I follow Patrice Ayme and have done for many years. Some of his posts are super-intellectual and those I struggle to understand.
But a post published on September 8th, 2024 was very easy for me, and countless others no doubt, to understand and I have pleasure in republishing it on Learning from Dogs today.
I doubt that there are civilizations around. We are facing a galaxy devoid of intelligent aliens: little green mats out there, not little green men.
First, we don’t see them. With foreseeable technology (hibernation, nuclear propulsion, compact thermonuclear reactors, bioengineering, AI, quantum computers) we should be able to send very large interstellar spaceships at 1,000 kilometers per second… Thus it would take a millennium to colonize the Centaur tri-star system…. 25,000 years to colonize a 200 light years across ball… And the entire galaxy in ten million years… Wars would only accelerate the expansion. So if there was a galactic civilization, within ten million years it would have spanned the entire galaxy and its presence should be in sight.
Second, life took nearly four billion years to evolve animals. Bacterial life could have been nearly extinguished on Earth many times…. Be it only during the Snowball Earths episodes. A star whizzing by could have launched a thousand large comets. The large planets could have fallen inward.
Third, ultra intelligent life may not be able to have hands or tentacles and thus develop industry. Once intelligent life forms have evolved, say sea lions or parrots, let alone wolves, they may just be sitting ducks for the next disaster which would revert life to the bacterial level, erasing billions of years of evolution.
Fourth, when civilization is launched, it can fail… And not get a second chance (from lack of availability of mines after easy picking during the initial civilization).
So I don’t expect little green men… Besides those sent by the perverse Putin…
Just when we thought we knew of all the stress, here is another one: if we go extinct, the universe loses its soul! We have thus found a new Superior Moral Directive: SUS, Save Unique Soul!
Expect little green mats, not little green men.
Patrice Ayme
ooOOoo
A couple of weeks ago I gave a talk to our local Freethinkers group and called it The Next Ten Years. It began, thus:
This presentation is about the world of the future; of the near future. And the biggest issue, most agree, is the change in the climate.
The Global Temperature anomaly, as of last year, 2023, is 1.17 Centigrade, 2.11 Fahrenheit, above the long-term average from 1951 to 1980. The 10 most recent years are the warmest years on record.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is quoted as saying that ‘a goal without a plan is just a wish.’ So my plan is to show you how we can change, no let me put that more strongly, how we must change in the next ten years. Because our present habits are ruining the world.
Extreme weather is by definition rare on our planet. Ferocious storms, searing heatwaves and biting cold snaps illustrate what the climate is capable of at its worst. However, since Earth’s climate is rapidly warming, predominantly due to fossil fuel burning, the range of possible weather conditions, including extremes, is changing.
Scientists define “climate” as the distribution of possible weather events observed over a length of time, such as the range of temperatures, rainfall totals or hours of sunshine. From this they construct statistical measures, such as the average (or normal) temperature. Weather varies on several timescales – from seconds to decades – so the longer the period over which the climate is analysed, the more accurately these analyses capture the infinite range of possible configurations of the atmosphere.
Typically, meteorologists and climate scientists use a 30-year period to represent the climate, which is updated every ten years. The most recent climate period is 1991-2020. The difference between each successive 30-year climate period serves as a very literal record of climate change.
This way of thinking about the climate falls short when the climate itself is rapidly changing. Global average temperatures have increased at around 0.2°C per decade over the past 30 years, meaning that the global climate of 1991 was around 0.6°C cooler than that in 2020 (when accounting for other year-to-year fluctuations), and even more so than the present day.
A moving target for climate modellers
If the climate is a range of possible weather events, then this rapid change has two implications. First, it means that part of the distribution of weather events comprising a 30-year climate period occurred in a very different background global climate: for example, northerly winds in the 1990s were much colder than those in the 2020s in north-west Europe, thanks to the Arctic warming nearly four times faster than the global average. Statistics from three decades ago no longer represent what is possible in the present day.
Second, the rapidly changing climate means we have not necessarily experienced the extremes that modern-day atmospheric and oceanic warmth can produce. In a stable climate, scientists would have multiple decades for the atmosphere to get into its various configurations and drive extreme events, such as heatwaves, floods or droughts. We could then use these observations to build up an understanding of what the climate is capable of. But in our rapidly changing climate, we effectively have only a few years – not enough to experience everything the climate has to offer.
Extreme weather events require what meteorologists might call a “perfect storm”. For example, extreme heat in the UK typically requires the northward movement of an air mass from Africa combined with clear skies, dry soils and a stable atmosphere to prevent thunderstorms forming which tend to dissipate heat.
Such “perfect” conditions are intrinsically unlikely, and many years can pass without them occurring – all while the climate continues to change in the background. Based on an understanding of observations alone, this can leave us woefully underprepared for what the climate can now do, should the right weather conditions all come together at once.
Startling recent examples include the extreme heatwave in the Pacific north-west of North America in 2021, in which temperatures exceeded the previous Canadian record maximum by 4.6°C. Another is the occurrence of 40°C in the UK in summer 2022, which exceeded the previous UK record maximum set only three years earlier by 1.6°C. This is part of the reason why the true impact of a fixed amount of global warming is only evident after several decades, but of course – since the climate is changing rapidly – we cannot use this method anymore.
