Rooftop farming, and how hipsters help urban agriculture

Eat it, don't tweet it.

The farmer’s market at Union Square Park was packed this weekend.  Local and artisanal foods are popular.  They've been turned into a status symbol by urban hipsters, as this satirical music video, “Eat it, don’t tweet it,” attests. Foodies, farmers markets and CSAs all play important roles in the evolving food policy discussion in NYC.

 

The most common arguments in favor of producing more local and regional food include freshness, taste, and better nutrition. Also, there are the social and economic justice benefits of more widespread distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables in lower income areas with more bodegas and fewer supermarkets, sometimes known as food deserts.  Some other reasons for getting more of our food from within NYC and NY State are less commonly discussed and deserve closer attention.

People who are concerned about climate change and energy security recognize that NYC’s food supply, like that of other US cities, is highly dependent on oil.  Our national industrial agriculture system is completely reliant on long distance shipping of food.  It’s widely said that the average distance from farm to table is about 1,500 miles by truck and train.

Since we’re at the end of the age of cheap oil, our food system will have to change. World oil demand keeps growing, but depletion of existing giant oilfields is just barely being replaced by new sources, which tend to be mostly from more difficult, dangerous and expensive sources. The price of oil and liquid fuels will be increasingly volatile and generally higher. The US food system will have to contend with higher prices.

Growing more of our food closer to where it is consumed, with much lower transportation costs, will become more important for economic reasons. If a 50 pound bag of potatoes from Oregon costs only $7.50, how much money is being made in transporting it across the country? If the increased cost from higher fuel prices were to exceed the slim profit margin for shipping it, the price would have to go up to include the extra costs.  We can only guess when farmers raising potatoes in upstate NY or Pennslyvania would be able to compete with western farms.  If anyone can refer me to an agricultural policy or advocacy in NY State that is actively studying this, please let me know.

But the timing is less important than the general direction.  City officials, notably NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, have joined food policy advocates in calling for more food being grown in the City and the surrounding region.   How can we speed up this process to create more local economic activity now, and building the agricultural capacity of NY State so we'll have it when we need it?

Getting more people in NYC environmental, progressive and food circles to start discussing these not very hip and trendy issues seems like a reasonable place to start.

We can weave them into more comfortable topics, like rooftop farming, which is just getting started in NYC. Because it’s such an unfamiliar concept, it has great potential to change public perception about how and where food is grown. Some will ask: why grow food on the roofs of city buildings when we can just truck it in from southern California? One answer is that as the price of transporting food from far away gets higher, food grown with very low transportation costs will become more cost-effective.  And it can create economic opportunity for New Yorkers.

Brooklyn Grange Farm, LIC, Queens

We put a safe, pro-business spin on urban rooftop farming and put the following piece in the LIC Partnership e-newsletter.  It inspired virtually identical stories days later in the NY Daily News and The Real Deal real estate blog, spreading the unfamiliar concept to many thousands. We got only a few calls, but as more building owners decide to make the move, it will become increasingly common.

Commercial Farming Businesses Want to Rent Your Roof

Until recently, the roof has been the only floor of your building that can’t be rented out. We want to inform you that you can now collect income from your roof, and gain the marketing benefits of a highly visible green initiative, by renting it to a rooftop farming business. Please contact these three firms directly.

 

Brooklyn Grange is an established rooftop farming business that is expanding and seeking long-term leases on roof space in the Western Queens and North Brooklyn area. They are looking for roofs with at least 30K square feet of unobstructed flat space, particularly on older buildings with concrete rooftops and many internal columns. Landlords can expect to receive rent as well as up to $100K in real estate tax abatement, and do not have to invest any initial capital in the installation of the green roof facility. Green roofs are environmentally friendly and can extend the life of your roof by over 100% while reducing heating and cooling costs in your building. For more information about turning your roof into an income-generating agricultural facility, visit www.brooklyngrangefarm.com or call 718-404-2023.

Gotham Greens is seeking 30K+ square feet of industrial/manufacturing rooftop space to expand its commercial scale greenhouse operations. Gotham Greens currently operates the city’s first commercial scale rooftop greenhouse and supplies its fresh produce to NYC retailers and restaurants year round. For more information, please see www.gothamgreens.com or contact info@gothamgreens.com.

