Miika Grady

Why drilling isn’t the answer

The “drill, baby, drill” chants at the Republican Convention were nauseating not only for their crassness, but because off their incredible ignorance. Somehow, the republicans seem to think that if we just started drilling tomorrow, their would be an immediate impact and all our energy problems would be solved.

The truth of the matter is, it would take close to 10 YEARS before any new offshore oil wells would be able to produce any oil for the market, and at an incredibly marginal, minimal impact as this chart shows.
[ From: Treehugger ]
[ Chart and further info: Architecture2030 ]

Wouldn’t immediate investment in wind and solar power and promoting advancements in energy efficiency be more worthwhile than more drilling? Enough with the band-aids already. More drilling just means more money in the pockets off the oil companies that have had the republicans in their pockets since the Model-T.

Why does food seem so expensive?

It’s related to our desire to become less dependent on foreign oil (and the Middle East). By subsidizing the ethanol industry, we’re increasing food prices.

TIME magazine breaks it down in last week’s issue, and Slate provides further explanation. The unfortunate consequences are as follows:

1. Farmers abandon growing other crops because they can get sky-high (subsidized) prices for corn (ethanol). Because farmers are growing less of other food crops, supply drops and food prices increase.

2. With oil now costing what it does, the cost of transportation and production of food has gone up, which results in higher prices at the grocery store.

3. Though ethanol is being touted as a green solution, Brazil’s rainforest and other forests around the world are being razed in favor of farm land to grow ethanol. Forest are a major carbon dioxide sink that balances out global warming. Less forests, more global warming.

So, now in addition to subsidizing oil production, we’re subsidizing ethanol production which isn’t any better for the environment, AND it negatively impacts food prices and supplies. It’s another pretty bad cycle we’re getting into. Shouldn’t the goal simply be to use the energy we have as efficiently as possible?

My days of environmental despair

I don’t know if it’s having a baby or what, but lately I can’t shake this fear of looming environmental crisis. The trigger was a book called “The World Without Us,” by Alan Weisman. It’s a beautifully written, lyrical book about the potential transformations of our planet if We, the people, were to just disappear.

The first chapter immediately hooked me: The fate of hyper-urbanized New York City and all of its subways and concrete and glass buildings. I love imagining the city as it was discovered by the Dutch, as much as I love discovering those little pockets of urban decay that hint at what they city was 100 years ago. Places like the Gowanus Canal and the Brooklyn Waterfront. But, to imagine us completely gone is another thing all together. As I was reading the book in the subway, it was nerve-wracking to read that without pumps our brittle subway system would flood completely within days, done in by long-buried natural springs eager to reclaim their rightful place on the topography. Think the potholes are bad now? Streets built above subways would quickly erode and collapse. Shockingly, a city that seems impervious to nature would crumble as grasses and trees slowly but surely find places to root and germinate.

It’s exciting to imagine nature’s reclamation of New York’s concrete expanse. But, realizing how much of our footprint would otherwise remain is truly frightening. Everyone has seen An Inconvenient Truth. We know about climate change. But, have you ever really thought about the impact of plastics? Well, their toxic little particles are literally everywhere—even in your exfoliating soap—and they just don’t disappear. Little plastic pieces will be floating around in the oceans for millions of years, affecting any species that don’t adapt to the toxins. Ever really thought about what we do with nuclear wastes? Well, it’s frightening, but I encourage everyone to read up.

My bleak environmental perspective took another turn for the worse when I received the latest National Geographic in the mail. Apparently, lots of the electronics and computers that we get rid of (even the things that we put the effort into recycling or discarding of safely) end up in the third-world where the poor scavenge through them for scrap materials like copper and lead, unwittingly exposing themselves to extremely dangerous toxins. It’s terrible to know that the industrialized world is exporting it’s environmental burden. It also left me wondering if there is really anything we can do on an individual level, aside from the impossibility of being a non-consumer.

The latest upsetting news is: Biofuels just aren’t as green as advertised. The thrust here is that the production of ethanol and corn bears a greater environmental cost (on degraded farm land, water, etc.) than the benefits of clean gas that it’s supposed to provide. As a skeptic, it just seems that the environmental cause is being hijacked by people with profitable interests. In this case, the farm industry.

Aside from being as environmentally-aware as possible, I don’t know what can be done. I don’t have to use plastic bags (or at the very least I can reuse them). I can use mass transit. I can turn off the lights. I can recycle. But without some sort of environmental catastrophe to spark a massive change in attitude, I’m pessimistic that corporations, governments and individuals will sacrifice convenience, comfort, and previously-vested financial interests for sustainability. For my son’s sake, I hope I’m wrong.

Updated: (Feb 21) More news on ethanol demand having negative effects on food prices and the environment (from Bloomberg).