Houston Democrats

Given the pitifully small amount of oil to be extracted if ANWR is opened up, it seems that many people in favor of it support it on principle, the "principle" being that you don't back down from environmentalists, no matter what, even if it makes good business sense, or good political sense. It's a dangerous ideology that teaches that concern for the environment is bad for business (and maybe even a little immoral), irrespective of common sense and the facts.

At best ANWR is a very short term fix. If you need an example of the level of mendacity Dubya is able to reach while he argues for drilling, recall that he blamed the California energy crisis on opposition to drilling ANWR. This despite more than 90% of all electricity is generated through natural gas, not petroleum.

ANWR is just another excuse to put off conservation.

Am I the only person who noticed that Charlie Sweeney, the Arctic Village Hunter, uses a snowmobile to hunt? A snowmobile powered by -- gasp -- gasoline? If that is what he is calling 'living off the land', how will he live off the land when there is no more oil/gasoline, or when it is too expensive? And does he not worry about the pollution caused by his snowmobile? What did the Alaskans do to hunt before gas-powered snowmobiles came along?

Hey Marc,

Here's some info I thought you should look at from the American Association of Petrological Geologists. I figured I'd get information on our ANWR recoverable reserves from those that actually do the surveys.

The AAPG believes that the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and the similar coastal plain area of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), should be opened to exploration and development. A study recently released by the United States Geological Survey (March, 1998) cites potential economically recoverable oil resources beneath the ANWR Coastal Zone 1002 Area of 5.7 to 16 billion barrels of crude oil, with a mean expected resource of 10.3 billion BO. Mean peak production rates of 1.0 to 1.35 million BOPD are expected. The 1002 Area represents only 8% of ANWR’s 19 million acres. Less than 1 percent of the land within the 1002 area would be affected by petroleum exploration and development activities. Parts of the coastal plain of the NPRA, held back by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from the 1999 lease sale at the instruction of the Secretary of the Interior, contain an estimated minimum of 1.5 billion barrels.

The major objection to development of the Prudhoe Bay Field and Trans Alaska Pipeline was the potential threat of the development to Caribou migrations. According to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Prudhoe Bay herd, also known as the Central Arctic Herd has increased from 6,000 in 1978 to 19,700 in 2000. The caribou are not bothered by the petroleum development infrastructure – in fact they prefer it to the prospect of having their calves devoured by wolves.

Opponents of ANWR development say that it is not worth forever despoiling ANWR for a few months of oil supply. This is a specious argument that assumes that supply from all other sources ceases during the life of the ANWR reserves. According to Government studies, the 2001 area of ANWR, could produce over 1.0 MMBO per day. Like the Prudhoe Bay area, production operations will likely run for more than 25 years, providing vital crude oil and natural gas for the nation’s economy, significant employment in Alaska and in the Lower 48 from production operations and equipment supply, hundreds of millions of dollars of annual state and federal tax and royalty income, as well as a reduction in the outflow of funds for the purchase of imported crude oil.

During this year US Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has repeatedly been on his hands and knees before OPEC producers to beg for production increases of initially 200,000 BOPD and then 800,000 BOPD. The current supply/demand balance is so precarious, that even the threat of a storm in the Gulf of Mexico causes oil and gas prices to shoot up momentarily. An incremental 1 million barrels of oil per day from ANWR for a sustained period of at least 10 years would make a huge difference in the supply side of the supply/demand equation.

During 1999, according to the EIA, the US obtained 23% of its oil imports of 10.6 MM bbl/day, or 2.43 MM bbl/day, from the Persian Gulf Region. If one were to use the same argument as the ANWR opponents about supply, development of potential ANWR reserves of 10+ billion barrels would eliminate 11 years of dependency on imports from the dangerously volatile Middle East.

**Last - If there really were only 6 months to two years of oil up there at ANWR, then why would the companies invest? Corporate IRRs and NPV for projects of this magnitude are generally calculated on a multiyear (10+) basis. The 6 month to 2 yr supply argument just does not make any sense from an economic standpoint of the company.

I have pasted an article below written by Lowell Feld for Intervention Magazine. It is a compelling article and describes several ways in which we can reduce our dependence upon oil and conserve what we have left in the United States.

Article & Essay: Drilling For Facts

As the U.S. Senate debates national energy policy, is the goal of reducing, if not eliminating, U.S. dependence on foreign oil achievable? If so, how?
By Lowell Feld

With the U.S. Senate poised to debate rival Republican and Democratic national energy plans (the House of Representatives passed the Republican version in August), now is a perfect time to look at the real alternatives confronting the United States if, as almost all members of Congress profess to desire, the goal is to wean ourselves off of foreign, especially Middle Eastern, oil.

The Four Main Options

Four main options for cutting U.S. oil imports present themselves: 1) increase domestic production of oil sufficiently to replace imports, at least from the Middle East; 2) reduce U.S. oil consumption to such an extent that the country's own production can satisfy its needs; 3) substitute other fuels--coal, natural gas, nuclear, or renewables (hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal)--for oil; and 4) use a combination of the previous three approaches to reach the desired goal. Let's look at each one of these options from as politically neutral, objective perspective as possible, and see what, if anything, makes sense.

We Can't Drill Our Way out of the Problem!

First, could the United States, if it so desired, and as the Bush Administration would have us believe, drill its way out of oil import dependency, increasing domestic oil output sufficiently in coming years to obviate the need for oil imports, especially from the Middle East? In short, the answer to this question is very simple--no. The reason for this categorical "no" answer is not ideology, but the result of two powerful, even inexorable, forces: geology, and economics.

As far as geology is concerned, the United States is what is known in technical terms as a "mature" oil region. In other words, the US oil industry is: old (over 100 years), heavily exploited, and with minimal potential for significant new oil discoveries. Sure, it's possible that U.S. oil production can be maintained or even increased slightly through advanced exploration techniques, enhanced oil recovery technology, and exploitation of oil from coastal, deep-sea, and environmentally-sensitive areas. But the chances of a huge new oil discovery fundamentally changing the basic oil production equation in the United States at this point are slim-to-none.

Besides geology, the economics of the situation also are working against the United States being able to drill its way out of oil import dependence. The simple fact is that the United States is a high-cost area for oil production, several times higher than the Persian Gulf for instance. In terms of "comparative advantage" theory (i.e., International Economics 101), it therefore makes little if any sense for the United States to specialize in costly oil production, as opposed to simply purchasing the far cheaper oil found overseas, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Given the comparative advantage of other countries to produce oil, the economic imperative for U.S. oil imports only gets stronger as time goes by, especially given that the Persian Gulf alone holds two-thirds of the world's proven, recoverable oil reserve, which also happen to be the easiest and cheapest to produce.

Another important point: U.S. oil consumption is forecast (by the Energy Information Administration--EIA) to grow from about 20 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2000 to nearly 27 million b/d in 2020. At the same time, even the most optimistic U.S. oil production case by EIA forecasts only 11.1 million b/d of domestic oil output in 2020, up about 1.8 million b/d from today's production level, but still about 16 million b/d short of demand in that year. This forecast assumes no production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, but since this would add only another 0.7-1.9 million b/d by 2020 (declining rapidly thereafter), it hardly matters. Extra oil from the ANWR, as advocated by the Bush Administration and top Congressional Republicans, in the end would make only a small--and temporary--contribution towards reducing the United States' voracious appetite for foreign oil. To put it bluntly: trashing ANWR is not the answer.

