Stephen Gloor

The Three Laws of the First World

Borrowing or stealing, if you prefer, from Issac Asimov's wonderful robotic universe I have come up with the Three Laws of the First World that I have come to accept as true through my many debates trying to convince people that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and perhaps we might have to accept that some people might have to make a little less money to help combat global warming.

First Law:
Governments must ensure that First World economies grow and deliver profits to First World people and corporations.

Second Law:
First World people must be provided with low cost energy, food and consumer goods except where this would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law:
The global environment and the Third World must be protected and/or helped except where this would conflict with the First and Second Law.

Explanations:

First Law - in all the talk that I have had over global warming the one thing that stands out preventing action on climate change is that any action cannot harm the economy so this law is self-evident.  It does not matter if we are going to fry the planet with greenhouse gases the economy of the First World is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.  The justification for this is that increased wealth will bring increased health and prosperity in a trickle down effect for all the worlds population.  This held to be true despite clear evidence that the gap between rich and poor is growing ie: the universal rule and corollary to the First Law is that "The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer".  Joseph Heller summed up this law neatly in Catch 22 when he coined the phrase "whats good for M & M Industries is good for you" even when you try to inflate your life jacket and find the CO2 has been taken to make ice cream.

Second Law - As providing First World people with cheap consumer goods and cheap energy very rarely brings this Law in conflict with the Second Law this law tends to stand alone.  The only usual expression of conflict with the First Law is when employees are laid off.  It can be said that this is in violation of the Second Law as this can lead to them not having access to the said cheap energy and consumer goods by having no money.  However in this case the First Law takes precedence as the company will increase profits by moving labour overseas and therefore be obeying the First Law.  Recent statements by one leader in the First World that "The American Way of Life is not negotiable" tend to reinforce the truth of this law.  Witness also the outcry that happened when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.  This clearly breached the Second Law as First World people were denied Second Law things for an extended time and briefly attained the status of Third World people and were in danger of being placed in the Third Law like the rest of the Third World.  By contrast did anyone hear about this one - Supertyphoon Pongsona - No it hit Guam - no violation of the Second Law here.

Third Law - According to free marketeers the First Law should fix all Third World problems and the environment.  The fact that it is not doing this does not seem to faze them.  Clearly any action to help the Third World and/or the environment that could potentially deny First World people cheap energy would be in violation of the Second Law and possibly the First Law as well.  A clear case of this is in the Niger Delta where oil is extracted.  Giving the profits and control to the local people could increase the price of oil in supply tight world.  This would clearly violate the Second Law and is therefore out of the question.  Instead the Oil companies must continue the path they have followed to deliver cheap oil to the First World.  Also this action would deny First World economies profits and therefore be in violation of the First Law.  Another example is supplying cheap or free anti malarial and AIDS drugs to the Third World.  This could decrease the extremely profitable international drug companies patents rights and would be a clear breach of the First Law.  Only when such drugs can be supplied in a way that does not violate the First Law is such action taken.  This usually takes the form of generic drugs that are off patent being supplied instead of the newer and more effective drugs.

Viewed in the light of the Three Laws you can easily see why the Kyoto Protocol tanked and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate was such a winner.  The Kyoto Protocol has measurable and enforceable targets.  Achieving these targets could place a country in breach of the First Law if the economy was in danger growing less or delivering less profits.  Additionally the Second Law could be breached if First World people had to pay more for energy.  So clearly the Kyoto Protocol was really dead from the start because of the Three Laws of the First World.

By contrast the Asia-Pacific Partnership is a winner from the start.  With no pesky targets or set emission limits, countries can happily conform to the Partnership without actually violating the First or Second Laws at all.  Concentrating, as it does, on future things like Clean Coal etc the money can be spent on villas in the South of France as there is no set measurement of emissions to conform to.  A country can use any statistic they like to show that they are reducing greenhouse emissions and helping the environment as no-one is actually measuring how many clean coal plants are built.  It is clear to me that the formulators of the Asia-Pacific Partnership had a clear and detailed knowledge of the three laws when it was developed.

