Vertical Farming

As the world population grows, and we continue to damage our environment, there is natural concern over our ability to produce enough food to feed the world. This is a real problem, but unfortunately some of the suggestions on how to deal with it are rather fantastical and completely unrealistic. One example is the idea of "vertical farming" and involves the building of large skyscrapers (dubbed "farmscrapers") dedicated to growing food within cities. The economic and energy costs simply make such proposals completely counter productive.

One of the claims about vertical farming is that by reducing the distance food has to travel, vertical farms could help to reduce carbon emissions and help with global warming. This claim seems fairly ludicrous. The construction of a large skyscraper generates a massive amount of carbon emissions. The amount of concrete needed in such a project is very large and the production of concrete is one of the most carbon intensive processes. There are also all the other building resources required such as steel, glass and other materials. The total energy involved, from extraction of the raw resources, to their transportation and the construction process itself, is quite significant.

It is obvious that the amount of energy saved from shipping food a shorter distance is outweighed, by several orders of magnitude, by the energy used in building a vertical farm. However, we must also consider the ongoing energy use of such a building. The energy (and resources) required for ongoing maintenance and simple daily use is substantial and, by itself, would negate any energy savings from shorter food transportation. Far from producing carbon savings, a vertical farm would be a carbon factory, greatly contributing to global warming and climate change.

One of the main proponents of this idea, Dickson Despommier, claims that a 30-story vertical farm, occupying an entire city block, could feed 10,000 people. That is a scandalously low return for such a massive investment. In a city of millions, this would represent a fraction of one percent of the total food requirement. Vertical farms are also very complex systems, prone to failure. Despommier describes their functioning:

Each floor will have its own watering and nutrient monitoring systems. There'll be sensors for every single plant that tracks how much and what kinds of nutrients the plant has absorbed. You'll even have systems to monitor plant diseases by employing DNA chip technologies that detect the presence of plant pathogens by simply sampling the air and using snippets from various viral and bacterial infections. It's very easy to do.

The industry required for this level of automation and computerization is extensive, and involves another chain of energy and resource intensive production. It also makes vertical farms extremely non-resilient in the face of energy shortages or peak oil. Entire crops could be lost in the case of power outages, assuming generators (burning oil) are not used as a backup system.

The idea of growing food within cities, however, is still a good idea. Contrast the idea of vertical farms with the approach taken by Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union. They lost most of their oil imports and had to transition quickly to low-energy farming methods. They switched to organic methods to reclaim soil, and setup urban gardens on every plot available. Many people even setup gardens on balconies or roofs. They managed to increase food output using very little energy, or in some cases, none at all.

This is an approach many people have already started to take in the US and other western countries. Instead of grass, many people have started growing food on their front or back yards. In some areas old parking lots are being ripped up and replaced with community gardens. Were this expanded on a larger scale, this would provide food to feed a great number of people, far more than 10,000. Of course, even with such methods, a city can never be self-sufficient in food, but it can significantly reduce the amount of food that has to be imported. None of this requires much energy, and has the benefit of being resilient to power outages and peak oil.

In the countryside, more acreage may be required for food than in a theoretical vertical farm, but the primary energy input is from the sun, essentially free energy. A vertical farm, however, while more dense, would not have enough light for crops to survive. Artificial light and heat would be needed year round, requiring a lot of energy. Of course, most farms today use industrial methods that are very energy intensive, but these methods are damaging the soil and are unsustainable. A transition to organic methods can provide that sustainability, while also requiring much less energy.

Food supply and global warming are both serious issues that demand serious action. Vertical farms are not a solution to these problems in any possible sense. They waste resources and energy, produce a great deal of carbon, and feed very few for their trouble. We need to focus our efforts on practical solutions that can make a real difference, and not get lost in fantasy land.

Cap, Trade and Offset

Nations are now busy negotiating and proposing various carbon emissions targets ahead of the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. Unfortunately, many of the targets being proposed are far too weak to avoid the worst effects from climate change, according to the latest science. However, even the targets that are being proposed may not be as strong as they appear. Most countries plan to use various cap and trade schemes, including the use of carbon offsetting. Unfortunately, these methods are largely ineffective, can be counterproductive, and are subject to fraud and corruption.