BrightFarms designs, finances, builds and operates hydroponic greenhouses at or near grocery retailers, cutting time, distance, and cost from the produce supply chain. BrightFarms enables supermarkets to revolutionize their supply chains in a way that is better for their profits and for the planet. The company signed its first contract with McCaffrey’s Market in October 2011 and plans to build its first three commercial greenhouses in 2012. BrightFarms considers three types of sites: new construction, retrofit rooftops, and at grade (parking structure or spare ground level land). Prospective sites must be at least one acre in size. BrightFarms is especially interested in building on sites with waste heat sources that they can recover for their greenhouses. For more information, visit www.brightfarms.com.

Probably only a small fraction of NYC’s food can be grown within NYC. A report by Jon Bosak of TC Local suggests that NY State itself may not have the capacity of being self-sufficient in food. But we have to start somewhere. Here's some resources.

***
Article on rooftop farming potential -
http://grist.org/list/new-york-city-could-open-up-1200-acres-of-rooftops-for-farming/

Can NY State feed itself? - http://tclocal.org/2009/06/

Comprehensive Look at Urban Agriculture Policy in 16 Leading US Cities - http://bit.ly/unYoub

A video about farming in NYC - http://vimeo.com/32758897

A site about NYC food policy -http://www.urbanfoodpolicy.com/   

NE Food, a site about regional food policy -http://www.nefood.org/  

"Fifty Million Farmers," an article in which Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute explains why we will need, yes, fifty million farmers. -

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/22584  

Prof. James Hansen, 400,000 A-bombs, and two March events

Professor Hansen getting arrested outside the White House protesting the Keystone Pipeline

This Friday I was at a workshop on teaching sustainability organized by the Columbia University Center for the Study of Science and Religion.  It was a very interesting discussion, but the highlight was the introductory dinner the night before.  (I'm not employed to do activist stuff - I took a personal day off from work.)  We were joined by Professor James Hansen, who delivered his current TED Talk.

As a physicist, he measures how the greenhouse gases cause an imbalance between the amount of heat the earth receives from the sun, how much is reflected back into space.  Because of climate change, there is an imbalance: the Earth is absorbing much more heat than normally reflected.  How much?

Hansen told the small audience something shocking: the amount of heat imbalance absorbed daily by the world's oceans equals the energy from 400,000 Hiroshima bombs.  That's a hard number to contemplate. I wondered if I heard him wrong, but I watched the TED talk again and he said the same thing. 

What can we do? Hansen suggested pressing for a Federal cap and dividend.  Cap and dividend is a simple, market-based way to reduce CO2 emissions without reducing household incomes. It caps fossil fuel supplies, makes polluters pay, and returns the revenue to everyone equally.  Great idea, but considering that the national lawmaking response to climate change is being blocked by fossil fuel interests and the politicians they fund, it may be even more important to change public opinion about energy and sustainability in order for political action to take place.
I'll be presenting at two events in March.

At the monthly general meeting of NYC Friends of Clearwater, on Friday, March 16, at 6:30 PM, I'll talk about the transition to a renewable energy economy, and some ways to facilitate it.  About fifteen minutes of talking points, then facilitated discussion.  The NYCFC meeting will continue well into the evening with a potluck and live music. 83 Christopher St., NYC.  (Perhaps at St. John's Lutheran Church) http://nycfriendsofclearwater.org/ On Thurs., March 22, I'll be moderating a panel. 

RenewNEWYORK: A DISCUSSION SERIES ON RENEWABLE ENERGYThe Boiler Dilemma: Are There Renewable Alternatives to Converting to Gas?
Thurs., March 22, 6:30 – 9 PM
http://saneenergyproject.org/events/


The Community Church of New York
40 East 35th Street (Park & Madison)
Doors open at 6


The panel will feature: Chris Benedict, Architecture and Energy Limited; Dehran Duckworth, TriState BioDiesel; and Ron Kamen, New York Solar Energy Industries Association. It will be moderated by Dan Miner, Beyond Oil NYC.


The City’s new heating oil rules require buildings to stop using heavy oils by 2030, and building owners are tempted to convert to gas, due to its current low price. But what is the true cost of “cheap” gas, when fracking could ruin our air and water, and bring radon-laden shale gas to our stoves? Are conservation, solar thermal and biodiesel realistic alternatives?


Series Co-Sponsors: The Environmental Task Force of The Congregation of Saint Saviour; The Green Sanctuary Committee of the Community Church of New York, UU; NYC Friends of Clearwater; Tri-State Food Not Lawns/Neighborhood Energy Network; NY Climate Action Group; Sane Energy Project; Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, United for Action; WBAI’s Eco logic. Suggested $5-10 donation.

