Summary of the Summary:  We are five years into a severe global food crisis that is very unlikely to go away. It will threaten poor countries with increased malnutrition and starvation and even collapse. Resource squabbles and waves of food-induced migration will threaten global stability and global growth. This threat is badly underestimated by almost everybody and all institutions with the possible exception of some military establishments.

The yield per acre for wheat in England, France, and Germany and the yield for rice in Japan. These top-producing countries for the two most important cereals for direct human consumption have failed in the last 10 or more years to increase productivity.

Uber-hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham has released another important discussion. Grantham, a self-described “die hard contrarian,” is one of the few leading financial figures who gets both global warming and growing food insecurity, two cornerstones of Climate Progress analysis.

I’m going to excerpt his analysis, which comprises the entire quarterly newsletter from the former Chairman and now Chief Investment Strategist of GMO Capital, which has more than $100 billion in assets under management.  Grantham’s work makes very clear that the global economy is a Ponzi scheme.

In Grantham’s blunt 2Q 2010 letter (see “Grantham: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes“), he wrote “Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.”  Then in his January 2011 newsletter he wrote about “Things that Really Matter in 2011 and Beyond”: “Global warming causing destabilized weather patterns, adding to agricultural price pressures.” Later that year, he wrote another blunt analysis “Time to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever.”

In his new discussion, he warns we are in a “chronic global food crisis that is unlikely to fade for many decades, at least until the global population has considerably declined from its likely peak of over nine billion in 2050.”  Why? “There are too many factors that will make growth in food output increasingly difficult where it used to be easy”:

• Grain productivity has fallen decade by decade since 1970 from 3.5% to 1.5%. Quite probably, the most efficient grain producers are approaching a “glass ceiling” where further increases in productivity per acre approach zero at the grain species’ limit (just as race horses do not run materially faster now than in the 1920s). Remarkably, investment in agricultural research has steadily fallen globally, as a percent of GDP.
• Water problems will increase to a point where gains from increased irrigation will be offset by the loss of underground water and the salination of the soil.
• Persistent bad farming practices perpetuate land degradation, which will continue to undermine our longterm sustainable productive capacity.
• Incremental returns from increasing fertilizer use will steadily decline on the margin for fertilizer use has increased five-fold in the last 50 years and the easy pickings are behind us.
• There will be increased weather instability, notably floods and droughts, but also steadily increasing heat.  The last three years of global weather were so bad that to draw three such years randomly would have been a remote possibility.  The climate is changing.
• The costs of fertilizer and fuel will rise rapidly

He points out something I have reported on many times here, “Talk privately to scientists involved in climate research and you find that they believe that almost everything is worse than they feared and accelerating dangerously.” The good news/bad news is:

On paper, though, the energy problem can be relatively easily addressed through very large investments in renewables and smart grids.  Those countries that do this will, in several decades, eventually emerge with large advantages in lower marginal costs and in energy security.  Most countries including the U.S. will not muster the political will to overcome inertia, wishful thinking, and the enormous political power of the energy interests to embark on these expensive programs.  They risk being left behind in competiveness.

The devastating food crises to come will, however, largely affect the United States indirectly, through much higher prices and the terrible global instability they causes. He notes that:

For Fortress North America (ex-Mexico), or what we might call Canamerica, these problems are relatively remote.  When corn crops fail we worry about farmers’ income, not about starvation.  In the long run, the truth is that Canamerica seen as a unit is in an almost unimaginably superior position to the average of the rest of our planet.  Per capita, the U.S. alone has five times the surface water and seven times the arable land of China!  And Canada has even more.

But the staggering immorality of our food, energy, and climate policies will become increasingly indefensible. As but one example:

Despite corn being almost ludicrously inefficient as an ethanol input compared to sugar cane and scores of other plants, 40% of our corn crop – the most important one for global exports – is diverted away from food uses.  If one single tankful of pure ethanol were put into an SUV (yes, I know it’s a mix in the U.S., but humor me) it displaces enough food calories to feed one Indian farmer for one year! To persist in such folly if malnutrition increases, as I think it will, would be, to be polite, ungenerous: it pushes the price of corn away from affordability in poorer countries and, through substitution, it raises all grain prices.  (The global corn and wheat prices have jumped over 40% in just two months.)

