DrumBeat: September 1, 2006

[Update by Leanan on 09/01/06 at 9:16 AM EDT]

United States faces bigger worries than ‘hot’ fuel

We’ve all heard the term “peak oil” but “net exports” are an even graver oil market fundamental. Current statistics (not projections) indicate global oil exports are falling three to four times faster than oil production, which is down 1.3 percent since the start of the year.

Preparing for a Crash: Nuts and Bolts

This essay is intended to address the serious “peaknik,” that is to say a person who accepts as axiomatic that Peak Oil will occur and that the consequences will be devastating for most of the world’s Homo sapiens sapiens. As one of these people, I am often frustrated by the lack of practical suggestions for what to do to survive the Peak and the Crash.


Nigerian Oil Workers Declare 'Warning Strike'

Nigerian oil unions have declared a three-day 'warning strike' to protest worsening violence and kidnapping of workers in the Niger Delta. The unions are demanding steps to improve the situation or they may withdraw their members from the region, indefinitely.


Eni declares force majeure on Nigeria oil field

Italy's Eni declared a force majeure on 50,000 barrels of crude lost at its Brass River oil field in Nigeria after a sabatoage attack late last month damaged its pipelines, a company official said on Friday.


The Curse of Natural Resources

Many countries with enormous reserves of oil, gas or precious metals, are plagued with disproportionate poverty, corruption and mismanagement. Would the people in Nigeria, Congo or Russia be better off without their natural gifts?


Wind Power Flounders in Japan

Unlike Germany, the world's largest wind-power generator, Japan lacks the national grid needed to iron out supply fluctuations from wind projects.


Gulf Oil Discovery Lifts Hopes for New Geological Play

A deepwater discovery reported Thursday underscores the growing importance of a geological formation in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that's only recently become accessible to crude oil and natural gas producers.


Silicon deal amid scarcity

'Probably the demand (from solar companies) is twice the current supply,' he said.

This imbalance makes prices high, and is part of the reason photovoltaic solar energy, which converts sunlight into electricity by chemical reaction, must be heavily subsidized to compete with the price of electricity from fossil fuels.


Solar power may soon bring the Web to remote areas

Someone sent me this story today:

The wrong road to fuels of the future

Not sure if it has been discussed (I can barely keep up with what day it is lately), but here is an excerpt:

Socialism failed because the governments that embraced it couldn't solve the basic problem of economics: what to produce and how much. In the old Soviet bloc, warehouses filled up with things people wouldn't buy while consumers stood in long lines in the hope of getting what they wanted. Thanks to that experience, we're smarter than to think the government is better at judging what to sell than, say, Toyota or Target.
(I can barely keep up with what day it is lately)

I know the feeling. There is so much reading from the previous day's drumbeat alone when I come in the office in the morning that my work gets sloppy. Nothing like "pulling up a chair, grabbing a cold one, and watch".

BTW, there was an article on the energybulletin the other day arguing that the Soviet Union dissolved because of PO. That is a totally different argument then what you quote. And I have read many other reasons too.  

Well Robert, I have to agree with the guy.  If the technology still needed to be developped or could be improved, it would be fine to have gov subsides.

But when you think of actually building the whole infrastructure, I dont think it's worth it.

But anyway, us (like in very well educated us) know that it's not the solution.  For the layman, I think they feel it is.  So this Idea will keep up until 2 things happen :

  1. Gov subsides shrink to none (companies goes bankrupt)
  2. Oil go on rising and shortage in diesel makes growing stuff more of a challenge.

If you take a look at the last ethanol discussion we had here (boy it was an hard discussion) common sense won't restrain people from believing in anything.  
If you take a look at the last ethanol discussion we had here (boy it was an hard discussion) common sense won't restrain people from believing in anything.

I have to admit that I was surprised at how confused people got over this issue. A small percentage didn't seem to get it, no matter how many different ways we tried to explain it. But Michael Wang did ultimately write back to me and agree with my premise. I am trying to decide whether to post one more essay on our last exchange. It is a matter of me explaining why it is important that we get it right - the consequence of failure will be huge in a Peak Oil world. In his response, he agreed that I am correct about the efficiency argument, but says we have to look at other things. I told him that I agree that this is not the full sum of the debate; I was just addressing 1 false claim that is often repeated.

But, my next essay is going to be a guest essay from a very well-connected (politically) person who is supporting California's Prop 87. It is essentially a rebuttal to some Prop 87 essays that I wrote. I think it should generate some interesting discussion, especially from people who are sick of hearing about ethanol. I have the essay, but I will probably wait until early next week to post it.

I suspect Khosla's interest in discussing things with you was mostly over Prop 87.  It's surprisingly easy to derail ballot initiatives sometimes, and some people have some significant interests in seeing that proposal succeed.  Khosla could have been simply attempting to know his enemy and size you up for your ability to sow the seeds of doubt about his chosen "trajectory."  

If organized opponents of Prop 87 could find someone extremely knowledgable about the problems with ethanol and highly credible, it might help them stop  the proposal.  If you do get involved, you may find yourself the subject of a smear campaign.  At least, they will paint you as the stooge of the oil industry.  You no doubt know this.  Good luck, and watch your back.

There was a write up in the Providence Journal by one Maurice Webb (rocket scientist/combustion specialist) who argues that the higher density of gasoline vs. ethanol effects ultimate performance comparisons of the fuels as the fuel-to-air ratio for complete combustion of gasoline is higher than that of ethanol.  

To my understanding, this means that more btus are needed for max. temp and optimum combustion thus efficiency of gasoline as a motor fuel then ethanol.

And if that's the case, could engines not be specifically designed to run on E100 thus overcoming a large portion of the BTU deficiencies you oft mention?

AFAIK, there are just two design parameters that need to change to go from gasoline to E100:
  1. the fuel-air ratio;
  2. elimination of any plastic/rubber components from the fuel system that may be attacked by E100.

The second issue is obviously the more difficult design change. A modern engine can probably change its fuel/air ratio with a simple parametric tweak to its software.

Also have to deal with vaporization or atomization issues of ethanol at cold temps, the fuel must be preheated a bit, just like in an alcohol stove. Im sure fuel injection helps a great deal with this, but for small motors injection isnt always practical. IIRC the change in fuel-air ratio is big enough that your average run of the mill production car fuel system might not quite be able to have enough volume to be ok with just a software change, depends on how much "headroom" the engineers left in the system.
AFAIK, there are just two design parameters that need to change to go from gasoline to E100:

I think the most important is the compression ratio. Increasing the compression ratio has been shown to improve gas mileage of E85 vehicles. Instead of a 25% drop in fuel efficiency, they only have a 15% or so drop.

25% and 15% per gallon though.  What should we look at it we want to judge ethanol vs gasoline as a automotive fuel ... miles per Calorie or BTU?

I'd think we'd want to know the conversion efficiency from chemcial potential energy to practical kinetic energy.

Robert,
What's the story with Cilion?  San Jose Merc News (Business section) today says they can be profitable with corn based ethanol production even if oil drops to $40/barrel. Have you covered Cilion before?
Is it a matter of markets or is it a matter of "knowing" and knowing well?

Everyone looks to France beacuse it has almost 80% of its electricity coming from nukes, as a result of strategic public policies.

I'll bet that the Danish government is behind their wind power development.

The "solution" presented by Steve Chapman is pure government planning, of the same kind he's rejecting. [ironic]How does the government know that fossil fuel are bad? The market are asking for more, how is it that taxes are needed to foster alternative energies? Let the market decide how and when and leave it to its own. [/ironic]

And how is it that USA has become the biggest energy consumer in the world? How come those wasteful SUVs in the first place? Maybe through the "market". People want SUVs let them have them!

So what's the answer? IMHO markets AND governments. Maybe through taxes on fossil fuels, maybe through direct investing (as France did with nuclear energy).

Best

Fernando

I'll bet that the Danish government is behind their wind power development.

You might lose that bet !

Only indirectly is the Danish Gov't behind their remarkable wind industry.

  1. The Danish Gov't published a survey of in-service performance for various wind turbines.  This brought more orders to the good models; and bankruptcy to the poor performers.

  2. They enacted a carbon tax.  An indirect wind subsidy.

  3. They made it easy (via laws) for a co-op of farmers or city-dwellers + a farmer to buy & operate wind turbines.  At one time, almost half of the WTs were owned by these co-ops.

  4. The national grid was encouraged to take wind power, even when additional lines were required.

Denmark did NOT spend massive amounts on R&D, or have gov't owned WTs.  Rather they provided fertile ground for the industry to grow.  Quite different from France.
Ok. At least I didn't state that as a fact!

But, part of the argument still holds. How does the Danish government know that "Wind is better". Why is it "distorting" market signals to provide "fertile ground"? The Danish government HAS diverted resources from some part of their economy to another place, probably a different one the market would have chosen.

How is subsidizing wind energy different from subsidizing corn ethanol?

"How is subsidizing wind energy different from subsidizing corn ethanol?"

What the government (the public) should subsidize in our society is a pretty fundamental expression of our values I suppose.  We should ask this question honestly in a broader sense.

We seem to value mobility, in fact we have become dependent on being mobile in order to survive - in this way we are like the nomadic people, except that we return to the same bed every night.  Is it possible that we will every come back to seeing the value in living in place, without he need for so much mobility?  If that happened, I think then the questions over what the public should subsidize would change quite a bit.  

"We seem to value mobility, in fact we have become dependent on being mobile in order to survive - "

Are we dependent on independence?  What a conundrum!

  ('Conundrum' - this could be Canada's Oil Drum!)

As far as valuing mobility.  I don't really dispute that, but it makes me think about how much we seem to strive for 'safe isolation' .. gated communities, soundproof cars, personal entertainment systems, ..  there is a lot of great comradery in our culture, too, but I think of the millions of people sitting together or apart, and all watching TV.  When I was a little kid, I wasn't allowed to watch TV until my folks realized it was all the other kids in the carpool were talking about, and my brother and I were miserable outsiders..

I would change the title to 'Canundrum'.
Guess I didn't see an answer to this one..

Well for the direct answer, subsidizing Wind, I contend, is one, wise direction to move our energy resources towards.  There is a great return, simple proven technology, and the  likelihood of a long future for this abundant resource, without serious downsides like soil depletion, increased water dependency and need for signifigant inputs like NG or Oil to produce it.

From another side, many see the benefits of wind without the helping hand of a gov't grant, so it could be it'll move forward fine without it.. that is, unless it needs it just to Compete with other subsidies like Corn, Ethanol, life-supports for GM and Exxon and the Contras..  See how Amtrak's subsidy could hardly be expected to armwrestle with The Auto Industry's favors, sweetheart deals in Saudi, the Highway system and the Airports..

Who's grant buried Grant in Grant's tomb?

Bob Fiske

How is subsidizing wind energy different from subsidizing corn ethanol?

Apart from point 4 (The national grid was encouraged to take wind power, even when additional lines were required.) this doesn't look like a subsidy, rather, facilitation of the "market rules" (point 1), removing red tape (point 3) and having a general incentive to carbon free energy (point 2) NOT specifically wind.
And this last may even have covered the costs of point 4 at least in part.
While subsidizing corn ethanol means gobs of money, even more so for subsidizing nuclear.

Forgot that:

probably a different one the market would have chosen

Does this means you assume that "the market" choose wisely?
The market actually "choose" SUVs!

How is subsidizing wind energy different from subsidizing corn ethanol?

In my opinion the important choice is not what alt-energy you fund, but: do you fund just research, or also production?

I'd say fund a broad array of research, but stay out of production funding.  That messes up the market and prevents us from knowing what is working.

That messes up the market and prevents us from knowing what is working.

"The Market", as you refer to this construct anthromorphicly, is composed of advertisers (aka persuaders, mind manipulators). They are the ones who "mess" with our minds and thus determine what "works" in the market place (albeit to a limited extent) and what doesn't. Ultimately, the things that "work" are those that pander to the irrational, child like desires of the masses.

Do I have a solution?
Sorry, no.
That is why I revisit TOD so often.
I keep hoping some of the way smarter people here will offer insights.

"The market" contains all that and more.

But ah, you got an alternative other than central planning?

Distributed divine guidance.  :-)
Extra credit: has central planning ever spanned more than a few years without sprouting its own crony network?
A gov. doesn't have to spend massive monies on R&D to be behind something. Nuclear power required gov intervention because of the nature of the power source--dual use for WMD when enriched enough--and the fact that the economics were never right--still aren't--from a "market" perspective.

Did the "free market" build our road network? I always found the case of Thomas Paine Bridge Designer, not revolutionist writer, to be very instructive.

In 1979, Denmark implemented a subsidy equal to 30% of wind turbine investment costs. This spurred much investment and led to the initial deployment of 200-300 machines a year. These subsidies were phased out for wind power in 1989, after they helped increase the reliability and decrease the price of turbines. Until 1999, the government provided direct grants for each kWh turbine owners sold to the grid. Now Denmark has about 15 subsidy programs for both energy production and consumption. The largest subsidy is a production subsidy per kWh for electricity generated from renewable energy resources. The majority of the subsidy schemes "are directed primarily at converting central and electric heating systems to district heathing and to expanding and renovating the existing district heating network" (Renewable Energy Policy Project)

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/policy/renewableenergy/subsidies/wind/denmark/index.shtml

Unfortunately I could not find a source for the exact amounts envolved but I could guess they are in the billions.

Another interesting article:

http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.

And another one:

http://www.countryguardian.net/denmark.htm

More specifically, Krogsgaard (2001a) claims that Danish electricity consumers annually pay more than DKK 10 billion (including VAT) in excess of what they would if the country only operated its central power stations, said to be amongst the most modern and least polluting in the world. Other estimates put the annual total Danish climate input cost at DKK 15 billion (From, 2001e). About DKK 2.5 billion of subsidies is paid to private owners of turbines (excluding VAT); and a further very large subsidy is paid to combined heat and power (CHP) plants, many of which (e.g. open field plants) are facing serious economical problems.

If Germany gave the benefits to the consumer via market rates (letting people buy power really cheap when the wind farms were cranking), that "problem" might have solved itself.

However, market mechanisms and Social Democrats don't mix.

What you are talking about is pie in the sky. First there is no infrastructure for demand management anywhere in the world; Second I don't see why do you think that the power will be "really cheap while turbines are cranking". The biggest costs for wind turbines are the fixed costs for construction and maintainance; if utilities are selling (probably much) cheaper if wind is in surplus they will be doing that at loss. Afterwards they will incurr another loss importing electricity when wind is not enough and overall they will still have to raise their base rates to cover these expenses. There is no such thing as free lunch, anywhere.
First there is no infrastructure for demand management anywhere in the world
Then what do you call all the programs to e.g. allow utilities to switch off water heaters and air conditioners at times of peak demand?  I got a leaflet about this in my electric bill last month.
Second I don't see why do you think that the power will be "really cheap while turbines are cranking".
Basic supply and demand.  It's the same reason that wee-hours off-peak rates are low and afternoon rates are high.
if utilities are selling (probably much) cheaper if wind is in surplus they will be doing that at loss.
Whereas the current situation is that utilities are selling off very expensive peak power at a loss, and subsidizing it with far higher-than-cost rates on cheap off-peak power, wind power, etc.

