Ted Auch

It seems that we may be hitting the point the Romans and many others inevitably approached and violently surpasses. It is the point at which our cumulative GDP growth has flattened out while population growth continues to grow albeit at a mild rate.

To the right you see a graph of the ratio of Cumulative Annual US GDP to Population Growth from 1930 to 2008.

This ratio did not become positive until 1940 on the eve of WW II and spiked at the war’s conclusion in 1944-45. At this point this ratio began a steady decline to a low of 4.52 in 1963. While it experienced a bump between the 60s and late 90s it has remained relatively flat between 1950 and 2008 deviating very little from it’s ~60 yr average of 5.43.

Another way of looking at this “Economic Ceiling” is from an agricultural perspective. I have plotted the Yield to Nitrogen (N) Applied ratio for Corn here in the US from 1943-2007. On the Primary Y- and X-Axis the relationship for the raw data is shown, while the Secondary Y- and X-Axis depicts the relationship on a log scale. We see two things here: 1) the shape of the relationship is dependent on how the data is presented and 2) the raw data demonstrates quite conclusively that we have reached a similar asymptote to that described above for our economy relative to population growth. This is a disturbing trend given our over reliance on corn here in the US. GMOs and fertilizer technology will only be able to do so much in fighting this apparent biological inertia. The rest of the quagmire will require a new paradigm if it is to be fixed. That should include a gradual transition to a more diverse produce and dry goods food economy in keeping the the proselytizing of Michael Pollan. However, alot of this will involve tough medicine, which should start with decreasing national obesity from it’s current rate of 33% to 15% or what it was in 1980. This may sound quixotic but really it is a necessity and weening ourselves off our addiction to High Fructose Corn Syrup would probably put a 5-7% dent in our national obesity on it’s own.

It is high time we start to seriously discuss the idea that Eugene Fama’s “Efficient Market Hypothesis”, Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”, and Milton Friedman’s “Shock Doctrine” are a thing of the past designed solely to benefit the top 0.1-0.5% of the G20, G8, or OECD. We must turn our attention to what I will call an Asymptotic Economic Hypothesis or the Steady State Economy (http://www.steadystate.org/) acknowledging the ubiquitous influence of Keynes’s “Animal Spirits” and the fact that nothing grows forever.

It would be absolutely acceptable if we didn’t shift towards an economy with strict ceiling and floor constraints BUT if we do our children will be very mad at us!

Michael Lynch makes some compelling points in his recent piece on ‘Peak Oil’ in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?ref=todayspaper), but he calls on one very important fallacy commonly invoked by the Big Oil:  Rate-Of-Discovery Is Not A Concern!

He states that “easy oil” is gone is “vague and irrelevant”. If you replaced the word oil with coal a majority of geologists would agree with the contention that “easy coal” is indeed gone. If it isn’t than why are we resorting to horrific, both from a health and ecological perspective, techniques such as mountain-top-removal and strip mining of thousand of Appalachian and Northern Plains hectares? The answer is that the industry is desperate and the same curse will strike Exxon, Conoco, etc. Recent advocacy for hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale is a prime indicator of such desperation and presents similar concerns for human health and our fisheries here in the Northeast.

The fuzzy logic Mr. Lynch refers to is actually his estimate that their are 2 trillion barrels of “recoverable” oil. According to who? BP and the EIA estimated 1.26 and 1.32 trillion barrels, respectively. This amounts to anywhere from 30 to 43 years of oil depending on whether we do what we did in 2008 curbing consumption by 1.1 billion barrels or we reach the commonly held projection of 43.1 billion barrels by 2030. I think it is time for another Malaise Speech. Obama….Obama….!

In reading the latest global census data one thing popped in my head: Is it possible that per capita global CO2 footprints may decline in the coming year(s)?

The answer is essentially yes and we have countries like Japan and Russia to thank. For example, Russia’s population of 140.7 million is projected to decline by 0.49% annually and when considering The Reds 10.5 tons of CO2 per capita per year it turns out Russian per capita emissions could potentially decline by 7.28 Million Metric Tons in the next year.