Playing with fire
To better understand these extremes, scientists can use ensembles: many runs of the same weather or climate model that each slightly differ to show a range of plausible outcomes. Ensembles are routinely used in weather prediction, but can also be used to assess extreme events which could happen even if they do not actually happen at the time.
When 40°C first appeared in ensemble forecasts for the UK before the July 2022 heatwave, it revealed the kind of extreme weather that is possible in the current climate. Even if it had not come to fruition, its mere appearance in the models showed that the previously unthinkable was now possible. In the event, several naturally occurring atmospheric factors combined with background climate warming to generate the record-shattering heat on July 19 that year.
The highest observed temperature each year in the UK, from 1900 to 2023
Later in summer 2022, after the first occurrence of 40°C, some ensemble weather forecasts for the UK showed a situation in which 40°C could be reached on multiple consecutive days. This would have posed an unprecedented threat to public health and infrastructure in the UK. Unlike the previous month, this event did not come to pass, and was quickly forgotten – but it shouldn’t have been.
It is not certain whether these model simulations correctly represent the processes involved in producing extreme heat. Even so, we must heed the warning signs.
Despite a record-warm planet, summer 2024 in the UK has been relatively cool so far. The past two years have seen global temperatures far above anything previously observed, and so potential extremes have probably shifted even further from what we have so far experienced.
Just as was the case in August 2022, we’ve got away with it for now – but we might not be so lucky next time.
That last sentence says it all: “Just as was the case in August 2022, we’ve got away with it for now – but we might not be so lucky next time.”
I am giving a talk, The Next Ten Years, next Saturday to our local Freethinkers group in Grants Pass. Close to the start of the presentation I say: “The Global Temperature anomaly, as of last year, 2023, is 1.17 C, 2.11 F, above the long-term average from 1951 to 1980. The 10 most recent years are the warmest years on record.“
Finally, I am getting on in age and part of me wants to die, hopefully naturally, before more climate extremes are reached, but then another part of me would like to experience it!
We live just outside Merlin in Southern Oregon. We have 13 acres of which roughly half is wooded. With the year-on-year warming wildfires are never far from our minds during our Summer. Here’s a part of a message from OPB.
What’s happening
High temperatures are in the forecast along the Interstate 5 corridor, the Willamette Valley and in Central and Eastern Oregon. More than a quarter million acres across multiple counties in Eastern Oregon are ablaze with wildfires, and that could mean smoke and haze, especially in Central and northeastern Oregon.
A view of the southern portion of the Lone Rock Fire in north-central Oregon on Wednesday, July 17, 2024.Courtesy InciWeb
Hot weather persists
The National Weather Service is anticipating a hot weekend across much of Oregon and Southwest Washington. The agency on Friday issued a heat advisory along the Interstate 5 corridor from Battle Ground, Washington to Cottage Grove, Oregon from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Saturday. Temperatures could reach the mid-90s.
From central Oregon east towards Burns a heat advisory is in place from 11 a.m. Saturday to 11 p.m. Monday. Harney County could see temperatures over 100 degrees over the weekend.
Which neatly serves as an introduction to an article from The Conversation about protecting one’s home.
ooOOoo
How to protect your home from wildfires – here’s what fire prevention experts say is most important
We research wildfire risk to homes and communities. Here’s what decades of research suggest homeowners in high-fire-risk areas can do to protect their properties.
This house near Cle Elum, Wash., survived a 2012 wildfire because of the defensible space around the structure, including a lack of trees and brush close to the house, according to state officials. AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
Small improvements make big differences
A structure’s flammability depends on both the materials that were used to build it and the design of the building. In general, the vulnerability of a house is determined by its weakest point.
The roof, windows, siding and vents are all vulnerable points to pay attention to.
Roof: The roof provides a landing pad where airborne embers can accumulate like snowflakes. Roofs with lots of valleys can collect pine needles and leaves, which can be ignited by flying embers. This is why it’s important for the roof itself to be made of Class A non-flammable material like clay tiles or asphalt shingles, and why roof maintenance, including cleaning gutters, is important. Embers can easily find their way under peeling shingles, through gaps of clay tiles, or into gutters where pine needles and leaves can accumulate.
Windows: If windows are exposed to heat, they can shatter and allow fire inside the home, where curtains can easily ignite. Even double-paned windows can be shattered by the heat of a burning shed 30 feet away, unless the window glass is tempered, making it stronger. Fire-resistant shutters made of metal, if closed before a fire arrives, can offer additional protection. https://www.youtube.com/embed/HjA9yLP1icg?wmode=transparent&start=0 A life-size test with blowing embers at IBHS’s fire lab shows ways homes are at risk form a nearby fire.
Siding: Materials like stucco are non-flammable, while cedar shake siding will burn. Your exterior siding should be non-flammable, but the siding is only as strong as its weakest point. If there are holes in the siding, plug them with caulk to prevent embers from reaching the wooden frame in your walls. Ideally, there will be a 6- to 12-inch concrete foundation between the ground and the bottom of your siding material.