If you want people to invest in the infrastructure required to shift demand to periods of surplus (wee-hours or high winds, either way) you have to make it pay for them to do so.

I am not an engineer but always wondered if a super-conducting coil could store the wind generated electicity?
My understanding is that at absolute zero, there's effectively little loss, and the power could be stored indefinitely until needed.  This would seem to answer the problem of the erratic nature of wind power generation.

Flavius Aetius

The temperature maintenance is a problem.
You are correct about the superconductors, strictly speaking, the energy would be stored in the creation of the magnetic field around the coils.

My guess is that this would be work out to be a very expensive way of storing energy.

This is always the problem with energy, there are no lack of clever ideas for storing energy or converting it from one form to another. However, unlike manufactured goods which gain value by having more work done on them energy loses value the more you do to it. This is what makes oil such a miracle fuel. It is has extremely high energy density, it takes very little effort to get it (most of the time), you can carry it and store it in a bucket and you get the energy out by putting a match to it.

Other ideas for storing energy are pumping water uphill to a higher level reservoir  and then running that water downhill through a turbine to retrieve the energy. High tech fly wheels can store energy. Splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen so that they can be recombined later in a fuel cell is another. There is also talk of solar power generators in which a large collection of mirrors focus sunlight on an absorber which becomes very hot. This heat is transferred to a pool of molten salt. This pool of salt is used to heat a fluid to drive a turbine and generate electricity. This way the periodic inputs of solar power are converted to electricity available on demand.

I was hoping someone else would chime in on your post. You did a very good job of introducing the lay reader to the basics of energy storage.

We can take it one step further by lisiting the storage techniques more abstractly as:

  1. Static potential energy (i.e. water behind a dam)
  2. Kinetic energy (i.e. a flywheel)
  3. Chemical energy (i.e. combustible hydrocarbons)
  4. Thermal energy (i.e. molten salt)
  5. Radioactive decay energy (i.e. U238)

Anyone out there who can think of other generalized forms of energy storage?


Click on picture for article on magnetic superconducting storage

For more on energy storage concepts, try here:

This is a good discussion. Storage solutions are extremely important. We just need to find a cost effective solution, and then get a venture capitalist to fund it. :-)
I should have also included a link to this discussion on PO and its relation to a need for storage subsystems:
Kinetic energy via prayer wheels, just to hedge our bets.
aweo.org obviously is one of these private-run windpower-basher sites that spreads all that FUD (such as those alleged thousands of dead bats under just one turbine - a canard) devised by the hired guns of the heartland institute and the like.
And what do you think you are achieving with ad hominem attacks? Try to confront their main arguments.
FUD is no arguments.

And which "homo" did I attack?

Country Guardian is a rabidly anti-wind site (they want to "protect" scenic country vistas in England from the descrerations of wind turbines).  They earlier posted some bird kill stats that were simple false.  Having caught them once in a self serving lie; I do not bother reading any new claims of theirs.  A "zero crediability" source IMO.
http://www.energybulletin.net/18290.html
and
http://www.energybulletin.net/18286.html

provides with a lot of interesting background about this

the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites.

I've asked Georg Nehls from the german Bioconsult-SH about this. The company serves for environmental expertise in the coastal environment.
Dr. Nehls told me that the danish wind parks are being installed as scheduled, however he spoke of two, not three.
He supposed the information about cancelling those wind parks was probably "old".
His company did not furnish an opinion about the danish wind parks, btw ..

So- the 'information' on aweo.org seems to be old, at best ..

I'll bet that the Danish government is behind their wind power development.

Good bet.  Here's an article about it:

On a tiny island off the Danish coast, life after oil is working out just fine

It seems obvious to me that flexibility is more important than ideology.  The Soviet Union was too inflexible.  

The U.S., OTOH, incorporated socialist elements when necessary.  

Bingo!  It will take a combination of markets and governments.  As I've argued several times over on my site, the optimal mix is to have governments push strategies (higher vehicle efficiency, cleaner alternatives) and let the market work out the tactics (technology X is better than technology Y).

In some rare cases, like solar or wind power, I think the answer is clear (more is better), so government should use technology-specific subsidies to promote growth of those sources.  But in most other cases, like vehicle efficiency, the government should avoid "picking winners"; instead they should increase CAFE standards and offer tax breaks based purely on a vehicle's MPG, and let the car companies and consumers figure out how best to get those lower numbers.

In short, the people can use public policy to guide and accelerate the market changes we want.

Yes!!! A good example of this would be...

  1. The government sets a mileage standard: 40 mpg.

  2. The market figures out how to get there.

Where we continually bollix it up is when we legislate 40 mpg:

except for this model, units built on Tuesdays, all cars in Alaska, or by those who gave money to "X's" PAC.

This shouldn't be hard to accomplish. It requires only a modest amount of integrity to enact a fair standard, which reflects the broad social direction, and is applied without exception across all sellers and purchasers.

Why can't we do this???

In large part because we're afraid of killing domestic car companies, whose only defense against foreign and non-union labor is their structural cost advantage in light trucks.

The straightforward answer (though not exactly easy) is to find other ways to help the car companies, like subsidizing their health care costs, or taking over their pensioners.  In the long run this would be much cheaper, and much better for the car companies, who are gradually losing their light truck market due to gas prices.

"we're afraid of killing domestic car companies"

We're afraid because it's the last thing actually "made" in America and even that is really not true anymore (parts from Mexico, China, Japan; assembled in Mexico; etc.)

We lose the US Auto companies and what else does the world want to import from us...perhaps mercenary services and military weaponry...we seem to excel at that.

"We're affraid of killing the car companies".
they have had ample DECADES to come up with something...you can only protect so much..look at all the other manufacturing that has left the US.  they have been plying thier protectionist political trade for years.
I feel sorry for the rank and file as they are getting the shorter end of the stick, though thier union wages are killing the price competitive part.  
We could probably get a pretty fast concensus here at TOD to apply guzzler fines to all light vechicles which score below some boundry MPG, thus killing Detroit.

But we aren't Amercia, are we?

Yes, though I think it would be fair to do something to help the car companies.

For instance, Japanese companies don't have to pay for health insurance in Japan, for current workers or retirees.  Whether that's Japanese corporate welfare, or bad US public policy, it's not a level playing field.

I believe that there are some other such differences.

The way I've heard it told, Detroit in the 70's complained about the uneven playing field, and that only if the Japanese had to build cars here things would be different.  Now, unfortunately, the Japanese are building cars here and beating Detroit on (almost) the same turf.

Now the difference is the classic newcomer (with lower pension obligations) advanatage, as well as more favorable labor deals.

I epxect that the "Japanese" will continue to expand their build in America system, but will be forever unable to acquire American companies because they have the union/pension obligations.  If Detroit can't negotiate itself down to the same deal Japan has in American plants, I don't see much hope.

For instance, Japanese companies don't have to pay for health insurance in Japan, for current workers or retirees.

Japanese companies most certainly do pay for their employees' health insurance--not for all of it, mind you, but they do make a not insignificant contribution. Is this less than GM pays on average per employee? Surely, yes. But they do pay.

Employee Health Insurance covers people who are working for medium to large companies; national or local government; or private schools. There is also a government-managed program within this plan for employees of small businesses. Premiums are based on monthly salary (excluding bonuses) and half is paid by the employer, half by the employee. The average contribution is around 4% of the person's salary. Those covered under Employee Health Insurance pay 20% of their medical costs when hospitalized and 30% of the costs for out-patient care.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/Japan.pdf
So, there is a 4% contribution, which is shared 50% with the employee?

So this 2% contribution is essentially identical to the 1.45% Medicare contribution made by US companies?

So beyond this healthcare insurance premiums have no counterpart in Japan?

I'd say that qualifies as a non-level playing field.

Also, do Japanese companies pay the equivalent of Social Security taxes of 7.45% (not including employee contribution)?

Overall my impression is that Japanese companies are subject to a heavier tax burden than their American counterparts, but I don't have any hard data to back that up. They are responsible for pension payments, national corporate income tax, prefectural and other local taxes, and property taxes. I believe the U.S. is generally considered more business-friendly in terms of tax policy, but again, I don't have any links to support that at hand.

I'd say that qualifies as a non-level playing field.

You sound like you're complaining about a somewhat socialist government (Japan) providing unfair support for its businesses... But who said that the world is a level playing field, or that life is fair? The idea that people and companies should start out from a position of equality (that they should receive according to their needs!) is a socialist/Marxist one.

And in any case, are you seriously arguing that American corporations, operating comfortably from their resource-rich base in the most powerful and economically advanced country in the world, propsering in one of the most favorable regulatory environments in all of American history, are suffering from structural disadvantages that undermine their international competitiveness?

"Overall my impression is that Japanese companies are subject to a heavier tax burden than their American counterparts"

Interesting.  My impression was the Japanese companies had a more favorable regulatory/tax environment than American companies, but I don't have data either.  It will be interesting to be on the lookout for evidence either way.

"You sound like you're complaining about a somewhat socialist government (Japan) providing unfair support for its businesses... But who said that the world is a level playing field, or that life is fair?"

I'm arguing from the point of view of economic efficiency, and good public policy.  It's not
efficient for companies to lay people off in one country, and transfer capital to another to hire there, when the only difference is arbitrary regulatory preferences.  It's also mighty painful for the people who lose their jobs.

"The idea that people and companies should start out from a position of equality (that they should receive according to their needs!) is a socialist/Marxist one. "

No, it's just a sensible position.  As I discussed above, why have people tearing up manufacturing in one country and moving it to another to take advantage of arbitrary tax and regulatory differences?

Further, we started the discussion here on a question of public policy - should we institute a carbon/gas tax?  One of the major obstacles to a such a sensible idea is that it would hurt american car companies.  As a practical matter, it would be a good idea to appease car companies in order to get the tax passed.  So, the question arises, is giving the car companies something in return for a higher CAFE, or a new tax, a bad idea?  Well, if the car companies are indeed handicapped by regulatory/tax differences, then it is not unreasonable to give them something and the whole gordian knot is resolved.

Of course, if not then we have to decide how hard we're willing to hold our noses in order to bribe the car companies (and their employees).

It's not efficient for companies to lay people off in one country, and transfer capital to another to hire there, when the only difference is arbitrary regulatory preferences.  It's also mighty painful for the people who lose their jobs.

If it weren't efficient, I question if the companies would be doing it. It seems the process of shifting production is the very essence of buiding efficiency by lowering costs. It certainly is painful for the people who lose their jobs, but I wonder if the solution doesn't have more to do with building social systems for educating and retraining workers to give them new opportunities than it does with keeping their failing employers afloat with some form of subsidy.

In any case, I agree that the important thing is to get some kind of carbon or gas tax passed, and soon. So if what you suggest would do the trick, I'm definitely for it. At this point addressing our overuse of oil and all the environmental damage that goes along with it has to be the absolute and overriding priority.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

"If it weren't efficient, I question if the companies would be doing it. "

Well, companies respond to whatever incentives are out there, whether they're tax/regulatory, or more basic financial ones.  That said, I suppose there's no question that lower wages are the main draw.

"It seems the process of shifting production is the very essence of buiding efficiency by lowering costs. "

I wouldn't describe cutting wages as building efficiency.  I would describe building efficiency as raising worker productivity - doing something in fewer hours.  Cutting wages, not so much.

When you cut wages by hiring someone cheaper you usually reduce productivity,  because the new person is less well trained and experienced, possibly less well educated.  The lower wages have to more than compensate for the lower productivity to make the switch worth it.  Sometimes it isn't, as some manufacturers have discovered to their regret.  Probably usually it is, but efficiency can't be described as going up - all you can say is that costs are lower.

The lower costs come from the middle class, and go to the poor and the rich.  Is that an improvement?  I don't know.  It's certainly hard on the middle class person who is now, literally, on the street:  unemployment in Detroit is now over 30%, and laidoff assembly workers are going to have a very hard time getting even minimum wage jobs.

"I wonder if the solution doesn't have more to do with building social systems"

They'll help a bit, but they can never begin to replace the good jobs that are being lost.

" keeping their failing employers afloat with some form of subsidy"

Well, that was my original point.  If overseas employers are getting implicit subsidies (by say, being able to pollute, or using child labor, or not paying for healthcare, or getting artificially low cost loans from government controlled lenders) then helping a company here may be appropriate, rather than corporate welfare.

"I agree that the important thing is to get some kind of carbon or gas tax passed, and soon."

Yeah, I agree.

Actually, the playing field is only uneven to the extent we've dug ourselves into a hole of consumption-driven debt-accumulating insanity. This is a bit off-topic, but the numbers never fail to surprise me:

Average household debt
United States: $71,500
(No figure for Japan)

Average household savings
United States: $4,201
Japan: $45,118

Trade balance
United States: -$113,240 million
Japan: +$77,110 million

Current account balance
United States: -$105,900 million
Japan: +$56,783 million

Investment as percentage of GDP:
United States: 17.1%
Japan: 30.6%

Average CEO's pay as multiple of average worker
United States: 17.5
Japan: 11.6

Size of middle class
United States: 53.7%
Japan: 90.0%

Deaths of malnutrition (per million)
United States: 20
Japan: 3

Healthcare expenditures as percentage of GDP
United States: 13.4%
Japan: 6.8%

Average paid maternity leave (1991)
United States: 0
Japan: 14 weeks

Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)
United States: 10.4
Japan: 5.0

Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers
United States: 98.0
Japan: 10.5

Prisoners (per 1,000 people)
United States: 4.2
Japan: 0.4

Murder rate (per 100,000 people)
United States: 8.40
Japan: 1.20

Rape (per 100,000 people)
United States: 37.20
Japan: 1.40

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
United States: 221
Japan: 1

Energy units of oil burned annually
United States: 791.5
Japan: 234.3

Carbon dioxide released per person per year
United States: 5.8 tons
Japan: 2.2

Debris inhaled per person per year
United States: 81 pounds
Japan: 2

Percentage of all paper and cardboard recycled
United States: 8.4
Japan: 54.5

Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Yeah, this does diverge pretty far from our discussion.  In fact, I'm not sure what your point is.  Do we have things we could learn from the Japanese?  Sure.  But I'm not sure it's the joys of saving.

They save way too much.  That's one of the principal subsidies of Japanese companies, this very cheap source of capital.

The average Japanese is not all that happy.  Their birth rate has plummeted because young women are educated and working, and refuse to live with an oppressive mother-in-law and an overworking, never-there salary-man, and live in tiny homes with no privacy.

As a country they can invest more because their military is limited to about 1% of GDP, thus freeing up enormous engineering resources for better things.  This was not voluntary, but imposed by military occupation post WWII.  It certainly has turned out to be a good idea, and I wish the US would move further in that direction, but it wasn't their idea.

Could we learn some specicic things from the Japanese? Sure.  But I'm not sure if there's any larger lessons to be learned from them.  I don't think they're tuned into a fundamentally better way of living.  I certainly don't think their export driven system is a model we could follow: we would need another country to export to.  I certainly think it would be a good idea for the US to greatly reduce it's balance of trade problem, though I think the best way of doing that is dramatically reducing oil imports...which brings us back to where we started.