Urban agriculture projects for the 99% - Request for recommendations

There are many areas of overlap between the climate change, local food, and economic justice movements.  Their agendas come together as part of an urgently needed transition to a renewable energy economy.  Projects that embody these overlapping goals while creating income at the grassroots level can attract more participants and spread more quickly than those that don't. Some virtuous projects, such as white roof painting and rooftop water catchment, will appeal to a minority of dedicated activists but their crossover into the general population will be limited. For new approaches to become standard practices, they'll either have to be required by law, or offer enough tangible benefit to motivate average citizens. A workshop at the Brooklyn Food Conference in May will review such projects. We've found several but are looking for more.

Please recommend urban agriculture and sustainability projects that meet these criteria:

- Offer enough benefit – either in income, savings, or production – to appeal solely as a business proposition, without reliance on their social or environmental benefits

- Advance climate change response, and promote economic and social justice

- Increase community resilience by improving food and energy security

- Suitable for non-profit groups within low income communities to become local partners or customers of the project, or set it up independently themselves

- Suitable for cooperative businesses or small business entrepreneurs

Raising the bar a little higher, can anyone recommend projects that:

- Don't require a high cash investment to start

- Rely on appropriate technology, low tech design or DIY practices

- Are being used in developing countries but can be applied to US cities

In addition to projects in urban agriculture and food production, those in the areas of energy conservation, renewable energy, recycling, or transportation services are welcome.


A report from the workshop will be distributed to potential allies among nonprofits, advocacy groups and the OWS community. Contact beyondoilnyc@yahoo.com.


More about the workshop
at the Brooklyn Food Conference

With the end of cheap oil, transportation costs will rise. Let’s localize the food system by supporting urban ag projects that are: simple and easy to start; provide economic opportunity in low income neighborhoods; support the goals of OWS and climate change activists; and increase food security. We’ll showcase several existing NYC projects.

Our food is now shipped an average of 1,500 miles from farm to table, but with the end of cheap oil, transportation costs will go up. How can we speed up the localization of the food system? Let’s look for NYC urban agriculture and business projects that can spread widely and quickly because: they’re relatively simple and inexpensive to start, can provide economic opportunity in low income neighborhoods, and support mutually beneficial partnerships.

The goals of local food advocates, Occupy Wall Street supporters, environmentalists, and neighborhood organizers overlap as part of the urgently needed transition to a renewable energy economy, with more secure local and regional food systems.

We’ll look at Victory Chicken, Wholeshare, Vokashi, Spring into Action, East NY Farms, the BLK Projek, and others, and how to spread their good ideas.

Workshop Objectives

It is critical for local food and agriculture activists (as well as policymakers) to understand that while better taste and nutrition are important marketing points, regionalizing our food system rapidly is essential because the price and supply of oil will become increasingly volatile in the near future, and long-distance food costs may increase significantly.

Some urban agriculture business models that are more likely to spread widely and become future standard practices are those that are easy to get started, and offer the prospect of income for low income individuals and neighborhoods. Collaboration between these urban ag projects and nonprofit groups serving those neighborhoods have high potential. Hopefully participants will recommend other projects in addition to those showcased, and improve on the hypotheses presented in the workshop.

The clean energy argument you've been missing; search for urban ag projects

When environmentalists learn about the horrible health and environmental consequences of fracking for natural gas, they're instantly convinced against it. The majority of us who get their news from the mainstream media hears a very different story - optimistic claims of enough natural gas for a hundred years. The pollution arguments don't automatically work on non-environmentalists, who are happy to hear that our future energy supply is assured. But it's not, and people need to know. At the ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil) [http://www.aspousa.org/] conference in November I encouraged Kurt Cobb, one of the regular columnists at ASPO and Energy Bulletin [http://www.energybulletin.net/], to write an article setting out the underused argument against fracking - there's simply not enough of it, and we invest in renewable power instead. He did, and it's been published in the Sierra Club New York State newsletter and a number of other sites. See the summary below.


In turn, Kurt suggested that I write an article about how the transition to a renewable energy economy is now being blocked by the 1%. I did, and it was republished in Energy Bulletin. [http://energybulletin.net/stories/2012-01-09/occupy-sustainability-1-blocking-transition-renewable-energy-economy ]

To help spread this message in various environmental communities and Occupy Wall Street working groups, I'm collecting projects that embody this message, but are less theoretical, and appeal to people's self interest.


