Friday, February 3, 2023

The Water Speculators Arrive In Colorado - And What That Might Mean For You

 The alarming shortfall in Colorado River water has now forced the federal government to mandate seven western states  (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, California and Wyoming) to put forward a joint proposal on how to conserve the dwindling water supply that serves 40 million people. All this has greater import now as private investment firms ("vultures" in the parlance of one activist) have landed in our region with the primo imperative to make money off our water.


The Interior Department had asked these 7 states to contribute by Tuesday plans for how to voluntarily reduce water usage by 2 to 4 million acre feet — or up to one third of the river’s annual average flow. Six of the seven Colorado River basin states - excepting California-have complied.  They showed how they could meet the federal government’s demand to make unprecedented cuts to water usage as more than two decades of drought in the West has pushed crucial reservoirs to dangerously low levels.


In the midst of this turmoil a new threat to our water supply has emerged. This would be a New York-based investment firm called Water Asset Management, which  according to public records, is a hedge fund headquartered on Madison Avenue.  This entity has just bought at least $20 million worth of land in Western Colorado in the last five years, making it one of the largest landowners in the Grand Valley.


The hedge fund, founded in 2005, says it invests exclusively in assets and companies that ensure water supply and quality. In 2021, its co-founder and president, Matthew Diserio, called water in the United States "a trillion-dollar market opportunity."  Another commentator, in a recent CBS Mornings report, called water the "new oil".  He isn't far off and too many Americans still don't get it, or how close we are to a water crisis.


Clean water is growing increasingly scarce due to a number of factors, not least of which has been a western U.S. 23-year megadrought, the worst in 1,200 years. That's in addition to overuse by Western states. Nor can we omit the Republicans' yen to cut water quality regulations, as they did during the horrific Trump administration.  I.e. to permit companies to dump more effluent into rivers, lakes and streams, as well as other pollutants.  And this is on top of hundreds of streams already drying up (e.g. from EOS Earth & Space News):


Meanwhile, here in Colorado PFAS chemicals are among the worst culprits spreading cancers and ill health to all who come in contact with them, e.g.


What Are The "Forever Chemicals" (PFAS) And How Do They Affect Kids? 


According to Greg Postel, a storm specialist at The Weather Channel:


"The Colorado River relies mostly on snowpack in the Rocky Mountains that feeds into the river as it melts in the spring and summer.  But climate change is making the west hotter and drier. For every degree the temperature has gone up, the flow of the river has dropped by about 5% — a nearly 20% reduction over the past century."


Adds Postel:


"It's taken a major toll on the nation's largest reservoirs. Lake Powell in Arizona and Lake Mead in Nevada — they are at historic lows. They're at just 25% of their full, combined capacity. There are real fears that this crucial water supply for the West is on the brink of disaster."


Now enter the water speculators and "investors", such as Water Asset Management.  What the hell are they doing way out here in Colorado, and away from their capitalist enclaves in New York?    According to Andy Mueller, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, interviewed in a CBS segment Monday:


"It's the water.  These are folks that have identified the drought as an opportunity to make money."


Adding:


"I view these drought profiteers as vultures. They're looking to make a lot of money off this public resource. Water in Colorado, water in the West, is your future. Without water you have no future."


Strong words with a powerful edginess, but why?  Maybe because Mueller's job is to act as a steward for our water resources. His bailiwick is to protect Colorado's share of the river, which flows through seven states and is a critical water source for cities including Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Los Angeles. He said Water Asset Management has acquired more than 2,500 acres of farmland and is interested in the water rights that come with it. 


What would that mean for the future? Basically, taking over as many acres of water resources as their money permits, then selling it or 'renting' it to the highest bidders. It means nationally, as potable water sources diminish, the cost of this commodity will explode.  Think, if you dare, of the full privatization of your tap water - and at the same time- exploding prices for bottled water.  (Think $8-9 a botte, up from $3,50 now).


It's not beyond the pale, but in Colorado right now there are more immediate concerns, namely of the privatization of water sources for farming - which is bound to send food prices sky high.  This is why Kerry Donovan, a former Colorado state senator. is alarmed by the amount of land being bought by investors such as Water Asset Management. Once they secure the water rights in strategic locales they will be able to dictate the costs of water for farms, and the prices we all pay at the supermarket.  Not to mention, being left with the lesser quality of water full of PFAS chemicals.  Cancers anyone?