The core idea, and the entire point of the Copenhagen meeting, is to set limits ("caps") on carbon emissions. This is the reason for negotiating emissions reduction, after all. Over time, these limits or caps will be reduced with the eventual goal of having carbon emissions cut by at least 80 percent by 2050, though the latest data suggests we will need greater cuts sooner. This is the part everyone agrees on. The use of carbon permit trading and the practice of purchasing offsets, however, is more controversial.

In a cap and trade scenario, a government will generally set a cap on total carbon emissions, and then issue allowances, or permits, to companies and any other significant carbon emitters, such that the total emissions allowed do not exceed the cap. In some proposals, individuals are included as well. The theory is that companies (or individuals) that reduce emissions below their allowance can then sell their remaining quota to others. This is intended to encourage emissions reduction by providing a financial incentive to do so.

One of the major problems with cap and trade is that it benefits the largest polluters, and doesn't rein them in as quickly as we need. In most schemes, permits are allocated for free, based on current pollution levels. This means the largest emitters, such as coal plants or tar sands projects, get the most permits. At the same time, efficient companies, who generate few emissions, are penalized for their efficiency by receiving few permits.

This could be mitigated to some extent if permits were allocated on a more equal basis, perhaps related to company size, economic output, number of employees, and other factors. This would mean that those companies and industries causing the most pollution would begin with a deficit of carbon permits, and those causing the least would have a surplus. This would put in place an immediate financial incentive to reduce emissions for the worst polluters, rather than only a future incentive, and would reward low polluters for their behaviour. In other words, this would give us a much fairer starting point. We should not be rewarding past bad behaviour.

Another problem with cap and trade is that it puts the focus on short term financial incentives, rather than long term environmental benefits. Quick changes to reduce carbon in the short term may be incompatible with (or even contrary to) a greater reduction over the long term. In the long term, for example, if we were to decrease the use of cars and trucks and increase passenger and cargo travel by rail, this would greatly reduce carbon emissions. However, this type of infrastructure change is not something any individual company can do, and cap and trade provides no incentives to encourage large infrastructure changes.

Another issue is that the focus on just carbon emissions, as important as it is, ignores other environmental factors, which can result in negative side effects. For example, old growth forests absorb carbon at a slow rate, but they are very important ecosystems, and deforestation is a serious problem. However, razing a forest and planting fast growing plant species would, technically, increase carbon absorption. Clearly, however, this is not the type of behaviour we want to encourage.

A focus on cap and trade can also distract us from other important actions that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions and other environmental damage. Some projects, such as the tar sands in Canada, are so destructive they need to simply be banned. Some products are so wasteful (and unnecessary) we need to eliminate them as well, such as plastic water bottles and junk mail.

Of course, even if we do engage in cap and trade, that does not preclude the above actions, but it is important we recognize cap and trade is not a complete solution. Additionally, any emissions reductions obtained from such efforts need to be deducted from the total cap, which needs to be reflected in the permits. If the tar sands were banned, for example, this shouldn't "free up" carbon permits for other companies to make up the difference. This would, of course, completely defeat the point.

Most cap and trade proposals also include the idea of carbon offsets which is extremely damaging, and can, in fact, undermine the entire scheme. The theory here is that if a given company is going to emit more carbon than they are permitted, they can "offset" this by paying someone else to reduce emissions or store carbon. There are many problems with this approach.

A common way of getting offsets is by planting trees. However, a forest may take decades to grow to maturity yet the carbon "credit" is fully given up front. That means that a company can increase its carbon output today, with the theoretical potential of carbon emissions elsewhere being reduced in the future. In other words, this raises carbon emission globally, as many companies purchase similar offsets, which allows them to bypass their caps.

There is also no guarantee that planted trees won't simply be harvested or otherwise removed a year later. In other cases, the plantation fails because it was ecological unsound, which might end up causing more damage than if the effort had never been undertaken. These type of ecological problems can result if a monocrop is planted (which is susceptible to disease or forest fires), or if invasive foreign species are introduced. Of course, the companies purchasing carbon offsets may be unaware of this result, or may simply be unconcerned. Their only interest is in purchasing an approved carbon offset.

