Now why doesn’t this surprise me?

The document from Houston University claims that governments wanting to use Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) have overestimated its value and says it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the CO2 produced by one power station.

Previous modelling has hugely underestimated the space needed to store CO2 because it was based on the “totally erroneous” premise that the pressure feeding the carbon into the rock structures would be constant, argues Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and his co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University

US research paper questions viability of carbon capture and storage | Business | The Guardian.

But of course, the government of Alberta in its wisdom offered two billion dollars split between four organizations, including Shell to undertake CCS projects. These are for projects that have been proposed with defined storage volumes – for instance, Shell’s Quest project “will capture and store 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually beginning in 2015 from Shell’s Scotford upgrader and expansion, near Fort Saskatchewan”.

Interestingly, the report out of Houston which questions the whole viability of the industry as a means of combating climate change, (after all, these companies wouldn’t be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts!), comes just six weeks after this report from the University of Calgary, (funded by the Alberta Government and Industry).

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Carbon Capture & Storage Viability Questioned

Technorati Tags: Alberta, An Inconvenient Truth, Calgary, carbon capture and storage, Carbon dioxide, CCS, climate change, Coal company, Energy, global warming, government, Houston, power plants, TransAlta, truth, University

It is really convenient as a society to assume that no action is required on the part of individuals to change their habits outside of market driven forces, but the economy (and associated markets) as we know it is a recent invention that has been fuelled by the very energy it seeks to control the sale of. Relying on consumer preferences in the markets to change energy consumption behaviour is like trying to steer an oil tanker by sticking your iPod into the wake as a rudder – the impetus is slow to react, and driven by selfish assumptions that believe that someone else is working to solve the problems. Is anyone actually working to solve problems, or are the agendas of each group getting in the way?

• Big business is looking for opportunity and profit.
• The government is looking for political stability.
• Economists are looking for growth.
• Scientists are looking for technology.

The argument that “every small step counts”, only goes as far as that step and not beyond the current comfort zone/payoff point. Essentially, the question is, “will I receive an immediate or tangible benefit for behaving a certain way?” This works when gas prices rise, people drive less, or if the price of natural gas went up, people might heat their house less, or take shorter showers – the idea of money lost is effective in changing behaviours like little else. The successes seen in the  conversion of many people to using reusable bags rather than plastic ones at the checkout follows this idea closely as well, although the pain or reward for a behaviour  in this case is predominantly social, even though some stores have taken to applying a 5 cent levy per bag purchased.

The decisions we can make as consumers, and their relative effectiveness in being “green” are complex, and there is always someone out there who’ll tell you the opposite of the advice you received yesterday. Marketing departments understand this and seek to penetrate through the chatter to make their product stand out – claiming (and occasionally acting) green is a tactic that is paying off for everything from car manufacturers to online hosting companies.

But are these little acts of green going to make a difference? Or has our middle-class bourgeois mentality, and it’s suburban sprawling landscape eaten away at the chance to make a real change to social and environmental sustainability?

I’m betting on the likes of Transition Towns and similar grassroots programs that deal with the big picture impacts on the local level as a means of educating and changing societies and their consumerist tendencies – the groups outlined above may be part of society, but they are not necessarily acting in the long term best interests of that society, and neither is the consumer choice that is fed information from each of these groups in one form or another.

Just some thoughts, no real conclusions today.

Mike [easy-retweet]

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Consumer Choice, Market Forces and the Economy

Technorati Tags: Business, Consumerism, Energy, environment, Middle class, Natural gas, Sustainability, Transition Town

Fifty years ago, you could be forgiven for thinking that this generation would be living in outer space, in bubble shaped colonies, transported by hyperdrive-powered futuristic spaceships.

Just because we knew there were moons and planets out there did not make the technological challenges of getting there surmountable. Sure, we have stuck a few guys on the moon, (but not for decades), and we’ve got a few poor souls tinkering with life in orbit on the International Space Station, but for all practical purposes, reality has missed the dreams of previous generations.

I use this as an example, to illustrate the outlandish claims of remaining oil reserves. The world has been aware, at least in a theoretical sense, of the concept of peak oil for about 50 years, but even as we are at or nearing the probable peak production output, there are optimists who are gaining airtime on major media outlets, many of them making claims that fail to acknowledge the limitations of our abilities and likely technological advances.