Additionally, Japan is expected to lose 0.10% of it’s 127.3 million people (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/business/economy/18charts.html?ref=todayspaper), which when combined with their per capita footprint of 9.8 tons of CO2 per year we see a potential net decline of 1.25 MMT annually. Furthermore, the eastern european/former Soviet Union states will experience an average net population decline of 0.68% annually resulting in a decline of 790 thousand tons of CO2 from this region in the next year. Russia’s near-abroad neighbor will lessen it’s footprint by 2.57 MMT in the next year given it’s annual population decline of 0.80%

Is this fact? Of course not but it is quite probable, because Russians and Japanese, two significant contributors to atmospheric CO2, are getting older fast and in the case of the latter incapable of staying away from their beloved national spirit. Conversely, our footprint here in the US will increase by 55.83 MMT, Canada and Mexico 5.31 each,  Argentina 1.60, Brazil, 4.24, Venezuela 2.60,  France and the UK 1.65-1.90. Interestingly BBC (Big Bad China) will increase by 32.12 MMT. However, the overwhelming good news is that our global per capita Co2 emissions will increase marginally (+0.023%) in the next year, a trend indeed deserving of attention but not plaudits. The estimates above for China may actually be conservative given that they have gone from producing 1 coal fired power plant a day to 1 per week, which itself is a 14.3% change in energy strategy. Couple this with the fact that China had originally planned to have only 5,000 megawatts (MW) of wind online by the end of next year, but now project 30,000 MW, which essentially replaces the need for forty-eight 625 MW coal plants. This 30,000 figure is 118% of the current US wind power generating fleet (25,400 MW) (reliability_factsheet1).

The cumulative affects of the aforementioned population declines will be a decrease of 12.25 MMT in Russia, Japan, and the Eastern European block. This is equivalent to 48.3% and 21.2% of Canadian and Australian emissions, respectively, or put another way would cancel the annual emissions from the state of Vermont and our nation’s capital combined. Not bad but again just a start. Now get out there and buy some vodka to wash down your nightly serving of sushi! The planet thanks you and your children will thank you as well!

Well I just finished reading a couple of disturbing articles on the drug industry in this country (ie The illegal portion!) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14kristof.html?scp=2&sq=Kristof%20marijuana&st=cse; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/12pot.html?scp=1&sq=marijuana%20prison&st=cse). It got me thinking about the age old question (at least here in Burlington and on Phish tour!!) about whether to legalize marijuana and I thought it would be good to do some quick back of the envelopes as to what else could be done with the money used to enforce the War on Marijuana!

It turns out of the 2.31 million in prison here in the US – a number 4-6 times the world average depending on state – 485,306 are in for various drug related crimes. Of those approximately 47.4% (230,036) could be estimated as Marijuana related. Before I go further it is worth noting, according the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) (2006nov_factsheet_incarceration), the “US has less than 5% of the world’s population but over 23% of the world’s incarcerated people.” Why is this notable? Well this 5:1 ratio is the same one attributed to our use of the world’s 83.4 million barrels of oil daily and it also happens to be our consumption:production of goods ratio. What is it with 5:1 and the US? According to the NCCD if the rest of the world followed our lead the global prison population would jump from 9.2 to 47.6 million people. According to Mauer (2003; inc_comparative_intl) the 3-fold increase in our prison population from 1980-1996 was largely (88%) a function of changes in sentencing policy , with changes in crime explaining on 12%. This is scary because like regressive taxation the minorities and women are paying a disproportionate toll. Blumstein and Beck (1999; http://www.jstor.org/pss/1147683) demonstrated that incarceration rose 364% for women between 1980 and 1996, 184 and 235 for African Americans and Hispanics, respectively, while male incarceration rose 195% and that of whites grew 164%. Overlay the increasing privatization of our prison system (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/12/26/us/1227_DETAIN.html) and all the negatives associated with that and you have a trend that needs immediate reversal. Otherwise we will have Wall Street’s “best and brightest” sticking their noses where they don’t belong, unless of course we were to prosecute them for the myriad offenses they have perpetrated in the past 20 years.

Anyway getting back my point if we assume it costs about $23,876 per year to house these dangerous criminals than we are spending $5.49 trillion annually to keep these vermin locked up. Now what if instead of locking up petty marijuana users and distributors we put that money towards something worthwhile…something like Oh I don’t know healthcare? Well the Medical Industrial Complex (MIC) currently accounts for 15.2% of GDP or $2.10 trillion and is projected to rise to 20.9% by 2020 an astounding $3.35 trillion right? Well actually wrong if we used this “marijuana war” money we would still conservatively have a surplus of 3.39 currently or 2.14 in 2020 to do other stuff. Like what? Well this surplus as it were would pay for about 4% of all college student transportation or book and supply costs presumably lowering student loan amounts by a similar amount. Oh yeah or we could say sayonara to China and their $1.2 trillion in foreign exchange AND their 25% ownership of our national debt. Sounds like a plan to me.

