are already above the levels that scientists believe are "safe." At this point, there is the possibility that we are already doomed, and beginning efforts that would only have been effective if we had started them much earlier. Unfortunately, with that being the case, all we might be doing is delaying the inevitable.
Extra link:
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/
California is putting a Cap and Trade system in place, where about 62 million allowances (each permitting a ton of carbon to be emitted) are going to be auctioned at the start of the program in a three hour window, starting at $10 each. With another auction set for February, it would seem that this will be a seasonal event. Any companies that opt to not purchase during the auction window will still be able to get them on the market from other companies, but this initial auction is being held by the state. Most large companies that practically depend of the emission of carbon pollutants get a break at the start of such programs, though- after all, if Rome wasn't built in a day, then how would you expect it to be remodeled and rebuilt in that time frame? With this consideration, "more than 400 of California's industrial heavyweights... will get 90 percent of their emission allowances free in the first two years, but the percentage of freebies will decline in future years." While I think 90% may be a bit much, at the same time, it at least allows for the companies to start making changes before they start risking the possibility of bankruptcy from the system. However, even with this, some groups are still unhappy:
"Business groups say California could achieve its goals of curtailing carbon without holding an auction. The state, they say, could simply give away all of the emissions allowances for free, and then enforce the cap. As companies move toward compliance, they will buy and sell the allowances among themselves and a price will emerge for carbon. But [fortunately] state officials reject that argument. The Air Resources Board says an auction is needed to jump-start the market and make sure a competitive price for carbon is established."
One of the main reasons why I am inclined to think that the officials are right to do this, is that if the system were set up as the business groups would like, there would be too much potential for racketeering as companies realize that cooperation could be easier than competition in this matter. Besides, as much as some like to tout the idea of market forces, emissions aren't the most tangible commodity. I'm sure many companies, thinking of the permits as a sort of imaginary trade, would be inclined to imagine up more to trade than they have (I believe that something like this had a role in the Enron shenanigans) to make a quick buck.
One of the big things that gets me about the whole system is that monitoring of the emissions is rarely described. Best as I can tell from a Wikipedia entry, monitoring is mostly at the level of the installation responsible for the emissions, and the output is reported to a regulator. This seems like a cause for concern on two levels. One: what is there to guarantee that the numbers being reported are accurate? What prevents the company from muddling their numbers in a way that benefits them? Two: How are they measuring the output? There are certainly many advanced systems that have been made to keep track of such things, but they aren't always installed in facilities. When that is the case, and the company opts to not pay for the system, is there a way for them to check? It just seems like there are too many ways for companies to dodge around this sort of regulation, short of an official audit being performed.
Overall, I don't think that Cap and Trade will work the way that those who endorse it hope it will. However, I also am inclined to believe that it has the potential to work, if things proceed without too much incident. But even if it works, will the effort be too little, too late? The system is in place to monitor and limit emission levels- even if they are decreased, that doesn't mean that the total atmospheric levels are decreasing, just that the rate of accumulation is. We are already above the levels that scientists believe are "safe." At this point, there is the possibility that we are already doomed, and beginning efforts that would only have been effective if we had started them much earlier. Unfortunately, with that being the case, all we might be doing is delaying the inevitable.
Extra link:
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Reducing Biofuel Conflict
Something that usually pops into my head whenever I hear people expressing concern on the issue of food supplies being put at risk by biofuel production is that that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Yes, one of the best ways to get high yields of biofuels from a process is to use the part of the plant that actually produces food (such as using corn kernels in fermentation for ethanol). And sure, there is a risk of land that would have been used for food being used to grow biofuel crops. But this issue isn't so much a matter of one or the other as such arguments seem to believe. Biofuels can be produced from a wide variety of sources, which often includes by-products of food production, meaning that both food and fuel can be produced from a single harvest instead of having to be selective about which one should be given precedence.
A good example of how biofuels and food can be produced at the same time, instead of competitively, is corn. While the kernels are almost ubiquitous in our diet now, running from direct ingestion of corn to its use as feed for meat animals, a large portion of the corn plant doesn't get eaten- or used for other applications, for that matter. The stalk, the leaves, the corn silk, and the cob that the kernels are attached to are not able to be digested by the human system, or various other biological systems, due to the cellulose content (which, for that matter, the kernels have a fair amount as well). Cellulose, commonly known as plant fiber, is what makes up a majority of the mass of plants, and has recently been subject to R&D to make it economically viable for a biofuel feedstock. The reason it was not already used as such (no, not lack of foresight) was the fact that cellulose is difficult to break down in general. It is only with recent developments in enzymatic chemistry that such production is able to begin on a large scale- in fact, this article from a few days ago is about the first biocrude startup to successfully begin large scale production "at scale, at parity", and apparently to the great surprise of skeptics since it was done on time, at scale, and within budget. This plant seems to specialize in wood biomass, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could process other sources of cellulose as well.
Another aspect of non-conflict is the fact that many plants have been found that can be used for biofuel production that can be planted on marginal or non-arable land. This type of terrain includes nutrient-poor and dry soils, as well as muddy grounds that are difficult to plant and cultivate, and areas with a troublesome hardpan layer. Some plants are even capable of changing the conditions of the land to make it easier for other plants to grow, such as the wild radish, which is able to break up hardpan layers beneath the topsoil. “The crop matures in 80 days from planting, is cold-tolerant and can be grown without interfering with normal crop rotations... It’s not an earth-shattering oilseed crop. It produces no meal but can be viewed as an organic fertilizer.” It is also able to provide forage for wild animals that might otherwise consume more important crops. This combination of passive utilitarian aspects and an extra use as an oil crop makes it seem very useful and important to my perspective. There is also the plant known as "jatropha, a tropical plant that is resistant to drought and pests and produces seeds containing up to 40 percent oil. 'It can’t take a bad freeze and needs dry roots,' Breitenbeck said. 'But it produces seed in about two years.'" This plant seems to me like something that could be used to try and reverse desertification. While I have no doubt that it would be a slow process, if it could at least halt the advance of the process, it could prove invaluable to the long term survival of certain environments that are at risk of becoming arid wastelands. And if it can help with the fuel problem in the process, than it seems capable of killing two birds with one stone.
I was mentioning in my last post a company called Bluefire, which takes waste streams from dumps and is able to produce fuel sources from them, such as methane given off by decomposition of organic waste in dumps and sources of cellulose that can be converted to biofuels. But there are more ways that waste products can be used. I already mentioned the use of corn stover (the usually unused parts) for cellulose, but there are other waste streams that can be used. For example, soy oil was originally a byproduct of making meal from the soybeans, but with the advent of biofuels, "as demand changed, the oil became the primary product and meal became secondary." The oil could be used to make biodiesel with an esterification of lipids, which are present in many plants and animals. While may seem rather morbid, cast off quantities of fats from animal sources are viable sources of stock for the production of biodiesel.
I'm sure that there are other ways that various waste streams could be used as well. But ultimately, I guess the lesson that should be taken from this is one that was a way of life in the past. The native tribes of North America all followed this practice, and we should probably try to find a way to incorporate it into our lives again, from individuals to companies (practically, of course). That is the practice of using all parts of something that has to be killed to provide for our needs. While I am sure that this becomes harder to do as it gets applied at a larger scale, if we can find a way to make it a point during production, it would probably help solve a variety of our problems, besides just alleviating streams of waste.
A good example of how biofuels and food can be produced at the same time, instead of competitively, is corn. While the kernels are almost ubiquitous in our diet now, running from direct ingestion of corn to its use as feed for meat animals, a large portion of the corn plant doesn't get eaten- or used for other applications, for that matter. The stalk, the leaves, the corn silk, and the cob that the kernels are attached to are not able to be digested by the human system, or various other biological systems, due to the cellulose content (which, for that matter, the kernels have a fair amount as well). Cellulose, commonly known as plant fiber, is what makes up a majority of the mass of plants, and has recently been subject to R&D to make it economically viable for a biofuel feedstock. The reason it was not already used as such (no, not lack of foresight) was the fact that cellulose is difficult to break down in general. It is only with recent developments in enzymatic chemistry that such production is able to begin on a large scale- in fact, this article from a few days ago is about the first biocrude startup to successfully begin large scale production "at scale, at parity", and apparently to the great surprise of skeptics since it was done on time, at scale, and within budget. This plant seems to specialize in wood biomass, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could process other sources of cellulose as well.
