Summer Reading, Part 1

Each Fall Semester I teach a course, SOC260 Population, Resources and Change, that examines the interrelationships between human societies and the environment, focusing on modern industrial societies. Consequently each summer, I try to read a couple of new (to me) books on the general topic of the environment and society. This summer I thought I would post reviews of books as I finish them -- with the thought that this might prompt me to finish more! The first book I will discuss is The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations by Brian Fagan, Bloomsbury Press, 2008.

Let me begin by saying that The Great Warming has lots of fascinating information about the interplay between climate and society, drawing upon research on dozens of societies on eight continents across thousands of years of human history. It is well researched, entertaining and lively and worth reading. Each of the stories shows the importance of climate in both the making and the breaking of humans societies. However, the book does not live up to its title, nor does it deliver on the basic premise set forth in its preface.

Fagan's thesis, as set out in the preface, is that the "Medieval Warm Period" was a global warming event affecting the entire planet, and that the primary lesson to be drawn from this global event was that global warming (even when it is on a lesser scale than the anthropogenic warming of the present day), creates devastating drought across much of the world.

The term "Medieval Warm Period" refers to the higher than average temperatures, documented by several forms of temperature proxy research, in Europe between approximately 800 AD to 1300 AD. Proxy methods for establishing past temperature regimes include: ice cores, deep sea an lake sediment cores, coral records, and tree rings. Through out the book, Fagan refers to the period between 800-1300 AD as either the "Medieval Warm Period" or more generally as the "warm centuries;" but when he gets down to the specifics the regional temperature proxy information he presents often indicates prolonged centuries of colder climate for regions such as Eurasia, the Sahara/Sahel in Africa, the Andes of South America, and the middle and south Pacific.

We know, in the present day, that an overall warming of the earth, is consistent with the occasion pattern of cooling in specific regions. Not every location on earth, experiences a constant, upward warming pattern. Present day climate change research emphasizes statistical averages and the global pattern while recognizing local variation. Fagan does not produce sufficient evidence to support a claim that the overall earth's temperature rose during the period 800-1300 AD, only that some widespread regions experienced warming and that equally wide spread regions experienced cooling. Perhaps that evidence exists, but it was not presented in this book.

Moreover, although Fagan's primary aim is to show the connection between warmer climate and drought, many of the examples of drought come from regions where temperatures were cooler, or where there are no proxy measures of temperature available, only measures of rainfall. For example, drought in the Sahara/Sahel during the 800-1300 AD period is primarily related to cooler temperatures. Cooler temperatures over the Pacific during these centuries is also associated with drought on the west coast of California, and in the South American Andes.

Other examples of drought come from regions such as India where both warming and cooling occurred in different regions, and even shifted from time period to time period as the oscillation between El Nino/La Nina shifted the timing and location of the monsoons. With China, Fagan's evidence of warming comes from eastern China, while the evidence of drought comes from Huguangyan in south China where lake cores indicated cooler climate (during the early part of the target period) and the northern Tibetan highlands (during the latter part of the target period).

If one ignores Fagan's attempt to build a grand argument about global warming, much can be learned in this book about the importance of climate, and especially the impact of flood and drought, in the course of human history from the specific evidence about particular societies.

Putting the rain to work

Category: Water sources
Required points: 1
Suggested sources: Birdbath, Lake, Stream, Seasonal Pool, Ocean, Water Garden/Pond, River, Butterfly Puddling Area, Rain Garden, Spring

