Next 40 Years Will Not Be As Easy

January 24, 2014 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

Nate Hagens, who is a well-known authority on global resource depletion, dropped by the farm yesterday.

Nate used to work on Wall Street as a vice president at Lehman Brothers. He left that job feeling something was not right and that he needed to connect with the real world. He is extremely smart and has an abundance of common sense.

He was until recently the lead editor of The Oil Drum, which was one of the most highly respected, and popular, websites for analysis and discussion of global energy supplies, and the future implications of energy decline. He has a master’s degree in finance and a PhD in natural resources.

This short, 5 minute video shows Nate talking about why things are not going to be as easy over the next 40 years.

One thing I like about him is that he’s not on the fringe. He doesn’t proclaim that the world’s ending, but he also knows we cannot go on as before. Though he doesn’t profess to know what the future holds, he knows that our expectations have got to change because we don’t have the same amount of energy we’ve had in order to keep our same lifestyle going.

From his bio:

Nate's presentations address the opportunities and constraints we face in the transition away from fossil fuels. On the supply side, Nate focuses on biophysical economics (net energy) and the interrelationship between debt-based financial markets and natural resources. On the demand side, Nate addresses the evolution-derived underpinnings to conspicuous consumption, valuation of the present over the future, and habituation to resource overconsumption, and offers suggestions on how individuals and society can better adapt and mitigate to what's ahead.

Nate has appeared on PBS, BBC, and NPR, and has lectured around the world. He holds a Masters Degree in Finance from the University of Chicago and a PhD in Natural Resources from the University of Vermont. Previously Nate was President of Sanctuary Asset Management and a Vice President at the investment firms Salomon Brothers and Lehman Brothers.

I showed him our tomato growing operation, which he was very excited about, and took him to see the hydroelectric headworks, and to see the turbine that generates our electricity. He was really attracted to the resources we have here on the Big Island.

I wrote and asked him four questions about our local resources and what he thinks about each. When he replies, I’ll share his thoughts here.

Big Island, Education, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Lowering Electric Rates, Mauna Kea, Peak Oil, Science, Sustainability, Where We Live

A Big Picture Look

January 17, 2014 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Yesterday I sat in Judge Nakamura’s courtroom full of people both for and against the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) being built on Mauna Kea. I looked over at Kealoha Pisciotta, who has led the opposition all these years, and thought about how much I admire her.

As I sat there, I thought back to 2008, when rising oil prices started being such a big concern. At the top of my mind then was finding an economic alternative to tourism and opportunities for keiki education, both of which the TMT will provide. Locating the TMT here is a great opportunity, and I put a lot of effort into supporting it.

As I sat there yesterday, I thought, too, about how the TMT will help the Big Island cope with our rising energy costs and changing economy; because of it, money will flow into our economy instead of out. It will bring 10 years of construction jobs, and $1 million/year toward Big Island student education for each of more than 55 years. More importantly, it will bring to the Big Island an attitude of “Not, No Can. CAN!”

In 2007, I’d met Gail Tverberg at my first Peak Oil conference in Houston. A former insurance actuary whose job was to price insurance risk, she is someone who approaches the world oil supply problem from a risk management perspective. I helped bring her to the Big Island to give presentations, and she observed that our dependence on tourism makes Hawai‘i very vulnerable.

In 2008, shale and gas production hadn’t yet started in earnest. Natural gas prices were very high at $12/thousand cubic feet. According to a USDA analysis, there was an 80 percent correlation of natural gas price to ammonia fertilizer cost, and that had a frightening effect on local farmers. The price of natural gas dropped to $2/mcf, and now it’s around $4.50/mcf. This, coupled with a subsequent increase in natural gas supply, has given us some breathing room. But it’s only temporary.

We have another fairly unique opportunity to protect ourselves against seriously rising energy costs, which are already impacting our lives negatively and will continue to go up if we don’t make changes:

Geothermal energy.

After having attended five Association for the Study conferences (the only person from our state to do so) I’ve found that it’s all a matter of 1) cost, 2) what works and 3) comparative risk.

Geothermal addresses all three of those points. It’s inexpensive compared to using oil to produce our energy; we already know that it works; and after decades of experience with it here, the comparative risk is low.