Like many Malthusian beliefs, peak oil theory has been promoted by a motivated group of scientists and laymen who base their conclusions on poor analyses of data and misinterpretations of technical material. But because the news media and prominent figures like James Schlesinger, a former secretary of energy, and the oilman T. Boone Pickens have taken peak oil seriously, the public is understandably alarmed.

A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and extracting petroleum.

Source: Op-Ed Contributor – ‘Peak Oil’ Is a Waste of Energy – NYTimes.com

Michael Lynch, the author of the above Op-Ed in the NYTimes, ends his article with a claim that the price of oil won’t rise again anytime soon, and in fact, they’ll fall:

Oil remains abundant, and the price will likely come down closer to the historical level of $30 a barrel as new supplies come forward in the deep waters off West Africa and Latin America, in East Africa, and perhaps in the Bakken oil shale fields of Montana and North Dakota.

Interesting that this conflicts with many other respectable views, including this one from Merill Lynch

“Without firm policy action to reduce global oil demand or an unexpected expansion in supplies, a continuation of extremely loose monetary policy in OECD economies next year could ultimately bring about another spike in oil prices well above $100 a barrel as we approach 2011,” the report said.

Then, of course, if we get an oil spike, Merrill warns of risks to the economy and recovery:

“A vicious cycle of rising oil prices, rising capital inflows in emerging markets, continued emerging market currency appreciation and in turn higher emerging market commodity demand could trigger a sharp deterioration of terms of trade in OECD economies, putting the fragile global recovery at risk,” the analysts said in the report.

Source: Merrill: Oil’s Shooting To $100 Next Year

The Wall Street Journal Picked up on the Deutsche Bank’s recent report -

Global oil supplies are indeed set to peak within a few years, and no, that is not bullish for oil. Quite the contrary—it will spell the end of the “oil age.”

That’s the take from Deutsche Bank’s new report, “The Peak Oil Market.” In a nutshell: The oil industry chronically under invests in finding new supplies, exemplified both by Big Oil’s recent love of share buybacks and under-investment by big oil-producing nations. That spells a looming supply crunch.

That will send oil to $175 a barrel by 2016—and will simultaneously put the final nail in oil’s coffin and send prices plummeting back to $70 by 2030. That’s because there’s an even more important “peak” moment on the horizon: A global peak in oil demand. That has already begun in the world’s biggest oil-consuming nation,

Source: Peak Oil: The End Of the Oil Age is Near, Deutsche Bank Says – Environmental Capital – WSJ

The common but irrational North American response on reading this conflicting information is to stick your head in the sand and pretend that someone else is dealing with it. Especially when we read of $175 a barrel prices for our beloved energy lifeline.

The optimism described in the articles that discount the peak oil theory usually centres around technology. This is in three main areas, discovery, extraction and processing. With current technology, we’re not discovering a significant amount of reserves that can be extracted with existing technology. The more difficult the extraction, the more energy is required, so the return on energy invested shrinks with the increased effort. There is only so much efficiency that can be squeezed out of the possible extraction methods – and some of the methods end up using or polluting other resources such as fresh water. The most contentious source of oil in this part of the world is the Tar Sands. The amount of processing that is required to turn these messy reserves into usable crude oil leads us again to the question of the return on investment or EROEI. At some point the energy balance tips toward requiring more energy to discover, extract, process, refine, transport than can be gained in the final product. The effort require should always yield a net benefit, similar to the gardener who grows food for consumption, some is retained for seeds to plant in the following season. Recently several authors have suggested the the minimum EROEI for a society needs to be above 3:1 for it to function, which puts the concept of running the global fuel demand on current biofuel technologies into question, as well as many other alternative fuel sources, both large and small scale.

I’d like to see an open dialogue around future scenarios with a lower energy input, allowing communities to build policy based on strategic assumptions rather than unknown technologies. Cautiousness is not in the vocabulary of most businesses and governments when it comes to strategic planning – rather it requires a patient consideration of the facts currently available and the risks associated with each fact or assumption being wrong. I believe that assuming the economy to be weaker than predicted, or oil reserves to be more difficult to extract puts communities in a strong position for a resilient future, regardless of the outcome. I’m not an economist, and I’m not giving professional advice, but as far as I can tell, the only way you can lose on this is on the investment side of things. If you go safe, you will not make as much money of the markets – is that a risk you are willing to take in light of all other considerations?

[easy-retweet]

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Oil Optimists

Technorati Tags: Business, Energy, Oil Prices, Oil reserves, peak oil, Petroleum, Petroleum industry, Technology

Health Care services are entirely dependent on petroleum products – just about every book on the subject of our energy situation has pointed this out, and acknowledged that the level of health care we enjoy today is not sustainable without plentiful oil.

