Michael Klare : The Pentagon as global gas-guzzler

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis - either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. And foreign wars account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems - virtually all powered by oil - the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. An April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.

Vertical farming in New York

peakoil.com, slashdot.org -> news.bbc.co.uk :

Downtown Manhattan is hardly a place you would associate with agriculture. Rather, with its countless restaurants, cafes, shops and supermarkets this is a place of consumption. And so every morsel, every bite of food New Yorkers munch through every day must be trucked, shipped or flown in, from across the country, and across the world.

Now though, scientists at Columbia University are proposing an alternative. Their vision of the future is one in which the skyline of New York and other cities include a new kind of skyscaper: the "vertical farm". Imagine a 30-storey building with glass walls, topped off with a huge solar panel. On each floor there would be giant planting beds. There would be a sophisticated irrigation system. Crops of all kinds and small livestock could all be grown in a controlled environment in the most urban of settings. That means no shipping costs, and no pollution caused by moving produce around the country.

It's all the brainchild of Columbia University Professor Dickson Despommier. He and his students took existing greenhouse technology as a starting point and are now convinced that vertical farms are a practical suggestion. "Even if it's not quite natural ... a little bit factory-like in terms of its production, here's what you're going to get back: you're going to get back the rest of the earth. And I'll take that any time."

(2007-07-03 12:25:42 SGT) [Env] Permalink

As glaciers melt and rivers dry up, coal-fired power stations multiply

guardian.co.uk :

On a bad day - which can be hundreds in a year - the ancient city of Linfen in the northern province of Shanxi is environmental hell. Named by the World Bank last year as having the worst air quality on Earth, its 3.5 million people more often than not choke on coal dust; its soil and rivers are covered with soot. The cause is Linfen's 196 iron foundries, 153 coking plants, unregulated coalmines, tar factories, steelworks and homes, all of which burn cheap, easily accessible brown coal. The country is now building 550 coal-fired power stations - opening at the equivalent of two a week - and in the five years to 2005, electricity generation rose 150%.

China is well aware of its impact on climate change. Its Himalayan glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, its deserts are encroaching on cities in the north-west, and rivers are drying up as a result of temperature rises and over-exploitation. According to the Worldwatch Institute thinktank in Washington, Chinese air pollution from coal-burning cost its economy more than $63bn in 2004, or roughly 3% of GDP.

China's first national plan on climate change follows western countries in setting ambitious domestic targets to improve energy efficiency by 20% by 2010 and to raise the share of renewables - such as wind and hydropower - to 16% by 2020. However, more than a year into the energy plan, it is proving hard to implement. For another 10 to 20 years, the most populous country on Earth is expected to continue its supercharged growth, then to plateau for a decade or so, before making reductions.

China building more power plants

peakoil.com -> news.bbc.co.uk :

China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said. He said there was no point blaming China for rising global CO2 emissions. Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow, Mr Ashton told the BBC. His statement came as a new report suggested that China may have already become the world's biggest polluter - much earlier than expected. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said China's CO2 emissions had risen by 9% last year, compared with 1.4% in the US.

"It is a massive challenge," Mr Ashton told the BBC following a recent trip to China. "We need to convince China that they don't have to make a choice between prosperity and protecting the climate. We need to help them towards a low-carbon future. "There is also a moral case. Most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been put there by developed countries without the constraint of having to worry about the climate. That means we should bear the leading edge of responsibility."

"Responsibility for China's soaring emissions lies not just in Beijing but also in Washington, Brussels and Tokyo," said Greenpeace UK director John Sauven. "All we've done is export a great slice of the West's carbon footprint to China, and today we see the result. The West moved its manufacturing base to China knowing it was vastly more polluting than Japan, Europe or the US," he added. "No environmental conditions were attached to this move; in fact the only thing manufacturers were interested in was the price of labour. "This trend kept the price of our products down but at the cost of soaring greenhouse gas emissions. Long term, this policy has been a climate disaster."