Who does the US want to be when it grows up (in population denisty), Japan .. or China?
Don't think we'll have the chance, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective). If the U.S. was populated at the same density as Japan (337 people/sq km), our population would be almost 3.1 billion people. To reach China's population density, we'd have to hit 1.2 billion. I don't see that happening, either.
We don't know how to calculate the odds .. but it kind of strikes me as a darkly possible scenario.  If we don't crash, and we don't find a power-down curve to sustainable lower density living ... well, what happens with higher population?

I'd love it if the US followed Europe on a curve to lower population, even if that meant slower growth (by the GDP metric).

I'd love it if the US followed Europe on a curve to lower population, even if that meant slower growth (by the GDP metric).

Absolutely. What you just described is one of the best-case scenarios.
Well, we are on a curve to stable population - the US is exactly at a stable fertility rate of 2.1.

The problem is immigration, and demographic momentum:  Mexico is still exporting it's poor to us, and there's still a baby boom echo, which has to grow up.

If we want to reduce population growth we need to push Mexico to improve it's educational system, and open up it's economy so young ambitious Mexicans don't have to come to the US to open up their landscaping companies....or wash our dishes.

Nick, I think you cited a bunch of detailed population statistics a week or two ago, so I assume you know (a lot) more about this than I do. Is it fair to say that without immigration, there would be essentially zero population growth within 10 years or so?
It would be pretty close.  Recent immigrants  have a higher fertility rate than people who've been here a while (and higher than people who stay in Mexico! - I think they feel this is a better place to have kids...), so if immigration stopped the overall rate would be something below replacement.

There's still the baby boom echo that has to finish, and I'm not sure that would be done by 10 years from now.  Plus, life expectancy continues to rise (meaning death rates continue to fall), so there will probably be a very small increase for a while.

I suspect that in about 20 years the fertility rate would fall enough below the replacement rate to offset the falling death rates, and you'd have ZPG.

I'm not quite sure what my point was myself. I guess, regarding the playing field, that we've made our bed and now we're sleeping in it. That we've undermined our own propsects for future health and prosperity in profound ways.

As for learning from the Japanese, I agree with everything you just said. I lived there for eight years, and you're dead on right. What we can do is not so much learn from the Japanese, but examine what other forms a modern industrial or post-industrial society might take. Europe provides (in my view) a more interesting object lesson than Japan, but we were talking about Japan, so I threw that out there.

" we've undermined our own propsects for future health and prosperity in profound ways. "

Yeah, we've been pretty short sighted to ignore our oil imports.  Carter started a very good plan, and succeeding presidents undermined it.  If automotive CAFE had continued a gradual rise (even if it had been very gradual), and the truck loophole had been very gradually closed, Detroit (and the US) would be in much better shape now.

"As for learning from the Japanese, I agree with everything you just said. I lived there for eight years, and you're dead on right."

Thanks for your gracious reply.  It's very nice to have constructive discussions.

"Europe provides (in my view) a more interesting object lesson than Japan"

Yeah, they're doing a pretty good job of planning for a transition to renewables.  I have to like to say that I like their humane approach to an industrial transition, though it's certainly far from perfect, with it's very high unemployment.

I don't see why wind or solar should be treated as special cases. Instead of that we should examine exactly why exactly wind and solar are percieved as better technologies (because they are cleaner) and come up with regulations which encourage cleaner technologies and discourage dirtier ones. Then the market will sort out the technologies and besides wind and solar will probably come out with other solutions like tidal power, solar towers, and (why not?) fusion power.

A carbon and/or polution taxes fit exactly in this approach. On the encouraging side the revenues from it could go for subsidies/credits for startup (R&D,initial investments) on the alternative technologies. Now how exactly they are going to be separated is the tricky question, but if there is a will we could come up with some market based schema.

A carbon and/or polution taxes fit exactly in this approach.

Bingo. Make the fossil fuels less competitive with alternatives by increasing their cost, while at the same time encouraging conservation. Then, you don't favor one of the alternatives over another. They are allowed to compete against one another on an equal footing.

Just look at butanol. It appears to be superior to ethanol, can be grown from corn, gets better gas mileage, but doesn't have the benefit of the ethanol subsidies. Because legislators have picked ethanol as the winner, this is the situation we have.

Makes the most sense, but also the hardest to sell politically.  Needs a real leader to convince the people why it must be done.  
There's a very, very simple solution to creating an infrastructure that uses less fuel -

Tax fuel.

Add a federal "energy independance tax" on imported fossil fuels at $1/gallon of gas plus $0.25/gallon additional every year.

Add a federal "depletion tax" on fuel that looks like it may be depleted this century - uranium, fossil fuels, etc.

Add a federal "carbon tax" on co2-emitting fuels at the equivelent of 50 cents per the amount of co2 emitted from a gallon of gas.

Do all this at the producer level, where it's quite difficult to hide things.

Bam - we have a system which directs capitalism to solve the problems of a peak oil-aware world.  Conservation begins to happen.  Public transport gets built.  We have a floor for corporate worst-case estimates of oil price, in comparison to alternatives.  Right now all biofuels investors have to go up against the possibility that we'll plunge back to $15/gallon oil at anytime in the next 20 years and they'll go bankrupt.

Let all that money be pushed into top-down projects, with an eye for catching anything with the least bit of potential (does it really matter if we spend an extra 10 million on living expenses for 100 cold fusion / zero point energy people, if 990 million gets in the pockets of things that could work?).  But shore it up with a much greater amount of corporate, state, and local expenditure, on projects pulled into being by demand created by artificially high fuel prices.

It creates some major problems - a significant recession, a much more regressive tax structure, and globalization putting our production in the hands of other nations.  But the alternative, with the intelligence of the current government, appears to be to plow a few billion into ethanol for the sake of a few farming town's ballot boxes, dig a few thousand more coal mines, and bomb brown people in the hope that they'll give us oil, while oil companies get exponentially greater profits as the nation whithers.

" a significant recession, a much more regressive tax structure, "

These can be prevented by recycling the revenues in progressive ways, say by increasing the income tax exemptions.

We need a "Teddy R."
In short, the people can use public policy to guide and accelerate the market changes we want.

Lou, this is correct--IF, and only if, governance processes are working as they should. When industry lobbyists have a huge role in drafting legislation, they work hard to game the system.

Examples: SUV's were re-classified as "light trucks," which exempts them from key safety, economy, and emissions standards. Synfuels have been a bad joke, and the recent energy bill falls a tad short.

Public policy will shape market solutions only if companies find it easier to work on creating solutions, rather than subverting public policy.

Actually, there was an important news item related to this yesterday that I don't think has been posted here.  Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA, has proposed to eliminate the SUV tax breaks.  
He said "This makes no sense.  Congress is using the tax code to generate artificial demand for inefficient vehicles in the automobile marketplace," said Markey, who introduced the bill aimed at eliminating both tax breaks for SUVs.  
I sure hope this passes.  Perhaps since our US automakers are going bankrupt they are losing their lobbying power as well, so it can pass.  This law has done a great deal of damage to our average mileage, and vehicle sizes in this country for too many years.
And, Markey can be another politician to add to our energy "good" list.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA, has proposed to eliminate the SUV tax breaks.

Incidentally, the guest essay I will be posting early next week on Prop 87 was written by someone who used to work for Markey.

Excellent...the list is growing.  

Below is my energy-aware political dream team (representatives from both parties):

1 - Roscoe Bartlett (R - Maryland)
2 - Richard Lugar (R - Indiana)
3 - Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)
4 - Edward Markey (D - Massachusetts)
5 - Al Gore (Ex-presidential candidate & inventor of the Internet)

Let's keep them coming...we need more members.

BTW...if any of these senators are reading this, I highly recommend you dump your respective parties to form a new Independent party.  

May I suggest the title POP (Peak Oil Party).  You could even make it GO-POP (Grand Old Peak Oil Party) if would make the ex-Republicans more comfortable.

If I were to see such rebellion and forward thinking, I would then stop holding my vote hostage and give it up for the worthy cause.

Who's with me????   AHHHHHARRHHGGG!! (Oh my God...I'm being possessed by Howard Dean).  

By the way...where the hell has Nader been lately.

Definitely Rep. Mark Udall D-Colo.
I'd probably add John McCain for opposing ethanol long ago.
Not sure about John McCain.  We can throw it out to the floor.

Include the Senator from Arizona?  Ya or Nay?

How about Bill Clinton? See the article Clinton raises the alarm about oil depletion

Yes. I'm surprised how many readers here think government is interested in "doing right" by what they consider sensible standards, like health, safety, general welfare, the environment, even "justice". Google

critique of neoliberalism
and ponder that. The political system is merely another part of the game, essential if the corpo wants to maximize profits and dump costs. Best done on poor blacks overseas - they don't even count - but poor blacks here will do; they hardly count. The whole neoliberal mindset that the free market will solve everything is a large source of the corruption. What's the first thing a good neoliberal does? Game the system with lobbyists. Free market of many sellers and many buyers, free and willing with good information? Smoke that until you are stupid. Government regulates the system, enforces the rules. So the corpos buy the system and define how the "free market" gets "regulated".

Iraq is no joke, NOLA is no joke, US prison complex, hell, there might not even be any missiles in the silos in the ABM system - it doesn't matter - the profit is there because the system is rigged. It doesn't have to work, better if it does not! Is it reassuring that empty silos are better than silos with missles? Hurts the head. Failure is more profitable than success because the corpos get to sell the same crap over again. And charge to clean up. Responsibility? Spare me.

Citizens and communities need to reassert control over the corpos. If Verizon or Exxon breaks the law, the states should revoke their right to operate, break up and sell their assets to community trusts. Chavez is right; that is the people of VZ's oil. That article in today's list that says "oh, how terrible that poor blacks get oil - they don't know what to do with it", what bullshit. They know and I bet Nigeria (after the revolution) stops selling oil shortly. Smart move to recognize it is their oil and their right - their necessity, it strikes me. They better buy a bomb or two from Iran if they want to stay independent.

Public policy will not shape the market until citizens take responsiblity for their economies and reassert citizen control over the market, resources and production.

We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. (little prince via laherre)
Do my grandchildren have "standing" against Exxon for Valdez? I would suggest that they do. And that the waters and wildlife does too. Exxon has exceeded its share of the oxygen and should have been broken up years ago. Instead, they continue to destroy our planet. That's how our system works.

cfm in Gray, ME

Chris, I don't go very far south.. so next time I head your way I owe you a beer and dinner.

Think ISP, north but still in Maine. Rock On.

Public policy will not shape the market until citizens take responsiblity for their economies and reassert citizen control over the market, resources and production.

Obviously the US govt has lost the mandate of heaven.

the government should avoid "picking winners"; instead they should increase CAFE standards and offer tax breaks based purely on a vehicle's MPG

First you say the government should avoid picking winners and then you say the government should declare CAFE as the winner to our energy needs.

and let the car companies and consumers figure out how best to get those lower numbers

Why is driving a 40 MPG car 20,000 miles per year more desireable than driving a 20 MPG car only 5000 miles per year?

Why is driving a 40 MPG car 20,000 miles per year more desireable than driving a 20 MPG car only 5000 miles per year?

Because you get to go to more places and take more stuff from there to there?

the government should avoid "picking winners"; instead they should increase CAFE standards and offer tax breaks based purely on a vehicle's MPG

First you say the government should avoid picking winners and then you say the government should declare CAFE as the winner to our energy needs.

I think that we ought to abandon CAFE and instead have a transfer fee & rebate, taxing low efficiency vehicles and paying buyers of high efficiency vehicles.  Trucks and cars are not distinguished.

The reason to support this rather than a fuel tax is that poorer people can't buy a new car and higher fuel taxes will make things much worse for them without any increase in income.   People who buy new cars are a small fraction of the population, i.e. the wealthy, and they can afford to drive low efficiency vehicles for a few years and then sell them.   As a smaller fraction of society accures more and more of the income, this problem will get worse.

The rest of society has to get used cars, the previous new-cars buyers cars.   If the pool of efficient vehicles available is high then that's good.

There is no substitute for a physically superior and more efficient vehicle fleet which isn't involuntary pain.

Reducing driving also helps---but it would help with high efficiency vehicles too.

have a transfer fee & rebate, taxing low efficiency vehicles and paying buyers of high efficiency vehicles.  
That is essentially what CAFE standards do.
hTrucks and cars are not distinguished.
If it weren't for the 3-tier standards (exempting vehicles over 8500 lbs GVW), they'd do that too.
CAFE, with the E85 loophole, certainly isn't doing that.

Also, by working with a vendor-average the CAFE plan is less direct than a straight "freebate."  With the freebate system Honda gets a benefit from having a higher fleet average MPG than Ford.  If they are just both working to satisfy CAFE (and make it under the bar somehow), it is revenue neutral.  Ford is not penalized for having a higher fleet MPG than Honda as long as it is CAFE legal.

"feebate" not "freebate".  i always get confused.
here is a little help. always c&p what you will Post into a word processor before pressing the preview button followed by the post button.
When I don't forget I use another window with google mail, they have a very good typo guesser.
Better a 40 mpg car driving 5,000 also.
The more efficient the better for whatever use.
If we had a high carbon tax, even those technologies, wind and solar, might do fine on their won without specific subidies. Although, we still might want to kick in some money for R&D. Once you start subidizing the good (wind and solar) you then ge the clamor to subsidize what may be the stupid (ethanol).  Buy we live in a world fraught with subsidies throughout the sytem, including subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels. So, as long as that is the status quo, we should expect that politics will dictate much of our technological solutions.  
 Do you happen to know the EROEI for Miscanthus as a biofuel?
Are you talking about a liquid or solid bio-fuel?  

Corn has a vastly higher energy return when burned for space heating than when processed into a liquid fuel prior to combustion.

Miscanthus, a perennial grass, has a high energy content, close to that of hard woods.  It also requires few inputs for growth.  It does not appear to be as well adapted to North America as switchgrass.  Switchgrass is native to much of this continent and if memory serves, miscanthus is African. Miscanthus may be suitable to areas not conducive to switchgrass. Research is ongoing.

Using grasses as 'energy crops' (bizarrely excluding food from the meaning of this term), other than sugar cane, to produce liquid fuel will under all known conditions be uneconomic as long as there is demand for food and demand for solid fuel for space/water heating and even electricity generation.  The tiny, if not negative, energy return from the grass based liquid fuel (excepting sugarcane based ethanol) falls too far short of the significant return from the grass based solid fuel.  Transportation is indeed desirable.  But not nearly so important as avoiding death by starvation or hypothermia.

But why even grow corn for a solid fuel when switchgrass is available and this latter requires fewer inputs, is drought resistant and can be grown on marginal agriculture land over much of North America. The answer to this question is that corn is more suitable for pellet stoves designed to accomodate wood, because of a lower ash content.  A new generation of pellet stoves changes this equasion, though the current higher price of these advanced stoves remains a factor in the continued use of corn as a solid fuel.

> if memory serves, miscanthus is African

No, it's from Asia. Miscanthus is "Chinese Reed".

There is a (very short - 'stub'-) article on the english wikipedia, a very exhaustive one on the german wikipedia which says, Miscanthus is very problematic from the ecological view. And it has a low bulk density, so it's not good for long distant transporting.

toil...