What are your recommendations of urban agriculture or sustainability projects that can help build the renewable energy economy, and are relatively inexpensive and simple to start? I found several at the Just Food conference, and pitched the concept at the OWS Forum on the Commons on 2/17. Here's the video. http://media.newhumanist.us/gallery/default.aspx?moid=4518

I'll compile a bunch of projects that express these themes, and present them in a workshop at the Brooklyn Food Conference in May. My next presentation is at the NYC Friends of Clearwater on 3/16.


***


The clean energy argument you've been missing
by Kurt Cobb


Environmentalists concerned about fracking, coal, and climate change need all the ammunition they can get when advocating for clean, renewable energy. That's why I'm forwarding this piece to you because it explains a powerful argument that should be incorporated into the case for a rapid transition to renewable energy.


Please take a few minutes to read it. The piece can be freely reprinted and reposted, so I'm hoping you'll suggest it for any listserv, website, newsletter or other publication with which you are involved. And, I'm hoping you'll forward it widely to friends and colleagues who share your concerns and suggest that they get the piece reprinted and reposted wherever possible.


Question: What key argument are those concerned about fracking, coal, climate change and renewable energy missing?


Answer: Constrained fossil fuel supplies mean there is no fossil fuel "bridge" to renewable energy, not natural gas, not coal, and certainly not oil.


Summary: Some environmentalists speak of natural gas as a clean "bridge fuel" that will buy time for a transition to a renewable energy society. And, industry claims of abundant gas appear to support the idea. But the actual data on natural gas as well as that on coal and oil suggest that no fossil fuel will continue to see its rate of production climb significantly in the decades ahead, and so none of them is a viable "bridge fuel." This means that global society must leap over fossil fuels and move directly to renewables as quickly as possible.


To find out more read: Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables: The Key Argument that Environmentalists are Missing. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-01-23/fossil-fuels-vs-renewables-key-argument-environmentalists-are-missing

Kurt Cobb blogs at Resource Insights, and is the author of Prelude, a novel about peak oil.  He was interviewed this week about high oil prices on the cable news show Crosstalk.  http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/


***


Occupy sustainability: the 1% are blocking the transition
to a renewable energy economy


A sustainable world that works for the 99% is possible, if we can respond to climate change, economic injustice and resource depletion at the same time. The transition to a renewable energy economy can be a valuable frame for that discussion. Just as the financial elites brought about the economic crisis, they are blocking the renewable energy transition to reap more profit from their fossil fuel investments. Because of fuel depletion as well as climate change, further delay may prevent a successful transition. Social justice and sustainability advocates can blow the whistle on the 1% for this issue too, and collaborate to speed up the transition locally.
http://energybulletin.net/stories/2012-01-09/occupy-sustainability-1-blocking-transition-renewable-energy-economy

Occupy sustainability: the 1% is blocking the transition to a renewable energy economy

Occupy sustainability: The 1% is blocking the transition to a renewable energy economy
Dan Miner, Beyond Oil NYC


In order to make our society sustainable, we have to deal not just with environmental issues and climate change, but with the economic crisis and the depletion of natural resources. The most effective responses will deal with all four at once. While climate change response has mostly been blocked, the Occupy movement is rapidly emerging as a major political force.

Occupiers are planning next steps for 2012, looking at new ways to get the public involved, and refining their visions for a more just society.  We need to protest and withdraw from corrupt, unsustainable systems and simultaneously create new systems that are both equitable and sustainable.  The transition to a sustainable, renewable energy economy can be a valuable addition to this discussion, since it addresses environmental issues and climate change, slows depletion of natural resources, and builds an economic infrastructure not controlled by the financial elites. 

The 1% absolutely does not want us to realize how urgently this transition to a renewable energy economy is needed. Their power and profits depend on keeping the unsustainable fossil fuel economy running as long as possible.

They’re heavily invested in it. Of the 10 largest global corporations, 6 are oil companies. The International Forum on Globalization has identified the world’s top 50 individuals whose investments benefit from climate change and whose influence networks block efforts to phase out pollution from fossil fuels.  To continue making as much money as they can, they would have us wait until it’s too late to make a successful transition.

The consequences of our addiction to fossil fuels include the terrible pollution associated with fracking, tar sands development, offshore drilling spills, and coal-fired power plants, and vulnerability to volatile fuel prices and unstable foreign energy supplies.  Perhaps we could tolerate those costs of the energy status quo, but we can’t live with the catastrophic climate change it will surely trigger. The pushers of fossil fuels, the world’s largest corporations and their allies, don’t want us to know another world is possible. 