As the above suggests, the entire idea of carbon offsets is subject to fraud and manipulation on a large scale. In many cases, offsets are claimed for activities that would have been undertaken anyway, which means the company claiming the offset has actually done nothing, yet still receives the right to emit more carbon. In other cases, companies may simply claim they have scaled back plans for future industrial activity, and receive a credit today for this theoretical (and often fictitious) change in future behaviour. This is similar to marking up a product at retail before having a sale. Again, the result is increased emissions.

Emissions trading, or cap and trade, has serious flaws. It rewards past bad behaviour, focuses on the short term, and distracts us from more effective solutions. Nevertheless, if we do engage in it, we must ensure a more fair allocation of permits, and we must also undertake other important action in parallel with it. The use of carbon offsets, however, are completely unacceptable. They allow for widescale fraud, more environmental damage and can even allow for increased carbon emissions, completely negating the entire basis of cap and trade. We must remember to remained focused on the goal and not the mechanism.

Bad Canada

George Monbiot today published an article that has accused Canada of being one of the greatest threats to world peace. As a Canadian, I must say he is completely right, and he deserves our thanks for taking this stance.

As he documents, Canada is not only failing to live up to its agreements, or failing to propose reasonable targets for carbon emissions, we are actively engaged in the disruption of talks ahead of Copenhagen, and have attempted to create divisions within Europe. We signed Kyoto, but then declared we wouldn't live up to it (the only country to do so), we are proposing extremely feeble targets for Copenhagen, and we are actively working to sabotage the entire conference.

One of our largest sins, of course, is in the "development" of the tar sands. We are actively and deliberately destroying an entire province, wasting energy and water, and poisoning many of the native population, in order to turn this tar into oil. But Canada is a net exporter of oil, we do not need this oil for our own consumption. We produce it only in order to sell, primarily to the United States. We have a great opportunity here.

By shutting down the tar sands completely, we can accomplish many things. First of all, we would be able to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, improving our reputation, while also showing leadership to the world. We would have less oil to export, but this would also have several benefits. First, oil prices may rise, which would encourage more conservation and the use of alternatives, especially in the US. Secondly, the increased prices would offset any revenue lost by eliminating production from the tar sands.

From there, we could then pursue conservation ourselves, in order to reduce our use of conventional oil, which would allow us to further reduce carbon emissions, and also leave more oil in the ground for future generations. There are several other easy options we can take to reduce emissions, waste, and pollution which are currently being ignored. We can be a leader if we want to.

Additionally, because in Eastern Canada, most oil is imported, and in Western Canada, most is exported, we could also greatly increase efficiency by building a trans Canada pipeline for oil delivery. This would allow us to avoid exporting a product we then need to re-import. This would also have the benefit of creating jobs, and could perhaps be undertaken alongside an expansion of rail, including electrified rail, which would create even more jobs, as well as significantly reducing carbon emissions. Many of our autoworkers have lost their jobs and could likely be retrained to build trains instead of cars, and many idle factories could used be reused for this purpose.

Monbiot is right that Canada is the world's climate change bad guy right now. Some have even threatened to kick up out of the Commonwealth. If we fail to change our ways, in the future there may even be proposals to put in place sanctions against Canada. If we don't change, we will deserve this, and the world will need it. But we still have time to change and even lead. We have many ways to accomplish this, and our children and grandchildren will thank us for it. It is up to us what legacy we leave.

Overfishing

Six years ago, research results were published in the journal Nature which concluded that during the previous fifty years, ninety percent of all large fish in the world's oceans had disappeared. There are many threats to the oceans today, including pollution and global warming, but perhaps the most immediate threat, and the primary cause of this massive collapse in global fish stocks, is overfishing and the use of harmful fishing methods.

Since 1950, world population has more than doubled from roughly 2.5 billion people to now close to 7 billion. The demand for seafood has risen dramatically since then, and the number of people fishing commercially rose for several decades. Additionally the use of large scale industrial fishing methods expanded and intensified during this period. In the past 20 years, however, fish catches peaked in many parts of the world, with a collapse usually following soon afterwards. In Newfoundland, for example, the cod fishery completely collapsed in the early nineties. The Canadian government was forced to close the fishery and roughly 40,000 people lost their jobs.