It also allows the possibility of making hydrogen, which we can use to fuel our ground transportation, and also ammonia fertilizer for farmers. There are a lot of wins there.

Articles, Big Island, Blog, Community, Food and Drink

Michelle Galimba & What Truth Tastes Like

January 14, 2014 Richard Ha 2 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Michelle Galimba is a rancher (at her family’s Kuahiwi Ranch, in Na‘alehu) and a member of the Board of Agriculture.

One day, on a plane, I looked across the aisle and saw her reading a newspaper. I did a doubletake when I realized the newspaper was in Chinese.

Michelle is a rancher with a PhD in comparative literature from U.C. Berkeley who knows Chinese. She’s a very interesting, gifted, thinking person. You can click into her blog Ehulepo on the right side of this blog anytime. It’s worth reading.

Here’s an article she wrote at the She Grows Food blog called What Does Truth Taste Like.

What does truth taste like? What does justice taste like?

These might sound like terribly pompous questions to ask. But they are worth asking as we learn, un-learn, re-learn the question: “What is food?”

What is food?

Food – we speak of it as good or bad, as healthy or indulgent, pretty or ugly, tasty or yucky, clever or boring,strange or familiar, pure or tainted.

What is it that we eat? It was there before each of us, like the air we breathe, and yet more complexly given to us by each other – cultural, social, ecological. It is what we have absorbed already before we became conscious; it is what we are formed from. It is what our first thoughts were bent upon, what our bodies cried out for before there were words. Food is a feeling, an interchange with the world, a necessary blessing.

Food can be beautiful and good. It should be so. Because it is the flower of the entirety of our knowledge, because it is the will of the community to nourish and sustain, to embody itself, animate itself. Because it is the form and medium of our conversation with the web of life, in which humans are but one node.

The pathway of food should be known by all – its path from earth to belly and back to earth. What knowledge is more necessary?

Truth might have a taste. Would we know it when we tasted it? …

Read the rest

Articles, Government

Our Newspapers Need To Cover The News

January 13, 2014 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Where are our local newspapers?

Why does it take the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to back up our island’s local farmers and ranchers, and to point out that agricultural policy should never be set without the participation of the people producing our food?

This is what appears to be happening in Hawai‘i at the moment.

An excerpt from yesterday’s Star-Advertiser editorial, which talks about the Big Island’s recent passage of the “anti-GMO” bill 113:

“The state Legislature may be able to undo this wrong, but it will take true leadership and real political courage. Lawmakers should assert the state government’s authority over agricultural rules and enforcement, rather than standing by as the counties continue to impose undue burdens on local farmers.”

The article also asserts: “It’s time for elected officials and policymakers throughout the state to stand up and be counted. Let’s have an ‘Eat GMO Papaya Day.’ This food is safe, it’s affordable and it’s grown right here at home.”

And why does it take the Star-Advertiser to point out that our policies are exhibiting an unwarranted distrust of University of Hawai‘i specialists in tropical agriculture?

State must take lead in GMO debate

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 12, 2014

That a Big Island councilwoman would seek to revive a bill banning all genetically modified crops on Hawaii island, even though strict limits on such agriculture were approved only a month ago under another bill, indicates just how emboldened biotechnology foes have become in their quest to control Hawaii farmers.

The measure is not expected to pass, and should be rejected. It should not, however, be ignored, especially on Oahu. Councilwoman Brenda Ford’s proposal signals that rather than taking responsible action to assess the impact on local agriculture of the newly approved Bill 113, some elected officials are willing to put productive local farmers flat out of business. Login for more…

WHY does it take reporter Amy Harmon from the New York Times to tell us what is happening on our own island?

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

By AMY HARMON

JAN. 4, 2014

KONA, Hawaii — From the moment the bill to ban genetically engineered crops on the island of Hawaii was introduced in May 2013, it garnered more vocal support than any the County Council here had ever considered, even the perennially popular bids to decriminalize marijuana.

Public hearings were dominated by recitations of the ills often attributed to genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s: cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds, genetic contamination, overuse of pesticides, the disappearance of butterflies and bees.

