When Are We Due For It?

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

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.

Where to begin...

Since this is my first post, I figured that a subject directly relating to the class may be an appropriate start. Why is it that oil has become such an integral part of political proceedings? I suppose I'd be inclined to say that it did during the course of WWII, when it's strategic importance was fully tested. It was a source of fuel that could drive multi-ton vehicles in just about any situation, even in colder climates where other fuel sources might have become too viscous to flow through the engine. It was easy to transport, and as long as certain basic safety measures were in place, it was relatively safe and stable. I am inclined to believe one of the major points here is the matter of how much horsepower could be produced with a good engine. Being able to keep aircraft aloft, even with heavy loads, became a major selling point for the fuel source during the cold war era, when there were 24-7 flights of bombers prepared to divert their holding pattern to hit the heart of the Soviet Union. But since then, a few alternative sources of transportable energy have been researched and produced, including better electric motors and batteries, biofuels, and to a lesser extent, hydrogen based power. While they each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks, there has not been enough research into most of them to improve their viability and effectiveness. Is this due to oil's dominance, in minds and established infrastructure, or perhaps there are individuals who try to halt development to maintain oil's dominance? I suppose it will only be a question that can be properly answered in hindsight, when all the factors can be analyzed together. In the meantime, oil still holds the primary role as the worlds energy source, even as it is known to be running out.

A significant factor to consider in this situation is political corruption. It has long been known that various groups will somehow try to buy politicians in one way or another- whether it be with gifts, bribes, or campaign funding. While there are laws in place against such activities, they certainly occur anyway, often leading to a politician acting on their part in future lawmaking or other political maneuvers. Oil companies have the distinction of being pandered to by the government, even before they start buying individuals. Since they provide the lifeblood for the armed forces, as well as the primary convenience of the everyday individual, they are the controllers of one of the greatest strategic factors for a modern armed conflict. The government, being unable to take control of the companies, even through modern capitalistic methods, instead simply gives them what they want to make sure that they keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, since the primary sources of oil are in foreign countries, that also means the government has to pander to them to allow American companies to drill in areas outside of their direct control. As elaborated in Blood and Oil, this means a lot of concessions and gifts to groups that are not particularly friendly or well-meaning. However, since they are limiting their options by not researching alternatives, the US government is in a way forcing itself to continue these practices.

To take a slight conspiracy take on it, perhaps one of the reasons that the government does what it can to keep up oil production is so that they can get it relatively cheap. Following with the law of supply and demand, when more people want something, the cheaper it can be to get, hence why buying in bulk is a popular economic choice. However, since the government subsidizes oil production, that take on the situation doesn't really hold water. For more on this, I would suggest looking here.

 So, while it's easy to comment and complain, what is there to actually do about the situation?
 Well, I'm not really sure. It's easy to say that we need to work more on alternative energy sources, it's a group decision. There are more ways to make the transition than there are ways to continue as we are, and some prefer not having to make hard decisions, much less putting work into them. I suppose the best we can do is put the best and brightest on the job, try to turnover the current political stagnancy with new members, and try to minimize our personal reliance on oil. While that last one is hardly a drop in the bucket, if enough people try to do the same, it will reduce the rate at which the bucket fills, if nothing else.