In February I wrote about Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) which is the moniker used to describe the phenomenon of enormous amounts of bee colonies dying off. I speculated that it was likely due to run-of-the-mill inappropriate use of pesticides. Turns out I was probably half-right: I just discovered the most thorough article on the problem I’ve seen. It is full of references, facts, and seems to have the best answer yet as to what is going on: It is a complete ecosystem problem.

What it comes down to is that we humans seem to pathologically underestimate the consequences of our actions. Or rather, we’re far too willing to sacrifice long-term sustainability for short term gains. Here’s some of the major reasons why bees are dying off in considerable numbers:

1. Widespread, persistent, and irresponsible use of pesticides. The lesson we apparently aren’t learning from history is that when you make pesticides part of normal operations you will eventually rely on pesticides and they’ll become more & more useless over time to the point where you have super-resistant pests and no way to stop them. This can eventually lead to collapses of all sorts.
2. Widespread, persistent, and irresponsible use of antibiotics (really, just another kind of pesticide). Same problem as with pesticides: If you make them part of day-to-day operations in whatever you do, evolution pretty much guarantees that you’ll wind up with resistant bacteria.
3. Widespread, persistent, and irresponsible use of fungicides. Ditto!
4. Destruction of natural habitats. The disappearing wildflowers (which are linked with disappearing bees) are the result of human encroachment and actions (such as unsustainable beekeeping =). These provide natural variety in bee nutrition and without it you can wind up with deficiencies of diet.
5. Fostering monocultures. When you breed plants and animals from the same stock over and over again without allowing for natural selection and/or breeding with diversity in mind you end up with crops and animals that can be easily wiped out by a single problem (whether it be pests, bacteria, virii, or fungii). FYI: This is also true with computer operating systems and software… If your whole company is running Windows and a Windows virus comes along you can be out of action completely until you fix all the systems. Whereas; if you had a mix of Windows, Macs, and Linux systems you could continue operating with only a temporary reduction in productivity.

1. Over-feeding the bees with processed sweets instead of natural nectars. Many commercial beekeepers, in order to preserve their bees between trips to sites, feed their bees high fructose corn syrup. It plumps up the bees so that they’re nearly twice as large as organic bees and it doesn’t have as good nutritional content as a more natural diet of varying plant nectars.

   Does all of this sound familiar? Here’s some parallels in other aspects of our lives:

   • Over-use of pesticides on human food crops.
   • Over-use of antibiotics in medicine.
   • Irresponsible (and pointless) use of antibiotics in consumer soap and other mass-manufactured products.
   • Widespread use of high fructose corn syrup in human food.
   • Destruction of habitat causes water supply problems, pest problems, and food supply problems.

• Monocultures a risk to our food supply (FYI: click here to read about one of the worst monoculture disasters in human history).

  What will it take for us to realize what’s at stake?

It is often said that “the market will sort it out.” What is often not said is that “this is not necessarily a good thing.” As an example of why this is, I’d like to point out Charlie Crist’s announcement yesterday regarding the critical water shortage in south Florida.

South Florida has undergone some of the most rapid growth (population and economic) in the U.S. over the past 25 years. The amount of baby boomers moving there is enormous and the local economy benefited greatly by way of those retiree’s retirement savings. Because of the demand for living space for these retirees, huge swaths of land were clear-cut and replaced with houses, condos, strip malls, grocery stores, and golf courses (“The only sport you can play when you’re 80”). Then there’s the resources all these people take up… Electricity, gasoline, food, and water.

If you were a gambling man 25 years ago, which of those resourced would you guess would be stressed first? Surely in FLORIDA there could never be a water shortage! Especially in the south where it rains nearly every day.

As it turns out water is going to be the first resource to go. Why? People are taking water out of the aquifer faster than it can replenish itself. Not because we’re a thirsty bunch, no. More than 50% of all water used by Floridians is used for landscape irrigation (specifically, lawns). But water is a renewable resource! Surely we can cut down our usage temporarily until the water shortage goes away? It isn’t that simple and here’s why: There’s too many libertarians and old farts in south Florida who don’t give a damn about the environment. Or to put it even more bluntly, people who will “let the market sort it out” and people who are “too old to care”—about the environment OR looking when they back out of their driveway.