Like some others on the nine-member Council, Greggor Ilagan was not even sure at the outset of the debate exactly what genetically modified organisms were: living things whose DNA has been altered, often with the addition of a gene from a distant species, to produce a desired trait. But he could see why almost all of his colleagues had been persuaded of the virtue of turning the island into what the bill’s proponents called a “G.M.O.-free oasis.”

“You just type ‘G.M.O.’ and everything you see is negative,” he told his staff. Opposing the ban also seemed likely to ruin anyone’s re-election prospects.

Yet doubts nagged at the councilman, who was serving his first two-year term. The island’s papaya farmers said that an engineered variety had saved their fruit from a devastating disease. A study reporting that a diet of G.M.O. corn caused tumors in rats, mentioned often by the ban’s supporters, turned out to have been thoroughly debunked.

And University of Hawaii biologists urged the Council to consider the global scientific consensus, which holds that existing genetically engineered crops are no riskier than others, and have provided some tangible benefits.

“Are we going to just ignore them?” Mr. Ilagan wondered. Read the rest

Enough is enough.

Our newspapers need to report the news.

And our leaders need to step up and be accountable.

Government, Science

GMO Facts? Or Fiction?

January 11, 2014 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

State Senator Russell Ruderman used his own company’s letterhead when he submitted anti-GMO testimony recently to the Hawai‘i County Council. He owns Island Naturals, the natural foods markets.

It certainly seems to be a conflict of interest for him to be supporting the Big Island’s anti-GMO movement, and he should recuse himself from all discussions and votes regarding GMOs. Submitting testimony on his company’s letterhead does not help lessen this impression of his having a serious conflict of interest.

He also wrote an article for Big Island Weekly recently, titled GMO Facts and Fictions, which he says is the first in a series of installments.

What’s most interesting are the comments that follow his article, like this one from Karl Haro von Mogel, Ph.D. Candidate in Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics, UW-Madison, Chair, Biology Fortified, Inc. Von Mogel is highly educated on issues regarding GMOs, and he wrote this:

I applaud State Senator Ruderman's desire to clear up confusion about genetically engineered crops, but in this  opinion piece, he has made a great number of outright falsehoods that  further confuse the topic and muddy the waters. I am a plant  geneticist who studies this topic very closely and is building a  database of all peer-reviewed scientific studies on genetically  engineered crops, so I am very familiar with this field. I will attempt  to correct the most egregious of Ruderman's errors.

He goes on to correct many of what he calls Ruderman’s "outright falsehoods" in detail. It's a very long comment.

Ruderman responded with this:

As mentioned in my column, I will be addressing these studies in more detail in future columns. I look forward to discussing the Seralini study, which, in addition to showing serious effects from GMOs, illuminates the aggressive tactics of biotec companies in suppressing science it doesn't like. These studies point to the need for long-term follow-up studies, which have not been done. I will also clear up the confusion of how Bt affects humans by disrupting our essential gut bacteria, which is not understood by some of the previous commenters.

And then von Mogel, who is highly educated on the science of biotechnology, responded with this:

Mr. Ruderman, you have made a series of very outlandish and false claims about Bt that you did not support with any evidence. This comment of yours would have been the time to at least give us links to the studies that you say exist, or to correct the record. Saying that you are putting off supporting these claims with evidence until some future column suggests that you don't have such evidence. Indeed, I was very direct in saying that for some of the claims you made, there is not a single study that even remotely suggests anything like that – such as your claim that the genes have transferred to our gut bacteria. By bringing up the Seralini study, you are changing the subject. Seralini's (now retracted) study did not involve Bt at all, so it does not support any of the arguments you have made. Indeed, there have been long-term feeding studies with Bt. There have been feeding studies that look at effects on gut bacteria and conclude that there are none. As I said, I am intimately familiar with the scientific literature on this topic, and I can help you find answers to your questions.  As a State Senator, it is your duty to consult with scientific experts – especially those in Hawaii who work for the state that you represent – so that you can make decisions based on established scientific facts. Hawaii needs leaders who can represent both the concerns of the population and duly weigh the evidence to make informed decisions. Will you be that leader?

We need to hold Senator Ruderman to a higher standard than he's holding himself to, because he's our elected official and making decisions on behalf of all of us.

There are other interesting comments there, as well. They’re by far the most interesting thing about that article, in my opinion. Read them all here.

