Ecomythology

There's one heck of a lot of utter nonsense which passes for common sense regarding the subject of ecology. What's an easy way to get a chuckle out of a scientist? Ecomythology. Fortunately we have forgotten most of the examples of this twaddle. We had a list of thirty or forty good ones. For those concerned principally with levels one and two of ecological understanding, first stop is the site of the acclaimed charlatan tracker and myth buster,

members.aol.com/jimn469897/myths.htm

Cherished myths environmentalists like to believe in:

Tip Top of the list has to be:
Myth: Large corporations are to blame for our environmental problems. The larger the corporation, the juicier the target. Those corporations which provide or which must in the normal course of operations utilize some material to which politically correct implications have been assigned are almost automatically considered guilty of nefarious activity. Permit us to humbly point out the obvious oversight of many environmentalists. Corporations are successful in direct proportion to their accomodation of the exigencies of the laws of supply and demand. Our demands for the modern necessities are met in direct proportion to the success of these corporations. There is no need to pule and whine.

Myth: Electric Cars, Hybrid Cars!. Or "It's all part of my Eco-car fantasy," sung to the tune of the popular song, "Rock and Roll Fantasy."
Adherents consistently ignore the overall picture. Surely there will be less pollution deriving directly from the exhaust of individual vehicles, but the result of putting more physical systems in front of the transaxles of cars is that they require more energy input into the overall combination of physical systems, both intravehicular and extravehicular. If not representing clear progress ecologically, they appear to be at least an economic solution, if you conveniently overlook that pesky little fact. As eco-cars gain wide spread use by expanding populations of humans, both more fossil fuels will be burned and more nuclear fuel will be consumed. A modest increase in energy conversion will be more than overcome by increases in population. We'll use solar power to create electricity and to split water for diatomic hydrogen. That too seems to look good if you conveniently overlook more pesky little facts. The oil crisis is imminent. Widespread use of solar, hydrogen and wind is still years in the future. After the crisis is solved, one way or the other, energy use will still have to pencil out thermodynamically. The energy cost of producing everything will have to balance. Vehicles incorporating exotic materials will necessitate more stress on habitat and increase consumption of non-renewable resources. There would be millions of square miles of panels which will destroy habitat. The answer to that is, "Who gives a hoot about habitat?" We'll mine the moon and put the solar collectors in space. That also sounds good if one conveniently ignores the reasons why super sonic transport and/or mass low orbit transport have not been developed. Both the ozone and the greenhouse problems we have now are much less than what would result from the combustion of megatons of the special fuels for such transportation. According to an EPI press release , "In the United States, there is enough harnessable wind energy in just 3 of the 50 states--North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas--to satisfy the country's electricity needs." But read that carefully, electricity needs, doesn't include for example transportation or industrial needs which are of course far greater. Sounds good if you don't read the fine print, residential electricity needs. It takes a devout optimist to believe that wind and solar have the combined power potential to replace the energy provided by fission and fossil fuels.
Then there's the time factor. We don't have one hundred years, or fifty, or even twenty five.
But, hey. Don't get us started on that. What's wrong with a little Eco-car fantasy? Maybe it'll help clean up some smog. Maybe it'll create some jobs. But habitat destruction, species extinction? Won't be slowed one bit. Only population reduction can do that. Which again begs the question, "Who gives a hoot about habitat?"

Many years ago, Buddycom was one of the first to advise of the eventual and inevitable conversion to solar / hydrogen based energy. It's really a no-brainer. It was as obvious then as it is today. But there are pesky details. Even if hydrogen based energy wouldn't strictly pencil out entropically or thermodynamically, if the darn things would recreate habitat we'd really like to hear about that one. Until then we have enumerated pesky details everybody tries so hard and with such apparent success to ignore.

Click here....Pesky Eco-Car Fantasy details.

Myth: Hydrogen from water, a new energy source is the greatest thing since sliced bread!
One must first expend energy to "spit" the molecular bond between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that this process will always cost more energy than that which is gained by combining them back together (burning) -- it's ALWAYS going to be a net energy loss.

Myth: Methane! Good old CH₄.
METHANE MADNESS: A NATURAL GAS PRIMER, by Randy Udall & Steve Andrews, 04/13/2001
Methane Ecology

Myth: Methanol! Good old CH₃OH.