How About Cutting Consumption?

If the United States cannot, for geological and economic realities, drill its way out of imported oil, how about reducing consumption? Here, there is room for much more optimism. For one thing, history and economic laws appear on our side. For instance, in response to the massive oil price shocks of the 1970s, U.S. oil consumption not surprisingly fell, hitting a low point of 15.2 million b/d in 1983. Since 1986, however, following 16 years of relatively low oil prices (around $22 per barrel in constant 2000 dollars), U.S. oil consumption has surged by about 4.5 million b/d. In other words, the laws of economics apparently still work--high prices reduce demand and low prices increase it. And the long-term forecast calls for much of the same, with oil prices expected to stay relatively low, and U.S. oil consumption expected (in the EIA "reference case" forecast) to increase nearly 40% by 2020.

Amazingly, about two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is accounted for by just one economic sector--transportation--led by the voracious appetite of SUVs, minivans, and motor vehicles in general. In this context, it is important to note that "light trucks," a category that includes SUVs and minivans due to a loophole in the 1975 law establishing fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards for motor vehicles, have dramatically expanded their share of the overall U.S. vehicle fleet during the past decade (to 45% for model year 2000, compared to under 10% in model year 1979). Meanwhile, the 1985 CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg for cars has not been raised in 16 years, and the light truck standard of 20.7 mgp has been increased by only about 1 mpg during the same time period. To make matters worse, Congress actually has frozen CAFE standards since 1996.

Overwhelmingly as a result of Congressional inaction, the CAFE standard loophole, and another huge loophole which exempts "light trucks" from the $1,000-$7,700 "gas guzzler" tax on inefficient cars, the average fuel economy of the American car and "light truck" fleet actually has been declining for several years now, after increasing sharply during the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Auto Safety issued a report in June 2001 concluding that average U.S. automobile and "light truck" fuel efficiency could be raised to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2012, and 55 mpg by 2020, from about 20 mpg today, using current technology, and saving consumers billions of dollars per year in fuel costs.

The current Senate bill supported by Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) incorporates the proposal by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) for a modest increase in U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency, to 35 mpg by 2013. This proposal is in line with conclusions by the National Academy of Sciences as to what is feasible using existing and emerging technologies by that date. In contrast, the energy bill supported by Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) calls for no increase at all in fuel efficiency standards, instead focusing almost exclusively on the production side, which we already have shown will accomplish almost nothing, except perhaps to please the oil, nuclear power, and coal industries (not coincidentally, all big contributors to the Republican party).

Are "Hybrids" the Answer?

Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that significantly increased CAFE standards can be met using current technology (studies by the National Academy of Sciences, among others, says they can). Already, the popular Toyota Prius hybrid gasoline/electric car gets about 50 mpg, as does the Honda Civic hybrid (available in the United States beginning this spring). Ford plans to introduce a small hybrid SUV in 2003 (the Escape), which will get a reported 40 mpg. Other hybrid vehicles--cars, SUVs, and minivans--currently under development could achieve significantly increased fuel economies from their present levels. Then there are "fuel cell" cars, which sound promising, but are possibly decades away, plus require that hydrogen be extracted either from--you guessed it--fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal), or alternatively from water using electricity, which itself has to be generated somehow, whether by fossil fuel combustion or otherwise.

Anyway, let us for the moment focus on hybrid vehicles, since these are already being produced. Let's assume that these vehicles could be sold at competitive prices, and that consumers would be willing to purchase the vehicles in mass quantities. This is not necessarily unrealistic at all, especially if the government tilts the playing field somewhat, at least in the technology's early stages, for instance by levying a "gas guzzler" tax on relatively inefficient gasoline-powered vehicles, and by providing a tax credit for relatively efficient hybrid vehicles. This is conceptually simple, and could be phased out as mass production of high-efficiency vehicles lowered their per-unit cost. Another major selling point of these vehicles would be the thousands of dollars in fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.

What would a sharp increase in today's fleet average fuel efficiency by 2020 accomplish in terms of U.S. oil imports? Currently, cars and "light trucks" consume about 11.5 million b/d of oil. By 2020, this is likely to grow by about 5 million b/d, to around 16.5 million b/d. Interestingly, this 16.5 million b/d figure is approximately the same as projected net oil import number in 2020. Thus, completely eliminating U.S. net oil imports in 2020 by exclusive focus on the transportation sector would not be feasible. However, a significant dent could be made.

For instance, even with expected growth in “miles driven� (see below), raising the average fuel economy of the fleet to 55 mpg by 2020, as called for by the Union of Concerned Scientists, would cut U.S. net oil imports by more than 9 million b/d in 2020, from 16.7 million b/d to about 7.4 million b/d. This would represent a reduction of more than 50% in overall U.S. net oil imports in that year compared to EIA’s “reference case� forecast. At this level of oil imports, the United States essentially could satisfy all of its oil needs either from domestic output or from sources in the Western Hemisphere (Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and the Caribbean). This would have an enormous impact on world oil markets, particularly if the sharp increases in U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency levels were replicated worldwide. For one thing, the massive reduction in world oil demand would, ceteris parabis, put enormous downward pressure on oil prices, thus opening up the potential, and happy, scenario of cheap oil and elimination of dependence on oil imports from the Middle East

One more point here, which adds even more power and optimism to this demand-side scenario. In the "sharply increased fuel efficiency" scenario outlined above, the number of miles driven by U.S. motorists is assumed to grow by about 50% under a "business-as-usual" scenario. However, it is certainly possible to reduce this growth in "miles driven," and thereby to reduce U.S. net oil imports still further (possibly 1-2 million b/d more by 2020, assuming vehicle-miles driven are held constant), by encouraging such measures as increased mass transit usage, increased telecommuting, a shift in development patterns towards more "smart growth" and away from "sprawl."

Already, telecommuting and mass transit are growing, and efforts to limit "sprawl" and to encourage "smart growth" have become increasingly forceful in recent years. Such trends could be given a major boost by government incentives and disincentives, plus leadership and public education. Even without a stabilization of "miles driven," however, as we have seen above, sharp increases in vehicle fuel efficiency, as outlined above, would go a long way towards reducing U.S. net oil imports in 2020. Combined with efforts--and political leadership--aimed at reducing "miles driven," this strategy actually puts the United States on a course towards complete independence from net oil imports, even assuming no significant increases in domestic oil production, within the next 20-30 years.