Another aspect of non-conflict is the fact that many plants have been found that can be used for biofuel production that can be planted on marginal or non-arable land. This type of terrain includes nutrient-poor and dry soils, as well as muddy grounds that are difficult to plant and cultivate, and areas with a troublesome hardpan layer. Some plants are even capable of changing the conditions of the land to make it easier for other plants to grow, such as the wild radish, which is able to break up hardpan layers beneath the topsoil. “The crop matures in 80 days from planting, is cold-tolerant and can be grown without interfering with normal crop rotations... It’s not an earth-shattering oilseed crop. It produces no meal but can be viewed as an organic fertilizer.” It is also able to provide forage for wild animals that might otherwise consume more important crops. This combination of passive utilitarian aspects and an extra use as an oil crop makes it seem very useful and important to my perspective. There is also the plant known as "jatropha, a tropical plant that is resistant to drought and pests and produces seeds containing up to 40 percent oil. 'It can’t take a bad freeze and needs dry roots,' Breitenbeck said. 'But it produces seed in about two years.'" This plant seems to me like something that could be used to try and reverse desertification. While I have no doubt that it would be a slow process, if it could at least halt the advance of the process, it could prove invaluable to the long term survival of certain environments that are at risk of becoming arid wastelands. And if it can help with the fuel problem in the process, than it seems capable of killing two birds with one stone.
I was mentioning in my last post a company called Bluefire, which takes waste streams from dumps and is able to produce fuel sources from them, such as methane given off by decomposition of organic waste in dumps and sources of cellulose that can be converted to biofuels. But there are more ways that waste products can be used. I already mentioned the use of corn stover (the usually unused parts) for cellulose, but there are other waste streams that can be used. For example, soy oil was originally a byproduct of making meal from the soybeans, but with the advent of biofuels, "as demand changed, the oil became the primary product and meal became secondary." The oil could be used to make biodiesel with an esterification of lipids, which are present in many plants and animals. While may seem rather morbid, cast off quantities of fats from animal sources are viable sources of stock for the production of biodiesel.
I'm sure that there are other ways that various waste streams could be used as well. But ultimately, I guess the lesson that should be taken from this is one that was a way of life in the past. The native tribes of North America all followed this practice, and we should probably try to find a way to incorporate it into our lives again, from individuals to companies (practically, of course). That is the practice of using all parts of something that has to be killed to provide for our needs. While I am sure that this becomes harder to do as it gets applied at a larger scale, if we can find a way to make it a point during production, it would probably help solve a variety of our problems, besides just alleviating streams of waste.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Shocking Alternatives
Electrical power generation is something that is now considered a necessity for modern life, and it's no small wonder. Most of our modern convenience, and some things that have become necessary, rely on electricity to function at all. Your phone, the television, and hospital systems all require electrical current to make them function. But how is most of that electricity generated? And how much does it contribute to environmental impact, considering that many view it as a way to reduce pollution as an alternative to personal use of fossil fuels?
Let's take it from the top: most power plants rely on steam generation to power the turbines that turn the generator. Hydroelectric is an exception that still relies on water turning a turbine, only with pressure from sheer volume instead of heated water. Most power plants need to heat water to the point that it becomes high pressure steam, capable of turning a turbine fast enough to generate electricity that can be sent out to the grid. Nuclear plants do this with nuclear fission chain reactions, which create a lot of dangerous radioactive waste that is currently unusable for power generation, since there isn't a known way to use radioactive decay as an energy source. There are actually two types of solar power plants, one that heats water by focusing solar energy, and another that is independent of water in the cycle due to use of photovoltaic materials.
The most common type of power plant is the thermal plant, which burns fuel to boil water. Most of these rely on fossil fuels to act as the combustible material, though alternatives are being made that are capable of using biofuels and biomass to provide the heat energy. One alternative in particular that has me excited for this idea is the idea that waste streams could be used to supply the fuel for such plants. If we can use waste to produce energy, it would solve more problems than just the meeting of fuel demands, since the waste is no longer being just dumped in a landfill. And since this line isn't limited to a particular type of fuel, it would be possible to use, say, the stalks of corn that could be used for food instead of the corn kernels themselves. There is already at least one company, Bluefire Ethanol, that has started work on this type of energy stream. They are even able to harvest methane from the decomposing elements in the waste to increase their energy capacity, while simultaneously decreasing the amount that gets released into the atmosphere. There are so many reasons to do this, and it seems so logically sensible, that I am actually rather surprised that there aren't already more such plants, since burning garbage has also been a traditional means of getting rid of it. There are also companies that take in bio-waste from farms, like manure, to burn for energy production, providing another way to take advantage of waste that can accumulate quickly to get something productive from it.
Another type of water-based energy production is geothermal energy, which uses water from underground that has been heated by the fact that it is deeper and under more pressure than at the surface. Due to the pressure conditions, water can often be found at temperatures much higher than the boiling temperature of water at sea level, meaning that no heating is required to generate the steam to turn the turbines. There seem to be a few types of this type of energy production, and from the looks of it, plants that use water that has already been heated inject the water back into the well it was taken from to make the process sustainable, instead of having an underground source of heated water run dry and make the plant useless.
Another popular alternative to these types of power production is wind power, which is perhaps the simplest of all these systems (barring complexities in turbine design) in that it requires nothing more than a good, windy spot to turn the power generator. While I can't say much as to the difficulty of establishing a wind farm (with the exception of the Cape Wind project I covered in a previous post), the simplicity of a pretty much independently operating system for energy generation has a nice appeal for me. No constant input of a dangerous, expensive, or limited resource- just the necessary mechanisms, and a good spot for them to work in.
There may be a few other types of power generation that have escaped my notice, these are the systems most common or likely to become common in the future. Some have distinct advantages over the others, and ultimately, the type of plant that gets installed at a location should be based on what type of resources are most abundantly available in the area- for example, geothermal is most common in the area of Yellowstone Park, due to the large magma chamber under the park that is also responsible for the numerous geysers and hot springs of the region. We have a number of better alternatives to move away from fossil fuel use in the generation of electricity, and when one is found that is well suited for a region, I hope that those who live in the area will try and make the switch as soon as possible.
Let's take it from the top: most power plants rely on steam generation to power the turbines that turn the generator. Hydroelectric is an exception that still relies on water turning a turbine, only with pressure from sheer volume instead of heated water. Most power plants need to heat water to the point that it becomes high pressure steam, capable of turning a turbine fast enough to generate electricity that can be sent out to the grid. Nuclear plants do this with nuclear fission chain reactions, which create a lot of dangerous radioactive waste that is currently unusable for power generation, since there isn't a known way to use radioactive decay as an energy source. There are actually two types of solar power plants, one that heats water by focusing solar energy, and another that is independent of water in the cycle due to use of photovoltaic materials.
The most common type of power plant is the thermal plant, which burns fuel to boil water. Most of these rely on fossil fuels to act as the combustible material, though alternatives are being made that are capable of using biofuels and biomass to provide the heat energy. One alternative in particular that has me excited for this idea is the idea that waste streams could be used to supply the fuel for such plants. If we can use waste to produce energy, it would solve more problems than just the meeting of fuel demands, since the waste is no longer being just dumped in a landfill. And since this line isn't limited to a particular type of fuel, it would be possible to use, say, the stalks of corn that could be used for food instead of the corn kernels themselves. There is already at least one company, Bluefire Ethanol, that has started work on this type of energy stream. They are even able to harvest methane from the decomposing elements in the waste to increase their energy capacity, while simultaneously decreasing the amount that gets released into the atmosphere. There are so many reasons to do this, and it seems so logically sensible, that I am actually rather surprised that there aren't already more such plants, since burning garbage has also been a traditional means of getting rid of it. There are also companies that take in bio-waste from farms, like manure, to burn for energy production, providing another way to take advantage of waste that can accumulate quickly to get something productive from it.
Another type of water-based energy production is geothermal energy, which uses water from underground that has been heated by the fact that it is deeper and under more pressure than at the surface. Due to the pressure conditions, water can often be found at temperatures much higher than the boiling temperature of water at sea level, meaning that no heating is required to generate the steam to turn the turbines. There seem to be a few types of this type of energy production, and from the looks of it, plants that use water that has already been heated inject the water back into the well it was taken from to make the process sustainable, instead of having an underground source of heated water run dry and make the plant useless.
Another popular alternative to these types of power production is wind power, which is perhaps the simplest of all these systems (barring complexities in turbine design) in that it requires nothing more than a good, windy spot to turn the power generator. While I can't say much as to the difficulty of establishing a wind farm (with the exception of the Cape Wind project I covered in a previous post), the simplicity of a pretty much independently operating system for energy generation has a nice appeal for me. No constant input of a dangerous, expensive, or limited resource- just the necessary mechanisms, and a good spot for them to work in.