Peak oil is a liquid fuels crisis not a space heating/electrical one, thus the idea of converting biomass->electricity as opposed to LTFs seems rather shortsighted while biomass->space heating (essentially fireplaces) is also a step backwards IMHO.

North Americans literally float adrift in a sea of abundant energy for heating and lighting purposes, conservation and acceptance of societal adjustments on how and when we work/play could no doubt rectify many of our capacity problems.

I'll give you but one example:  

In Japan, the lights in city offices (even at city hall) are often dimmed or turned out on every floor during the lunch hour.

You cannot possibly imagine how refreshing and smart an experience this is and yet for some reason we in North America would never dream of doing such a thing.

Why?

I spend a lot of time thinking about this, also.  Why is Sweden able to have a conversation with its citizens about becoming oil-free by 2020?  Why do Germany and Japan have the most solar? Ethanol from corn is apparently all we can come up with.
Why?

Pride, I think.  It might sound almost Kremlin Face-saving of us, but I think we in the US have a sense that anything like dimming lights, especially in City Hall, would be some sort of concession, would be allowing our puffed-out chests to come back down to normal, human size again.  Cheney's line about our lifestyle not being negotiable goes very deep, and I think on both sides of the aisle..

Like Vonnegut said.. 'Life is High School'..

  I don't get the sense that you would be as tormented in a German High School (Gymnasium) for being one of the smart kids, but it was a definite taboo here.  I was a Prep-school kid, and I felt this distinctly in a very smart and positive institution.  Our history leaves us with a huge set of issues about 'doing the smart thing', or doing a compassionate thing.. which leaves us in exactly this kind of dilemma.  It's very hard to let go of that brass ring, once you've grabbed onto it.

  I think our pride is, in some respects, so fragile, that we would just die to think that we were being laughed at because we 'backed down'..

   -present company partially excepted, of course..

 I think our pride is, in some respects, so fragile, that we would just die to think that we were being laughed at because we 'backed down'..

It sure would be nice if the folks who think that way would hurry up and die, then. Wouldn't solve the overshoot but it would help.

Dunno about you, but every office I've worked in, we've worked through lunch.  Not all of us, but some of us.  Our lunch breaks were staggered, so there would always be people there to answer the phones, greet clients, etc.  

And then there are future CEO types who work through lunch even when they don't have to...

Why do people judge "Socialism" only through the command economy model of the former Soviet Union which most Western Socialists regardded as "State Capitalism". The Russians were broken by having military expenditure well above the econmic resources.   Try looking at the Scandinavian countries. These countries have the highest per-capta incomes in the world, with very high levals of social and economic equality. It is no accident that they are also among the best prepared for declining oil production and are co-operating so that Danish wind farms work together with Norwegian hydro.

Whereas American capitalism has created obscene inequalities (e.g. 46 million US residents without health cover) relative poverty for low level workers with a static minimum wage well below everywhere in Western Europe. Salaries for corporate boards and Wall Street have lost all contact with reality while ordinary workers are loaded with debt.  Additionnaly the US consumes 25% of the world gasoline output with only 3% of world reserves. Your society is destroying the planet via Global Warming  and your President refuses to sign up for even Kyoto because it would reduce the competitiveness of the US economy.
I think for every US resident your survival plans should include immigration.
cheers

"I think for every US resident your survival plans should include immigration."

OK.  Can you pull some strings and get me into your country?
;-)

Yeah me too! I knew (on the net) a gal who managed to escape the US, went from Texas to a town in Denmark, it was amazing - she was constantly amazed at the lack of dog-eat-dog bloodthirstiness there. She got pregnant (she escaped by marrying a Dane) and instead of being punished for it, she got kindness, consideration, and prenatal care. She was constantly being surprised by how different the society was there. Just everything 180-degrees different.

Now, not all of us can marry a Dane ha ha. It takes a LOT of money to leave the US and settle in Europe. I think you have to have something like a year's or is it 5 year's income, a job waiting for you, etc. This would be easy for the top 20% in the US to come up with, the rest of us just don't have the money to leave.

No Strings needed. I moved to the South of France years ago. There are no problems if you have either skills or money. There is already a significant US community here, especially writers. And Scandinavia is even easier to get settled and work. I have worked in Norway and Sweden because the larger, international companies use English as their normal working language.
cheers
There are no problems if you have either skills or money.

Oh, that's great to hear. I'm glad I'm Paris Hilton. I can add one more to the mix. All the guys love me. And the Girls. Hope your wife isn't one of them. Cuz I party on the South of France. And I have more money than God.

I read that item and my jaw dropped.  Someone actually proposing that we tax the p*** out of oil and letting the alternatives make it on their merits?  Someone in the news business?

Unfortunately, it will take more than a few pols getting on board to make it into reality.

Governor Schweitzer's coal-to-liquids initiative depends on developing the subbituminous Otter Creek Tracts.

Oh-oh.

According to an article in yesterday's Missoula Independent, the coal has unusually high levels of sodium, and building the Tongue River railroad might need to overcome serious levels of political opposition.

Knowledgeable readers might comment on the sodium problem, but it might cause mineral contaminants to slag instead of forming more manageable residues, and perhaps it has implications for materials of construction.

Quote from the article:

"But as we are finding out, not all of Davison's investment schemes worked out so well. For one thing, Tongue River ranchers weren't very excited about having a railroad running through their ranches, and have fought the line tooth and nail. Plus, the Otter Creek Coal Tracts are located on the eastern edge of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and the tribe has already sued the state once to preserve its cultural, historic and religious assets should the coal be developed. And finally, the coal there contains so much sodium that burning it in conventional power plants is highly problematic, hence, the market is limited or nonexistent until some new technology develops to deal with the sodium content."

http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=5938

As far as the process, it limits your choice of gasifiers.  As far as waste disposal, whether slag or ash is better depends.

In my travels yesterday, I noticed that The Falkland Islands supposedly has up to 60 Billion barrels of Oil...  There didn't seem to be a lot of information on it.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,334165,00.html

Is this being developed?  Does anyone have a better idea of reserve estimates?  Potential production rates?

Garth

This isn't the first time Falklanders have become mesmerized by oil. Six years ago, a number of foreign companies, including Shell, built a drilling platform in the waters off the islands. They found oil, but only in small amounts, at least at first. But then the price of oil plummeted to $9.50 a barrel on the world market, making expensive drilling a losing proposition. The oil companies quickly decided to abandon the project, which had already consumed $200 million.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. The Falkland Islands will have 60 Gb of recoverable oil when pigs can fly. Lots of this is local boosterism.

If there really that much oil there, why didn't this story appear 2 years ago? You don't have to believe me -- from here, which is referenced at the Falkland Islands Department of Mineral Resources

Good quality source rocks, reservoirs, seals and traps have all been identified in the North Falkland Basin. Although oil was recovered at surface in small quantities, the structures and primary reservoir targets drilled by the six wells [in 1998] did not contain commercially viable accumulations of hydrocarbons. However, all of the elements of a working petroleum system are present in the basin, suggesting that further drilling, planned using information such as that derived from this post-well analysis, could lead to better commercial results.
Talk to me after somebody drills some more test wells...

A few wells drilled so far, theoretically of the right geological age. No worthwhile oil so far (is what I am led to believe).

Not the next KSA by all accounts. Dont hold your breath

BREAKING NEWS:

Subject: TEACHER ARRESTED

A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy
International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in
possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule and a
calculator.

At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he
believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He did
not identify the man, who has been charged with carrying weapons of math
instruction.

"Al-gebra is a problem for us," Gonzales said. "They desire solutions by
means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of
absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x ' and 'y' and refer to
themselves as 'unknowns', but it has been determined that they belong to
a common denominator of the axis of medieval with co-ordinates in every
country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say: 'There are three
sides to every triangle'."

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had
wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given
us more fingers and toes."

Well, that will keep me laughing for all the rest of the weekend.

hahaha

A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.
"Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his Needs and those of his family.
The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs . . I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."
And after that?" asked the Mexican.
With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant.
You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? Well my Friend, That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?" said the Mexican.
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."
And the moral is: Know where you're going in life... you may already be there.
Wonderful parable.  Is it yours, or, when repeating it as I surely intend to do, should I acknowledge another author.
Wonderful parable.

I agree. It brought a smile to my face. It reminded me of my own situation. Opportunities keep knocking, but I am at a very satisfying place at the moment. My wife and kids are happy, and I am enjoying life.

This bit is a take-off on a very old story. The oldest version I can remember off the top of my head appears in Rabelais 16th Century work "The Truly Hair-raising Life of the Great Garganua." (Chapter 33) I expect Rabelais had a classical source, but if I ever knew what it was, I've forgotten.
Yup, just as much as all the other stuff, people have voluntarily given up their lives for status and wealth when a minimum wage job is more than enough to meet all of your needs, but supposedly culturally demeaning. People will realize how stupid those priorities are when they can't do that anymore and may even struggle to find the latter.
Same with the rituals of Easter Islanders that their leaders necessitated the large statues which they had to cut down a lot of their trees to roll the statues to their places until the trees were gone. They were all disenchanted with their whole belief system when that happened I read.
Seen this before, but it's always a good fun read the second time. hhanks.

Now to start a controversy: Who invented Algebra, the Arabs or the Indians? (or perhaps Al Gore? ;-)

Steep decline in UK oil production
Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran)

=========

UK June gas output down 24% on the year: RBS index
Platts

http://www.energybulletin.net/19905.html


The drops in production are ALARMING.

Oil production down 13% on the month.  Annual production down 18%.

Gas production down 24%.  Yikes!

Time to get the electric heat pump installed!

I replied to Chris Vernons' (of TOD UK) request to inform him about the progress of the Bacton-Balgzand-Gaspipeline. It will come on stream in December and will be utilized to full capacity next March. He did not reply so far.

This project was delyaed for a year; drilling through the dunes on the Dutch side failed last summer and they had to wait until this summer to try again, and succeeded.

The problem is that it is probably not sufficient to offset UK domestic depletion.

Royal Bank of Scotland comment
"It is a conundrum that the increase in investment spending seen over the
last year has not resulted in measurable output growth. Soaring costs fail to
explain the sluggish supply response, since higher input bills have not
prevented a sharp pick-up in drilling activity."

The bafflement of the economic community would be amusing if it were not so serious.

Oh, jeez.  That quote is absolutely classic.  
Priceless.
The only thing missing is a "sluggish growth in supply response".
For the latest british production, import and export statistics:
http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/et3_10.xls
The UK is now a net importer.
You know, eventually some freakin econonist is going to win some nobel prize for developing a theory/model to account for this conundrum.  
That's ok. Yergin's (CERA) 2005 report shows UK oil production increasing the 2nd half of 2006. Not to worry.
Even better, cera is predicting lower ng prices, dropping under 5/mcf by 2010.  I agree ng will be weak at least through fall, but how anybody would predict low ng that far into the future when demand depends on weather and NA supply looks to continue declining, maybe crashing by then, is amazing.
I wonder if their predictions will still be so widely quoted if ng is actually around 20 in 2010.
No problem.
We will form  an orderly que and drink tea.
What, if any, is the additional effect of those long term oil purchase agreements that China is arranging?  It seems that over the long run, they would reserve a fixed, absolute amount of export supply, and effectively squeeze the net export capacity even more.

What fraction of exported oil is now traded this way?
Any trends?

What countries besides China are doing this?

On the "Prepare for a Crash" article. There are a number of flaws in that article, but I like to point out the following:


Finally, if we do indeed return to a stone-age level culture, we need to know how to live in it. Luckily there are well-documented examples in anthropological literature of just how hunter-gatherers do it, how they eat and how they self-govern. Limited Wants, Unlimited Means is a collection of essays on the economics of hunter-gatherers and includes an essay from the groundbreaking book Stone-Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins, the first to understand that hunter-gatherers do not live on the edge of starvation, but rather are "the original affluent society."

OK. Huge flaw number 1: Stone-Age culture is not the equivalent of hunter-gatherer. There were thousands of years that mankind in de Near East and Europe lived from agriculture.

Huge flaw number 2: There is enough iron and iron oar left to suggest that we won't go back top the stone age.

And the last enormous flaw is the suggestion that hordes of hungry people will turn into a vast army of marauders. The sad thing is that famine produces apathy, as the history of the Ukranian, Chinese and Ethiopian famines shows.

The article is bollocks.

We didn't leave the oil age because we ran out of rocks ... or something.
Maybe this is why the hobby of flint knapping is becoming so popular these days. You see, stone is better than metal for almost everything, people only started using metal because they needed to make better weapons (agricultural outbreed/outfight your neighbor societies). You can pick up a suitable piece of stone, and make an adze, arrow point, bowl, etc you name it. Metal takes a lot of work, fire, etc. Metal's much more work and work with it is done by a specialized person, a metalsmith, because of the technology involved. You need a special kind of fire, special tools often metal themselves, etc.

I like how the Bushmen did it - they were pre-stone age, they didn't even have stone tools, everything was bone, hardened wood, etc. Come to think of it, in the book The Netselik Eskimo, I seem to remember that their only traditional stone items were bowls made of soapstone which is quite soft. Hunting tools like spears didn't use any stone.

Flaw # &%

The present population of Earth can not be sustained by paleo-lithic hunting/gathering.

The jury is out on what population a neolithic agriculture could sustain -- especially since it would undoubtedly retain some elements of the modern age.  However, the limit to population is much more likely to be availability of water, and possibly breathable air than hydrocarbon reserves.

As any archeologist will tell you: The jury will be out forever. The reason for that is simple: We have not excavated but a tiny fraction from all stone-age stuff. The absolute majority of sites are destroyed forever for a large number of reasons. Washed away, dug out even during the stone-age for gold and/or fertile soil, ploughed under and torn in wars. And whatever other reasons there are.

Think about the simple fact that we excavated almost only settlements that were abandoned. Why? Because the settlements that weren't are our presentday cities and villages. You can't tear down you hometown for the sake of excavation. Recently knowledge about that has greatly improved though because the second worldwar brought the unique ability to excavate some stuff in current cities (You apparently can tear down a hometown for the sake of war.) and even those tiny bits greatly changed our view on history.

I keep remembering how in France they excavated a small Frankish settlement and found merely small huts made of mud. Conclusions were drawn from this that the Frankish settlers were poor farmers who'se culture was far inferiour to the Romans. Only recently the rest of the settlement has been excavated an lo and behold: The mud "houses" turned out to be nothing more than pigpens belonging to a huge wooden farm which was far superiour than anything in the neighbourhood.

Be very carefull with interpreting historical "evidence" I'd say.

So if the current population can't be sustained by hunting and gathering, and hunting and gathering becomes the only viable means of survival, well, you can see the result.  The fact that this implies die off does not mean that it's suddenly not true.  I don't think "Mother Nature" really cares very much if we suffer die off or not.  That the consequences are horrific doesn't make them not true.
Jason,

I read the thread on agriculture, horticulture, and soil science and want to extend a hearty thanks to you and the other TOD participants for such an informative and fascinating discussion.  In particular, I found your analysis of the topic highly compelling and intuitively logical.  Great work!  Thanks again.

"The present population of Earth can not be sustained..."

