Sunday, September 29, 2013

Doing what your grandparents did




Greetings

       Last night we watched "2012", a visually exciting, over-the-top collapse movie.     Its the opposite of a slow grinding  collapse.  Buildings fall, overpasses buckle, half of California falls into the Pacific.!!   A "fun" collapse.

        But that's not the collapse we are in  .

     Dr. Kathy McMahon the Peak Shrink calls it a " sucky" collapse.  Its boring,and,  tedious,and  mostly just a lot of hard work.   Things cost more, you or your kids can't find work.  Your brother in law is sleeping on your couch.    Are things getting better?    Forget about the manipulated  "indicators"  GNP , Unemployment - that sort of thing.     Just look at the median income -

"... the figures reveal that the income of the median American household today, adjusted for inflation, is no higher than it was for the equivalent household in the late 1980s.
"For all but the most highly educated and affluent Americans, incomes have stagnated, or worse, for more than a decade. The census report found that median household income, adjusted for inflation, was $51,017 in 2012, down about 9 percent from an inflation-adjusted peak of $56,080 in 1999, mostly as a result of the longest and most damaging recession since the Depression. Most people have had no gains since the economy hit bottom in 2009. "

                Welcome to the petro - business cycle.  As long as the price of oil stays low, the economy can grow, but once the price rises, we have layoffs, and no hiring.  And incomes stagnate or shrink.   We are waiting for prices to go back down enough to get things going again.  I estimate it will take as year at $80, to re start the cycle..      

     Of course that may be a while.  And in the mean time, a lot of debts will be coming due....

      What to do?     Look back a couple a generation or two.  Back when people "lived" at home - not just slept there.   When everybody had gardens, canned, cooked from scratch, mended stuff when it broke, wore hand me downs - 

              Here's Chris Nelder's take:   (see below - Ten Things)

              On the other hand,  things could get a little more exciting.  We live in a highly integrated society, where everything depends on a couple of systems, the internet, the electric grid, and  the just in time inventory system.     One can imagine scenarios where  one such system becomes unstable, goes down, even temporarily and has cascading effects.  There could be various triggers - Hurricane,  regional conflict leading to an interruption in oil supply, pandemic .

       .  In our area, of course, it's just a matter of time before we see "The Big One".  If you haven't seen it yet, I would highly recommend the DOGAMI video.  It;s eye opening .    Now we're not talking about economic insecurity, we're talking basic issues.  Water, food, shelter.    And these may not be short term problems.    See e.g.  The Oregon Resilience Plan , where they provide Estimated Time to Restore Services  - not as short as I'd hoped !!


"Electricity Valley 1 to 3 months
Electricity Coast 3 to 6 months
Police and fire stations Valley 2 to 4 months
Drinking water and sewer Valley 1 month to 1 year
Drinking water and sewer Coast 1 to 3 years
Top-priority highways
(partial restoration) Valley 6 to 12 months
Healthcare facilities Valley 18 months
Healthcare facilities Coast 3 years  "


 
          You may want to look at an interview on Chris Martenson's blog, Peak Prosperity with_James Wesley Rawls:   Despite the fact that he is a right wing  gun enthusiast, you could see a lot of his points being made by FEMA, DOGAMI or  Transition folks, IMHO.


                                     ......
My mission in life is to try to motivate as many families as possible to get prepared. And I look at community resilience basically from the ground up. The fewer families that are not prepared, the better. Basically, every family that is not prepared around me, I look at as a problem. And every family that is prepared, I look at as part of the solution. And every family that prepares is one less family that is going to be rushing to the grocery store at the eleventh hour, so all those families are going to be, again, part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I am a big believer in community sustainable agriculture, farmer’s markets, local currencies, all of that. And I come from right-of-center, for perspective. So I have a lot in common with the left-of-center, Birkenstock-wearing crowd; I am just a little more heavily armed. (emphasis mine)
                                        
                                     ........
"You cannot just buy survival. There is a learning curve to all of this. You can buy a wood cookstove, but that does not mean you know how to really cook with a wood cookstove or bake with it. There is a learning curve there; the same for gardening. It takes years really to develop soil, to build up your multi-year crops, your berries, for example. Asparagus beds take years to develop. Fruit and nut trees take years to grow to maturity.
You really have to be there. You have to learn the peculiarities of your local climate and your local frost-free days for growing. You have to learn which particular crops grow well in your climate zone. There is a learning curve to all of that. And unless you really live it, you cannot just expect to show up at your retreat at the eleventh hour and then start gardening the next day. It is probably not going to happen, at least not the way people hope it will.
....
Economically alone, if you look at what is going on with quantitative easing, they are attempting to re-inflate a bubble right now. And as soon as the interest rates get away from Ben Bernanke and company, the game is over. Once interest rates rise a couple of percentage points, they will not be able to carry on their charade any longer, and we are going to see a collapse that will make the 2008 collapse look small by comparison. So it is very important that people get prepared as quickly as they can. Time is short. And teamwork is crucial.