Our ethanol policy is becoming the moral equivalent of shooting some poor Indian farmers.  Death just comes more slowly and painfully.

Once again, why single out Indian farmers?  Because it was reported last month in Bloomberg that the caloric intake of the average Indian farmer had dropped from a high of 2,266 a day in 1973 to 2,020 last year according to their National Sample Survey Office.  And for city dwellers the average had dropped from approximately 2,100 to 1,900.

The whole discussion — “Welcome to Dystopia! Entering a long-term and politically dangerous food crisis” – is a must read. Below is just the discussion on climate change.

Read more

On Tuesday, the Boston Globe and Associated Press reported on documents showing that GOP Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan had secured more than $20 million in stimulus funds for a local energy efficiency organization.

According to the reports, the documents showed that Ryan also brought in $5.4 million for local bus services. His requests came at the same time he was publicly calling the stimulus a “wasteful spending spree.”

However, in an interview with a local Ohio television news station, Ryan claimed he never secured funding through the program, saying “I never asked for stimulus.”

Watch it, courtesy of local ABC affiliate 9 News.

The Associated Press wrote a follow-up story to Ryan’s comments:

Ryan’s statement directly counters the evidence of four letters obtained by the AP which the congressman wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, praising energy programs supported by the stimulus and requesting funds for initiatives in his district.

Ryan’s private praise for Department of Energy programs and his written requests for stimulus funds contradict not only his public criticism of the 2009 stimulus bill, but also many of the budget priorities he has laid out, including cuts to investments in green technologies.

Raising further questions about the vice presidential candidate’s claim today that he never sought stimulus money, Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck referred AP to previous explanations by the congressman’s office that by requesting funds Ryan was simply “providing a legitimate constituent service.”

Ryan is one of dozens of Congressional Republicans who have actively lobbied the government for loan guarantees and grants for clean energy companies in their districts — even while many of them railed on the stimulus program in the press.

Read Ryan’s 2009 letters here:

Today the Air Force announced that its X-51 Scramjet Engine Demonstrator called the WaveRider — a hypersonic jet designed to travel up to 3,600 miles per hour — crashed into the Pacific Ocean 15 seconds into a test flight.

This is the second failed test in a row for the WaveRider — an aircraft technology that the military has already spent between close to $300 million on developing. And that’s just on one program. We’ve been working on hypersonic flight programs since the 1960′s.

But even with more than a quarter billion dollars worth of hardware now sitting in the Pacific Ocean (chump change for the Pentagon), we haven’t heard a peep from anyone in Washington on the crash. No calls for a Congressional investigation, no outrage about hundreds of millions of dollars sinking in 15 seconds, no public flogging of Defense Department leaders.

But hell, when a few cutting-edge clean energy companies crash after getting support from the federal government, they’re used by the national Republican party as a tool to question the very idea of making strategic investments in cleantech.

It’s been almost a year since Solyndra, the solar manufacturer that received a $527 million loan guarantee, went bankrupt. Since then, House lawmakers have held 12 hearings and official meetings, acquired more than 300,000 documents, issued two subpenas, and likely spent more than a million dollars on the investigation.

What have they found?

“No evidence of wrongdoing,” reported Bloomberg Businessweek.

The Washington Post went further in a recent investigation: “The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.”

This is not to say we should shrug off the bankruptcy of Solyndra and other clean energy companies. It’s Congress’ job to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely — and taking a look into the causes and consequences of these types of incidents is important for transparency.

But as we predicted when the Solyndra story first broke, these investigations have turned into a political sideshow. One year later, GOP lawmakers failed to prove their theory that decisions to offer loan guarantees to clean energy companies were based on political insider deals. Yet they continue to call for more documents and potentially more hearings, hoping to extend the Solyndra “crony capitalism” meme until after the election.

Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) was the most blunt about the GOP’s plan for Solyndra: Push the manufactured scandal until November and then drop it after the election.

E&E News reported on Jordan’s comments in March:

Read more

The surge in U.S. production of shale gas is creating a surge in permit requests to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. That’s because the glut of U.S. gas has dropped domestic prices sharply below global price levels.

I explained back in June why “Exporting LNG Is Bad For The Climate.” But the New York Times has just run a misleading op-ed, “The Case for Natural Gas Exports,” so the issue clearly merits a revisit.

The NY Times piece offers this paragraph as the sole defense to the well-known charge that LNG exports are bad for the climate:

At the same time, exports would likely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the small price increases that would result from allowing exports would have at most a marginal impact on the use of natural gas as fuel for cars and trucks. Blocking exports wouldn’t push natural gas into automobiles — it would mostly keep it in the ground, because there would be less incentive to extract it.

The argument about cars and trucks is a red herring (at best) since replacing gasoline with natural gas in vehicles is pretty clearly a loser from a global warming perspective — and always will be – as a major 2012 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study makes clear.

It is head-scratching to say the least to claim that exports would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when the Times acknowledges that blocking exports would leave this fossil fuel in the ground! Burning natural gas releases GHGs. We need to slash global GHGs 50% in four decades merely to have a shot at keeping total warming anywhere near 2°C (3.6°F), a point beyond which risks to human civilization multiply exponentially.

Worse, natural gas extraction is leaky, and natural gas is mostly methane, a highly potent GHG (with some one hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period). Most of the new natural gas in this country comes from hydraulic fracturing, which is widely thought to be leakier than conventional gas extraction.

Worst of all, cooling natural gas to about −162°C (−260°F) and shipping it overseas for use in distant countries is costly and energy-intensive:

The process to bring the gas to such low temperatures requires highly capital intensive infrastructure. Liquefaction plants, specially designed ships fitted with cryogenic cooling tanks, regasification terminals and domestic transmission infrastructure all make LNG relatively expensive in construction and operational cost.

When you factor in the energy and emissions from this entire process, including shipping, you get a total life-cycle energy penalty of 20% or more. The extra greenhouse gas emissions can equal 30% or more of combustion emissions, according to a pretty definitive 2009 Reference Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Liquefied Natural Gas for Europe – Some Important Issues for Consideration.

The NY Times piece actually makes this odd argument on behalf of LNG exports: “It will take years before any export terminals are up and running — in the meantime, producers and regulators should strengthen safeguards so that gas is extracted safely.”

But this is yet another reason why LNG exports make no sense. Why would we want to start massive exports of natural gas around the end of this decade, with costly new infrastructure that lasts until mid-century?

If avoiding catastrophic climate change is your goal, then spending huge sums on even conventional natural gas infrastructure is clearly not the answer, as a recent International Energy Agency report made clear:

The specific emissions from a gas-fired power plant will be higher than average global CO2 intensity in electricity generation by 2025, raising questions around the long-term viability of some gas infrastructure investment if climate change objectives are to be met.

Duh! Or is that D’oh?

And as we’ve seen, LNG shipped from the U.S. is much worse from a GHG perspective than regular gas, so by the time a lot of new LNG terminals are up and running in this country, it seems likely that LNG-fired plants overseas will be have a higher GHG intensity than the average plant in the electric generation system needed to be anywhere near a non-catastrophic emissions path.

We do not want to build a global energy system around natural gas (see IEA’s “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change). At the time, the UK Guardian‘s story put it well:

At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states.

The extra emissions from LNG all but eliminate whatever small, short-term benefit there might be of building billion-dollar export terminals and other LNG infrastructure, which in any case will last many decades, long after a sustainable electric grid will not benefit one jot from replacing coal with gas.

Asserting any net benefit requires assuming the new gas replaces only coal — and isn’t used for, say, natural gas vehicles, which, as noted, are worse for the climate or that it doesn’t replace new renewables.  If even a modest fraction of the imported LNG displaces renewables, it renders the entire expenditure for LNG counterproductive from day one.

Remember, a major 2012 study on “technology warming potentials” (TWPs) found that a big switch from coal to gas would only reduce TWP by about 25% over the first three decades (see “Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent A Carbon Price AND Strong Standards To Reduce Methane Leakage“). And that is based on “EPA’s latest estimate of the amount of CH4 released because of leaks and venting in the natural gas network between production wells and the local distribution network” of 2.4%. Many experts believe the leakage rate is higher than 2.4%, particularly for shale gas. Also, recent air sampling by NOAA over Colorado found 4% methane leakage, more than double industry claims.

