Goodbye Blue Monday

Al Gore's gamble

Dan Bednarz, Ph.D. is a peak oil activist based in Pittsburgh and has published articles on public health and administration.

Setting aside questions of feasibility, Al Gore’s recent “Generational Challenge” to convert the nation to carbon-clean electricity in ten years was skillfully choreographed. It was a timely, beguiling appeal to deepening despair and insecurity about the future.

Although Gore apparently has painted skeptics and critics into a corner, I believe he has entered into a losing gamble—with himself. He is betting that the effects of peak oil can be skirted—without ever mentioning it—as a byproduct of his electrification proposal. Notice that his plan promises simultaneously to “revive” the economy, save the environment, and contribute to national security, without explicitly addressing energy.

One of the consequences of peak oil is that there will be less energy to engage in economic activity. So choices, difficult choices, will have to be made (by whom?), about how energy is allocated for critical economic activities, such as realizing Gore's vision. Gore's plan has no difficult choices, just a rallying call to act now.

People I talk to, from the political left, center, and right, often react with an otherworldly look when I connect energy and economic activity. They came of age in a culture where cheap energy was taken for granted and perpetual economic expansion was apotheosized as a reflection of the cosmos and, therefore, good, inevitable and the path to secular happiness. They are not stupid; rather, they buy into the dominant mythology of their time and, it follows, lack experiential or theoretical knowledge to draw upon to imagine a world with less energy and limited or targeted economic growth—let alone contraction. So if Gore promises to revive the economy–a particularly handy bromide these days—he cannot entertain peak oil.

In fairness, we need to explore where Gore stands, if only to guess, on peak oil. To my knowledge he has never laid out his views, and his (two by my count) vague references to it at Constitution Hall signify a major opportunity foregone. If he was ever to take up the energy topic, this would have been the venue and the moment. This silence suggests that he sees peak oil as a non-issue. On the other hand, he told a questioner two years ago, “We should feel a great sense of urgency about the impending peak oil scenario because it is with climate change the most dangerous crisis we have ever faced, by far.”

It is relevant that Gore spent some time in this “challenge” lecture extolling the need for comprehensive policy analysis. He touted his boldness in this regard while ridiculing the “standard” illusions of politicians that lead to unrelated, often contradictory, self-defeating policies for what in fact is a bundle of crises at whose core is the consumption of fossil fuels. All well and good, but where will Gore's plan take us by shunning this “most dangerous crisis” of peak oil?

I believe he would reply that his plan ingeniously dissolves the peak oil predicament. He said in his lecture, “The answer [to these crises] is to end our reliance on carbon based fuels.” Therefore, I surmise that he thinks his plan automatically diffuses the peak oil threat—and this may be a second reason for pushing hard for a ten year timetable. So there's no need to bring up the unpleasantness of the depletion of a resource you are planning to stop using. It is a college debate-team gambit and politically clever, two characteristics we associate with Gore.

Dismissal of, or, in Gore's case, avoiding peak oil is common among those fervently committed to halting greenhouse emissions. They focus on the environment, yet peak oil is a geological phenomenon with vast socioeconomic repercussions they rarely consider. Further, one's “take” on peak oil’s severity and significance is connected with collective identity, how we define ourselves in relation to—please pick a concept you are comfortable with: mythology (J. Campbell); ideology (Marx); episteme (M. Foucault); paradigm (T. Kuhn); culture, or, more concretely, the American Dream, Gaia, etc.

Some who see climate crisis as the greatest threat humanity faces welcome the arrival of peak oil, as if its primary or sole outcome will be to serve their goals by lowering carbon emissions. They do not consider how our house-of-cards economy and our lifestyles rest upon oil. Nor do they come fully to terms with resource depletion, which is related to but not the same as polluting and plundering the earth’s ecosystems. They overlook how business-as-usual thinking will turn to coal and nuclear energy—probably in desperation—once we are on the downside of peak oil. This is just a sampling of the dilemmas peak oil poses. Hence, Al Gore has made a bet with himself—perhaps non-consciously—that we will be spared all this if we rush to enact his plan.