Okay so your not into protectionism, nationalism, recidivism, any other -ism, or education? That is totally cool. How about the electricity you use to turn on your lights, watch your flatscreen, or make a milkshake? Ah I see I got your attention now.

Was it the flatscreen or the milkshake?

Makes no difference if we take the surplus “marijuana war” cash and invest it in alternative energy, lets use for example wind as it is one of my favorites (I hear the cows love it as well!) we could buy outright or subsidize the purchase of 790,310 2 Mega Watt (MW) turbines, which translates to, now hold onto your hat……….. 1,580,621 MW! Alright so what does this mean in terms of capacity? Well the DOE estimates there are 330,000 MW along the Mid-Atlantic Bight, the region of coastline stretching from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Now if that doesn’t get your mouth watering more than the thought of that milkshake how bout the fact that the DOE estimates there are 900,000 MW of wind capacity nationwide, which roughly translates to $2.34 trillion in revenue annually. So, we would have about 680,621 MW worth of spare turbines to dump into the global market.

Is that such a bad thing? I think not and it would all flow from the decriminalization of a weed that gives people the munchies and causes them to have a prediliction for really long songs!

Dairy farmers are in real trouble and it isn’t the kind associated with stepping in a present left by the resident ruminants. No they will be facing serious decisions in the coming months and years, with many here in Vermont (32 since December 1 2008) already having decided to abandon business they have invested decades in. I am specifically speaking of organic dairy producers who have seen demand for their product climb from approximately 75 million pds. in 2006 to a high of 150 during the later stages of 2008 followed by a precipitous drop this year to 125 million pds. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/29dairy.html?em) Sales growth has slowed from 20% last November to near zero presently, although projections range from 6 to 12.7%. Many organic farmers owe upwards of half a million dollars from conversion to organic.

Yet, the pain is not exclusive to organic farmers what with the extremely volatile (And getting more so! (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/business/02dairy.html?sq=dairy%20california&st=cse&scp=10&pagewanted=all)) price of milk declining from a high historical high of $19.13 per cwt in 2007 to $12.06 (-36%) presently. Couple this with a steady (1952-2004) and at times marked (1945-1950) aggregate inclination to move away from milk consumption here in the US. While it is true that some of this market decline has been nullified by the doubling of dairy consumption in developing countries and China from 33 in 2002 to 63 pds per year in 2007. Although as with CO2 they pale in comparison to our 580 pound annual habit. Yet, I would ask the Chinese already own a large portion of our debt do we really want them to control our farmers as well?

SO, is it all doom and gloom you may ask? Well the answer in my humble opinion is not so fast my friend! We have only to look inward at Green Mountain Dairy Farm in Sheldon, VT. where the Rowell brothers are getting the most out of their beloved bovines (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html?scp=1&sq=methane%20vermont%20cow%20farm&st=cse). If we use their calculations and assume that 0.25 Kilowatt Hour (kWh) can be generated per dairy cow and we assume there are approximately 141,000 head in Vermont (1,498,100 in th Northeast) we would could potentially generate 35,250 kWh per day (374,525 in the Northeast) of electricty from our friendly ruminates here in Vermont. This translates to about 1,286.7 MW annually, which would provide electricity to 10% of Vermont housing units (311,434) or 12% of all households (240,634) (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html; vermont-area-sheet-us-census-2005), which no matter how you slice it is not a trivial piece of the pie (Pardon the pun!). Assuming the average price of a kWh in VT is 12.5 cents (12.1 cents in NE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html)) and a 5-6 cent premium (ie 17.5-18.5 cents) we are talking about a net income of about $2,187,263, however, if scaling up of this type of effort increases efficiency by lets say 0.15 kWh revenue increases to $3,499,620.

Better yet if we use this process as a Heat Generating mechanism, which has been proven markedly more efficient for biomass relative to fuel or electricity the numbers inflate substantially with 27-35% of homes heated, 3,602.5 MW annually and $6,124,335 in revenue.