Just leave it at that - Catton says it best, IMO.

Stone age....iron age.  Hmmmm, not much difference.  First stages of hunger, marauding groups searching for food.  A few days and later stages of hunger, loss of energy, apathy...then death.  Not much difference.
The thought that when cheap oil disappears we will return to the stone age is silly.  We had okay cultures through 1800 before cheap oil.  And we have better knowledge with which to produce food and keep a population healthy.  But it is unlikely that we can support the world's(or U.S.'s) current numbers without cheap oil.  Hiding in the woods while well-armed isn't the solution, but neither is living in L.A. or Pheonix.  But having a piece of ground, the tools and knowledge to produce food and energy from it, and a community of like-minded people is something people need to seriously think about attaining ahead of collapse.  As he said in the article, think of it as insurance cost.
In the 1800s, we had lots of land that hadn't been farmed yet.  Farming a land kills it: it bleeds out the minerals and nutrients, and leads to erosion, salination, and depletion.  For 10,000 years, agriculture's been trying to outrun its own consequences, expanding to new cropland before the old cropland gave in and died--the "Fertile Crescent" wasn't always a cruel joke, of course.  Richard Manning details this history in Against the Grain, and also what happened in 1960, when we finally farmed the last bits of arable land, and ran out of room for the strategy we'd pursued for 10 millennia.  That's when the Green Revolution began, using petrochemicals to achieve what we'd once done through simple expansion.  Today, 85% of the minerals that were in North America's soil in 1900 are gone, and our crops are not grown in soil nearly so much as petrochemical fertilizer.  Take that fertilizer away, and you'll see that underneath it, the Great Plains are already a desert.

This isn't the 1800s anymore.  A lot more than just our knowledge has changed.  The consequences of agriculture have caught up to us.  In our climb up this long ladder of complexity, we've knocked out all the intermediate steps behind us, so when we fall, we're going to fall long and hard.

Richard Manning details this history in Against the Grain, and also what happened in 1960, when we finally farmed the last bits of arable land, and ran out of room for the strategy we'd pursued for 10 millennia.  That's when the Green Revolution began, using petrochemicals to achieve what we'd once done through simple expansion.  Today, 85% of the minerals that were in North America's soil in 1900 are gone, and our crops are not grown in soil nearly so much as petrochemical fertilizer.

SOME farmeres have followed for 10 millemnia.

Others added ground up rocks and seaweed (Ireland) and made soil.

Soil from natural weathering 1 inch per 1,000 years.   7 inches of soil per year when one uses eathworms.

Most of what we consider "organic agriculture," like you'd find with an organic label on it, is simply how we did farming pre-Green Revolution, and that is extremely destructive--just on a slightly longer timeline.

And these methods you speak of... why don't you explain them to us rather than hand-wave?

Because I want you to explain how the works of
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/
http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm
http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/
http://www.fungi.com/mycotech/mycova.html
Are the way things were done 10,000 years ago?

I'll be waiting.

Others added ground up rocks and seaweed (Ireland) and made soil.

Which substantially increases your cost and is tangential at best to the immediate goal of increasing yield--the kind of things that sometimes pop up in isolation, but can never take hold on a large scale because they have far too strong a ring of "ought" to them.

And these methods you speak of... why don't you explain them to us rather than hand-wave?

Eschew pesticides and petrochemical fertilizers, use plows rather than tractors, all the things you need to get a USDA Organic label.

As for your links, and for that matter, your Irish example as well, these are not agricultural techniques.  They haven't a thing to do with agriculture.  You could do these things without ever growing a single plant.  These things are being used specifically to counter-balance the effects of agriculture.  So, you're not really saying anything about the toll of agriculture, you're just offering a list of suggestions of things we can do to help heal the damage that agriculture causes.  That's a pretty big difference.  If I'm cut with a knife, and I put a band-aid on it, the band-aid doesn't prove that knives don't cut, does it?

Which substantially increases your cost and is tangential at best to the immediate goal of increasing yield

While it does involve more work (which I did not do....curse me), there IS an effect on planting with and without compost/organics in the soil.

I have a small plot of land I've got corn on.  This land has been in soy/corn/alphala rotation for years (20+, and using seed drills so the soil is compacted)   Last year, I added organics (spent brewers grain) under the plants.   Nice, green tomatoes and other plants.  Had piles of pulled weeds/grain in the field also.   This year the corn is either the correct height and green (over the spots where the grain/weeds were on top of the soil, or is yellow and not more than 2 feet high.

Tomato plants - either 3 feet high and has tomatoes on them or 1 foot high, with nothing.   so you must have a different definition of tangental than I do.

They haven't a thing to do with agriculture.

Main Entry: ag·ri·cul·ture
Pronunciation: 'a-gri-"k&l-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin agricultura, from ager field + cultura cultivation -- more at ACRE, CULTURE
: the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil,

cultivate (DEVELOP)
 [Show phonetics]
verb [T]
to create (a new condition) by directed effort

Therefore: cultivate soil is argriculture.   Your  claim that chainging the soil by direct action is not agraculture is not correct.

Tomatoes the easy plant.

Its a vine. It has root hairs on the stem, In the wild, where it did once grow, it laid down and rooted wherever it touched the grown.

Using this.

Grow a 6 inch plant, pinch all but the very top leaves off of it. then bury the plant right up to the "chin" of this last tip, in a larger half gallon milk or other tube.  Let this plant grow 6 to 9 inches tall.  Then nip all the leaves but the very tip off, and gently lay this stem and bigger root ball in a furrow (trench) and cover the whole stem up to the "chin" of the tip, put a small paper collar to prevent stem damage and bugs from eating it.  Water the whole length of the trench, and mulch with anything that will keep it moist and not moldy.

This method has never failed me, and I saw it on the Victory Garden on PBS about 20 years ago.  The plants have a ton of root system and fruit soon as they get a few leaves going and grow till frost kills them. I have had mine 10 feet high and going strong.

Every plant has its gifts and its best growing condition.  Hunters and Gatherers knew this. They know the land around which they live. Not taking more than they need, and keeping some for next time.

Learn how the world works around you before you try to second guess it.   We won't all starve to death.  

In the "prepare for the crash" 2,000 calories is the USADA's male 101 min. Calories.  Really it is 800 for most adults, less than that and you loss muscle mass and strave.  1,500 or 1,100 or even 900 for a few weeks is okay for most healthy adults.  The more you work the more you need to eat.   WATER is what you really need to have in good supply, 7 days without it and you are dead.

7 Days without water and you are dead.  Think about that and plan accordingly.

Charles Owens,   I have eaten out of my wild front lawn enough to stay healthy and have my water too.

Have you?

Grow a 6 inch plant,

Mine are usually a bit more leggy so I get 10-14 inches below ground.

Try putting things like rabbit dropping or other organic matter under the tomato plants.

Charles Owens,   I have eaten out of my wild front lawn enough to stay healthy and have my water too.
Have you?

Hard to do on a 60X40 foot lot.  Not alot of 'front lawn'

Jason, I share your concern for the heatlh of our soil and -- sure -- I have to agree with you that bad farming practices weren't born with the so-called Green Revolution.  But I think you are making some broad generalizations about agriculture's harmful effects that can't be universally applied.

You state:

Today, 85% of the minerals that were in North America's soil in 1900 are gone.

First of all, I don't know how anyone could make such a statement given that soils vary so widely. Some have formed in highly weathered materials that are dominated by silica, iron, and aluminum oxides and these tend to be somewhat- to extremely-infertile even in a "virgin" state.  

Secondly, minerals are not merely removed from the soil profile by agriculture, but also by natural weathering and leaching processes and this has been the case since long before man arrived on the planet. I've done a lot of work in soils in the Southeastern US, where soil parent materials tend to be highly weathered and I can tell you, with certainty, that most of the plant-available nutrients occur in the upper couple of feet of the soil profile -- in the biotic zone.  When you sample undisturbed regolith from below this zone -- in portions of the soil where no corn or alfalfa root ever penetrated -- you often find that it is quite acid and infertile. How could this be?

IMHO, the time-bomb in modern US-style agriculture isn't that we've irreversibly depleted our soils of their nutrients -- I don't believe that for a minute -- it's that we've forced our farmers into a situation where they can't afford to be generalists any more.  When that happened, we traded good agricultural practices like crop rotation, manuring, etc. for a lot of expensive external inputs whose expense could only be justified by extremely high and unsustainable yields.

There is a lot of good literature out there on soil husbandry.  If you haven't already done so, I would encourage you to do some reading on the work of E.B Balfour.  I think you will come away feeling that it is possible to farm effectively, ecologically and sustainably.

First of all, I don't know how anyone could make such a statement given that soils vary so widely.

As I said, I'm still trying to track down the ultimate source, but it was expressed as an average, so I'm guessing they had a given sample size and calculated the mean.  I fully expect there to be fertile pockets, but if the average is 85% and it takes 50 years to regenerate an inch of topsoil, I don't think that bodes well for the prospects of post-peak agriculture.

Secondly, minerals are not merely removed from the soil profile by agriculture, but also by natural weathering and leaching processes and this has been the case since long before man arrived on the planet.

That is true, but those processes lag behind the soil regeneration process.  Agriculture doesn't just remove minerals directly, it also opens up fields to erosion, salination, and other second-hand effects that accelerate these natural processes.  We didn't invent these things, but we did speed them up and shatter any semblance of balance that once existed.

Again, by analogy to the human body, we generate new skin cells, and old skin cells die, all the time.  If I speed up the rate at which your skin cells die 100 times, and we do nothing to improve the creation of new skin cells, you're going to be in some pretty big trouble, pretty quickly.

IMHO, the time-bomb in modern US-style agriculture isn't that we've irreversibly depleted our soils of their nutrients -- I don't believe that for a minute -- it's that we've forced our farmers into a situation where they can't afford to be generalists any more.  When that happened, we traded good agricultural practices like crop rotation, manuring, etc. for a lot of expensive external inputs whose expense could only be justified by extremely high and unsustainable yields.

That hasn't helped, but even before that, agriculture was killing off soil.  Not permanently, no; soil always regenerates.  But we can't just take a break from agriculture to let the soil regenerate, "OK everyone, no eating this decade; gotta let the soil regenerate."  Fallowing is as close as we have to that, but even then the pressure to increase yields is too strong to leave it as long as it really should be left--this was the case even in the Middle Ages, leading to degrading soils.  Soil is a renewable resource, but only on a fairly long timeline--no, not as long as petroleum, but long, nonetheless.

Jason, I  don't think we need to have a back-and-forth argument about any of this because I'm sure that we would find much more to agree on than to disagree.  The primary reason why I went from an undergraduate degree in agronomy to a grad program in soil science was because I couldn't stomach the land-grant approach to teaching and practicing agriculture and I hoped that by studying soil morphology and genesis, I could learn something about soils as natural systems.  Eventually, I had to give that up as well because it seemed that most of the "consulting" work that I was being paid to do was destructive of the soil system and not the least bit concerned with sustainability.

My concern is not that we can't learn to farm the land sustainably -- that has to be possible -- but it is rather that we have so far exceeded the numbers of people that can be fed via anything resembling a sustainable agricultural system, that eventual widespread famine may be inevitable.  

To me, the word "farming" is synonymous with a thoughtful, sustainable way of life that is concerned with providing one of the most basic of human needs -- food.  Personally, I feel that there are far worse things that a person could spend his or her time doing.

To me, the word "farming" is synonymous with a thoughtful, sustainable way of life that is concerned with providing one of the most basic of human needs -- food.  Personally, I feel that there are far worse things that a person could spend his or her time doing.

I'm interested in permaculture in large part because of its potential to help heal some of the damage we've caused: as a means of rebuilding soil and rewilding domesticates, for example.

Does it help or hurt to call a forest garden a "farm"?  I admit your definition of agriculture tugs at the heart strings, but is that a good thing?  Do we want to associate the idea of a "thoughtful, sustainable way of life" with what Monsanto's doing?  I don't think there's anyone saying that they're not farming—but I don't think you could call it sustainable or thoughtful, either.  So obviously, there's a lot of farming that's the opposite of thoughtful and sustainable ... so how can farming be synonymous with that?

I agree, you sound like someone I'd agree with more than not, and I'd love to have a long disucssion with you about soil some time just to beef up my own knowledge of the subject, but I also put great value on precision in the use of words.  I've often found that a failure to do so creates confusion that can take a very long time to get around, that could have been entirely avoided if only we'd been more precise in the words we use.

I know a lot of cultivation techniques that help build the soil and create a real, thriving ecosystem that humans can be part of—but there's not a one of them that I'd call "agricultural."

Hello Jason, et al.

I teach a college course with the innocuous title "Sustainable Gardening", but it really should be called "Sustainability".

One of the first things I do is go over definitions (garden, farm, agriculture, horticulture, whatever), and make it clear that "humans tweaking an ecosystem to favor the stuff that they like" runs the gamut from hideous ADM/Monsanto-style agritorture-with-attendant-industrial-feedlots, through more traditional mixed farming (read Wendel Berry), through organic, through no-till methods, through Fukuoka-style "Natural Gardening", through Permaculture/Forest Gardening, all the way over to swidden horticulture stuff.

There are modes of growing things that do indeed build soil. That's not the issue, really. There are also modes of growing, sustainably, that produce rather nice yields per acre. But not on that many acres at a time.

Based on a lifetime of studying soil science, ecology, botany, forestry, anthropology and agriculture, here's my take:

What sustainable ANYTHING boils down to is population. There are way too many people, by at least a factor of 3 (probably greater than 3), to live decently based on the energy and nutrient fluxes available on this planet. This 6-billion-people thing has been based on x-million years of stored sunlight. This particular party is over. There's nothing remotely on the horizon that can make up for that subsidy. It was an inheritance, we squandered it foolishly in 100 years, and no amount of wishing on a star will make it better.

The only question to me is how hard the landing is going to be. I don't think there is much chance of a soft landing at this point. Too much denial still. A rather nasty side effect of our (US) national innumeracy and religious anti-science trends.

Wow, I guess that makes me a doomer! Cool!

There's a saying going around here: Guess I'll pull up a chair, grab a cold one, and watch :-)

- Steve

PS - I'm doing a lot more than just watching...

Hear, hear.
Thanks for opening up this range and variety of ways to cultivate soil and food.

Could you recommend any basic layman's text that covers the basics of nutrient cycles and flows, analyzing and comparing some of these different approaches?

I have no doubt that in say 500 years we will see a dramatically smaller human population on the planet, and the road to get there is going to have some nasty bumps. I want to do what I can to help winnow the best of what we've learned along the way as we partied through our fossil fuel inheritance, and to pass along as many nuggets of wisdom as possible, so the 7th generation and the 14th have more to go on than our monstrous garbage land fills.
 

Actually, I will quibble with you about one thing:  

In response to my assertion that natural weathering and leaching processes continually strip nutrients from the soil you said...

That is true, but those processes lag behind the soil regeneration process.

It is absolutely the case that soils are a dynamic system.  At any given time, under absolutely "natural" conditions, any soil parameter -- be it top soil thickness, organic matter content, the level of plant available nutrients, the level of microbial activity -- may be increasing or it may be falling.  So, it is not always the case that what you might consider "regenerative" processes are taking place.  Like anything else, soils morph over time, and at times the slate may even be completely wiped clean by geologic events -- a land slide, a flood, by glaciation, etc.  So, don't convince yourself that without human interference, soils would always be "progressing" toward some ideal, highly-fertile state.  It isn't the case.
 

You're absolutely right, I simplified the situation.  Still, I think the main point stands that that is a very different dynamic from the dramatic changes going on now.
Soil Science is a hugely complex subject, one that I've been studying for decades. I am most familiar with forest soils (being a forest ecologist by training). Some forests store most of their nutrient capital in the soil - e.g., most northern forests. Some forests store most of their nutrient capital in above-ground biomass - e.g., most tropical forests. Dynamic is the word, for sure.

That said, in most temperate parts of the world, native soils tend to accumulate organic matter over time, and become more fertile. I wouldn't use the word "progress" or "ideal", just accumulation.

Yes, there are fires, glaciers, etc. In fact, I recall a conference at Hubbard Brook where a speaker suggested that sooner or later the northeastern forests needed another good glaciation to refresh the raw mineral content of the soil :-)

In the end, all species are successional, because the environment will change.

To make an analogy with petroleum, we had, in the topsoils of the eastern forests and prairies of the US, millennia of stored fertility, which we handled rather sloppily. Most of it is gone, and petro-chemicals take up the slack for the time being.

- Steve

PO Tarzan,

You mentioned you are in the SE and you seem to have quite an understanding of soil.

I'm in the SE, and as I look at future scenarios I wonder if the SE will have problems because of historical and current land management practices (excessive logging resulting in topsoil erosion, etc).

What is your opinion of soil quality here and the potential future for creating locally sustainable communities relative to other places in the US?

"When that happened, we traded good agricultural practices like crop rotation, manuring, etc. for a lot of expensive external inputs whose expense could only be justified by extremely high and unsustainable yields."

To feed just the population of the USA would not take very much land , using todays methods.The rest could be used for energy purposes perhaps if we just concerned with our own livelhood and quit 'running in place' constantly for naught.  

Its the rest of the world we are selling our crops to that lead to soil depletion, intensive cropping, highly erodeable land, drops in aquifers , high use of commercial fertilizers and so on.

It may be just an urban legend but I read somewhere that just the hog production of the state of Indiana could satisfy all the domestic demands for pork in this country.

However that being said, I submit that anyone on this site visiting a 'confinement feeding' operation would be very suprised at the inhumane treatment we apply to our meat animals.  

I have worked some in broiler houses and its not something I share with folks who eat chicken. Pork confinement is far far worse.

We are all dining at the table with our eyes shut and don't wish to be reminded nor told of such.

I asked a farmer who was curing his own hogs why he didn't use his own that he raised on concrete. His reply was that they could not be home cured for they wouldn't 'take the salt'. He grew hogs but didn't want to eat those himself. He said that he preferred those raised on dirt. Now getting har d to find those so a few years back he just gave up on home curing and smoking pork. He used to do at least 8 or more at a time. His home made sausage was enough to make me give up on store brought. I had forgotten just how good real sausage was and just how disagreeable the store variety was. Garbage in a plastic wrapper. Turns rancid in just a few days. Smells awful and high priced as well.

And so it goes in the country who 'has the best food in the world'...sure. I am certain we are shipping 'the best' to other countries. For myself I can't touch a piece of 'prime steak' unless I slaughter it myself.

Out here where we grow the food the farmers nearby grocery store sells the worst in food products. We get the 'leavings'. The almost stale bread, near spoiled fruit, cheap low brand canned goods,and most expensive milk(4.95/gal). By law we can't sell our own milk to neighbors. My own cousin has a dairy operation and he can't even give me a gallon or gets in trouble.

The world is upside down.

Please give a reference for the Great Plains desert and 85% of the minerals in the soil being gone.
Farming a land kills it: it bleeds out the minerals and nutrients, and leads to erosion, salination, and depletion.

I would completely agree that conventional farming (ie. the dominant form of farming today) kills land. However, it need not be that way. Probably the best reference on a sustainable farming system is the classic Farmers of Forty Centuries by F.H. King. You can read the book on The Soil and Health Library site if you'd like.

As an agricultural landowner and a farmer (versus the more conventional miner), I have a vested interest in sustainable agriculture. The problems you cite are real, but all can, and have, been addressed.

In my opinion, the greatest barrier to sustainable agriculture, after cheap energy, is the conventional toilet.

There was more bollocks in there than that. The man is seriously advocating planning to live by yourself or with your family and a few others for the rest of your life. Well, that may be fine for you if it works out, but what about your children? And their children? Inbreeding doesn't result in good genetics.

Not only that, but it wouldn't work out. Maybe in the short term, but not for the long haul. You would quickly run into the prinicple of 'Thoreau's Axe'.

No person is an island. To think you can be completely self-sufficient is ridiculous -unless you want to be a solo hunterer gatherer, hunting with a spear and sling, and not have much else to your life. A fairly unsatisfying existence from my vantage point. Everyone needs a community to truly have a good life.

The editors' comments at the end stated just that point. The strength of the article is it's outline of what steps an individual needs to do to avoid becoming an early victim as the population descends towards equilibrium. Those willful enough to take those steps (I am not, yet!) will then presumably coalesce into the sustainable lifboat communities after dieoff.
And how are they going to find them? Fire up the net?

It could work for most a couple of years. If you want any kind of a life, you can't life on your own. We're a social creature to begin with, and Thoreau's Axe will bite you in the butt real quick.

What's wrong with taking the parts of an article that make sense, and ignoring the rest? If there are some flaws that you can't digest, why throw up on everyone? Does this board have to become a nest of nitpicking, negative doomers who can only tear down others' honest attempts to spread useful ideas? Thats not what it was just a few months ago, long before my first post.
OK rant is over...
I think the heat is making all of us irritable. ;-)

Of course, it doesn't help that the number of trolls has picked uplately.

I hope you're not couting me as one of your "trolls."  We have some very different viewpoints, but I've done my level best to remain courteous in the discussion.  Though, this....

That statement right there shows up just how ignorant you are.

...hardly seems like I'm being returned that favor.  I'd normally shrug it off and think nothing of it in order to help maintain a courteous exchange, but you have been quite insulting to me in this discussion overall, so I do very much hope that you're not counting me in your "troll" count.

IMO, Jason, you are not a troll...please keep posting.
Actually, the troll/non troll ratio  here seems amazingly low. Perhaps there is a web site somewhere that measures this.  
Isn't the concept of the "troll" somewhat relative anyhow?  It seems to me that to a considerable degree this label gets applied to people who happen to argue for a belief system so at variance with one's own that one finds the resulting cognitive dissonance irritating.
I always thought the troll was one who posted just to get reactions from others...
with that wide of a definition, just about everyone is a troll because they 'want someone to get a reaction.'
The implication is that they are posting things they don't really believe, just to stir people up.
I think the heat is making all of us irritable. ;-)

Of course, it doesn't help that the number of trolls has picked uplately

I don't see the necessity for this post at all. Just because I live by myself, doesn't necessarily mean I'm a Troll

Hang on a minute.

What's this problem with Trolls?

My daughter called me a Cave-Troll tonight. I was flattered...

Is a troll something bad in the blogosphere?

Reply if you want. I probably wont be able to work out which thread it is on tomorrow.

It all smacks of Trollophobia to me.

As one of the better prepared doomers here, I'd like to comment on the whole idea of survival post PO.  My intent is not to be able to survive forever with no outside input but rather to buy significant time until things "settle down" (whatever that means).  By significant, I mean 10-20 years.

I believe that those of us who are actually doing it recognize far, far more than sidewalk superintendents how extrodinairely difficult self-sufficiency is.  I have no illusions that the physical systems I've installed will last forever.  Or, that I will physically be able to do what I do now (I'm 67 and among other things, I fell the trees for our firewood, buck them up and split them; prune the orchard and grapes and put in the garden.).  What I hope we can do is hang in there until society re-groups into some new, sustainable form.

As far as individual versus group survival goes, there are pros and cons to each.  However, it is better to take a shot at it as a family than to do nothing at all.

Lastly, those of us who are doing it are better prepared psychologically for tough times.  In other words, we want to survive.

Todd

What kind of axe do you prefer?  I've picked up a Fiskars super splitter and LOVE it.
Not going into specific brands, as I'm not an american, but you do need 4-5 different types of axe.

First of, there's a about 1.5 kg (3 lbs) splitting axe for most firewood.

Secondly, there's the 3-4 kg (6-8lbs) sledgehammer axe for the really tough pieces of firewood, and also for using wedges to split really, really, really thick wood.

Thirdly, you need the good ole hand axe, around 1 lbs, as a utility or something you can carry in the woods, for hunting, making a fire etc.

Four, you need a cleaning or culling axe, to clean or cull the forest of inferior trees and saplings, so that the goods ones have better conditions to grow.

Five, you need the felling axe, unless you want to rely on a much more brittle saw to take down your trees.

And then there are the de-barking axes, axes for making logs for loghouses.

The list goes on and on. As for durability, buy a few extra axes, heads and handles. If nothing else you can sell them or barter. It will get you through the rough years until society stabilizes.

But the problem with these rough years is that before that we will have a downslide maybe lasting 10-20 years, before society collapses. You have to have the strength and resilience to last those non-chaos years without exhausting your resources and your willpower.

Holding our during 1-2 chaotic years is one thing, managing a slow descent before that is much worse. But the chaos won't last long, people won't have the strength. Once someone runs out of food, it's a matter of days before they're too weak to do much, and weeks until they die.

For the record, I am no 'sidewalk superintendant'. I am as self-sufficient as I can possibly be given the limitations of my current situation. (re: i'm in graduate school)
And I grew up homeless for the most part -so trust me, I know how to survive and more about self-sufficiency than most people will ever care to. And I am most certainly preparing to survive PO. Trust me on that one.

Tate: who made that axe? Out of what? Who brought it to the store you bought it from? Who made the car you drove there to get it in? What about the gas? Where'd it come from?

Now, you can take that axe and go completely off grid. But someday its going to break beyond repair. Then what? Can you make an axe? If not, you'll need to find a store (if one exists then) or a blacksmith.

That's the principle of Thoreau's Axe. He went into the woods to try and be sulf-sufficient, and discovered he could never entirely divorce himself from others without eventually reverting to a stone age caveman existence.

Todd, I think you have the right idea. Thanks for replying and for being courteous.

Optimist,

Thanks.  I think what is going to get more people will be lack of practiced skills.  These could be hunting-gathering skills or blacksmithing skills.  BTW, I do have a small forge but only 200# of blacksmithing coal..plus I'm barely an amature but I could make an axe or saw.

The advantage that people like I have is that we have had to learn skills and practice them.  Further, we have had to accept a life that most people would find unacceptable.  For example, it isn't unusual to get snowed in for a week or two with the power off (This is when we rely on the PV system and back-up generator - and, yes, if there is no gas in the future I'll run it on wood gas.).  We know people in the area who got snowed in for 6 weeks last year.  These sorts of things build self-reliance because that is the only way to survive in the mountains where I am, even with all of today's technology.

At the same time, we have accumulated the "stuff" necessary for survival such as food preservation equipment and hand tools.

The movie, Testament was mentioned on another forum this morning and I happened to be watching it last night (we don't get TV but rely on our old tapes and DVD's).  I think it provides an excellent vehicle for asking what the people in the town did right - very little- and what they should have done.  This can be applied to how one might have to cope in the future.

Todd

"Who made that axe?"

A blacksmith can and once did make them.

I used to own 3 coal forges, 8 anvils and 4 leg vises and made
many items. Most farms had forges and the rest and 'made' some tools , depending on their skill.

I have seen a farrier hot forge an outstanding horseshoe in a very short time and it was far better than the 'cold' shoes one had to buy.

There is plenty of scrap iron(mild and carbon steel) laying around the country side ready to be forged.

Future survival will require metalsmiths. How many can do that? How many will be around after the supposed dieoff?

Sadly all my forges and anvils went the way of the auction a few years back...I didn't see this coming.

Now I intend to replace them , if I have the time or energy.

Blacksmiths still exist and can perform wonders with hot steel.

Airdale,
Can you recommend any books that would be helpful to someone with 0 knowledge of blacksmithing? A resource to start learning the basics.
 I figure there will be a tremendous amount of scrap metal available as the economy slows and someone with the proper tools and knowledge of blacksmithing help themselves. Plus it sounds enjoyable.
Regards
A good basic book is The Art of Blacksmithing by Alex W. Bealer, ISBN 0-7858-0395-5.  I bought a remaindered copy from Edward Hamilton Bookseller a few years ago.

A couple of others I have are Farm Blacksmithing by J.M. Drew.  The book was first published in 1901.  The other is Forging by John Jernberg first published in 1918.  These are reprints by Algrove Publishing.

Another useful book is A Museum of Early American Tools by Eric Sloane, 1964.

ABANA is an organization of blacksmiths and farriers.
They have a website and plenty of information as well as
pointers to much more.

I have accumulated many good books on the subject but they are currently archived in my barn/shed/workshop and not easily available.

Good coal is probably harder to find now but I used to get mine in Greensboro,NC as well as in Louisville, Ky.

Again web resources as well as forums have plenty of answers.

The point is that you need to start finding the physical resources as soon as you can. A good handcranked blower on a good wide forge along with a couple of good anvils.

The best anvils I had were Hay Budden and (forgot the other). There are some very cheap worthless anvils about and you need to shun those. My 300 pounder anvil could ring so loud and clear as to make your ears hurt. That was just with a slight tap on the anvil and of course you NEVER NEVER stike an anvil with force without something between the anvil and your hammer.

The blacksmith is one who has the ability to 'make his own tools' and bootstrap upwards by such means. No smell that I loved more than that of good coal forming coke and watching the metal go thru its heat changes.

There is a store in Wisconsin that sells firepots , and other tools as well as anvils. They likely do mail order as well.

Then if you are serious about this skill/craft the best thing to do is find someone local who can teach you or you can watch and learn the skills in the best way..rather than books.

I learned far more watching and working with my peers at the forge than I could ever have gotten from books.

You will find a large population of blacksmiths and farriers hidden in the niches and crack in this country. Men who can do wonders with hot metal and pride themselves on their skills. A craft that almost disappeared.

Good luck.

I am most certainly preparing to survive PO. Trust me on that one.

I won't unless you take the test and report your score.

Wharf Rats are survivors.

The Cannibal
You scored 56 Strength, 71 Guile, 40 Morality, and 85 Survival Rate!
Well here you are. Alive and kickin'. Wait.. was that you kickin' or did that come from your stomache? Nevermind. What's important is that you made it... right? All those other survivors are just cattle. Congratulations and welcome to the REAL top of the food chain.

looks like i get through.

The "Doctor"
You scored 38 Strength, 57 Guile, 57 Morality, and 58 Survival Rate!
You're intelligent and you care about the well-being of your fellow man. Maybe to a fault. You're just bearly keeping yourself together. Regardless, everyone is glad to have you around. Just make sure you look out for number one once in a while.

No problems here:

   "Cult Leader"
Strength: 54
Guile: 80
Morality: 57
Survival Rate: 81

And how about you, Kevembuangga?