There may be a few other types of power generation that have escaped my notice, these are the systems most common or likely to become common in the future. Some have distinct advantages over the others, and ultimately, the type of plant that gets installed at a location should be based on what type of resources are most abundantly available in the area- for example, geothermal is most common in the area of Yellowstone Park, due to the large magma chamber under the park that is also responsible for the numerous geysers and hot springs of the region. We have a number of better alternatives to move away from fossil fuel use in the generation of electricity, and when one is found that is well suited for a region, I hope that those who live in the area will try and make the switch as soon as possible.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The Cost (of Goods) after Sandy
Over the years, it seems that some people have continuously had some tendency to try and screw others over. It seems that in the wake of hurricane Sandy, a rash of price gouging has occurred on common necessities, gasoline, and temporary housing. For anyone who isn't particularly familiar with the term, price gouging is when prices are increased to a level that seems unreasonable or unfair. Typically the practice takes place after some sort of incident that affects supply or demand in a sudden, dramatic fashion occurs. Examples include supply disruptions after a bad harvest of a crop, and more recently, the aftermath of hurricane Sandy in New York as people try to find supplies and places to stay while the aftermath of the storm is dealt with. While I wonder what kind of person it takes to do something like this, that is neither here nor there in the issue. What is a fact, though, is that this practice is genuinely illegal: "under New York state law, retailers were not allowed to charge 'unconscionably excessive prices' for goods required for personal, family or household purposes when there was an abnormal disruption of the market." So, anyone who gets caught trying to take advantage of the disaster to make an extra buck is liable. And while an increase in price isn't necessarily illegal in a situation such as this (it seems that "Vendors may defend higher prices if they can show an increased cost of obtaining goods from wholesalers or in delivering services, making prosecutions difficult."), when a box of matches costs $10 and a loaf of bread $7, up more than double the costs before the storm, it is almost blatantly obvious that sellers of such items are trying to make a quick buck off of the misfortune of others. Generators have also been subject to price gouging, and apparently hotels have increased the rates on their rooms as people scramble to keep warm, dry, and off the streets.
The slew of "unconscionable" price increases has already been receiving plenty of flak, and officials are already working on the problem. "'Our office has zero tolerance for price gouging,' [NY State Attorney General] Schneiderman said. 'We are actively investigating hundreds of complaints we've received from consumers of businesses preying on victims.'" In fact, the Attorney General's office actually warned vendors against price gouging before the storm struck, on Oct. 29. Apparently some decided not to listen. However, the fact that people have been reporting the incidents is the only way to really track the occurrence , so while there have been over 500 reports of price gouging in Sandy's wake, these may be concentrated with particular vendors, while some haven't been reported at all.
Ground level consumers aren't the only ones being taken advantage of, either. In this interesting Reddit post I encountered, an individual posted a letter that he had sent to FEMA regarding a shipping company that someone he knew worked at, that contracts truckers and makes its money by charging more than what the trucker is getting paid and taking the difference. The dispatcher receives a percentage of this difference which led to this:
"The reason I am contacting you is because one of my friends co-workers was bragging about his paycheck due to his account with FEMA, it seems he made $76,000 in two weeks dispatching trucks with food and post-disaster supplies for Hurricane Sandy victims from a very short distance away. The truckers were paid $200 a shipment, and since you are a "government" institution he felt he could quote you anything he wanted and you would pay... and you did. So...something that should have cost you maybe $10,000 ended up being well over $300,000... and I'm sure pressed your budget for the amount of help that could be sent (which I take personally as a former New Yorker with many friends living in all boroughs) [sic]." While this is a different kind of price gouging, I'm sure that there are many besides the poster who sent this letter who feel that what this dispatcher was doing was fundamentally wrong, even if there wasn't a disaster that was initiating the incident.
But even though there will always be those who take advantage of the misfortune of others, there will also be those who do what they can to try and help. So, ultimately, there will always be a mix of people with different scruples, the one thing we can hope for is that the majority of them without won't be the ones in power, taking advantage of others.
The slew of "unconscionable" price increases has already been receiving plenty of flak, and officials are already working on the problem. "'Our office has zero tolerance for price gouging,' [NY State Attorney General] Schneiderman said. 'We are actively investigating hundreds of complaints we've received from consumers of businesses preying on victims.'" In fact, the Attorney General's office actually warned vendors against price gouging before the storm struck, on Oct. 29. Apparently some decided not to listen. However, the fact that people have been reporting the incidents is the only way to really track the occurrence , so while there have been over 500 reports of price gouging in Sandy's wake, these may be concentrated with particular vendors, while some haven't been reported at all.
Ground level consumers aren't the only ones being taken advantage of, either. In this interesting Reddit post I encountered, an individual posted a letter that he had sent to FEMA regarding a shipping company that someone he knew worked at, that contracts truckers and makes its money by charging more than what the trucker is getting paid and taking the difference. The dispatcher receives a percentage of this difference which led to this:
"The reason I am contacting you is because one of my friends co-workers was bragging about his paycheck due to his account with FEMA, it seems he made $76,000 in two weeks dispatching trucks with food and post-disaster supplies for Hurricane Sandy victims from a very short distance away. The truckers were paid $200 a shipment, and since you are a "government" institution he felt he could quote you anything he wanted and you would pay... and you did. So...something that should have cost you maybe $10,000 ended up being well over $300,000... and I'm sure pressed your budget for the amount of help that could be sent (which I take personally as a former New Yorker with many friends living in all boroughs) [sic]." While this is a different kind of price gouging, I'm sure that there are many besides the poster who sent this letter who feel that what this dispatcher was doing was fundamentally wrong, even if there wasn't a disaster that was initiating the incident.
But even though there will always be those who take advantage of the misfortune of others, there will also be those who do what they can to try and help. So, ultimately, there will always be a mix of people with different scruples, the one thing we can hope for is that the majority of them without won't be the ones in power, taking advantage of others.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Jamming Cultural Frequencies
Culture jamming is an interesting phenomenon. It's a way to challenge how the public views the world as it is, a way to challenge the status quo. By definition, it is "a tactic used by many anti-consumerist social movement to disrupt or subvert media culture and its mainstream cultural institutions, including corporate advertising." I am inclined to believe that this definition could be easily broadened to include hoaxes that are intended to challenge cultural norms and trends. The term is somewhat derived from the term "radio jamming," which is when radio frequencies get taken over or scrambled by a third party between the broadcaster and the recipient. The difference is that culture jamming is typically a way to share a message, usually counter to the original message in a way that the consumer might not be able to tell the difference. It most often works through the same mediums as the messages they are trying to challenge, though often in a way that doesn't get noticed at first.
An organized example of this is the Billboard Liberation Front. While some of their "improvements" to signs are small enough that they might not get noticed at first, they significantly change the message that a sign is trying to convey. An interesting example I noticed on their front page was a neon sign advertising Camel cigarettes having certain sections blacked out and a modified portion to make it read "Am I Dead Yet?" Being organized online, and with their members largely secret, they work in a guerrilla fashion to improve the advertisements of their "clients" in such a way that they "unlock" messages that would have otherwise been "hidden" in the advertisements. To look at it a bit more objectively, they seem to have a strange sort of tongue-in-cheek humor in their approach to changing advertisements, with a manifesto that tells of the Advertisement as a ubiquitous idea permeating our consciousness to a subliminal level, and affecting out views of the world and ourselves... okay, that's actually the case, but they say it in an almost awe-inspired way. The last part of the manifesto states: "Each time you change the Advertising message in your own mind, whether you climb up onto the board and physically change the original copy and graphics or not, each time you improve the message, you enter in to the High Priesthood of Advertisers." They don't necessarily say that one has to physically change the sign- just that it is best to view it in such a way that you are capable of seeing through the veil, and not being suckered in by what they are trying to say, and to not view it with the eyes of a "consumer," but as an independent mind capable of using it to share their thoughts, or spread a message that is typically counter to the initial Advertisement.
Media hoaxes are also an example of culture jamming, though they may often focus on how people act and work to try and change how people are approaching their lives and interpersonal reactions, as compared to focusing on the media outlets and corporations. A legacy example of this type of culture jamming is a man by the name of Alan Abel. In 1958, he started with a campaign called "The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals," or S.I.N.A. for short. He successfully managed to keep the hoax going for 5 years before Time magazine blew the whistle on the campaign, which was run on about $20 a week, with a fake office that was a broom closet with a plaque on the door. The hoax itself was a commentary on censorship, poking fun at the type of people who would ban and burn books and records for "moral" reasons. The campaign was run very successfully with a small group and most of its public appearances being enabled by the news media, which had various "members" of the group come on to talk about the campaign, as well as interviews with the "president," G. Clifford Prout (really a comedian friend of Abel's named Buck Henry) on major news outlets. The hoax captured the public in a way that is hard to describe- people actually joined newsletters and sent in donations (One woman from Santa Barbara, CA actually sent in a check for $40,000!) to support the "cause." The money that people sent in was returned, but anyone who didn't see the initial outing of the hoax was continuously duped for a few more years through the newsletter. It was a very elaborate prank at times, too: there was apparently a song for the group, that was performed a capella on a show, as well as a coat of arms. While it doesn't seem that the public reaction to the reveal of the hoax was ever really recorded, I would hope that those who learned about it after supporting it had a moment where they really thought about what it was they had been trying to support, instead of simply becoming angry. But then again, the type of people who would send in money for such a cause probably aren't open-minded enough to have a reaction besides anger. Abel has continued to pull various media pranks over the last 50 years or so, with the goal of giving people a swift "kick in the intellect." His work has probably had mixed results over the years, but there is one thing that is certain: the man is dedicated, and very good at this particular form of social commentary.
