Here's a link to an interesting article quoting Ian Marchant, chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, regarding our oil addiction and it's likely looming implications.
"Energy boss foretells future scarred by oil wars"
This brings to mind some other implications of our oil addiction. Aside from the blindingly obvious , climate change, drivers should be aware that largely due to the desperate need to fuel trips to the mall people in the developing world can no longer afford basic food stuffs. Burning food based ethanol in our cars is inhumane! You don't have to take my word for it. Lester Brown at the
Earth Policy Institute
is the recipient of forty honorary degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, among numerous other awards, Brown has been described by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers." (Wikipedia) Check out his writing on food security in this lecture;
WORLD FACING HUGE NEW CHALLENGE ON FOOD FRONT
Business-as-Usual Not a Viable Option
Can we remember the Exxon Valdez disaster? The oil is still wreaking havoc in the ecosystem as Exxon continues to avoid it's obligations to Prince William Sound and the people who depend on it in,
Cordova Alaska
How about the plastic choking the oceans and it's life that we all depend on for food, carbon sequestration, and inspiration. Many oceanographers believe that the oceans are close to ecological collapse. Huge quantities of petrochemical rubbish are swirling in the north Pacific.
"The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic,"
The North Pacific Gyre
Sorry to be so gloomy but I'm sick of all the glad handing green washed eco consumerism promising us that if we just do this or buy that we won't need to change anything else about our bloated, wasteful, unethical, greedy, war mongering lifestyles. Business as usual is not an option in any context, not just food.
Much of the science suggests that a 2ºC rise in global temperature is locked in, with it's attendant sea level rise, impacts on water scarcity and food production. All those impacts will be a fond memory to your grandchildren as they begin to experience 5ºC to 7ºC rises due to our negligence. The rising tide of information has washed away the sand from our buried heads. We won't be able to say "Oh we didn't know, the Fox channel didn't tell us about it", what will be crystal clear is, we knew and we didn't care. We chose to burn food, over-heat and cool our homes, over-consume anything we could get our hands on, spend our resources building theme parks instead of solar and wind power plants, we even chose to build more coal fired power plants and removed mountaintops so we might never have to risk missing an episode of "Lost"!
As we did so, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and millions of people died, as well as most of the wildlife on the planet. Is that the future you want?
To quote the Tragically Hip "Desperate times call for desperate measures"
Find something substantive and do it, give up your car, go off grid, grow your own food, build sustainable communities, protest war, buy local or better yet don't buy at all, become a citizen not a consumer.
Showing posts with label corn ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corn ethanol. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Monday, 25 February 2008
Corn ethanol and Water in the US Part 5 - by Robb
In this discussion on living sustainably I have already mentioned food as a basic need. My next post will begin to look at food in more detail but for now let me wrap up this thread on corn ethanol with a move from it’s water implications to it’s impacts on food production.
Corn is Food
Of the total 93 million acres planted in corn in 2007, approximately 23 million acres were devoted to ethanol. (Food and Water Watch2007) 70 million acres of corn were used directly or indirectly for food production. The 2006 US output of ethanol was 6.5 billion gallons. (Platts 2007) The Congressional Research Service has stated:
“barring drastic realignment of US field crop production patterns, corn based ethanol’s potential as a petroleum import substitute appears to be limited by a crop area constraint.”
Tell the Bush administration because the US Dept of Energy and the US Dept of Agriculture have decided that the US has the land resources capable of producing 1.3 billion tons of biomass/yr by 2030 and that only 1 billion tons would be needed to displace 30% of the country’s oil use based on 2004 rates. Even the NRDC has gotten on board. The Natural Resources Defense Council reckons that biofuels could offset 25% of projected US transport oil consumption by 2050. (Food and Water Watch2007)
But what will be the effect on food prices? Ethanol production already has a deleterious effect on the poor who rely on the corn crop as a staple. Corn prices in Mexico rose 400% just 3 months resulting in civil unrest in Mexico in early 2007. (Jerome Taylor in “The World” 2007)
“David Pimentel,... has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people.” (Roger Segelken 2008)
It should be noted that Mr. Pimentel’s work on this issue has been called into question due to his research associate, Tad Patzek’s connections with the oil industry. More recent research is supporting his conclusions however.
