What if it never rains again?

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

California is experiencing one of the most feared circumstances human's can experience: A drought that no one can predict when they will emerge. There is a reason that almost all of our major cities have developed near large sources of fresh water, or over large and plentiful underground aquifers. As highlighted in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we need water to survive...more immediately than anything else besides air. Next in line is food, which takes water to produce as well. We cannot access water sources or food, and support the populations to which we have grown in our cities, without energy to extract, transport, reclaim, and process the water and food on which our survival depends.

I have written previously on this "food/energy/water nexus": The idea that in our pursuit of our basic needs, none of them exists independent of the other. Our hope for maintaining our existence lies in having as detailed an understanding of this balance as possible, then making decisions that lead us in the direction of minimizing usage of water and avoiding a path that leads us in an out-of-control spiral where we cannot control our use of the basic resource. This issue is coming to a head in California, even as we speak.

Jan 2011

Aug 2014

Since 2011, California has gone from a state with a small area of minimal drought risk to a state of emergency with almost the entire state in some level of drought and many areas in severe drought conditions. Obviously, weather plays a large role in this as California has had only sporadic rain over the last year or so, but such a quick change in the status of the state comes from short-sighted management of resources. In addition to direct human water use for health, and our ongoing insane obsession with water-thirsty manicured lawns and decorative landscape, California also taps all available resources to maintain the largest agricultural economy in the country. With the large expansion of fracking over the past decade, California has jumped on the bandwagon to get its share of the pie, at the expense of its water resources. To add insult to injury, California hold the distinction of being one of the most densely developed areas of bottled water extraction in the country. (See this piece for a more detailed examination of why bottled water in everyday life is not only stupid but dangerous.)

To make matters worse, what we see today may only be the beginning of a long-term - potentially as long as 50 year - drought condition for this area of the country. Climate change and shifting weather patterns may severely limit the rain patterns that replenish the water sources for the region. Already, the Colorado River and Lake Mead, two of the main water sources in the southern part of California, have hit record lows with little signs of bouncing back. Recent research (see here and here) has placed the chances of a decade long drought at 50/50 and a half-century long one at a non-trivial 5-10%. We could see a major threat to the lives of 1/10th of the nations population...and a mass movement of those people to areas that have ample water to survive. Managing this challenge will define the future of our country.

A major shift in weather patterns that restores rainfall to California and mitigates the threat to life would obviously be welcome, but we should not hope for that, nor if it comes, allow it to divert us from taking action. We need a strong, national energy policy, and one that recognizes the overlap in our food, energy, and water industries. We need to seriously rethink some of the uses of water currently in our economy - such as landscape irrigation and non-emergency bottled water - and develop long-term (like 150-200 year) water use plans that apply conservative principles to ensure that we have the water we need to maintain our existence.

The combination of a lack of foresight on water use with the effects of climate change has put California especially in a dire predicament. If we do not learn our lesson, we could lose more than we could ever imagine.

Flashes: July 23, 2014

US per person annual textile fiber consumption 71.8 pounds per year (2012, down from peak of 91.0 in 2005) and 91.3 pounds per year of textiles were discarded -- 14.3 pounds recycled and 77 pounds discarded to landfill.
 Sources USDA & EPA

US per person annual food consumption 1,996 pounds per year (2011) not counting the nearly 500 pounds per person discarded.
 Sources USDA & NRDC

US per person annual energy consumption 6,784 kg of oil equivalent per capita (2013, down from peak of 8,438 kgoe in 1978) compared with an average of 4,150 kgoe per capita for the average of the OECD, 3,020 for the UK, and 2,087 for Portugal....for the record, Canada is at 7,270 kgoe per capita.
 Source World Bank

US per person annual water consumption 625,152 gallons (2011) compared with the world average of 304,657 gallons, the average for Germany at 313,676 gallons, and the average for the UK at 276,721 gallons.
 Source Waterfootprint.org

Currently, the US could completely support itself on recycled textiles, support an additional 40% of population without growing an ounce of more food, and support an additional 100% (minimum) more population without generating an additional BTU of energy or pumping an additional gallon of water...

If we wanted to.

Enjoy the journey!

An exercise in utility: Don't tell the Mayor about my water bill

Over the past two years, our family has taken some steps to reduce the impact that utility bills have on our bottom line.  This partly came out of necessity, and partly to lay the groundwork for future finances.  In this installment, I look at the impact of our water bill on our family economy.