Myth: Ethanol!

"Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources and does not increase energy security. This is because considerably more energy, much of it high-grade fossil fuels, is required to produce ethanol than is available in the ethanol output. Specifically, about 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol." http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html

David Pimentel:
"Introduction: Ethanol does not provide energy security for the future. It is not a renewable energy source, is costly in terms of production and subsidies, and its production causes serious environmental degradation." Can you say habitat loss? Biodiversity destruction? According to a study by the USDA in 1996, To fuel one car with ethanol for one year means that nearly 7-times more cropland would be required to fuel one car than is needed to feed one American (USDA, 1996).

Fossil hydrocarbons will be exhausted so these three alternative fuels must eventually be derived from biomass. Production of ethanol, methanol, and ethane fuels from biomass is energy intensive and actually represent energy sinks. They contain less energy than what it takes to produce them. In fact all the chemical building blocks for products now synthetically derived from fossil hydrocarbon sources will eventually be derived from biomass. These will also be energy intensive processes. Which means that even if solar and wind could provide the energy, enormous, and by enormous, we mean really huge areas of land will be required for production of the necessary biomass. How large an area will six billion humans need? At least as large as the entire area now used worldwide for agriculture and then some, would be a very conservative estimate. Pimentel estimates, "Assuming a net production of 50 gallons of fuel per acre of corn, and assuming that all cars in the United States were fueled with ethanol, a total of approximately 2 billion acres of cropland would be required to provide the corn feedstock. This amount of acreage is more than 5-times all the cropland that is actually and potentially available for all crops in the future in the United States." And that's just to meet the energy requirement for cars. What about food?

Agricultural land can not satisfy the needs for food, fuels, and synthetic chemical products. Agricultural land barely satisfies the food requirements of 6 billion people as it is. That means that fission, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and wind power in some combination will have to meet future energy needs.

Myth: Neither the world nor the US is overpopulated because we can use solar energy instead of fossil fuels in the future.

"For the United States to be self-sustaining in solar energy, given our land, water, and biological resources, our population should be less than 100 million -- significantly less than the current level of 246 million." Pimentel et al.http://www.dieoff.com/page136.htmAlso see Pimentel, 1997.
Basically it depends on how much of humankind's entropic dowry one is willing to waste and whether one's concept of sustainability does or does not include periodic large scale wars.
Photovoltaics, hydrogen and energy

If you still have energy questions, join energyresources list. There are several super experts on the energyresources list to answer your questions, e.g., Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Brian Fleay, Roger Blanchard, Richard Duncan, Walter Youngquist, Albert Bartlett, and Howard Odum. Subscribe to the energy list by sending a message to energyresources-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

The corollary to the myth above is that, at least ostensibly,
Myth: America bears a moral obligation to correct all the unfair manifestations of the unequal 80/20 divide posthaste. G7 nations are bad to the bone and America is egregiously baddest to the bone. America should morph from Uncle Sam in his stiffly starched red, white and blue suit and top hat into Mr. and MS. NicePeople in shiny blue spandex outfits with something like USANP emblazoned on the chest and/or capes. This myth is most cherished by both radical leftists as well as those unimpressed by the pious hypocrisy of religious right political standard bearers both past and present.
This one is complex. There are so many ifs, ands, and buts it makes your head hurt. This sort of Weltanschauung, if actually realized, would be in breach of so many Machiavellian rules it would be frightening. For those willing to tackle the myriad ramifications of this world view, we will offer a thorough explanation. But not here and not now. Someone has to send in an email first. For now we ask you to seriously consider whether America and the G7 could make well intentioned changes even if they wanted to do so. One may want to consider DoubleThink as practical alternative.

The core of the problem.
Myths about Entropy, Energy and Economics as they relate to Ecology

Many myths have arisen do to the propensity to ignore or deny basic Laws of Ecology.

Myths: "Malthus was the Anti-Christ." "Malthus was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about."

These may or may not be true. But that's beside the point, as ad hominem attacks usually are. The crime of which Malthus is certainly guilty, is that he popularized the "L" word, although he wasn't the first to utter it. He compounded his guilt by relating the "L" word to the "O" word.. Our preponderant problem is that limits exist and ad hominem attacks won't make them go away. It would be nice if they could. Limits have always existed. The difference is that in our contemporary world limits carry an extra dimension. In previous centuries, the consequence of limits was simply inequitable distribution. Now the survival of overpopulated billions is at stake as well. Citizens of G7 countries seem to be at less survival risk than other citizens, however.

Myth: Unsustainable is not sustainable indefinitely.
And its corollary is that the human species may even go extinct.
This one requires more detailed explanation, but not here and not now. Adherence to truth necessitates that a couple of pesky points be remembered though the bubble of those who cherish this myth or its corollary be busted. The human species will not go extinct. Especially since the present paradigm dictates, albeit implicitly, that the concept of sustainability for practical purposes must necessarily include periodic large scale wars. As long as reasons can be found sufficient for the justification of wars, the terms sustainable and unsustainable may be used interchangeably without significant difference in meaning.
Few adherents can be pried from this apparently precious cabbage. This myth is cherished by
1.) Those who can not profit handsomely from war. The inherent purpose and beauty of war, the sport of kings, is greatly unappreciated by some.
2.) Those who give a hoot about habitat tangentially or hypocritically.

Myth: Americans have open minds.

Myth: We can sit on our duffs for a hundred years.
The Next One Hundred Years was a milestone book published in 1987. Jonathan Weiner, whom we admire and wish godspeed wrote several bestsellers. Unfortunately the title of this book reflects an ecomythological misperception that we have plenty of time. We don't. The Top of the Ninth is an essay which reflects more accurately what the relevant time frame is, especially viz biodiversity..

Myth: There is something else scientists need to waste time studying as Columbia University, for example puts it to, "enable physical, biological and social scientists at Columbia University to collaborate in understanding the Earth and the complexity of our relationship with it."
It's the overpopulation, stupid.

Habitat. Biodiversity. Species extinctions. SANI values.
Habitat will continue to decrease. Biodiversity will continue to decrease rapidly. SANI values will continue to decrease rapidly. Species extinctions will continue to increase rapidly. Until humans decide to reduce human population or until so much biodiversity has been lost so as to make the question of biodiversity virtually academic. How much time? There is on the order of two to four decades until the question of biodiversity will have been made essentially moot.

Further study of the obvious is largely irrelevant as long as the human population does not decrease. More time wasted studying the obvious will only insure that when the final equilibrium of humans to other species is reached, SANI values will be smaller, species extinctions will be geater, habitat loss will be greater, and species extinctions will be greater.

Do you like to believe all industrial products are bad or some variation thereof?
Consider silicon dioxide, the main ingredient of sand. Then do the best thing for your house, your monthly bills, and for ecology. Can you spell I-N-S-U-L-A-T-I-O-N ? Do you have roof R-Factor 38 or better? It's very easy to add a few rolls of the pink stuff between your ceiling joists. Do you plan a minimum exterior wall R-Factor of 24 for that new addition or for your new home? Your friends at Owens Corning can really help you out then. owenscorning.com

The only thing we've seen changing thus far is the rate of destruction which continues to accelerate and the degree to which humans feel good about perfunctory politically correct pollyanna or are simply in denial. In the final analysis the only thing left to do is to just get used to it. Practice this. Raise both shoulders a little and say, "Oh, well." See there. Don't you feel just a little bit better already?

Jay Hanson

Whatta Hero!

Myth: "Technology is omniscient and will solve everything."
Habitat is the core fundamental of the science of ecology. Technology will never and by its very nature can never solve human destruction of biodiversity. Because technology itself causes:

Rube Goldberg, a cartoonist/engineer satirizes technology at:
rubegoldberg.com
"Through his 'inventions', Rube Goldberg discovered harder ways to achieve easy results. His cartoons were as he said, symbols of man's capacity for exerting maximum effort to accomplish minimal results. Rube believed that there are two ways to do things, the simple and the hard way, and that a surprising number of people preferred doing things the hard way."rubegoldberg.com/html/bio.htm
For biodiversity, technology is ultimately, the impossible way because technology can recreate neither destroyed habitat, nor the diverse life forms which took hundreds of millions of years to evolve. We are so sorry to have to bust your bubble if you are a denialist and have put your faith blindly in technology. The fantasy that technology is omnicient is the most important tool in the arsenal of those who see the earth's biodiversity as expendable. This fantasy in tandem with ignorance of the importance of habitat promotes complacency.