Conclusions
The profligacy of the US extends beyond their driving habits; water use in the US is the highest in the world. According to the WWF report “Rich Countries, Poor Water”:
“In the USA, large areas are already using substantially more water than can be naturally replenished. This situation will only be further exacerbated by climate change scenarios of lower rainfall, increased evaporation and changed snow-melt patterns. Salinity threatens important irrigation areas and there is increasing anxiety over the level of contamination with chemicals and pathogens in water sources and water supplies.”
Ground and surface water pollution has resulted in an ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and poisoned drinking water across the corn belt. The environment of the US cannot support a large scale expansion of the corn industry; indeed if anything it should be scaled back to a level that is achievable through sustainable and ecologically sound practices. There is not enough water, not enough arable land, and not enough GHG emissions reduction to be gained from an expanded corn to ethanol industry. If the subsidies currently going to support corn ethanol production, $7 billion in 2007, were instead shifted to the auto industry to help them rapidly achieve at least a doubling in CAFE standards, a much more substantive reduction in GHG emissions could be realized.
Committing to a large scale shift to corn based ethanol as a fuel for transportation in the US is a business as usual solution that threatens water quality and availability as well as making food even more unaffordable for the worlds poor. Further, cultivation of food crops for fuel means that more land will have to be converted into food crop production, whether it be rainforest, temperate wildlife habitat, or drained swampland. There is mounting evidence that this process has grave implications on GHG emissions as mature diverse wild lands tend to sequester carbon and their conversion to crop lands releases huge quantities of carbon into the atmosphere as well as methane.
I think we face a choice, would we rather eat, drink, and breath or drive an SUV?
Corn is Food
Of the total 93 million acres planted in corn in 2007, approximately 23 million acres were devoted to ethanol. (Food and Water Watch2007) 70 million acres of corn were used directly or indirectly for food production. The 2006 US output of ethanol was 6.5 billion gallons. (Platts 2007) The Congressional Research Service has stated:
“barring drastic realignment of US field crop production patterns, corn based ethanol’s potential as a petroleum import substitute appears to be limited by a crop area constraint.”
Tell the Bush administration because the US Dept of Energy and the US Dept of Agriculture have decided that the US has the land resources capable of producing 1.3 billion tons of biomass/yr by 2030 and that only 1 billion tons would be needed to displace 30% of the country’s oil use based on 2004 rates. Even the NRDC has gotten on board. The Natural Resources Defense Council reckons that biofuels could offset 25% of projected US transport oil consumption by 2050. (Food and Water Watch2007)
But what will be the effect on food prices? Ethanol production already has a deleterious effect on the poor who rely on the corn crop as a staple. Corn prices in Mexico rose 400% just 3 months resulting in civil unrest in Mexico in early 2007. (Jerome Taylor in “The World” 2007)
“David Pimentel,... has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people.” (Roger Segelken 2008)
It should be noted that Mr. Pimentel’s work on this issue has been called into question due to his research associate, Tad Patzek’s connections with the oil industry. More recent research is supporting his conclusions however.
Conclusions
The profligacy of the US extends beyond their driving habits; water use in the US is the highest in the world. According to the WWF report “Rich Countries, Poor Water”:
“In the USA, large areas are already using substantially more water than can be naturally replenished. This situation will only be further exacerbated by climate change scenarios of lower rainfall, increased evaporation and changed snow-melt patterns. Salinity threatens important irrigation areas and there is increasing anxiety over the level of contamination with chemicals and pathogens in water sources and water supplies.”
Ground and surface water pollution has resulted in an ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and poisoned drinking water across the corn belt. The environment of the US cannot support a large scale expansion of the corn industry; indeed if anything it should be scaled back to a level that is achievable through sustainable and ecologically sound practices. There is not enough water, not enough arable land, and not enough GHG emissions reduction to be gained from an expanded corn to ethanol industry. If the subsidies currently going to support corn ethanol production, $7 billion in 2007, were instead shifted to the auto industry to help them rapidly achieve at least a doubling in CAFE standards, a much more substantive reduction in GHG emissions could be realized.
Committing to a large scale shift to corn based ethanol as a fuel for transportation in the US is a business as usual solution that threatens water quality and availability as well as making food even more unaffordable for the worlds poor. Further, cultivation of food crops for fuel means that more land will have to be converted into food crop production, whether it be rainforest, temperate wildlife habitat, or drained swampland. There is mounting evidence that this process has grave implications on GHG emissions as mature diverse wild lands tend to sequester carbon and their conversion to crop lands releases huge quantities of carbon into the atmosphere as well as methane.
I think we face a choice, would we rather eat, drink, and breath or drive an SUV?
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Corn ethanol and Water in the US Part 4 - by Robb
Efficiency and emissions in personal transport in the US
In the US, petroleum is primarily used in the transportation sector, 14 million barrels per day of the 20.6 mb/day consumed in 2006. In 2005 average fuel economy for all passenger cars was 22.9mpg, up from the 1990 average of 20.3mpg, for other 2-axle 4 tire vehicles, SUV’s, light trucks, vans and the like it was 16.2mpg, up from the 1990 average of 16.1mpg! 15 years of virtually no progress.
If we use a figure of 20mpg, roughly midway between the two figures above, for all light vehicles and the average distance travelled by the typical household of 24,800 miles multiplied by 104,700,000 households, we can calculate the average fuel used to be 1,240 gallons/household with a total for all households of 129,828 million gallons which breaks down to 3,091 million barrels of transportation fuel/year or 8.5 million barrels/day. (Rutledge 2006)
A standard of 40 mpg, easily achieved with current technology, would half that figure to 4.25 million barrels/day. That would be a reduction of GHG emissions of 50% from this sector which accounts for 20% of US GHG emissions, a total US GHG emissions reduction of 10%.
Ethanol, Energy, and Emissions
Corn grain ethanol only reduces GHG’s by 12% compared to gasoline with a meager 25% net energy gain, one of the lowest ratios of all biofuels. (Food and Water Watch 2007) In addition, ethanol has a more negative effect on air, water and soil quality compared to biodiesel. A study based on the 2005 crop from two institutions based in the heart of the corn belt, University of Minnesota and St. Olaf College, determined:
“In 2005, 14.3% of the US corn harvest was processed to produce 1.48x1010 liters of ethanol energetically equivalent to 1.72% of US gasoline usage...... Devoting all 2005 US corn and soybean production to ethanol and biodiesel would have offset 12% and 6% of US gasoline and diesel demand, respectively. However, because of the fossil energy required to produce ethanol and biodiesel, this change would provide a net energy gain equivalent to just 2.4% and 2.9% of US gasoline and diesel consumption, respectively.”
So referring back to the gasoline use figures mentioned earlier, and applying the 12% offset
.12 offset x 129,828,000,000 gallons = 15,579,360,000 gallons x .024 net energy gain = 373,905,000 gallons x .12 emissions reduction = 44,869,000 gallons
So for giving up the entire 2005 crop to ethanol the emissions from just 44,869,000 gallons of gasoline would have been offset, .035% of total usage in the sector which is responsible for 20% of overall GHG emissions resulting in a total reduction of .7%
There is much dissension on this issue. A 1995 USDA study found corn ethanol to have a net energy value 3X that found by ethanol dissenter, David Pimentel, and also compared many other studies. Results for net energy values of corn ethanol ranged from a low of -33,517 btu/gal (Pimentel) up to a high of +25,653 btu/gal.
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change estimates corn ethanol reduces emissions 20 to 30% compared to gasoline. If the more optimistic figure were used in the formula, using the same net energy gain, emissions reductions comparable to cutting 112,172,000 gallons of gasoline would result. This is .086% of total usage which would result in an overall US GHG reduction of 1.72% This is still a very small improvement in the GHG emissions situation in the US compared to improvements to be gained from higher fuel efficiency standards.
In the US, petroleum is primarily used in the transportation sector, 14 million barrels per day of the 20.6 mb/day consumed in 2006. In 2005 average fuel economy for all passenger cars was 22.9mpg, up from the 1990 average of 20.3mpg, for other 2-axle 4 tire vehicles, SUV’s, light trucks, vans and the like it was 16.2mpg, up from the 1990 average of 16.1mpg! 15 years of virtually no progress.
If we use a figure of 20mpg, roughly midway between the two figures above, for all light vehicles and the average distance travelled by the typical household of 24,800 miles multiplied by 104,700,000 households, we can calculate the average fuel used to be 1,240 gallons/household with a total for all households of 129,828 million gallons which breaks down to 3,091 million barrels of transportation fuel/year or 8.5 million barrels/day. (Rutledge 2006)
A standard of 40 mpg, easily achieved with current technology, would half that figure to 4.25 million barrels/day. That would be a reduction of GHG emissions of 50% from this sector which accounts for 20% of US GHG emissions, a total US GHG emissions reduction of 10%.
Ethanol, Energy, and Emissions
Corn grain ethanol only reduces GHG’s by 12% compared to gasoline with a meager 25% net energy gain, one of the lowest ratios of all biofuels. (Food and Water Watch 2007) In addition, ethanol has a more negative effect on air, water and soil quality compared to biodiesel. A study based on the 2005 crop from two institutions based in the heart of the corn belt, University of Minnesota and St. Olaf College, determined:
“In 2005, 14.3% of the US corn harvest was processed to produce 1.48x1010 liters of ethanol energetically equivalent to 1.72% of US gasoline usage...... Devoting all 2005 US corn and soybean production to ethanol and biodiesel would have offset 12% and 6% of US gasoline and diesel demand, respectively. However, because of the fossil energy required to produce ethanol and biodiesel, this change would provide a net energy gain equivalent to just 2.4% and 2.9% of US gasoline and diesel consumption, respectively.”
So referring back to the gasoline use figures mentioned earlier, and applying the 12% offset
.12 offset x 129,828,000,000 gallons = 15,579,360,000 gallons x .024 net energy gain = 373,905,000 gallons x .12 emissions reduction = 44,869,000 gallons
So for giving up the entire 2005 crop to ethanol the emissions from just 44,869,000 gallons of gasoline would have been offset, .035% of total usage in the sector which is responsible for 20% of overall GHG emissions resulting in a total reduction of .7%
There is much dissension on this issue. A 1995 USDA study found corn ethanol to have a net energy value 3X that found by ethanol dissenter, David Pimentel, and also compared many other studies. Results for net energy values of corn ethanol ranged from a low of -33,517 btu/gal (Pimentel) up to a high of +25,653 btu/gal.
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change estimates corn ethanol reduces emissions 20 to 30% compared to gasoline. If the more optimistic figure were used in the formula, using the same net energy gain, emissions reductions comparable to cutting 112,172,000 gallons of gasoline would result. This is .086% of total usage which would result in an overall US GHG reduction of 1.72% This is still a very small improvement in the GHG emissions situation in the US compared to improvements to be gained from higher fuel efficiency standards.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Corn ethanol and Water in the US Part 3 - by Robb
Supply side solutions?
New major sources of groundwater are out of the question as many aquifers are in serious decline, the Oxnard-Mugu aquifer system in southern California, Denver basin bedrock aquifers, the Oglalla aquifer in the midwest, the Odessa aquifer in eastern Washington, the list goes on. But what about new dams and reservoirs?
To supply the water exhausted region of Odessa, the state of Washington proposed more diversion, dams, and reservoirs to store Columbia river water at a cost of up to $3 billion per site. The Columbia Institute for Water Policy concluded:
“Construction of reservoirs, canals, pump stations, pipelines and laterals would be exceptionally expensive – far beyond what is affordable to local farms or even within the range of reasonable subsidy by state or federal government.....Time ran out for the Odessa subarea long ago, when farmers chose to ignore the consequences of over-pumping and the use of improperly constructed wells.”
This lesson has been learned in Spain as pointed out by the WWF freshwater report “Rich countries, Poor water”
“Spain, consuming nearly 35 percent of it’s long term renewable resource is the third most water stressed nation of Europe”
This despite having more dams per capita than any other nation combined with large scale diversion projects to support subsidized agriculture. This supply side strategy has led to more water shortage rather than less. The Spanish National Hydrological Plan for dams, reservoirs and diversions put into place in 2001 sparked inter-regional conflict over water and the 23 billion euro project was scrapped in 2004 in favor of expanding the desalination capacity of the country.(WWF Freshwater report)
Expensive and energy intensive to operate, desalination plants are also labour intensive to run and maintain. The largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere opened in Tampa Bay and closed within 6 weeks of opening for a $29million upgrade. (Robert Glennon 2007)
Reuse of municipal effluent is a growing resource but does not offer nearly the amount of water necessary for such a large ethanol industry expansion and there are unknown health problems that make that supply questionable. It is typically used for urban irrigation.