See Also:


“Let’s cut the crap”: Colorado River plan still isn’t enough, experts say, and California isn’t on board


And:



And:


And:

by Thom Hartmann | February 1, 2023 - 7:43am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

Excerpt:

How’d you like a side of liver cancer with those fries? Testicular cancer with your chicken sandwich? Childhood obesity with your “kid’s meal”?

These were the findings of a 2022 analysis of wrappers performed by Consumer Reports while looking for chemicals called PFASs in packaging for fast food products sold across America.

PFAS is an acronym for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, a family of over 12,000 chemicals that was first discovered in 1938 by a 27-year-old chemist named Roy Plunkett. By combining fluorine with carbon, he invented chemicals that resisted water, oils, grease, and even heat: they seemed both inert and indestructible.

They’ve since been given the nickname “forever chemicals” because of that very indestructibility: they persist for years, decades, perhaps even centuries in the environment.


Wednesday, February 1, 2023

The Basic Physics of the Current Sheet And Its Mathematical Formalism In 1-dimension


                       Classic current sheet in x,y,z coordinates

The link between magnetic energy stored in solar plasma and structures known as "current sheets" has mesmerized solar physicists for decades.  Basically, a current sheet is defined as a non-propagating boundary between two plasmas with the dominant magnetic field tangential to the boundary.  The tangential field components are arbitrary in magnitude and direction, subject only to the condition that the total pressure be continuous for transverse equilibrium, or in mathematical form:

P1 +   B 1 2 /2m  = P2 +   B 2 2 /2m  

Inside solar active regions the magnetic fields are so strong that for many purposes the plasma pressures (p1, p2) can be neglected.  The sketch below shows a planar current sheet in 3 dimensions (x,y,z) across which the magnetic field direction rotates from  B 1 to  B 2 .  Note that when the field B y vanishes along the current sheet we obtain a "neutral sheet."

Because of the magnetohydrodynamics involved studies of current sheets are usually confined to one dimension. One can still apply the induction equation:

B / t   = curl (v x B) +    h  Ñ 2 B


The first term on the right hand side is the advection of the field by the plasma.  The second term represents the diffusion of the field lines through the plasma. The ratio of the two terms gives the magnetic Reynolds number:

Âm  =  L VA / h


Where L is a typical length scale for the region, VA  is the Alfven velocity, and  is the magnetic diffusivity.  For 1-dimensional motion along x, i.e. v(x,t) with magnetic field B(x,t)y^  the induction equation reduces to:

B /  t   = -   /  (vB)  +    2 B/ x2 

If the plasma velocity v = 0, we obtain the pure diffusion equation:

B /  t   =    2 B/  x2 

the general solution to the above may be written:

B(x,t) =   ò G(x - x', t) B(x', o) dx'

Where B(x', 0) is some initial magnetic profile and the Green's function:

G(x - x', t)  =  1/ (4 ph t) 3/2   exp [ (x - x')2 / 4 h t]  

When the current sheet is infinitesimally thin, with piecewise constant magnetic field (B = +B o  for  x > 0,  B = -B o   for x < 0)  we find:

 B(x,t) =

  2o p 1/2  ) erf (x/ ( 4 h t)1/2]

Where: erf(e ) =  ò e 0   exp(-u2) du   

is the error function

The preceding solution shows the magnetic field diffuses away over time at a rate:   

h / ℓ

Where the width of the sheet is of the order (h t1/2 ).  When flows are present the 1D induction equation is coupled  to the equation of continuity to obtain: 

r/ t +    / x  ( r v) = 0


And an equation of motion results which yields a total pressure:

p +   B /2m =  B e /2m


Where the right side denotes the magnetic pressure at the edge of the sheet.   The formation of the basic current sheet can be traced to extreme shearing of magnetic fields such that different magnetic polarities (designated +  and (-)) are br0ught into close contact with each other. Such conditions obtain in highly sheared solar fields near complex sunspots, such as exemplified in the simulation image below from my Dec. 21 post:

In the above image (from a Solar Physics paper by B.C. Low) one can see the neutral line (polarity separation line) almost rebounding onto itself, which is the telltale signature for 'squeezing' a current sheet into existence. Further work has shown the simple current sheet can evolve to a configuration more likely to trigger massive solar flares, e.g.


