A Buddhist Response to Climate Change, Part 6

What Can Governments Do?

Some things can only be done on a national or local government level. For example, to ensure equity and to slow down depletion, rationing systems for resources like gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas will need to be instituted. New energy policies and international treaties as well as large infrastructures to move energy more efficiently need to be done at the national and international level. New technologies need to be shared with developing countries. We also need national farm policies that will encourage backyard gardens and small farms. Large farms will need to grow more varied food in a sustainable way.

We need more flexible building codes and financial incentives for property owners and renters who install the efficient new-energy systems, improve the insulation in their homes and businesses, and incorporate ways to reduce their energy consumption.

Local communities need to focus on food availability and conservation measures. For example, in the United Kingdom and Australia, transition towns are planning to move away from reliance on existing energy sources into renewables. They are looking at how to support more efficient ways of manufacturing, provide more public transportation, use more efficient ways to heat and cool, and provide more secure food supplies that are much closer to home.

A Buddhist Response to Climate Change, Part 5

Hurdles to Overcome

We have to view the whole picture. Climate change, peak energy, aquifer depletion, soil degradation, and overpopulation—everything—is interrelated. In nature, if you tinker with one aspect, all the others are also impacted. We cannot ignore any of these other “elephants,” for to do so will put at risk whatever good we might do regarding the others.

If we are going to have any positive influence on climate change and peak energy, we have to recognize these other eventual crises as well and incorporate solutions for all of them as we quickly adapt to our new reality. As the Buddha said, everything is interconnected; nothing exists on its own.

Cognitive dissonance

When faced with information that is drastically different from what one believes to be true, the tension has to be resolved through choosing either the familiar belief or the proposed new one. Most people will go with the belief they are familiar with.

When people, hearing about global warming and peak oil, look around and see that everything looks normal and feel that their lives are not that much affected, they tend to dismiss the new perspective. Yes, the price of gas and food has increased but surely that’s just due to increased demand and corporate price gouging. Yes, the weather is unusual but that is normal. Yes, the ice is melting in Greenland, the Arctic, and in high-mountain glaciers but that could just be a temporary occurrence.

It is like putting a frog in an uncovered pot of water, placing the pot on the stove, and turning up the heat. Because the temperature increase is gradual, the frog keeps adapting to the increasing heat until it is too late, and the frog is boiled to death.

Economic Decline and Citizen Panic

When governments see their financial markets falling and imminent economic downturn, they will want to give in to corporate special interests and panicked voters. Shortsighted leaders will do as they have done for several decades: look for the quick fix. They will divert money from long-range plans to combat global warming and spend it on short-term economic injections of capital into the economy. But appeasing immediate demands to stop the pain will only insure even more terrible pain in the future.

Special Interest Groups

There are special interest groups who have funded organizations specifically set up to convince people that climate change is a hoax. Throughout history business has had close ties to those in power and today is no different. There are companies and individuals who are caught up in their craving for power and wealth. To onlookers, it seems amazing that these corporate giants and government officials seem to be completely disconnected from reality. Their children and grandchildren will have to live in the world they create. What on earth are they thinking? Whatever their reasons, these special interest groups make it difficult for people to learn the truth about global warming and deny them the time to make necessary changes.

A Buddhist Response to Climate Change, Part 4

Elephant in the Living Room

From deep within each person who begins to grasp the enormity of climate change and global warming, a profound sense of grief—and fear—begins to arise. Humanity’s dream of prosperity is now becoming a nightmare. We are now learning what the future of our world will be like. And with this realization comes another: that six-degrees future has already begun. And it is even more horrific than we had feared.

Climate change has been called the “elephant in the living room.” Think of it as a large, unruly guest who does whatever it wishes to do. But climate change is not the only elephant. Peaking oil, natural gas, coal and uranium reserves are another four. Then there is aquifer depletion and a human population the size of which the earth cannot sustain. It takes so much land and water to feed one human and we have only a finite amount of these resources in our world. Once we exceed that natural carrying capacity, there is no longer enough food and water for everyone.