This NYTimes article is one of the first mainstream attempts I’ve seen at getting this information out the the world.

Health Care’s Oil Problem – Idea of the Day Blog – NYTimes.com

“Oil is the glue in our medical system that holds it all together,” says a consultant on energy and health. And it has always been thus, suggests a study in Public Health Reports, which links the remarkable improvement in health over the last 150 years to cheap, easily accessible energy. The study urges preparedness for “peak petroleum” and conservation in a health care infrastructure that has long favored speed and convenience.

What does a post peak petroleum health care system look like? The most recent release from the Transition Network – “The Transition Timeline – for a local, resilient future” by Shaun Chamberlin gives a concise glimpse at a lower carbon future health care. Shaun focuses on the following five areas as examples of how petroleum and intricately related technologies have shaped health care…

• Inefficient buildings
• Energy-intensive modern equipment
• Medical products reliance on petroleum
• Technology replacing traditional skills
• Centralization and Specialization

Climate change has it’s own role to play in the future health care issues we will face, and this is dependent on where you live. Coastal storms, floods, drought and heatwaves are all more likely in the future, each bringing serious health concerns and weakening the existing systems built on cheap, abundant oil.

Resilient Health Care

We need to enact a “cultural story change” to bring health care to a place of sustainability. An often used example regarding alternate health care arrangements is Cuba, with a similar (or better) life expectancy, but using far less energy and engaging more localized services with a higher doctor to patient ratio than the level of service we have come to expect. A resilient future health care system will have to view death differently too – people will have to better acknowledge just where they are headed. Much of the fear of death is likely related to the cold clinical calculated medical environment in which decisions are made and that there is an expectation to be “fixed up” by the doctors and to be able to go out and bat another innings. Many spiritual aspects of life and death have been steamrolled by modern medicine, and a return to what we know as “alternative medicines” may be necessary to regain respect for our bodies and our health.

Ironically, one of the blogs I read Aguanomics, posted a short article on Health Care today as well, and I think the end aim is similar, a resilient health care system based on human scale relationships…

Bottom Line: We will not (or cannot) fix our healthcare system without strengthening patient-doctor relationships. Single payer would do that, but it can also work with multiple payers (gov’t or private insurance) and providers, e.g., as car insurance does.

Source: Aguanomics: A Few (More) Thoughts on Health Care

Finding ways to do health care without the massive building costs, energy costs in running those buildings and the equipment inside, without the disposable petroleum based convenience and the re-localization of services to provide more frontline wellness care, rather than the current emergency based sickness care.

Some of the health care conveniences and products we enjoy and rely on may prove to be a part of the best use of remaining fossil fuels we could imagine, but without an entire systems audit of the existing system against the peak oil lens, we will never understand the best direction for the future of this industry and service.

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Peak Health

Technorati Tags: climate change, Cuba, Health, Health care, Health Policy, Life expectancy, Medicine, peak oil, Single-payer health care, United States

The battle to prevent the effects of climate change have been compared to the Apollo space mission of the 60′s. A recent report and various articles around the web have picked this idea up again, this from Joseph Romm, writing at Salon.com…

Goodnight, moon travel | Salon

Kennedy ended his speech with an appeal to the universal human spirit to conquer the unknown

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.” Well, space is there, and we’re going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Today, we know that the most hazardous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked is the transition to a carbon-free economic and energy system that’s capable of sustaining and expanding prosperity for 9 billion people. The alternative is, as a new 6,700-page report by world leaders concludes, catastrophic climate changes whereby “billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilization will collapse.”

Humanity has only two paths forward. We voluntarily switch to a low-carbon economy over the next two decades, or the reality of catastrophic climate change and peak oil forces us to desperately start doing so by the end of the 2020s. The only difference between the two paths is that the first one spares our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, untold misery. It creates a sustainable future where activities like manned space travel can be contemplated again.

Somehow, I doubt that the space race would have been so universally accepted as a project for mankind if the alternative was catastrophic climate changes whereby ‘billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilization will collapse.’”. It wasn’t a choice between a current lifestyle leading to a bleak future or an unknown, possibly less wealthy, definitely tougher future.