I have asked Senator Ruderman many times how his stance, which does not even seem to be supported by science, will help the Big Island and its food security status. How will it help the rubbah slippah folk in his district? I have never received an answer.

Peak Oil, Science, Sustainability

How Things Work: A Disconnect

January 8, 2014 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

Take a look at this survey of “Hawai‘i’s Food and Ag Challenges Ranked in Order of Importance.”

Between October 2012 and December 2013, while the Hawai‘i Rural Development Council screened the film “Seeds of Hope – Na Kupu Mana‘olana” around our state, it asked viewers to fill out this survey about the issues discussed in the movie.

Survey takers ranked “Food Security” as our number one food and agriculture challenge (note that “GMO Agriculture” came in as lowest priority of the five issues discussed).

Statewide, 94 percent of survey takers thought Food Security should be either “top priority” or “important” as a state policy issue, and on the Big Island, 97 percent of people thought so.

This is what I have been saying, over and over. Food security is a critical issue out here, in the middle of the ocean, where we import most of our food. We need to have important and rational discussions, now, about how we will ensure we are food secure as conditions continue to get more challenging.

It’s a real disconnect to realize that 97 percent of people on the Big Island consider food security “important” or even “top priority,” and then to think about recent community support of the Hawai‘i County Council’s banning GMO/biotech solutions on the Big Island.

All I can come up with is that there are a lot of people who don’t see the whole big picture and who don’t see that there are unintended consequences:

Because only Big Island farmers are banned from using biotech solutions to agricultural problems, their competition (farmers on other islands and the mainland) will end up having lower costs and more successful crops
This will undeniably lead to a decline in agriculture on the Big Island
This will undeniably lead to less food security

We need to take a hard look at what we are doing now so that we head down the right path. The decisions we make now will affect not only us, but also our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Let’s make sure they are able to thrive and live a good, affordable, food-secure life here on the Big Island when it’s their turn.

Articles, Bananas, Big Island, Current Affairs, Food Security, Peak Oil, Science, Sustainability, Taro/Poi

NYT Article: ‘Lonely Quest for Facts on GM Crops’

January 6, 2014 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

The New York Times just ran an excellent, balanced and well-received article on Hawai‘i Island’s recent GMO ban. It was written by Amy Harmon, a national correspondent for the Times who covers the impact of science and technology on American life. She’s won two Pulitzer Prizes for her work.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

By AMY HARMON

“You just type ‘G.M.O.’ and everything you see is negative,” he told his staff. Opposing the ban also seemed likely to ruin anyone’s re-election prospects.

“Are we going to just ignore them?” Mr. Ilagan wondered.

Urged on by Margaret Wille, the ban’s sponsor, who spoke passionately of the need to “act before it’s too late,” the Council declined to form a task force to look into such questions before its November vote. But Mr. Ilagan, 27, sought answers on his own. In the process, he found himself, like so many public and business leaders worldwide, wrestling with a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence…. Read the rest

Hawai‘i County Councilperson Margaret Wille, though, refers to this article as “Hogwash!”

She’s the local councilperson who spearheaded the Big Island biotech ban, and her comment on the New York Times article kind of says it all. In her second-to-last paragraph she lumps farmers in with “GMO apologists,” which makes us the enemy. We are not the enemy.

Her comment follows the New York Times article:

Margaret Wille

Hawaii Island Hawaii

The underlying message in this article is that pro-GMO is pro-science and those opposed are anti-science. Hogwash! It is the biotech corporations that politically obtained the USDA “political” exemption from being required to do premarketing health and safety tests. This political decision was based on the claim that GMO crops are “substantially equivalent” to the corresponding non-GMO crops. Instead of government required health and safety testing, uncontrolled “open field” testing is occurring right here in Hawaii on Kauai– where all the evidence points to immune disruption of the young and unborn , as well as harm to the soil and adjacent aquatic life.. At the same time these same corporations obtain patent rights based on the distinction of their GMOs, allowing the intellectual property laws to function as the barrier to obtaining the information independent scientist needed to do long term studies.

And whenever an independent study is underway, the GMO offensive position is to discredit the scientist or buy out the organization, as occurred in the case of the international organization doing studies on the adverse affects of associated pesticides on bee populations.