Ironically, one of the main reasons governments have been hesitant to restrict catches or lower quotas in the past, at the recommendation of experts and scientists, has been a concern about the loss of jobs. Yet, by not taking action, even more jobs have been lost with the complete disappearance of this traditional way of life in many places. Along with the loss of jobs has been the destruction of many important sources of food. Fish stocks in many locations may take decades to recover, while others may be gone forever.

To make matters worse, when a fishery begins to collapse and catches drop sharply, rather than immediately reducing or stopping fishing, the reaction of many governments is to increase subsidies, without which commercial fishing would no longer be economically viable. This means that normal market feedback which would tend to discourage fishing in areas of dropping productivity is overridden. Subsidies allow for continued fishing, pushing a fishery further past the breaking point, at taxpayer expense. Clearly this is both economically and ecologically destructive.

As demand for seafood increases and stocks decline, many intensive fishing methods are being used to try to increase catches. One method is bottom trawling, which involves the use of large nets being dragged across the sea floor. The problem with this method is that many non-catch creatures are caught in these nets, which end up being killed and dumped back into the ocean. The disturbance of the sea floor stirs up sediment, which can kill coral and otherwise damage local ecosystems. A relatively small number of the target fish are caught compared to the damage caused to other species.

Trawling at higher depths also causes similar problems for non-catch species. Additionally, the nets kill large numbers of marine mammals such as dolphins and porpoises. One report estimates that 1000 marine mammals are killed every day by fishing nets. Because of declining fish stocks in many areas, fishing vessels often need to travel much further distances in order to catch sufficient fish. This means a lot more fuel needs to be burned, which contributes to global warming.

One way to help solve the problem is to declare some parts of the ocean to be protected and off limits to fishing, pollution, mining or other damaging activity. This is similar to how national parks and reserves are created on land. Currently about 12 percent of the Earth's surface is protected in this way. Some marine sanctuaries are being created, but at a very slow pace. Currently, less than one percent of the world's oceans are protected.

Overfishing is one of the largest problems affecting the oceans today. It is threatening the viability of many marine ecosystems, and eliminating large food supplies. Many species may never recover and could become extinct. Additionally, overfishing destroys jobs, costs taxpayers money and has significant impacts on local economies. This short sighted and self destructive behaviour clearly needs to end. Immediate action is needed to curtail overfishing, ban harmful fishing methods, and increase areas of the ocean under protection.

Impacts on India

The impacts of global warming, which is primarily caused by the carbon emissions from rich nations over the past hundred years, will be most strongly felt by the poorest countries, which have the least ability to deal with the consequences. One of these countries is India, with a population of just over a billion people. The threat from climate change for the people of this country is very serious, but this is not just a concern for the future. India is already feeling the effects of climate change in many areas.

Rising sea levels are one of the biggest threats. The Sundarbans is the largest Mangrove forest in the world and is located in the south of India and Bangladesh. This is a delta region at the foot of the Ganges, and is famous as the home of the endangered Bengal Tiger. The BBC reported almost three years ago that rising water levels have already caused some islands to vanish from the map. This has resulted in thousands of people having to be relocated. As climate change advances, it has been predicted that the entire delta region will be submerged. This will result in the dislocation of many millions more, as well as the complete destruction of this unique ecosystem and the extinction of many species found nowhere else.

The Tibetan Plateau contains many glaciers which are the ultimate source of fresh water for much of Asia, especially India and Bangladesh. The vital Ganges is fed from this plateau. The glaciers are melting so fast they could be completely gone in as little as 25 years according to the IPCC. Millions have already been affected in Bangladesh leading to a mass migration to northern India, straining resources, and causing ethnic conflict. Once this supply of water is gone, tens or even hundreds of millions of people could be affected. Vast areas of cropland depend on this water, and without it a great deal of food production will no longer be possible. Many people will no longer have access to drinking water or food, leading to mass migration and starvation.