Selling the Benefits of Reduced Oil Imports

Main selling points politically would be: 1) enhanced national security, especially reduced exposure to the politically unstable Middle East; 2) a reduced need to send troops overseas to defend foreign oil supplies; 3) a decrease in U.S. military expenditures on such missions as defending Persian Gulf's oil reserves; 4) possibly lowered risks of terrorist attacks against the United States or U.S. interests abroad, as a result of our scaled-back presence in the Muslim and Arab worlds; 5) a significant reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, which would enhance U.S. economic growth; 6) the likelihood of low gasoline prices due to sharply reduced U.S., and therefore world, demand; and 7) extensive environmental benefits, including reductions in local pollutants, smog, and carbon dioxide emissions. Seems like a skilled politician (any brave volunteers?) could sell this package to the American people.

Is Switching Fuels the Answer?

Now, let's look briefly at the third option for reducing U.S. oil imports--a shift to other fuel sources. A switch away from oil towards natural gas, coal, and "renewables" like wind and solar power--all of which are abundant in the United States and Canada--could provide a useful supplement to the increased vehicle fuel efficiency strategy outlined above. Electricity also could be used to power cars directly, but right now the technology (i.e., powerful, affordable, long-lasting batteries) isn't quite there. At some point in the future, however, it is possible to imagine a world where motor vehicles are even powered by electricity generated by unlimited nuclear fusion power--the same process that powers the sun. In the meantime, though, natural gas and "renewables" could provide a bridge to the latter part of the 21st century.

Besides transportation, oil also is consumed for such things as home heating and, to a far lesser extent, electric power generation. In both of these areas, it is possible to reduce, or even eliminate, oil consumption by switching to natural gas and electric-powered heat pumps for household heating, and to electricity generated by all other fuels but oil. EIA's long-term forecast already assumes that almost no oil will be used to generate electric power in 2020, with natural gas-fired power plants increasing rapidly, and coal also maintaining its large share in this area. For home heating, a switch away from oil towards non-oil-generated electricity (i.e., heat pumps) and natural gas already is assumed by EIA, but significant potential exists in this area for a more rapid phaseout, plus measures like higher heat pump efficiencies and better home insulation, that could save several hundred thousands of barrels per day of oil by 2020.

How about a Combo Approach?

Finally, let's consider the possibility of using a combination of the approaches reviewed above--increased domestic oil production and reduced oil consumption through increased efficiency, fuel switching, and other measures. As we discussed, the United States is a "mature" and relatively high-cost oil region, and therefore significant increases in U.S. oil production will be extremely difficult if not impossible. Still, it is likely that, even without drilling in environmentally sensitive areas like the ANWR, U.S. oil production will hold constant or increase slightly through 2020, largely due to improved technology. Exploitation of ANWR could add another 0.7-1.9 million b/d in 2020 according to the US Geological Survey, but this peak production rate would only last for a short time before a rapid decline set in.

The Bottom Line: Energy Independence is Not a Pipe Dream

The bottom line? Improved fuel efficiency in the transportation sector offers the largest potential for rapid and large-scale cuts in U.S. oil demand (possibly 9 million b/d if fleet fuel efficiency were increased sharply, to 55 mpg for instance, by 2020). Changes in U.S. living and working patterns--"smart growth," increased mass transit, telecommuting--could reduce oil consumption by another 1-2 million b/d by 2020. And "fuel switching" away from oil towards natural gas, coal, nuclear, or "renewables" could cut consumption by several hundred thousand barrels per day more.

Combining all these strategies could potentially reduce U.S. net oil imports in 2020 from the current “reference case� forecast of just under 17 million b/d to below 6 million b/d. This would represent a huge reduction in U.S. net oil imports, of 65% or more, and would put the United States within reach of complete oil independence for the first time in over 50 years. That assumes, though, that all of us, particularly our top leadership, make energy security and oil import independence--goals long talked about but never implemented--top national priorities at long last.

Lowell Feld is a freelance writer living in Washington, DC. He holds a Master's Degree in Middle East Studies and is an economist specializing in international energy issues.

Food for thought here:

Paul Krugman writes: "The real reason conservatives want to drill in ANWR is the same reason they want to keep snowmobiles roaring through Yellowstone: sheer symbolism. Forcing rangers to wear respirators won't make much difference to snowmobile sales — but it makes the tree-huggers furious, and that's what's appealing about it. The same is true about Arctic drilling; as one very moderate environmentalist told me, the reason the Bush administration pursues high-profile anti-environmental policies is not that they please special interests but that they are "red meat for the right." "

Hey Kris,

Nice post! I actually agree with several points, but I would like to offer some other suggestions . . .

I agree w/alternatives- coal, gas hydrates, solar,wind, and nuclear. Natural gas is currently a problem the the U.S. paying the highest price per MMBTU in the world. Natural gas may be clean, but demand as a feedstock for other products by consumers world wide put just too much pressure on this resource. LPG infrastructure is needed.

I also agree with telecommuting. Computers sure as heck haven't saved us any paper, might as well put them to some other use like energy conservation. I could use a break from the Houston commute!

Fuel Efficient Vehicles - I don't have any problem with this at all. I'm just not too comfortable with an implementation timeline as of yet. We should however devote resources to this ASAP. I see more of a problem trying to market these hybrids in a bigger is better society.

I still would not be in such a rush to take ANWR off the table. Even at 1.0MM bpd, that is the entire amount of the trade margin that swings global oil prices today. And I have to believe a geologist over an economist when talking about technical specifics (e.g. 25 yr versus a 2 yr lifetime). I think this would be an excellent stop gap as other infrastructure comes on line and technologies evolve.

Last,the whole symbolism comment at the end just doesn't make sense. Peace signs and doves are symbols. Drilling for oil anywhere is a high stakes, high cost game that no business is going to approach without real return. All in all, I appreciate the exchange Kris.

I am a bit skeptical of any report that is produced by an organization with a direct stake in its outcome. For example, let's take the proposed Grand Parkway that would link the suburbs of northern Houston. There aren't many people in the area that support the proposal that I know. In fact, many homes are in the path of the proposed road.

For the sake of argument, let's say I am a landowner and I have property that is situated along, and over which the proposed route of the Grand Parkway will be built. However, environmentalists are in a fuss about the potential environmental harm that will be done by the road and the increased commercial development it will bring. The environmentalists have all formed coalitions and are submitting reports documenting the environmental damage that will occur.

As a landowner, I would stand to gain from the construction of the Grand Parkway, quite substantially too. I would get the money from the city for the area of my property taken by imminent domain, but I would also retain the areas not affected that will become prime commercial property after the road is completed. In short, I stand to make potentially several million dollars (at least) off the construction of the road. So, in order to counter the claims of the environmentalists, I ask that the Grand Parkway Association for Responsible Development (this is not an actual organization – I just made it up), which represents a consortium of businesses and other landowners like me, to conduct an environmental analysis of the potential impacts from the construction of the Grand Parkway. Now, what outcome do you think I want the report to conclude? It surely won't help me if the report finds the proposed route will cause undue environmental damage, but it could really help me out if it backed up my claim that somehow the road will have a very minimal impact, making the Association and I biased towards one outcome. Therefore, to come to a fair conclusion, an independent commission would need to be established.

Similarly, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is largely representative of major oil companies who would like to increase their revenues by opening ANWR. Therefore, I am extremely skeptical of the AAPG's following claim:

"The caribou are not bothered by the petroleum development infrastructure – in fact they prefer it to the prospect of having their calves devoured by wolves."