A different 2012 study by climatologist Ken Caldeira and tech guru Nathan Myhrvold finds basically no benefit in the switch whatsoever — see You Can’t Slow Projected Warming With Gas, You Need ‘Rapid and Massive Deployment’ of Zero-Carbon Power. That study takes into account the near-term impact of the construction of new infrastructure.

BOTTOM LINE: Investing billions of dollars in new shale gas infrastructure for domestic use is, at best, of limited value for a short period of time if we put in place both a CO2 price and regulations to minimize methane leakage. Exporting gas vitiates even that limited value and so investing billions in LNG infrastructure is, at best, a waste of resources better utilized for deploying truly low-carbon energy. At worst, it helps accelerates the world past the 2°C (3.6°F) warming threshold into Terra incognita — a planet of amplifying feedbacks and multiple simultaneous catastrophic impacts.

 

by Ros Donald, via Carbon Brief

The next few decades may be unsettled ones. Global stability looks under threat as new global powers rise and a changing climate puts pressure on populations in vulnerable areas. That’s part of the conclusion of the latest report from the UK Ministry of Defence’s Global Strategic Trends programme, which aims to map the threats and opportunities of the future world.

If you thought climate change was just going to be warmer summers and fewer winter deaths, it makes for sobering reading.

The report says higher temperatures and food and water shortages exacerbated by climate change could play a part in bringing tensions between different groups to a head. But it’s not easy predict where or how it might happen. The limited literature on climate change and conflict suggests it’s premature to make a direct link between the changing climate and increased geopolitical tension. So we spoke to Ian Shields, a former MoD forecaster who worked on the report, about how researchers and the military try to make sense of the relationship between climate change and conflict.

Future planning

Shields spent 32 years in the Royal Air Force as an aviator before becoming an academic later in his career. At the Global Strategic Trends programme, he worked on long term strategic planning, of which climate change forms a major theme. The findings of the programme are used to inform MoD planning, says Shields, and also broader governmental planning, “since only the MoD appears to undertake this sort of long-range analysis.”

Shields says the programme considered three key climate issues: “The impacts of changing rainfall and how that will affect food production, with hunger possibly leading to instability and conflict. Desertification is another key issue that will have a profound effect on North Africa, a region that is already unstable and close to Europe. Finally, we also looked at melting Arctic ice, which has profound implications for access to resources and to shipping lanes and again may lead to disputes over borders and ownership of resources.”

The MoD worked closely with the Hadley Research Centre at the Met Office to undertake the work, and it was noticeable, says Shields, that when they compared their findings with similar surveys from across the world – including the USA, Canada and Japan – the outcomes were very similar.

A threat multiplier

Read more

The Mississippi River has gone from one extreme to another. Last year it was historic floods that forced evacuations and caused up to $4 billion in economic damage. This year it’s severe drought causing commercial barges to run aground and reducing the flow of trade.

Water levels are 50 feet below last year’s levels along some areas of the Mississippi  River. In some cases, water levels barely reach 5 feet, making it difficult for some barges to reach their destinations. As the severe drought in the South gets worse, barge operators are calling the crisis “near critical.”

MSNBC reports on the drought:

In July, water levels in Cairo, Memphis, Tenn., and Vicksburg, Miss., dipped below those of the historic drought of 1988. That’s affecting everything from commerce on the maritime superhighway to recreation to the drinking water in Louisiana.

The biggest impact may be on shipping. “It’s getting near critical,” said Austin Golding, a third-generation co-owner of Vicksburg, Miss.-based Golding Barge Lines. “Without more rain, we’re heading into uncharted territory.”

About $180 billion worth of goods move up and down the river on barges, 500 million tons of the basic ingredients for much of the U.S. economy, according to the American Waterways Operators, a trade group. It carries 60 percent of the nation’s grain, 22 percent of the oil and gas and 20 percent of the coal, according to American Waterways Operators. It would take 60 trailer trucks to carry the cargo in just one barge, 144 18-wheeler tankers to carry the oil and gas in one petroleum barge.

Last year’s flooding moved a large amount of soil and silt into the river, making the problem worse by elevating the riverbed:

Because of that sediment in a flood, “as the ceiling rises, so does the floor,” said Golding. “We’ve just dealt with a historic flood, then the water drops.… We have some 50-year guys who’ve never seen anything like this before. It’s a completely different river than anybody’s ever seen.”