Yet, there is more and it involves looking to France a country and mindset that in many ways mirros ours here in Vermont. Folks in southeast France ever wary of financial institutions (Yeah those!) have taken to investing in Holsteins, which bring 4-5% returns annually, while basic French banks tend to offer 0.75 interest rates (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/europe/12cows.html?scp=4&sq=france%20cow&st=cse). Yeah I know this is much less than our banks, but the fact is that investing in a neighbor’s struggling dairy or beef operation would I presume give one far more satisfaction. Currently interest rates fluctuate between 1.6 for CDs and 8.8% for home equity. According to Pierre Marguerit managing director of a cattle investment firm in France “People have saved money and don’t want to waste it. Stocks have fallen a lot, and people see it. We need somewhere to put our money for a long-term investment, something more stable. At this difficult time, it’s a much better investment than real estate and much more tangible than the stock market. This is part of the patrimony.”

However, unlike traditional Wall Street related investments the folks in France are finding volatility indices are far lower for cows relative to the latter’s “Masters of the Universe”. The data out of France suggests that such relationships free upwards of 17% of capital for investments and improvement, which in many instances were relegated to the back burner in perpetude.

The fact is that our friends and neighbors in the dairy industry here in Vermont and throughout the country need our help now and I don’t believe they have ever attempted the types of legerdemain the suits in NY, London, and Hong Kong conjured up. They deserve our respect and support during these tough times, because unlike the auto industry they can’t stop feeding and milking their cows. There is huge potential in them there cow patties and it is time to harvest it. Lets show the country and the world the softer side of capitalism!

Yellow Birch was first described in 1803 by the French botanist André Michaux. It is a third of the maple-beech-birch troika – the northern extent of the mixed mesophytic Appalachian and Allegheny forests – characterizing New England and northern Great Lakes. Its northern limit is 48-49N covering 9% (≈74 M ha) of eastern US forests and 183 M ha of Canada.

Great Lakes Colonization initiated during the late Holocene period (4,000 YBP) peaking 3,500-2,000 YBP. In the presence of hemlock both sugar maple and yellow birch are subordinate across their range. Yellow birch and sugar maple exert a strong influence on plant biodiversity, with equitable mixes of the two yielding the greatest diversity across a range of site conditions. The largest yellow birch communities are in southern Québec & Ontario, New Brunswick, upper Michigan, and New York. It is the official provincial tree of Québec where it is commonly referred to as merisier or wild cherry in French. Québec also contains 50% of the species total volume. Preferred climates include winter and summer temperatures of -40°C and 28°C, precipitation of 1,240-1,300 mm yr-1 with half as snowfall, and growing seasons of 60-150 days. Yellow birch occurs between 550-800 m in New England relative to sugar maple and beech with respective peaks of 600-650 and < 600 m, with optimum growth at 671, 549, and 549 m.

Yellow birch bark has few peers what with its shiny golden brown sheen and quite shaggy at maturity texture. The bark is quite resistant to decay so when you encounter what looks like a recently downed stem in the woods don’t be surprised if it is hollow or encasing well-decomposed material indiscernible from the forest floor upon which it lies. Conversely, leaf litter decay tends to be greatest for yellow birch, with sugar maple intermediate and beech the slowest of the forest type. Yellow birch seeds prolifically, maintaining a consistent albeit moderate seed and seedling bank in the forest floor preferring northeasterly, nutrient-deprived, mesic or moist, acid (pH < 6.3) soils of the Precambrian shield and the Spodosol or Alfisol order. Unlike its cohorts yellow birch thrives in swampy sites, along streams, rivers, on and around rock outcrops, and gentle to moderate upland slopes. Primary (>20 mm diameter) and secondary (10-20 mm) roots tend to aggregate along contours and the tree’s uphill side when growing on slopes with slight downhill sweeps. When exposed coarse roots resemble giant snakes and readily graft within- and between-trees.

Reproduction is via wind-disseminated seed and catkin bracts with sexual maturity at 35-40 years and heights of 14 m, although old-growth exceed 300 years. In New Hampshire the following dependence on advanced regeneration was described: beech > mountain maple > sugar maple and striped maple > ash and yellow birch.