So, whether it be by hijacking the advertisements of the corporations, or trying to make people think at least a little bit harder about the way that society treats certain actions, or about how information is being presented to them, there are people out there who are working to subvert the monopoly on the public mind that various powers-that-be have on the populace. And I am inclined to say: best of luck. People need all the help they can get on that front.
Extra Links:
http://www.adbusters.org/
Hoax saying the Alberta tar sands would be a setting for Mordor in "The Hobbit"
http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm Excellent article, with even more links
Recounting of an interesting request for customized Nikes
An interview with Alan Abel
http://theyesmen.org/ A particularly famous Culture Jamming group
An organized example of this is the Billboard Liberation Front. While some of their "improvements" to signs are small enough that they might not get noticed at first, they significantly change the message that a sign is trying to convey. An interesting example I noticed on their front page was a neon sign advertising Camel cigarettes having certain sections blacked out and a modified portion to make it read "Am I Dead Yet?" Being organized online, and with their members largely secret, they work in a guerrilla fashion to improve the advertisements of their "clients" in such a way that they "unlock" messages that would have otherwise been "hidden" in the advertisements. To look at it a bit more objectively, they seem to have a strange sort of tongue-in-cheek humor in their approach to changing advertisements, with a manifesto that tells of the Advertisement as a ubiquitous idea permeating our consciousness to a subliminal level, and affecting out views of the world and ourselves... okay, that's actually the case, but they say it in an almost awe-inspired way. The last part of the manifesto states: "Each time you change the Advertising message in your own mind, whether you climb up onto the board and physically change the original copy and graphics or not, each time you improve the message, you enter in to the High Priesthood of Advertisers." They don't necessarily say that one has to physically change the sign- just that it is best to view it in such a way that you are capable of seeing through the veil, and not being suckered in by what they are trying to say, and to not view it with the eyes of a "consumer," but as an independent mind capable of using it to share their thoughts, or spread a message that is typically counter to the initial Advertisement.
Media hoaxes are also an example of culture jamming, though they may often focus on how people act and work to try and change how people are approaching their lives and interpersonal reactions, as compared to focusing on the media outlets and corporations. A legacy example of this type of culture jamming is a man by the name of Alan Abel. In 1958, he started with a campaign called "The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals," or S.I.N.A. for short. He successfully managed to keep the hoax going for 5 years before Time magazine blew the whistle on the campaign, which was run on about $20 a week, with a fake office that was a broom closet with a plaque on the door. The hoax itself was a commentary on censorship, poking fun at the type of people who would ban and burn books and records for "moral" reasons. The campaign was run very successfully with a small group and most of its public appearances being enabled by the news media, which had various "members" of the group come on to talk about the campaign, as well as interviews with the "president," G. Clifford Prout (really a comedian friend of Abel's named Buck Henry) on major news outlets. The hoax captured the public in a way that is hard to describe- people actually joined newsletters and sent in donations (One woman from Santa Barbara, CA actually sent in a check for $40,000!) to support the "cause." The money that people sent in was returned, but anyone who didn't see the initial outing of the hoax was continuously duped for a few more years through the newsletter. It was a very elaborate prank at times, too: there was apparently a song for the group, that was performed a capella on a show, as well as a coat of arms. While it doesn't seem that the public reaction to the reveal of the hoax was ever really recorded, I would hope that those who learned about it after supporting it had a moment where they really thought about what it was they had been trying to support, instead of simply becoming angry. But then again, the type of people who would send in money for such a cause probably aren't open-minded enough to have a reaction besides anger. Abel has continued to pull various media pranks over the last 50 years or so, with the goal of giving people a swift "kick in the intellect." His work has probably had mixed results over the years, but there is one thing that is certain: the man is dedicated, and very good at this particular form of social commentary.
So, whether it be by hijacking the advertisements of the corporations, or trying to make people think at least a little bit harder about the way that society treats certain actions, or about how information is being presented to them, there are people out there who are working to subvert the monopoly on the public mind that various powers-that-be have on the populace. And I am inclined to say: best of luck. People need all the help they can get on that front.
Extra Links:
http://www.adbusters.org/
Hoax saying the Alberta tar sands would be a setting for Mordor in "The Hobbit"
http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm Excellent article, with even more links
Recounting of an interesting request for customized Nikes
An interview with Alan Abel
http://theyesmen.org/ A particularly famous Culture Jamming group
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Pebble Project: Trying to Make a Molehill Out of a Mountain
In Alaska, a project that could determine the fate of a large region in the south is currently being hotly debated. Called the Pebble Project (for the Pebble Partnership that owns the mineral rights) it is a mining project that is still waiting for approval, since the mineral rights were first obtained in 2001 by the initial member of the Pebble Partnership (Klare, Ch.5). The claim, located near Iliamna Lake, is possibly the biggest gold mine and the second largest copper mine in the US, as well as containing respectable amounts of silver and the rare element molybdenum. However, it is located within a very sensitive ecologic region, with major watersheds and hundreds of rivers and streams moving through the area. But the concern about these waters being contaminated is more specific than the usual concern about downstream contamination and ecological poisoning: the region is home to the most prolific salmon fishery in the world. These fish are a keystone species for the region, being the staple diet for many creatures, as well as many Native American communities that rely on them to provide a large portion of their food supply each year. They are also important commercially- 12,500 people are employed in the $100 million per year industry. If toxins from the mining project were to enter this system, even if the fish didn't experience mass die-offs, the toxins would become concentrated in their bodies and make them unsuitable for safe consumption, still managing to ruin the lives and livelihoods of all who depend on them. With these considerations in mind, the resistance to the plan becomes easier to understand, despite the payload that would be taken from the ground and the jobs that it would generate.
The controversies aren't limited to just the nature of the project either. Currently, an independent panel set up by the Keystone Group is supposed to be partaking of a review of data gathered by the company that wants to do the work, but already two members have left the review panel. One left voluntarily, due to personal problems with the process as it was taking place, and the fact that they were supposed to perform the review based on conditions in the region, and without a proposed plan for them to consider in the process. The other was "excused" from the panel, due to a paper he had helped co-write on the fisheries and possible impacts of mining on the region, and this made it seem that he would be biased during the review process. While the second reviewer, Daniel Schindler, believes that both sides of the debate need to be analyzed for scientific accuracy, his contributions to research about the ecosystems of the research were viewed as "acts of advocacy." While it may be easy to see how the connection to be made, the fact that he holds both sides of the debate to standards of scientific accuracy should be enough to make him a valuable member of a review panel, and the fact that he has done research on the matter should support that claim, instead of branding him as being a sympathizer with one side. The one other matter for consideration is that if a plan for the mine had been submitted along with the data for the region (supplied by the Pebble Project) as the first reviewer would have liked, he may have been able to offer specific input based on his previous research.
Even with the possible benefits that the mine could offer to the region, there are many who believe that the impact would be too great to be offset by the benefits, especially since they will last much longer than the jobs that will be supposedly created by its activity. Many are worried not only what will happen to the communities that already populate the region, but about the generations who will come after, and be the ones who have to suffer most for any mistakes made at this time. As was already mentioned, most people who live in the region rely on the land for their food, since getting food delivered is too expensive for the local economies to handle, and many have learned the skills to do so effectively enough that they can fish, hunt, and gather resources to sustain themselves and their families. There are some who do it due to circumstances, and others who do it by choice, and probably some who do it with a mix of the two stimuli. But if a large industrial project were to be inserted into the environment, there would no longer be an ecosystem capable of sustaining these enterprising spirits, as game would most likely be frightened off, and the land would be changed so that various plants would be harder to find. And if the mine isn't able to live up to its promise to maintain the project in such a way that no contamination of the surroundings occurs, a promise that has never come to fruition by any mine that has similar conditions to the Pebble Project (even with claims that technology has advanced enough for them to do so), the fish and streams will be forever changed in such a way that the local culture and ecosystem will be irreparably damaged.