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, says that climate change response requires immediate adoption of policies hated by the free market right: reversing privatization; relocalizing much of the economy; scaling back overconsumption; bringing back long-term planning; heavily regulating, taxing and even nationalizing corporations; and cutting military spending. As she says, “Climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.” Right wing activists understand that climate change response and the abuses of unchecked free market capitalism are just not compatible. 

But climate change response of the scale needed to work will only take place if there is a massive, popular effort to get corporations out of politics.   The 1% is opposing this.  It is lobbying to reduce regulation and oversight on fossil fuels, which will make these pollution problems and climate change worse.

The 1% also doesn’t want us to know that getting off fossil fuels is inevitable, and that a successful transition to a renewable energy economy is not guaranteed.  It’s only possible if we stop the 1% from blocking the transition, and start building it now, while we still can. 
 
World crude oil production has been on a plateau since 2006, despite efforts to find more. Discovery of new oil fields peaked in the 1960s. Many analysts – including the US military – predict that in the next few years oil supply will fall short of demand and go into permanent decline. This will lead to shortages and high prices, which will continue the economic slowdown, and high unemployment. Of course, this is on top of whatever financial crises are already waiting in the wings. The longer we wait to get the transition started, the more difficult and costly it will be. 

Climate change and the limits to fuel supplies and natural resources may be abstract, but lead to very material consequences including food shortages, natural disasters and wars.   The world’s largest corporations have calculated that they profit more from maintaining their monopolies on the world’s food, commerce and transportation systems than from preventing human suffering and death.  Blowing the whistle on the financial elites blocking the renewable energy transition is one place to start. Another is by organizing to create the renewable energy economy at the local level.  

Further collaboration between the Occupy and sustainability movements

To respond to climate change, resource depletion and economic injustice our society has to be transformed from top to bottom: from energy, housing, food and agriculture, transportation, urban planning, and local economic development, to industry and manufacturing.

Although transformative federal action in these areas may be blocked, organizers may find opportunities to address these matters locally with little resistance. Projects can benefit the 99% by offering relief from continuing economic turmoil, encouraging production of local goods and services, lowering bills, redirecting the flow of money from large corporations to small businesses, and laying the groundwork for more democratic and just communities. Such projects would be natural ways to extend the values central to the Occupy movement, get more citizens involved, and pressure elected officials to do their parts. They might look less like protests, and more like other parts of the alternative economy now getting underway - consumer and worker cooperatives, barter networks and credit unions.

Two areas to explore for potential projects are energy use and the food system. Residential energy conservation retrofits still offer low hanging fruit. They reduce energy bills, reduce fuel use, reduce pollution and carbon emissions, improve health and can create vast numbers of weatherization jobs.   Unlike the rest of the NYC manufacturing sector, food production is steadily growing. The thriving local food movement and city officials are working together to create a regional food system, which can employ many more area residents in all phases of agriculture and food production.  

Projects that enable people to benefit from accelerating the renewable energy transition locally could appeal to broader audiences than the sustainability and social justice movements have activated so far.  We need to connect the dots between the many such projects already out there and the broader context of why they’re needed.  Sharing the stories of these projects widely will help them get replicated, and catalyze the creation of new projects.  With a world to be transformed, we’ve got all the motivation we need.

Read the full version of this article.

Please post your suggestions and comments below, or contact beyondoilnyc@yahoo.com.  


***

Full spectrum sustainability: bringing together the climate change and economic justice movements
Dan Miner, Beyond Oil NYC
A sustainable world that works for the 99% is possible, if we can respond to climate change, economic injustice and resource depletion at the same time. The transition to a renewable energy economy can be a valuable frame for that discussion.  Just as the financial elites brought about the economic crisis, they are blocking the renewable energy transition to reap more profit from their fossil fuel investments. Because of fuel depletion as well as climate change, further delay may prevent a successful transition. Social justice and sustainability advocates can blow the whistle on the 1% for this issue too, and collaborate to speed up the transition locally.   Read full article

Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables - Kurt Cobb

Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables: The Key Argument that Environmentalists are Missing


By Kurt Cobb



Which of the following can we count on to act as a “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy economy?

A. Oil
B. Natural Gas
C. Coal
D. None of the above

The correct answer is: D. None of the above.


Mark Twain is reported to have said: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." What most environmentalists think they know for sure is that oil, coal and natural gas are all abundant--so abundant, in fact, that many environmentalists believe they are forced to make a Hobson's choice of natural gas as a so-called "bridge fuel" to a renewable energy future.