There are currently no reliable supply side solutions to the water shortage facing the ethanol industry.
New major sources of groundwater are out of the question as many aquifers are in serious decline, the Oxnard-Mugu aquifer system in southern California, Denver basin bedrock aquifers, the Oglalla aquifer in the midwest, the Odessa aquifer in eastern Washington, the list goes on. But what about new dams and reservoirs?
To supply the water exhausted region of Odessa, the state of Washington proposed more diversion, dams, and reservoirs to store Columbia river water at a cost of up to $3 billion per site. The Columbia Institute for Water Policy concluded:
“Construction of reservoirs, canals, pump stations, pipelines and laterals would be exceptionally expensive – far beyond what is affordable to local farms or even within the range of reasonable subsidy by state or federal government.....Time ran out for the Odessa subarea long ago, when farmers chose to ignore the consequences of over-pumping and the use of improperly constructed wells.”
This lesson has been learned in Spain as pointed out by the WWF freshwater report “Rich countries, Poor water”
“Spain, consuming nearly 35 percent of it’s long term renewable resource is the third most water stressed nation of Europe”
This despite having more dams per capita than any other nation combined with large scale diversion projects to support subsidized agriculture. This supply side strategy has led to more water shortage rather than less. The Spanish National Hydrological Plan for dams, reservoirs and diversions put into place in 2001 sparked inter-regional conflict over water and the 23 billion euro project was scrapped in 2004 in favor of expanding the desalination capacity of the country.(WWF Freshwater report)
Expensive and energy intensive to operate, desalination plants are also labour intensive to run and maintain. The largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere opened in Tampa Bay and closed within 6 weeks of opening for a $29million upgrade. (Robert Glennon 2007)
Reuse of municipal effluent is a growing resource but does not offer nearly the amount of water necessary for such a large ethanol industry expansion and there are unknown health problems that make that supply questionable. It is typically used for urban irrigation.
There are currently no reliable supply side solutions to the water shortage facing the ethanol industry.
Friday, 22 February 2008
Corn ethanol and Water in the US Part 2 - by Robb
Corn, currently used to produce 95% of US ethanol (Food and Water Watch 2007), has a water footprint of 900 litres/kg and annually consumes about 500 billion cubic meters of water. (waterfootprint.org 2008) Growing corn is thirsty work. So is refining it to ethanol.
“...... the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy estimates average water consumption for ethanol plants is about four gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced, indicating that water availability will be a major limitation to the potential of the ethanol sector.....” (Food and Water Watch 2007)
This major limitation has already been felt in the industry as the construction of a plant in Minnesota with a production capacity of 100 million gallons and requiring 350 million gallons of water annually was stopped due to local water shortage. (Food and Water Watch 2007) Even if the industry can reduce the water use ratio to 3:1 with new plants coming online in 2008 refining ethanol will consume 30 billion gallons of water.(Keeny and Muller 2006) The high demands for water by the ethanol industry places it in competition with domestic supply, industry, farming and livestock for water. It is clear that much more water will be necessary if the US is to meet the 13 billion gallon target proposed by the White House.
Where will all that extra water come from?
“...... the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy estimates average water consumption for ethanol plants is about four gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced, indicating that water availability will be a major limitation to the potential of the ethanol sector.....” (Food and Water Watch 2007)
This major limitation has already been felt in the industry as the construction of a plant in Minnesota with a production capacity of 100 million gallons and requiring 350 million gallons of water annually was stopped due to local water shortage. (Food and Water Watch 2007) Even if the industry can reduce the water use ratio to 3:1 with new plants coming online in 2008 refining ethanol will consume 30 billion gallons of water.(Keeny and Muller 2006) The high demands for water by the ethanol industry places it in competition with domestic supply, industry, farming and livestock for water. It is clear that much more water will be necessary if the US is to meet the 13 billion gallon target proposed by the White House.
Where will all that extra water come from?
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Corn ethanol and Water in the US Part 1 - by Robb
(Graphic from Robert Service 2004)
I'd like to discuss corn ethanol because it is a perfect example of a proposed solution that isn't as good as it seems. It also serves as a good model for examining personal resource use as it impacts so many areas of our lives; food, water, transportation. I'll attempt to cover this in 2 or 3 posts.