Vents: Reducing risk from vents is easy and affordable and can drastically reduce the flammability of your home. Make sure that one-eighth inch or finer metal mesh is installed over all vents to keep embers out of your attic and your home’s interior.
Controlling your home ignition zone
A home’s vulnerability also depends on the area around it, referred to as the home ignition zone.
The risk in your home ignition zone depends on things such as the slope of your land and the ecosystem surrounding your home. Here are a few guidelines the National Fire Protection Association recommends, both to reduce the chance of flames reaching your home and make it easier for firefighters to defend it.
Zone 1 – Within 5 feet
From the home’s exterior to 5 feet away, you want to prevent flames from coming in contact with windows, siding, vents and eaves. The gold standard is to have only non-flammable material in Zone 1.
The most common risks are having flammable mulch, plants, firewood, lawn furniture, decks and fences. These items have been a primary reason homes burned in many wildfires, including the 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed much of Paradise, California, and the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire near Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Fire protection guidelines take into consideration the surrounding ecosystem. Here some examples based on the National Fire Protection Association’s guidelines. Bryce Young, CC BY
Replacing mulch with gravel or pavers and having only short, sparse plants that don’t touch the house can help reduce the risk.
Wooden decks and fences can burn even if they are well-maintained. Replacing them with non-flammable materials or installing a thin sheet of metal on the house where the siding touches a wooden deck or fence can help protect the home. Mesh screens can prevent the accumulation of debris and embers under the deck.
Zone 2 – 5 to 30 feet away
In the next ring, between 5 and 30 feet from the home, the lawn should be green and short. This is Zone 2.
Be sure to rake up pine needles and leaves and take care to prune the lowest tree branches at least 6 feet high.
There should be about 18 feet of space between trees on a flat slope, and the spacing should increase with slope because steeper terrain drives faster, more intense fires. Walks, pathways, patios, decks and firewood can be kept in this zone.
Zone 3 – 30 to 100 feet away
Beyond Zone 2 and out to about 100 feet from the home is Zone 3. In this area, be sure to give sheds and propane tanks their own defensible space, just like around the house, and prune all low branches to 6 feet.
You can contact your local emergency management office or community wildfire nonprofit to learn more about grant funding that can offset the costs of pruning and removing trees on a forested property.
Beyond 100 feet may extend past your property boundary, but the adjacent house can still be fuel for a wildfire. That’s why it’s smart to plan with your neighbors as you’re reinforcing your own home. Once one house catches fire, house-to-house fire spread is facilitated by closer distances between buildings.
Where we live is beautiful and earlier this year we had a great deal of rain. But the summers are dry; that is a function of the climate in this part of the world. So for July so far we have had no rain and that is normal. Also no rain in July in 2023.
The three zones, as described earlier in this post, are very helpful.
It was formed when this former volcano, “which collapsed on itself during an eruption just 7,700 years ago and slowly filled with melted snow, now stands as Oregon’s only national park.”
At over 2,000 feet deep it is the deepest lake in the United States of America.
You’ve probably heard people say, “It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity.” There’s a lot of truth to that phrase, and it’s important to understand it as summer temperatures rise.
Humidity doesn’t just make you feel sticky and uncomfortable – it also creates extra dangerous conditions on hot days. Together, too much heat and humidity can make you sick. And in severe cases, it can cause your body to shut down.
Meteorologists talk about the risk of heat and humidity using the heat index, but it can be confusing.
I’m a risk communication researcher. Here’s what you need to know about the heat index and some better ways meteorologists can talk about the risks of extreme heat.
Heat index is the combination of the actual air temperature and relative humidity:
Air temperature is how hot or cold the air is, which depends on factors such as the time of day, season of the year and local weather conditions. It is what your thermometer reads in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit.
Relative humidity compares how much water vapor is in the air with how much water vapor the air could hold at that temperature. It’s expressed as a percentage.
The heat index tells you what it “feels like” outside when you factor in the humidity. For example, if it’s 98 degrees Fahrenheit (36.7 Celsius) with 55% relative humidity, it might feel more like a scorching 117 F (47.2 C).
NOAA’s heat index chart shows how heat and humidity combine for dangerous temperatures. NOAA
But there’s a catch: Heat index is measured in shady conditions to prevent the sun’s angle from affecting its calculation. This means if you’re in direct sunlight, it will feel even hotter.
Apparent temperature, alerts and wet bulb
“Apparent temperature” is another term you might hear this summer.
Apparent temperature is the “feels like” temperature. It considers not only temperature and humidity but also wind speed. This means it can tell us both the heat index and wind chill – or the combination of the temperature and wind speed. When conditions are humid, it feels hotter, and when it’s windy, it feels colder.
We found that apparent temperature is even less well understood than the heat index, possibly due to the word apparent having various interpretations.
There are a few other ways you may hear meteorologists talk about heat.
Wet bulb globe temperature considers temperature, humidity, wind and sunlight. It’s especially useful for those who spend time outdoors, such as workers and athletes, because it reflects conditions in direct sunlight.
HeatRisk is a new tool developed by the National Weather Service that uses colors and numbers to indicate heat risks for various groups. More research is needed, however, to know whether this type of information helps people make decisions.
Knowing about heat and humidity is important, but my colleagues and I have found that the term heat index is not well understood.
