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.

Rainy Days... is the drizzle smoking?

To me, acid rain seems like a highly unpleasant concept. Rainwater, usually one of the most reliably clean sources of water on earth, becoming caustic enough to increase erosion rates of stone and metal. Also, changing the soil of the plants that it waters in such a way that they die off, and few things if any are capable of growing in the ground thereafter. It just seems wrong, like a perversion of nature in a way; one of the most necessary elements in biological systems, and an invaluable delivery system for cycling and delivering water to regions where it doesn't last long on the surface, becoming a vector for killing off otherwise hardy ecosystems. It's a twisted version of the cycle that is so necessary for life.

While rain itself is naturally more acidic than neutral due to naturally occurring weak acids generated from atmospheric gases, it usually falls within a certain range that organisms have evolved to operate within. If the natural acidity is pushed too far, or reduced to a basic nature, organisms typically suffer from various functions becoming inhibited as the proteins and enzymes within the cells of any organisms subjected to the changed pH become inert or inoperable, if they aren't killed outright by possible corrosive effects. Plants that don't suffer from effects such as these are often victim to either toxic compounds being solvated and absorbed, or to atrophy as vital nutrients are dissolved to the point that they flow away before they can be taken up (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html). Bodies of water are also subject to such sensitivity, with similar reasons- fish are susceptible to poisoning by aluminum and acidic conditions, while microorganisms suffer from their medium being changed (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html).

It's not just the environment that is degrading due to acid rain, either. Various man-made structures are subject to damage from acid rain, especially those made from rocks primarily composed of calcium carbonate, and ferric and cupric metals. "Calcium carbonate in certain stones dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid [from rain] to form calcium sulphate." (http://www.air-quality.org.uk/12.php) Calcium sulphate, often known as gypsum, is a much more brittle stone, and is subject to falling off of the afflicted stonework, leaving an exposed area that is subjected to further reaction with acid rain. Besides the effects upon statues, various buildings of note are feeling the effects, including the Taj Mahal, Notre Dame cathedral, and the roman Colosseum.

Acid rain is generated in various ways, some natural. However, natural acidity is usually caused by carbonic acid, a much weaker acid than the sulfuric and nitric acids that typically causes problems. These are often generated by the release of industrial chemicals from smokestacks, or from the exhaust of motor vehicles. Though both can occur naturally, the quantity of these compounds in the air has increased and been generated more frequently, as compared to being generated from less common events such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, which combined produce roughly 1/7th of the quantity of sulfur dioxide released from human activities per year. And while the phenomenon is typically referred to as acid "rain," it doesn't necessarily need to come down in aqueous conditions- sometimes these acids occur in gaseous or solid forms and reaches the ground long enough to either stick to something or react with something. When this happens, it's usually referred to as dry deposition. However, it's effects can be just as much, if not more noticeable in the long run, since the quantity deposited will most likely be fully unleashed when exposed to water, and when that occurs, the dry material will solvate and add up to a much higher concentration being administered all at once. When this happens, the pH drops even more dramatically, and the organisms subjected to this treatment will most likely not be able to cope. And while humans may not be susceptible to direct health effects from increased acidification of the environment, it is the gaseous and dry particulate that can cause various severe health issues, as these will dissolve in the mucous lining of the respiratory system, and cause heart and lung problems.

Unlike climate change, this matter has received political attention and study, though not without it's own share of political turmoil. In 1980, a program was put together to try and assess the extent and impact of acid deposition on the environment. This program was called the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP), and was supposed to perform a long-term study into the matter of acid precipitation and it's effects on the environment, and come up with a "credible evaluation of the consequences of various policy options"  While it seemed to serve it's purpose by the end of it's term, although "advocates from all sides attempted to use the program to support their own policy marketing efforts, or to disparage those of their opponents." (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf). Another study, by the DENR, found in 1991 that large bodies of freshwater are becoming more acidic, enough so that some species of fish can no longer survive within them. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1989, which introduced the concept of "cap and trade," a system where permits are issued for how much of a pollutant gas can be released into the atmosphere by a company per year, and if they don't expect to reach that limit, they can trade those permits to another company for something. This allows for companies with the means to make the large scale changes to their operating facilities to clean their emissions can do so, trading to the companies that don't yet have the capacity to do the same until they do have the capability. It seems to have been a success for this program, and apparently at a lower cost than was initially expected. However, the success may be attributed to certain changes in the industries that were actually subject to exuding the compounds responsible for the acidity in the air. A similar system is being proposed to try and handle greenhouse gases, but part of the reason they are so hard to handle is that they aren't as reactive as sulfur dioxide, and can be harder to contain. There is also the matter of the time that such a plan needs to be effective, as gradual changes come about; climate change is already at an advanced stage of progression, and if this program even had a chance to work here as well, is it too late to help? But that is a different matter.

While sulfur dioxide emissions by human activity haven't been reduced to zero, they have been reduced significantly, perhaps even to the point where our impact on the environment through that vector is minimal. Hopefully our impact will be less than those of natural causes one day, but in the meantime, it's good to be able to celebrate our victories while we can... as long as we don't backslide in the process.