Though natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than coal or oil, it still contributes mightily to climate change. And, natural gas drilling in the country's vast shale formations pollutes the air and surface waters surrounding drill sites and threatens the groundwater with toxic chemicals used in fracturing operations needed to free the gas.


It turns out, however, that what most environmentalists know about the future supply of fossil fuels is based more on industry hype than on actual data. And, that means that they are missing a key argument in their discussions about renewable energy, one that could be used to persuade those less concerned about pollution and climate change and more concerned about energy security: There is increasing evidence that no fossil fuel will continue to see its rate of production climb significantly in the decades ahead and so none of them is a viable "bridge fuel," not natural gas, not oil, not coal. This means that global society must leap over fossil fuels and move directly to renewables as quickly as possible. In advanced economies this leap must be combined with a program of radical reductions in energy use, reductions which are achievable using known technologies and practices.


Okay, perhaps you are wondering about the data. Let's discuss each fossil fuel separately:


Oil

The first thing you should know about oil is that worldwide production has been on a plateau since 2005. This is despite record high prices and furious exploration and drilling efforts. There have been well-publicized finds here and there that may seem large. However, at the current worldwide rate of consumption, one billion barrels of oil lasts only 12 days. Thus, the multi-billion barrel finds announced in the last decade or so will have little impact on the longevity of world supplies.

Another key issue is one that oil companies do not want to emphasize: depletion. The worldwide average for production declines in existing oilfields has been estimated to be about 4 percent per year. That means that each year just to stay even, the industry must develop new oil production capacity equivalent to the current capacity of the North Sea, one of the world's largest fields. To grow production, it must, of course, exceed this amount, and that hasn't been happening.


When you mention these hard facts in polite company, you will undoubtedly be met with skepticism. But the data are available to the public from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website. The agency is the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy and is widely considered the gold standard of energy information in the world.

Now, don't be deceived by shifting definitions of oil. When the petroleum glut long predicted by the optimists failed to appear, they started lumping in ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas liquids with petroleum and calling them all "oil." These other products are useful, but they are not as energy-rich, versatile or easily transported as oil. Our current infrastructure is heavily dependent on oil inputs with no real substitutes available in the quantities required.


You will also likely be met with protestations that we still have lots of oil: tar sands in Canada, heavy oil in Venezuela and even oil shale in the American West, primarily Colorado. Well, this represents the difficult-to-get oil. We extracted the easy stuff in the first 150 years of the oil age. And, while it is true that these resources and others like them represent an immense store of hydrocarbons, what matters is the rate at which we can produce them.


Because of the high-cost, capital-intensive nature of such production, the rate of production will be slow to ramp up and difficult to maintain. The hydrocarbons locked in the tar sands and the Orinoco oil belt in Venezuela aren't what we call oil and must be heavily processed at high cost using enormous amounts of energy. As for the oil shale in the America West, the amount of commercially produced oil we are currently getting from that oil shale is zero. No one has figured out how to extract it profitably. Partly this is because oil shale contains no oil. Instead, it contains a hydrocarbon-rich waxy substance called kerogen which must be heavily processed to turn it into oil.


An analogy might be useful: If you inherit a million dollars with the stipulation that you can only take out $500 a month, you may be a millionaire, but you will never live like one. Increasingly, this is the situation we will find ourselves in when it comes to oil. The key issue is the rate of production, not the size of the resource. The hard-to-get oil resources are large, but they take a long time to develop and require strenuous, expensive and energy-intensive methods to extract. All this, when combined with the relentless depletion of existing fields, spells little or no growth in the worldwide rate of oil production in the coming years.


Natural Gas


By now you've been told so many times in television ads and news articles that we have a 100-year supply of natural gas in the United States, that you assume it must be true. While the claim itself is suspect, even if we accept it, there is a very serious omission. The claim in its entirety reads: a 100-year supply of natural gas at current rates of consumption. If natural gas is to be used as a so-called "bridge fuel"--a fuel that will power society with the least environmental cost while we deploy nonpolluting, renewable energy--then its rate of production will have to grow considerably if it we expect it to displace coal and oil.


Simple spreadsheet calculations will tell you what happens to such long-term supply claims under the pressure of a little exponential growth. At just 2 percent per year growth, the 100-year U.S. domestic natural gas supply is exhausted in 56 years. If we assume that production peaks when about 50 percent of the resource is exhausted, this puts the peak within 35 years. Think about it. Even if the optimists are correct, with a production growth rate of just 2 percent per year, the country reaches a peak within 35 years! What will we do after that?


