Felix Salmon mused on the subject of Peakniks recently (and what a neologism that is!) after reading Ben McGrath’s entertainingly morbid piece, "The Dystopians" in The New Yorker ($ub. req’d). While it’s worth observing that "peaknik" has typically referred to Peak Oilers, I think it’s safe to say that we’re all peakniks now.
McGrath talks mostly about financial doomsayers, i.e. Peak Debt and Peak Dollars, but refers generally, if somewhat dismissively, to the "Peaknik Diaspora" and some of its adherents. These would be folks who "believe" in Peak Oil, Peak Carbon, Peak Dirt, Peak Fish. Personally, I think Peak Carbon is a not a terribly useful way to refer to climate change—although "climate change" is itself a not terribly useful way to refer to climate change (something that Gar Lipow has taken it upon himself to fix). Peak Things, in my humble opinion (speaking of which, why did IMHO go out of favor? Is there no longer any humility on the Internet?), should only refer to resource maximums. Switching that around for carbon—i.e. we’re trying to stop producing carbon so we can declare/achieve Peak Carbon and continue reducing from there—is just plain confusing. So let’s dispense with Peak Carbon.
Peak Dirt (aka Peak Soil), on the other hand, is very real. Or rather the underlying problem of soil erosion is very real. Industrial agriculture with its "fencerow-to-fencerow" monocropping techniques and mass applications of synthetic fertilizer further exacerbates the problem (although there’s a peak for fertilizer, too—Peak Phosphorus). Anyway, I happen to think "Peak Dirt" is also confusing—I prefer "The Soil Crisis." Yes, we’re losing topsoil at an alarming rate. But we’re also expanding the amount of land under the till in many parts of the world. Ironically, we’re doing it in most cases via deforestation or through expansion into marginal or ecologically fragile land, which only increases the rate of erosion. Indeed, farmers in the U.S. responded to spiking prices and damaging floods last summer by making a forceful but failed attempt to get government permission to plant on land protected under federal conservation programs.
Meanwhile, development pressures in urban and suburban areas continue to reduce farmland in and around cities, which has nothing to do with erosion. The land is still fertile, it’s just more valuable with a house on it. Well, maybe not at the moment—which begs the question, when will we start plowing all those McMansions under and planting organic vegetables on top of them? No one wants big houses anymore, right? And, of course, none of this takes into account the coming conflicts over land use for alternative energy as solar, wind, and biofuel development contend with agriculture for acreage around the world. Definitely less of a Peak than a Crisis.
Some even argue that soil is a more precious resource than any of our other supposed peak resources. As food progressives Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson declared in their NYT op-ed on soil, "Unlike oil, it has no technological substitute." Without soil, there is no agriculture, full stop. Does that mean food is a candidate for Peak-hood now?
As for oil, yes, Salmon is right that peak oilers tend towards shrillness. But their number includes the International Energy Agency (a 28 member intergovernmental body that has historically assumed oil production would simply increase with demand. Not anymore.) along with several CEOs of major oil companies. Oh, and half of oil company CFOs cotton to the idea as well (thanks for all that, Joe). Are they shrill, too? They seem more like Very Serious People.
Of course, the mother of all Peaks is one that McGrath didn’t even mention—Peak Water. Sure, we’re surrounded by it, but most of it is too salty. And though we drink, bathe in, and flush a lot of it, agriculture uses the most by far. The water cycle doesn’t itself increase the amount of freshwater in the world and we’re draining most underground aquifers far faster than they are replenished (especially this one). Meanwhile, soil erosion contributes to flooding and leads to less efficient watersheds. And climate change is expected to bring superdroughts. It’s enough to make you wonder how we’ll have enough of the wet stuff to satisfy the needs of 9.2 billion people by 2050. Let’s hope GE is right that soon we’ll be able to drink the ocean thanks to clean-powered desalination.
So I will leave to others the worries over Peak Debt and Peak Dollars. I’ve got enough on my plate as it is.
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 9:37 am
30 Jan 2009
The "peak" way of thinking does strange things to a person. Afterwards one sees the world differently. Sometimes it goes along with mainstream environmentalism, sometimes it is different.
A fact that isn't much recognized is that the "peak" idea goes way back in the history of the ecology.
Peakists are inspired not just by the geoscientist M.K. Hubbert who developed the idea of peak oil, but by the 1972 classic Limits to Growth and American ecologist H.T. Odum.
There are tie-ins with the sustainable agriculture movement, permaculture and relocalization.
I've found it to be a storehouse of ideas that sooner or later become part of the mainstream.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:09 am
30 Jan 2009
Thtat being said, the use of the word "Peak" seems to be helpful for limited resources, such as oil, and seems to stick in the public's consciousness.
Permalink
Peter Donovan Posted 11:46 am
30 Jan 2009
However, "Peak soil" is not a very good analogy to peak oil. The rate of oil formation is quite slow. In some cases, soil can be built rapidly, particularly the organic matter component. At Twitchell Island in California, the USGS has built two feet that you can stand on in 10 years, in a managed wetland. This is mainly carbon captured from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.
Also, good soils capture and store water, zillions of acre feet of it. There's about as much water on the planet now as ever. It's not leaking off into space or into the center of the earth. The problem with water is typically a problem of soil, which when degraded cannot capture and hold water very well. It's not levees that protect against floods, it's the infiltration rate and runoff rate of the soil surface. We typically blame falling water tables on excess pumping, instead of the excess evaporation and lack of recharge provided by degraded soils.
Over the last 50 years some strands of alternative agriculture have demonstrated how one can use atmospheric carbon and solar energy to build, rapidly, the water-holding soils that can feed people well.
soilcarboncoalition.org
Permalink
davidzet Posted 4:21 am
02 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:33 am
02 Feb 2009
Good plan David.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:49 am
02 Feb 2009
The criticisms that he has of the peak oil theory are old hat, and have been discussed endlessly. The discussion has moved on. The best of the peak oil writers are quite aware of economics, supply-and-demand, the differences between spikes and long-term trends. A number of PO writers are in the energy industry or in investment.
Bickett is on firmer ground when it comes to the differences between water and oil. It's true that M.K. Hubbert's analysis is not the best tool for understanding water supplies. On the other hand, modern society tends to treat water as a resource to be exploited as quickly as possible (e.g. groundwater), so maybe Hubbert can shed some light.
It's rather discouraging to read the free market mantra about prices at the end of Bickett's post. If free marketeers were managing water supplies as they've run financial markets, we'd all be dead of thirst by now.
Time for a new paradigm.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
kylegracey Posted 9:22 am
02 Feb 2009
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 1:51 pm
02 Feb 2009
Peak oil is either here or past. Since oil companies refuse to release honest figures about production the point is moot. Insert the Export Land Model of oil consumption by oil exporting nations and Peak Oil is a practical reality now. Lowered prices doesn't make more available.
Peak grain has past. World grain stocks have declined year-on-year for some years now as production has not kept up with demand. If we don't get more snow here in California somebody's going hungry. Any day now Malthus gets a field test.
Peak soil has two aspects; mineral soil and organic biomass. It's pretty hard to build organic biomass if erosion has washed the clay downstream leaving you with sand, rock or hardpan. There are areas locally where the soil is just centimeters over lava hardpan. Good luck building THAT up; the deep soil has houses on it.
The really sad thing is that we seem to have left peak reality behind us some years ago. The human race has to live on solar income without reducing existing resources someday. We're destroying that resource base at a furious rate.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink