'Collapse' Precis

Ecocide – unintended ecological suicide – occurs when people destroy the environmental resources they depend on. Collapse: How Societies choose to Fail or Survive (2005), by Jared Diamond, considers this to be the one of the five key reasons for the collapses of past societies. According to Diamond, the collapse of a society is defined as ‘a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.’ (p. 3) Diamond outlines what he considers to be the five contributing factors that result in the collapse of a society. These factors are environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbors, friendly trade partners and the society’s response to its environmental problems (p. 11).

There are eight categories of human caused environmental problems that, in the worst case, have resulted in ecocide. These are: deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems, water management problems, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, increased per capita impact of people, overhunting and overfishing (p. 6). In the past, a combination of many of these problems would have resulted in a societies collapse; today, there are an additional four factors that, according to Diamond, could lead to modern day collapses. These factors are the world’s finite energy resources, the ‘photosynthetic ceiling’, the impact of toxic chemicals, and ‘global warming’.

Climate change, both anthropological and natural, contributed and still contributes to a large number of environmental problems. Natural climate change, such as variations in temperature and rainfall from year to year, would have had a significant impact on a society’s survival. An extreme example was the situation of the Greenland Norse, who reached Greenland during a period of mild climate, which was good for growing hay and pasturing animals. However, a cold period known as the Little Ice age began after their arrival and lasted for 500 years. This not only made agriculture increasingly difficult but it also cut off all vital trade and communication between Greenland, Iceland and Norway, contributing to the collapse of their society. Today, states Diamond, global warming, caused by a buildup of sunlight absorbing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as CO2 and methane, is causing an increase in temperature. Even a small increase in temperature, could result in a decrease in agricultural productivity, as the crop growth rates decline. Additionally, ocean and sea levels would rise due to the melting of the snow and ice, which would result in the flooding of low-lying lands.

Hostile relations between neighboring societies would also have contributed to a society’s collapse. Diamond claims that the success or failure of a society in times of conflict would largely have depended on the extent of its environmental problems. For example, the military weakness of a society is the outcome of its ecological problems. Again, this factor contributed to the collapse of the Norse Greenland society; their reluctance to establish friendly relations with the Inuit inhabitants of Greenland was a disadvantage, as trade between the two peoples or the adoption of Inuit hunting techniques could have saved the Norse population in harsh times.

However, a decrease in friendly relations between neighboring societies also plays a role in the collapse of a society. Societies depend on these neighbors for trade, especially if the resources that are traded do not occur in the environment of the society. Conflict between the trade partners could lead to the discontinuation of trade, causing a deficit of resources in the society. Another problem could be that the neighboring society experiences problems of its own and suspends trade; the other society would subsequently experience severe problems. An example of this is the trade network that existed between the islands of Mangareva, Pitcairn and Henderson. Mangareva, the largest island, supplied Pitcairn with vital resources while Pitcarin supplied it with volcanic glass and fine-grained basalt to make tools. Henderson, the smallest, most hostile island also received from Mangareva, probably trading food in return. However, Mangareva discontinued trade with the two islands as it was experiencing environmental problems that caused internal unrest; Pitcairn and Henderson did not have the resources to be able to survive alone, therefore their population died out.

The final factor that contributes to the collapse of a society is the society’s response to its environmental problems; Diamond states that this is the key factor in determining a society’s fate, as a proper response could mean that the society resolves its problems. However, the response that is influenced by political, economic and social institutions and by the society’s cultural values. This is illustrated by the examples of the Easter Island society vs. the Japanese society during the Tokugawa era. Both had severe problems that had been caused by deforestation, such as the shortage of timber for making fire, building houses, transport, etc. However, the Easter Islanders never adopted any policies on controlling the rate of deforestation; the end result was, that since all their trees were gone, many wild food sources went extinct, they no longer had timber to build and make tools, the productivity of farming decreased drastically and finally, there was wide spread starvation and a subsequent population crash. In Japan, on the other hand, the Tokugawa shogunate became aware of the consequences of deforestation and therefore developed a strict system of wood management and re-growth.

Diamond states that today’s modern societies are just as likely to collapse, due to a combination of these factors, as societies in the past. Though we have the advantage of hindsight and advanced technology, we also live in very interdependent times; the weakening, or even collapse, of one society today could severely affect all the others that it is connected to. In addition, big businesses today have a much larger impact than the small farming societies of the past. If a society today fails to anticipate an oncoming problem, fails to perceive a problem that arose, fails to attempt to solve a problem once it has been perceived or the attempts to solve it are not sufficient and too late, then it is possible to make the same, seemingly obvious mistakes that have been made by societies in the past.

Article Summary: 'Who ate all the algae?'

Article: Who ate all the algae?

Date: March 26^th 2009

Publisher: The Economist

URL: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13361464

It seems that scientists are willing to try most anything these days in order to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂₎ in the atmosphere. One of these attempts at reducing CO₂ is a joint project, the largest geo-engineering experiment ever, being conducted by India’s National Institute of Oceanography and the Alfred Wegner Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany. It is an expedition that consists of pouring 6 tons of iron sulphate into the Southern Ocean, an area surrounding Antarctica, to create a bloom of phytoplankton.

Phytoplankton is a type of algae that depends on certain conditions, such as sunlight (for photosynthesis) and iron (a crucial nutrient). Increases and decreases in iron levels in the Southern Ocean, that normally occur naturally, therefore play a role in determining the size of the phytoplankton population. Tests have shown that adding iron artificially creates algal blooms. One advantage of creating these blooms is that phytoplankton absorbs CO₂ as it grows and locks up small amounts of the gas when it dies and sinks to the ocean floor. Therefore, in theory, creating large blooms of phytoplankton would lead to more CO₂ being sent to the bottom of the ocean.

However, first results of this experiment have shown that there are certain factors that hinder its success. Though the iron sulphate that was poured into the water, covering an area of 300 km², did lead to the creation of a phytoplankton bloom that grew to double its size within 2 weeks, the bloom eventually stopped growing since it was being eaten by copepods (small crustaceans). The problem was the type of phytoplankton; the bloom consisted of a group of algae called Phaeocystis, which are heavily grazed by copepods. Diatoms, another group of algae, are protected from this by shells made of silica and therefore are more likely to die and sink to the ocean floor than get eaten. Had this type of algae been present, the results regarding CO₂ absorption would have been better.

The results suggest that the experiment won’t be as successful in removing CO₂ from the atmosphere as had been expected; however, this has given researchers a lot of material to work with. So maybe it wasn’t all for nothing after all.

Article Summary: 'Fire in the hole'

Article: Fire in the Hole

Date: March 12th 2009

Publisher: The Economist

URL: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=13279075&CFID=45640477&CFTOKEN=54198432

Some fires just burn and burn. In Pennsylvania alone, 36 fires are blazing in abandoned coal mines, covering a total area of 180,000 acres. The oldest of these fires is in the Red Ash mines, located in the hillsides of Wilkes-Barre; it has been burning since 1915 because, according to the legend, a coal miner forgot his lantern down in the mines. The most famous of these fires is beneath Centralia, started by residents burning rubbish on top of an exposed coal seam in 1962. Many of these fires have enough fuel to burn on for several decades to come.

Putting these fires out has not been an attractive solution to the problem because the process would be both expensive and possibly unsuccessful, since the mines consist of subterranean tunnel networks that cover a significant area. Therefore, the solution has been to evacuate towns located near these mines.

A possible solution to the problem has been presented by GAI consultants: a concrete like substance derived from the waste of coal powered power plants has been pumped into a mine and extinguished a fire. The mixture contained the fire and starved it of oxygen; however, the substance hardens quickly and could not cover an area as vast as Centralia. For now all one can hope is that the fire doesn’t spread to cover 5,000 acres; that would make it hard to extinguish.

Article Summary: 'Party Time!'

Article: Party time!

Publisher: The Economist

Date: March 5^th 2009

URL: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=13174508

Technology today is all about efficiency, because efficient technology is cheaper. This is true, for example, for solar cells. Since they are very expensive, it is desirable for them to work at the maximum capacity. Therefore, to make them more efficient, sunlight is concentrated on smaller areas of a cell to convert the same amount of light a larger area of the cell would normally convert. Normally, the concentrating of light is done by mirrors that are steered by motors so that they focus sunlight directly onto the cell. Now, however, a company called Cool Earth Solar (based in California) has come up with a cheaper alternative to these mirrors: balloons coated with metal on one side (the other is transparent).

The balloons, approximately 2.5 meters in diameter, are the equivalent of the mirrors; the inner surface of the coated side of the balloons acts as a concave mirror that focuses sunlight directly onto the solar cells. Since a balloon concentrates sunlight up to 400 times, the solar panels have to be immersed in water. Different methods of steering the balloons are being tested currently; the curve of ‘concave mirror’ can be adjusted by changes in air pressure in the balloon. Though the balloons only have a working life of about a year, they are much, much cheaper than actual mirrors. The kilogram of plastic from which the balloons are made costs about $2. The balloons cost $1 per watt of generating capacity to install. The result would be that the electricity generated by the solar cells could then be sold to California’s power grid for 11 cents a kilowatt-hour. Cool Earth plans to open a 1-megawatt facility to put this hypothesis to test. If it works, solar power plants will soon be looking a lot more festive.