The picture gets acutely worse as the rate of production growth rises. A 3 percent growth rate implies exhaustion in 47 years and peak in 31 years. A 5 percent growth rates means exhaustion in 37 years and a peak in just 26 years.


As it turns out, the EIA projects a growth rate of just 0.4 percent per year in U.S. natural gas supplies through 2035 with production jumping from about 24 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2010 to about 26.5 tcf in 2035, hardly a bonanza.


Beyond this consider that the vast resources of natural gas from deep shale layers, commonly called shale gas, may not be so vast. A U.S. Geological Survey assessment pared the EIA's original estimate of "technically recoverable" natural gas in the largest of the shale deposits, the Marcellus Shale, from 410 tcf to just 84 tcf, an 80 percent reduction. And, this says nothing about whether the gas will be economically recoverable.


The 100-year figure was based on inflated estimates of recoverable natural gas and on ignoring the fact that the rate of natural gas consumption would have to rise exponentially to displace other fossil fuels. These two facts suggest that natural gas will not be the bridge fuel environmentalists are looking for.


Coal


Among the environmental community, the big fear is that coal will displace clean natural gas and even become a source for liquid fuels as oil supplies wane. That fear is founded on industry claims of vast coal supplies in the United States and elsewhere. But four studies suggest that coal may not be nearly as abundant as once believed.


A 2007 National Academy of Sciences report concluded that claims of 250 years of coal reserves in the United States at current rates of consumption could not be supported. The number was more likely to be 100 years. However, it said that a comprehensive survey was necessary to determine a more accurate figure.


But if coal consumption were to grow beyond the current rate, then the 100 years of supply would quickly shrink as in the case of natural gas. And, data from EIA shows that the total heat content of coal mined in the United States has been declining since 1998 despite roughly level production. This means that coal grades are dropping and that the actual energy the United States gets from domestic coal peaked in that year.


A second study by David Rutledge at the California Institute of Technology concluded that worldwide reserves are probably half of those currently stated. Rutledge noted that unlike oil reserves, coal reserve estimates have been steadily dropping over time as unwarranted assumptions were stripped away and the focus was put on what is actually minable.


A third study in 2007 by an independent group of analysts in Germany, the Energy Watch Group, suggests a worldwide peak in the rate of coal production as early as 2025. The authors noted that poor quality data hampered their efforts. One of the troubling gaps was China, a country thought to have some of the largest coal resources in the world. Chinese coal data, however, have not been updated since 1992, and 20 percent of China's reserves have supposedly been mined since that date.


A fourth study published in the international journal Energy last year came to the shocking conclusion that the rate of worldwide coal production from existing fields would peak in 2011. The authors did acknowledge that vast coal fields in Alaska and Siberia remained to be developed, but doubted that these difficult-to-extract and therefore expensive reserves would be developed in time to forestall a decline. They also wrote that production from existing mines is expected to fall by 50 percent over the next 40 years.


The researchers explained that this has serious policy implications. One such implication was that money currently being spent on carbon capture and sequestration technology—a technology that assumes vast additional supplies of coal—would be better spent on outfitting existing coal-fired power stations with supercritical steam turbines, lifting efficiency from 35 percent to 50 percent. This would reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions while stretching out the available coal supplies so as to aid an energy transition.


Conclusions


No one knows the future. But making public policy based on industry hype could turn out to be disastrous. Keep in mind that it is the job of fossil fuel industry executives to make sure they can sell their in-ground inventories. And, of course, it's not their job to make good public policy. Our current energy policy, which I refer to as the Good-To-The-Last-Drop Policy, has already meant a huge windfall for oil producers and to a certain extent coal producers. And yet, both regale us with tales of plenty even as constrained supplies send prices skyward.


It is certainly possible that yet-to-be-invented technologies will extend the life of fossil fuel supplies. The question is whether such technologies can be deployed before overall rates of production for oil, natural gas and coal begin to decline. Modern industrial society depends for its proper functioning on the continuous input of high-grade energy resources. If those inputs start to decline or even fail to grow, the system will falter. Some believe we are already seeing the effects of constrained oil supplies on the economy as record high prices suppress economic activity and pressure an already fragile financial system.