The bottom line is that we passed Bill 113 despite all the opposition from Big Ag GMO proponents and their on island mouthpieces.

Hopefully in the future, the New York Times will curb its biased approach to coverage of GMO related issues.

Contrast Councilperson Wille with Councilperson Ilagan. What a difference.

At this point, it’s really not a matter of who can yell the loudest, but of sitting down and deciding where we want to end up, and how we’re going to get there. We have a very serious food security issue (I’ll be writing more about this next time) that, with our Peak Oil situation, is only likely to get worse.

We are not looking at a First Amendment situation here, where everyone’s opinion matters. Everyone is welcome to his or her opinion, but at this point, when it comes to making important policy for our people and our food security, we need to sit down and form the best policy we can, using the best science.

What was not covered in the New York Times article was Big Island farmers’ concern that the ban on biotech solutions only applies to Big Island farmers, and not their competitors on other islands or on the mainland.

The president of the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association asked why only papaya farmers are beng required to register their crops and pesticide usage. He said that papaya farmers feel like they are being treated like sex offenders.

And why is there a blanket ban on open air testing? With bananas, flying pollen makes no difference, because they don’t have seeds.

Fusarium wilt killed off the mai‘a maoli as well as the mai‘a popoulu, two banana plants that came to Hawai‘i on the canoes. What if we could bring them back?

What if a virus threatens to kill off all our taro? Would we want to be able to try and save it? What would the ancient ones do?

Geothermal, Hydrogen, Iceland, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources, Science, Sustainability

Iceland & Hydrogen Fuel

January 2, 2014 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

This is a video about Iceland's hydrogen project.

Now that fleets of fuel cell vehicles are being readied for roll out, Iceland is prepared and ready to get off petroleum for its land and sea transportation.

We can do the same with our curtailed – thrown away! – wind, geothermal and solar power.

I took these photos, posted on their hydrogen refueling station wall, in Iceland in 2011. They give a good, easy-to-read overview.

Big Island, Hamakua Coast, Hydroelectric, Video, Water

Video: After The Storm

December 30, 2013 Richard Ha 2 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

What a storm! The house shook with intense thunder and lightning last night. This morning, an eleven-mile stretch of Highway 19 was closed, 20 miles north of us, because of the storm.

During the day today we expect no more than 6 mols/meter square of plant-useful sun energy. Ideally, tomatoes need 25 mols/meter square.

Cloud cover and rain are most associated with low sun energy. This low sun energy applies to PV systems on people’s roofs, too. Leaves are another kind of solar radiation collector.

But even though the sun energy is down, our new hydro generator is at max production.

So, if the sun is bright, the plants smile and so do we. If it’s rainy, we generate more electricity.

Either way, we are happy.

Here’s information on waterflow in nearby Honoli‘i Stream as of this afternoon. It’s from the USGS (click to enlarge).

Here’s the same information year to date.

Biofuel, Renewable Energy Sources

Good News: PUC Says No To AKP Biofuels

December 26, 2013 Richard Ha 7 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Happy holidays, everyone!

We received good news on Monday: The PUC rejected the ‘Aina Koa Pono biofuel project.

From Civil Beat:

The Public Utilities Commission has rejected a proposal to build a biofuels facility in Kau on the Big Island.

The developer, Aina Koa Pono, hoped to use plant feedstocks to produce drop-in biofuel for the electric utilities on the Big Island, Maui and Oahu. But the PUC said that the fuel would be too expensive, in a decision issued on Monday.

“The contract price for the AKP-produced biofuel is excessive and not cost-effective at present and for the foreseeable future, and thus, is unreasonable and inconsistent with the public interest,” commissioners wrote…. Read the rest

It goes to show that “we, the people” can make a difference.

In this case, a grassroots group of folks came together spontaneously to advocate for low-cost electricity on behalf of the rubbah slippah folks on the Big Island. We called ourselves the Big Island Community Coalition (BICC).

We supported other community members by submitting written testimony, and helped organize public participation at two PUC hearings on the Big Island. Here’s a post about it from last year.

The people involved in the BICC were Dave DeLuz, Jr., John Dill, Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Kuulei Kealoha Cooper, Robert Lindsey, H.M. Monty Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent and William Walter.

Helping the rubbah slippah folks helps all of us.