Where the levels depicted refer to the plasma beta b:  

br v2 m/ B2  

Note also that in high b sheared current sheets (induced by twisting) the available energy is also specified by the pressure gradient. That is,

Ñ p =  J X B


where J is the current density and B the induction and J x B is the Lorentz force , i.e. produced by a current density J perpendicular to the magnetic field B or  J ^ .   

This is as opposed to the current density parallel to the magnetic field, or  J ||.  

 Clearly, where J  =  J ^ (or in a region where b >  1  )  the dominant form of magnetic free energy (the type liberated in flares) will be driven by  J ^.   Meanwhile, in the low  b  domain the dominant source of magnetic free energy must be driven by  J || .


See Also:

In WaPo Piece Gerontologists Tell Us How To Live To 100 - But No Word About Working To That Age

 




The Latest WaPo 'Healthy Optimist'  story e.g.   


​​Want to live to be 100? Here’s what experts recommend


Has terrific stuff in it galore, to appeal to the brains of all the vegan leaf eaters, non-smokers, non-drinkers and marathon runners.  Starting out by citing the case of Sister André, a French Catholic nun born Lucile Randon, who was the world’s oldest living person, but recently died at the age of 118. Then we learn:


"Now the two oldest living people are believed to be María Branyas Morera, a 115-year-old Spanish woman born in the United States, and Fusa Tatsumi, who lives in Osaka, Japan, who is also 115 but 52 days younger than Morera, according to a database by the Gerontology Research Group."


Pardon me, but who cares?  Yes, as the author claims, these health and aging "experts" predict that the number of centenarians will continue to rise in the coming decades. But ask yourself: Is that good?  I don't believe so, and that's not merely because my own lifespan is likely to be abbreviated before I reach 80 - thanks to metastatic prostate cancer.  


From my point of view and seeing how much the medical treatments, tests etc. have cost so far(over $110,000 since 2012, paid mostly by Medicare) it is going to lead to a medical spending catastrophe. One this nation, and most of the developed world, can't afford. Medicare is forecast to become insolvent in 3 years or less, given how Medicare Advantage is bleeding it dry, e.g.


Here is the Truth: Medicare Advantage Is Neither Medicare Nor an Advantage



We further learn that based on a 2022 estimate by the United Nations, there are 593,000 centenarians around the world now and "it's a fast-growing age group". The United Nations projects there will be 3.7 million centenarians alive by 2050. Complicates retirement? You better believe it.  Even if most of these high elder millions remain relatively healthy they will still have to deal with arthritis, mobility issues, and cancers that accompany old age.  They will need home care and assistance. 

 

This is relevant again as too many are being deluded into pop-eyed foolishness published in the form of bunkum in the mainstream media.  In this case how you too can live to be 100+ just like a 105 y/o lady sprinter (Ida Keeling) on the cover of one Sunday's PARADE from a few years ago.  Folks, do not be deceived by such fanciful longevity B.S. This lady is the exception and not the rule, similar to one Orville Rogers (another centenarian) featured in a MONEY magazine issue from November, 2018, e.g.


Then noting he "retired at age 60" according to the piece, after decades in a high- paying, sweet bread desk job. . The authors of the piece then went on to admit retirement planners "are losing sleep" over the amount ($195k)  most 60- year olds currently have socked away.   This interjects the issue of how super elderly folks will live - if they lack a cushy pension, health care benefits and other support.    As the MONEY article registers the potential inflation:

"At just 2 percent inflation the gallon of milk that cost you $3.75 today will cost you $6.79 in 30 years."


That means  a 65 year old today will need to sock away at least $5 million in a nest egg to be able to live to at least 100 years - and that assumes only one nursing home stay (or nursing assistance at home)  of no more than 6 months.  And that is one time over the balance of her life, i.e. duration of 35 years.

It is  indeed this  aspect of financing any extended longevity these  longevity research geniuses (and most gerontologists) never broach, or provide practical solutions.  How will the super elderly then maintain financial security and their implied independence until they finally shuffle this mortal coil?  These are pertinent questions given Social Security  will reduce benefits 25% by 2035 and Medicare faces insolvency by 2026 - meaning many seniors will face having to enter privatized plans. Neither of the articles in PARADE, or MONEY or an earlier one in TIME  (March, 2015)e.g.

Image result for brane space, baby living to 142

Address any of these matters, choosing to nibble around the edges with impractical baloney, babble and "hope" i.e. "corporations will have to change" which is not a plan.  WHO is going to make them change? A 105 year old granny who likes to do sprints? Give me a break.

