Ecomorality Manufacturing, Inc.

I was under the impression that coal as a primary energy source was a desire of the past. In the graphs in my mind, coal use relative to other sources peaked sometime in the mid-20th century and then gave way to oil, which then ideally transitions into something else (which failed to occur following a significant drop in the 1970's). Granted, in 2005 the United States derived 49.7 percent of its electricity from coal and proposals to build new coal plants are submitted consistently, but this is mostly because of increased per capita consumption. And suddenly I start seeing people's bright ideas about "clean" coal popping up around the globe, such as:
The Tata Mundra project in India
Resurgence of Coal in Europe

If I were a psychologist, and World Society were my deranged patient, I would most certainly diagnose a classic case of Regression. Encyclopedia Britannica defines Regression as:
A return to earlier stages of development and abandoned forms of gratification belonging to them, prompted by dangers or conflicts arising at one of the later stages.
Doesn't that just about sound right?
earlier stage = building coal plants and increasing mining projects
abandoned forms of gratification = electricity is on the house, tonight, folks!
dangers or conflicts = demand for cultural and consumptive change, without clear alternatives and pathways
later stages = oil is $119.48 per barrel and climate change is for real

Now, I'd like to briefly vent about things I don't get when it comes to coal, brought to mind from the coal resurgence article linked above.

1) I am an opponent of nuclear energy as an answer to the oil crisis. However, in what bizarre world is nuclear energy banned prior to banning fossil fuels of any sort. Apparently this is the case in many European nations. Does this make any sense at all? Ultimately fossil fuel dependency is (at least reliably) more devastating to both natural and human environments, and it creates political complications that historically outpace even arguments over uranium access. I know Chernobyl was terrifying, but I bet it's nothing next to the consequences of following current carbon emissions projections into the next century. But hey, it's all a fun experiment, right? We just might find out which is worse.

2) Carbon capture and storage makes me laugh. I'd really like to get the inventors drunk and find out if deep down they really thought it was just a joke, too. So man went running around industrializing and manufactured on a scale never before witnessed on Earth, but his industry spewed billions of tons of waste. Naturally, he looked for the biggest places around to dump it where it wouldn't be in his way: the sky and the ocean. Here we are about 150 years later realizing the error of our ways, yet we think a good idea is to find another place to dump it. Yes, yes, underground. The only problem? It is even smaller than the other two and happens to be under our feet (and our homes). The whole mentality is just so "sweep it under the rug." Willfully blind to the limitations of both space and time.

3) Some newer coal plants try to paint a pretty green picture of their operations. The new Enel plant in Italy even features an on-site desalination plant so that it can get water for operations without competing with local drinking and agriculture needs. What is insane about this you might ask? Desalination as a process is still very energy intensive - so Enel is using massive amounts of energy to run its supposedly more efficient energy plant. Hmm...

I'd love to hear your responses if you chew on the same thoughts. In the meantime I'll be trying to get my patient to overcome Regression before he hurts himself. Maybe if the dangers or conflicts of later stages can be alleviated, so can the stifling fear. Ah, but what a vicious cycle to break.

Abouts:
The American Coal Foundation
Per Capita Coal Consumption by State
DOE Clean Coal
NPR Article on Clean Coal Technologies
Washington Post Article on "Clean" Coal
MIT's Carbon Capture Research Program
LiveScience Article on Desalination Plants

Thanks to Dr. Paul Uster, who delivered an excellent speech on ethics in the pharmaceutical industry, I know that the nation has come a long way from cocaine and alcohol-containing syrups and guarantees on magical snake-skin concoctions. Nonetheless, the current-day FDA has quite a stretch before it can consider itself ethically sound.

Specifically, I'm writing in response to the recent Bush Administration push to consider all drug-related legal cases "pre-emptive," and shove the FDA to acrophobia-inducing heights, beyond the reach of the Justice system.