India also gets much of its food from the ocean. Yet much of the ocean is dying. Ninety percent of large fish have already disappeared. The primary cause here is overfishing, not global warming, though global warming is making things worse. Vast "dead zones" have been created and acidity levels are rising. This is causing the death of coral reefs, which are home large and diverse ecosystems that cannot survive without the coral. As acidification increases and ocean temperatures rise, the death of coral is expected to continue. The result of all of this will be a great reduction of food sources from the Ocean, putting even more stress on India.

Of course, all of these changes will also have a major impact on the Indian economy. One Indian study has suggested that crop yields could fall as much as 40 percent, and that the partial submergence of Mumbai alone could result in a loss of $48 billion dollars. The economic impact of this and other changes caused by global warming could mean a reduction in GDP by 9 percent. This is based on the 2007 IPCC report, however, which is already outdated and new data points to the impacts of global warming happening much faster than predicted in that report. It seems clear that as the effects get worse, the prospect for economic growth will disappear and the focus will likely switch to reducing the rate of contraction.

India is one of the countries that will be worse affected by global warming, and general environmental pollution and destruction. The loss of fresh water, cropland, and ocean resources, as well as rising sea levels, will result in the migration and death of millions of people, and a much harder life for those who remain. Some of the poorest people in the world, who generate the lowest carbon emissions, are facing a very bleak future.

Emissions Targets

We are now finally starting to see real numbers in the discussion of carbon emissions reduction targets from large non-EU countries in the lead up to Copenhagen. The US has now publicly announced their proposed targets, after months of downplaying expectations, and shortly after President Obama agreed to attend the opening of the conference. China had been long been unwilling to discuss numbers until after the US did, and they quickly responded to the US announcement with their own specific targets.

In one sense, this is a sort of progress. At least we are now dealing with real numbers that can be negotiated. Also, unlike pronouncements about "significant" reductions and "strong" targets, the official positions can now be objectively analyzed. Unfortunately, this analysis shows that many of these targets are far below the levels scientists say are needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

The EU has for some time pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, with the potential to increase this to 30 percent if other large emitters (especially the US) also agree to strong targets. The 1990 level is the standard baseline that has been used in negotiations, and it goes back to the Kyoto agreement. It provides a common measuring stick for all nations.

The US has now publicly proposed a reduction of 17 percent, but only from 2005 levels, by 2020. Apparently they are unwilling to use the same 1990 baseline as the rest of the world because it would make clear how weak this target is. This is because if you convert the numbers, this would represent only a 4 percent reduction from 1990 levels. The US is the world's largest emitter, and is historically responsible for a vast amount of the emissions already in the atmosphere, yet they are proposing one of the weakest targets.

China has responded to this by announcing a cut of 40 to 45 percent of emissions per unit of GDP, relative to 2005 levels, by 2020. Developing countries, of course, are generally growing the fastest in carbon emissions, and the goal being sought from these countries is the fastest possible reduction in the rate of the growth, with an eye towards reaching a peak as soon as possible. China has not yet committed to a date when their emissions will peak. They have often hinted that they may be willing to commit to stronger targets, but this is largely dependent on how far the US is willing to go.

China has also called on western countries to cut emissions by 40 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2020. This is a much stronger target that many scientists, as well as other third countries, have called for. The African Union has been insisting on this same target for some time, and has threatened to walk out from talks if their demands are not met. They have already declared that the 20-30 percent cuts proposed by the EU are unacceptable, so their response to the US announcement is likely to be sharply critical.

Unfortunately, many countries are working on data from the 2007 IPCC report, which is already outdated. Recent data shows that many effects from climate change are accelerating faster than predicted, meaning that we have less time to act. They are working on a new report, but most negotiators are still working from the old data.

A recent German report says that much stronger targets are needed. The IPCC had previously called for a 25-40 precent reduction (from 1990) by all Western countries by 2020, in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. The new data says the US must reduce emissions by 100 percent by 2020 (i.e., zero carbon) and other industrial nations (EU, Australia, Canada) must do so by 2025-2030. China would have until 2035.