There is no clear evidence, at least in the article you mentioned to base this claim. How do we "know" if the animals actually prefer a pipeline? I don't see a clear connection between a pipeline and fewer wolves. Wolves obviously need a source of food to survive. In fact prey and predator populations are cyclical and balance each other out. When the prey population is large, the predator population will increase, and vice-versa. Consequently, caribou may congregate near the pipeline at certain times, but just because they are near the pipeline doesn't mean that wolves (or other predators) can't attack. Additionally, it's impossible for the caribou to stay near the pipeline forever, at some time they must leave the "safety" it provides. The caribou migrate regularly throughout the year across Alaska and into northwestern Canada, and I seriously doubt that the pipeline follows. Plus, there are many factors that may be causing an increase in a population. Some causes might include, or be a result of a combination of the following: a decline in disease, a more favorable climate, an increase in their food source, a decline in the predator population, among many others. So the claim that one factor, the pipeline, is definitively causing an increase in the caribou population is extremely speculative. I believe it would be very hard to get a wildlife ecologist to state he believed the construction of a pipeline was the only factor that resulted in a positive impact on the caribou population.

I don't believe the following claim is logical:

"Last - If there really were only 6 months to two years of oil up there at ANWR, then why would the companies invest?"

Economic theory holds that if the return on investment is greater than the cost of production that it makes sense to produce that product. Therefore, the producers (i.e. oil corporations) don't really care how long something can be made, as long as they can turn a profit on their investment before the resource is depleted. With oil prices around $50 a barrel or higher, there is the possibility for a significant amount of profit for whomever can gain the right to drill what is supposed to lie beneath ANWR.

Furthermore, no one really knows for certain how much oil is recoverable from ANWR. Predictions are all over the place from about as low as 2 bullion barrels to 3-5 billion barrels to upwards of 10 billion barrels. I think the highest estimate I have seen is about 16 billion barrels of oil. While anyone of these numbers may be correct, my problem with oil companies is that they make it sound like there is this big cavern just oozing oil beneath the ground, and all that we have to do is to insert our straw and suck out all the oil. However, it is much more likely that oil is contained within a set of complex geological formations, instead of some giant field like Spindletop. Consequently, even with directional drilling, oil extraction would likely require large numbers of oil rigs to tap the various pockets of oil distributed across the 1.5 million acres.

Sure ANWR may help ease oil prices for a few years, but what happens after it's gone? Obviously the oil companies aren't going to stay in Alaska. What will happen to all those native Indians in Alaska? The oil corporations won't be there any more to build their schools, community centers, and their houses. Those Indians have survived in Alaska for thousands of years living off the land. While what the corporations are doing now looks good and beneficial for the communities, the fact that they are there is altering the economies of these small Alaskan villages. Where once the economies were based on local demand, they are now dependent on the oil companies for goods, services, and revenue. Becoming dependent on the corporations is setting the Indians up for a period of economic failure when the oil is finally depleted. Just think about what old mining towns look like in the West. There are countless ghost towns in Colorado that once were flourishing business centers, but when the targeted resource was depleted, the towns collapsed. Again, this is only a short-term gain.

I understand your anxiety about our ability to switch from oil to a more renewable-based energy supply. However, I would recommend that you look at this chart. It shows a 99.85% increase in wind power generation in the past 23 years and a 74.69% increase just since 1997. It's possible to make significant advancements in renewable energy production if we can create the demand for the resource. Venture capitalists have also been heavily investing in renewable energies.

I think the best thing that can happen for renewable energy sources right now is for the price of oil to continue to go up, which I think it will. I'm talking about the general trend in the price of oil. There could be some downturns, but it is inevitable whether we like it or not. With a growing world population, especially in places like China, India, and others, total demand will continue to increase as less developed countries continue to develop their economies. It's safe to assume that there is a finite supply of oil on Earth. How much of it we can access is a totally different question. Regardless of what the total finite supply on Earth is, our and the world's demand is increasing, while the world's supply does not. A fundamental tenet of economics is that as demand increases and supply remains steady, the cost of the product will increase.

It's true renewable energy is still slightly more expensive than fossil fuel sources, but not by much. You can now easily purchase renewable energy through companies like Green Mountain Energy. You can see what they charge for their services here. While the source of energy that powers one's home may not actually change, by purchasing the renewable source, one provides demand for greater renewable energy production. Additionally, the slight increase in electricity cost helps to develop new renewable energy sources, as well as to provide jobs. According to a study by UC Berkley, "Investment in new renewable energy sources leads to roughly 10 times more jobs than a comparable investment in the fossil-fuel sector (Source).” Furthermore, the more that the United States invests in clean energy, we will be able to export our knowledge, services, and products around the world, thus having a positive impact on jobs for Americans while increasing our exports, something that should have a positive impact on our trade deficit.

I think what we really need is a stake in the ground, much like John F. Kennedy’s call to send a man to the moon by the end of the 1960s. We need to put aside our fears about giving up oil, and to set clear, incremental goals for renewable energy production that the nation must meet. The United States has the resources available to implement renewable energy, but is somewhat lacking in the motivation to put them into practice.

Back in the 1950s, King Hubbert, a Shell geologist, noticed when he graphed oil discoveries over time, they tended to follow a bell shape curve, now known as Hubbert's Curve. Therefore, it would make sense that oil production would follow the trend in new oil discoveries. This led him to predict that US oil production would peak in about 1970, which it in fact did sometime around 1970 to 1971, and has been in decline ever since. Having made his prediction about the US, he did the same thing for world oil production. He came up with dates for peak production ranging from around 2000 to 2035, so the world's production may have already peaked or is in the process of peaking (Source).

Certainly, some new discoveries may be made that push the peak a few years back, but it's only a temporary delay. It's also true that when oil production peaks, it doesn't mean that all oil has run out. However, once it peaks, oil prices will rise as the current level of demand is maintained or continues to grow. It's not possible to ask people to give up their standard of living. Therefore, we should be doing more to promote energy solutions that will meet our demand over the long run. The longer we wait to begin converting to a renewable energy-based economy, the harder it will be in the future. At least we have the time now to begin making the switch without being forced to do so. In the long run everyone benefits by not being dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Couple of points:

On two years vs 25 years: If ANWR oil was in a big tank ready to use, and we used it exclusively in place of all the other sources of oil, it would be gone in two years. It is not in a big tank, it is in the ground, and it will provide some level of production for twenty five years. It's not a small amount of oil, but whether it is worth the environmental damage is a matter for debate.

According to one analysis I read, $13 oil is the economic breakeven in ANWR - production is economically feasible if prices are above $13, and the higher the price, the greater the amount of oil that can economically be produced.

Because of ongoing technology innovations, production no longer resembles a bell curve, but flattens out after the peak. Economides spoke to the Oil Patch Democrats a couple weeks ago and described a fractal pattern where production has a series of peaks following a series of progressively more complex and expensive technology being implemented.