Read about it:
NY Times "Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield" April 6, 2008

This situation raises two questions:
1) Has the FDA demonstrated that it is capable of restraint from industrial influences and is devoted to scientific integrity?

Though my impulse is to say, "I would not trust them with my life," the truth is I already have. However, I would not give them any more leeway than granted under the threat of legal responsibility - a process already too blind and inefficient for my taste. My thoughts on the subject are informed by the even brief acceptance of DES; industry-driven conclusions about Bisphenol-A's risks; unfounded approval delays for Plan B birth control; and a slew of concealed side-effects of drugs such as the birth control patch, Zyprexa, Depakote, Vioxx, and Ambien (just to name a few).

2) Is the Justice Department scientifically and ethically informed enough to judge the FDA?

Though this is a question the administration and pharmaceutical companies put forth, I do not really believe it matters. There is not an individual, company, or department considered too specialized to fall within the legal system - what on earth makes the FDA an exception? The whole point of suits presented on a case-by-case basis is that prosecution and defense can equally inform the judges on the relevant scientific facts at hand. And certainly ethics is the constant rumination of every judge. Sure, it's costly and laborious, but it is often the only route by which corruption in profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and the power-hungry FDA is exposed.

Do we really want to pull another blanket over our heads? I'm certainly not comfortable with the prospects of paying to die when the classic "cure is worse than the disease" scenarios are common enough. Oh, but would it not be ironic for the Supreme Court to rule on its own ineptitude? Then I really won't know which department is more dysfunctional...

In light of the recent protests against China that have resulted in more than 80 Tibetan casualties, I started wondering - how much of China's interest in Tibet might be due to its natural resources? After all, historically, strangle-holding an unwilling people was often a matter of securing valuables - be it the people for slavery, the land itself for agriculture, under the land for minerals, or its geographic location for trade routes and political strategies.

It turns out that Tibet is quite the sparkling gem of the natural world. Its wild mountains are covered with forests (through which China has steadily munched over the past 55 years) and brimming with exotic life, including over 5,000 higher plants. Buried in its heart is a wealth of copper, lithium, and boron, the content of which rivals the most productive regions in China. To top it all off, Tibet helps to quell one of China's greatest functional challenges: electricity. This little mountainous region provides for some 40% of all of China's hydroelectric power (figure may not include any statistics from the Three Gorges Dam). And that is not even factoring in its untapped potential for wind, solar, and geothermal power.

Stunning, isn't it? Granted, there is a cultural history about which I am vastly ignorant, but if China has ulterior motives for occupation, Tibet's natural resources will not be deflecting its interests any time soon.

I can't help but wonder if the unthinkable becomes thinkable, and that an oil crash results in a resource panic and global chaos, how many other peoples will be subjected to political dominance for their resources? What new ecomorality questions will we be forced to ask ourselves? It sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel.

Let's keep it that way.

Abouts:
Most Recent Article on Tibet Protests
Tibet Awareness Site
International Campaign for Tibet - Economic Rights
Embassy of PRC, Nepal - Natural Resources

A recent Earth Liberation Front ecoterrorism attack on Seattle suburban homes surfaces the ugly face of violent environmental interests. They supposedly were targeting luxury homes that were attempting to greenly coexist with the surrounding wooded wetlands. Even if such an idea contradicts the concept of living simply, how does this community's sustainability failures make it a target more worthy than blatantly damaging housing and business operations?

When considering on which subject I should ruminate tonight, I was first thinking about closed-loops in a multi-loop and -line society and what individuals, groups, and governmental bodies can do to adjoin individual loops with a larger loop to ultimately eliminate waste on mass scale. Alas, I do not have the answer(s) to that one. But rethinking this question in terms of ecoterrorism is frightening. Destruction breaks loops. How can I be considering integrating loops when some of my fellow environmentalists are intent on smashing them?

I am constantly affronted with questions as to what change is possible, and if possible, how to make it happen. Beyond that, what are the real consequences of a particular alteration, and is it the most desirable in a series of methods and outcomes? Who, what, where, when, how, why? However, all of this reasoning includes an assumption: society should change.

As far as I can deduce, ecoterrorists like those in E.L.F. reject this assumption. Possible bases for the rejection could be that they do not believe that any change is possible, which nulls the imperative, or that they do not believe change is preferable to destruction.

The former shoots straight to the heart of world view. In considering history, has any real change been made for the sole purpose of preserving the environment? It takes an optimist to seek out and hug tightly the examples of these successes, but in doing so, we can create a new track record that illuminates our own history in a different light. I do not believe everyone has to be that optimist. I do not believe that denying possibilities makes dreams come true.

The latter, though, brings some more concrete concerns to the table. Even if we make change, will it be quickly enough, and will it be encompassing enough to save the things we love (species diversity, ecosystem balances, cultures, etc.)? Maybe not. It breaks my heart to contemplate how many aspects of the life we know we might lose. The difference between myself and an ecoterrorist of this colour, though, is that I do not consider destruction to be a viable alternative to change.

Surely enough, seedlings can emerge from ashes, but even ecological destruction comparisons falter. Breaking systems leaves them vulnerable to attack, and the new systems are not necessarily stable or even functional. As much as I give credence to inherent worth of all life, we are still humans considering the future of a human world. The hopes I cling to are those of moving entire peoples to want to live in a plentiful world and to be willing to become functional parts of the world they want. This takes vision of recreation, and we all have the capacity for it. The answer can't lie in destroying disagreement. It has to come from addressing it, instead.

The environment is everything. The world is everything. Attacking it damages the very thing you are trying to liberate. You do not like your Lego building? I'll tell you one thing - just knocking blocks on the floor is not going to get you very far. You will just have fewer pieces to work with...

Abouts:
Article on Seattle Housing Attacks
Earth Liberation Front
Background on Ecoterrorism

The sort of failed mercury disposal I had feared:

Chicago Times Article

The point of organic is as much as 40% more antioxidants in fruits and vegetables and up to 90% more antioxidants in milk from organically herded cattle. So really, toss the outdated, pesticide-riddled mess out the window and head down to your local organic farmer's market next time you get a hankering for tomatoes and hummus, or one of my personal favorites, brussel sprouts in apple vinegar. Just imagine overcoming the quandary of getting all your nutrients without overeating or force-feeding yourself vitamins (though Trader Joe's makes some tasty chewables). Who would have thought that Nature actually made that possible? Genius.

The EU's Quality Low Input Food Project has and will continue to rake in fascinating data on the application of organic and low-input methods in agriculture and communities. Finding the name of this project disappointingly took some poking around, but the website is definitely something worth bookmarking. These antioxidant findings, I believe, can be attributed to Workpackage 2.3 of Subproject 2, and I am particularly looking forward to Subproject 6: Transport, trading and retailing.

Abouts:
The London Times Article on Organic Benefits
Quality Low Input Food Project Research Page

Finally the media acknowledges the unsound nature of CFL mercury levels, and GE in fact is attempting to reduce the average 5mg currently contained in each bulb.

Reuters Article on GE and CFLs

But I still insist that there is no good reason that the public should accept any level of mercury whatsoever in their lightbulbs. Thanks to good folks like those in Ann Arbor, MI, LEDs are gaining popularity and increasing public awareness as to the feasibility of using them en masse. The city will be replacing all of their old street lights with LED bulbs, which use approximately 50% of the energy of iridescents.

CNN Money Article on Ann Arbor and LEDs

Such conjunctions are representative of many environmental issues we face today. Yes, we find solutions, but sometimes too many -- with little solidarity in thoroughly researching which is the safest route to take. I find this is especially true in regards to green purchasing since individuals play such a powerful role in moving the market. These conflicts lead some interests to suggest that society refrain from making change before agreement has been made. However, I think the best method would be to pursue change, learn from it as we go along, and quickly implement adjustments to policy as needed. In this particular case, I would consider that adjustment to be leaning towards LEDs for our electricity reductions rather than CFLs because they involve fewer threats to public and environmental health.