There you have it. But don’t you worry, the market actually will sort it out! Even if irrigation bans are put into effect these people will still demand their lush, green lawns and golf courses. They won’t comply. Even if you have a mass-marketing campaign talking about the water crisis and that they should conserve, they won’t. Even if you double the cost of water, they’ll still pay and will still keep using too much water. Then the water supplies will have collapsed and they won’t have it anymore.

Wait a minute… How can a water supply “collapse”? Surely it will just renew itself—eventually—after it runs dry? Actually, it will never run dry—it will just be infiltrated by the ocean and will be salty and useless. Once that happens, it will take a decade for the aquifer to desalinate itself. It is one of those “market forces” that just suddenly appears with no impact on supply or demand until it is gone. A perfect example of how the “invisible hand of the market” can strangle.

How will the economy of southern Florida be effected by a sudden loss of its primary source of fresh water? Well, I’m sure it will sort itself out. Of course, there will be one hell of an economic (and environmental) crash first and it will be followed up by the kind of environmental regulations that give laissez-faire capitalists nightmares.

I’d never heard of ciguatera until today. I discovered it in this article over at Wired Science. What is ciguatera? It is a potentially fatal (and scary) kind of food poisoning that you can get from fish and cases of it are increasing primarily due to rising ocean temperatures. Here’s a quote from the AP article

Within hours, all six fell deathly ill. So did two dozen others from the same neighborhood. Some complained of body-wide numbness. Others had weakness in their legs. Several couldn’t speak or even open their mouths.

Here’s how warming oceans leads to this kind of food poisoning: Due to warmer ocean temperatures and increasingly greater levels of carbon dioxide (as a result of burning fossil fuels) the incidence of toxic algae blooms has increased. This toxic algae is eaten by fish (it isn’t toxic to them) who are then eaten by bigger fish. These toxins persist in the fish and eventually humans eat them (us being the top of the food chain).

Now for the real problem with ciguatera: “Currently, there is no reliable way to detect whether a fish has ciguatera. The molecule is extremely complex and differs markedly from region to region. There also is no antidote.” No way to test for it and no antidote, brilliant.

But how much of a problem is this? “In the United States, ciguatera poisonings are most frequent in Florida, Texas and Hawaii, which has seen a fivefold increase since the 1970s to more than 250 a year.”

Semi-related and very interesting: The AP article is actually chock full of all sorts of interesting and painful information that isn’t necessarily related to ciguatera. Check out this quote regarding a potential extinction vortex going on with fishing in general:

Still, Hong Kong diners pay a premium for the risky fish. Rare species like the Napoleon wrasse fetch nearly $50 a pound. The fish are increasingly shipped live from Southeast Asia and as far away as the South Pacific, raising concerns from the World Conservation Union that many species, especially groupers, could be fished out of existence.

Fishing groupers out of existence? Surely they must be joking, you say? If you’re skeptical, I recommend reading up on the passenger pigeon

I just read some great news: Nanci Pelosi just met with the mayor of San Francisco to announce her support for the Securing America’s Energy Independence Act It is a similar bill to the one I wrote about last year.

So what’s the details of the new bill? It…

…would extend the residential and commercial ITC for eight years, modify the residential and commercial tax credit for photovoltaic systems to $1,500 per half kilowatt, remove the 30% cap for commercial installations and the $2,000 cap on residential installations and provide three-year accelerated depreciation for commercial solar and fuel cell projects.

It also changes the solar water heating credit from a maximum of 30% to an absolute credit of up to $2000 (which is awesome!). As you may be expecting, I’ve done the math…

Solar Water Heater: Assuming it costs about ~$3500 to have a professional install a solar water heater on your roof, that means you’ll have spent $1500 after taxes. If you add on the incentive from our local utility company ($800), that leaves the price for an INSTALLED solar hot water heater at $700! That means if you’re currently heating your water with electricity you’ll make up the cost in 1.46 years. You’d be crazy not to invest in one!

Solar Electricity: Right now solar panels cost about $4.5/watt. Under normal circumstances you can get about 6 full-sun hours a day. If you bought $18,000 worth of solar panels (4 kilowatts) you could generate about 24 kilowatts/day which translates to approximately $2.4/day in “free” energy. For now I’ll ignore the cost of installation, wiring, and other equipment (inverter) so it would take 26.7 years to make up the cost in an ideal world (assuming 30% losses in the system which is typical).

Now lets add in this new incentive… The bill allows us to get a tax credit of $1500/half-kilowatt. That is $12,000 of free money! This leaves us with a total price of $6,000 for the solar panels or 6.84 years to make up the cost. Since it costs about $5,000 for the extra equipment plus installation the real figure is more like 12.55 years. In other words: It still isn’t worth it financially… but if you finance it you can increase your monthly electricity payment by a small amount while doing good for the environment.

Note: This doesn’t take into account the increasing cost of energy or inflation. Realistically, you could probably get the payback time under 9-10 years. The real key is for the cost of solar panels to come down… If we can get the price/watt down to about $2.50 then you’d be stupid not to invest in solar electricity. At that price you’d make up the cost in 3.4 years! I’m still holding out hope that Nanosolar can keep their promise of $0.50/watt by 2009.

An article at the BBC today is talking about how “honeybees are vanishing at an alarming rate from 24 US states”. Depending on the state, the losses range from 30% to 70%. That is a very significant number!

I did some googling around because I’ve read similar stories regarding this issue before. The BBC article doesn’t enumerate possible causes so I wanted to find out more. This article at The Ledger (Lakeland, FL newspaper) claims that these losses threaten the entire beekeeping industry and, more importantly, “Without honeybee pollination, the food supply could decrease by a third.”

Further research revealed this article at Suite 101 that actually points out that there was also a beekeeping crisis in 2005 that left “40-60% of honey bees in U.S. dead or weakened.” More importantly, that article has a list of all the crops that require pollination via insects: “Apples, avocados, blueberries, cherries, cranberries, cucumbers, melons, oranges, grapefruit, pumpkins, squash, sunflowers, tangerines, and watermelon. Also, forage plants like clover and alfalfa need pollination (and cows need clover).”

Regarding that list, I have a pertinent quote by John Muir: “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” The bee population problems couldn’t be a better example of this.

After reading several articles regarding the issue, it seems that the bee crisis is due to unknown causes. However, the following problems are suspected:

• Warmer winters causing the bees to come out of hibernation too early (global climate change).
• Pesticide-resistant “varroa mites” and “tracheal mites” (another reason why chemical pesticides are bad/unsustainable).
• Various bee diseases and/or poison from pesticides.
• Over-development of land.

Most interesting to note is that the “bee crisis” originally began in 1984 and has been steadily getting worse ever since.

My personal theory is that it is due to increased pesticide spraying and land development. I also believe that global warming is only making the situation worse. I don’t suspect that warmer winters would have that much of an effect because plants bloom earlier as a result of warmer winters just as the bees “wake up” from hibernation earlier. I’m not saying that they two aren’t out of sync, but I doubt it would be enough to destroy 70% of the bee population.

Pesticides are much more likely to cause problems with the bees themselves, develop resistant mites, and as these problems increase we end up spraying more of the stuff. Irresponsible pesticide use (and land development) are precisely why Florida lost 90% of its bird population since the 1930s.

Update: It seems I scooped Slashdot by a few hours on this story! While not very impressive, it is an indicator that I’m staying on top of things. More importantly, in the comments for that story there are some very insightful posts:

• By constantly moving hives around beekeepers are exposing them to much more diseases/pests and a much wider array of pesticides than the bees would normally be exposed to in the wild. This could be the “magic bullet” that explains the entire bee crisis. There were a few comments that noted this, but here’s the first (by John Jamieson)
• “Minwee blamed Bush’s ‘No drone left behind’ program.”:http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224390&cid=18170300
• Albert Einstein once said, “If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years left to live.” (noting their importance in crop pollination)
• jc42 wrote that the loss of honeybees has resulted in increased populations of bumblebees. He also noted that honeybees are actually an invasive species to North America in much the same way that sparrows and starlings are.
• zacharria noted that this ‘This is what you get when you breed monocultures of plants or animals.’ Which would explain the autoimmune deficiencies some researchers are finding.
• dave562 described a beetle problem they’re having in Colorado that is the result of global warming The bee crisis may not be related, but a reply by goombah99 is one scary post!