However, Gore’s gamble is a decade or more too late. Warning signs of peak oil are breaking out all over; and we’re merely entering, as Chris Skrebowski[i] notes, the foothills of cascading and intensifying problems. Indeed, I’d like someone to explain how our economy can revive, that is, grow, out of its latest bubble crisis under the emerging and enveloping constraints introduced by peak oil.

In this sense, Al's silence in light of the extraordinary socioeconomic changes now beginning is, I’m afraid, more of the “status quo” policy analysis he claims to have transcended. Put directly, for all his creativity and thoroughness Al Gore is ignoring a geophysical reality that is empirically worsening and threatening our lives with each passing day. Merely pressing the “Easy Button” to convert the infrastructure of electricity generation in ten years is reckless, no matter how dire our situation or how desirable the target of non-carbon based energy. Let me observe that this time frame alone invites a “haste over judgment and quality” mindset and multiple occurrences of Murphy’s Law. It follows that Gore appears to be overselling the science and technology supporting his plan, a topic others are addressing.[ii]

Indeed, his speech reveals a tension between the two roles he is playing in the climate crisis debate: public servant and private venture capitalist. We know his renowned role as the ultimate and tireless public policy wonk. Accordingly, he was introduced as a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Vice President of the United States. Fair enough, he is both of these; yet I wonder how the audience would have reacted—with Gore standing before a backdrop of large American flags—if the solemn professional voice introducing him had cited his less publicized private role as a venture capitalist.

I know he’s already a multi-millionaire; but that never stopped Rockefeller or Vanderbilt. I think Gore believes venture capitalism is the appropriate market mechanism to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Making a ton of money for his partners and himself is necessary to the incentive package needed to motivate entrepreneurs to get things done. But is this the model to follow with peak oil at hand?

Let’s discuss Gore’s private interest in climate change since it highlights a great deal about the manner in which he is marketing the “generational challenge.” Last November he became a partner in a venture capital firm; to delve into Gore’s financial stakes in this partnership begin with Adam Lashinsky’s “Go West” column.[iii] Writing in Harper’s Magazine, Eric Janszen[iv] caused a stir by sardonically noting:

Improbably, Gore threatens to become the poster boy for the new new new economy: he has joined the legendary venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers…to oversee the “climate change solutions group,” thus providing a massive dose of Nobel Prize–winning credibility that will be most useful when its first alternative-energy investments are taken public before a credulous mob.

Janszen goes on to wryly insinuate the conflict between Gore’s public and private roles, writing, “Luckily, Al Gore will be making principled venture capital investments on our behalf.” Again, I do not care if Al Gore suffers from the cardinal sin of greed and, frankly, I would find this “explanation” wanting if he does. Janszen’s derision raises, nonetheless, a legitimate question about Gore commingling public—or utilitarian—and private (for profit) roles.

Let me close without further commentary by asking my reader to envision two reactions to what I wish Gore had said in his “Generational Challenge” lecture. The first reaction to imagine is that of the public; the second is that of his venture capital partners at Kleiner Perkins, et al. Here is what I wish Gore had included in his speech:

In the spirit of connecting the dots, I’ve got to say that peak oil—of which many of you may be only vaguely aware—is upon us. You see, my friends, it’s not 30 years off and therefore our progeny’s problem; and it’s not a simple matter of throwing a light switch to change energy platforms. For example, do you know that the governor of Vermont recently said he might as well declare a state of emergency right now, in the summer, because many Vermonters will not be able to pay their fuel oil bills this winter? Or that people are now stealing gasoline? And that the airline, trucking, and automobile industries are absolutely teetering on the brink from $120.00 a barrel oil? WalMart and even such seemingly unaffected institutions as healthcare are not far behind. Do you know that right now many municipalities are scrambling to figure out how to save on fuel costs lest they go bankrupt or radically cut essential public services? There are widespread and untold personal misfortunes playing out as well because of peak oil. Most importantly, it is now clear to me that we will not solve our climate crisis if we do not simultaneously confront the socioeconomic destructive potential of peak oil.