The planet’s future: Climate change ‘will cause civilisation to collapse’ – Climate Change, Environment – The Independent

Although government and business leaders are responding more seriously to the global environmental situation, it continues to get worse, according to the report. It calls on governments to work to 10-year plans to tackle growing threats to human survival, targeting particularly the US and China, which need to apply the sort of effort and resources that put men on the Moon.

“This is not only important for the environment; it is also a strategy to increase the likelihood of international peace. Without some agreement, it will be difficult to get the kind of global coherence needed to address climate change seriously.”

But seriously, “international peace”? Is it possible that as resources dwindle, the planet gets hotter and food shortages are more likely that we’ll be holding hands singing “We are One” or “We are the World” just because we decided to work together at fixing the problem?

An un- (or minimally) regulated, capitalist economy created the wealth that permitted the US Space Race Program while the population basked in new technologies fueled by cheap fossil fuels. Back then, exploring space was seen as an adventure, a sign of progress, hope for the future, of course the dream could be sold to the American Public, the world stood in awe as these manmade machines blasted into space, carrying a few brave souls into the deep unknown.

This same economy is sputtering along now in fits and starts, climate change is less of an adventure than a battle, there is no glittering prize at the end of the battle – those who survive the confrontation with climate change and peak oil will face a world very different from today – not filled with greater wealth,  technological promise or ever increasing convenience. These are the bastions of our current economy and society. What will force us to change our path? What will prompt us to choose to save humanity rather than please ourselves?

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Choosing to Save Humanity

Technorati Tags: An Inconvenient Truth, climate change, environment, Fossil fuel, George Mallory, Low-carbon economy, Mount Everest, peak oil

I often get asked how to present the information of climate change, peak oil, the economy and the future of humanity. Saul Griffith, one of the founders of Wattzon a tool to measure the energy impact of your everyday choices presented at the PopTech conference at the end of 2008. The video is about half an hour, but he takes the audience through the rationale behind his methodology of breaking down every choice in his life to determine how many watts of energy that choice uses. The last 10 minutes of the presentation show just how futile the efforts of transforming from fossil fuels to alternative energy are against the scale of effort required to limit atmospheric carbon to 450 parts per million, (which in itself is a massive compromise on the quality of life for millions of people around the world among other things).

Saul’s slides are slick, his presentation is typically relaxed for an Aussie, (I can say this as one) – but the message comes through loud and clear. There is a challenge, we need to address it immediately and rather than throwing money at various stimulus packages and bailouts, it is likely that all of this capital will be required to even make the slightest dent in carbon emissions while maintaining energy use as a nation.

I’m writing this post not to suggest that we as a nation should go down this path, rather we should prepare ourselves for the likely energy descent as described by the Transition Towns Initiative and other community based action models that see the amount of energy used in the 20th Century as an anomaly against the whole of history; an anomaly fueled (literally) by cheap abundant fossil fuels.  Is Saul’s plan even remotely achievable? Watch the video and leave a comment.

To download the video in m4v format, click here, or watch it below – just click play.

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Saul Griffith on Future Energy

Technorati Tags: Activism, climate change, Energy, environment, peak oil, Quality of life, Saul Griffith

The missing statistic – 81.73 Million Barrels of Oil Per Day the historical peak oil production which occurred in 2008.

There is a sizable community of energy pundits who, after reviewing oil production records, believe that world oil production peaked last year (2008) at 81.73 million barrels of oil per day. Many in this community follow the discussion at a site called The Oil Drum, where no topic is off limits – as long as it relates to energy future, which if you haven’t worked out yet, just about everything we do or touch exists because of cheap abundant energy. Unfortunately, this number and the impacts on society, culture, the economy and development are being ignored by the media and the general population.

Numbers that are in the Media

CO2
There are much more prevalent numbers out there at the moment, particularly atmospheric carbon dioxide counts and predictions: 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I’ll let Bill McKibben describe why this number matters:

The Tipping Point by Bill McKibben: Yale Environment 360

If we are at 385 parts per million, and everything is melting, what does that tell you? What it tells you is: This is not a future problem. We’re already past the line, out of the safe zone. We need to be scrambling like offside linemen to get back where we belong before the whistle blows. And the line we need to return to, if we hope to avoid wrenching disruptions from global warming, is 350 parts per million.

Sea Levels
How about sea levels? If there was ever a topic that had more varied opinions as to the extent of the impact of climate change on sea levels! Estimates range from 11cm to over one meter in the next 90 years…

Rising sea levels to exceed expectations, climate change congress hears | Straight.com

The ministry’s report stated that sea levels for the Fraser River delta could rise by as much as 120 centimetres by 2100.