The only fly in the ointment of the Three Laws is that the Second one could have a bit of a problem.  The statement that First World people must be provided with low cost energy could be a problem as there are more and more people that are attaining protection under the Second Law.  Newly affluent people in India and China, benefiting from changes mandated under the First Law, also have to be supplied with cheap energy creating a problem as there may not be enough energy to go around.  While this is not a real problem for the Three Laws or the new First World people as more energy can be usually be cranked out this could create a problem for the Earth.  Increasingly lower energy return energy will have to be used to prevent violations of the Second Law.  This can be done without violating the First Law however this usually precludes renewable sources as they are not able to supply energy with as much profit and convenience as nuclear and coal.  It is cheaper and easier to build natural gas, nuclear or coal power plants as they will not violate either the First or Second Laws.   The Third Law only gives protection to the environment when it does not conflict with the first two, so renewables and other greenie stuff is usually relegated to where they belong and are not considered serious alternatives.  Large scale adoption of solar and wind would involve breaches of the First and Second Laws and are therefore out of the question.

So there you have it when you are arguing with a Kyoto basher or AGW skeptic you really only have to remember the Three Laws of the First World and all of it makes perfect sense.

Link to Reports on Situation in New Orleans

This is a pretty good list of sites and new reports on what is going on in New Orleans

Take the time to read a few.

An Uplifting Interview about the Future

Please download and listen to this inspirational interview from Jason Bradford, founder of the Willits Economic Localization (WELL).  In it he gives hope about local communities working together to carve out an sustainable future completely by-passing big government.

It may be the future of the Greens.  I have been very disillusioned about the party I belong to.  There are too many intellectuals that will lecture until the cows come home but when asked to do something - well that is a bit too hard.  I recently asked for our economic policies to be costed and met a blank wall.

I now realize from this person talking about what he has done in his local community that the real future of the Greens if they will accept it,  is to re-vitalize the local communities that we are losing to depression and suicide and globalization.  It is becoming clear to me now that that no matter what government gets in they will just implement more of the same.  Even if the Greens were in a coalition there would be so many compromises needed that this would dilute what is needed and the result would be just more of the same.

To me the global economy and the Government is a huge dinosaur completely unable to change and adapt.  NOTHING will be done about Peak Oil even though the life blood of our society will probably be in short supply.  NOTHING will be really done about climate change.  Yet both these things will probably be the end of the dinosaur through complacency and inaction.

I believe that it is the role of the Greens and other groups to forget about the government. They have written a huge document called from Global to Local.  And while they had a huge launch for it what has been done to implement it - NOTHING. We need to start a large program of working with local, rural and urban, communities to start programs like Jason Bradford has done in Willets, completely bypassing the coal mining government whatever it happens to be either the Labor Liberal Party or the real Liberal Party and revitalize local knowledge before it is lost forever.

Listen to the interview.  Even if you are not a Greenie there is much in it for you.

Old Growth Forests

In a recent discussion on Jennifers Morohasy's site the question of woodchipping old growth forests is being discussed.

This is one post from Ric

I believe for every tonne of wood used in construction, the net amount of carbon sequestered is about 200kg, allowing for the energy expended in producing the wood from the forest. All other substitute construction materials such as steel, plastic and concrete emit more carbon than they sequester.

If you regrow the forest post-harvest, you are effectively transferring carbon from the atmosphere to a long term use which is an effective storage. Furthermore, you substitute some other material which would be a carbon emitter.

A study done in the UK concluded that if used paper was burnt, so substituting coal for electricity production, this would cause fewer carbon emissions than recycling paper back into paper products. Provided that the forest/plantation that is the original source of fibre is regrown.

A mature forest is carbon neutral, but it is not accumulating carbon. The rate of decay (a carbon emission) must equal the rate of carbon intake by photosynthesis. Any forest ages to the point of collapse, and then typically a wildfire would complete the cycle (massive carbon emission) and a new forest would regenerate. The area that undergoes this collapse and regeneration in any one event varies with the forest type and local conditions, but in total, a wild forest is in state of dynamic equilibrium. The impression that forests are ancient and permanent is an illusion caused by our own very short lifespans.