To fully appreciate our situation we need to connect a few more dots: we must admit that the economic/financial crisis remains unbounded. Who knows how wide and deep it will go and what effects it will have on our ability to finance our energy conversion? And this has to be said: we must deal with fresh-water scarcities and population pressures. In American the more people you have, the more energy and water is consumed. Above all else, we can agree that our nation’s institutions cannot withstand many more 2007s and 2008s without serious damage and possible breakdowns.

So today I’m asking you to do more than listen to me, join our movement, and write your members of Congress. Those are important tasks, but don’t involve you enough in shaping and contemplating our collective destiny. We need as a nation, businesses, industries and individuals to drastically reduce our consumption of energy. It’s simple to state, but it will not be easy to accomplish. You see, it will take immense amounts of energy to build this carbon free electric system I’ve laid out today; and with peak oil bearing down on us we will face energy shortages at the very moment in history when we’ll need all the energy we can produce to transform and reconfigure our way of life. This is a lot to put before you all at once; therefore, I plan to elaborate on these themes in a series of discussions about our nation’s future…

Notes

[i] Skrebowski, Chris. 2008. “Chris Skrebowski on BBC News.” Energy Bulletin. May 23. energybulletin.net. “This, if you like, is what I would describe as the "foothills of peak oil." This is the first peak that we've achieved. ... in light, low-sulphur crude... The next peak will be when the producer countries' exports start falling. Because their growth rates are differentially much higher than those in the West.

[ii] Cohen, Dave. 2008. “Clean energy redemption?” ASPO, February 13. aspo-usa.com. “Al Gore’s fantasy energy challenge.” ASPO, July 23. aspo-usa.com.

[iii] Lashinsky, Adam. 2007. “Clean energy will make Gore rich.” CNN Money.com/Fortune gowest.blogs.fortune.cnn.com. November 20.

[iv] Janszen, Eric. 2008. “The Next Bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow’s big crash: Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash.” Harper’s Magazine, February. harpers.org. Source

Culture Change (August 5, 2008)

Civilization's golden era is teetering on collapse

June 28, 2008

The period from 1950 to 2000 will be remembered as the Golden Era of modern civilization, the pinnacle reached by humans after a million years of evolution. This brilliant half-century was sponsored largely by fossil fuels, especially oil, which brought unprecedented economic growth, plentiful transportation and a rich and diverse lifestyle.

But the new millennium has brought the end of cheap oil, and civilization is suddenly teetering on the edge of collapse. Even if we manage to scrape through (and it would require heroic efforts), life will change. We're at one of the most important turning points in history, yet we persistently ignore the coming meltdown and just want to party on. Nero would be proud.

So, why is civilization teetering?

First, peak oil has arrived. There is no better signal than the price of oil, which has skyrocketed past $130 and shows no sign of slowing. Some shrug and claim there's still a lot left, technology will find it and extract it. Others, as represented by the editors of Maclean's magazine, feel that we have grappled with costly oil before and by applying determined conservation and new efficiencies, we will cope.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Peak oil, this two-syllable piece of jargon, is another way of saying we are on the threshold of a major crisis. From now on the supply of oil will diminish each year, but population and demand will continue to grow. This is truly frightening because our modern industrial society is built on and totally dependent on this versatile fuel. It is the foundation for transportation, industry, agriculture, fishing and much more. As the gap between what economies and nations need and what they can get widens, bidding wars will erupt (they already have) and then shooting wars (one already has).

The globe is in for tough times because renewables like wind and solar simply can't be supplied in enough quantity to fill the enormous demand. As an aside, environmental organizations are doing an enormous disservice by promoting the fantasy of a feasible renewable energy and hydrogen economy.

Second, the world is facing a major food shortage. It took two centuries but the Malthusian Devil is finally banging on the door. For seven of the past eight years global production of cereal grains has not met consumption. The price of cereal crops such as rice, corn and wheat has doubled in the past year. Poor countries are hardest hit and food riots have broken out in more than 10 countries including Egypt, Cameroon, Morocco and Indonesia.