I am a big advocate of wind power, as it is borderline cost effective at current fossil fuel prices. Economic growth from the turbine manufacturing industry, coupled with the economic influx to the rural areas where turbines would be installed means a lot of dollars to a lot of suffering areas. However, wind is not a substitute for oil, as almost no oil is used to produce electricity.

I have pasted a comment by Tom DeLay regarding drilling in ANWR as well as a comment by a major Bush supporter regarding same:

House Majority leader Tom Delay said it best when he said about Arctic drilling that "It's about precedent." One of President Bush's major supporters, Houston energy industry investment banker Matthew R. Simmons, said, "If you can't do ANWR, you'll never be able to drill in the promising areas."

It's all about being able to rape the land, people, for the benefit of oil and gas companies, mining companies, the timber industry etc. What's next.....Yellowstone, the Shenandoah Mountains, the Great Smoky Mountains, the giant Sequoias and Redwoods? Hell, if we're going to drill in ANWR why not blast the tops off those mountains, cut down old growth forests, drill for oil in the Everglades and in Hawaii?!

People need to wake up. It's not about the oil! It's about whether or not the American people ALLOW these assholes to devastate our planet for the sake of lining their pockets and the pockets of industry!

Follow the money, guys. Rethugs are only interested in money. If they can make a buck at the expense of the planet and its inhabitants then you can bet your sweet ass that's what their going to do. They're either so short sighted or so evil that they either can't see that they're sewing the seeds of their own destruction or they just don't give a damn. Either way we can't let them continue on this path. We only have one planet. If Bush wants to go to Mars then we can put him on a rocket and send his stupid ass there. Let's just make sure there ain't no ride home!

The re-discovery of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers at the Cache River NWR in Arkansas demonstrates exactly why we should protect remote habitat from industrial activity. The ANWR giveaway is just one more example of an agenda that seeks to take public resources and give them away to private investors. If federal monies are used to help individuals in need, it's welfare and a dirty word. If it's given to aid Halliburton or Shell Oil, it's a reasonable use of tax dollars to stimulate healthy business activity. What can you say, other than that it's time for a change. A big one.

Hey Marc O,

I too believe/understand your concern about bias regarding any given information source. This is why I can understand your conceerns about my AAPG source as I am sure you can understand my concerns about your Sierra Club source. Is there anyway you could lay out what might be your "ground rules" when it comes to obtaining data sources? I would very much like to pursue our discussion.

Thanks for bringing that up Marc C,

This is certainly something important to keep in mind when evaluating information. I'll do my best to lay some "rules," but they maybe should be interpreted more as guidelines. Determining the quality of a source is in itself somewhat subjective, and sources aren't likely to fit every criteria of a "good" source.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how or what they should use as evidence, but providing a process or framework to go about to determine the quality of a source. This is something I have often done in my college reports, but never really thought about putting into words, so this will be kind of a helpful exercise to go through.

Austin College, which I attended, has several documents on its library page about evaluating sources that I've looked over. Some of them are helpful in establishing a framework to consider, a process to go through when evaluating a give source. I have tried to distill the general ideas of the process below.

Generally, I think it's best to get information from a source that is knowledgeable and not far removed from the issue, a primary source. I agree too with your concern of the Sierra Club. While it's often well-versed and current on the issues, it and the AAPG do have particular target audiences and objectives that they pursue.

I couldn't find the Sierra Club percentage quickly on the computer when I was preparing the above post, although I have heard it cited by other organizations. I should mention that I used the 95% figure during the interview mainly because of the lack of time to prepare anything else. There just wasn't time to try to find a basis for information or to do any research for the interview. I'll try to find some information that might back it up.

Also, I can see even using the AAPG and Sierra Club sources if looked at in a critical way, understanding their objectives and potential biases, as with any information source. It might be helpful to note potential conflicts of interest. I will make an effort to do this more in the future. Something like, "Here's what this organization says. While this may be true, these are some reasons to view the statistic with some criticism."

At least this way, it's more obvious to others the particular organization isn't the final word on the issue, and one's own opinion is more balanced and considerate of the topic. Furthermore, it allows others to evaluate the source for themselves and to determine if they agree with it.

One other thing I should mention is that it would be helpful for everyone if we try to back up facts by including the link or name of the organization that came up with the information. This way if we want to try and find out more information or more about the source, we have an idea about where to look.

I would say when it comes to news, I generally try and stick with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor that generally do a great deal of background research when it comes to writing a story. The Christian Science Monitor's name is misleading in that it sounds like a religious publication, but really it does a fairly good job of reporting issues.

Locally, I read articles from the major Texas newspapers, the Houston Chronicle, the Austin-American Statesman, the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the San Antonio Express News.

When it comes to ANWR, I kind of like to rely more on the US Geological Survey or the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, government sources have become much more slanted in their stance under this administration, but this is not to say they haven't been in the past. Nevertheless, I stay away from the Department of the Interior' site and even some things on the Environmental Protection Agency's site, especially articles that sound like public relations pieces (generally on the home pages), because I see them as being too close to the administration that is clearly pushing a certain agenda. The Department of Energy has some good information, but one also has to be careful about the slant.

Of course if you or others have any comments or suggestions about criteria or other sources we should try to meet in the sources we use, I'm open to any of them. Independent and critical thinking are certainly things we need in public policy making and discussion.

Again, what I have written below is merely a process regarding how to determine the quality of a text. Not all sources will fit these criteria, and determining a text's quality mainly comes down to personal judgment about how well they meet the following characteristics.

From the Austin College Abell Library:

Credibility:
- Trustworthy source
- Author's credentials
- Evidence of quality control
- Known or respected authority
- Goal: an authoritative source, a source that supplies good evidence that allows you to trust it.

Authority/author:
- What are the author's qualifications? Is he or she an expert in the field with clearly stated credentials?
- Where is the author employed?
- Preferred domain suffixes: .edu, .gov, .org, or .net
- Is the work sponsored, and if so, is the sponsor reputable?
- Is there any advertising on the page that could provide a conflict of interest?

Objectivity and Biases:
- Minimum of bias
- What are the biases of the author, or of the source of information? Are they clearly stated?
- Is the publication supported by advertising that might influence the content?
- Does the page provide accurate information with limited advertising?
- Is the text objective in presenting the information?
- No conflict of interest
- Is it trying to sway opinion?

Purpose/Audience:
- Why was the text written? To: inform or persuade?
- To whom is the author or organization targeting or addressing?
- Audience and purpose reflect intentions of completeness, accuracy, and balance

Accuracy/Reasonableness:
- Up to date, factual, detailed, exact, comprehensive
- No conflict of interest and an absence of slanted tone

Sources:
- Claims are supported
- Documentation is supplied. Is it selective or comprehensive?

Publisher:
- A university press; a commercial publisher; a professional trade association, institution, or research center; government (US, state, local)
- Is the source reputable
- Is it possible to determine if the sources are reviewed by other scholars or peers?

Coverage:
- Is the text comprehensive or is it only partial or an overview?