The accusation of profligate consumption levels levelled by opponents of (insert your favourite cause here) is nearly always hypocrisy. Unless you are living a truly ascetic existence, in which case you would not have your computer or be chatting on this blog, your consumption is pretty much the same as those evil-doers who log forests to generate the basic materials and export income required for your comfort.

Provided a forest is grown and logged according to the principles of forest science, and there is no loss of biodiversity, I invite anyone to nominate a land use that causes less harm than commercial native forestry over a period of several centuries. The "we don't have to use every hectare" argument doesn't wash - we now import twice as much sawn wood from SE Asian forests as we saw from Tasmanian forests. Your impact has to fall somewhere. Checked under your house for biodiversity lately?

Posted by: Rick  at August 29, 2005 10:07 PM

Now lets look at this with a few numbers.

In 2000 - 2001 the total value of all exports from Australia was $119,539 million dollars(ref1).  The total value of forest products in the same period was $1,812m (ref 1), of which 41% were woodchips and 29% paper and paperboard products.  The proportion of export wealth from forest products versus total exports is therefore 1812/119539 = .015 = 1.5% of total exports earnings.   Rick and later poster are correct there is a deficit in forest products however the scare tactic that the imported timber is native SEA rainforests is easily refuted by ref 1 which states " Imported sawn timber is mostly Radiata pine from New Zealand and Douglas fir from North America."  So lets put that one to bed.  If the forest industry was stopped today Australia would lose 1.5 or 2.0% of its export earnings.  Again from ref 1 Australia imported $3,834m, of which 54% were paper and paperboard products and 11% sawnwood.  Total imports at the same time was 118 264 million dollars so the claim that paper products are "our 3rd biggest import" is patently false.

Having said all this ref 1 provides a strong argument for forest products "Australia's wood and paper products industries are important components of Australia's primary and secondary industry sectors. They are particularly important in providing economic development and employment in many regions of rural Australia" which I agree with Rick and rog however I still do not support woodchipping native old growth forests.  Plantations can provide all the necessary wood and paper products without disturbing native forests.

Now a quote from ref 4

"The logging operation at EP074D represents the loss of significant present and potential economic opportunity for the state of Tasmania.  The minimum estimated value of the timber remaining in the coupe is $685,000 in royalties.  This value would be significantly higher if the timber were downstream processed in the State.

In terms of special species timbers, the logging operation at EP074D is clearly not ecologically sustainable.  Fire sensitive species are eventually eliminated in subsequent logging rotations (90years) thereby diminishing the diversity of the forest and the potential supply of quality timbers in the future"

Clearly clearfelling for woodchips not only reduces the biodiversity of the fauna but even the future operation of logging.  All this for $146.00 per ton.  If you read ref 5 then it says in the Executive Summary "the study concluded that logging old growth forest in the Weld Valley significantly alters the diversity and abundance of the plants and invertebrates"  So Rick you can make as many claims as you like however the science will always get you in the end.  Practically all studies that I looked at agreed that logging old growth forests reduce biodiversity when studied scientifically by independent investigators.  However of course all university professors are just left wing radicals anyway so what would they know.

A mature forest can be carbon neutral however when it is put under stress it can actually emit CO2.  Also please provide a scientific reference for where you claim "Any forest ages to the point of collapse".  I could not find ANY references to 'forests collapsing" at all.  They change in response to climate and they do burn however left alone they do not collapse.  Perhaps this is another of your little porkies.  The total forest ecosystem of which the trees are a vital part is timeless and ageless.  It adapts.  Trees come and go, as you say, however to think to use this as an argument to diminish the value of the forest is ludicrous.  Old growth forests provide the habitats that are vital for survival of many species.  They have the niches and hollows that animals use for shelter that new growth forests do not have.  When you cut down an ancient tree you are really cutting down an animal skyscraper and causing thousands of animals to be left without protection to die.

A detailed critique of the greenhouse effect of forests will follow.