Seedling success is most likely on mossy logs, advanced decay coarse woody debris (CWD) and stumps, cracks in boulders, and windthrown hummocks, because leaf litter accrual is detrimental to its survival. Specifically although anecdotally yellow birch appears to prefer red spruce logs and stumps. This pattern of stump and CWD germination along with characteristic ‘heart root’ architecture leads to unique and quite remarkable stilt roots.

These are dramatic appendages resulting from the complete decomposition of organic substrates or root expansion in and around shallow parent material. When scratched the bark of yellow birch bark yields a pleasant wintergreen smell similar to its cousin to the south sweet birch. When in the same forest seedlings/saplings of these two prove difficult for even the most skilled dendrologist to discern.

Some of the most beautiful yellow birch specimens are at the northern temperate-boreal forest ecotone’s upper boundary on Mt. Mansfield, where the characteristic bark mentioned above gives way to what can best be described as a corrugated cardboard aesthetic and feel. I have also found some amazing examples of the stilt root phenomenon along the Forest City trail ascending Camels Hump, with these trees quite photogenic. They remind one of the all knowing sylvan oracles described in children’s books. While infrequent these “Oligarchs of the Woods” strike quite the pose surrounded by gnarly beech and occasional red spruce. When beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, and white ash establish concomitantly, the latter three outgrow beech within ten years and are more prolific within two decades. The balsam fir-yellow birch grouping of eastern Québec and northern or high elevation Vermont is classified as a climax forest. Interestingly clearcutting has been blamed for the demise of yellow birch and balsam fir throughout much eastern Canada. Noticeably large, charcoal colored, perennial, and hoof-shaped conks of Fomes fomentarius, the tinder fungus, are common on birch. The fungus also has been associated with decay in living and dead branches of dieback birches. According to Erdmann

“A decline of yellow birch and paper birch trees, called birch dieback, caused widespread mortality between 1932 and 1955 in eastern Canada and northeast United States. It affected yellow birches of all sizes, even in undisturbed virgin stands.”

Yellow birch is a primary food source for yellow-bellied sapsucker, redpolls, ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, porcupines, moose, and deer. Moose and deer prefer seedlings in the summer and green leaves and woody stems in the fall, preferring succulent materials, with persistent localized herbivory a cause of significant decline. Birds tend prefer to feed on catkins, seeds, and buds.

In Vermont yellow birch readily colonizes abandoned skid trails and areas of significant canopy removal confirming yellow birch’s proclivity for soil or canopy perturbation. The bark contains betulinic acid, which hinders decay and is used to treat melanoma. Woodworkers speak of its utility for veneers, tools, snowshoe frames, and sledges and as the most valuable of the North American birches. Scattered Vermont landscapers have recently incorporated yellow birch in native plantings and last time I checked Cobble Creek Nursery in Bristol was working to propagate from seed Yellow Birch.

For more complete silvics of yellow birch and North American trees writ large the reader is referred to Burns and Honkala 1990

References

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Co., Philadelphia. 594 pp.
Dhamala, B.R., and M.J. Mitchell. 1996. Soil Disturbance and Elemental Dynamics in a Northern Hardwood Forest Soil, USA. Water Air Soil Poll. 88(3/4):343353.
Erdmann, G.G. 1990. Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton). In Burns, R.M., and B. H. Honkala (eds.) Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Dept. Agr. For. Serv. Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 p.
Fayle, D.C.F. 1965. Rooting Habit of Sugar Maple and Yellow Birch. Can. Dept. Forest Publ. No. 1120.
Gaucher, C., Gougeon, S., Mauffette, Y, and C. Messier. 2005. Seasonal variation in biomass and carbohydrate partitioning of understory sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) seedlings. Tree Phys. 25:93-100.
Habiyaremye, I., Stevanovic-Janezic, T., Riedl, B., Garneau, F-X., and F-I. Jean. 2002. Pentacyclic Triterpene Constituents of Yellow Birch Bark From Quebec. J. Wood Chem. Tech. 22(2 & 3):83-91.
Hannah, P.R. 1999. Species Composition and Dynamics in Two Hardwood Stands in Vermont: A Disturbance History. For. Eco. Mgmt. 120:105-116.
Hannah, P.R. 1972. Yellow Birch Root Occupancy Related to Stump and Breast Height Diameters. Vt. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 669. 9 p.
Houle, G. 1992. The Reproductive Ecology of Abies balsamea, Acer saccharum, and Betula alleghaniensis in the Tantaré Ecological Reserve, Québec. J. Eco. 80(4):611-623.
Hoyle, M.C. 1970. Growth and Nutrition of Yellow Birch as Affected by the Nutrient Status of a Podzol Soil. No. Am. For. Soils Conf. Forest-Soil Relat. No. Am. Pap. 1968 pp. 221-233.
Hoyle, M.C. 1969. Response of Yellow Birch in Acid Subsoil to Macronutrient Additions. Soil Sci. 108(5):354-357.
Hoyle, M.C. 1969. Variation in Content of Microelements in Yellow Birch Foliage Due to Season and Soil Drainage. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 33(3):458-459.
Hoyle, M.C. 1965. Variation in Foliage Composition and Diameter Growth of Yellow Birch with Season, Soil, and Tree Size. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:475-480.
Hoyle, M.C., and J.C. Bjorkbom. 1969. Birch Nutrition. In Proceedings, Birch Symposium. p. 95-101. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, P
Jackson, S.T., and R.K. Booth. 2002. The Role of Late Holocene Climate Variability in the Expansion of Yellow Birch in the Western Great Lakes Region. Divers. Distrib. 8(5):275-284.
Linteau, A. 1948. Factors Affecting Germination and Early Survival of Yellow Birch (Betula lutea Michx.) in Quebec. For. Chron. 24:27-86.
Logan, K.T. 1965. Growth of Tree Seedlings as Affected by Light Density. I. White Birch, Yellow Birch, Sugar Maple and Silver Maple. Dept. For. Can. Pub. No. 1121.
Oosting, H.J. 1956. The Study of Plant Communities. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 440 pp.
Oosting, H,J., and W.D. Billings. 1951. A Comparison of Virgin Spruce-Fir Forest in the Northern and Southern Appalachian System. Ecology. 32(1):84-103.
Pelletier, B., Fyles, J.W., and P. Dutilleul. 1999. Tree Species Control and Spatial Structure of Forest Floor Properties in Mixed-Species Stand. Ecoscience. 6(1):79-91.
Redmond, D.R. 1957. Observations on Rootlet Development in Yellow Birch. For. Chron. 33:208-212.
Tyrrell, L.E., and T.R. Crow. 1994. Dynamics of Dead Wood in Old-Growth Hemlock-Hardwood Forests of Northern Wisconsin and Northern Michigan. Can. J. For. Res. 24(8):1672-1683.
Zarnovican, R. 2000. Climate and Volume Growth of Young Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) at Three Sites in the Sugar Maple-Yellow Birch Forest Region of Québec. Ecoscience. 7(2):222-227.

Dear People,

We love you very much and are proud of all of your accomplishments and amazing ability to empathize, care for, entertain, and defend each other in good times and bad. We both knew that when you came on the scene things would never be the same, but we also knew that there was a latent danger in imbuing you with a myriad of wonderful physical and mental attributes. Our worry was that you would not be able to contain yourselves and that in doing the aforementioned you would forget that as stewards you are required to do the same – sans the entertaining part – for this awe inspiring planet you have been given. Intelligence is a gift and a curse! It is obvious that you are not currently hearing our cries of anger and sadness. We are not eager to inflict wounds to our skin and the organisms that subsist on our bounty just so you get the picture, but will do so if it is the only way. We are left to wonder when you will realize that tapping every one of our veins for your fossil fuel needs without paying anything forward is neither sustainable nor respectful of those with whom you share this planet. We are writing this letter on behalf of all those in our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that can’t speak for themselves nor can they defend themselves when you really want something! This is also an effort to appeal to your parental sense and sensibility, because passing the baton on these issues is no longer feasible as you’re children’s investment in this effort to reverse our deleterious trajectory will be nullified if you don’t act immediately with purpose and altruism. Stop couching everything in terms of national security and gross domestic product. At this point we want you to internalize Carrying Capacity Vs. Exponential Growth, which in case you aren’t familiar with how they look graphically are two diametric concepts/forces. In good conscience we can only allow a certain number of you to live off this planet’s resources and beyond that carnage the likes of which we have never forced you to deal with will be the norm not the exception. Additionally, we ask that you aim to live simply so that others may simply live.

Our love and concern for your well-being is strong but when we gave you dominion over this planet we knew that someday we would have to shower you with some “tough love”. So, it is with much regret that we lay out how things will be from now on if you don’t decide change your role on this planet from one of fiefdom to that of cooperative participant in ensuring long-term health and happiness of all species great and small. We will no longer be able to feed you in a timely fashion and at all in some areas of the world. It will no longer be able to separate those of you that care from those that don’t and all will feel the wrath of our disappointment. Drought will be unpredictable, storm intensity and frequency will not adhere to any empirical norm, and we will leave you by the side of the road when you do indeed tap all of our lifeblood. These conditions will lead to upheaval on a scale not yet seen anywhere. Our cries have not been acknowledged and consequently yours will as well when you begin to choke on your gluttony. Why so harsh you may ask? We can only respond my noting that our please have been consistent and in a variety of forms, with some more subtle than others, but all meant to get you to listen. We ask what is it that was done to you that you have such contempt for your neighbors even those most like you the gorillas and chimpanzees that many of you feel need to be erased so as to not remind us of where we came from and others still look at those that do as apostate. You talk so often about wanting to go to heaven and not hell, well what about the here and now? What is so bad about this planet that you feel the continued need to bend it to your collective will? The non-human inhabitants of this planet can’t fight back against your guns and fishing trawlers and fences and sprawl. However we can and we will retaliate, because at the end of the day you can’t shoot down or bomb into submission a hurricane, snow storm, drought, or pandemic. So, we just want you to know while we are your biggest fans we can also very easily and with not much more provocation become your worst enemies.

Sincerely.

Mother Nature & Father Time

In deciding quite forcefully that she would close the Waterbury environmental laboratory, the Department of Environmental Conservation’s commissioner Laura Pelosi demonstrated that her concern for both the environment and conservation runs only skin deep. This type of move is indicative a philosophy first forwarded by William Kristol and Karl Rove, which is to say when the chips are down, pick on the defenseless or eliminate them entirely. Privatization of the science underlying efforts to monitor our lakes, rivers and streams is analogous to moves by the Bush administration to privatize the military in its entirety for the profit of a select few. That worked and continues to work really well, doesn’t it?

Well, don’t be under any illusions that Ms. Pelosi’s and, by extension, Douglas’ vision will do any better. We must be very careful when we entrust the private sector to interpret and present us with data. This type of effort borders dangerously on Andrew Jackson’s “spoils system” in which cronyism is openly embraced and deemed the best option. As you would probably imagine, the health of our natural resources is not something that exactly dovetails with the bottom-line concerns of private industry, no matter how altruistic they may pretend to be.

Won’t everyone have to make sacrifices in the immediate future to stem the tide of this recession? Of course, and no one is saying otherwise, including those at the DEC who suggested Ms. Pelosi trim employee hours or, heaven forbid, really try to get creative about this problem. Here’s the rub. We have a lake that we share with New York and Quebec that teeters every summer on becoming eutrophic due to urban and agricultural runoff. Algal blooms have been low in the last two years, but there is no reason to believe that we can count on this trend to continue, and if Ms. Pelosi gets her way we won’t have any data to prove or disprove the myriad hypotheses floating around Vermont, New York and Quebec. What about those icy days when large trucks slip and slide only to overturn their load in some unsuspecting wetland? What will we do then? Send samples off to where? The fact is that Ms. Pelosi wants to close shop on the environmental laboratory now only to reopen a similar incarnation in five to six years when the economy miraculously springs back to life! However, in doing her calculations I would imagine Ms. Pelosi, et. al., didn’t take into account the money that will be needed to train new technicians, equipment, etc. This would not be, in the popular vernacular of the present, a “shovel-ready” project. So, why take that shovel and throw dirt on an already existing and invaluable resource?

The University of Vermont recently outsourced much of its soil testing laboratory and, given our status as an agricultural state, such actions along with the one proposed by Ms. Pelosi reflect poorly on us as a state and Gov. Douglas’ completely apathetic and disillusioned administration. This is an example of Montpelier neither leading nor following; rather, they and Mr. Douglas specifically are all too comfortable to get in the way of progress, and now, it turns out, science. I say bring on vox populi! Bring on Anthony Pollina ASAP!