As seen today on the Progress Report from the Center For American Progress:

ENVIRO - ADMINISTRATION SAYS GET CHOPPING: Eight days before he left office, President Bill Clinton set aside 58.5 million acres of national forests lands, spanning across the nation from Alaska to Virginia, to preserve them from industrial development. Now, "in one of its biggest environmental decisions," the Bush administration "moved yesterday to open nearly one-third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures." Governors of the states affected by this move have been given "18 months to submit [voluntary] petitions to the U.S. Forest Service to challenge either the old plans to stop development, or to call for new plans to allow it." The director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, a coalition of environmental groups, described the "deliberate action" behind the latest rule change as a "'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."

As I mentioned in an earlier post, ANWR is merely the beginning of Bush's plan to rape the environment for monetary and political gain.

Hey Marc,

Thanks for your last post. Definitely gives me some food for thought. Kris's most recent post provides a good base to ask another question. I work for a business that makes the key chemicals used in superabsorbent baby diapers. As a consequence, we generate waste products that we deal with in different ways. Needless to say, we are under constant internal and external pressure to be accountable for our product and waste streams from cradle to grave. We have continuously spent large dollars to ensure we keep our environmental waste to a minimum. At what point does one say we are "raping" mother earth with our waste? Unless we were to see a mass exodous of the U.S. market back to cloth diapers (and I don't think this is likely)I would say they are here to stay. Rape implies an exploitation without consent either implicit or explicit. Doesn't the product we make derive implicit consent from the people as they determine the market? What are your thoughts??

Your analogy is flawed. 'The Market' cannot speak for 'Mother Earth' when it comes to consent. They are doing the raping, your company is pimping it.

Factoring in the energy to clean and sanitize cloth diapers and treat the wastewater, cloth diapers aren't exactly low impact on the environment. My wife wouldn't agree to laying down six inches of sawdust in the kids room, so I don't have a solution here.

I am sure years ago when plastic, disposable diapers were invented they were marketed by the companies that invented them as a wonderful product that would eliminate the need to disinfect and wash "all those cloth diapers". I'm sure they were marketed as a miracle product that would save so much time and aggravation for parents. I am also quite sure that the companies that marketed these diapers DID NOT talk about the environmental impact these diapers would have by being dumped into landfills. I have no idea if these disposable diapers EVER biodegrade. My feeling is that they probably never disintegrate and are stuck in landfills til the end of time. I'll have to research that further.

I am not innocent here. One thing Marc Charendoff is correct about is that people, as a whole, are looking for products to make their lives SIMPLER. I used plastic diapers myself when my kids were babies and toddlers, so I am as guilty as the next person in helping to make a lot of non-biodegradable waste. I wasn't educated at all about the impact these products and other products have on our environment. Thankfully, I am more educated now, however, shy of the American consumer making some choices regarding their use of products that do not biodegrade or shy of companies coming up with more "environmentally friendly" products, I don't see a solution here. My thinking is that corporations are interested in the bottom line, which of course is the almighty dollar. They will not make these changes unless we, as a collective body, stand up on our "hind legs" and demand that they invent and market "environmentally friendly" products. Until then, we are stuck with products that consumers demand and that have devastating effects on our environment.

Okay, guys. Here is a copy of an article I found on the Sustainability Institute website, http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article=vn321diapersed.
The article discusses the environmental impact of disposable diapers versus cloth diapers. It's a very interesting read.

The Great Disposable Diaper Debate

What's an environmentally conscious parent to do? To save the earth she or he forswears disposable diapers, finds a diaper service or does a lot of laundry, and feels righteous. Then along comes the shocking news that reusable diapers might be as bad for the environment as disposables.

I kid you not. When the idea first surfaced it was ignorable, because it came from Procter & Gamble (which shares with Kimberly Clark most of the nation's $3.2 billion disposable diaper market). The company hired a consulting firm to compare the impacts of both kinds of diapers -- not only the landfilling bulk of disposables, but the water and energy demands of washables. The report concluded, "Neither product is clearly superior in all of the resource and environmental impact categories considered."

Ignorable, as I said, until that conclusion was seconded by no less an environmental hard-liner than Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He compiled data from all sources (the cotton manufacturers did their own counter-study) on the complete paths from cotton gin to diaper to washing machine, and from plastic factory to diaper to dump. He writes, "Disposables consume more raw materials and produce more solid waste ... but cloth diaper production and use consume more water and energy and produce more ... atmospheric emissions and waste water effluent."

Personally I'm not convinced. I'm glad the question has risen, because cradle-to-grave (oil-well-to-dump) impact analyses are exactly what we need to make responsible consumer decisions. But this example shows how difficult it is to do those analyses right.

Here are some of the facts of the case.

Eighty percent of the diaperings in this nation are done with disposables. That comes to 18 BILLION diapers a year. Each one has an outer layer of waterproof polypropylene and an inner layer of fluff made from wood pulp plus super-slurper sodium polyacrylate that can hold a hundred times its weight in water.

Those 18 billion diapers add up to 82,000 tons of plastic a year and 1.3 million tons of wood pulp -- 250,000 trees. After a few hours of active service these materials are trucked away, primarily to landfills, where they sit, neatly wrapped packages of excrement, entombed undegraded for several hundred years.

It is illegal in most states to dump human waste in landfills. That law is simply unenforced when it comes to diapers. Theoretically they could infest the water leaching out of the dump with bacteria and viruses (polio, hepatitis, dysentery), though that has never been known to happen. Perhaps the other ingredients in leachate are toxic enough to kill human pathogens. Perhaps the diapers are so nondegradable that they don't leak their contents. Perhaps we just haven't waited long enough.

Anyway, the health impact is not the most serious indictment against disposable diapers. The main problem is the filling of landfills (though Procter & Gamble remind us that diapers account for only two percent of the nation's municipal solid waste). A secondary problem in political minds, a primary one in the minds of environmentalists, is the waste of resources and the trail of pollution at every stage of the manufacture and disposal of the diapers.

Hershkowitz's data show that disposables use 10 times more resources (measured by weight and including fuels) than cloth diapers and produce 50 times more solid waste. But disposables use only half as much energy and two-thirds as much water. Cloth diapers save landfills but load washing machines and sewage systems (by putting sewage where it belongs).

Those facts are sound, but, I think, misleading and incomplete. Incomplete because they don't begin at the very beginning, in the cotton fields, the forests, and the oil wells. Misleading because poundage is not the way to compare either resources or pollutants.

A pound of wood pulp from a forest managed sustainably is more benign than a pound from a forest that has been raped and eroded -- and much preferable to a pound of irreplaceable oil. A pound of dioxin from chlorine bleaching in a pulp mill is far more dangerous than a pound of sulfur dioxide from a coal-burning power plant that runs a washing machine.

We are comparing apples and oranges here -- and cotton pesticides, eroded soil from cotton fields, emissions from logging trucks, oil spills, hazardous wastes from refineries and petrochemical and plastics plants. None of the analyses so far comes close to including all these environmental impacts, much less properly comparing their dangers.

I haven't done the analysis either, but I know enough about cotton growing, petrochemicals and pulp mills to suspect that 1000 changes with disposable diapers add up to much more environmental hazard than 1000 uses of cloth diapers. But I can't be sure.