So lets summaries.  In earlier posts you tried to claim that without forest products the Australian export industry would collapse however the reality with real numbers is that it is about 1 or 2% of Australian Exports.  Then rog tried to claim that paper and wood products were our 3rd biggest import which is also false.  Then you tried to say that the deficiency in sawn timber comes from SE Asia and even that is false.  Your last try was that logging does not reduce biodiversity however this ignores the fact that the scientific evidence shows almost the exact opposite.

References
1. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/D00760E9617A805BCA256CAE0015CAB0
2. http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/pmp_2003_04_analysis.pdf
3.http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/B8F0356D3723562ECA256B36001BFB48
4.http://www.twff.com.au/epo74d.pdf
5. http://www.twff.com.au/weldreport.pdf

 

Is This Really What we Want?

In all my discussions with people that want our society to continue with energy use unabated I am constantly bemused by the resistance to energy conservation.  I mean what is the problem?  Surely it is wise when in a crisis to conserve first?  Perhaps they believe there is no crisis and why should we conserve power?

OK if there is no crisis then why the push to build nuclear power plants.  If you do not think Global Warming is a problem then coal is far cheaper then nuclear - so why would you want nuclear?  If you acknowledge Global Warming is a problem then you are admitting that we have a crisis and nuclear power is the answer as it does not emit CO2.  If you admit there is a crisis then what is the problem with Demand Side energy management?

With nuclear power do we really want more  of this?  This is a report on a Nuclear Power station's vulnerability to attack.  Nothing in it gives me reassurance that a massive expansion of nuclear power to replace coal would be safe as you are just multiplying the targets and diluting the available security.  This is an excerpt:

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) document "raises serious questions about whether the government has set security requirements for nuclear plants too low and allowed nuclear plant operators to provide security on the cheap," Time reported.

Even plant guards worry they would be unable to thwart a big terrorist operation, saying they lack the necessary training and weapons, the magazine said. The plants could also be vulnerable to an attack on foot, it said.

"Our training has increased, but I don't think it's increased enough to deal with that," a veteran guard, who was not named, told Time. Another guard said: "We don't have the weapons or training to stop an attack of that magnitude. ... Everyone feels that way. It's a consensus of opinion."

Even if you accepted that nuclear power is the answer doesn't it make sense to cut demand so that the bare minimum of nuclear plants necessary are built?  This would minimize both the risks and the waste.

Why does demand management mean lifestyle cuts?  It doesn't.  Subsidies to buy a more efficient fridge or air conditioner could cut demand.  Solar panels on every house is power that does not have to centrally generated and reticulated to your house.  Solar Hot water instead of electric heating saves massive amounts of power.  A carbon tax on electricity would force companies to install more efficient air conditioning, refrigeration and process machinery.  All of this could be done withour compromising our precious lifestyles.  Demand management is not a call for everyone to live in bark huts with candles for lights.  It is just using our technology to use much less power to do much the same thing.

All of these things could be done whether or not you are a greenie renewable person like me or a nuclear power advocate.  Demand management is valid whatever final energy production method works out in the future.  I am just asking all sides of the debate to CONSERVE FIRST.  It is not an unreasonable request.

A New 'Environmental' Movement

A new environmental web site has been launched in Australia.  You can see them at this site

Here are their aims:

The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) is a not-for-profit, membership-based environmental organisation having no political affiliation.  We take an evidence-based, solution focused approach to environmental issues.    

While it may be true to say that "We are all environmentalists now", the great majority of Australians have little or no say in the environmental policies being put to governments – federal, state or local.  These policies are almost exclusively the domain of a tight network of conservation groups ensuring one view, and one view only, is put forward.   

The AEF is a different kind of environment group, caring for both Australia & Australians.    

Many of our members are practical environmentalists – people who actively use and also care for the environment.

We accept that environmental protection and sustainable resource use are generally compatible.

Our members value: 

• Evidence - policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis. 
• Choice - issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. 
• Technology - appropriate and innovative technological solutions are implemented. 
• Management - active management is used when necessary, acknowledging that landscapes and ecosystems are dynamic.
• Diversity - biological diversity is maintained.
• People - the needs and aspirations of people should receive due consideration.

Lets go though the aims:

" * Evidence - policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis."

Sure if the evidence is not filtered and thought to be false. 

"* Choice - issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis."

CB analysis are not always approriate. Look at the Ford Pinto - the CB said let the people die as it is cheaper than remaking the car. How does a bird species value get onto a ledger?

"* Technology - appropriate and innovative technological solutions are implemented."

Technology is sometimes wonderful however there is not a techno fix for everything. Being humble is admitting that you do not have all the answers.

"* Management - active management is used when necessary, acknowledging that landscapes and ecosystems are dynamic."

They may be dynamic however that does not mean that it is OK to change them just because you want to. THis is wrong.

  "* Diversity - biological diversity is maintained."

How are you going to do this if the landscape is dynamic as you term it. Every time the landscape changes some diversity is lost.

"* People - the needs and aspirations of people should receive due consideration."

But not always the only consideration. If more money can be made from preservation and eco-tourism then why destroy it. Also you have to ask who benefits. Woodchipping only benefits the shareholders of the company and the locals that own the trees. So when you say people who do you mean???? Influential people??

I am not so sure that it is non-political.  The chaiman is Jennifer Morohasy who has posted quite political posts and her views are well known.  Here is her blog - judge for yourself.

Now to some of "the team":

"Bronwyn Petrie holds various representative positions.  She is the NSW Farmers Association local Tenterfield branch Chairman, also Executive Councillor and representative on the Private Native Forest Code of Practice committee.  Bronwyn was chairman of the Tenterfield Regional Vegetation Committee."

"Kersten Gentle  is from a third generation timber family.  She has a real passion for forests, rural communities and Australia’s heritage.Kersen is a mother of three young children and cares deeply about how they are educated, especially on environmental issues.   Kersten cares about the future and wants public policy decisions on environmental issues to be evidence-based and solution focused. Kersten believes in negotiation and mediation.  She believes that the time has come for everyone to work together to ensure Australia’s unique environment is managed for its intrinsic values and for all Australians.Kersten is currently the Victorian State Manager of Timber Communities Australia and President of the School Council at Healesville Primary.  Since 1999 Kersten has coordinated the annual Healesville Timber Festival."

2 of the 5 people are from industy associations.  One is a 3 generation timber person.  I am not sure that this is totally non-political.

Anyway have a look and judge for yourself.

An Inspiring Presentation By David Suzuki

I have just been privileged to watch a live presentation from Dr David Suzuki.  It was organized for my company as a part of Writers Week in Sydney and I watched by video conference from Perth.

What a man!  If there was one person on the planet that could change the world he would be it.  He spoke with such passion, commitment, humour and humility that it totally left me breathless.

When he was talking about the Howard Government and the horrendous whinging it did at the Kyoto Conference to get the 8% increase in emission I felt totally ashamed.  I wanted to say that we have tried to vote the lying bastard out - we really have but I couldn't I just had to take it.

He made us all feel that air is sacred. Sacred Air was how he would like it termed.  We are all connected by air and the fact that the rise of asthma in kids and old people is a sign that things are going wrong.

I hope there will be a video available.

It comes down to the thought "diamonds are valuable until you are dying of thirst - then they are irrelevant"  I mean if someone said that we will waste 50% of the jewel diamonds you have, just crush them, then you would laugh at them.  Yet we waste water which when you are thirsty is far more valuable than diamonds.  We pollute the air with CO2 and particles yet when we are finished there is not more air to be had.

Really we value the things that matter the least.

A Word From our Coal Mining Governments Chief Scientist

This is an article that appeared on the ABC web site about the drought not having anything to do with Global Warming.  It may not however this story gives and insight into the mentality of the people in charge.

First of all he has to support the head coal miner by saying

Dr Batterham has called for Australia to cut greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent before 2100 and 50 per cent by 2050.

But he stands by the Government's decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

"The Kyoto agreement is what I would call a baby step in the right direction and it comes down to saying, is this baby step in fact deluding us into thinking that we've got the problem solved," he said.

