Stuart Staniford at Early Warning mines the data contained in Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (a U.S. government report we covered here) and concludes that all the work environmentalists have done to protect species and habitats is doomed to be in vain:

All the work that’s been done over the past century to preserve some wild ecosystems in national parks etc, is going to be mostly subverted.  The park may still be there, but what grows in it will, in most cases, be nothing like the thing that we were originally trying to save.

As the impacts of global warming manifest themselves over the coming century, warming temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will result in just about every landscape in the country changing radically.

Staniford’s piece exposes the flaw in the approach environmentalists took in the 70s, the approach (taken by Oregon’s statewide planning Goal 5 , for example): identify a “significant” resource, draw a line around it, and protect it from conflicting uses. Protecting a living resource requires much more than drawing a line around it.  Rather, you have to maintain the health of the ecosystem within which it is embedded.

Within a global climate system wildly disrupted by human greenhouse gas emissions, how could we possibly expect that more local ecosystems could remain unaffected?

Chris Martenson used to be a corporate honcho with a big expensive house in the suburbs on the Connecticut coast. Now he’s downsized, is living in a rural community, has traded in his twin-engine fishing boat for a kayak – and travels the country giving lectures on why we’ll never see a “recovery” from our economic throes. What happened, and why?

In a speech before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Martenson lays out the hard facts:

• There are 70 million more people on the surface of the planet this year than last year.
• Each of these new humans consumes some amount of resources such as food, oil, air, soil, water, copper, coal, or timber.
• Someday, perhaps already, maybe a little later, the global flow rate of oil coming out of the ground will peak and then decline inexorably thereafter.
• From 2000 to 2008, eight short years, the total amount of debt in this country doubled while no net jobs were created and median incomes actually went backwards.
• During the industrial revolution, humans have consumed vastly more energy each decade. During the lifetime of a 22-year-old, humans will have burned more than half of all the oil ever consumed throughout history.
• Oceanic fish stocks, ancient aquifers, and topsoil are all being depleted at unsustainable rates.

Martenson goes on to explore the implications of these realities. To summarize:

All these facts share a single common feature: they are tied to exponential growth in some way. There’s nothing inherently wrong with exponential growth, as long as you have unlimited room and unlimited resources. We live on a finite planet. Time runs out in a hurry towards the end of any exponential growth system, forcing hurried decisions and severely limiting options. And there are clear signs that several key resources on our planet are in their final minutes.

Just as higher prices for fish will not cause more cod to come from the depleted fisheries, oil fields will yield their treasures in accordance to geological limits and not because our economics textbooks say they should.

Adapting to a future of less and less oil will take decades of preparation – but we’ve not yet even begun. TIME is a critical factor. SCALE is an issue. And then there’s COST.

COST – now there’s the economic rub. Every dollar in circulation was loaned into existence, with interest. The effect of loaning all of our money into existence, with interest, is this: there is always more debt than money floating around in the system. Always. And the amount of debt will compound over time – that is, it will grow exponentially. To service the debts that are growing exponentially, the economy must also grow exponentially.

See the problem?

An energy crisis rooted in resource limits will quickly translate into an economic crisis unlike any other. Consequently,  the era of growth is ending and what Martenson calls “an exciting new chapter” is about to begin.

Why the optimism? Martenson sees our challenge as not to find vast new resources to exploit, but to undertake the far more sophisticated and worthwhile task of using what we’ve got more wisely. A life with less pollution, more free time, meaningful jobs, more happiness, less stress and greater connection to each other as well as to nature are all within the realm of the possible.

As Martenson says, the longer we fiddle around the more our options shrink. Let’s hope it’s not already too late.

Even as the climate change talks begin today in Copenhagen and as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announces the U.S. will begin regulating greenhouses gases regardless of what the House and Senate do, some are warning: what we are considering doing, won’t be enough.

Consider that economic infrastructure now being installed around the globe is locking in future increases in fossil fuel consumption. Take China, for example.