Temperature
And what about temperature? 4 degrees is a number thrown around in discussions on climate change, but what if it the increase is greater?

Global warming ‘will be worse than expected’ warns Stern | Environment | guardian.co.uk

According to the 2006 Stern report, a rise of 4C would put between seven million and 300 million more people at risk of coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline by 15%-35% in Africa, and 20%-50% of animal and plant species would face extinction. Yesterday, scientists announced at the conference that a 4C rise would lead to the loss of 85% of the Amazon rainforest.

Population
Global population predictions serve as a warning to preserve something for future generations – even so, there really isn’t a genuine effort to change the patterns of growth. Pick your number for 2100 – how about 14 billion people? See this graph from a UN report showing high, medium and low predictions. It is interesting that the low resembles the same bell curve that peak oil folks use to represent the available oil supplies.

Why No Peak Oil Numbers?

So I have to ask, why is Peak Oil a taboo topic in the media? Is it because everyone believes that the techno-miracle will save us and allow us to continue scraping the skin off the earth and shoving our waste under the next layer, hoping that no one, particularly future generations will notice? Or is it that we are so addicted to oil that, like a drug addict, we can’t see just how much damage we are doing to ourselves as a species and the environment we live in and rely upon for survival?

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as The Missing Number – Peak Oil

Technorati Tags: Bill McKibben, Carbon dioxide, climate change, Energy, environment, Fossil fuel, global warming, Oil Drum, peak oil, Society and Culture

The following graph is from a post over at the Oil Drum, thanks to Jason Bradford for the data and analysis.

The graph compares the Energy Used per capital of a nation against the Percent of that population that are farmers. The bubble size is representative of the comparable population size. More “developed” countries use more energy and have less farmers. It seems easy to stick anything on the axis of a graph and draw a conclusion from it, but considering that the energy used is predominately fossil fuel based when it comes to replacing human labour – at some point we are going to have to start the process of reinvesting in agriculture – to the point where potentially more than half of the population is involved in the production of food – take another look at the graph – there are a lot of countries around and above the 50% mark – and none of them use more than 100 GJ/Person/Year – this is about 50 SUV tanks full of gas a year – that’s all.

This situation should be a concern for us in North America, just as it appears – we are hanging out there in terms of agricultural reliance on oil without any policies in place to reverse the trends of the 20th century where oil replaced human labour and expertise in the fields. Castlegar is in a prime position to convert unused and underutilized lands into agriculturally productive lots. In previous generations, this has been a reality of life, during wars or other emergencies, communities found ways to supply for their own needs or perish. Somehow we think we are immune from history – that we have evolved beyond these risks. However, it is likely that we’ve passed the point of efficiency and security in the agricultural sector and now rely heavily on faraway places to provide over 90% of the food we consume. Any shift back from this point would radically improve community sustainability, and while we are not going to be able to grow everything, that is not a reason to not try growing anything as a community.

The point being that all our efforts to be green are still to some degree or another unsustainable. To truly call something sustainable, it has to be able to be replecated without degrading the earth, without exhausting resources and without harming our health. Existing agricultural practices in North America, even those that are large scale organic – cannot claim to be at all sustainable.

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Agricultural and Energy Realities

Technorati Tags: agriculture, Business, Energy, environment, Fossil fuel, North America, Oil Drum, Sustainability

The City of Castlegar has shown its support for Earth Hour this week in their Regular Council Meeting- Earth Hour 2009 is dubbed the election between the Earth and Global Warming. It all began in Sydney Australia in 2007 and has spread to become a global initiative to raise awareness of climate change and issues with energy. Sign up to turn your lights off for an hour to show your support for the earth at 8:30PM Saturday 28 March 2009 by clicking on the image below.

I’m more of an advocate of promoting the larger measures that need to be taken – however, it is important that the serious messages of climate change and peak energy are expressed to the citizens of every village, town and city across the globe in the simplest terms possible.  Although the simple act of turning off the lights for an hour isn’t going to save the climate – the inspiration for change that events such as this can have in children, youth and thought leaders in the community is extremely powerful. Our house will definitely be darkened for the hour or more.