Some companies have reduced their loads by 25 percent due to the low water levels, making it far more expensive to ship products along the river. In July, the president of the largest barge company on the Mississsippi River predicted that “the vast majority of commerce would have to stop” without rain.

July was the hottest month on record for the U.S., according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That helped spread drought to 78 percent of the country — with 24 percent in “exceptional” drought conditions.

July was also the fourth hottest month globally — marking the 329th consecutive month that global average temperatures were above the 20th century average, according to NOAA.

A new survey finds only 2 percent of Canadians doubt climate change is happening.

Most respondents said humans are at least partially responsible for climate change, though a majority partially blame natural causes too, according to the Insightrix Research online survey.

The Globe and Mail writes:

Almost one-third — 32 per cent — said they believe climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54 per cent said they believe it’s because of human activity and partially due to natural climate variation. Nine per cent believe climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation. Two per cent said they don’t believe climate change is occurring at all.

That number is striking because of the politicized debate in the U.S. A large majority of Americans also say climate change is occurring (70 percent), but the rate of denial is certainly stronger, at 16 percent, according to a recent poll.

But in the Republican party, climate denial runs rampant, even reaching the presidential ticket. A National Journal survey of 65 GOP lawmakers found 13 climate deniers, 21 who said the science “isn’t conclusive,” and only five who would admit a significant amount of climate change is due to human activity. The wave of climate deniers in Congress has grown in tandem with the oil industry’s spending in politics.

Canada has a somewhat different story. In an Alberta election this spring, one candidate who said the science isn’t settled “found herself booed roundly at a late-stage leaders debate over the issue.” The position possibly played a major role in her loss.

In the U.S., many politicians — particularly President Obama — fail to talk about climate change. But studies show that politicians shouldn’t avoid the topic: A George Mason survey found more than two-thirds of independent voters lean toward climate action, and a majority would consider a candidate’s position on the issue.

The worst U.S. drought in five decades has parched the land and decimated crops. It now threatens to deal a second blow to farmers, who may have to throw out tonnes of toxic feed. [Reuters]

Growers are rushing to check the nitrate levels of that silage, the stalks and leaves that corn farmers often harvest to feed to locally raised cattle or hogs.

Agriculture groups are warning farmers that drought-hit plants may have failed to process nitrogen fertilizer due to stunted growth, making them poisonous to livestock.

Exceptionally early spring planting has caused a crush of early summer requests for the tests. Farmers are also expected to chop down a near-record swathe of their fields for silage to make up for this year’s poor yields.

Extremely dry conditions in parts of Hawaii are forcing some ranchers to reduce their herds as they struggle to grow grass to feed cattle. Thirsty invasive axis deer are encroaching on crops as they seek water. [Washington Post]

China-based Suntech Power Holdings Co., the world’s largest solar panel manufacturer by output, surprised analysts by announcing that its founder would step down as chief executive, and naming a non-Chinese national who has been with the company for less than 16 months as CEO. [Wall Street Journal]

Teachers in Maryland are about to get new help and encouragement to talk about the touchy topic of global warming in their classrooms. The National Science Foundation announced Wednesday that it is awarding $5.8 million for improving climate-change education in Maryland and Delaware through a partnership including universities and school systems from both states. [Baltimore Sun]

A climate skeptic group that drew widespread criticism — and lost some corporate funding — by comparing belief in global warming to the Unabomber’s views is trying to regain momentum in its battle against carbon controls. [The Hill]

July was the fourth-warmest such month on record globally, and the 329th consecutive month with a global-average surface temperature above the 20th-century average, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). [Climate Central]

Lower temperatures and rain forecast for parts of the Midwest won’t be enough to reverse the drought that has pushed crop prices up for months. [Bloomberg]

Australia’s opposition Liberal party climate spokesman Greg Hunt on Thursday gave his “in principle” backing to signing up for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, making it easier for the under-fire government to sign the U.N. climate treaty. [Reuters]

Facing environmental and economic challenges posed by global climate change, Tanzania’s Zanzibar Island need to take steps to minimize the impact which could hinder the region’s future development, a report said Tuesday. [China.org]