NOBODY regards the Kyoto as a solution.  WE made sure Kyoto is a baby step.

Then he says:

"The key to me is of course a bit more research and development but primarily more demonstration of effective technologies that are going to tackle this question, and that's an international effort. We can't do that one alone," he said.

Dr Batterham says a process called geosequestration, which involves capturing greenhouse gases and storing them underground, could cut 20 to 40 per cent off Australia's emissions.

"The key point that I would make is we actually need every which way we can think of to get to 50 per cent," he said.

He sees a totally unproven technology that is years away from being in use as the answer!!!  Wind and Solar are here now not 10 years away.  With agressive timetables of demand reduction and renewable power implementation we would not need this unproven technology.

Finally here is the best bit ( I have bolded it so you don't miss it)

Dr Batterham announced this week that he would not be seeking a further term as the Government's chief scientist but that he would resign at the end of the month to resume his full-time position as chief technologist with mining giant Rio Tinto.

His appointment to the Government position six years ago sparked controversy over whether he would simply be representing the mining industry's view.

Dr Batterham has always maintained that proper processes and inquiries were put in place to ensure his independence.

Yeah right!!!!!!!

Some Interrelationships That We Do Not Usually Consider

This is an article on SpaceDaily by Dan Whipple.  It explores some of the complex interrelationships that exist in the Earth ecosystem.  It also debunks the simplistic notion that GW skeptics have tried to peddle that extra CO2 will make plants grow better.

As an example of these non-obvious connections have a look at this from the article:

Another National Aeronautics and Space Administration study, released last week in the journal Science, found a connection between snow melting in the Himalayas under the heat of global warming and increased plankton concentrations in the western Arabian Sea - more than a 350 percent increase over the past seven years.

Even though the Himalayas stand thousands of miles away, the NASA team found that when the winter and spring snow cover declines in Eurasia, Earth absorbs more solar energy - instead of reflecting it back into space -- thereby "creating a larger temperature difference between the water of the Arabian Sea and the Indian subcontinent landmass," the study said.

That difference causes the winds to blow across the Arabian Sea, resulting in monsoons on the Indian subcontinent and an upwelling of cooler, nutrient-rich water - ideal conditions for plankton blooms.

"The associated shifts in winds, and increased phytoplankton levels in the Arabian Sea, could have far reaching consequences for the ecosystem of the region," said Joaquim Goes, senior researcher at the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Maine and lead author of the study.

How can we predict what will happen with Global Warming.  For the skeptics that have acknowledged the reality of increased CO2 levels, as it is impossible to argue against direct measurements, how can they think that this will have no effect on the Earths Climate?  I guess they are not being paid to think.

Vital Facts 2005

This is from the Website of the WorldWatch organsisation who publish amongst other things a yearly publications called Vital Signs.  You can buy the full publication here

They very nicely print a neat vital fact summary here.  I have pasted it here for easy reading.  Some of this I have already written about.