My little lot is not blessed with a pond, a stream, a spring, or beachfront, so it's necessary to add a built element to meet NWF's water requirement. I've no interest in attracting mosquitos, so birdbaths and similar standing-water features are off the table. A water-feature that wouldn't attract mosquitos required a little thought.
A few years ago I was on a backpacking trip as part of a literature class (think Thoreau, Emerson, Ed Abbey, Gretel Ehrlich, Linda Hogan, Annie Dillard, &c), when I had the most remarkable encounter with butterflies. Eight of us, or so, were hiking part of the C&O Canal Towpath near Harpers Ferry. It was the first week of July. It was hot. It was humid.
We stopped on a sandy, shaded bank of the Potomac to have lunch. Just beyond the shade, where the lean river had receded to expose a large patch of mud, hundreds of little white butterflies were mulling around on the ground. After a moment, they noticed us and swarmed us. They landed all over our clothing, unfurling their curly butterfly tongues.
The butterflies were cabbage whites, and the reason for their interest in us was salt- more or less the same reason they had been mining the river bank. As it happens, butterflies need to ingest minerals and salts that they can't get out of plants. Instead, they seek it out in exposed mud, bird guano, and even dried sweat.
We can give butterflies a hand by creating a feature that offers them the salts or minerals they need. One of the simplest ways to do this is to create a butterfly puddle by burying a bucket or other impervious container in the ground, up to its rim, and filling it with soil. When it rains, the soil in the container becomes saturated quickly, and the impervious walls keep the water in place. Since the container is ultimately full of mud, rather than standing water, mosquitos can't lay their eggs in it. Any overflow recedes into the surrounding soil fairly quickly.
In keeping with the goal of a self-maintaining system, I buried a rectangular 2-gallon plastic tub at the place where my downspout empties into my yard. I added little pea-gravel to the hole I surgically dug, so that it'll be easier to move the tub if adjustments are necessary. Most of the soil went directly back into the plastic container (where it will provide the minerals the butterflies are after), while the small amount of excess soil (and a few annelid worms) have found a new home in my composter. Now, every time it rains even a little, the puddle is recharged, and the impervious tub keeps the little patch muddy for a few days.
The plastic tub was an extraneous denizen of my basement, so I'll call its cost $1, since that's about what I'd expect to pay for such a thing at a yard sale. To buy a new one would be a few dollars more, though a variety of disposible plastic containers (read "free") or containers made from more benign materials would do the trick.
Again, if the rain ever stops when I'm at home, I'll update this with a picture from my own yard. For now, enjoy these puddling swallowtails, courtesy of Western Kentucky University.

It's like watching MacGyver work

It's not really. It's a brick. Or, it's a jar, or something else that displaces water. You've no doubt heard it before, and many readers are already doing it. However, for those who have never encountered this eons-old water conservation measure:
You can convert just about any existing toilet into a low-flow unit without ever getting your hands dirty*. Booting-up your computer probably takes longer than this will.
Simply take the lid off the tank, and place a brick, a concrete paver, or a clean jar (filled with water and tightly closed), and put the lid back onto the tank. Done.
Now, every time the tank refills, the brick (or whatever you've used) will displace some water. The result is that every time the toilet is flushed, it uses that much less water. Depending upon your home's usage and how much water you can effectively displace, this can easily save gallons every week. For reference, it you use a spent 20 oz soda bottle to displace water, that translates to about a 10% savings for many units.
This saves you and your community water and energy. Keep in mind that in virtually every US home, all of the water entering the house is potable water. That means that it has been thoroughly treated to the point of being safe to drink. And, of course, it must be pumped (both treating the water and moving it require energy) before it gets to every fixture in the house, even if that fixture is only used for washing clothes, spraying-off a lawn mower, or flushing a toilet. You're paying for drinking water for all of those uses. And, of course all of that wastewater has to be treated after it leaves your home. You pay for that, too.
Save some water, save some money.

*Author's note: Since this post specifically names bricks (which are often dusty or dirty) and jars (which have to be thoroughly cleaned), E.R. Dunhill's statement that you will never get your hands dirty is probably patently untrue. Also, the author would have written the usual emphatic Be the solution in this post, but as quick as the actual recommendation is, it seemed like a waste of time. Nuts. I've just written it.

Mountain streams on the losing end

On Monday December 1, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency approved a rule change by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) that would allow the dumping of rocks, dirt and sludge from mountaintop removal in stream areas. The rule change essential exempts mining overburden (the rock, soil, and sludge removed to access coal in strip mines and mountain top removal) from the definition of "waste" that is prohibited from being dumped in seasonal and ephemeral streams.

This rule change has been eagerly sought by the coal mining industry, while opposed not only by environmental organizations, but also by top government officials in coal mining states such as Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Kentucky Congressman Ben Chandler, and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen. Grassroots citizens organizations such as "I love Mountains" and "Kentuckians for the Commonwealth" which include hundreds of coal county residents among their numbers have actively campaigned against this rule change.

This change sought by the Bush administration has already been approved by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The Department of Interior, which includes the Office of Surface Mining will make the change to the rule final in December after briefing members of Congress, and it will go into effect in another 30 days -- roughly about the time that the new Obama administration is sworn into office.

Administrative rule changes like this take time to develop. This particular rule change was first introduced in 2004. A complex process of hearings, comment periods, and reviews by other agencies (such as the EPA) are required before rule changes can occur. While the Department of Interior must brief members of Congress, there is no requirement of legislative approval. Consequently, it could take as long to undo this rule change (should the Obama administration make that a priority) as it did to create it. In the meantime, thousands of additional miles of streams in central Appalachia will join the more than 700 miles of streams that have already been buried due to lax enforcement of the existing rules.