Here’s a letter I just sent to my representatives and the President:

I oppose President Bush’s energy plan to reduce gasoline usage by 20% in 10 years.

A) It doesn’t do enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
B) It allows the Transportation Secretary to actually REDUCE fuel economy standards
C) It allows manufacturers to pay their way out of increasing fuel economy—without setting a price or even a reasonable economic model.
D) Widening roads allows for even more gas-guzzing cars to clog them—it never, EVER reduces traffic. In fact, Bush’s plan to reduce traffic congestion only widens roads for the sake of allowing more cars on to them!
E) It actually calls for pumping MORE fossil fuels out of the ground (to become pollution later)
F) It doesn’t create one single incentive for tax payers to actually invest in alternative fuels or technologies.
G) It actually provides tax incentives and encourages investment in COAL! Repeat it with me: CLEAN COAL IS NOT.

What we need is a CO2 cap & trade program that reduces the cap every year. We also need to ban construction of non-renewable power plants ASAP because the plants that are built now could very well continue to run for another 50 years. Do you think that 50 years from now ANYONE will appreciate the fact that they’ll be getting their electricity from a toxic pollution dinosaur?

Interesting fact: Coal-fired power plants emit ten times more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants do—even if you include the mining and eventual storage of the materials! Why is this? Because coal contains small amounts of various radioactive materials. When you burn billions of tons of it, that amounts to tons of radioactive material!

I just read a most interesting article at the Scientific American website. A recent study reveals that declaring a species as rare (i.e. putting it on the endangered species list) can create an economic “extinction vortex” whereby the price of the animal increases at a rate linked with its decreasing populations (scarce goods = higher price = more reward for those who can obtain them). This kind of economic situation eventually leads to extinction of the species in question.

Since extinction of a species is bad for biodiversity (a fact), and decreasing biodiversity is bad for the environment (another fact), an economic “extinction vortex” is bad for all of us. Furthermore; since the only way (that I can see) to stop an extinction vortex would be to institute powerful authoritarian protection mechanisms (tough government regulations), it seems that the loss of some freedom (to hunt the species) wins out in the long run as the most beneficial course of action. Presumably, if the regulation works, the freedom to hunt can resume after the species regains a healthy sustainability.

It is common for libertarians (and minarchists) to argue that a land owner has an economic interest in preserving the animals on their property and therefore; privatizing all land is the best way to prevent species extinction. Clearly, the truth is just the opposite… There is always a pressing economic incentive to keep hunting a species—even until extinction—so protecting land and species by way of regulation is much more effective.

One could argue that after some people learn this lesson the hard way, privatized land owners would shape up. The problem with this idea is that once a species is gone, it is gone forever. Also, the lesson of conservation throughout history is that those who have a short-term incentive to not conserve will always refuse to do so. As Upton Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Ultimately, believing that all regulations or restrictions on trade are bad, is foolish.

I closed and moved into my new home on Tuesday, the 26th of September. I didn’t blog about it because I’ve been busy with the move!

Anyway, we’re finally moved in and unpacked (except for the garage). Most of the new fence is up and the dogs are having fun in their new place. So far I really love this new house. Before I say anything else on this subject, I want to thank some people for their help in this move:

• Solid – for helping me out when our moving truck ran out of space. For helping me put up the new fence. For helping me fix the old house to get it ready for re-inspection (new siding on the garage).
• Candy – for an excellent job helping us pack.
• Varma – for helping me put up the new fence.

• My inlaws – for helping us out with a bit of storage and helping me with various fixes of the old house (to get it ready for inspection). Also, for helping us pack.