VITAL FACTS - Selected facts and story ideas from Vital Signs 2005

CHINA AS A POWERFUL DRIVER OF WORLD TRENDS

• Explosive growth in emerging markets, particularly China, was a large factor behind the 5 percent increase in the gross world product in 2004, to $55 trillion. China’s economy alone grew by 9 percent. (p. 44)
• China represented more than 20 percent of the increase in world trade volumes in 2004, and its share in world exports nearly doubled over the previous four years, to 5.8 percent. (p. 46)
• Of poorer countries, China was the largest recipient of foreign direct investment in 2003, at $54 billion. (p. 48)
• Bolstered by strong economic growth in China, unemployment in East Asia stood at a mere 3.3 percent in 2003, compared to 6.2 percent worldwide. (p. 102)
• China increased its oil consumption by 11 percent in 2004, cementing its position as the world’s number two user (after the U.S.) at 6.6 million barrels per day. (p. 30)
• China is rapidly increasing its dependency on automobiles, with sales of cars and light commercial vehicles expected to reach 5 million units in 2005 and 7.3 million by 2007. (p. 56)
• China’s fleet of airplanes is due to skyrocket from 777 planes in 2003 to over 2,800 planes in 2023. (p. 60)
• China now ranks second (after the U.S.) in global carbon emissions, with a 14-percent share. Emissions in China are up more than 47 percent since 1990, and it accounted for half the global increase in 2003. (p. 40)
• Between 2001 and 2020, some 590 thousand people a year in China are projected to suffer premature deaths due to urban air pollution—nearly one third of the projected world total. (p. 95)
• China is now the world leader in steel production—accounting for nearly half the 8.8 percent increase in global production in 2004. It is projected to account for 61 percent of total growth in steel consumption in 2005. (p. 52)
• Consumption of meat in China is expected to reach 73 kilograms per person on average a year, a 55 percent increase from 1993. (p. 24)
• China alone harvested 46 million tons of fish in 2002, more than one third of the global total. (p. 26)
• In 2004, China produced 1.79 trillion cigarettes, 32 percent of the global total. Chinese consumers smoked 99 percent of domestic production, in contrast to the U.S., which exported 24 percent of its production. (p. 70)
• Because of China’s mounting HIV/AIDS epidemic, the number of people living with HIV in East Asia jumped nearly 50 percent between 2002 and 2004, to 1.1 million. (p. 68)

RECORD-SETTING TRENDS

• Farmers reaped a record grain harvest of 2,049 billion tons in 2004, a 9 percent increase over 2003. (p. 22)
• The world’s fishers harvested a record 133 million tons of fish and shellfish from streams, oceans, and other water bodies in 2002—nearly seven times the global harvest in 1950. (p. 26)
• Global passenger car production grew 4.5 percent in 2004, to an estimated 44.1 million units. Production of SUVs and other “light trucks” also reached a new record, 18 million, up some 6 percent over 2003. (p. 56)
• Between 2003 and 2004, total installed nuclear generating capacity increased by more than 2 percent, from 358,000 megawatts to nearly 366,000 megawatts—the highest ever reached, and roughly 8 percent greater than a decade ago. (p. 32)

GLOBAL FUNDING PRIORITIES MISDIRECTED

• U.S. aid spending in Iraq totalled $18.44 billion in 2004, while all other U.S. aid spending added up to $20.7 billion. More than a quarter of this $20.7 billion went to just four counties—Israel, Egypt, Columbia, and Jordan—none of which are among the poorest in the world. (p. 109)
• Every hour, the world spends more than $100 million on soldiers, weapons, and ammunition. (p. 76)
• Programs to provide clean water and sewage systems would cost roughly $37 billion annually; to eradicate illiteracy, $5 billion; and to provide immunization for every child in the developing world, $3 billion. (p. 76)

RICHEST COUNTRIES DEVOTING RESOURCES TO MILITARY SPENDING

• High-income countries, home to only 16 percent of the world’s people, account for $662 billion, or 75 percent, of global military expenditures. (p. 76)
• Military budgets of high-income countries are roughly 10 times larger than their combined development assistance. (p. 76)
• Traditional military deployments abroad dwarf peacekeeping efforts. Some 530,000 soldiers (70 percent of them from the U.S.) in military operations overshadow the 125,000 peacekeepers worldwide. (p. 78)

OIL CONSUMPTION SURGES WHILE PRODUCERS EXPERIENCE PRODUCTION DECREASES

• World oil consumption surged by 3.4 percent in 2004, the fastest rate of increase in 16 years. (p. 30)
• Production is falling in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing countries, including 6 of 11 OPEC members. (p. 30)
• In the continental U.S., oil production peaked at 8 million barrels per day in 1970 and fell to just 2.9 million barrels a day in 2004. (p. 30)