The consequences of this rule change extend far beyond the central Appalachian mountains, to all the urban and suburban areas that are dependent upon river and stream fed lakes for their municipal drinking water.

it's always something...

...like Roseanne Rosannadana's grandma always said.

When it comes to making environmentally sound choices in your home, things can get quite complex.

Many people have chosen to go with new, energy efficient, low water use front loading washing machines in recent years, as a way to save money on electricity and water and be environmentally conscious. But it turns out that there's a major drawback to front loading washers and the solution uses more water and electricity.

Because the new front loading washers use less water, and are more tightly sealed, mold and mildew frequently grow in the inner tub, contributing to allergies and bad smells, some of which is transferred to the clothing. Using too much detergent or the wrong kind exacerbates the problem. Front loaders require low sudsing, high efficiency (HE) detergents, which are not as widely available nation wide as traditional detergents. [A quick review of the largest grocery store in my area found only one type of one brand specifically labeled HE].

The problem is prevalent enough to have spawned several class action lawsuits against LG, Whirlpool and Maytag.

An enterprising Minnesota appliance repairman Paul Flynn, has developed a solution "smelly washer" granules. But the catch (from an environmental and cost) perspective is that to be effective the product has to be used at the highest water level setting, and the hottest water temperature (Flynn recommends turning up your water heater to its highest "scalding" setting), at least once a week. While it is unclear from the website whether or not preventing mildew from forming can be done in conjunction with washing a load of clothes (assuming you have one that can be washed in scalding water), removing the problem after it has already occurred requires a machine empty of everything put water.

Suddenly the cost and environmental savings of a newer front loading washer begin to be eroded!

Stationarity: Challenging Science with Science

A friend of mine sent me an interesting paper from a February issue of Science titled, "Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?" by Milly, P. et. al (2008) (subscription-only). It deals with the assumption of stationarity, or the "idea that natural systems fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability." In other words, natural occurrences, like stream flow or flood peaks, change within static extremes that can be estimated using some probability density gleaned from observation records.

Policy decisions regarding water management (i.e. water infrastructure, channel modification, and drainage works) have been impeded by this assumption because anthropogenic forces, such as land-use changes and climate change have added additional variability to the dynamics of the water cycle. Modeling efforts have historically assumed that these variability are small enough to assume stationarity, leading to ever less accurate results.

To address this issue, the paper states that stationarity must be replaced by non-probabilistic models that incorporate operations research and welfare economics. Yet, while this is a normal "scientific" response to a problem, is it enough?

It is assumed that better models produce better results, but it ultimately comes down to how those results are used. The paper hints at this by stating, "a stable institutional platform for climate-information delivery may help." It can be argued that many of the issues facing the US could be better modeled - and they can and it will help - but what of what happens after? If stationarity is a baseline assumption that is impeding researchers and water management experts, what is impeding emergency managers and policy makers?

What other complimentary efforts should be implemented along with better models? Are scientists suited to expand outside of producing results, into utilizing (policy making, for instance) those results? Does science have other avenues to create more sound, rational policy decisions?

Image: 2008 Iowa floods, picture taken from BBC website.

coal-to-liquids, or forests to fuel?

The Lexington Herald-Leader today reported that a site has been chosen in Pike County, Kentucky, for a $4 billion coal-to-liquid plant. The announcement came as the result of a $850,000 study by Pikeville-based Summit Engineering, paid for by the Kentucky Department of Energy and the Appalachian Regional Commission (tax money).

The proposed facility is slated to produce 50,000 barrels of liquid coal a day. The county would use federal and state grant money (tax money) to put the basic infrastructure in place, including water and sewer, and the company chosen to operate the facility would pay for the rest. Pike County officials have already received several proposals from interested companies.

Coal-to-liquid conversion uses a process that heats coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixes it with water to produce a gas, and then converts the gas into diesel fuel. Roger Ford, director of energy and technology for Pike County, estimates that the direct operating costs (raw materials, labor, energy, ordinary overhead) of transforming coal to liquid at the Pike County facility would be about $61 a barrel.

The article goes on to say that those who oppose the project are concerned:

"that liquid coal could contribute to global warming, citing researchers who say the process produces nearly twice the greenhouse gases that gasoline does, pumping carbon dioxide into the air — both when coal is turned into liquid, and when that liquid is burned in vehicles.

They also fear coal-to-liquid plants would result in more strip mining and mountaintop removal, devastating surrounding environments. If liquid coal were to account for a 10 percent displacement of current oil use, coal mining would have to increase by 43 percent, some researchers have predicted."