We recently conducted 16 focus groups across the United States, including areas with dry heat, like Phoenix, and more humid areas, like Houston. Many of the people involved didn’t know what the heat index was. Some confused it with the actual air temperature. Most also didn’t understand what the alerts meant, how serious they were or when they should protect themselves.
In our discussions with these groups, we found that meteorologists could get across the risk more clearly if, instead of using terms like heat index, they focus on explaining what it feels like outside and why those conditions are dangerous.
Watches, warnings and advisories could be improved by telling people what temperatures to expect, when and steps they can take to stay safe.
Clear warnings can help residents understand their risk and protect themselves, which is especially important for small children and older adults, who are at greater risk of heat illness. Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Climate change is exacerbating heat risks by making extreme heat more common, intense and long-lasting. This means clear communication is necessary to help people understand their risk and how they can protect themselves.
What you can do to protect yourself
With both hot and humid conditions, extra precautions are necessary to protect your health. When you get hot, you sweat. When sweat evaporates, this helps the body cool down. But humidity prevents the sweat from evaporating. If sweat cannot evaporate, the body has trouble lowering or regulating its temperature.
Although everyone is at risk of health issues in high heat, people over 65, pregnant women, infants and young children can have trouble cooling their bodies down or may run a higher risk of becoming dehydrated. Certain health conditions or medications can also increase a person’s risk of heat-related illness, so it’s important to talk to your doctor about your risk.
Heat illnesses, such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke, are preventable if you take the right steps. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention focuses on staying cool, hydrated and informed.
Stay cool: Use air conditioning in your home, or spend time in air-conditioned spaces, such as a shopping mall or public library. Limit or reschedule your exercise and other outdoor plans that occur in the middle of the day when it is hottest.
Stay hydrated: Drink more water than you might otherwise, even if you don’t feel thirsty, so your body can regulate its temperature by sweating. But avoid sugary drinks, caffeine or drinks with alcohol, because these can cause you to become dehydrated.
Stay informed: Know the signs of heat illness and symptoms that can occur, such as dizziness, weakness, thirst, heavy sweating and nausea. Know what to do and when to get help, because heat illnesses can be deadly.
The difference between heat exhaustion and heat stroke and the CDC’s advice on how to respond. NOAA, CDC
That last diagram on staying cool, staying hydrated, and staying informed is one element in me choosing this article for publication. Further, if one looks up the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention then immediately one comes across:
Stay cool indoors.Stay in an air-conditioned place as much as possible. If your home does not have air conditioning, go to the shopping mall or public library—even a few hours spent in air conditioning can help your body stay cooler when you go back into the heat.
The challenge in deciding what is best for our forests.
As a great many of you already know, we live in a rural area in Southern Oregon. It is a beautiful place and we look out to the East upon Mount Sexton. But locally a great many houses are built on rural sites with the local forest just yards away.
In the U.S., wildland firefighters are able to stop about 98% of all wildfires before the fires have burned even 100 acres. That may seem comforting, but decades of quickly suppressing fires has had unintended consequences.
However, fuel accumulation isn’t the only consequence of fire suppression.
Fire suppression also disproportionately reduces certain types of fire. In a new study, my colleagues and I show how this effect, known as the suppression bias, compounds the impacts of fuel accumulation and climate change.
What happened to all the low-intensity fires?
Most wildfires are low-intensity. They ignite when conditions aren’t too dry or windy, and they can often be quickly extinguished.
The 2% of fires that escape suppression are those that are more extreme and much harder to fight. They account for about 98% of the burned area in a typical year.
The author and colleagues discuss changing wildfire in Montana and Idaho’s Bitterroot Mountains. By Mark Kreider.
In our study, we used a fire modeling simulation to explore the effects of the fire suppression bias and see how they compared to the effects of global warming and fuel accumulation alone.
Fuel accumulation and global warming both inherently make fires more severe. But over thousands of simulated fires, we found that allowing forests to burn only under the very worst conditions increased fire severity by the same amount as more than a century’s worth of fuel accumulation or 21st-century climate change.
The suppression bias also changes the way plants and animals interact with fire.
By removing low-intensity fires, humans may be changing the course of evolution. Without exposure to low-intensity fires, species can lose traits crucial for surviving and recovering from such events.
In contrast, low-intensity fires free up space and resources for new growth, while still retaining living trees and other biological legacies that support seedlings in their vulnerable initial years.
By quickly putting out low-intensity fires and allowing only extreme fires to burn, conventional suppression reduces the opportunities for climate-adapted plants to establish and help ecosystems adjust to changes like global warming.
Firefighters keep watch for smoke from a fire tower in the Coeur d’Alene National Forest, Idaho, in 1932. Forest Service photo by K. D. Swan
Suppression makes burned area increase faster
As the climate becomes hotter and drier, more area is burning in wildfires. If suppression removes fire, it should help slow this increase, right?
In fact, we found it does just the opposite.
We found that while conventional suppression led to less total area burning, the yearly burned area increased more than three times faster under conventional suppression than under less aggressive suppression efforts. The amount of area burned doubled every 14 years with conventional fire suppression under simulated climate change, instead of every 44 years when low- and moderate-intensity fires were allowed to burn. That raises concerns for how quickly people and ecosystems will have to adapt to extreme fires in the future.