The United Nations recently announced that large segments of the world face immediate hunger now, and global food production must be doubled in the next 30 years.

But how is this possible? There are no empty lands to cultivate and agriculture is highly dependent on oil and gas to power machinery, to make pesticides and fertilizers and for shipping. Food prices are rising in lock-step with the price of oil. And now another body blow: the mad rush to harvest cereal grains like corn to make biofuels for cars rather than food for people.

The world's food situation is deadly grim, and it can only get worse, since we are adding 70 million more people to the planet every year.

As though the oil and food crises weren't enough, we're also staring down the throat of global warming, the most insidious threat ever faced by humans. Yet our efforts to curb carbon emissions are laughable and pathetic. It's an interesting insight into our human psyche that we can ignore such a serious problem.

Space doesn't permit me to discuss cool, clean water, another vital resource whose supply is becoming painfully short.

The Future

Major changes are in the wind. At the very least it will mean paring back our lifestyles including, for example, less flying and driving, which will drive a stake into the heart of tourism, one of the world's largest industries. Tourism-dependent places such as Phoenix that are located in a desert with obscenely sprawling suburbs are particularly vulnerable, and violence and societal breakdown are likely.

James Kunstler, in his book, The Long Emergency, predicts that the United States will degenerate into a set of autonomous regions, with major urban centers replaced by numerous villages.

Societal breakdown won't happen quickly nor everywhere, but be sure of this: Change is coming and although poor nations will be hardest hit, North America will not be spared.

We clearly need to think smaller eco-footprint with hybrid cars, smaller homes, diets with less meat, more bicycling and better recycling. If we all pitch in, these changes will buy us time-but only a little.

While oil brought good times, it also allowed human numbers to soar well beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. We cannot continue to ignore this basic underlying problem. It will yield not one millimeter of progress if we decrease our environmental footprint by, say, 20 per cent but the population increases by 20 per cent over the same period.

The crisis situation is unsolvable unless we also address the population problem. It's elementary logic, a no-brainer.

Curtailing human population, however, is a daunting challenge. I hope we're up to it, for the alternative is decidedly unpleasant.

Source: The Vancouver Sun

SICK AND TIRED OF HIGH GAS PRICES!!11oneone

I've been receiving these inane gasoline boycott schemes on Crackbook off and on for a while, so I figured a reply was in order. Feel free to lend your support.

It seems that groups with names such as this one spawn and spread every second week, advocating consumer boycotts in response to gouging at the pump. The companies targeted by angry drivers may vary from one to another but the premise is a constant, and laughably flawed. It has been refuted elsewhere with more eloquence than I can muster, so I shall not bother to do so here.

Simple, short-term answers to complex, far-ranging problems are fashionable, but I've none to offer. Instead we, the undersigned, propose clear vision and a long-term worldview. Consumer boycotts that ignore the underlying issues and keep drivers on the road are akin to junkies scrambling to secure the next fix. However painful, the solution is to kick the habit.

We are approaching the end of the automobile age. Clogged highways, two-vehicle households and drives to the corner store might have made sense when fuel was plentiful and cheap (questionable, but bear with me.) In our present time of scarcity, such a lifestyle is an anachronism. We can give it up by choice now, or do so kicking and screaming later when circumstances force the matter.

Astronomical gas prices, now and in the future, are a reality that must be faced without blinders. It's easy enough to blame corporate greed (which is undoubtedly a factor.) But we tend to lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a finite resource, one which we consume (read: squander) as if there is no tomorrow. As the end draws nearer we grasp for a technological saviour, but it's doubtful that one will arrive.

(The efficacy of biofuel is beyond the scope of this group. As for the ethics of diverting food towards fuel tanks amidst growing numbers of hungry mouths, that's an exercise best left to the reader.)

What will it take to consign the gas-guzzlers that inexplicably clog our roads to the scrap heap? $200 per barrel? Goldman-Sachs predicts that we'll hit that particular milestone by the close of 2008. $300? It's a matter of when, not if, and it'll likely arrive sooner than we expect.