Talk to someone about water conservation in the city of Chicago, and the eyes glaze over, they look to the east, and get a look of, "What are you talking about?" on their face. We live next to the largest source of naturally-occuring fresh water on the planet, so thoughts of water conservation make little sense.

For years, the way that the City of Chicago billed citizens for water use reflected that relationship.  The City could have cared less how much water a building used, the property owner paid based upon the frontage (distance along the property parallel to the street).  Every year, the departments that manage the water and sewer pipes would put together their annual budgets, and that would get divided evenly over the length of street-front across the city.  This meant that two neighbors who used vastly different amounts of water would have the same annual bill for water and sewer.  We know that pricing a commodity in that way does not promote efficient use of the resource, but rather, it promotes waste.

We should care about the waste, not just because of the availability, but also the impact of what happens after we use the water.  Although we will not dry up Lake Michigan anytime soon, low lake levels influence the effectiveness of water withdrawals, and create issues with balance between the lake and surrounding bodies of water - namely the Chicago River and the I&M Shipping Canal.  In addition, the Chicago area sewer system does not process water for return to the Lake, but rather, toward the Mississippi River.  This means that we draw water from the Lake, and send it away, then when rain falls on the city, most of it gets swept away from the Lake Michigan - where it should recharge the source - and instead ends up in the Mississippi Delta.  This contributes to flooding along all the tributaries leading to, and including, the Mississippi, and damages the ecosystems of the Delta by introducing more freshwater than desired.

With all these impacts, we should focus on using water more wisely, and over the past decade, the City has moved to installing water meters on all properties and charging the owners not just for the infrastructure necessary to deliver water and transport sewage, but based on the total water consumed.  Whereas the old bill had two flat fees for water and sewer, the new bill has a per-gallon charge for each of water and sewer.  It is interesting to see the impact of this switch in fee structure.

In our home, we have 3.5 "full-time equivalent" occupants.  My wife, youngest child, and I live in the house full-time, and we have one college-aged child living mostly away from home, then two high-school aged children who live with us part of the time.  Over the course of a year, we consume approximately 12,000 gallons of water, which, when divided over the people who live in the house over the course of the year, equates to about 10 gallons of water per person per day of direct, at-home water use.  This puts us well below average, and so any pricing system should recognize that and charge use accordingly.

Please don't tell the Mayor, but it totally does.

Prior to metering, we paid approximately $900 per year in water/sewer bills, or about 7.5 cents per gallon of water.  Not bad, considering that bottled water costs about $5.00 per gallon.  Under the current model, however, we pay a whopping....$0.0028 per gallon, or about $70 per year.

The City made a smart consumer move and promised users that their bills would be capped at previous levels (with allowable rate increases), but it would seem that someday soon that will have to go away.  For every home like ours that uses one-tenth the water, another customer must be using more.  Right now, there is no guarantee that customer will pay enough to make up the difference.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out moving forward.

Friday Five: May 23, 2014

We not only have to worry about declining yields on some crops in a changing climate, but now we must consider the possibility that food will have lower nutritional value.
Climate change producing less nutritious food, report says
"Climate change initially will produce both winners and losers when it comes to food production, the report said, but research has indicated that growing regions everywhere will eventually suffer from global warming. The report calls on the U.S. government to integrate climate change adaptation into its global food security strategy."

This creates even greater pressures on local quality of life in areas that experience the combined impacts of drought and increased water use due to fracking.
California's thirst shapes debate over fracking
"The drought, combined with a recent set of powerful earthquakes, has provided the momentum for about a dozen local governments across California, the third-largest oil producing state, to vote to restrict or prohibit fracking in their jurisdictions, as concerns over environmental effects and water usage have grown."

Meanwhile, as we continue to debate the "ifs" of climate change impacts instead of moving onto the more important debate about what to do and where, those paying attention see the significant challenge to our food system and overall quality of life posed by the impact increased carbon in the atmosphere has on our oceans.
Oyster farmers and ocean acidification
"This 'ocean acidification' is one planetary response to humans’ burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the oceans. According to the National Climate Assessment, oceans currently absorb about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, leading to ocean acidification that will alter marine ecosystems in dramatic yet uncertain ways."