Here are some ideas for how to spend the hour:

Here are some ideas for how to spend the hour:

1. Attend local Earth Hour events – or organize one. Add your event, or get details on events near you at Events.EarthHourCanada.org.
2. Go outside and look at the stars.
3. Find a great viewing spot to see your town or city go dark at 8:30 p.m.
4. Take pictures and post them to the Earth Hour Facebook page.
5. Go for a lantern walk through a park.
6. Patronize local restaurants and businesses taking part in Earth Hour.
7. Gather your family or friends for a candle-lit dinner.
8. Meet your neighbours at a street or block party.
9. Have an acoustic music jam.
10. Talk to your children about how much electricity your family uses. Brainstorm ways to reduce it.
11. Tell ghost stories.
12. Listen to the birds, bats or other wildlife.
13. Play flashlight tag.
14. Turn your thermostat down by 1 degree. And leave it there.
15. Play Pictionary with glow-in-the-dark markers.
16. Change all your light bulbs to energy-efficient versions.
17. Have a night game of shinny with a glow-in-the-dark puck or ball (wear reflective vests).
18. Take a walk in the moonlight.
19. Have a candlelit bath.
20. Put a glow stick on your dog’s collar or leash and go for a walk.
21. Toast marshmallows over a tea light candle.
22. Get out your Ouija board.
23. Have a wine or scotch tasting in the dark.
24. Get out the sleeping bags and camp out.on the living room floor.
25. Make a list of ways you could reduce your energy consumption every hour of every day.

Source: WWF – 25 ways to mark Earth Hour 2009

What are your thoughts about initiatives like this? Can it make a difference? Are you going to participate?

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as Earth Hour

Technorati Tags: Australia, Castlegar, climate change, Earth, Earth Hour, environment, Facebook, global warming, Sydney

Image via Wikipedia

The author of “Uncertain Peril – Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds”, and former USDA lawyer, Claire Hope Cummings discusses the necessity of farm security.

Claire uses the prop of a box of Kellogg’s frosted flakes to point out that the box of cereal has mostly genetically modified, chemical laden, nutritionally inferior products – and that she used to say that it would be better to eat the box, but a recent study now points out that the packaging of many products contain toxic chemicals. Also, the farmer gets about 5 cents of the $3.00 per box.

Challenges

• Dramatic Changes to the food system
• For every one calory of food, an average of 10 calories of energy used to create
• GMOs
  • Artificial organisms made by agrochemical corporations, crossing species boundaries
  • Process is unstable and unpredictable
  • Used for weed and pest control
  • Industrial Agriculture
  • 65+ studies show potential health products
  • “Superweeds”
  • Farmer Lawsuits and loss of autonomy
  • Facts
    • Higher costs
    • lower yield
    • limited markets
    • chemically dependent
    • restrictions on use and risk of farmer lawsuits
  • Agrobusiness is buying up all commercial seed business Top ten owns almost 70% of seed supply in the world.
  • Patented and bypassed the agricultural evaluations of previous generations.
  • Not a sustainable process or the answer to our problems
• Reduced diversity of crops
  • 85,000 sub-varieties of corn existed in Mexico adapted to local conditions and problems
  • 50,000 edible crops worldwide – 150 grown commercially, with 3 grown to provide most of our caloric needs
  • The US used to have 8000 varieties of apples, now we have about 800.
• Use of Food Crops for pharmaceutical and Industrial purposes
  • Biofuels means growing more commodity crops and turning agriculture into an industrial machine.
• Climate ready crops
  • Monsanto, Dupont, BASF, Bayer & Syngenta
  • 532 patents on climate ready genes
  • posing as our saviours when drought and other problems threaten a food group – these are often naturally occuring crops that have now been patented.

Knowledge of crops have become privatized and commoditized

This is a political problem, GMO is not saving the world and is taking away independence from farmers to look after their own crops.

How do we take back control?

“Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them” – Einstein.

Before the iraq war 90% of seed was saved by farmers – now, after America “saved” them, no seed saving is occuring and a Cargil executive is heading up the initiative. (Also America destroyed Iraq’s seed saving efforts during the war, the seed bank was located in a place now infamous Abu Grabi –where prisoners were tortured.

IAASTD undertook a study that gave credance to the role of women in agriculture, local systems, and communities.

Seed saving needs to happen in the fields, not just in seed banks.

We need to protect community, generosity and reduce individualism and greed.

This post was written by Mike Thomas for UrbanWorkbench.com ©2010.

Originally posted as BSC2009 – Seeds, Science and Sustainability – Claire Hope Cummings

Technorati Tags: agriculture, Biotechnology, BSC2009, farming, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, GMO, Monsanto, seeds, United States Department of Agriculture