It seems doubtful at this time that future technologies for exploiting fossil fuels will be able to do much beyond softening the inevitable declines. And, given the known trends and data, it seems foolish to wait for these yet-to-be-invented technologies to appear. That means that leapfrogging now past fossil fuels to renewable energy is not just desirable but probably inescapable. The only question is whether we as a society will do it with a focused plan for a rapid transition or whether the transition will be chaotic and marked by violent swings in the economy as the world lurches from one energy-induced crisis to another.


Kurt Cobb is a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen and author of the peak-oil-themed thriller Prelude. His work has also been featured on Energy Bulletin, The Oil Drum, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, EV World, and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights

Occupy Wall Street: the dominant narrative unravelling

My activist project for October was promoting four events.  Earlier this month, End of Suburbia director Greg Greene did a screening of his classic peak oil documentary at the BMW Guggenheim Design Lab.  I had the pleasure of reconnecting with Greg afterward, at workshops the next day at the Lab, and with Jim Kunstler after his not-really-a-debate with the mild-mannered James Russell.  Last week was a very modestly attended screening of Chris Martenson's The Crash Course
Come by on Wednesday, October 19 at 7 PM for a larger test of my new product - a screening of Transition video shorts.  Details here.

Very few New Yorkers seem aware of the issues discussed at these events. NYC is a busy place, after all.  On the other hand, Occupy Wall Street, after weeks of being ignored, has now gone viral.  I was there on Saturday afternoon, and went up to Times Square on Saturday night.  The tourists had quite the novelty, and so did everyone else reading about it after...is it possible to mix these themes together?

Dave Cohen, who blogs at Decline of the Empire, had this to say about OWS.   A great piece in the Onion Magazine on the One Percenters, and their domination of NYC. James Howard Kunstler came out for them. So have Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, a bunch of unions, a dozen NYC Councilmembers....  It would be pointless now, and a lot of unnecessary work, to list who's come out in support of them.  The Bloomberg Administration, inextricably tied to its kindred spirits within the One Percent, is on the defensive.  OWS is now routinely getting hammered on the front page of the NY Daily News.  They may portray OWS as frivolous scruffy anarchist hippies - but they're still on the front page. 

Corrupt corporate domination of the US government, and fuel depletion: what the two topics have in common is that they are both repressed material, censored out of officially approved conversation and media.  #OWS has forced its way into that discussion.  http://www.occupywallst.org/

Doyle Canning, director of national strategy center smartmeme, suggests in this Yes! Magazine op ed that:

"...At smartMeme, we have always been interested in “Psychic Breaks:” moments when the dominant narrative unravels and there is an opening for a new story to take hold on a massive scale. We saw this opportunity come and go in 2008 when the stock market collapsed and $700 billion was given to financial giants. Underprepared and shell-shocked progressives mostly stayed home and kept quiet while the Tea Partiers harnessed common sense opposition to bailing out the rich into a movement that was cynically designed to support the status quo.

But we believe that #OccupyWallStreet is re-opening that window and provoking another such psychic break moment, one that can amplify common sense progressive demands for structural change. At least we hope so.


We have an opportunity to offer a narrative explaining what has happened, how we got here, and how we can move forward together. We are faced with the potential of rooting this insurrectional energy into a strong social movement that can rival the Tea Party and change the story about our economic system—a movement that could unite behind real solutions to the economic and democratic crises we face. The actions by Right to the City this past weekend in Boston offer us an instructive model on the kind of analysis and organizing strategy that is necessary now.


But we must be agile and graceful and bold enough—like the ballerina on the bull of the #OccupyWallStreet poster. We must be visionary and courageous and tenacious enough—like the youth of Roxbury blessing their occupied garden. And we must be brave enough, like Presley Obasohan, to put our bodies on the line and commit civil disobedience against the banks and for the people and planet that we love...."



In the movie The Matrix, when there was a disruption to the digitally produced illusion people inhabited, continuity errors would appear - a cat walking backwards, for example.  The OWS movement is a continuity error in the mainstream discourse that has gone out of control.  

In other news...


Anne Pope from Sustainable Flatbush recommends a book that approaches the multiple crises in our society a bit differently: Eco-Mind, by Francis Moore Lappe, author of the classic Diet for a Small Planet. "She cautions the environmental movement against what she calls "scarcity mind" and always speaking in terms of diminishing resources; instead she urges us to think of the real problem as scarcity of *democracy*. This is consistent with her argument in Diet for a Small Planet (back in the 70s!) that the hunger crisis was not about a lack of food, but rather about the extreme inequity in how food and resources are distributed..."

Here's a video game about climate change and peak oil. 

Learning about peak oil from a comic book.