Why An Earth Day?

HOUSTON, TX--The earth is shivering. Hurricanes, volcano eruptions, tsunami, earthquakes and other record setting weather and natural disaster phenomena are on the increase. According to Natural News in 2008:

     The number of natural disasters around the world has increased by more than four times in the last 20 years, according to a report released by the British charity Oxfam. Oxfam analyzed data from the Red Cross, United Nations and researchers at University in Belgium. It found that the earth is currently experiencing approximately 500 natural disasters per year, compared with 120 per year in the early 1980s. The number of weather-related disasters in 2006 was 240, compared with 60 in 1980.

     In our daily lives, we often forget that the earth is a living thing with a delicately balanced ecosystem. It has an amazing capacity to overcome and heal many things that humans inflict upon it—but surely even Mother Earth has her limits.

     Just as our human bodies adapt and overcome the toxins we expose them to—unhealthy food, negative emotions and thoughts, etc.—often our bodies will eventually become unable to recoup and then we become ill. As a much larger living entity, earth should sustain, and recoup from, more abuse than one living human being. But are we seeing the effects of our long term neglect of her needs? The answer is yes.

     Let’s just take one hot topic example: Peak Oil. Here is information on Peak Oil from Wikipedia:

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

 M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. According to the Export Land Model, oil exports drop much more quickly than production drops due to domestic consumption increases in exporting countries. Supply shortfalls would cause the price of oil to increase sharply, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives.

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used. Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred, that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly.

 As proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, a global depression is predicted, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market that might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization, potentially leading to large population declines within a short period. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by.

     The fact of the matter is that Peak Oil has been a very hot topic since the 1970s when the U.S. experienced cars lined up to purchase gasoline, an event that had not been seen since WWII. Our attention was “had”—what happened? Does it really matter now? The bottom line is that no sane person will argue that oil is an infinite resource and we are using it at a far greater rate than it can possibly reproduce. So, why aren’t we looking for and buying alternatives? Why is the majority of the population pretending that is NOT FACT? Does Human Nature dictate that we keep our heads in the sand until the whole world comes to a grinding halt because there simply is NO MORE OIL to produce? Even the most optimistic forecast predicts 2020 and that is only ten years away.

     We have the power and technology to move away from oil in many arenas. What we do not have is the incentive to make the necessary changes in lifestyle and/or purchasing options. As long as we can—and in many cases HAVE TO—jump in our cars and go where we want or need to go, we probably will.

     Several years ago I did a TV interview with high school students in New York state who were building and racing solar cars up to 60 mph. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. Hello Detroit???? But Detroit won’t assemble what we won’t buy.

     If we don’t want “government in our business,” then we had better start getting smarter about our business or we will all end up walking. A computer that used to fill a warehouse just a few decades ago now is out-powered by my CELL PHONE. That happened at warp speed for one very important reason—WE BOUGHT THEM.

     If we begin investing in more environmentally friendly choices, they will become—and in fact already are becoming—easier to find and less expensive. We have the pocketbook power; all we need is the conscience to go with it. 

                                                                                            —30—

To commen ton this article, please email Peggy Sue Skipper