Our current world situation is that we are at the brink of an energy crisis that began with global oil reserves peaking. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2007 that the peak occurred in May 2005. [1] It is more difficult to gauge natural gas reserves but it is generally accepted that they have either also peaked or are close to doing so. Coal and uranium are expected to peak around 2020 and before 2050, respectively. Oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, and hydroelectric currently provide 93 percent of the global energy supply. The remaining 7 percent is mainly hydropower followed by biomass with a fraction provided by renewables like solar and wind power.

Peak resources means we have reached the point in time when the maximum production rate of the resource has been reached. Once past the peak, these natural resources will become increasingly difficult and costly to extract and process. As the prices rise, each of us will reach our personal peak, the point where our life is impacted negatively by the high cost brought about by ever-increasing competition for the remaining oil.

Also, we are moving closer to the point at which the extraction and production costs outweigh the energy obtained. We can see the logic in this with our food. It would make no sense to expend one hundred calories to eat food that will only provide ten calories of energy.

In addition to extraction, production and distribution costs, there are the hidden costs like pollution, aquifer depletion, soil degradation, and human health issues. These costs are not calculated in the price at the pump when we fill up our cars or at the store when we buy a box of imported chocolate encased in layers of plastic packaging. The costs are being borne by taxpayers and those who were forced off the land by governments and international conglomerates who are focused on profit not on climate change or the suffering of humans. These millions of economic refuges have no choice but to move into cities where they cannot find work or raise the subsistence crops that used to feed their families. The costs are borne by the children who must breathe polluted air, drink contaminated water, and live in squalid conditions—children who have no future for they will not be able to make a living or farm the land. Nor will they be taught by those who dispossessed them, how to provide for their own families in the future.

Understanding what peak oil means, what happens when we reach it?

The United States, the largest oil consumer, reached the peak of its domestic oil reserves in the 1970s. Now, when the United States is relying more heavily on imported oil, India and China are also becoming major oil importers. This is happening at the same time that domestic demand is increasing within the oil exporting countries. So countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia need to supply the increasing needs of their own citizens as well as their foreign customers.

As the gap between supply and demand increases, the price per barrel will continue to hit new highs. This is already happening. In the fall of 2004 a barrel of oil hit $50. Just three and a half years later, on March 12, 2008, oil hit $109.72. Already we are seeing people in the developed world having to decide whether to spend money on heating oil or on food, agonizing decisions those in the developing world have faced for years. What do people choose? They are choosing to buy heating oil because it takes longer for children to starve to death than it does for them to freeze to death.

Even if we have reached the maximum of global production, don’t we still have a lot left? Surely we have plenty of time to come up with another solution to the increasing energy demands?

No, we do not have time because the ease and cost of extraction for the remaining reserves are very different from the already extracted oil both in quality and ease of extraction. Also, new solutions take a long time to develop. As reserves dwindle and become more difficult, and thus expensive, to extract, the quality grade of the oil also decreases as does the energy output per barrel. Higher oil prices reflect the additional production expense.

What about other energy-producing materials like tar sands?

Tar sands are actually bituminous sands that are a natural mixture of sand, water, and bitumen. The largest reserves are in the oil sands in Canada and the tar sands in Venezuela, with smaller reserves in the United States, Russia, and the Middle East. These oil sands are not viscous like oil, thus they must be mined. This process takes much water and large amounts of energy to extract and process. This heavy crude oil is in turn expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products.

Currently, the government of Alberta, Canada has approved the extraction of the petroleum from the sands even though environmentalist say this complex process will create an environmental nightmare and thus hasten global climate change. The oil companies keep exploiting our fragile planet just to prolong the comfort of the wealthy who do not want to give up their personal comfort and consumptive lifestyles.

What about natural gas?

The United States is now a net importer of natural gas. North American discoveries have been on a general decline since the early 1980s. Europe also hit the high of its natural gas discoveries about the same time. Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, former senior adviser to the National Iranian Oil Company in Tehran, reported to the Australian Senate in 2006 that natural gas would peak worldwide about 2008 or 2009. He also felt that Russia had already peaked, which in turn directly affected European imports.

Unlike oil, which can be easily transported in tankers, gas has to be used onsite, or transported through pipelines or in special tankers. So moving it around is more problematic than oil.