Even ideas such as "local food" have their pitfalls as they sometimes lead to inefficient practices or the promotion of resource intensive crops.
'Third Plate' reimagines farm-to-table eating to nourish the land
"In his new book, The Third Plate: Field Notes on the Future of Food, Barber proposes rotating the most desirable and valuable foods, like tomatoes, with more humble offerings like buckwheat or barley or mustard greens — which are often overlooked when it comes to dining. Farm-to-table should include different foods and different portions that support the land, Barber says."

If we can make local food reflect all human health benefits, then the question remains as to how to build a system to feed billions of people in this way.
14 pointers toward a better food system: Connecting the (local, sustainable) dots
"My purpose here has not been to make an argument about the value of local food. (That’s been done.) Instead, I started with the assumption that fostering regional food systems was worthwhile, and tried to take the next step by asking, how do we scale this up?"

Happy Friday!

Friday Five(s): March 7, 2014...Cabin Fever Edition

Through a combination of cabin-fever-inspired restlessness, and a measurable uptick in environmental news this week, I cannot bring my brain to choose only five, so I am going with a double-dose...including shorter intros by me.


This should scare the livin' bejeezus out of everyone. (And note, 'bejeezus' is recognized as a word by my autocorrect.)
Chevron launches "news" site
"Ritchie said the site also offers a new model for the future of journalism — one that is funded directly by corporations. 'We believe the website has the potential to blaze the trail for a new model of corporate-sponsored, community-generated news,' the website reads."

The market has changed, and large energy companies - and especially investor-owned utilities - face extinction if they do not find new models.
Schadenfreude about RWE unwarranted
"What should RWE do? ... Maybe we need to be open to the idea that large power corporations were needed for central-station power plants, but that their role in a renewable future will be much smaller. At the moment, even the proposal to have them leverage their size to set up an enabling infrastructure – such as charging stations for electric cars – seems unlikely. The firms don't even have the liquidity anymore."

I forgive the inappropriate use of 'global warming' in the headline because the article discusses an industry I love. I am inspired to act.
Slope & change: The ski industry struggles to get its act together on global warming
"So what, you might ask, does the ski industry lobby for in Washington, if not for climate action? In the past, it has pushed for looser immigration rules (who’ll wash all those restaurant dishes and change the hotel sheets?) and to make sure that we can continue to import cheap shred threads from China (because, you know, we’ve gotta look good out there)."

In principle, I do not have an issue with natural gas as a bridging fuel if it is employed in retrofit of existing plants, and if carbon capture is required...but until the methane leakage issue is 100% solved, natural gas is as bad as coal...period.
How to make natural gas more climate-friendly
"It doesn’t have to be this way. The technology already exists to dramatically reduce methane leakage for a reasonable price. Environmental groups have put out reports outlining how. They could serve as a template for the oil and gas industry to follow voluntarily, or for the EPA to require under the Clean Air Act."

Good consequence, incentives for industry to capture, sequester, and even mine CO2...unintended consequence without regulation, continue depleting fossil fuels as source of "high quality CO2".
Don't waste CO2, turn it into bottles and glue
"If humanity is to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to capture hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. But what to do with it all? There is no shortage of places to bury it, but we can at least put some of it to good use. A few start-up companies view CO2 as a resource rather than a waste product. They are using CO2 as the raw material for making products including superglue and fertilizer."

It's said that collapsing societies burned their last tree to boil their last pot of water to eat their last meal...if we are to avoid that fate, we need to examine our priorities. Maybe cultural icons will help awaken minds.
Syndey Opera House and Statue of Liberty 'will be lost to sea level rise'
"Marzeion said that in Europe, particularly vulnerable sites included the leaning tower of Pisa, which is not directly on the coast but would be affected by sea level rises as a result of even a low temperature increase because it is very low-lying. He also cited Venice, which 'in a sense you can say is being impacted right now' and Hanseatic League cities including Hamburg, Lübeck and Bremen in Germany."

If the loss of Lady Liberty doesn't move us, how about the loss of large sections of a state?
Louisiana's coastline is disappearing too quickly for mappers to keep up
"Each year, this part of the coastline loses around 16 square miles of land, according to David Muth, the state director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Mississippi River Delta Restoration Project. And until quite recently, even the most advanced maps of the area did little to reflect the changing environmental reality. But in the last few years, renewed mapping efforts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have begun to catalog these changes. These new maps show water where there was once marshy land, and bays where there were once small inlets."