There is, of course, zero possibility that any agreement at Copenhagen would ever commit to these levels of emissions reduction. But Copenhagen is only a starting point. If an agreement is reached there, we will then need to move quickly over the next few years to continually improve the official targets. Because of how far there is to go, however, it is extremely important that we get as strong an agreement as possible at Copenhagen. At the very least we need to get something close to the original IPCC recommendations. It will not be enough, but it will at least put monitoring and enforcement regimes into place, and establish a framework for further negotiations where these targets can be improved.

This may indeed be our last chance to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. If we cannot reach an agreement with at least moderately strong targets, we risk extensive environmental damage and loss of life. In many ways a weak agreement at Copenhagen could even be worse than no agreement, as it would lock countries into targets too small to make a significant difference. This is the time when we need to put as much pressure as possible on our leaders to ensure this doesn't happen.

Cell Phones and Towers

Many people are worried about cell phones, and the towers used to broadcast and receive signals from them. There are many concerns about serious damage they may be causing to the environment and to human health. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misinformation in this area, and many of the concerns are unwarranted. There are some legitimate concerns, but these are often lost among claims with no scientific basis.

A recent issue, which has been promoted by the media, is that cell phones can cause brain cancer or other forms of cancer if they are used too frequently. This a widely held belief today, yet there is no evidence for it. No scientific studies have shown any link between cell phone use and cancer, nor has there been any credible hypothesis proposed that could explain how the technology could cause such effects. One study was done in Denmark over a 13 year period, and showed no increase of cancer of any type in cell phone users.

In the UK, there's a similar belief. In that case, the suggestion is that cell phone towers (which they call masts) are a cause of cancer and other illness, not the phones themselves. The World Health Organization (WHO) after reviewing many scientific studies, concludes that cell phones and towers have not been shown to have any impacts on health. They also make the point that exposure to RF fields (radio waves) is 1000 times higher from cell phones than from the broadcasting towers, obviously because they are closer to the individual.

Of course, the use of cell phones while driving (or operating trains, subways, or airplanes) has been shown to result in more accidents. This is not caused by the phones themselves, obviously, but by human distraction, and many other activities (reading, playing video games, shaving) can also be distracting to drivers and cause more accidents. For this reasons the use of cell phones while driving has been banned in many countries.

Cell towers do have negative environmental effects, however. This isn't limited to just towers used for cell networks, but television, radio and other towers have the same problems. Many studies have shown that communications towers are responsible for the death of millions of birds, including many endangered species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (PDF) says that as many as 50 million birds are killed annually. Some types of towers, such as those with guy wires and with lights are much more damaging than others, and not surprisingly, taller towers are worse than shorter ones.

The USFWS mentions that communications towers are growing at an exponential rate, so the threat to birds is growing rapidly. They provide several recommendations for reducing this, including removing lights were possible, building free-standing structures that don't require the use of guy wires, and using collocation (putting many towers at the same site). They also suggest environmental assessments be done before construction and that in the case of an area where there is a significant bird population, or that is used by migrating birds, an alternative site should be used instead. They also suggest that old towers no longer in use should be removed as quickly as possible.

Another significant problem with cell phones (and the infrastructure to support them) is that they consume a massive amount of resources and energy. According to one estimate Americans throw out an average of 426,000 cell phones every day. That's over 150 million a year. In the entire world, this number could be close to a billion. This is waste on a scale hard to imagine. Many of these phones contain toxic substances and many of them are shipped to the third world, causing significant environmental damage and pollution which impacts local populations.

We need to ask if this is really the best way to be using our resources while faced with the threat of global warming and environmental destruction. The carbon emissions generated by the continual manufacture of billions of cell phones is enormous. People replace their phones about every 18 months on average. Cell networks are continually being upgraded to provide new services, and faster data rates.

At the very least, we need to consider slowing this down dramatically. We have a working communications infrastructure, and we have billions of working cell phones. There is no need to continually rebuild this every few years. We don't need to take this service away from anyone, but this level of consumption just isn't sustainable. We desperately need to apply the brakes.

Cell phones and towers have not been shown to have any direct health impact on humans. Claims to the contrary are based on pseudo-science and have not been demonstrated by scientific studies. Nevertheless, towers, and the cell phone industry itself, are contributing significantly to global warming and other environment damage, which does impact human health indirectly, and the health of the planet. We must have limits.