It isn't my place to tell you how to deal with such eventualities. Beyond trotting out the usual suspects (ride a bike, take transit...) the rest is up to you. Inform yourself, talk to friends, and take an active role in shaping your own future.

Oh, and don't buy into silly boycott schemes. Wishful thinking and internet petitions will not make things otherwise.

How Cuba survived its energy crisis

A mainstay on the fringes, peak oil has been in the headlines a lot lately. One can detect a whiff of nervousness in the mainstream media outlets as oil prices climb and climb, and continue to climb without an apparent end in sight. The tension was palpable as Bloomberg grilled industry insider Matt Simmons, one of a growing number who believe that supply peaked in 2005 and that our current level of extraction, 85 million barrels a day, might be the most we’ll ever pull out of the ground. Locked as we are into a global economy which must perpetually expand or die, the economic implications are enormous. Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens is another adding his voice to the growing murmur: we have peaked. It’s all downhill from here.

None of this need be apocalyptic. It’s natural that an affluent Northerner, steeped in American consumer culture and probably knowing nothing but, might perceive the decline of that hyper-consumptive way of life as the end of the world. Nonsense. The combined brunt of resource scarcity and climate change will force lifestyle changes, and consumer culture’s days are clearly numbered. Although we stand to leave a biologically impoverished planet to our progeny, life will go on as it always does.

But as we begin to rub shoulders with the limits of our natural environment, it might be time to critically rethink the destructive way of life that has brought us to this point. Changes must occur, whether we choose them or nature imposes them. We can cling, kicking and screaming, to the old ways, or we can adapt intelligently to changing circumstances. We can choose to prepare a soft landing.

Of particular concern is the food supply which, coincident with the rise of industrial agriculture, is literally soaked in oil. Between fertilizers, pesticides, refrigeration, transport, and the myriad of other factors that make it possible for Canadians to eat strawberries in January, oil and food production are intimately intertwined. As one falters, the other will follow in close pursuit.

This may seem pretty bleak, but Cuba provides a hopeful example:

"In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba lost its source of cheap oil. Its industrialized agricultural system, which was heavily fuel-dependent, immediately faltered. Very quickly, Cuban leaders abandoned the Soviet industrial model of production, changing from a fuel- and petrochemical- intensive farming method to a more localized, labor-intensive, organic mode of production.

How they did this is itself an interesting story. Eco-agronomists at Cuban universities had already been advocating a transition somewhat along these lines. However, they were making little or no headway. When the crisis hit, they were given free rein to, in effect, redesign the entire Cuban food system. Had these academics not had a plan waiting in the wings, the nation’s fate might have been sealed.

Heeding their advice, the Cuban government broke up large, state-owned farms and introduced private farms, farmer co-ops, and farmer markets. Cuban farmers began breeding oxen for animal traction. The Cuban people adopted a largely vegetarian diet, mostly involuntarily (meat eating went from twice a day to twice a week). They increased their intake of vegetable sources of protein and farmers reduced the growing of wheat and rice (Green Revolution crops that required too many inputs). Urban gardens (including rooftop gardens) were encouraged, and today they produce 50 to 80 percent of vegetables consumed in cities.

Early on, it was realized that more farmers were needed, and that this would require education. All of the nation’s colleges and universities quickly added courses on agronomy. At the same time, wages for farmers were raised to be at parity with those for engineers and doctors. Many people moved from the cities to the country; in some cases there were incentives, in others the move was forced.

The result was survival. The average Cuban lost 20 pounds of body weight, but in the long run  the overall health of the nation’s people actually improved. Today, Cuba has a stable, slowly growing economy. There are few if any luxuries, but everyone has enough to eat. Having seen the benefit of smaller-scale organic production, Cuba’s leaders have decided that even if they find another source of cheap oil, they will maintain a commitment to their new, decentralized, low-energy methods."

— Peak everything: Waking up to a century of declines by Richard Heinberg