With conventional fire suppression, the average fire size will increase faster as the planet warms than it would under a less aggressive approach. Mark Kreider
The fact that the amount of area burned is increasing is undoubtedly driven by climate change. But our study shows that the rate of this increase may also be a result of conventional fire management.
The near total suppression of fires over the last century means that even a little additional fire in a more fire-prone future can create big changes. As climate change continues to fuel more fires, the relative increase in area burned will be much bigger.
To address the wildfire crisis, fire managers can be less aggressive in suppressing low- and moderate-intensity fires when it is safe to do so. They can also increase the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning to clear away brush and other fuel for fires.
These low-intensity fires will not only reduce the risk of future extreme fires, but they also will create conditions that favor the establishment of species better suited to the changing climate, thereby helping ecosystems adapt to global warming.
Coexisting with wildfire requires developing technologies and approaches that enable the safe management of wildfires under moderate burning conditions. Our study shows that this may be just as necessary as other interventions, such as reducing the number of fires unintentionally started by human activities and mitigating climate change.
The article makes a great deal of sense and presents a solution that may not be our first thought. But especially the message is fundamentally important, and please watch the video because it very clearly presents the benefits of the solution.
So we want more low-intensity fires! Please! Or to say it another way, we want more prescribed fires.
A dramatic article from George Monbiot about water!
I read the latest from George Monbiot yesterday morning and was startled. Startled because I hadn’t thought of it before. Startled because here in Merlin, Southern Oregon we have had so much rain since the beginning of November, 2023 that our acres are swimming in the wet. Startled since that time also our Bummer Creek, which flows across our land, has been at record depths.
But this report is incredibly important and I wanted to share it with you, as I have Geo. Monbiot’s permission for so doing.
ooOOoo
Dry Run
Posted on11th March 2024
The mega-droughts in Spain and the US are a portent of a gathering global water crisis.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 4th March 2024
There’s a flaw in the plan. It’s not a small one: it is an Earth-sized hole in our calculations. To keep pace with the global demand for food, crop production needs to grow by at least 50% by 2050. In principle, if nothing else changes, this is feasible, thanks mostly to improvements in crop breeding and farming techniques. But everything else is going to change.
Even if we set aside all other issues – heat impacts, soil degradation, epidemic plant diseases accelerated by the loss of genetic diversity – there is one which, without help from any other cause, could prevent the world’s people from being fed. Water.
A paper published in 2017 estimated that to match crop production to expected demand, water use for irrigation would have to increase by 146% by the middle of this century. One minor problem. Water is already maxed out.
In general, the dry parts of the world are becoming drier, partly through reduced rainfall; partly through declining river flow as mountain ice and snow retreats; and partly through rising temperatures causing increased evaporation and increased transpiration by plants. Many of the world’s major growing regions are now threatened by “flash droughts”, in which hot and dry weather sucks moisture from the soil at frightening speed. Some places, such as the southwest of the US, now in its 24th year of drought, may have switched permanently to a drier state. Rivers fail to reach the sea, lakes and aquifers are shrinking, species living in freshwater are becoming extinct at roughly five times the rate of species that live on land and major cities are threatened by extreme water stress.
Already, agriculture accounts for 90% of the world’s freshwater use. We have pumped so much out of the ground that we’ve changed the Earth’s spin. The water required to meet growing food demand simply does not exist.
That 2017 paper should have sent everyone scrambling. But as usual, it was ignored by policymakers and the media. Only when the problem arrives in Europe do we acknowledge that there’s a crisis. But while there is understandable panic about the drought in Catalonia and Andalusia, there’s an almost total failure among powerful interests to acknowledge that this is just one instance of a global problem, a problem that should feature at the top of the political agenda.
Though drought measures have triggered protests in Spain, this is far from the most dangerous flashpoint. The catchment of the Indus river is shared by three nuclear powers – India, Pakistan and China – and several highly unstable and divided regions already afflicted by hunger and extreme poverty. Today, 95% of the river’s dry season flow is extracted, mostly for irrigation. But water demand in both Pakistan and India is growing rapidly. Supply – temporarily boosted by the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush – will, before long, peak and then go into decline.
Even under the most optimistic climate scenario, runoff from Asian glaciers is expected to peak before mid-century, and glacier mass will shrink by about 46% by 2100. Some analysts see water competition between India and Pakistan as a major cause of the repeated conflicts in Kashmir. But unless a new Indus waters treaty is struck, taking falling supplies into account, this fighting could be a mere prelude for something much worse.
There’s a widespread belief that these problems can be solved simply by enhancing the efficiency of irrigation: huge amounts of water are wasted in agriculture. So let me introduce you to the irrigation efficiency paradox. As better techniques ensure that less water is required to grow a given volume of crops, irrigation becomes cheaper. As a result, it attracts more investment, encourages farmers to grow thirstier, more profitable plants, and expands across a wider area. This is what happened, for instance, in the Guadiana river basin in Spain, where a €600m investment to reduce water use by improving the efficiency of irrigation has instead increased it.
You can overcome the paradox through regulation: laws to limit both total and individual water consumption. But governments prefer to rely on technology alone. Without political and economic measures, it doesn’t work.