It's great to try to move our lives in the direction of ecological righteousness, but it's also true that every human activity has environmental impact -- especially the activities of that fraction of the human population rich enough to have diapers of any kind. From the earth's point of view it's not all that important which kind of diapers you use. The important decision was having the baby.

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.)

We initially used cloth diapers but switched after doing research. This was a number of years back, so my facts may be fuzzy. The overall energy usage was more to clean and reuse cloth than to manufacture and dispose of disposables. The bulk of the disposable diaper is cellulose, so that would break down given the right conditions. Unfortunately, landfills bury diapers, yard waste, etc so they don't get enough oxygen to break down, so whether something is biodegradable is moot in most circumstances. We were in a farm situation with a compost pit, so our disposables went there to compost. This was not compost for fertilizer, and I would not recommend throwing diapers in the backyard compost pile.

Comparison of issues regarding disposable diapers versus cloth diapers - SOURCE: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ohioline/hyg-fact/5000/5503.html 2jul01

ISSUES - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Disposables

* Consumes both renewable and non-renewable resources in production
* Increased cost for solid waste management
* Problem where landfill concerns exist

Cloth

* Reusable/Recyclable
* Increased water and energy usage for laundry
* Increased water and air pollution from laundry
* Problem where water availability/ and air pollution concerns exist

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Disposables

* Super absorbents reduce diaper rash better than regular disposables
* Diaper leakage/contamination reduced with super absorbents
* Required in some day care settings
* Potential for leachate from landfills

Cloth

* Diaper rash reduced with frequent changes
* Increased diaper leakage/contamination
* Municipal sewage system handles solid waste
* No landfill problems/contamination

COST AND CONVENIENCE

Disposables

* More convenient
* Higher purchase cost

Cloth

* Less convenient
* Low purchase cost
* Time and money cost for laundering

It seems we have a conundrum, folks. Obviously, as in any situation, we have pros and cons for both options. In my humble opinion, it would seem that cloth diapers are the more ecologically friendly choice, however, with both parents working these days, most daycare centers are not going to sanitize and wash cloth diapers because of the time constraints and safety issues involved, so it would seem that more research needs to be done on "environmentally friendly" materials with which to make diapers.

I am responding to Marc Charendoff's question of "At what point does one say we are "raping" Mother Earth?"

The short answer:

We begin to "rape" the Earth when the rate of environmental damage exceeds the environment's ability to recover from the inflicted damage. This is the sustainable level of living, sometimes referred to as the sustainable yield. Unfortunately, this 'level' is unknown and potentially indefinite because it depends on a whole host of shifting environmental variables.

The market values products and resources. People certainly play a role in what is produced, and I would say bear some responsibility for environmental damage resulting from their consumption of products. I would add that markets aren't perfect, and they often do not place an adequate value on long-term environmental damage. This situation results because markets, and by extension people, tend to value the rate of return on investment in the near-term, a time range of a few years, much more than a return on investment in 20, 50, or a 100-years or more in the future.

The long answer:

I think it comes down to a concept known as "sustainable yield," which is a level at which a potentially renewable resource can be used without decreasing its potential for renewal. In this case, the Earth is the potentially renewable resource in the sense that the physical environment is constantly changing. Rock is slowly being formed along continental spreading zones and being subducted along oceanic trenches. There is a whole interconnecting network of processes that keep our natural environment in balance. Destruction and creation of the environment are roughly occurring at the same rate. There are three main systems involved, solid Earth systems (i.e. rock and sediment formation and weathering), fluid Earth systems (i.e. surface water, groundwater, atmosphere, the ocean and coastal systems), and the Earth’s energy systems that include factors affecting the climate, energy transfer, photosynthesis, and energy resources.

To address this question in regards to ANWR, I think it's safe to assume that we are consuming far more oil than the rate at which it is being formed by the environment. Oil formation occurs on a geologic time scale of millions to hundreds of millions of years. However, our demand is occurring on a human time scale of many decades to at most a few hundred years. Essentially when we burn oil and other fossil fuels, we are releasing energy that was trapped during or probably prior to the time of the dinosaurs.

This may sound contrary to conventional wisdom, but oil could be considered a potentially renewable resource. While it takes millions upon millions of years to produce, there is a theoretical rate, the sustainable yield, at which we could consume oil at the same rate as it is being formed (if we had a means to determine what that amount is). At this rate of consumption, we would likely never run out of an oil supply. The problem is this amount is probably so incredibly small that we could never provide enough energy or produce enough goods to support our current demand. As a result of the vast time scale over which oil is formed, for all intents and purposes it is non-renewable.

The idea of a "sustainable yield" ties into another concept known as "carrying capacity," the maximum number of individuals or inhabitants that an environment can support without detrimental effects. Like the sustainable yield for oil, the carrying capacity of people on Earth is another unknown, and highly debated number. In 1998, the United Nations conducted a study in an attempt to predict future population growth.

At the moment, the world's population is just over 6 billion. The UN projects we will reach 7.2 billion by 2015, which really isn't that far off, just another 10 years, about 50 million people per year. By 2050 the number is likely to reach 8.9 billion. However, this is assuming a moderate population growth rate. In 2050 the population could be as high as 10.7 billion, or as low as 7.3 billion. My point is that if you look at the chart on page 2, the growth curves begin to level off. This is the carrying capacity for humans. Another major point is that no one really knows what the carrying capacity actually is. It's possible we could have exceeded it already, and there is just a delayed reaction. I haven't been able to find a source on the internet, but in my environmental geology book it states that the environmental impact of one American baby is equivalent to 30 Chinese babies. Regardless of the actual number, the point is that American consumption is much higher per person than in China, but environmental damage is generally worse in China because there are so many more people (more than 1.3 billion) than in the United States (about 295 million). The US at roughly one-fifth the population of China causes roughly 30 times the environmental impact of China. Clearly, economic development and the affluence of a population has an impact on carrying capacity. The fact that our standard of living is so high is because we can support ourselves with resources from other places around the world. If we had to depend only on domestic resources for everything we consume, there would be fewer of us or our standard of living would likely be lower. For example, if one takes the land area Houston covers, roughly the area within Harris County, it would be impossible for the environment to support Houston's current population density. Since we are able to import resources from other regions with low population densities, where resource demand is relatively low, we can artificially increase the carrying capacity of the Houston area, at least temporarily.

I agree that disposable diapers are most likely here to stay for the time being. While, I haven't had any experience with cloth diapers, I can certainly see the appeal of disposable ones. Personally, I probably would choose disposable diapers over cloth ones. There certainly is a case that can be made for the benefits and disadvantages for each method that Kris has detailed very well. However, in this decision, I have at least accepted to some degree that a certain amount of environmental damage is acceptable because I it would save me time and the trouble to deal with cloth diapers.