It strikes me as particularly poignant to consider that a harmful pollutant humans have released around the globe has actually fueled the evolution of an organism - even if single-celled - to be able to survive off of our toxic waste. Well this is the case for dehalococcoides (Dhc) found in the black PCB-contaminated sludge at the bottom of rivers and bays. The theory is that this microbe once lived on a chemical similar to polychlorinated biphenyls, but adapted to consume PCBs when exposed to their plenitude. Good news for us, as well as the multitude of aquatic organisms that suffer the toxic consequences of these persistent chemicals! Now, of course, comes the question of how to best take advantage of its aptitude...

Harbor Sludge Might Hold Means to Clean The Anacostia River
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer

How tough do you have to be to survive in Baltimore? Try breathing toxic waste instead of air.

That's what University of Maryland scientists have discovered a tiny microbe doing at the stinky, oily bottom of Charm City's stupendously polluted harbor. Down there, in muck as oozy as black jello, this creature can actually survive on PCBs -- one of the most harmful pollutants in U.S. waters -- and, in the process, break them down into something less dangerous.

Now, researchers are hoping to harness this nasty bit of nature's magic and use it to help other PCB-laden waterways, such as the Anacostia River. Their goal is to create a new kind of biological cleaning crew, bred from the original Baltimore stock.

"According to a study published in July by Japanese scientists, a kilogram of beef generates the equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide, more than the equivalent of driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home."

- Limit Meat Eating to Tackle Climate Change press release from Agence France-Presse

Source: The Globe and Mail "Limits on meat eating could keep global warming at bay," September 13, 2007.

Abouts:
Ogino et al. 2007
Fighting Global Warming with Food

The colors of assessing the ocean are shifting away from blue and green to shinier money colors like copper and gold. Unlike many other of humanity's ventures, which have a tendency to work their hardest to use sea water as a dumping ground before land, mining is turning the tables and looking to compensate for its dry ground shortages with underwater mining. At a time when gold miners are directly handling mercury, silver miners are regularly exposed to arsenic, tracks larger than the big apple are ripped wide open, entire mountain tops are relocated, and the US federal government loosens the legal definition of near-water dumping, the last thing this planet and its inhabitants need is to seek to an ocean-wide expansion of mining operations.

I read this article right after reading a Washington Post one on the 118 increase of near-extinction species since just last year -- coral reefs being included in the report. But as David Heydon, CEO of the mining company Nautilus, asks, "What's stopping us today?"


Mining Takes the Plunge; New Technologies Open Seas to the Harvesting of Precious Metals
Patrick Barta. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, NY.: September 13, 2007. pg. B.3

The age-old hunt for gold, copper and other precious minerals is shifting to a new frontier: the ocean floor.

Mining companies have long known the world's oceans and seas cover vast troves of metals, including zinc, silver and other commodities currently in high demand. However, unlike oil and gas companies, which have operated offshore for decades, miners lacked the technology to haul their ocean bounty to the surface.

Now, the global boom in commodity prices has encouraged mining companies to take another look at undersea mining. Leading the effort is Nautilus Minerals Inc., a Vancouver, British Columbia-based outfit backed by some of the biggest names in mining, including large shareholders such as United Kingdom-based Anglo American PLC and Barrick Gold Corp. of Canada, one of the world's largest gold miners.

Nautilus is using complex underwater robotic vehicles to search mineral deposits a mile or more below the surface in waters off the coast of Papua New Guinea near Indonesia.

So far, Nautilus has focused its efforts on deposits left over from "black smokers," or chimney-shaped structures that form after underground magma pushes mineral-laden fluids through cracks in the sea floor. When the heated liquid comes into contact with cold salt water, its minerals coalesce into deposits of gold, silver, copper and other metallic elements.