Perhaps the only way for this particular project to be done safely would be to develop a completely novel method of resource extraction that takes away the need for tailing ponds. Perhaps either tailings could be treated and recycled as the process proceeds, simultaneously reducing the quantity of material needed and the risk that comes with having ponds of toxic waste sitting out in the open. Or another method of removing the target resource from the ores can be developed, that wouldn't rely as much on chemical extraction. Whatever the case, I don't think that the mining should be done as most projects are done. The people and ecosystem of the region should not be put at such high risk to satisfy the greed of a world that has managed to squander a good portion of its resources when they could have found ways to reclaim them for reuse, and thus reduce the need to find ever increasing quantities of raw materials. While it may not be easy, the people of the region have a means to be self-sustainable, which in many ways is a greater boon to their existence than having a high per capita income. Those from outside shouldn't be allowed to take that from them for the sake of temporary (and to some degree, unneeded) boosts in production.
The controversies aren't limited to just the nature of the project either. Currently, an independent panel set up by the Keystone Group is supposed to be partaking of a review of data gathered by the company that wants to do the work, but already two members have left the review panel. One left voluntarily, due to personal problems with the process as it was taking place, and the fact that they were supposed to perform the review based on conditions in the region, and without a proposed plan for them to consider in the process. The other was "excused" from the panel, due to a paper he had helped co-write on the fisheries and possible impacts of mining on the region, and this made it seem that he would be biased during the review process. While the second reviewer, Daniel Schindler, believes that both sides of the debate need to be analyzed for scientific accuracy, his contributions to research about the ecosystems of the research were viewed as "acts of advocacy." While it may be easy to see how the connection to be made, the fact that he holds both sides of the debate to standards of scientific accuracy should be enough to make him a valuable member of a review panel, and the fact that he has done research on the matter should support that claim, instead of branding him as being a sympathizer with one side. The one other matter for consideration is that if a plan for the mine had been submitted along with the data for the region (supplied by the Pebble Project) as the first reviewer would have liked, he may have been able to offer specific input based on his previous research.
Even with the possible benefits that the mine could offer to the region, there are many who believe that the impact would be too great to be offset by the benefits, especially since they will last much longer than the jobs that will be supposedly created by its activity. Many are worried not only what will happen to the communities that already populate the region, but about the generations who will come after, and be the ones who have to suffer most for any mistakes made at this time. As was already mentioned, most people who live in the region rely on the land for their food, since getting food delivered is too expensive for the local economies to handle, and many have learned the skills to do so effectively enough that they can fish, hunt, and gather resources to sustain themselves and their families. There are some who do it due to circumstances, and others who do it by choice, and probably some who do it with a mix of the two stimuli. But if a large industrial project were to be inserted into the environment, there would no longer be an ecosystem capable of sustaining these enterprising spirits, as game would most likely be frightened off, and the land would be changed so that various plants would be harder to find. And if the mine isn't able to live up to its promise to maintain the project in such a way that no contamination of the surroundings occurs, a promise that has never come to fruition by any mine that has similar conditions to the Pebble Project (even with claims that technology has advanced enough for them to do so), the fish and streams will be forever changed in such a way that the local culture and ecosystem will be irreparably damaged.
Perhaps the only way for this particular project to be done safely would be to develop a completely novel method of resource extraction that takes away the need for tailing ponds. Perhaps either tailings could be treated and recycled as the process proceeds, simultaneously reducing the quantity of material needed and the risk that comes with having ponds of toxic waste sitting out in the open. Or another method of removing the target resource from the ores can be developed, that wouldn't rely as much on chemical extraction. Whatever the case, I don't think that the mining should be done as most projects are done. The people and ecosystem of the region should not be put at such high risk to satisfy the greed of a world that has managed to squander a good portion of its resources when they could have found ways to reclaim them for reuse, and thus reduce the need to find ever increasing quantities of raw materials. While it may not be easy, the people of the region have a means to be self-sustainable, which in many ways is a greater boon to their existence than having a high per capita income. Those from outside shouldn't be allowed to take that from them for the sake of temporary (and to some degree, unneeded) boosts in production.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
A (very) Short Look at the Evolution of Rockets
Rockets are pretty awesome. Whether it be the little bottle rockets that can be set off on various holidays, or the super-massive Saturn V rocket that was able to bring the US astronauts to the moon in 1969, they are capable of massive outputs of energy in short time spans. However, the main interest that most governments have in rockets isn't typically science or impressive light shows- it is the capability that they have as weapons. Although, it is perhaps more accurate to say that the interest lies in their capability as weapon delivery systems.
The earliest known use of rockets in warfare is the conflict between Mysore (a region of India) and Britain during the mid-18th century. While there is the strong likelihood that the Chinese, having made most of the earliest known rockets and explosives, found a way to use a rocket in warfare in the time between the early 9th century when they discovered black powder and mid-18th, this was the first incident that produced a significant reaction in the western world. After encountering hammered iron rockets with sharp implements being launched at their forces during various battles, the British took some of the rockets back to England to reverse engineer, and then improve with a "vigorous research and development programme" for use in modern warfare. They improved the range to make them capable of greater distance than most cannons in use at the time, besides being lighter and easier to aim and maneuver. While accuracy took longer to catch up, as more design modifications were made, most early rockets had more of an impact on morale against enemies unfamiliar with the strange new projectiles. But sometime after the Battle of Waterloo, the rocket fell out of use again as a military interest.
In 1926, Dr. Robert Goddard of Massachusetts performed the successful launch of the first liquid propellant rocket, an invention of his own design. Much of his research was critical in the development of space-capable rockets, but at the time, that was still a distant dream; especially since WWII was beginning. Before the time came when such information would have been kept from reaching Germany, he gained a following there for his work, which was probably used in the development of the V-2 rocket, the "the only operational ballistic missile used during World War II." These rockets were more advanced than most of Goddard's designs, being made for significant range, accuracy, and delivery of a large explosive payload, capable of "leveling a city block." They were actually guided missiles, which is fascinating due to the fact that the guidance system was mechanical in nature, instead of computerized. The guidance system was mostly composed of gyroscopes connected to the axial rudders, as well as the fuel system to control how and when burn was shut off on the final approach to a target. The fuel used was ethanol and liquid oxygen, which were mixed as the rocket flew its course. This generated the work needed to lift the rocket (initially weighing around 28,000 lbs) to an altitude of 52-60 miles in less than 2 minutes. After that, it fell at least somewhere near the intended target- often not close enough to do damage to military targets, but that wasn't really the point. It was part of a series of "Vengeance Weapons" that were meant to damage enemy morale and damage civilian targets. When the war was over, various key members of the development team were captured, and were put to work for Britain, Russia, and the United States.
One of the key individuals captured was Wernher von Braun. He was the driving force behind the development of the majority of rockets developed in Germany during the period of the war. His interest in rockets began as a young boy, with an interest in rocket cars and a treatise on the concept of using rockets to reach space. Years later, his V-2 rocket succeeded in getting most of the way there, before turning back down and fulfilling its destructive purpose. While he was a member of the Nazi party, and even a certain political faction of the SS, his attitude toward the party and what they did (both in general and with his work) is largely unknown, except from his own accounts. Regardless, he was an individual of enough importance that agents carrying out Operation Paperclip scrubbed his record of his Nazi Affiliation so that they could bring him back to the US. He then went on to modify the V-2 rocket design to create the Redstone rocket series for the United States to use as a nuclear payload delivery system, as well as other models that were used for more scientific purposes, like testing high altitude atmospheric conditions. While he would also produce many of the military rocket systems used during the cold war, one of his greatest achievements was the Saturn V rocket system. The largest rocket made to date, it was a liquid propelled rocket that served to send man all the way to the moon. It was truly a marvel, especially since the incredibly complex design of the engine never failed: "Perhaps most amazing of all facts about the Saturn V is that each of its 12 main Saturn V launches was successful. Two of them suffered in-flight problems including engine cutoffs, but the on-board computers were able to compensate, resulting in a successful mission." Say what you will about the man, and about the purposes behind the space program, but to make such a complex design work so reliably over a number of test flights is truly a feat that is undeniably impressive.
Over the years, rocket technology has advanced to the point that we now have guided missiles capable of hitting a target with pinpoint accuracy from miles away. But we also still have the toys and display rockets that were initially made. While all need to be handled with caution and care, their spectacle and appeal hasn't worn off- though what kind of appeal has changed with their evolution. In that regard, rockets are kind of like wild animals: fascinating, and dangerous to handle. To a certain degree, I can't picture the world without rockets, so maybe, despite what most large ones are used for these days, the world is still better off with their existence. If nothing else, they have supplied some amazing and surprisingly profound imagery.
The earliest known use of rockets in warfare is the conflict between Mysore (a region of India) and Britain during the mid-18th century. While there is the strong likelihood that the Chinese, having made most of the earliest known rockets and explosives, found a way to use a rocket in warfare in the time between the early 9th century when they discovered black powder and mid-18th, this was the first incident that produced a significant reaction in the western world. After encountering hammered iron rockets with sharp implements being launched at their forces during various battles, the British took some of the rockets back to England to reverse engineer, and then improve with a "vigorous research and development programme" for use in modern warfare. They improved the range to make them capable of greater distance than most cannons in use at the time, besides being lighter and easier to aim and maneuver. While accuracy took longer to catch up, as more design modifications were made, most early rockets had more of an impact on morale against enemies unfamiliar with the strange new projectiles. But sometime after the Battle of Waterloo, the rocket fell out of use again as a military interest.