I think Kris touches on an some very important points in her previous posts. One is that she acknowledges that she has contributed to the generation of non-biodegradable waste, as we all do in one way or another. I agree with her that consumers were not informed about the environmental impacts of disposable diapers, and I would say there still isn't much of that now. However, it isn't too hard to figure out, but it does take an understanding of how the environment works and its interconnected processes. If one stops to think about where resources come from (the Earth) and where all our trash ends up (in landfills on the Earth), it's not too hard to understand there is an impact, but the true comprehension of the impact comes when one realizes how many other factors are affected by the seemingly insignificant choice to use a disposable diaper, or any other product. However, in today's society we do not live "with" the land (environmental sustainability), rather we live "on" the environment (environmental degradation). For example, if one asks a child where food comes from, most often they reply "the grocery store," but really food comes from the Earth – a combination of nutrients in the soil, rain water, sun light, etc. It's this disconnectedness that helps explain why we don't always understand the environmental impact of our decisions.

Nevertheless, there is some implicit consent on the part of consumers. Listening to stories about cloth diapers from my grandmother, it is obvious to see that there was some demand for an easier method. An inventor saw a need for a disposable diaper, and companies saw an opportunity to profit from it. If there had not been a demand for disposable diapers, they would likely not have been a profitable commodity, and companies would not have produced them. So, I would have to agree personal decisions to play some role in determining what the market produces, and the resulting environmental impacts.

That being said, there is an alternative. If people are concerned with the environmental impact of diapers produced from would pulp and other absorbent, and likely harmful chemicals, they can demand an environmental alternative, an alternative diaper that could be produced in an environmentally less harmful way and one that could biodegrade within a given period of time that would reduce the negative environmental impacts from its production.

Unfortunately, I don't know of one that exists yet. However, I do know that biodegradable plastics made of cellulose exist. These plastics are basically composed of a combination of plant cells and other materials that can break down over the course of a few months. The packaging peanuts that dissolve in water are an example of this material. Cellulose-based plastic bags exist as well, but they are more expensive than regular plastic bags, so one has to come to a decision about how much the environment is worth to oneself and if it is worth the higher price.

I agree that companies are interested in their bottom line, an understandable fact because if they aren't, they go out of business and people lose their jobs. There are some companies that do operate in an environmentally-conscious way, and the EPA has a program called the National Environmental Performance Track that recognizes companies that voluntarily adhere to stricter environmental standards. Additionally, there are a number of companies emerging that serve environmental interests, so it's definitely an emerging market waiting for capitalization by companies.

I think a change to an environmentally sound lifestyle begins with an individual knowledge of our personal and combined environmental impacts. To promote this understanding on a wider level, it requires us to demand environmentally sound products, and to call for legislation that respects and values the environment. Currently, markets do not always place an adequate or realistic value on a healthy environment.

For example, would you rather have $100,000 in six months or receive $1,000,000 in 20 years?

Generally, markets place a higher value on the smaller amount because it is obtainable in the short-term and then reinvested to hopefully make a greater return on the initial amount. Generally less value is placed on the larger amount gained in the distant future because of the effects of inflation and the fact that one has to wait 20 years to receive the benefit of the $1 million.

To extend this example to the environment, let's assume these are revenues from harvesting timber. One can either earn $100,000 be clear-cutting 10 acres of land, which is likely to result in significant long-term environmental damage, such as severe erosion, a loss of biodiversity, and potentially the inability to harvest trees from the site for many years. Alternatively, one could earn $1,000,000 on the same 10 acres by selectively harvesting the mature timber in a sustainable method over 20 years, and potentially indefinitely if the sustainable yield is maintained. Again the previously mentioned situation is similar, but now there is an environmental aspect to the equation. There is a financial incentive to take the short-term gain, so one could reinvest in the stock market or some other venture to increase their rate of return. Yet you would think that a dependable source of income over the long-term would be preferable and in fact more wise because you won't have to worry about from where your income is coming. Additionally, less environmental damage results from the second choice. While there may be some temporary damage from selective harvesting, the environment still has the ability to recover in a fairly short period of time. This is how markets fail to value environmental damage (at least until there is serious short-term environmental damage that affects a company's profits).

One method to correct the predisposition for the short-term payoff is to mandate by law that the environment should be protected. Another is to tax environmental damage to provide an incentive to protect the environment. Similarly, some benefit could be provided to the harvester who practices sustainable forestry. This benefit could come in the form of higher prices for the wood, or perhaps more effectively through special recognition from the government in the form of a tax break on the land, or subsidy for the timber. Doing so would keep the sustainable timber cheaper and people would probably be more likely to use it, making the transition easier.

Going back to ANWR, the government should be doing something like this to promote renewable energy through an active program to reduce the cost of production of current renewable sources and promoting the development of other alternative sources that will provide a long-term solution to our energy dependency. Taxes aren't popular, but raising them on environmentally damaging products would encourage the production of less damaging alternatives, and the revenue raised could be used to fund the research and development of less damaging products. There are many other methods as well, and probably some that have not been invented yet to encourage environmentally sound practices by placing a greater value on preserving a healthy environment. My biggest concern with ANWR is the potential for serious environmental damage, even if unintended, and the fact it does not really move us to any long-term solution to our consumption problem. I also value the existence of at least some pristine environment unharmed by humans, even if not easily accessible, where natural processes still occur as they always have. We really do not have a good or full understanding of the consequences our actions have on the viability of the environment, so preserving some place unharmed in it's natural state is good in principle and beneficial from the standpoint of environmental research.

In summary, the market values products and resources. Individuals certainly play a role in what is produced, and I would say bear some responsibility for environmental damage. Markets aren't perfect, and even inefficient when it comes to valuing the existence of a healthy environment in the long-term. However, there are various means to influence the market that would result in greater environmental protection now and for future generations.

Geez Marc, I don't even begin to have halfway cogent thoughts until around noon and you manged all this before 6am, and on a Sunday? I'm impressed. Good information and arguments.I also looked up my company on the EPA NEPT program website and found that we do have participating divisions. I will make it a point to talk to our environmental manager as to the pros and cons of the program with regards to local participation.

The market is a tricky and dynamic place. And I agree with Kris that more research needs to be done on environmentally friendly material. Last, I think you hit the nail right on the head when you made the comparison between the U.S. and China w/regards to our capability to produce waste. Affluenece here and the mass consumerism that our country runs on drives the process. The whole "individually wrapped" thing drives me insane.

I wonder though if we might be able to change this. Research is necessary into biodegradale polymers and more environmentally friendly chemistries. There are many proponents, but really what is needed (for accelerated alternatives introduction) is more demand from the public. Like you said Kris, you have to follow the money. This is not necessarily a "the ball is back in your court" tactic either. I'm just saying it's easier for the companies to be proactive if they see a future benefit. I haven't thought about it enough, but is there a way that this could be captured as the new "emerging technology." A paradigm shift is needed from where the companies determine what is the next best thing, to where the people decide/frame what is needed. The people should decide what the next technological breakthroughs should be for our benefit.This is not without precedent.

I like to look at the space program as an example. The president, with support from the people, decided that space would be a priority and it happened with rapid developments in science and engineering. Now, I know that this is not a PERFECT comparison, but it does give us options as to how we might frame the issue of green industry. And framing/perception is everything. This is an effort I could support.