As someone who sees, every single day, the devastating effects of current strip-mining in the region, I also have concerns about how increasing demand for coal would affect not only this region, but all urban areas down stream (in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia), that depend upon rivers for their urban water supply.

Strip-mining is not accomplished without the removal of forests. Not just the removal of trees, but the removal of complex, interconnected, dynamic ecosystems called forests; forests that serve a whole host of essential functions, both locally, regionally, and through the entire biosphere. Locally there is the loss of habitat for everything from insects to elk and black bear. Community leaders in eastern Kentucky keep talking about making the region a recreation and tourist destination, and have participated in expensive programs to re-introduce elk to the region, and promote hunting, only to turn around and encourage economic activities that destroy the regions scenic, hunting and recreational resources.

Locally there is the increasing threat of flash flooding. Locally and regionally there is the loss of forest sink properties that help clear the air of particulate pollution (not to mention absorb CO2): forests also contribute to atmospheric moisture through plant aspiration, thus maintaining normal rainfall patterns and avoiding both drought and cloudburst. Regionally forest help regulate the flow of water in streams and rivers, allowing for longer, higher sustained flows necessary for a reliable urban water source.

I also have to wonder about how knowledgeable Pike County's decision-makers really are when it comes to issues that could affect the atmospheric chemistry, given the ignorance evidenced in a statement by Pike County Judge-Executive Wayne T. Rutherford. Rutherford said "Our goal is to not put anything out in the ozone."

Photo: Mountaintop removal strip mine in Letcher County, KY; Copyright by Sue Greer-Pitt, June 2008

Water, Water Everywhere -- Just Not Where We Need It

Water is our most precious resource. Life on earth requires it. Agriculture would not exist without it.

The amount of water on this planet is basically constant. We generally don’t create it or use it up. We use it for our purposes.

We sometimes contaminate our water so that it is unusable. However, the natural hydrologic cycle can cleanse that water through evaporation, condensation, and precipitation to make it usable again.

The issue is location. Is the water where we need it, when we need it, and in a usable form? Is it available in the correct quantities? Is there too much, or too little?

We can move water from one location to another. If we utilize the natural properties of water and gravity, it moves itself. If we move it uphill, it costs us energy – either to pump it or to haul it.

Competing demands for available water is an issue in many areas. People require water daily for drinking, bathing, watering lawns and plants and for other purposes. Manufacturing industries require water in various processes. Agriculture requires water for growing crops and for sustaining livestock. Water is being used everywhere.

As population grows the demand for water grows proportionally. Not only does the increase in population require more for drinking and other personal purposes, it creates demand for more manufactured goods and for more food. Growing demand by each use creates competing interests that bid for existing water. Rainfall is free, but water located in the right place, at the right time and in usable form is not. We must pay to get it there.

How do we balance the competing demands for our water resources? Is it something that must be left to market forces to determine? Who pays for developing new infrastructure for capturing or transporting water? How do we determine the allocation of those costs?

Droughts in various parts of the world that are unaccustomed to them have heightened the awareness of water as a growing concern. Both the Southeastern U.S. and the Western U.S. have faced droughts in the past year. Will concern over available water supplies force a reallocation among the competing concerns so that agriculture, the number one user of water in the west, will lose out to the cities? There has already been talk of farmers selling their water allocations to cities.

If population pressures force water costs to a level that agricultural concerns choose to sell their water to cities, what will be the impact to agricultural producers elsewhere? Will we see a further concentration of agriculture on arid lands that are productive only through supplemental irrigation? What will be the impact on the aquifers and reservoirs that supply that irrigation water?

There is a lot of talk among certain groups of pushing agriculture toward less intensive, more “environmentally friendly,” sustainable forms such as grass-fed beef and non-irrigated production systems. With a growing population demanding more-and-more food, how will that be possible?

The questions are many and the answers are few. Water is the root issue. Agriculture remains at the center of the storm. It is blamed for the problem and looked to for solutions. The level of turmoil is high.

With turmoil comes opportunity. Agricultural Experiment Stations, crop science companies, hydrologic engineers, and many others will have a tremendous task ahead of them. Genetically engineering plants to make them more drought tolerant is one possible solution. Water capture and recycling systems will become increasingly important. Re-thinking water use – such as for watering lawns -- is another area where we will likely see adjustment. Transportation of water from locations of abundance to areas of need will become more common. We may even see water-use zoning restrictions in the future.

The time is quickly approaching when water will be on everyone’s mind. It is a resource that is both abundant and scarce. How we manage it will determine our future.

Water. It's what makes this blue island of life unique.