Even if these "super ager" elderly somehow managed to find a company that'd hire them to work until at least 90 or so, it's still doubtful they'd amass enough money for future self-support. Given increased health care costs-  the fastest rising aspect of the national budget  ( and no end in sight) -  most people would probably need to at least win a state lotto of ten million to be able to live to 120 without being in penury or familial dependence.  And at least $2 million to live to 100 without raiding dumpsters and eating pet food. But why don't those gerontologists feeding you the super ager claptrap tell you any of that? Why would they? It kind of  adds a buzzkill aspect to their hype of being able to reach 100.  (Which to me means those "lacking the right genes" are likely better off.)

TIME - in its own take- wrongly  assumes in its prologue to the initial piece that: "Everyone wants to live longer", but that desire comes with caveats galore for rational folks . For example, why would anyone today,  at say age 67 or 68,  want to live to even 100 when numerous "hells" are set to be unleashed especially as climate change hits numerous tipping points?  These are projected to lead to drying up of all water reserves in the West and collapse of power grids amidst 6-month long heat waves.  Think of being trapped in a baking home - ambient temperature of 100-105F -and no a/c and possibly no water either?  Really want to live to 100 to enjoy that?

If you think the climate hiccups being experienced now - including the constant polar vortex intrusions, once in a century floods, January F5 tornadoes and superstorms - are a big deal, stay tuned for the first year of no seasons and ensuing heat waves lasting 90-120 days with mean temperatures 100-110F. Even before then, say by 2025-2030 we will likely see electrical blackouts over extended periods, water shutdowns (or breakdowns of decaying urban water delivery systems, since we haven't done shit to repair them) and even power grids collapsing from excess demand - with tens of millions trying to "stay cool",  keeping thermostats at 81F.

You really want to stretch your years out to live in those conditions?  REALLY? Well sure, the richest one percent will because they can afford to - living in their golden -gated condos in Aspen far from the decaying cities that will have no backup power.   But again, where would you get the money to support yourself even if you wanted to live so long and possessed the genes needed to enhance the odds?   

Not being said or published:  The super agers shown in the media pieces are all either independently wealthy or have external sources of income to support their lifestyles. Ida Keeling, for example, is blessed with a "real estate investor" youngest daughter who regularly infuses her bank account.  What about the oldsters who have no banker or real estate investor offspring?

Getting away from the exceptions like Orville Rogers and Sprinter lady Ida Keeling , we know geezers use up more expensive medical care than any other demographic, up to $500m / yr. of which $150 million is spent in the final month of  life.  Consider: In the 10 years since the last financial crisis that works out to a total of $1.5 billion spent in the final month of life. 

Add to that the fact that aging in a rapidly climate change environment is not like aging in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s. The prospect of collapsing systems across the board means soaring inflation and that many more resources will be needed by the advanced age citizen.  The climate warming environment itself translates into more frequent infections many triggered by antibiotic resistance, as well as worm-parasite infections, e.g. of human brains (mostly the poorest):
                                Brain of poor Haitian riddle with worm cysts

None of the gerontologists in the WaPo article seriously address that 'elephant' sitting in the room. Or the prospect that if you lack adequate financial support in old age you are likely to end up destitute, living in squalor and with a worm-infested brain like the poor Haitian's above.

Fortunately, facing off against the longevity nuts we have another realist and strong rationalist,  the late Barbara Ehrenreich, who has been trying to get more elderly to raise their consciousness regarding death. To treat it as a transition and not something to be feared and despised, e.g

Image result for brane space, Barbara Ehrenreich

As she puts it in one of the best pieces to appear in The Nation, '(The Great Equalizer', October, 2018, p. 32):

"No matter how much effort we expend, not everything is potentially within our control, not even our own bodies and minds. In death we will once again be equals - and so an egalitarian politics also means accepting this outcome.

You can think of death bitterly or with resignation, as a tragic interruption of your life, and take every possible means to postpone it.  Or, more realistically, you can think of life as an interruption of  an eternity of personal nonexistence, and seize it as a brief opportunity to observe and interact with the living, ever surprising world around us."

Of course, most Americans are squeamish in terms of death - even discussing it, tending toward euphemisms- and more likely to buy into the codswallop of the longevity researchers.

See Also:


And: