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.

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.

Can Coal Be Clean?

Clean coal is kind of a pipe dream. It's pretty much a rock that can be burned, and since it can be burned without any kind of purification process (in fact, I'm not sure if you can do anything to purify a solid like that) it is bound to have all sorts of nasty things, like heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide (which is one of the worst ingredients for acid rain) and the like. That's not even mentioning the significant quantity of CO2 that is released from burning coal. Most so-called "clean coal" tech has focused on removing the toxic compounds and dangerous particulate from emissions, and to a lesser degree reducing CO2 in emissions. In the past, coal burning plants used to respond to complaints in the local communities about their smoke and dust by making their smokestacks taller, thus making it so that the smoke and gasses would be blown further away from the local populace... thus spreading the problem into a larger area, and affecting more sensitive habitats. Nowadays, they try to improve filters and carbon capturing systems, which is only mitigating the larger problem. And while it is just about impossible to burn something that doesn't produce CO2, the sheer quantity that coal is able to produce gives it unique status as an especially dirty pollutant.

Something that may have an impact on how coal can be used is a method known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a process that can be used to make liquid hydrocarbons from pretty much any combustible carbon-containing compound, such as biomass, natural gas, and coal. It does so by first generating carbon monoxide, then combining it with hydrogen. The process was first discovered by German scientists during the 1920's, and was subsequently used to convert coal to liquid fuel during WWII to power German war machines. While CO2 is still produced during the production and combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuels, it can be captured more easily in the lab, and the other pollutants can be stripped from the gas stream during the production process as well, thus making a cleaner burning fuel. The process has been considered for mass use several times throughout US history, though economic aspects usually brought any advancement to a halt. In fact, some of these events may have been engineered to some degree: "The last time investors started lining up money for Fischer-Tropsch plants, in the 1970s, the OPEC oil cartel opened up its spigots and pushed the price of crude down to $10 a barrel, and that was that". Meanwhile, South Africa has based the majority of their fuel consumption on Fishcer-Tropsch fuels produced from local coal deposits. While it isn't the best alternative to petrol based fuels in terms of CO2 emissions, synthetic fuels are comparable in power, have fewer side products, and in some ways are easier to obtain than oil. After all, we would be able to make it from local sources, instead of having to import most of the ingredients.

While there wouldn't be a need to import most of the materials for Fischer-Tropsch fuels, and they can arguably be made cleaner than many current petrol based fuels, I would be remiss to overlook the aspect of how coal is obtained (though the making of such fuels from biomass would be a nice way to take care of garbage disposal at the same time). One of the greatest impacts coal has on the environment, while it has a more localized effect than the spreading of emissions, can be the mining of the coal from the ground. Whether it's shaft mining, strip mining, or the charmingly named "mountain top removal," there is usually some sort of impact on the surrounding area. Shaft mining, while there seems to be a relatively minimal effect on the ecosystem, can be dangerous work. And while one may think that the shaft is usually left behind after the work, most modern projects fill in the shaft after they leave to prevent some sort of collapse on the surface when the tunnel supports give. Strip mining leaves a massive gouge in the earth, which nature will be slow to reclaim due to the solid rock surfaces left behind with development, and often the rock that they can't use just gets dumped into nearby areas, managing to kill off another area, or perhaps blocking a source of water for a region and spreading the devastation further indirectly. Perhaps the one way this could be made productive is if someone found a way to make a city in the walls, kind of like the ancient city of Mesa Verde. But then, mountain top removal is just destructive, and unfortunately cheap enough that companies will use it anyway. So, even if we found a way to make synthetic fuels with coal feedstock, there would be the issue of how we would obtain it without causing more direct destruction than the insidious elements from the burning of fossil fuels could hope to match. In fact, it may compound the issue, as there would be less living plant biomass to take up the CO2 being produced.

Whatever the case, the one thing that is easiest to take from what I've learned is this: If there's a trick to clean coal, it is to not burn it as coal.

Extra links:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
http://www.economist.com/node/13235041?story_id=13235041