In 1926, Dr. Robert Goddard of Massachusetts performed the successful launch of the first liquid propellant rocket, an invention of his own design. Much of his research was critical in the development of space-capable rockets, but at the time, that was still a distant dream; especially since WWII was beginning. Before the time came when such information would have been kept from reaching Germany, he gained a following there for his work, which was probably used in the development of the V-2 rocket, the "the only operational ballistic missile used during World War II." These rockets were more advanced than most of Goddard's designs, being made for significant range, accuracy, and delivery of a large explosive payload, capable of "leveling a city block." They were actually guided missiles, which is fascinating due to the fact that the guidance system was mechanical in nature, instead of computerized. The guidance system was mostly composed of gyroscopes connected to the axial rudders, as well as the fuel system to control how and when burn was shut off on the final approach to a target. The fuel used was ethanol and liquid oxygen, which were mixed as the rocket flew its course. This generated the work needed to lift the rocket (initially weighing around 28,000 lbs) to an altitude of 52-60 miles in less than 2 minutes. After that, it fell at least somewhere near the intended target- often not close enough to do damage to military targets, but that wasn't really the point. It was part of a series of "Vengeance Weapons" that were meant to damage enemy morale and damage civilian targets. When the war was over, various key members of the development team were captured, and were put to work for Britain, Russia, and the United States.
One of the key individuals captured was Wernher von Braun. He was the driving force behind the development of the majority of rockets developed in Germany during the period of the war. His interest in rockets began as a young boy, with an interest in rocket cars and a treatise on the concept of using rockets to reach space. Years later, his V-2 rocket succeeded in getting most of the way there, before turning back down and fulfilling its destructive purpose. While he was a member of the Nazi party, and even a certain political faction of the SS, his attitude toward the party and what they did (both in general and with his work) is largely unknown, except from his own accounts. Regardless, he was an individual of enough importance that agents carrying out Operation Paperclip scrubbed his record of his Nazi Affiliation so that they could bring him back to the US. He then went on to modify the V-2 rocket design to create the Redstone rocket series for the United States to use as a nuclear payload delivery system, as well as other models that were used for more scientific purposes, like testing high altitude atmospheric conditions. While he would also produce many of the military rocket systems used during the cold war, one of his greatest achievements was the Saturn V rocket system. The largest rocket made to date, it was a liquid propelled rocket that served to send man all the way to the moon. It was truly a marvel, especially since the incredibly complex design of the engine never failed: "Perhaps most amazing of all facts about the Saturn V is that each of its 12 main Saturn V launches was successful. Two of them suffered in-flight problems including engine cutoffs, but the on-board computers were able to compensate, resulting in a successful mission." Say what you will about the man, and about the purposes behind the space program, but to make such a complex design work so reliably over a number of test flights is truly a feat that is undeniably impressive.
Over the years, rocket technology has advanced to the point that we now have guided missiles capable of hitting a target with pinpoint accuracy from miles away. But we also still have the toys and display rockets that were initially made. While all need to be handled with caution and care, their spectacle and appeal hasn't worn off- though what kind of appeal has changed with their evolution. In that regard, rockets are kind of like wild animals: fascinating, and dangerous to handle. To a certain degree, I can't picture the world without rockets, so maybe, despite what most large ones are used for these days, the world is still better off with their existence. If nothing else, they have supplied some amazing and surprisingly profound imagery.
Monday, October 22, 2012
What is the Alaskan Permanent Fund Corporation?
I have known for some time that Alaskan residents are eligible to receive a check every year that they live there, somehow connected to the oil production of the state. After reading a bit about how the development of oil in Alaska began and developed, I somehow had the topic pop up and tweak my interest enough that I decided to do some more research into the topic.
First and foremost, the checks are dividends, payed out by the semi-independent Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. The corporation was established to manage the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was established by a state vote in 1976 in response to the oil boom that had started on the North Slope region a few years prior. Part of the reason that the Fund is not completely state owned is that "Many citizens ...believed that the legislature too quickly and too inefficiently spent the $900 million bonus the state got in 1969 after leasing out the oil fields. This belief spurred a desire to put some oil revenues out of direct political control." So, with the money from the oil being put into the fund, some was being re-invested into various assets with safe returns, while a majority is "split between inflation-proofing, operating expenses, and the annual Permanent Fund Dividend." This dividend is not a constant value: it changes every year based on the current status of the Fund and how many people there are to distribute it amongst. However, it is distributed to everyone- absolutely everyone- living in the state, making it truly equal rights entitlement. Parents do have the position to control the check of their children, but a responsible parent could save it for something like their college education when they get older. Since the total payout to a single person since the Fund began distributing the dividends in 1982 would amount to $34,243. 41, that amount would be perfectly capable of paying for a sizable portion of higher education.
Besides the money put into the permanent fund every year, the oil returns to the state have allowed Alaska to eliminate most state taxes (petroleum is only un-eliminated tax; federal taxes still take effect), while also expanding public services. Granted, Alaska has a grand total of about 700,000 people living there, and many of them in non-urban areas, reducing the financial strain of sustaining public services- though many living in rural areas depend on government aid for monetary income. Also, with much of Alaska being relatively undeveloped, it doesn't have to spend as much on roads and electrical grids. With these considerations, it becomes easier to see how the Fund is currently valued at about $42.5 billion, despite the increased spending and reduced tax revenue. All of it is money intended for the current and future residents of the state to some degree or another, as a safeguard against the day that the oil reserves are depleted. And that will be a day of significant changes in the region, considering that the oil and gas industry in the region is both directly and indirectly connected to the employment of about a third of the state's work force.
The impact that the dividend has on the economy is varied. Some use it to settle finances, others use it as an opportunity to get something nice with money that isn't part of their standard budget. In some ways, it's similar to tax returns, except everyone gets the same amount. While I would debate calling it a "basic income guarantee," since it is a single payment once a year, it can make a difference in a local economy, especially if the average lifestyle is low- income subsistence living. However, the average Alaskan views it less as a sudden windfall of free money, and more like a paycheck after so many years. With the recent decrease in the value of the dividend, most will need to put more consideration into what they do with the money, especially if they intend to have it help them through the winter. The trend has been on the horizon, and with increased costs of living from an already expensive base cost (most supplies have to be shipped into the state, and gas is $6 a gallon there), the money may be better used by some in taking time away from the region during the harsh winter months.
Over the years, the dividend payouts, despite their regularly changing amounts, have played a role in the economy of the region. There has been some research done before into the role it plays in the economic landscape of the region, and while certain effects and personal impacts are noticeable, especially in communities that don't typically trade with a money economy, the effect gets washed out in regions that are more urbanized, and have concentrated populations. Although, some professions have had the dividend become a notable percentage of their income, meaning that it does provide a boon for the average worker. Meanwhile, sales outlets often capitalize on the dividend payout by holding sales, especially since the payouts come at the early start of the holiday shopping season. So, while the effect is mixed, that is probably for the best. If everyone did the same thing with the money, the economy of the region would probably be worse off.
So, while the source of the money is subject to some apprehension by some, the beneficial effect it has had in the far northern state is not. Even though the effect is mixed, and more felt by some than others, it has provided a boost to the region that has helped keep Alaska alive. It is only too bad that the rest of the country is mostly going into debt, instead of being able to generate enough surplus to enact a similar program with some other main resource. Perhaps if it had happened long ago in other states, they would have been able to reduce their modern day debt, though probably not to the extent that Alaska has managed. Oh well. No sense dwelling on "what ifs." The dividend provides an interesting economic environment in the state, and perhaps they will provide a template for something that will come later.
First and foremost, the checks are dividends, payed out by the semi-independent Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. The corporation was established to manage the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was established by a state vote in 1976 in response to the oil boom that had started on the North Slope region a few years prior. Part of the reason that the Fund is not completely state owned is that "Many citizens ...believed that the legislature too quickly and too inefficiently spent the $900 million bonus the state got in 1969 after leasing out the oil fields. This belief spurred a desire to put some oil revenues out of direct political control." So, with the money from the oil being put into the fund, some was being re-invested into various assets with safe returns, while a majority is "split between inflation-proofing, operating expenses, and the annual Permanent Fund Dividend." This dividend is not a constant value: it changes every year based on the current status of the Fund and how many people there are to distribute it amongst. However, it is distributed to everyone- absolutely everyone- living in the state, making it truly equal rights entitlement. Parents do have the position to control the check of their children, but a responsible parent could save it for something like their college education when they get older. Since the total payout to a single person since the Fund began distributing the dividends in 1982 would amount to $34,243. 41, that amount would be perfectly capable of paying for a sizable portion of higher education.