Nor are other technofixes likely to solve the problem. Governments are planning massive engineering schemes to pipe water from one place to another. But climate breakdown and rising demand ensure that many of the donor regions are also likely to run dry. Water from desalination plants typically costs five or 10 times as much as water from the ground or the sky, while the process requires masses of energy and generates great volumes of toxic brine.
Above all, we need to change our diets. Those of us with dietary choice (in other words, the richer half of the world’s population) should seek to minimise the water footprint of our food. With apologies for harping on about it, this is yet another reason to switch to an animal-free diet, which reduces both total crop demand and, in most cases, water use. The water demand of certain plant products, especially almonds and pistachios in California, has become a major theme in the culture wars, as rightwing influencers attack plant-based diets. But, excessive as the watering of these crops is, more than twice as much irrigation water is used in California to grow forage plants to feed livestock, especially dairy cows. Dairy milk has much higher water demand even than the worst alternative (almond milk), and is astronomically higher than the best alternatives, such as oat or soya milk.
This is not to give all plant products a free pass: horticulture can make massive demands on water supplies. Even within a plant-based diet, we should be switching from some grains, vegetables and fruit to others. Governments and retailers should help us through a combination of stronger rules and informative labelling.
Instead, they do the opposite. Last month, at the behest of the EU’s agricultural commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, the European Commission deleted from its new climate plan the call to incentivise “diversified” (animal-free) protein sources. Regulatory capture is never stronger than in the food and farming sector.
I hate to pile yet more on to you, but some of us have to try to counter the endless bias against relevance in politics and most of the media. This is yet another of those massive neglected issues, any one of which could be fatal to peace and prosperity on a habitable planet. Somehow, we need to recover our focus.
We think that climate change is a relatively recent phenomenon. Wrong! And I am not going to say any more because this post from The Conversation covers it beautifully.
ooOOoo
What ancient farmers can really teach us about adapting to climate change – and how political power influences success or failure
A farmer paddles to his fields on an artificial island among canals, part of an ancient Aztec system known as chinampas, in 2021. AP Photo /Marco Ugarte
In dozens of archaeological discoveries around the world, from the once-successful reservoirs and canals of Angkor Wat in Cambodia to the deserted Viking colonies of Greenland, new evidence paints pictures of civilizations struggling with unforeseen climate changes and the reality that their farming practices had become unsustainable.
Among these discoveries are also success stories, where ancient farming practices helped civilizations survive the hard times.
Zuni farmers in the southwestern United States made it through long stretches of extremely low rainfall between A.D. 1200 and 1400 by embracing small-scale, decentralized irrigation systems. Farmers in Ghana coped with severe droughts from 1450 to 1650 by planting indigenous African grains, like drought-tolerant pearl millet.
Ancient practices like these are gaining new interest today. As countries face unprecedented heat waves, storms and melting glaciers, some farmers and international development organizations are reaching deep into the agricultural archives to revive these ancient solutions.
Drought-stricken farmers in Spain have reclaimed medieval Moorish irrigation technology. International companies hungry for carbon offsets have paid big money for biochar made using pre-Columbian Amazonian production techniques. Texas ranchers have turned to ancient cover cropping methods to buffer against unpredictable weather patterns.
But grasping for ancient technologies and techniques without paying attention to historical context misses one of the most important lessons ancient farmers can reveal: Agricultural sustainability is as much about power and sovereignty as it is about soil, water and crops.
In the tropical lowlands of Mexico and Central America, Indigenous Maya farmers have been practicing milpa agriculture for thousands of years. Milpa farmers adapted to drought by gently steering forest ecology through controlled burns and careful woodland conservation.
The knowledge of milpa farming empowered many rural farmers to navigate climate changes during the notorious Maya Collapse – two centuries of political disintegration and urban depopulation between A.D. 800 to 1000. Importantly, later Maya political leaders worked with farmers to keep this flexibility. Their light-handed approach is still legible in the artifacts and settlement patterns of post-Collapse farming communities and preserved in the flexible tribute schedules for Maya farmers documented by 16th century Spanish monks.
Maya farmers and researchers explain milpa farming.
In my book, “Rooting in a Useless Land: Ancient Farmers, Celebrity Chefs, and Environmental Justice in Yucatán,” I trace the deep history of the Maya milpa. Using archaeology, I show how ancient farmers adapted milpa agriculture in response to centuries of drought and political upheaval.
However, these groups condemned the traditional milpa practice of burning new areas of forest as unsustainable. They instead promoted a “no-burn” version to grow certified organic maize for high-end restaurants. Their no-burn version of milpa relies on fertilizers to grow maize in a fixed location, rather than using controlled fire ecology to manage soil fertility across vast forests.
The result restricted the traditional practices Maya farmers have used for centuries. It also fed into a modern political threat to traditional Maya milpa farming: land grabs.
Traditional milpa agriculture requires a lot of forested land, since farmers need to relocate their fields every couple of years. But that need for forest is at odds with hotel companies, industrial cattle ranches and green energy developers who want cheap land and see Maya milpa forest management practices as inefficient. No-burn milpa eases this conflict by locking maize agriculture into one small space indefinitely, instead of spreading it out through the forest over generations. But it also changes tradition.