It was a while ago, I dont remember all details.
It was Cannibal, survival rate 75.

Hahahahhaahhaa. Oh wait, Aahhaahahaa. Oh, you're killing me.75? Aaahhaahaahaha. Ugh. Aha..

Haha. Oh, please, somebody bring me a cookie. Please,I can't breath. OH! That was a good one, my friend.

"What I hope we can do is hang in there until society re-groups into some new, sustainable form."

Absolute chaos/marauding/starvation would linger 1-2 years, nothing to sustain it much longer than that. Switching from heads up!, marauders, danger, to community building could take much longer. Survive past the first few years, then chance plays a huge role who might remain, who we meet.

Old thread, but anyway.

Less time than that.  I go back to my earlier post.  Where are you getting your water.  If the fall happens into a Chaos.  Lack of Water will kill all but the most hardy of the Land Pirates. Then food spoilage and animal bites and poor health care.  The Land Pirates will be begging for hand outs sooner than you think.  Our Tin cans do spoil and they spoil faster without power on in a house than they do in a fairly stable warehouse.  

If it gets that bad, the Land Pirate will Have to organize and do it fast or die off like the rest just for differant reasons.

Don't forget Just In Time Food Transit Systems Have loaded the store shelf against getting food for your group of Land Pirates.

Everyone needs a community to truly have a good life.

That all depends on your difination of a "Good Life"

I had a lot of problems with the article, too, but I disagree with your take on iron.  We exhausted all of the economic, near-surface iron ore deposits long ago.  What remains is much deeper in the earth.  Most of the stuff above the surface is alloyed, and needs industrial techniques to rework.  Rusted pure iron, bog iron, and so forth will provide for a scavenger's iron age for a few centuries, but even that won't last for long.

As for the Neolithic, we turned to industrial agriculture because our soil could no longer support agriculture.  Agriculture kills soil; for 10,000 years, agriculture has been in a race to outpace its own consequences.  See Richard Manning's Against the Grain for a full history.  Today, 85% of the minerals that were in North America's soil in 1900 are gone.  We don't grow our crops in soil so much as we grow our crops in fertilizer.  Take away the fertilizer, and the Great Plains are already a desert.  So it's not going to be the Neolithic; we don't have the soil for the Neolithic anymore.  Sure, in the long term, soil heals, but now we're talking about the same time scale in whcih global climate change ends our artificially-extended Holocene interglacial, and the climatological window that allows for agriculture slams shut.

Jason, you don't know much about agriculture.

Industrial agriculture destroys soil. But properly done, which granted has been the exception rather than the rule, agriculute builds rather than destroys the soil.

I say that as an organic gardener who very much loves the soil and knows that its the basis of all life.

So we were practicing industrial agriculture 10,000 years ago in the Middle East?  Because we turned that into a desert.

Take a look at Manning's book, or even just "The Oil We Eat."  Industrial agriculture destroys soil faster, but agriculture was laying waste to whole bioregions millennia before the Industrial Revolution.

Jason, fossil fuel inputs are merely a stepped up version of a model that was played out unsuccssfully in various places for millenia.

Since you obviously think farming = bad and humans should return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, there's no way I can convince you, but I will say it once more: farming when done right, does NOT destroy the land, the soil, the ecosystems, or anything else.

Repeating it doesn't make it so.  I didn't form my opinion and then collect facts to buttress it; I collected facts and came to this opinion.  I don't think farming is "bad" so much as it is destructive and unsustainable by its very nature.  The cultivation of cereal grains requires keeping a region at the lowest levels of succession, and that means actively creating a catastrophe in that land every year, to make sure the land doesn't heal and move on to things like shrubs, trees, and other life that might provide food for non-human animals.  This is what makes agriculture so destructive, and this is the defining process of agriculture.

If you're engaging in cultivation and not tearing up fields in this manner, planting rows and fields of a single crop, then what you're doing is probably properly called horticulture.  The intuitive distinction between "farming" and "gardening" generally holds here.  Permaculture DOES help heal the soil, and creates a very verdant ecosystem.  Mann makes a good case in 1491 that most of pre-Columbian North America was essentially a permacultural garden, and the accounts of "wilderness" we have from centuries later are essentially nothing more than a continent-wide, untended garden that had become overgrown.

But that's a different thing from organic agriculture—essentially, the same way we did agriculture before the Green Revolution.  It was organic agriculture that turned the Fertile Crescent into a cruel joke and the Great Plains into the dust bowl.  Ruddiman's "Early Anthropocene" hypothesis suggests that it's organic agriculture that may have led to global warming and an artifical extension of the current interglacial.  It's an undeniable historical fact that organic agriculture has, over the past 10,000 years, created a global ecological catastrophe, long before the Industrial Revolution.  This has nothing to do with my opinions or beliefs; this is plain fact.

Would you say that there is no such thing as sustainable organic agriculture?  It seems to me that the examples you are giving are of clearly unsustainable agriculture, organic or not.  The fertile crescent was salinated from irrigation: an attempt to unsustainably harvest from the region.  Does that mean that sustainable agriculture is impossible, or does it just mean that it has to be intentionally sustainable agriculture to carry on for long periods?
I would say that sustainable agriculture is an oxymoron.  Hemenway taught me a lot about permaculture (I'm actually undertaking a permaculture project of my own), and he says I taught him a lot about anthropology (though I think he gives me too much credit).  You'll find me in the "Acknowledgements" of that particular article, because in it Hemenway does such a magnificent job of summarizing so many of the discussions we've had about agriculture at the Anthropik Network.

There are many different ways in which agriculture destroys the soil.  Monocropping leads to depletion of minerals.  Irrigation leads to salination.  There's erosion to consider, and so forth.

But at its base, agriculture is about wounding an ecology, and then regularly picking the scab to make sure it never heals.  This is not a sustainable way to live, any way you cut it.

There might be sustainable cultivation techniques, but those do not fall under the heading of "farming" nearly so much as "gardening."  There's a great deal of diversity in that, mind you.  I've been fascinated recently by David Jacke's edible forest gardens (thanks to Hemenway for that tip).  But if we want to come up with a sustainable form of cultivation, we need to give up on the idea of "farming" right off the bat.  Anything that can be legitimately called "farming" is an incredibly destructive, unsustainable form of subsistence.  When we're looking at sustainable systems, we're immediately entering the realm of permaculture, horticulture, and the gardener.  There's simply no sustainable way to claim vast tracts of land for solely human use.

Oh, I see, you're redefining the word agriculture.  That's what the Hemenway article did as well.  That explains my confusion.
It's hardly a redefinition.  My mother planted some tomatoes in her backyard, and made a joke to get a rise out of me saying she was a "farmer."  We all recognize, intuitively, the difference between "farming" and "gardening."  I'm not redefining anything; we all know a garden in the backyard is not a "farm."  There's a reason we make this distinction: because we all intuit a major, qualitative difference between the two, even though they're both forms of cultivation.

I come from an anthropology background, and in that field, the difference between horticulture and agriculture is not semantic at all: agricultural and horticultural socieites look utterly nothing like each other, but often share many things in common amongst themselves.  The difference between horticulture and agriculture is ALL the difference.


We all recognize, intuitively, the difference between "farming" and "gardening."


the difference between horticulture and agriculture is not semantic at all

I am constantly amazed by the range of ways that people understand language and the world. I am even more amazed that someone with an "anthropology background" could make these kinds of statements.

I have no problem with someone working to develop a distinction between farming=agriculture and gardening=horticulture. But it sounds to me that you, Jason, are claiming that these words inhererently and intuitively have the meanings that you want to assign to them. Would this even be true for non-native speakers of English? Does every language in the world have a corresponding pair of words with precisely the difference in meaning that you are claiming? When you start talking about the meanings of the words and then claim it has nothing to do with semantics, I just have to discount everything you say, because it sounds like you don't know the meanings of the words you use!

I think it is really important that we develop deeper understandings of the ways we relate to the soil and air and water, the ways in which these are sustainable, etc. I would like to suggest that claims that "We all recognize, intuitively," any kind of difference at all - such claims are not helpful in developing new understandings. Such claims tend merely to amplify divisiveness, to attempt to concretize differences that could, if left fluid, enhance deeper understandings all around - not just of the soil and air and water, but of each other and our own living dynamics.

When you start talking about the meanings of the words and then claim it has nothing to do with semantics, I just have to discount everything you say, because it sounds like you don't know the meanings of the words you use!

I'm not talking about the meanings of words, I'm talking about two sets of techniques, one called "agriculture" or coloquially, "farming," and another called "horticulture," or coloquially, "gardening."  I'm not talking about the words or what they mean, I'm talking about the practices they describe.  You could call them "Tweedledee" and "Tweedledum," and they would still be very different things.  They look different, they act different, they have very different consequences and principles and foundations.  They are very different practices.  We all intuitively recognize that, because they ARE so different, so we come up with different words to describe them, because they're very, very different things.  This is not a merely semantic argument about defining words, this is about two very different approaches to cultivation.

someone could use these semantics to say that sustainabile agriculture replaces farming with large scale gardening.
No, he's not really redefining agriculture.  The distinction between agriculture and horticulture is one anthropologists have made for decades.

Agriculture is horticulture on steroids.  Agriculture uses irrigation, draft animals, tractors.  Agriculture is usually associated with grains or other crops that can be stored for a long time - allowing wealth accumulation, by individuals or governments.

Jared Diamond calls agriculture The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, but praises the horicultural practices of the sustainable societies described in Collapse.

Agriculture
NOUN:
    The science, art, and business of cultivating soil, producing crops, and raising livestock; farming.

It doesn't appear to me that either of you are using that definition, so you are redefining the word.  I don't see anything in the definition that requires agriculture to use irrigation, draft animals, or tractors, or that the crops produced have to be capable of long-term storage.  And Diamond is talking about foraging, not horticulture.  You won't find the word "horticulture" in "The Worst Mistake...".  The only instance of "garden" is in reference to agriculture.  

Contrast with horticulture

NOUN:
   1. The science or art of cultivating fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.
   2. The cultivation of a garden.

The second meaning is funny, because a garden is defined the same way as a farm is, an area of land in which one grows things, except that one doesn't grow animals in a garden (except for the bugs and bunnies in mine), and one often does grow animals on a farm.

I read these as 1) horticulture doesn't necessarily involve altering the soil, though the definition doesn't preclude that; 2) agriculture does involve altering the soil, though there's nothing in the definition that requires unsustainability or even breaking the soil surface; and 3) agriculture includes raising livestock but horticulture does not.

It doesn't appear to me that either of you are using that definition, so you are redefining the word.

That's the definitive definition?  I've rarely found useful definitions in dictionaries.  For instance, when I use the University of Alabama's anthropological glossary, I get the following definitions:

Domesticated food production involving minimally the cultivation of plants but usually also the raising of domesticated animals; more narrowly, plant domestication making use of the plow (versus horticulture). (Hunter and Whitten, 1982)

I think the existence of words is sufficient to denote that there is some general understanding of terms referring to different things, but the popular understanding of what those differences are, is rarely precise.  For definitions, dictionaries are rarely useful as anything but a starting point.  I'd recommend researching this a little more deeply: you'll find that I'm not redefining the term at all, but using a long-standing, but precise, definition.

And Diamond is talking about foraging, not horticulture.  You won't find the word "horticulture" in "The Worst Mistake...".  The only instance of "garden" is in reference to agriculture.  

Leanan said that Diamond refers to horticulturalists in Collapse—which he does.  I'm not sure if he uses that term, but the societies he talks about are classified as horticulturalists by anthropologists.

The second meaning is funny, because a garden is defined the same way as a farm is, an area of land in which one grows things, except that one doesn't grow animals in a garden (except for the bugs and bunnies in mine), and one often does grow animals on a farm.

Yet expected; dictionaries simply do not provide precise definitions.  They try to capture the popular understanding of the term, which is usually at least a little bit confused and contradictory.  This does not mean the phenomenon does not exist, only that most people have not pondered it at such length as to really come up with a precise delineation of its defining characteristics.  In other words: it's a dictionary, not a peer-reviewed scholarly paper—you get what you pay for, so to speak.  We're talking about much more precise definitions here; to accuse me of "redefining" the word, this argument has essentially become a case of scholarly journals vs. encyclopedias.  A dictionary definition is a starting point for a deeper inquiry, just like an encyclopedia article.

The glossary you site explicitly says at the top of the page "There is a great deal of difference of opinion about the correct definitions of many terms among anthropologists, as can be seen in the varying definitions offered from different sources for many key terms."

There are no less than six partially contradictory definitions for agriculture there.  I'll stick with the dictionary, thanks.

That's mere laziness.  Of course there's discussion and difference of opinion!  That's why the dictionary fails to provide a precise definition!

By comparison, scholars have raging feuds in the pages of peer-reviewed journals constantly.  Breaking into a conference and dismissing them because you don't want to wade through it, saying, "I'll stick with my encyclopedia article, thanks," is a sure sign that you're in an argument over your head.

Are you sure you're not in over your head on this one?

Quite sure, your insults aside.
Perhaps redefining the word is not what you are guilty of, but making the assumption that the difference between the words is intuitive is something you yourself just prosecuted upon yourself by pointing to the shortcomings of dictionaries, and then drawing upon a specific background (anthropology) which determines your reference point.

If dictionaries provide "common" definitions which are imprecise, then how can you expect the usage of your words from a more refined and precise refence point to be intuitive to people who are not also at that same reference point i.e. are not anthropologists?

Sorry but semantics is at the very heart of this exchange, and the shortcoming I think came from your side by assuming your audience was as knowledgable in anthropology and its precision as you.

Humans are much better at observing things, than describing them.  We can easily note that two things are different, even if we have a hard time really coming up with what makes them different.  So, for instance, we all have an idea of what it means to be "obscene," but when you press the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to define it, even they can only come up with, "I know it when I see it."

Ultimately, don't all of our definitions come down to that?

We all know there's two different things here.  We know a backyard garden is not a farm, and we know Monsanto doesn't do gardening.  But beyond that "I know it when I see it," where is the line?  The difference is intuitive; the distinction is not.

I don't assume an anthropological background; that's why I began by specifically iterating the precise distinctions between agriculture and horticulture used by anthropologists, because while the difference is intuitive, the distinction is not.  That's when I was accused of "redefining" agriculture, at which point I was under pressure to prove that anthropologists had indeed spent a good deal of time on this definition.  At which point I was told it was too confusing, and we should stick with the dictionary.

The problem is, the conversation becomes very unwieldy when everything is "agriculture."  Anthropologists defined these terms because it makes it much easier to discuss these kinds of distinctions, the social ramifications, and so forth.  It's useful here for all the same reasons it's useful to anthropologists, because the problems we're discussing here are the same problems they've been discussing for quite some time.  As with all language, the goal should be communication: to communicate an idea as clearly, precisely, and concisely as possible.  Obviously, I have failed in that here, but I hope something more solid than "sustainable agriculture" can be developed, as "sustainable" is, itself, a much abused word.

I won't argue the difficulty of defining precise terminology.  Its a challenge in many different specialties.  In fact as part of my job I take databases from competing products, extract the data and "fit" them into place in our database.