PROGRESS IN U.S. RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKETS MIXED, WHILE GLOBAL DEMAND SURGES

• Global wind power capacity rose another 20 percent in 2004, to approximately 47,760 megawatts—enough to provide power to more than 22 million average homes in Europe. Due to inconsistent government policies, the U.S. added less than 5 percent (389 megawatts) of the estimated 8,210 megawatts capacity installed, bringing it to third place in wind energy production behind Germany and Spain. (p. 34)
• World production of solar PV cells soared in 2004 to an estimated 1,200 megawatts, up 58 percent over 2003 levels and a doubling of production in just two years. While the U.S. share of production has declined steadily—from 44 percent in 1996 to 11 percent in 2004—Japan now accounts for more than 50 percent of the world market and Europe 27 percent. (p. 36)
• The global market for solar thermal collectors for water and space heating grew by 17 percent in 2004. The energy equivalent of total global installations—about 110 million square meters—far exceeds that of global wind and solar power combined. China accounts for more than half the world's solar heating capacity. (p. 36)
• Global production of fuel ethanol increased 13.6 percent in 2004, with Brazil and the U.S. dominating the market. World production of biodiesel is growing even faster, at 18 percent between 2002 and 2003. (p. 38)

MAKING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS AND GLOBAL WARMING

• Carbon emissions from U.S. motor gasoline use in 2002—at 1,139 million tons—surpassed those of the entire Japanese economy. (p. 56)
• The average carbon dioxide concentration has increased more than 19 percent since measurements began in Hawaii in 1959—and has gone up 35 percent since the dawn of the industrial age. (p. 40)
• By one estimate, the world’s glaciers lose at least 90 cubic kilometers of ice annually—as much water as all U.S. homes, factories, and farms use every four months. Scientists suspect that the enhanced melting is related to the unprecedented release of greenhouse gases by humans during the past century. (p. 88)
• Desertification puts some 135 million people worldwide at risk of being driven from their lands. As climate change translates into more intense storms, flooding, heat waves, and droughts, more and more communities will likely be affected. (p. 66)

ECONOMIES OF TRANSITION STILL FACING CHALLENGES

• The greatest increase in unemployment over the past decade has occurred in countries in transition, such as Russia and Kazakhstan, which are still struggling to recover from the early 1990s. (p. 102)
• Russia and much of Eastern Europe are suffering from greying populations. With fertility at barely more than one child per woman, Russia is now shrinking by 0.7 percent annually—roughly a million people a year. (p. 64)
• Without adequate prevention programs, as many as 650,000 Russians could be dying from HIV/AIDS annually by 2010—more people than have died of AIDS in the U.S. since 1981. (p. 68)

ECOLOGICAL DISTRESS AND ITS EFFECTS

• Nearly one in four mammal species is in serious decline, mainly due to human activities. (p. 86)
• An estimated half of the world’s wetlands have been lost since 1900, and destruction continues apace. (p. 90)
• Global forest cover stands at approximately half the original extent of 8,000 years ago. (p. 92)
• A 2000 World Bank study projected that on average 1.8 million people would die prematurely each year between 2001 and 2020 because of air pollution. (p. 94)
• Global ice melt has led to hunger and weight loss among polar bears, and has altered the habitats as well as feeding and breeding patterns of penguins and seals. (p. 89)
• The U.N. Environment Programme projects 50 million environmental refugees worldwide by 2010. (p. 50)

CONSUMERS DRIVING MARKET FOR ALTERNATIVES

• Consumers are demanding more grass-fed meat, milk, and eggs for health reasons—grass-fed products are higher in Omega 3 fatty acids, which help lower cholesterol, and in conjugated linoleic acid. (p. 24)
• Socially responsible investing in the United States nearly doubled between 1996 and 1997, and almost doubled again two years later. In 2003, SRI totalled $2.16 trillion in the U.S., of $2.63 trillion worldwide. (p. 98)
• Certification schemes for sustainable wood products are increasing in number worldwide. The Forest Stewardship Council reports the area that meets internationally recognized criteria and principles of forest stewardship has grown more than tenfold since 1995, to some 47 million hectares in 60 countries. (p. 93)
• In the U.S., Toyota and Honda have sold more than 120,000 hybrid electric vehicles since 1999. U.S. sales are expected to reach some 200,000 units in 2005 alone. (p. 56)