  Now for the pictures (Note: links to whole album):

  * WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *

  Stats:

• ~1600 square feet (200 more than the old house)
• 3 bedrooms (with a large master)
• 2 full baths (garden bath attached to master)
• 3.5 card driveway (driveway has an extension on the side which is pretty neat)
• Very fancy fireplace (see pics)
• 2-car garage (with a cool vertical brace in case of hurricanes)

• Awesome location right around the corner from the new mall (River City Marketplace) and about 4 miles from Jacksonville International Airport.

  Now for the extraneous qualitative info:

• The air conditioner/thermostat can remain set at 78 degrees and still feel very comfortable. My best guess is that this is due to some sort of dehumidfying feature that I was previously unaware of. Should save me a ton on the energy bill.
• The siding is hardipanel which is really nice because it will never rot (the T1-11 siding of my old home did and it was a huge pain in the ass to fix for inspection). It also looks better than vinyl siding IMHO. Also easier to maintain (lasts forever).
• When the house was built they used a vapor-barrier, air-sealing house wrap. My wallet will really appreciate the energy savings of that particular feature.
• There is a storage attic over the garage which I’ve already begun to fill with our not-used-often items like holiday decorations and winter clothes.
• Inside the attic of the house is loads and loads of blown fiberglass insulation (at least I think it is fiberglass). Excellent energy savings (no more drafty old house for me!).
• There are tons of smoke detectors in this house. As in, copious amounts. There’s like four in the living room alone. It is quite odd, but I guess it is a positive feature.
• The ice maker in the fridge works! We can buy 2-litre bottles again!
• There is a laundry room between the garage entry into the house and the kitchen. This is really nice because the room can be closed to seal off the sound.
• All the exterior and interior doors are fiberglass. Awesome insulation and awesome soundproofing.

• The kitchen actually has counter space! The old house had barely enough to put a plate down.

  I’ve already done some improvements:

• Installed a 6-foot privacy fence (to keep our dogs in since they can jump a 4-footer).
• Caulked various nooks and crannies on the exterior (probably not necessary, but it is a good idea). The garage in particular needed the most (since I will be insulating and finishing it).
• Replaced almost all of the light bulbs in the house with compact fluorescent bulbs. Essentially, all lights that are not dimmable.
• Bought a new washer/dryer (Kenmore Elite HE4t: High efficiency awesomeness)
• Fixed a constantly running/leaky toilet (that was probably costing the previous owner a fortune in the water bill).
• Lubricated/cleaned a few squeaky doors.

• Fixed some loose vinyl siding on the garage door frame (just needed some caulk and a bang with the hammer on one nail).

  …and here’s what I plan to do:

• Finish the garage: Insulate it (walls, garage door, attic area), install some new electrical outlets for power tools, install some vents for the air conditioner, and finish it up with some non-paper-based drywall.
• Do a bit more weatherization (the front door needs a new vinyl strip on its bottom).
• Buy some end tables for the living room.
• Paint over the caulk that I used on the siding (you’re supposed to let it dry for at least 7 days before you paint it) so that it becomes invisible.
• Use the homeowner’s association-approved stain on the fence (I think they want “caramel”).

• Paint/decorate the baby’s room and baby-proof the house. I need lots of electrical outlet covers methinks.

I’ve heard it a million times: “The sun is going through a cycle and that cycle is making it warmer!” often combined with statements like, “Mars ice caps are melting just like Earth! It is the Sun that is causing increasing global temperatures!”

I’ve always known these arguments to have absolutely no basis in reality, but now I can actually link to a real scientific study regarding solar cycles. It seems that the Sun’s 7-year cycle only varies solar output up and down by 0.07%.

I wonder what the global warming deniers will use to counter this. Judging from past performances, I think we can expect wild speculation and more localized anecdotes, “It was FREEZING here last year! Global warming can’t exist!”

An area of formerly-permanent ice the size of Pakistan melted away from the Arctic between 2004 and 2005. For comparison, historical data shows that the Arctic has been losing about 0.7% of ice per year (starting around the time of the industrial revolution, how odd). That is 18 times the previous rate.

Why is this bad? Because arctic ice reflects the sun’s energy back into space. Open water absorbs the sun’s energy and increases the rate of global warming.

link