What about coal?

The World Coal Institute has been saying for many years that there are enough coal reserves to last for another 150 years. But the Energy Watch Group, working with more recently updated reserve numbers and factoring in the increasing rate of extraction due to increasing demand, has calculated that the coal peak will occur somewhere between 2020 and 2030. China, the largest consumer of coal is predicted to peak sooner.

Environmentally, coal is even more damaging than oil or natural gas, as well as being far less efficient. The Unites States has the world’s largest coal reserves, but what has been extracted is the higher grade anthracite coal, with a higher energy density than the lower grade lignite coal by a factor of five or six. Now, much of the remaining coal reserves are lignite not anthracite. So while coal production is increasing in the United States because of the lower quality of lignite, the energy output derived from this coal peaked around 1999. Consequently, the United States is now a net coal importer.

What about new technologies? Surely people are working on a solution. Won’t something be invented that will provide for our energy needs far into the future?

Yes, we are now seeing developments in technologies like solar and wind but these currently provide just a fraction of one percent of our current energy supply. It will take time to increase both demand and supply. Richard Heinberg, author and peak oil educator, has said that it would take fifteen years for people to gradually replace their current petroleum-powered vehicles. So there is no quick transition even when we develop other technologies. Also, these technologies have their own environmental impact as solar voltaic arrays, windmills, and the other necessary equipment need to be produced and shipped. Then we face the “not in my backyard” syndrome. Everyone wants the new technology in place, but they do not want to have to look at it.

Also, for the size of what we are talking about, we need a national and even international energy distribution infrastructure. We do not have a magic fuel that we can simply plug into existing distribution systems. It will take national and regional government action to build a new energy grid. This will enable individuals and companies who produce more energy than they require to be shared with others.

Before a new technology can be produced and used, national governments need to do studies of the technology. Politicians need to poll their constituents, listen to special interest groups, and vote. If a bill is passed, funding needs to be found, and finally building needs to be done. Then, as we get closer to real production, we have a chicken-and-egg problem. Before companies will commit to participating in this new distribution system, they will want to see customers ready to use the new form of energy. But before customers install the commercial and residential systems to use the new technology, they will want to be sure the companies will supply the new form of energy. So which comes first—supply or demand? The chicken or the egg?

As with any new technology, prices will be high to begin with. As production methods improve and more people purchase the item, the per unit cost will gradually be reduced and thus the new technology will become more affordable to a larger number of people. But even with lower costs, many people will want to wait for the old technology to wear out before replacing it with the new.

---

[1] Electric Power Annual for 2006 Report released October 22, 2007

A Buddhist Response to Climate Change, Part 3

The Cause: Us

For the past 150 years, we were slowly drawn in by cheap, accessible energy. It became inevitable that the environmental costs of pollution and resource depletion, not borne by consumers, would fall on others. In time, as health care problems arose, these costs were borne by taxpayers who were not quite sure exactly where their tax dollars went. But as long as the system seemed to be working, few people were inclined to ask questions. Periodically a story would be on the news—the deplorable conditions miners labored under, increasing cancer rates, inequality issues—but people did not connect the dots. Most were engrossed with the commercials after the news and dreaming of what to buy next.

How did they get to this point? As consumers, after World War II, Americans became caught up in the government promoted dream of owning a house in the suburbs. There was seemingly endless land, government programs and loans for the soldiers returning home, and lots of cheap oil to power the dream. So Americans in record numbers began moving to the new suburbs. Dad drove into the city to work while Mom stayed home and looked after the children. It seemed idyllic.

But somewhere along the way, the dream of suburbia became complicated. People got caught up in the tragically mistaken idea that possessions and experiences would make them happy. The message they kept hearing was “more is better.” Gradually, the houses became larger and families found themselves separated as grown children, now with their own dreams of an idyllic life, left home to work in other places.