Maya milpa farmers are now fighting to practice their ancient agricultural techniques, not because they’ve forgotten or lost those techniques, but because neocolonial land privatization policies actively undermine farmers’ ability to manage woodlands as their ancestors did.
Milpa farmers are increasingly left to either adopt a rebranded version of their heritage or quit farming all together – as many have done.
Mexico’s fragile artificial islands: Threats from development
When I look to the work of other archaeologists investigating ancient agricultural practices, I see these same entanglements of power and sustainability.
In central Mexico, chinampas are ancient systems of artificial islands and canals. They have enabled farmers to cultivate food in wetlands for centuries.
The continuing existence of chinampas is a legacy of deep ecological knowledge and a resource enabling communities to feed themselves.
The chinampas of Xochimilco are a UNESCO world heritage site today, but development expanding from Mexico City has put their survival in danger. Sergei Saint via Flickr, CC BY-ND
But archaeology has revealed that generations of sustainable chinampa management could be overturned almost overnight. That happened when the expansionist Aztec Empire decided to re-engineer Lake Xaltocan for salt production in the 14th century and rendered its chinampas unusable.
Today, the future of chinampa agriculture hinges on a pocket of protected fields stewarded by local farmers in the marshy outskirts of Mexico City. These fields are now at risk as demand for housing drives informal settlements into the chinampa zone.
Andean raised fields: A story of labor exploitation
Traditional Andean agriculture in South America incorporates a diverse range of ancient cultivation techniques. One in particular has a complicated history of attracting revival efforts.
In the 1980s, government agencies, archaeologists and development organizations spent a fortune trying to persuade Andean farmers to revive raised field farming. Ancient raised fields had been found around Lake Titicaca, on the border of Peru and Bolivia. These groups became convinced that this relic technology could curb hunger in the Andes by enabling back-to-back potato harvests with no need for fallowing.
But Andean farmers had no connection to the labor-intensive raised fields. The practice had been abandoned even before the rise of Inca civilization in the 13th century. The effort to revive ancient raised field agriculture collapsed.
Since then, more archaeological discoveries around Lake Titicaca have suggested that ancient farmers were forced to work the raised fields by the expansionist Tiwanaku empire during its peak between AD 500 and 1100. Far from the politically neutral narrative promoted by development organizations, the raised fields were not there to help farmers feed themselves. They were a technology for exploiting labor and extracting surplus crops from ancient Andean farmers.
Respecting ancient practices’ histories
Reclaiming ancestral farming techniques can be a step toward sustainable food systems, especially when descendant communities lead their reclamation. The world can, and I think should, reach back to recover agricultural practices from our collective past.
But we can’t pretend that those practices are apolitical.
The Maya milpa farmers who continue to practice controlled burns in defiance of land privatizers understand the value of ancient techniques and the threat posed by political power. So do the Mexican chinampa farmers working to restore local food to disenfranchised urban communities. And so do the Andean farmers refusing to participate in once-exploitive raised field rehabilitation projects.
Depending on how they are used, ancient agricultural practices can either reinforce social inequalities or create more equitable food systems. Ancient practices aren’t inherently good – it takes a deeper commitment to just and equitable food systems to make them sustainable.
We like to think that the changing climate is a modern phenomenon but this article shows it is not. That sentence by Chelsea Fisher offers a route out of the present situation: “The world can, and I think should, reach back to recover agricultural practices from our collective past.”
Bob Derham is someone I met many years ago, when I was living on my yacht in Larnaca, Cyprus, and I can do no better than to repeat what I wrote in my autobiography.
ooOOoo
I negotiated what I thought was a good deal and sold the company. Inevitably I resigned from what was now not my company; it was the end of November in the year of 1988.
In Tollesbury, I had my annual tax returns done by Peter Michael, also living in the village. Peter was an accountant who also taught accountancy at the nearby Essex University. I saw Peter and we discussed the recent agreement for the sale of the business.
“Paul, there is not a lot you can do, to be honest. You will be liable in broad terms for the tax in the difference between the opening price and the closing price. In your case the opening price was near enough zero and the closing price…” Peter did not need to finish the sentence. I got the picture and stood up to leave. Just has I was going out of the room, Peter added: “Unless you can leave the country before April 15th next year, and stay away for a minimum of four tax years. In other words, leave before April 15th, 1989.”
I walked home from Peter Michael’s house that November, 1988 with the advice I had been given ringing in my ears. I would worry about the tax implications in a day or two. But once again fate intervened.
I was a subscriber to the boating magazine Practical Boat Owner (PBO). In a late 1988 issue I read in the classifieds:
Songbird of Kent – Tradewind 33
Great opportunity to purchase a long-distance ocean yacht designed by John Rock for sea-kindly short-handed sailing.
Well kitted out, continually updated and maintained Songbird of Kent is the yacht for you if you dream of blue waters and serious long distance cruising.
Lying Larnaca, Cyprus.
I knew about Tradewind yachts, was familiar with John Rock. (As the designer of Tradewind yachts he had been featured several times in Practical Boat Owner magazine), and knew how many of his yachts had made world circumnavigations, and, finally, I deserved a holiday. I arranged to go out to Larnaca as soon as I could.