Transportation contributes 33% of total GHG in the US. At only 18% or less efficient well to wheel, light truck and automobile traffic contribute 60% of that total. If the ratios of US GHG emissions stay the same, in order to achieve the carbon reduction goals as set forward by the Contraction and Convergence limits of 450ppmv by 2050, personal transport contributions need to be reduced by 4/5’s.
The Bush Administration believes that corn based ethanol is part of the solution. A shift to ethanol is being subsidized to achieve a target of 36 billion gallons of production by 2022 as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Approximately 1/3 of that is set to come from corn.
Water and climate change in the US
In a 2003 freshwater report the Government Accounting Office (GAO) found that of the 50 states,
“36 states anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide in the next 10 years..... When shortages occur, economic impacts to sectors such as agriculture can be in the billions of dollars.”
In the case of drought the number of states expecting shortages rises to 46. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida are embroiled in a legal struggle to control the Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin. South Carolina is suing North Carolina over diversion of water from the Catawba river basin. The city of Las Vegas has struck deals with most of the neighboring states for their water or storage capacity. These types of conflict and brokering are common all over the US.
Snow-melt accounts for 75% of all water in streams in the west. The Cascades of Washington, Oregon and Canada will likely see snow-pack reductions of 60% or higher by 2050.This would reduce stream flows in the summer by 20 to 50%, directly affecting over 9 million people 8 in cities from Vancouver to Portland west of the mountains not to mention the big cities east of the mountains. As cities rely on this water for domestic supply this places them in increasing competition with agriculture. (Robert Service 2004)
Most of the water coming off the mountains is stored in reservoirs. The 2003 GAO freshwater report states that,
“........the amount of water available for use from these reservoirs is continually being reduced by sedimentation.....the total reduction resulting from the buildup of sediment is estimated at about 1.5 million acre-feet per year.”
To the corn belt of the midwest, climate change will bring more rain in the winter, before planting, and late spring during planting. This rainfall will likely be more intense, risking the flooding of fields during planting time. Summers will see less rain and lower reservoirs. (Cromwell, Smith and Raucher 2007) As of 1997 only 15% of the total US corn crop was irrigated (Christenson 2002), but irrigation is becoming more common which has significant impacts on groundwater resources.
Groundwater constitutes more than 25% of the US water supply. Farmers used 2/3’s of the 28 trillion gallons of groundwater pumped in 1995.(Hoekstra and Chapagain 2007) Major aquifers are in serious decline. The Oglalla aquifer, one of the largest in the nation is a well known example,
“......... 6% of the aquifer has dropped to an unusable level that can no longer be pumped. If irrigation continues to draw water from the aquifer at the same rate, about 6% of the aquifer will be used up every 25 years.” (Worm 2004)
Groundwater is relied upon for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses. When we’ve outstripped it’s ability to recharge we are in trouble.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Virtual Water - by Robb
‘Virtual water’, embedded water imported in the form of food, fuel and goods, is a significant part of many nations food security strategy and also a significant portion of water rich countries GDP. For example, the Netherlands depend on foreign water resources for 95% of their water footprint. (Hoekstra and Chapagain 2007)
This tends to work against the most disadvantaged of our population. Every product I use has a water footprint; 900litres of water for 1kg of corn, 140 litres of water for 1 cup of coffee,16000 litres of water for 1kg of beef. (waterfootprint.org 2008) If that product was produced where people and ecosystems are water stressed then my consumption is creating a demand responsible for depriving that ecosystem and it’s inhabitants of the water needed to survive or at least have a decent quality of life. This can even be a community near you. Bottled water, aside from being more expensive than gasoline, of no better quality than tap water and producing a huge and totally unnecessary waste stream, is pumped from aquifers. Aquifers all over the world are in decline. Many in the US are in terminal decline. Declining aquifers are susceptible to collapse, a state whereby they will never safely recharge, this threatens food production and public health.
“..... former aquifer strata can be physically or chemically damaged by over-exploitation, with ....... consequences including widespread land subsidence, ph changes and the mobilization of toxic oxidation byproducts such as arsenic compounds.” (WWF Freshwater Program 2006)
As we examine our water usage it is important to consider the embodied water in the products we use. For instance; is the grain I buy or barter for raised in a sustainable manner? Where did the water come from to grow it? Was it pumped from an aquifer, an unsustainable process, or was it brought from surface flow to the field, or even better was it grown using strictly rainfall? This type of information is readily available. Here are a few links to get you started.
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home
http://www.unwater.org/flashindex.html
Let's consider corn again. Extremely thirsty as a crop to grow it was until recently grown using primarily rainfall. Climate change and the increased demand created by the higher demand for corn as a food and the ethanol industry has meant that more and more of this corporate crop is irrigated. As we’ve already seen corn has dire consequences for the environment, reason enough to consider ways of reducing our personal consumption. Corn has a large impact on water supply in agricultural areas. Corn based ethanol is exacerbating the situation. Is the corn I eat encouraging long term damage to aquifers that cities rely on for clean water supply? Can I justify burning corn, a food crop, in my automobile when the impact on water supply is so damaging? I will post a more detailed examination of corn ethanol in the next post but suffice it say that for anyone attempting to live a more sustainable lifestyle that next bag of genetically modified corporately farmed corn chips or tankful of E85 should give pause for thought.
This is a tough one for me. I could live on corn chips! Not really but it sometimes seems that way. When available I purchase organic chips, Bearitos blue corn are my favorite. Unfortunately I have yet to find an outlet near me, within a 3 mile walking radius, that carries organic corn chips, though I have to admit not having focused enough on this specific issue. Still, this hasn’t resulted in my giving up corn chips. This requires some introspection. This failure to act is very interesting. I am quite interested in the burgeoning field of ecopsychology, why we make the choices we do regarding the environment. I think it should be covered in a later post.
For now let’s wrap up with a few more about water.
This tends to work against the most disadvantaged of our population. Every product I use has a water footprint; 900litres of water for 1kg of corn, 140 litres of water for 1 cup of coffee,16000 litres of water for 1kg of beef. (waterfootprint.org 2008) If that product was produced where people and ecosystems are water stressed then my consumption is creating a demand responsible for depriving that ecosystem and it’s inhabitants of the water needed to survive or at least have a decent quality of life. This can even be a community near you. Bottled water, aside from being more expensive than gasoline, of no better quality than tap water and producing a huge and totally unnecessary waste stream, is pumped from aquifers. Aquifers all over the world are in decline. Many in the US are in terminal decline. Declining aquifers are susceptible to collapse, a state whereby they will never safely recharge, this threatens food production and public health.
“..... former aquifer strata can be physically or chemically damaged by over-exploitation, with ....... consequences including widespread land subsidence, ph changes and the mobilization of toxic oxidation byproducts such as arsenic compounds.” (WWF Freshwater Program 2006)
As we examine our water usage it is important to consider the embodied water in the products we use. For instance; is the grain I buy or barter for raised in a sustainable manner? Where did the water come from to grow it? Was it pumped from an aquifer, an unsustainable process, or was it brought from surface flow to the field, or even better was it grown using strictly rainfall? This type of information is readily available. Here are a few links to get you started.
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home
http://www.unwater.org/flashindex.html
Let's consider corn again. Extremely thirsty as a crop to grow it was until recently grown using primarily rainfall. Climate change and the increased demand created by the higher demand for corn as a food and the ethanol industry has meant that more and more of this corporate crop is irrigated. As we’ve already seen corn has dire consequences for the environment, reason enough to consider ways of reducing our personal consumption. Corn has a large impact on water supply in agricultural areas. Corn based ethanol is exacerbating the situation. Is the corn I eat encouraging long term damage to aquifers that cities rely on for clean water supply? Can I justify burning corn, a food crop, in my automobile when the impact on water supply is so damaging? I will post a more detailed examination of corn ethanol in the next post but suffice it say that for anyone attempting to live a more sustainable lifestyle that next bag of genetically modified corporately farmed corn chips or tankful of E85 should give pause for thought.
This is a tough one for me. I could live on corn chips! Not really but it sometimes seems that way. When available I purchase organic chips, Bearitos blue corn are my favorite. Unfortunately I have yet to find an outlet near me, within a 3 mile walking radius, that carries organic corn chips, though I have to admit not having focused enough on this specific issue. Still, this hasn’t resulted in my giving up corn chips. This requires some introspection. This failure to act is very interesting. I am quite interested in the burgeoning field of ecopsychology, why we make the choices we do regarding the environment. I think it should be covered in a later post.
For now let’s wrap up with a few more about water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)