Speaking of water, unless you live in CA or SD, you may not know how tentative our life is under "feast and famine" deluge-drought cycles.
Americans have no idea how much water we use - or how to conserve it
"Perhaps most troubling, Americans overwhelmingly believe that changing their habits, as opposed to improving the efficiency of their plumbing, is the most effective way to cut down on water consumption. Seventy-six percent of those surveyed said curtailment methods, such as flushing less frequently, are the best way to reduce water use. Only 10 percent chose more preventative measures, such as installing new toilets that use just 1.6 gallons per flush in lieu of old toilets that use five to six gallons."

Of course there is hope if we listen to free market economists and make rational decisions that are in our best economic self-interest. (Hint: That means divesting from fossil fuels and investing in clean energy & energy efficiency solutions.)
Energy efficiency creates 387% return on investment for US Southeast
"A wide range of economic benefits contributed to the overall $78.3 million in regional economic output created by SEEA’s energy efficiency upgrades. $55.7 million in economic output and 240 jobs were created through direct effects from program spending, while $22.2 million in economic output and 106 jobs were created via direct effects like efficiency goods and services. Induced effects from households or workers spending newfound money on consumer goods or services created an additional $366,471 in economic impacts."

And maybe there is something with tapping into the "keeping up with the Jones'" zeitgeist. Whatever it takes to give my grandkids a high quality of life.
With energy reports, it's game on
"But research has shown that neighbor comparisons are the most effective way to get people to conserve energy, he said. More people respond to hearing what their neighbors are doing than to the prospect of helping the environment or saving money. The comparisons work, he said; the first group of ComEd customers to get the reports, in 2009, reduced their electricity use by 2 percent."

Happy Friday!

The trouble with resources: Water (Part 1)

Image courtesy of US Geological Survey

Water is life.

An old rule of thumb says you could last three months without food, three days without water, and three minutes without air. I deal with water first even though we need air more urgently because of air's ubiquitous nature. Obtaining water requires conscious choice, and lacks the sense of urgency of air, so we may tend to put it off if we do not have a strong and immediate sense of thirst. This leads to varying levels of dehydration that create anything from mild memory loss and fever to death, and this just covers the water needed within our bodies to maintain function. We also use water to grow crops and maintain human health through waste conveyance. To understand whether or not we have enough water to support our life, we need to know how much we have available to us, how fast we use it, and how quickly nature makes it available to us again.

Water is a finite resource. Most of us learn about the water cycle (or hydrologic cycle) in school, but do not pay attention to the most interesting consequence of the use of the word "cycle". It reminds us that we do not create water or destroy it through our existence; water merely changes form, and sometimes location, then becomes available to us again, and again. The table below lists data that the image below does a great job of making visual:





The visual only tells part of the story. As we can see in the table, of that 27,000 cubic miles of surface-available freshwater, almost 25% is either in the atmosphere, in swamps or in us, making it immediately unavailable for use. That leaves about 22,000 cubic miles of surface water. According to the American Water Works Association, the average daily direct water use for Americans is 69.3 gallons inside and an additional 280 gallons per day outside. That use covers daily water intake and personal health. Add to that between 2,500 gallons per day of virtual water that goes into the energy, food, and resources we require each day including construction and production of goods. (Remember, that although equivalent daily, per capita water draws for the US are around 1,350 gallons per day, many of the crops and products we consume come from overseas, so we are not limited to our borders when considering the water needed to support our lifestyle.) If 9 billion people used water at that rate, that would total 25 cubic miles of water a day or about 0.1% of our available surface water. Allowing for water in transit (both to us for our use and to wastewater treatment) and for water in the treatment process for return to the surface water stores, we would have 0.3% of our world surface water supply withdrawn each day for our use.

Assuming we can keep up with the treatment of the water - a task that would require construction of thousands of water treatment facilities across the world - we can make choices that allow us to recharge our sources of freshwater at the same rate we use them. With this, and taking into account the fact that several areas of the world have the ability to tap into the 2.5 million cubic miles of ground water, it would appear that our planet has more than enough water to supply 9 billion people living the American lifestyle. So why does water present such a huge challenge, with 2.7 billion people currently short of water and some calling water the "oil of the 21st century".

The answer to that question is availability and quality...location, location, location.

Next week - water availability and quality.