Besides the money put into the permanent fund every year, the oil returns to the state have allowed Alaska to eliminate most state taxes (petroleum is only un-eliminated tax; federal taxes still take effect), while also expanding public services. Granted, Alaska has a grand total of about 700,000 people living there, and many of them in non-urban areas, reducing the financial strain of sustaining public services- though many living in rural areas depend on government aid for monetary income. Also, with much of Alaska being relatively undeveloped, it doesn't have to spend as much on roads and electrical grids. With these considerations, it becomes easier to see how the Fund is currently valued at about $42.5 billion, despite the increased spending and reduced tax revenue. All of it is money intended for the current and future residents of the state to some degree or another, as a safeguard against the day that the oil reserves are depleted. And that will be a day of significant changes in the region, considering that the oil and gas industry in the region is both directly and indirectly connected to the employment of about a third of the state's work force.
The impact that the dividend has on the economy is varied. Some use it to settle finances, others use it as an opportunity to get something nice with money that isn't part of their standard budget. In some ways, it's similar to tax returns, except everyone gets the same amount. While I would debate calling it a "basic income guarantee," since it is a single payment once a year, it can make a difference in a local economy, especially if the average lifestyle is low- income subsistence living. However, the average Alaskan views it less as a sudden windfall of free money, and more like a paycheck after so many years. With the recent decrease in the value of the dividend, most will need to put more consideration into what they do with the money, especially if they intend to have it help them through the winter. The trend has been on the horizon, and with increased costs of living from an already expensive base cost (most supplies have to be shipped into the state, and gas is $6 a gallon there), the money may be better used by some in taking time away from the region during the harsh winter months.
Over the years, the dividend payouts, despite their regularly changing amounts, have played a role in the economy of the region. There has been some research done before into the role it plays in the economic landscape of the region, and while certain effects and personal impacts are noticeable, especially in communities that don't typically trade with a money economy, the effect gets washed out in regions that are more urbanized, and have concentrated populations. Although, some professions have had the dividend become a notable percentage of their income, meaning that it does provide a boon for the average worker. Meanwhile, sales outlets often capitalize on the dividend payout by holding sales, especially since the payouts come at the early start of the holiday shopping season. So, while the effect is mixed, that is probably for the best. If everyone did the same thing with the money, the economy of the region would probably be worse off.
So, while the source of the money is subject to some apprehension by some, the beneficial effect it has had in the far northern state is not. Even though the effect is mixed, and more felt by some than others, it has provided a boost to the region that has helped keep Alaska alive. It is only too bad that the rest of the country is mostly going into debt, instead of being able to generate enough surplus to enact a similar program with some other main resource. Perhaps if it had happened long ago in other states, they would have been able to reduce their modern day debt, though probably not to the extent that Alaska has managed. Oh well. No sense dwelling on "what ifs." The dividend provides an interesting economic environment in the state, and perhaps they will provide a template for something that will come later.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Fight the Power!... But First, Think Enough to See It's Actions
At the beginning of this week, our class was discussing regulations and the intertwining of government and business that has occurred over time, as well as the process of conditioning and legitimization that goes along with it. The process to keep the powerful in power, to make the masses more docile in the hopes that they won't question anything, has become easier for them through the decades, partially through kids being taught from a young age, or indirectly through indoctrinated parents, and with the evolution of media. Though subliminal messaging can be debated in the form that is typically displayed in science fiction, it is definitely a real thing, with certain morals and messages being conveyed into the populace through advertising, movie and TV themes, and presentation of information in such a way that it is interpreted in a specific way if one doesn't pause long enough to thank about what is being presented. Hidden hypnotic messages aren't as effective as creating a way of life that the consumer wants to emulate for some reason or another. Indoctrination is easier when the subject is willingly converted... cue reference to religion, and let it pass to avoid a whole different tangent. Part of what makes it difficult is that sometimes, channels of resistance are displayed through the same mediums, meaning that if one isn't aware enough, a clever power can disguise their program as part of the opposition, while finding ways to try and either make the consumers of it either useless or converts. Certain types of greenwashing are examples of this, where environmentally destructive groups try to re-brand or make propaganda and try to convince people that they are actually helpful, or that the groups trying to oppose them are the bad guys in some way. Even if those exposed don't switch sides, people who fall for this tactic are prone to stopping activity due to feeling like they have become part of the problem instead of the solution. But problems like this aren't the greatest threat from oppressive powers.
Another point that was discussed was the size of the US penitentiary system, especially due to the ways that laws are designed to keep certain groups and subsets in prison disproportionately. I happened to watch an episode of The Daily Show that featured an interview (it's in two parts, if you want to watch the whole thing) with Eugene Jarecki that covered many of the same topics that were covered during the class discussion, though a bit more focused on the drug war (which he stated as having failed) and prison system. They covered how our prison system is the largest in the world, even exceeding China in number of prisoners. One of the parts I found fascinating was the fact that crack cocaine and powder cocaine, which are different forms of the SAME DRUG, are sentenced differently in the penal system- by a ratio of about 100-1 initially, only recently reduced to about 18-1. The reason? From a clear, outside perspective, completely arbitrary. However, the main difference between the two forms is the demographic of the consumers- poorer individuals (especially urban blacks) are associated with the cheaper "crack" form, while the more affluent are the ones prone to buying the powdered form. The different treatment of the issue is appalling. And then, while it might be a debatable point, the fact that prisons are so full due to a combination of certain incentives for cops to make arrests and a huge industry behind the prison system that makes its money due to the suffering and incarceration of others (though some do deserve it) seems like a sort of moral failing, though whether blame falls more on corporate greed or political favoritism is vague. Just because we need a penal system doesn't mean it has to be one of the biggest and most heavily supported systems in place. Sure there is crime, but that doesn't mean that we need to define more actions as criminal to expand how much we use it.
The system is not limited to services rendered, however. Most know about the way that big oil is so ingrained into politics, that promises of a green transition sound emptier every time. Also, the military-industrial complex, which creates a system where companies that produce arms and armaments to supply the armed forces. In fact, congress's role in the matter is to make most of the budget decisions for the military's purchases, and they apparently have a role in some of the purchases. Some members of congress are trying to push for the refurbishments of tanks that the Army doesn't even want, but this push isn't based on actual defense. It's based on money- either money given to the congressmen as bribes, the concern for jobs in the constituency for manufacturing employees, or the concern about future production capacity if the plant is shut down in the interim. It just goes one to show how the industrial interests are weighted too heavily on the scales of decision makers, even if the recipient of the product has little to no interest in obtaining it. The industry officials don't have the interests of their employees or even their clients at heart when it comes to their primary goal of making more money than they did last year. The other factors are secondary to this goal, more side-effects of their efforts. Individual congressmen and women probably have different views on the way that this situation has played out, but even those who disapprove are relatively silent on the matter.
In the end, the question remains: How will it all end? Will there be some sort of uprising, a resistance to being manipulated and controlled by those who don't have any interest in the general well-being of the land and people? Or will they one day have complete control over our lives and resources? I suppose there is also the third option of things hovering around the level they are at now, but I'm inclined to think that we are heading for some kind of breaking point, and however it turns out, the transition will not be pleasant.
Another point that was discussed was the size of the US penitentiary system, especially due to the ways that laws are designed to keep certain groups and subsets in prison disproportionately. I happened to watch an episode of The Daily Show that featured an interview (it's in two parts, if you want to watch the whole thing) with Eugene Jarecki that covered many of the same topics that were covered during the class discussion, though a bit more focused on the drug war (which he stated as having failed) and prison system. They covered how our prison system is the largest in the world, even exceeding China in number of prisoners. One of the parts I found fascinating was the fact that crack cocaine and powder cocaine, which are different forms of the SAME DRUG, are sentenced differently in the penal system- by a ratio of about 100-1 initially, only recently reduced to about 18-1. The reason? From a clear, outside perspective, completely arbitrary. However, the main difference between the two forms is the demographic of the consumers- poorer individuals (especially urban blacks) are associated with the cheaper "crack" form, while the more affluent are the ones prone to buying the powdered form. The different treatment of the issue is appalling. And then, while it might be a debatable point, the fact that prisons are so full due to a combination of certain incentives for cops to make arrests and a huge industry behind the prison system that makes its money due to the suffering and incarceration of others (though some do deserve it) seems like a sort of moral failing, though whether blame falls more on corporate greed or political favoritism is vague. Just because we need a penal system doesn't mean it has to be one of the biggest and most heavily supported systems in place. Sure there is crime, but that doesn't mean that we need to define more actions as criminal to expand how much we use it.
