Americans are some of the lowest consumers of rice but for most of the rest of the world it is the staple crop that keeps poorer consumers alive. The doubling of rice prices, coupled with rising prices for virtually all grains, is a major concern. While the US is an exporter of rice, many countries are now restricting exports to try to control prices. In a global economy this won’t work because you cannot have a commodity priced differently in two or more places- sellers in the cheaper country will find a way to sell in the more expensive one (one exception to this is the price of sugar in the US, held artificially high and protected from cheaper exports to the benefit of a few wealthy US sugar producers- a rant for another place!).

Rice, as a crop, is exceptionally sensitive to climate changes. Even a slight warming trend will kill off a crop and this is happening in traditional rice-growing areas worldwide. Because of the unique growing conditions needed for rice (water paddies) you cannot simply replant at a more suitable location. Combined with exploding energy and fuel costs, this forces prices up. It is not a small matter- people will starve.

The climate is a closed system. Changes have wide-reaching and sometimes unpredictable affects. Starvation will be one of them and it could change geo-politics very rapidly as hungry people are angry people.

I have a three year-old Honda Accord that is about to come off of a lease. I have three options: Turn the car in, lease another on very favorable terms or buy the car, again on favorable terms (it’s very low mileage). All three probably cost me a similar amount. I either continue making a payment for a new car or for the existing one. Most leasees would go for the new car.

In the Marcc 2008 issue of Metropolis magazine (sorry no link that I can find) Roberta Gratz has an essay on the environmental impact of historical renovation as opposed to tearing down and building a new ‘greener’ building. She notes that:

” The greenest building is one that’s already built”

The struck me as being very relevant to two themes of this blog and my life these days: The hidden carbon cost of apparently environmentally-friendly products like organic produce (shipped how far to reach a wintry city like Rochester?) and the fact that when I buy something used I’m keeping its materials out of landfills and eliminating the need to make something new.

So I decide to buy the car I have already rather than buy a new one and thus add a carbon-intensive new motorized object to our collective environment. And while I have a dream to build a contemporary urban living space, I think I have to find a building and reuse it rather than build new. The ‘cost’ of tearing down and recycling or landfilling the building would far outweigh the advantages of ‘green’ new construction.

We cannot think about environmental issues the way we did in the past. Food that is grown without pesticides and fertilizers is great until you ship it a thousand miles to the consumer. That shipment just wiped out any advantages from an environmental perspective (the health advantages are also offset by the emissions associated with the travel). There is no free lunch for those who believe that they do right by buying this stuff.

Economically, with a recession upon us, the current administration’s solution is to hand out money and tell people to go forth and consume. This will allegedly stimulate the economy by increasing demand which in turn increases manufacturing. There’s only one problem with this: We live in a world that has fundamentally changed. If we all keep consuming at some point we turn all the raw materials of the planet into manmade objects. Not a pretty picture.

I saw a headline today that there are worldwide grain and food shortages because of American farmers growing corn for ethanol, a fuel most of us cannot use or afford if not subsidized by the government. The complexity of the idiocy behind this is mind-boggling.

The point here is that you cannot take a short term, simplistic approach to any purchasing decision these days. Do I buy a Prius to get an extra 20 MPG when that decision pushes a car somewhere into a landfill and adds another, albeit efficient, car into our global inventory? That’s the kind of question we have to ask ourselves in an environmentally damaged world.

“Experts say the sharp growth, if it continues, means several of the world’s most important suppliers may need to start importing oil within a decade to power all the new cars, houses and businesses they are buying and creating with their oil wealth.”

According to this NYTimes.com article,  the economies of oil rich countries are growing so fast that they are becoming their own fastest growing markets. This increases the squeeze on countries like the US as more and more global demand will keep the price of oil rising. If we’re in Peak Oil (using the last 50% of supplies) then this feedback loop will only speed up the rate at which we run out of fossil fuels. Given that our entire economy requires access to cheap fuel to operate, we’re in serious trouble. Yet our representatives in Bali this week are obfuscating and generally refusing to accept any kind of mandated carbon caps.

The Wall Street Journal, which has had some of the best reporting on climate change issues weirdly offset by their insanely unscientific (ignorant) editorial stance, has a story today on the Peak Oil theory. Unfortunately it’s locked behind their paid sub firewall (another quandary- I support Rupert Murdoch in his plans to open up the WSJ online).

Peak Oil theory says that there is a point where we have taken 50% of the available oil out of the earth and consumed it. At this point the supply diminishes until none remains. The oil industry has consistently claimed they can pull 120 million barrels/day through 2050 even though others were sceptical. This has changed. The WSJ article quotes OPEC officials and oil executives who now say we may hit Peak Oil as soon as 2010-2015. The reality is that our current demand exceeds 180 million barrels per day so we’re already overstrained for capacity. This is a major call to action by those who have had a vested interest in keeping the oil economy in place.

The problem is the inherent problems with the way oil consumption and mining works. In the first 50% we’ve been skimming the low hanging fruit, taking out the most profitable and easily accessed half of the supply. The remaining 50% will get increasingly more difficult and costly to acquire. This means can’t blithely assume we have say another 50 years to fix the problem. What we can assume is an economy crippled by major increases in fuel costs in just a few years. In other words this is it- we have to stop pretending that conservation is a choice rather than a necessity. The oil people have done the math and realized that they better start preparing us for dire circumstances…

BTW, that theory of usage is way out of whack- with India, China and other countries becoming huge consumers of oil our total global needs are skyrocketing far beyond our ability to refine. This is another acceleration factor. $8/gallon anyone?