In 2008, less than nine million cars were sold in China. In 2009, car sales will rise to between 12 and 13 million. By 2015, car sales are expected to reach 16 million – an increase of 44% over 2008 levels. The cumulative increase in cars on the road in China cannot do other than increase future demand for oil, as gasoline and diesel.

At the beginning of 2006, China had an estimated 350 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in operation. An additional 600 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity (net of retirements) is projected to be brought on line in China by 2030 – an increase of 42% over 2006 levels.

Not to pick on China. The U.S. is responsible for 29% of carbon dioxide emissions over past 150 years, triple China’s share. But assigning blame for greenhouse gas emissions is irrelevant to crafting a solution to the climate change crisis.

Even while a new study published in Nature Geoscience (abstract here) reports that over the long term Earth’s temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, the decade of the 2000s will go down as the warmest on record – and climatologists warn warmer weather is on the way.

In a speech to delegates at Copenhagen, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri went down the list of impacts from global warming, some of which we are already beginning to see:

• More heat waves and heavy rainfall events
• Increase in tropical cyclone intensity
• Disappearance of Arctic sea ice
• Decrease in water resources in semi-arid areas, such as the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil
• Elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 meters
• Species threatened with extinction
• Greater stress on water resources from population growth and economic and land use change, including urbanization
• Significant future increase in heavy rainfall in many regions, with greater flood risk, while other regions dry up
• More than two billion people will live in areas threatened by flood
• Increasing threat to low-lying island nations and coastal cities and deltas from rising seas Seas are already rising because of melting glaciers and icesheets as well as expansion of the oceans as they warm

The good news may be that the scenarios spun out by the IPCC are fantasies when it comes to potential future fossil fuel consumption. The fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal – simply will not be physically available to generate the greenhouse gas emissions projected in the several IPCC scenarios. Even the IEA, in its recently released World Energy Outlook 2009, is admitting its projections of future energy availability are nothing more than “faith based”, conceding the majority of oil production in 2030 will be coming from “fields yet to be developed or found” and that “output at existing fields . . . will drop by almost two-thirds by 2030.”

The bad news is, the science keeps getting increasingly gloomy. Every new study seems to report that Earth’s climate is more sensitive than previously believed and that “tipping points” are fast approaching, if not already exceeded.

And the good news is pretty dismal, for business-as-usual. If peak production of fossil fuels is near enough to ensure that climate catastrophe will not occur no matter what emissions policies we adopt, that in turn means that our energy policies are hopeless when it comes to transitioning to a social and economic system based on renewable energy resources that in any way resembles the industrial society we have come to think of as normal and desirable.

We cannot avoid the reality that any possible solution to our energy and climate predicament requires that we invent an entirely new economic model, one that doesn’t strive for or depend on economic growth but instead is based on the ecological principle that we must learn to find happiness within limits imposed by the natural systems within which we all live.

Unfortunately, economic growth remains the official ideology at Copenhagen. How to continue on that path is the agenda.

Earth’s carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ are not keeping up with the amount of the greenhouse gas being produced. That’s the conclusion of a paper published in Nature Geoscience:

In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO₂ emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO₂ by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability.

Carbon released by fossil fuel burning (black) continues to accumulate in the air (red), oceans (blue), and land (green). The oceans take up roughly a quarter of manmade CO2, but evidence suggests they are now taking up a smaller proportion. Credit: Samar Khatiwala, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

The oceans play a key role in regulating climate, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. The first year-by-year accounting of this mechanism during the industrial era suggests the oceans are not keeping up with rising emissions – a finding with ominous implications for future climate.

The researchers estimate that the oceans last year took up a record 2.3 billion tons of CO₂ produced from the burning of fossil fuels. But with overall emissions growing rapidly, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans since 2000 may have declined by as much as 10%.

The study also found that a 29% rise in carbon emissions between 2000 and 2008 can be attributed to a large extent to burning coal and the growth of ‘emerging economies’. The use of coal as a fuel has now surpassed oil.

Developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries – but a quarter of their growth in emissions is from producing stuff for export to developed countries.

In spite of the global economic downturn, emissions increased by 2% during 2008.

The press release summarizes the main findings of the study:

• CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels increased by two per cent from 2007 to 2008, by 29 per cent between 2000 and 2008, and by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2008.  1990 is the reference year of the Kyoto Protocol.
• CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased at an average annual rate of 3.4 per cent between 2000 and 2008, compared with one per cent per year in the 1990s.
• Emissions from land use change have remained almost constant since 2000, but now account for a significantly smaller proportion of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (20 per cent in 2000 to 12 per cent in 2008).
• The fraction of total CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere has likely increased from 40 to 45 per cent since 1959. Models suggest this is due to the response of the natural CO2 sinks to climate change and variability.
• Emissions from coal are now the dominant fossil fuel emission source, surpassing 40 years of oil emission prevalence.
• The financial crisis had a small but discernable impact on emissions growth in 2008 – with a two per cent increase compared with an average 3.6 per cent over the previous seven years. On the basis of projected changes in GDP, emissions for 2009 are expected to fall to their 2007 levels, before increasing again in 2010.
• Emissions from emerging economies such as China and India have more than doubled since 1990 and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries.
• A quarter of the growth in CO2 emissions in developing countries can be accounted for by an increase in international trade of goods and services.

Add the Atlantic bluefin tuna and maybe the caribou to the list of species threatened with extinction.

Google News has an article about the bluefin tuna:

An international fisheries group set up to protect Atlantic tuna has done the opposite and driven one species of the fish, the bluefin, to the edge of extinction[.]

ICCAT [the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas] has for decades set quotas above what its own scientists have recommended for bluefin tuna. Those quotas are systematically exceeded by industrial fleets, which over-fish the species.

Combined with illegal fishing, this has caused the population to decline by more than 85 percent in the eastern Atlantic and by more than 90 percent in the western Atlantic.

The article quotes Susan Lieberman, director of international policy at the Pew Environment Group:

Enough is enough, it’s time for a zero quota; we’re going to put the brakes on this fishery. If we had any terrestrial species that had declined this much, this quickly, we would have said we have to shut this down, we have to let them recover.

So what about those terrestrial species? Google News has another article about caribou:

Once, caribou wandered over the Arctic tundra in herds that took days to pass. . .

Today, scientists fear caribou are the new cod. . .

Biologists say 15 of the world’s 23 herds are shrinking. Only six herds, generally the small ones, are growing.

Concern has been building for years. But this summer, survey results carried a distinct whiff of impending catastrophe.

N.W.T. biologists estimated the Bathurst herd of the central barrens had fallen from over 120,000 animals in 2006 to 32,000 – a 75 per cent implosion representing the loss of nearly 90,000 caribou in only three years.

The news was even worse to the east, where scientists studied cow-calf pairs in the Beverly herd.

Aerial survey teams couldn’t even find enough pairs to get statistically valid data. A herd that numbered 280,000 animals only 15 years ago was simply gone.

“Collapse. I think that’s a good term,” said Ross Thompson of the Beverly-Qamanirjuaq Management Board.

Scientists blame a combination of factors: climate change, aboriginal hunting and industrial development. Climate change is degrading forage quality; producing heavier, icier snow that makes it more difficult to get at food; and improving conditions for the biting, bloodsucking flies that drive caribou crazy and impair their ability to breed by preventing them from building their strength. Caribou are now preyed upon from snowmobiles and pickups rather than by dogsled. Then industrial development – diamond mines, oil and gas exploration and intensive mineral prospecting – on or adjacent to calving grounds not only disrupt caribou movement between winter and summer ranges and calving grounds; caribou tend to avoid coming near such sites, and so their range is reduced.

A post by Ugo Bardi at The Oil Drum: Europe looks at the water consumption of energy technologies.