And the corollary is another cherished environmental myth:
Myth: Information sources and media coverage on the internet will increase awareness of the destruction of biodiversity. IT is imagined to be an ideal technology. In your dreams maybe. The same sorts of things could have been imagined for the telegraph 120 years ago, the telephone 80 years ago, wireless communication 40 years ago, the television 50 years ago, and satellite technology 20 years ago. Surely they are means by which knowledge of and information about habitat destruction can be enhanced quite effectively. But by far their predominant use is for the enhancement of purely anthropocentric pursuits such as consumption and consumerism. By far their net effect has been to increase the rate of habitat destruction.

Myth: Media sources give a hoot about

Since information sources and media coverage are managed by interests who actually regard both habitat and biodiversity as expendable, in effect, the fox is left guarding the chicken coop.A better prescription for habitat and biodiversity destruction could not be imagined.

geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4516/skeptics.html
lhup.edu/~dsimanek/
newscientist.com/
Grist Magazine

Myth: Public advocacy groups give a hoot about habitat.

Vigdor Schreibman wrote:
I will make a link to the Red List of Threatened Species redlist.org/
So we said:
A Japanese would say to that, "Dou demo ii, ne?"That's as good as any. It's authoritative. But.... They only tell half the story i.e., they don't ever mention HOP.And they suffer from pedantic overkill. As does ESA. A species has to have been recognized, named, and then studied into near extinction to make it onto their lists. A species has to have gone from millions to thousands or hundreds just to be included. If the species is down to the hundreds hovering just at its Min V Pop, minimum viable population, the SANI value is less than one, guess what jelly bean? It's too late! The Juggernaut is not stopping, it's only gathering speed. Hey, wake up. We've been waiting for three and a half decades now. We're at the top o' the 9th, for crying out loud.
Consider the headline features of WWF otherwise known as panda.org. Well respected? You bet. But not always by us.
Typical example: One headline feature story had the word, "victory!" with an exclamation mark. It was about how 27,000 acres had been made into a protected area in Brunei. True Brunei is a small country and so 27 thousand acres is a larger area percentage than another larger country as for example Brasil or France. But to put things into proper perspective, that same year before the WWF article came out, 2.7 million acres were burned in Indonesia!!! The smoke covered an area from Singapore to Saigon. Protect one, burn a hundred. Victory? For HOP denialists certainly, but not for biodiversity.
Consider how ENN still treats the subject of HOP in its feature articles. Of course they never put HOP on their front page. Its like HOP is just a parenthetical afterthought. They never do more than make a rhetorical qusestion like, Are Humans Overpopulated? And they start the articles with, "Some say yes, and others say no....".
That's why one item on our to do list is a page assessing and categorizing the information sources for ecology, the vast majority of which are just an extension of denialist thinking.


Vigdor Schreibman replied:
"I am very familiar with the shortcomings of public interest advocacy. The advocates are concerned with announcing their minimal success stories, which are used to impress corporate foundation donors. It's a sickening scam on the whole civilization."

There is, of course Union of Concerned Scientists, Worldwatch.org, ESA.org and Dieoff.org.
But they're almost as stupid as we are. Why? Because they TELL IT LIKE IT IS!
What's the real problem?? Habitat Loss. Say again?

Biodiversity myth busters.

In the final analysis the internet won't be any more effective than morse code or the telephone for stopping habitat destruction.

We can see the spreading sprawl and the burning fires with satellite photography. With satellite photography humans have known for decades precisely where habitat is being destroyed, and now with a resolution of less than a square meter. But the destruction is not going to stop until humans stop denying HOP. And guess what jelly bean? Humans aren't going to do that. If they do make the admission one hundred years from now, guess what jelly bean? We are at the top o' the ninth right now. One hundred years from now the game will be over, viz biodiversity...

But hey, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse. And agriculture is more easily sustainable than an ecosystem anyway.

The core of the economic human ecology problem.