Once the best sites are identified, Nautilus plans to use remote- operated vehicles that will move slowly across the ocean floor, grinding up 400 metric tons of rock an hour and then sucking it into a pipe to be pumped to daylight.

Another start-up, London-based Neptune Minerals PLC, has launched its own deep-sea minerals project off the coast of New Zealand, and other offshore ventures may follow.

Although a few mining companies have extracted diamonds and other minerals from shallow waters along shorelines, mining experts say the latest efforts would be the first to mine significant quantities from deep waters. Their common goal is a future in which underwater robots and other equipment prowl the ocean floors, cracking open new sources of minerals that can be used to make cars, mobile phones and other consumer products.

"We're doing this to start a whole new industry, just like the [offshore] oil and gas industry," says David Heydon, chief executive officer of Nautilus.

Some mining-industry veterans are skeptical, and they worry that the latest aquatic adventures could reflect an expanding market bubble, with investors pouring millions into high-risk projects that could fail if raw material prices fall. Because the practice is new and unproven, it is unclear what price levels would be needed for offshore mining to be profitable. A similar, $500 million effort by other major resource companies to raise manganese from the ocean floor in the 1970s collapsed amid technical difficulties, among other problems.

Deep-sea mining also faces criticism from environmental activists, who question whether it is worth the ecological cost to tear up areas rich in aquatic life.

"I've got major concerns" about the Nautilus project, says Techa Beaumont, an analyst at the Mineral Policy Institute, an Australia- based mining watchdog group. She says she attended a sustainable- development forum in Papua New Guinea recently at which numerous local residents raised complaints about the project. "There's no real accountability beyond them saying it's all going to be great," she says of Nautilus.

Mr. Heydon acknowledges that deep-sea mining will cause some environmental damage, but he argues the impact will be less than with larger, on-land operations. Consumers have to get resources from somewhere, and taking them from the sea could mean less interference with local populations, he says.

Research institutions such as the Australian government's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, have studied minerals on the sea floor near Papua New Guinea and elsewhere for more than a decade, in part to get a better understanding of the way mineral deposits in general are formed.

Nautilus had hoped to mine offshore deposits since the 1990s. "People said we will mine the sea floor someday, and I just said, what's stopping us today?" recalls Mr. Heydon, who joined after the company was founded.

Nautilus negotiated with the governments of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga and the Solomon Islands to secure exploration rights to an offshore area the size of the U.K. It also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange; to date, it has raised $295 million through stock sales.

Working from a command ship some 30 miles off the Papua New Guinea coast, Nautilus uses a number of underwater-exploration tools to determine which areas would be most profitable. They include a so- called autonomous underwater vehicle, or AUV, that looks like a torpedo fitted with a computer and propeller system that can be programmed to guide the vehicle to specific areas to collect data. For sites that need closer scrutiny, Nautilus sends down a more-powerful remotely-operated vehicle, or ROV, which is connected to the ship by a cable and includes cameras and "hands" that can be manipulated by staff on the ship to pick up and move rocks and even drill into the sea floor to collect samples.

Nautilus says it has identified enough minerals to mine 150,000 metric tons of copper per year and 400,000 ounces of gold, with production beginning in 2010.

Mr. Heydon estimates the underwater rock is 8% to 10% copper, compared with 1% or less at comparable sites on shore, which means vehicles would need to dig up a small fraction of the dirt they would have to turn over on land.

Of course, all that could depend on where commodity prices go. Although copper, the key revenue source at Nautilus's first project, currently trades at about $7,200 per metric ton on the London Metal Exchange (up dramatically from 2002 levels), it has fallen about 10% from its recent peak in May.

(c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Abouts:
Race to the Bottom - Wired's article on undersea mining
Mongabay Fragile Marine Ecosystems related article
Nautilus Environmental Page