Notice how enormously water intensive biofuels are – as Bardi says, “another drawback for a technology which has also a low EROEI, needs large areas, and competes for land with food production.”

The world’s water resources are already stretched thin – and climate change will make things worse. Rivers from China’s Yellow to America’s Colorado no longer can be relied on to even reach the sea. Glaciers are already melting, from the Himalayas to the Andes.  No glaciers, no storage, no water. Climate change threatens desertification around the globe, from the American West to Australia, northern China and Tibet, the Mediterranean basin including southern Europe. From Saudi Arabia to the American West, we’re drawing from and exhausting “fossil water” from ancient aquifers.

Bardi rightly points out that the world’s water predicament is yet another indication that we’re bumping up against ecological limits to growth:

Water is, of course, a renewable resource but a lot of the water used today is “fossil” water. It comes from deep aquifers which can be drained empty as it has happened, for instance in Saudi Arabia. In addition, climate change may further reduce the water supply in many areas of the world. How much these factors will affect energy generation worldwide in the near future is difficult to say at present, but surely the problem shouldn’t be underestimated. The EROWI problem, in the end, is just an indication that we are hitting yet another limit of our finite environment.

Our political and economic systems require that resource issues such as peak oil or water shortages be approached as problems to be solved by finding new supplies or sources – by yet more growth. But growth is itself the underlying problem. As Daniel Allen says in a post at The Energy Bulletin, limits to growth cannot be overcome by yet more growth.

Resource depletion is a predicament requiring adaptation to an entirely new low-consumption paradigm, rather than a problem to be solved with technological or social solutions.

Allen urges Americans to “start the conversation about what a lower-consumption, resource-poor society would look like, and begin the appropriate preparations.”

The world needs to begin that conversation, like right now. In ancient Greek thought, transgressions of limits inevitably in punishment by the gods. When it comes to transgressing limits, climate change would be Gaia’s ultimate penalty.

The Nasca people, best known for giant geoglyphs etched into the surface of a vast desert plain, once flourished in the valleys of south coastal Peru. About 500 AD their civilization collapsed into a bloody resource war and then vanished.

Photograph: Kevin Schafer/Corbis, published in the UK Guardian

What happened? Archaeologists from Cambridge University say the Nasca brought about their own demise by ruining the fragile ecosystem that supported them. Their study was published in the journal Latin American Antiquity.

Over the course of many generations, the Nasca cleared areas of forest for agriculture. The huarango tree, which once blanketed what is now desert, was gradually replaced by crops such as cotton and maize.

But the short-term agricultural gain came at a high price because the trees were the critical component of the ecosystem. Dr. Beresford-Jones explains what happened:

The huarango is a remarkable nitrogen-fixing tree and it was an important source of food, forage, timber and fuel for the local people. Furthermore, it is the ecological ‘keystone’ species in this desert zone, enhancing soil fertility and moisture, ameliorating desert extremes in the microclimate beneath its canopy and underpinning the floodplain with one of the deepest root systems of any tree known.

In time, gradual woodland clearance crossed an ecological threshold – sharply defined in such desert environments – exposing the landscape to the region’s extraordinary desert winds and the effects of El Niño floods.

In the absence of huarango cover, when El Niño did strike, the river down-cut into its floodplain, Nasca irrigation systems were damaged and the area became unworkable for agriculture. Infant mortality rose, while average adult life expectancy fell. The crops that had been cultivated by the Nasca for generations disappeared, and the area fell victim to a severe drought.

There are now no undisturbed ecosystems in the region, and what remains of the old-growth huarango forests is being destroyed in illegal charcoal-burning operations.

Compared to any other human activity, land use and agriculture are the greatest emitters of greenhouse gasses.

You heard that right. More than the emissions from all the world’s passenger cars, trucks, trains and planes, or the emissions from all electricity generation or manufacturing. Of the three most important man-made greenhouse gasses — carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation, methane emissions from animals and rice fields, and nitrous oxide emissions from heavily fertilized fields  — account for 30% of the total.