About a week later I caught a flight to Larnaca International Airport; upon arriving I rented a car and drove the few miles to the Marina.
The yacht was easy to find as it was out of the water. I met the owners, Michael and Betty Hughes, who were still living onboard Songbird of Kent. They explained why they were selling. Simply because, as Michael put it, they had been living on the boat for many years and it was time to return to their native Wales. Songbird had been extensively cruised the length of the Mediterranean Sea using Larnaca Marina as the base.
I quietly inspected the boat. Because it was lifted out viewing the boat in detail was much easier than had it still been floating. It was in good condition; very good condition in fact. Then I climbed up the ladder and entered the boat. Again I found everything that I expected, and more. It was clear to me that Michael and Betty had had the boat as their home and, consequently, everything was in order. Or to use the phrase; shipshape and Bristol fashion!
I excused myself, left the yacht and went and sat on a nearby seawall. I wanted to think. To be honest, it was pretty easy thinking. I loved the boat; it was a purchase I could afford, and if everything went to plan and I left the UK before April 15th, 1989, and stayed away for four tax years, there would be no UK tax to pay on the sale of my company Dataview. Nothing: Nada!
So that is exactly what I did!
I went back to Songbird, where Michael and Betty were still sitting in the cockpit, and told them I would buy it. They drew up a contract there and then and I signed it!
My autobiography
ooOOoo
Here is Bob’s story:
Paul and I first met in 1992, when I was working as a contract pilot on the BAC 1-11 for Cyprus Airways.
My last flying post was down in New Zealand, a wonderful place to be, with it’s natural beauty, and lack of aggression and oppression. The joy of life is set around being outdoors, so road trips, camping, sailing, and skiing all feature, but less on big houses, and possessions.
Although I have travelled widely in my career, I now want a simple life, and that amounts to being free of ties to a property, such that all I really need is a warm, dry place to sleep, a suitable place to prepare food, and a place to relax, it is no longer about the big house, which brings it’s own issues, and expenses.
Following on from my time living on Paul’s boat, I was then drawn to living on a boat. I owned a smaller Westerley Centaur, for a few years, and even though small, I had a very happy time when I lived on that. It was down in Lymington, a small market town on the south coast of England opposite Yarmouth, on the Isle of Wight, that I kept my first boat.
The reason for this was simple 🙂
One of the interesting people I met in Cyprus was a man called Les Powles. Paul and I would regularly go out and have a mezze in a side street of Larnaca. Les would be very easy company, and found fun in the most silly situations. I was invited to call by on his boat any time, and have a “ cuppa” What I was intrigued with onboard was a picture of the globe, but cut in half, and opened up. There were a series of lines around the world. I asked Les what this was. His reply was “It’s where I have been when sailing round the world.“
So why I asked are their three lines ?
“Because I have done it three times!“
Les was a most unusual character in that he had started building his boat in 1970. It took him 5 years to complete, and apart from a few short sea trials, Les actually had no other sailing experience, but in 1975, with barely enough rice and water onboard, he headed west. Actually he had intended to go to the Caribbean, but he had applied the variation to his navigation the wrong way, and made land fall 1500 miles from his intended destination. Les only died last year, 96, and his home had been his boat for all those years.
It’s that bit that has been the big thing for me.
Having a home has been ongoing hassle, the fun and enjoyment has been removed, because you are in a trap.
It is important to have a home, but I started to question the point of having a physical building. That brings all the ongoing costs and expenses, where the authorities can milk you for a lot of money!
I first saw Antoinette, in Lymington, and from the first moment I saw the boat, I knew I could make the boat my “home.”
She went to Southwold in Suffolk, England for a major refit, and so there is a new engine, gearbox, and propeller, replaced decking, and repairs have been carried out to the hull.
Inside, I can stand up, and although only 37 foot long, being beamy, there is a lot of room.
There are double cabins both fore and after, with “heads” (bathrooms). The main cabin and galley is very comfortable. It has a lot of mahogany wood, so looks homely, and the “dog house” (bit in the middle), is a very open useable space, either enclosed when cold and wet, or if the weather permits, opened up to enjoy the sun.
The key is that this is “my home”.
I can now travel, and go where I like, but I have my home with me. It has heating, but normally when you arrive somewhere, part of the mooring fees offer a shower unit and facilities. I have space to entertain, but above all, I am free of all the ties that we adopt by following the life society offers us as “the norm“.
It is only now that I see the traps that others face, because I can up anchor and head off, and can see where Les Powles got his freedom, and lived his dream.
In the cabin of Antoinette with Finn the dog belonging to Natalie (on the left).
The collie is “Finn”, Natalie’s dog. I think Paul was one of the first to see her when she was born, so 31 years later, Natalie wants to enjoy the alternative life.
As for Finn, he loves it. Fresh air, plenty going on, and a lot to see.
“Tiny living”, but the release from the way most people live is amazing.
No speeding tickets for me. 🤪
ooOOoo
Thank you, Bob for the story of you and me. That last thirty years have flown by and those years on Songbird of Kent were really special albeit the end of my cruising days were pretty scary.
Learning from Dogs 