Article Summary: ' Scrubbing the Skies'

Article: Scrubbing the Skies

Publisher: The Economist

Date: March 5^th 2009

URL: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=13174375

Environmentally oriented technology today is designed to emit as little carbon dioxide as possible in order to reduce the level of man-made CO₂ in the atmosphere. Countries have made ambitious pledges to reduce emissions by 80, 90 or even 100% in the years to come. However, a new technology, still in the experimental phase, is potentially a much simpler way of reducing the CO₂ in the atmosphere: air capture machines that remove CO₂ from the air.

Several designs of these air machines are being developed that all follow the same basic principle. The idea behind these machines is that air is to come in contact with a sorbent material which binds chemically to carbon dioxide. One version of air capturing machinery, designed by a team led by Dr. David Keith (University of Calgary) is towers, several meters tall, in which a liquid sorbent is sprayed to make a fine mist. This increases the sorbents efficiency, since it increases its surface area. Air is wafted through these towers, the CO2 is absorbed and the sorbent drains out of the tower as a liquid. The CO2 would be removed, either by a series of chemical reactions or by applying an electric current, and then it would be compressed to liquid form. The sorbent would be recycled. In another version of this technology, designed by Dr. Lackner (professor of geophysics at Columbia University), a solid sorbent is used; thin sheets of material coated with proprietary chemicals would be used. Carbon dioxide in the air is trapped by the sheets and is then absorbed by liquid chemicals. The CO2 is removed from the chemicals by heat.

However, certain technical, financial and political objections have to be overcome in order for the technology to go anywhere. Powering these machines requires electricity, which in turn produces carbon dioxide emissions. If the machinery emits more carbon dioxide than it processes, the technology would be obsolete. Tests revealed that Dr. Keith’s prototype needed 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity, which was generated by a coal-fired power station, to capture one ton of CO2; overall, 3.5% of the amount of carbon dioxide removed by the machine was added to the atmosphere. If a cleaner power source was used, this percentage could be lessened further. Therefore, the technology effectively carries out its purpose. Another issue is the cost of these machines relative to other options for carbon reduction that are currently available. Selling the technology to companies that require CO2 would make it profitable. In addition, the CO2 itself could be sold, since many businesses need it. However, the price of ‘pollution permits’ (allow for emission of 1 ton of CO2) is currently at below $10, while the price of the CO2 produced by this technology is at $200. Only when this new technology becomes more economically attractive will it be preferable to just buying the right to pollute. Finally, this new technology could eliminate the incentive to invest time and money into other environmentally friendly technologies. However, they two technologies could be combined. For example, excess energy from wind farms could be used to power the air capture plants. Overall, this technology, though still in the stages of experimentation, could be the solution to the world’s carbon emission problems.

Article Summary: ' Accounting from Above'

Article: Accounting from Above

Publishing Date: February 12^th 2009

From: The Economist

URL: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=13097822

Understanding the earth’s carbon cycle would answer many questions regarding the cause and effect of global climate change. Thus far, researchers have only been able to analyze specific areas of the earth with regards to greenhouse gases. However, the launching of two satellites that are designed to monitor greenhouse gases from space will provide concentration maps of areas around the entire globe.

The satellites Ibuki, launched by JAXA (Japanese space agency), and OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory), launched by NASA (American space agency), will be providing the information that will help the understanding of where carbon enters and leaves the atmosphere. Ibuki orbits the earth approximately every 100 minutes and it has two detectors that gather information from 56,000 places on the earth. It does this by measuring, with a spectrometer, the amount of sunlight that is reflected from the earth’s surface, therefore detecting the carbon and methane concentration (they both reflect sunlight, each in a unique way). OCO, which will be part of a larger group of satellites, orbits the earth every 99 minutes and studies the carbon dioxide and oxygen levels in the earth, again through reflected sunlight.

Currently, it is estimated that the carbon cycle turns over approximately 330 tons of carbon dioxide every year and oceans absorb approximately half of this. The satellites will provide information on this topic. In addition they can resolve debates over, for example, where the large surface ‘sink’ of atmospheric carbon dioxide is located, since they provide information on areas that are inaccessible to humans. Though the information they provide will be less precise, they will cover a much larger area and provide a lot of data.