Jonathan Foley points out at Yale Environment 360 that since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystems than agriculture. Continued population growth is pushing global agricultural systems to their very limits. He asks:

Already, we have cleared or converted more than 35 percent of the earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, whether for croplands, pastures or rangelands. . . What will happen to our remaining ecosystems, including tropical rainforests, if we need to double or triple world agricultural production, while simultaneously coping with climate change?

We’re already exploiting Earth’s water resources in an unsustainable manner, drawing on fossil aquifers and draining rivers before they reach the sea. The use of industrial fertilizers and other chemicals has more than doubled the flows of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the environment and fundamentally upset the chemistry of the entire planet. How can Earth cope with future demands from increasing population and agricultural consumption?

Unfortunately, Foley’s answer is pretty feeble. First, acknowledge we have a problem. Then, “find ways to simultaneously increase production of our agricultural systems while greatly reducing their environmental impacts” – what he calls a “greener agricultural revolution.”

What Foley can’t admit is, we don’t have a “problem” that can be solved with yet another technofix. We’re in a predicament, from which there’s no solution, no easy way out. The best we can hope for is to face our predicament squarely, with as much courage and grace as we can muster.

Those in the peak oil community – including this blog – have long been predicting that peak oil implies the end of economic growth as we have come to know it.

Global oil production has been on a plateau since late 2004 and – at least for the moment – appears to have peaked as of July 2008. As Sadad al Husseini has said, the economics of oil have broken down:

It’s not a matter of you throw a little money and you get a lot of oil; it’s now you throw a lot of money and you get a little oil.

In a speech at the 2009 ASOP International Conference in Denver, Richard Heinberg reiterates the economic consequences and points out they were predicted by the peakists:

As we all know, the global economy began contracting last year—though that’s just a nice, abstract way to put it. Industrial production fell. Corporations downsized or disappeared. Fifty trillion dollars in global capital vaporized in stock market crashes, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and defaults. Millions of people lost employment and housing. Globalization went into reverse.

Also, in 2008 the oil price spiked 50 percent higher, in inflation-adjusted terms, than at any point in previous history. It would be an enormous oversimplification to say that the oil price spike “caused” the world recession, but the fact that the price spike and the economic crisis occurred at the same time is hardly meaningless coincidence.

In effect, we are seeing a vindication of what many of us have been predicting for a long time.

Fossil fuel depletion is not the only physical barrier that we’re bumping up against.  The climate change impacts that are beginning to be felt and a score of other indices of environmental decline show that energy limitations are only one of a number of limits to growth. As Dan Allen would put in Obama’s mouth:

We cannot have infinite wants on a finite planet. These were childish wishes.

Even after the crash, nobody, especially our political leadership, is yet questioning the reality of our previous prosperity. The crisis was  not sufficient to shake the current system; if anything, the grip has been tightened. We all seem to still be hoping that everything can return to the way it was. The dominance of the finance sector on the economy and our politics has not changed. We have poured trillions into propping up a growth-dependent financial system, when we desperately needed to instead begin building a social, political, and economic system that would allow to live as gracefully as possible while the human economy shrinks as a subset of the ecology.

Peak oil theory in its broadest formulation predicts that resource depletion means that growth is no longer possible.  Global warming (and other “sink” impacts) mean that continued growth isn’t even desirable, as it would lead to catastrophic ecological collapse. We’re in the middle of a real-time test of both.

An article in the UK Timesonline reports that cod are doomed to disappear from the North Sea:

Cod are doomed to disappear from the North Sea because of climate change and not just as a result of over-fishing, researchers have discovered.

In the past 40 years the average temperature of the North Sea has increased by 1C with catastrophic effects on its delicate eco-systems.