There is a bipartisan notion perpetuated by industry and many politicians – specifically those so utterly disconnected from their home states/districts true needs – that natural resource exploitation and large agricultural infrastructure is the key to job creation. Just a little hint before moving further if you hear this rhetoric spewing from a politician’s mouth inquire as to their primary donors. Anyway this is one of the biggest if not the biggest lies being sold the American public today and the data buttresses my argument quite robustly. Here it is in black and white when production increases whether it be in the coalmines of West Virginia or cornfields of Iowa what happens is a massive shift towards mechanization, with larger and larger combines or draglines, or Komatsu front-loaders.

The latter able to move tons of earth or overburden allowing relatively uninhibited access to the coal seam, which by the way are increasingly smaller and smaller requiring less laborious methods or more dangerous exploration of deeper seams. This is evidenced in the exponential growth in surface mining throughout the US a method that requires markedly less labor then its underground alternative. Thus, if you look at the debate in simple output:input ratio terms, with # employed as the input, you will see an inverse relationship developing quite rapidly in recent times, which is to say that large multi-nationals like Massey Energy were extracting 5,087,150.3 short tons per thousand works in 1985 and managed to nearly triple this ratio (~290.2%) to 14,762,463.5 short tons per thousand works. Keep in mind the fact that total coal extraction in the US has only increased by 129.6% since 1985.

How you ask would one go about counteracting this 160% profit disparity? Well you can start by purchasing larger and large equipment, vast swaths of land, breaking the systemic will of the UMW of America, and insuring that crimes against labor like the recent tragedies in Utah and West Virginia go virtually unpunished. If you own the hearts and minds of people like the governor of West Virginia, Senators Byrd and Rockefeller and McConnell, and the supreme courts of many coal producing states you don’t need carrots and frankly you don’t really have much need for sticks either.
If you buy that the above ratio is a valid measure of workplace efficiency and by association a primary driver behind the decline in jobs related to natural resource exploitation and agricultural production then let’s apply it to the farm sector specifically corn to see if it still holds up. The answer is as you could probably guess by my tone is that it does indeed and is slightly more robust in this instance. It turns out that if you look at data associated with corn production in the US at five year intervals since 1910 you will see that that the total number of farms and workers are currently 66.1 and 78.2% of what they were at the turn of the century, while production and output:input have increased by 347.6 and 1,595.4%, respectively.

This suggests that one of two things is occurring, either we are getting better at how we manage our agricultural lands vis à vis chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc and crop-rotation or our current farmers are on steroids, which I am not ruling out but would hope is not the case.
This is a marked increase in “efficiency” by any standard begging the question: Why not get more from less? The answer is of course that there is no surficially viable reason, but more to the point portending that more coal mining brings more jobs when you know the exact opposite to be true is quite the bait and switch wouldn’t you say?
It is true that neither underground nor surface mining is great but it is underground mining, while extremely dangerous and liable to create vast stability problems down the road, that has traditionally been the engine employing much of Appalachia. This method imbued a greater sense of community and unification that was/is anathema to the coal companies and their strike breakers so vividly depicted in “Harlan County KY”. Much of the debate around “clean coal”, which if you ask anyone from Appalachia is a complete whitewashing, centers around jobs as does the research and production of biofuels and it is true that if done right these industries do create jobs. The fact is that since 1949 when much of the high grade anthracite-type coal was still available surface-mining accounted for 25.3% of all mined coal in the US whereas today it accounts for nearly 70% or 794,263,579 short tons. Furthermore, anthracite coal extraction has declined from 8.9 to 0.14% of all coal extracted in the US during the same period, with a parallel decline in jobs from a high 1,737,000 miners in 1985 to 776,000 in 2007.
So, what we have are two lies being pushed down the throats of Appalachia and America writ large: 1) exploitation of our mountains and arable lands is a perpetual large-scale benefit to the job market and 2) that clean coal and biofuels will benefit the environment, Appalachia, and industry. According to Judy Bond of Coal River Mountain Watch “Even if you could get rose petals to come out of the smokestacks, coal is filthy and will never be clean as long as mountains and communities are blasted and streams and communities are poisoned…The entire cycle of coal must be examined. We in Appalachia are blasted by over 3 1/2 million pounds of explosives daily and are similar to a “banana republic”. The coal industry is allowed to simply kill us slowly with toxic waste.” So, in plain English folks the only ones benefitting are John D. Rockefeller, WV Supreme Court Justice Brent D. Benjamin, and the pious head of Massey Energy Corporation Don L. Blankenship.