The system is not limited to services rendered, however. Most know about the way that big oil is so ingrained into politics, that promises of a green transition sound emptier every time. Also, the military-industrial complex, which creates a system where companies that produce arms and armaments to supply the armed forces. In fact, congress's role in the matter is to make most of the budget decisions for the military's purchases, and they apparently have a role in some of the purchases. Some members of congress are trying to push for the refurbishments of tanks that the Army doesn't even want, but this push isn't based on actual defense. It's based on money- either money given to the congressmen as bribes, the concern for jobs in the constituency for manufacturing employees, or the concern about future production capacity if the plant is shut down in the interim. It just goes one to show how the industrial interests are weighted too heavily on the scales of decision makers, even if the recipient of the product has little to no interest in obtaining it. The industry officials don't have the interests of their employees or even their clients at heart when it comes to their primary goal of making more money than they did last year. The other factors are secondary to this goal, more side-effects of their efforts. Individual congressmen and women probably have different views on the way that this situation has played out, but even those who disapprove are relatively silent on the matter.
In the end, the question remains: How will it all end? Will there be some sort of uprising, a resistance to being manipulated and controlled by those who don't have any interest in the general well-being of the land and people? Or will they one day have complete control over our lives and resources? I suppose there is also the third option of things hovering around the level they are at now, but I'm inclined to think that we are heading for some kind of breaking point, and however it turns out, the transition will not be pleasant.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The Sustained Damage to Nigeria
Nigeria has been turned into arguably one of the most oil-polluted regions in the world over the course of the 50 years it has been active as a oil-producing region. It has gotten so bad, that an "assessment, commissioned by the Nigerian government and funded by
Shell, concluded that restoration of the area could take up to 30 years,
cost $1 billion and become the largest cleanup operation in history." Considering the source of the study, since both of those parties have a vested interest in the oil industry of the country, this statement may need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, the damage is hard to deny, and the effects are being felt now perhaps more than ever.
Oil prospectors from foreign lands first struck oil deposits in Nigeria in 1956. Over the years, the region has been highly subjected to damage from the production and manufacture of oil; from spills, to illegal refineries that refine crude oil in a manner that releases large quantities of pollutants into the environment. The spills, according to a 2001 review, were as follows: "fifty percent (50%) of oil spills is due to corrosion [of transport pipes], twenty eight percent (28%) to sabotage and twenty one percent (21%) to oil production operations. One percent (1%) of oil spills is due to engineering drills, inability to effectively control oil wells, failure of machines, and inadequate care in loading and unloading oil vessels." The review also lists oil spills since 1976, with more than 100 spill incidents yearly (most spills in a year was 515 in 1994), and quantities of oil released into the environment exceeding 7,000 barrels a year (the highest quantity at the time of the listing was 489,294.75 barrels in a year). However, Shell asserts that the majority of spills are due to sabotage and theft. I am inclined to believe that they are simply stating that based on how much oil they are losing, not how much is known to have been released into the environment. Because, if you really think about it, someone who is sabotaging a pipe to steal oil is going to try and make sure they obtain most or all of the oil that they steal, not simply dump it or let it continue to leak after they are finished.
The illegal oil trade in Nigeria is highly volatile as well. The work is dangerous, with crude refineries for crude oil giving off toxins that can make the person working the still sick (and those exposed from releases as well), aside from being at risk of injured by an explosion of natural gas waste products. This practice is also showing very little sign of being halted; military personnel, which are supposed to be trying to prevent such activities, are easily bribed to let it slide. Meanwhile, Shell is eager to try and pin the majority of the spill damage on such activities, since they are by nature undocumented. But they so often change the numbers regarding production in the region that it becomes difficult to get a clear figure on the matter from the region at all. Their offshore spills can't be so easily pawned off, but they can easily blame inland incidents on the locals.
All of the pollution in the region is making things more difficult than ever before in the region. Fisheries and croplands are steadily being degraded to the point where food cannot be obtained from them. And while one would think that the government would use its power to make the oil companies take better preventative measures and a greater role in the repairs, government members get the majority of their money from the oil industry, and that is where most of the money in the economy stays. The people hardly ever see any sort of direct benefit from the oil industry working in their land, and even if they did, would it outweigh the detriments?
Currently, a new development is taking place in the matter. Nigerian farmers are suing Shell in the homeland of the company, instead of in Nigeria. With some help from the Dutch branch of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, they are taking the Dutch company to court in the Netherlands, an unprecedented move, in the hopes that they will get compensation for the damage that has been caused so far and for clean up operations to be carried out. Shell is planning to base its defense on the illegal activities that damage pipelines and refineries, to escape liability in the matter. They claim to have cleaned up three locations that were damaged by spills, but if the chart on spills from the 2001 article is still relevant to current trends, that is probably only a fraction of what has actually been released into the environment. A ruling is expected early next year.
Overall, the Nigerian situation has devolved into an unpleasant system of corruption, violence, and environmental degradation. If any number of factors had been carried out differently, perhaps the situation would not be so dire: if the government had focused more on the people instead of the revenue, if the company had taken better preventative measures, or if they had taken a stance that would benefit the people more than the governing bodies, the situation would possibly be beneficial to the people of the region. But then again, considering that this story is typical of such oil prospecting in third world areas, there wasn't really much hope for such forethought. Hopefully, things will get better one day. Its just too bad that the damage will be around for longer than the company, in all likelihood.
Oil prospectors from foreign lands first struck oil deposits in Nigeria in 1956. Over the years, the region has been highly subjected to damage from the production and manufacture of oil; from spills, to illegal refineries that refine crude oil in a manner that releases large quantities of pollutants into the environment. The spills, according to a 2001 review, were as follows: "fifty percent (50%) of oil spills is due to corrosion [of transport pipes], twenty eight percent (28%) to sabotage and twenty one percent (21%) to oil production operations. One percent (1%) of oil spills is due to engineering drills, inability to effectively control oil wells, failure of machines, and inadequate care in loading and unloading oil vessels." The review also lists oil spills since 1976, with more than 100 spill incidents yearly (most spills in a year was 515 in 1994), and quantities of oil released into the environment exceeding 7,000 barrels a year (the highest quantity at the time of the listing was 489,294.75 barrels in a year). However, Shell asserts that the majority of spills are due to sabotage and theft. I am inclined to believe that they are simply stating that based on how much oil they are losing, not how much is known to have been released into the environment. Because, if you really think about it, someone who is sabotaging a pipe to steal oil is going to try and make sure they obtain most or all of the oil that they steal, not simply dump it or let it continue to leak after they are finished.
The illegal oil trade in Nigeria is highly volatile as well. The work is dangerous, with crude refineries for crude oil giving off toxins that can make the person working the still sick (and those exposed from releases as well), aside from being at risk of injured by an explosion of natural gas waste products. This practice is also showing very little sign of being halted; military personnel, which are supposed to be trying to prevent such activities, are easily bribed to let it slide. Meanwhile, Shell is eager to try and pin the majority of the spill damage on such activities, since they are by nature undocumented. But they so often change the numbers regarding production in the region that it becomes difficult to get a clear figure on the matter from the region at all. Their offshore spills can't be so easily pawned off, but they can easily blame inland incidents on the locals.
All of the pollution in the region is making things more difficult than ever before in the region. Fisheries and croplands are steadily being degraded to the point where food cannot be obtained from them. And while one would think that the government would use its power to make the oil companies take better preventative measures and a greater role in the repairs, government members get the majority of their money from the oil industry, and that is where most of the money in the economy stays. The people hardly ever see any sort of direct benefit from the oil industry working in their land, and even if they did, would it outweigh the detriments?
Currently, a new development is taking place in the matter. Nigerian farmers are suing Shell in the homeland of the company, instead of in Nigeria. With some help from the Dutch branch of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, they are taking the Dutch company to court in the Netherlands, an unprecedented move, in the hopes that they will get compensation for the damage that has been caused so far and for clean up operations to be carried out. Shell is planning to base its defense on the illegal activities that damage pipelines and refineries, to escape liability in the matter. They claim to have cleaned up three locations that were damaged by spills, but if the chart on spills from the 2001 article is still relevant to current trends, that is probably only a fraction of what has actually been released into the environment. A ruling is expected early next year.
Overall, the Nigerian situation has devolved into an unpleasant system of corruption, violence, and environmental degradation. If any number of factors had been carried out differently, perhaps the situation would not be so dire: if the government had focused more on the people instead of the revenue, if the company had taken better preventative measures, or if they had taken a stance that would benefit the people more than the governing bodies, the situation would possibly be beneficial to the people of the region. But then again, considering that this story is typical of such oil prospecting in third world areas, there wasn't really much hope for such forethought. Hopefully, things will get better one day. Its just too bad that the damage will be around for longer than the company, in all likelihood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)