Species of plankton, on which cod larvae feed, have moved away in search of cooler waters. The decline in cod stocks has led to an explosion in the populations of crabs and jellyfish, on which the adult fish feed. The shortage of predators at the top of the food chain has had a knock-on effect on flat fish, such as plaice and sole, whose offspring are eaten by crabs.

I just finished reading Song for the Blue Ocean. Back in 1997, Carl Safina chronicled the horrifying demise of the world’s fisheries. How much worse have things gotten since then? How much worse will they get?

John Michael Greer urges us to face the truth – the future won’t be better than the present:

We are not going to have a future better than the present: not in our lifetimes, and not in those of our grandchildren’s grandchildren. We collectively closed the door on that possibility decades ago, and none of the rapidly narrowing range of choices still open to us now offers any way of changing that.

Greer advises embracing ambivalence and accepting “both the wonder and the immense tragedy of our time.” But life is yin yang, both wonder and tragedy. Always has been, always will be.  It’s not just now.

Guy McPherson takes issue with the notion that our way of life is as great as we think.  He writes at The Energy Bulletin about his trip to a family wedding. He observes that the “living arrangements” we’ve made are far from ideal:

Within the span of a couple generations, we abandoned a durable, finely textured, life-affirming set of living arrangements characterized by self-sufficient family farms intermixed with small towns that provided commerce, services, and culture. Worse yet, we traded that model for a coarse-scaled arrangement wholly dependent on ready access to cheap fossil fuels.

Yes, we’ve done that – and far worse, thoughtlessly exploiting Earth’s resources and despoiling Earth’s ecosystems to the brink of collapse and beyond.

And now we’re reaping what we have sown, in the collapse of fisheries and a looming collapse in agriculture. We eat oil – but Hubbert’s peak is now in our rear-view mirror. Shed no tears for the demise of industrial agriculture. McPherson describes what he saw throughout the Midwest:

The entire region, formerly abundant with a multitude of edible crops, currently is brimming with a single commodity: #2 corn. It’s Roundup-ready, at that, just to throw a bucket of insulting acid into the face of reason. Roundup-resistant weeds are popping up throughout the region as we bring Farmageddon to the heartland and eventually to the world. Most of the corn, which is essentially inedible until it is processed (i.e., pummeled with inordinate quantities of fossil fuels), is watered with the last remaining drops of the Ogallala aquifer, brought to the surface with the same finite fluid used to power our trucks and cars. Verdant fields of ethanol dreams are interrupted occasionally by a field of soybeans; without rotations of legumes, the soil would be so depleted of nitrogen by king corn, it wouldn’t support even the great corn desert. The corn fills our bellies with death-inducing faux sugar. But we willingly trade some of that “food” for fuel because the associated dependence on automobiles allows us to burn off the final inches of life-giving topsoil to promote our culture of death in rapid-transit, individualized death-traps. Who could pass up a deal like that?

Contra Greer, McPherson thinks better days lie ahead.

How could they not? In the near future, we’ll return to a durable set of living arrangements.

Greer points out that McPherson’s dreams of “better days” imply a human population as low as 500 million. That’s quite a crash from today’s population of almost 7 billion.  We can’t control how that crash work itself out. Suffering will not be denied. Still, life is durable.

McPherson’s “better days” are seen in some imagined “future.” Better days are here already, all around us, no matter what the political, economic, or ecological crisis of the moment. They’re here in the chipping of a squirrel, in the deep dark of a new moon, in the mist of a September morning. They’re here in a meal of local free-run turkey, fresh garden tomatoes, and copious quantities of home-grown Pinot Noir shared with dear friends. As long as there are creatures on Earth, life will be wondrous – and tragic.

Our farmer neighbors don’t seem to be interested in the debates about whether we expect the future to be better or worse, whether industrial imperialism can be saved or is worth saving. They simply get about the work of raising the best food they can while struggling to make ends meet and doing as little harm as possible. That’s true revolution.

And everybody can participate. As Wendell Berry says, eating is an agricultural act.

Agricultural acts can be revolutionary.