The common problem when doing this is that the definition that some types of data are created with in the other product is not always an accurate fit in our product.

Very similar in some respects to language "mapping", data mapping can be a royal pain in the backside.  Because of this I try to be very sensitive when working with our customers when gathering definitions from them, and explaining our definitions back.  It causes for some longer exchanges initially, but the precision of the conversion of the data ends up much higher.

I have to admit I got caught up on the thread debating the sustainability and ecological effects of agriculture versus horticulture, but I must confess that the earlier portion of the debate made little sense(or more accurately distinction) until I finally saw your later more precise definitions.  Perhaps prefacing future arguments by explaining your reference point would avoid this problem in the future?  I know thats generally what I have to do when I'm explaining the definition mapping of data with customers, and in the long run it usually avoids a lot of confusion, frustration, and ultimately wasted time.

Anyhow, I hope to hear more about both sides of this debate, preferrably with both sides taking a bit of effort to both more fully explain their definitions, and be more willing to accept or adapt to a meaning not traditionally used.


I take databases from competing products, extract the data and "fit" them into place in our database.

I am really interested in this kind of work. Have you ever looked at William Kent's Data and Reality or Brian Cantwell Smith's On the Origin of Objects? If you have any other good resources on this puzzle, I would love to expand my horizons!

I am really fascinated by the limitations of logic and language. How can we improve our ability to juggle multiple systems of terminology, &c.? Just like a sustainable way of working with ecosystems seems to require a less aggressive approach that is open to variety and change and interdependence, similarly I think that a sustainable way of working with ideas requires something other than the equivalent of monoculture. The challenges of reconciling multiple databases, that is work that I think brings these issues into crisp focus.

Have you ever looked at William Kent's Data and Reality or Brian Cantwell Smith's On the Origin of Objects?

A very interesting reference, though I didn't read it (yet) I would like to, but consider the KIND OF ARGUMENTS which goes on here at TOD!
Pretty hopeless to bring this into the dispute.
Did you ever looked at the sillyness which surrounds the Semantic Web in spite of the supposedly high-tech savvyness of these folks.

To the morons of all breeds and creeds in ANY field an enforced monoculture solves it all.
This is just Orwellian but alas it "works" by choking alternative views until reality hits back.

Try an anthropology glossary.

The dictionary definitions you posted are the ones my dad, an agronomist, uses.  He doesn't have much respect for those pansy-@$$ horticulture types.  ;-)

Diamond was talking about foraging in that article, but in his book, Collapse, the sustainable societies he holds up as examples are mostly horticultural.

That glossary defines both agriculture and horticulture as forms of farming, and then it doesn't bother to define farming.

If that's our reference then horticulture can't use clippers or anything else more advanced than a digging stick, and agriculture can't use hand tools like a shovel and must use non-human power.  That still doesn't mean that horticulture has to be sustainable or that agriculture can't be sustainable by those definitions.

I would say that the societies Diamond points out in Collapse practiced sustainable agriculture or foraging.  The Japanese practiced sustainable agriculture.  If I remember right, New Guinea was an example of mixed sustainable agriculture and foraging.  It seems like Tikopia was the foraging and population control example, and I don't recall if they cultivated anything.

OK, fine, redefine "horticulture" as "sustainable farming."  Hell, call it Umpeelumpee.  It doesn't change the fact that it's an extremely different system, it just means you'll have a hell of a time looking up anything else on the subject, since no one else uses that phrase.
I would say the Japanese did practice agriculture, because rice is a grain that can be stored.  (However, they were probably the least sustainable of the sustainable societies described.  They "exported their shortages," much as we do today.)  

The others, I would say practiced horticulture.  I believe Diamond actually used the word "sylvaculture" for one society.  Because, among other things, they cultivated trees for firewood.

Growing large amounts of grain is a pretty good "test" of agriculture vs. horticulture, IMO.  (From an anthropology POV, I mean.  My dad would disagree.)  Growing a crop that can be stored is really what sets a society onto the treadmill.  If you're growing "horticulture" crops, like sweet potatoes, it really doesn't do you any good to work twice as long and grow twice as many.  You can't store them; they rot.  This is the basic difference between horticultural and agricultural societies.  

That's as good a distinction as I've ever heard.
One big difference between agricultural and horticultural societies is that usually women do most of the work in the gardens (so the men can sit around, drink beer, and discuss politics) while in agriculture it is most often a man behind the plow.

The status of women is much higher in horticultural than in agricultural societies, and indeed, many horticultural societies are matrilineal and matrilocal (though not matriarchal).

To be fair, in horticultural societies, men may not do as much work, but they generally do the more dangerous work: in swidden systems, they pull down trees; they hunt, and so forth.

Horticultural societies show us that separate can still be equal, so long as it's not simply a euphemism for racists.

In ancient Hawai`i, men were responsible for all food-producing activities.  They not only fished, foraged, tended the taro and sweet potatoes, and hunted...they were responsible for all the cooking, too.  

The missionaries were horrified at how "lazy" Hawaiian women were.  

However, there were many foods that only men were allowed to eat, so that might be why they had to do all the work.  The women were reportedly very happy to break the food taboos, as long as they weren't caught.

They were also at the upper limits of population at the time Cook arrived, and had elaborate food laws, such as a member of the royalty could take any food package anyone was carrying at any time. But, not if it was an offering to the gods - result: people disguising food parcels as offerings to the gods so they could get them safely to their ailing aunt up in the valley. Crime and punishment was elaborate, strict, and ruthless in old Hawaii, because they were at the point we're nearing - one of too darned many people and so people becoming worthless. I guess less than worthless, since they were worth more to the living as one less mouth to feed - dead. So there were elaborate taboos and the punishment was mutiliation (often leading to a slow death) or death. The kings used to keep prisoners in cages and wound them, break their limbs, so the gangrenous wounds would make them tastier to the sharks, which they'd feed the prisoners. There were more ways of killing and mutilating others for the simple materials and tools they had in Hawaiian society than just about anywhere. They had elaborate ways of tying people down, special clubs and implements for splitting heads, skinning, wounding, cutting, etc.

In short it was a very brutal society! Now, Hawaiian society at the time of Cook was a feudal society, hence the similarities to feudal disregard for non-Noble life in our own past. But, scientists think there may have been 3 migrations to Hawaii, the original people, small, dark, and how the stuff of legends at the "Menehune" which are in legends the helpers of the common man, builders of the most beautiful stone walls, magical hard workers. etc. Legend has it they'd only come out at night, and help people who were oppressed, were capable of prodigious amounts of work, and were kind and wise. The next migration were the "run of the mill" Hawaiians, they think from the Marquesas islands. The last migration was from Tahiti, and is where the taller, lighter-skinned, Alii (nobles) came from.

The original ancient people "Menehune" and possibly the Marquesas people probably had a much more egalitarian, sustainable society. The folks from Tahiti were like all feudal overlords utter bastards of course. Imagine the Parker Family with shark-tooth lined clubs lol.

I'm familiar with the island of Oahu and there are large land areas even there, by far the most populated island, where there are just no people. This was not the case in the past, I was never told growing up that the main highway cutting through the center of the island and going through pineapple and sugar cane fields, that whole area, was at one time lived in from edge to edge by Hawaiians, farming and living their lives. Out in the middle-of-nowhere forest, one often comes across "old Hawaiian walls" made of black volcanic rock.

There were really 4 migrations to Hawaii, the last and most damaging was by Modern Industrial Man and they came from England, Portugal, US, Japan, Philippines, Tonga, Samoa, Mexico, Middle-East, etc you name it. None of 'em know how to do anything related to permaculture, most don't even have any foraging skills. But they know how to open a can with a can opener and they have the modern hierarchal social/oppression system down pat.

Sweet potatoes rot?

I grow a lot of them and they store extremely well and in fact
store longer and better than regular(what we call Irish Potatoes). Better than Pontiac Red, Kennebeck White and far better than Yukon Gold.

In fact just today I harvested (took a sample) of some sweet potatoes out of my fairly large bed.

I also have some white potatoes in the basement rotting already.

One must store the sweet potatoes preferably in the attic to cure and develop more sugar.

No you but most debating these issues seem IMO to know very little about farming.

To do sustainable farming you had damn well be a very very good gardener or you just aint gonna make it. Crops? Some hay for animal forage in the winter. Corn , just enough for feed when working the draft animals.

My kin were grade A farmers and did it just as above. They didn't give a hoot about all the rest. They had to LIVE off that farm and trade eggs,fryers ,butter and cream for the flour , sugar and other essentials. Barter is was called. No money involved.

Argue all you wish but that was not the way it was.

Today a person who does big AG? He is termed an 'operator' but not in town..just by the FSA operatives and the USDA and Ag Extension Agents.

He rents or shares land. He runs big equipment. He could care less about sustainablitity and not much about Peak Oil.

He wants what the big ass Corpo Execs got. Lots of money. He is 'running in place' just like the rest of us who were in the rat race. He isn't making it though. He will cut down trees, rape the land, do whatever he needs to.

He will only do conservation if PAID to do it.

Get real here folks.

Sweet potatoes rot?

Yup.

Keep in mind that many horticultural societies are in tropical areas.  No cold cellars.

And even in areas that aren't as hot and humid, there's a limit to how long you can store tubers.  Remember the Bible story, about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows?  It was a warning to store food grown during seven years of plenty for use during seven years of famine.  Would be pretty tough to store sweet potatoes for seven years.

Of course they will eventually 'sprout' and then can be replanted as next years crop. That is exaclty how I do mine. They will keep pretty much all winter and some used to place them near the stove/wood heater. When it gets near planting time I cut them into smaller pieces and place in a container of sawdust and loam. Voila in a few weeks I have all the slips I need.

I have never seen any rot like regular potatoes do but I suppose it might happen if conditions were humid like in a cellar.

Its normal also for regular potatoes to shrink (if they don't rot) and put forth shoots. Again can be planted early for next years crop. The ones that I see rotting usually have defects associated with them. On the farm way back we used to spread lime over them and that seemed to preserve them quite well as well as keeping the varmits at bay.

I don't live in a tropical area. I live in Kentucky.
We eat a lot of sweet potatoes. You definitely need to 'cure' them. A very warm area, like an attic, is best.

I think you're missing the point.  Sweet potatoes, taro, etc., can't be hoarded like grain can - in vast amounts, for years.  This means wealth cannot be concentrated.  And that means a whole different pattern of society.    
As much as I hate to beat this dead horse, and as much as I doubt anyone will read this in the future, I have looked things up in Collapse, and Diamond uses the term "sustainable agriculture."  Look at page 280 in the hardcover edition, about halfway down the page.

"When more Europeans followed up the pilots' discoveries overland, they found that the inhabitants were farmers who grew taro, bananas, yams, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, pigs, and chickens.  We now know that the first four of those major crops (plus other minor ones) were domesticated in New Guinea itself, that the New Guinea highlands were one of only nine independent centers of plant domestication in the world, and that agriculture has been going on there for about 7,000 years - one of the world's longest-running experiments in sustainable food production."

Beginning of the last paragraph on page 281:
"Sustainable agriculture in the New Guinea highlands poses difficult problems not only of soil fertility but also of wood supplies..."

Note that the New Guineans use only hand tools.  As Leanan points out, on page 282 he discusses the growing of casuarina as silviculture.  I plant enough trees that that doesn't surprise me a bit.  Silviculture is the usual term for tree farming.  I haven't seen any reference to horticulture in this section yet.

I don't think anyone can accuse Diamond of not knowing that some anthropologists use the terms agriculture and horticulture differently than he is here.  I doubt that it's because he's "in over his head", as Jason asked if I was.  Diamond wrote this book for a non-anthropologist audience, and that audience uses the standard definitions.  If he were writing for an audience of anthropologists, I would expect that he would first define his terms and then use them, just as the glossaries Leanan and Jason cited did.  

The problem is that if you are trying to convince the public that industrial agriculture can't continue when oil supplies decrease, then a natural response is to call for sustainable agriculture.  If you then say, as Jason did, that this is an oxymoron and agriculture cannot be made sustainable, then your audience will decide that you are simply a doomer and either agree to be a doomer with you or go look for someone who thinks it can be made sustainable.  They will most likely find one of the 20,000+ hits on sustainable agriculture on Google, figure out how to make agriculture sustainable, and ignore you from then on.  This is unnecessary, if you are willing to use the commonly accepted definitions.

They will most likely find one of the 20,000+ hits on sustainable agriculture on Google, figure out how to make agriculture sustainable, and ignore you from then on.

Moot!
Sustainable agriculture cannot sustain 6.5 billions+ people, even less so with climate change.

Solve climate 'whatever it costs'

LOL, hard to argue with that point!  I agree that we may not be able to feed everyone.  I wasn't arguing that we could.  Frankly, I don't think we'll need to.  
Have you read "Farmers of Forty Centuries," F.H. King's classic on agriculture in China, Korea and Japan? Though it's not scintillating reading, King makes a strong case for sustainable agriculture - at least under certain conditions. China has only experienced soil depletion with the advent of industrial agriculture.

Html version:

http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010122king/ffcc.html

Project Gutenberg version:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5350

As for the scab analogy, of course you can keep picking it forever, as long as the underlying body has enough vitality to form a new one. And with the old Chinese system, which included recycling all human and animal waste, regularly dumping dredged canal mud onto the fields, and a hundred other bits of ingenuity, this appears to have been the case.

But it was not easy.

I was a very small-scale certified organic grower years ago but the reality is that production agriculture is going to be around in the months and years after energy usage peaks in the US.  Production ag will be here whether it mines or builds the soil.

Two sites that deal with sustainable agriculture are:

http://www.sare.org

This is the site of the Sustainable Research and Education Project.  They used to offer a free download of their book, The New American Farmer - Profiles of Agricultural Innovation.  I don't know it this is still available but it is an excellent introduction into what some farmers are doing.  I bought a printed version in 2001.

The other site is:

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu

This is the University of California at Davis' site on sustainable ag.

There are also many state organizations with web sites.

I think it's important to recognize that life isn't perfect. Unfortunately, this is the way it is.

KJ, his premise is that agriculture of any type is in and of itself inherently unsustainable.

Dude, if you seriously believe we should all be hunter gatherers again, I challenge you to be the first to go for it. Watching should be fun.

KJ, his premise is that agriculture of any type is in and of itself inherently unsustainable.

No, that's my conclusion, not my premise.  I've provided an argument for it, so it's not a premise.

Dude, if you seriously believe we should all be hunter gatherers again, I challenge you to be the first to go for it. Watching should be fun.

Well, I do believe that, and I am already underway, but here all I'm saying is that we'll have to be.  We're not really getting a choice in this matter.  Hunting and gathering is what humans did ofr most of our existence, and it's what we're going back to.  This brief experiment with complexity is a passing blip.


I've provided an argument for it, so it's not a premise.

If this is the core of your argument:

But at its base, agriculture is about wounding an ecology

then really it is a simple matter of definition. It sounds as though you have defined agriculture to be those ways of working with the earth that wound the ecology, whereas horticulture is the set of ways that heal the ecology, or at least don't harm it.

It's a reasonable way to want to use words, but so far hasn't helped me decide whether or where to plant my tomatoes!