But without the grandparents around to help care for the children, Mom needed to get a job to help pay for childcare. Dad found he needed to work longer hours to be able to afford all the good things they wanted for their children. Short on time, the parents turned to the new electronic help. Dishwashers, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners were soon deemed household necessities. The number of ‘must have” electronic appliances increased as more products came to market. But with planned obsolescence carefully calculated to increase corporate profits, the cars and all the other modern gadgetry needed to be frequently replaced. Since there was so much land and so many garbage dumps, the no longer wanted goods were simply thrown away. Plastic, polystyrene and other petroleum by-products that would take centuries to break down ended up at dumpsites. Toxins began to leach into the soil and groundwater. But it was okay because there was so much land.

As the list of modern conveniences grew, time-honored household skills were deemed old-fashioned and unnecessary in the modern world. The victory gardens that were a major source of food during the war gave way to lawns and flower beds. There was no need to cook anymore because there were TV dinners and prepared foods that could be quickly heated up by a Mom now very tired from working all day at the office or factory. There was no need to personally preserve foods anymore because there were lots of canned and frozen food in the supermarket. Dad forgot the skills he had learned from his father because it was now easier to hire people to do what needed to be done. Plus, he had all those timesaving power tools and could easily buy ready-made items at the store. People, hooked on the electronic marvels to do their work, became increasingly dependent on all the cheap energy that powered their lifestyles.

Today, none of this has changed. We see people buying larger houses to store all the new electronic gear. The children, seeing Mom and Dad buying more, want their own televisions and computers just like all their friends have. Families might gather to eat dinner at the same time, but Dad and the children often heat up their own food in the microwave even though Mom has prepared dinner for everyone. After throwing away the microwavable containers, tossing the pizza carton in the trash, and putting the cutlery in the dishwasher, parents and children go to their own rooms. They then immerse themselves in their home entertainment centers or play games on their computers until it is time to go to sleep. Then in the morning, it’s time to get up and begin all over again.

And so we have the American dream today, a dream that many people around the world want to have. But this is a dream gone terribly wrong.

A Buddhist Response to Climate Change, Part 2

The Result: Climate Change

Ice caps and glaciers melted. The world’s most famous cities underwater. One-third of the planet turned to desert; the other two-thirds filled with people struggling for enough food and water to survive. Is this to be our future?

Our world is spiraling out of control and yet we still have leaders failing to take action on global warming. Newscasters and journalists report on how the stock market bounced back after some minor profit taking and what the latest tidbits from Hollywood are. People complain about the price of gasoline as they get back into their SUV and drive off, alone. Parents shake their heads and worry about how climate change will affect their children, then board the plane to go visit their children and grandchildren because they love them.

On March 11, 2007, the Sunday Times, a major newspaper in the United Kingdom, detailed the earth-changing scenarios degree by degree that would likely occur in global warming. The article was an interview with Mark Lynas, the author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet and referenced research by the Hadley Centre for Climate Change in the United Kingdom . Based on tens of thousands of pages of scientific research, Six Degrees provides a succinct analysis of what the world could look like after global warming:

“At one degree of warming, the Arctic is ice-free for half the year, the South Atlantic—typically void of hurricanes—experiences coastal hurricanes, and in the western U.S. severe droughts are plaguing residents.

Two Degrees of Warming: Polar bears struggle to survive as glaciers increasingly melt away. Glaciers in Greenland begin to disappear, while coral reefs are vanishing.

Three Degrees of Warming: The Amazon rain forest is drying out and El Niño’s intense weather pattern becomes the norm. Europe repeatedly experiences searing summer heat that has rarely happened before.

Four Degrees of Warming: Oceans could rise, taking over coastal cities. The disappearance of glaciers may deprive many of fresh water. Northern Canada’s agriculture could boom and a Scandinavian beach could be the next tourism hotspot. A part of Antarctica could collapse, causing water to rise even further.

Five Degrees of Warming: Uninhabitable zones could spread, snow pack and aquifers feeding big cities could dry up, and climate refugees could run in the millions. Human civilization could begin to break down with this drastic of changes to the climate. The poor would likely suffer the most.

Six Degrees of Warming: The oceans could be marine wastelands, the deserts could march across continents, and natural disasters could become common events. The world’s great cities could be flooded and abandoned. This could be ‘the doomsday scenario.’” [1]

---

[1] http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/