---------
       

10 things

10 ways to get ready for the end of oil

By  | 

Last week a reader wrote to me:
“So just finished your population story and I know it’s long view stuff — 2050, 2080, but I kept thinking, what can I/should I be doing now, ‘I’ being a regular shmoe type, to best protect myself and kiddo from the increasing instability that will come with rising oil prices in the next decade?”
It’s a good question. The answer will be different for everyone, depending on their needs, means, capabilities, and willingness, but I’ll offer a few guideposts.
The main objective is self-sufficiency. Whatever you can do to reduce your dependence on outside systems, and provide for your own food and energy, is the best course of action.
I’m not suggesting that anyone become the doomer variety of “prepper.” Forget about guns and ammo; unless you live in a very rural area, they won’t get you very far (a few days or weeks, at most), and in the hands of most people, a gun is a greater risk to themselves and their communities than a help. (As I noted in January, Adam Lanza should be proof enough of that.) And let’s face it, not too many of us are actually going to build a bunker and fully outfit it for months of self-contained living. Even if you did, what would be your plan when you finally had to emerge? Drive off to Walmart and restock?
No. The best model I can suggest is simple, and hardly new. It’s mainly what your grandparents (or great-grandparents) called everyday life. It isn’t easy. If you’re lazy, you might find it pretty challenging. But it’s within the reach of the average person, if that person is willing to learn new skills and make some lifestyle changes. The good news is that it can also be very rewarding, and improve your health and state of mind.
Here’s a short list.
#1: Try to reduce your fuel usage however you can.
I offered suggestions on how to do this last month starting with this one: Get a more efficient vehicle. If you can, make it an electric vehicle (EV) and charge it up with power from your own rooftop solar array. Ride a bike, take public transportation, or walk. The more you can get along without oil and natural gas, the better. Your goal should be to imagine how your children or grandchildren could live without it entirely by the end of this century, and try to make that possible.
#2: Reduce your overall energy consumption.
That might mean moving to a smaller house, finding co-housing or simply upgrading the efficiency of your existing home. For most older homes, the largest energy losses are thermal, and the first solutions are usually insulation, and double- or triple-paned windows. You might want to hire a company to evaluate your building envelope, find the leaks, and recommend corrective measures.
Once your home has a good tight envelope, focus on the efficiency of your appliances, starting with the furnace, air conditioner and refrigerator.
#3: Make your own energy.
If you have a roof (or yard space) with a fairly unobstructed view to the south or west, research getting a solar system. In many areas, third-party financing companies will install a solar photovoltaic PV system to generate electricity on your house for zero money down, and will slightly reduce your monthly utility bill at the same time. It’s a no-brainer! (Of course, if you can pay cash for the system or provide your own financing, your return on investment will be better.)
Solar thermal (hot water) and heat pump systems (ground-loop ‘geothermal’ or air-exchanging systems for space heating) can also be good investments, and will reduce your fuel consumption. They typically take longer to pay for themselves than solar PV, but the financial returns depend heavily on your local climate and use patterns.
For both efficiency upgrades and solar systems, there may be rebates and other incentives available to help with the cost. In the United States, search the Database of State Incentive for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) to find available opportunities in your area.
If you live on a farm, you might consider a wind turbine, or go big and try growing oilseed crops to make your own fuel for your diesel vehicles — after all, that’s what Rudolph Diesel had in mind when he invented his engine. Or you might follow John Howe’s example, and experiment with a solar tractor (see my last column for more information on that).
#4: Grow some of your own food.
It’s generally accepted that every kilocalorie of food that makes it to our tables requires 10 kilocalories of oil and natural gas to grow, process and transport. The whole food distribution chain in the United States is on average 1,500 miles long, and three days wide at most. It’s highly vulnerable to fuel shortages and cost spikes, and breaks quickly without a continued supply of fuel. As oil becomes increasingly dear (and eventually, harder to get) in the coming decades, food supply will be at risk.
But you don’t want to wait until that happens before you start gaining some competency in food production and preservation. Any farmer or gardener will tell you that there’s a lot of failure on the road to success. So the sooner you start building your agricultural skills, the better.
Learn about permaculture techniques, so you don’t need fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which are made from oil and natural gas. Figure out a low-fuel way to get some compost and manure, and start building your soil. Learn how to harvest and save seeds for next year’s crop.
Start a worm bin. I’ve kept one for many years. They’re easy to maintain, they cut down on your garbage, and they produce nature’s best fertilizer for your garden.
Don’t try to do it all alone. Connect with local gardeners. There are probably “tilth” experts in your area who are more than willing to share tips and help you along in your learning process. Use them. You’ll probably make some important new friends to boot.
And remember: In addition to being healthier and more delicious, food that you grow yourself comes with a great deal of joy hidden inside of it. As the song goes, there’s only two things that money can’t buy, and that’s true love and homegrown tomatoes.
#5: Learn some basic skills.
If you’re growing some food, then the next obvious skills you need are in food preservation: pickling, canning, drying, fermenting, curing and smoking. Again, it’s work, but it’s also fun, especially as a family activity. And there’s nothing quite like opening a jar of deliciousness you canned yourself, months or years after you did it, and having a little taste of summer.
The deeper you go into self-sufficiency, the more you realize how many skills one really needs, and how many you’d like to learn.
Cooking from scratch — especially vegetarian dishes, since we all know that the commercial meat industry is massively reliant on petroleum and natural gas. (Of course, raising animals for meat is another matter, and if you’re going to go there, you probably better reconcile yourself to learning butchering as well.) Learning how to cut and season wood, and build a proper fire that keeps you warm and doesn’t smoke. Making things out of wood. Repairing things with whatever you’ve got handy. Sewing, knitting, and crocheting. If you’ve got a solar PV system with battery backup, you’ll need skills to maintain and troubleshoot it.
The learning is basically endless. But I have found that acquiring each skill, though progress can seem painfully slow sometimes, also gives one a certain feeling of pride and self-confidence. You begin to realize that whatever it is you don’t know how to do today, you could learn to do if you put yourself to it. That’s a good feeling.
One resource I like for basic skills is the 12-volume collection of Foxfire books. Developed over 40 years, they contain the assembled wisdom of Appalachian old-timers who made everything by hand, using the most basic of tools. Even if you don’t intend to build a log cabin or butcher a hog, they offer fun casual reading, and perhaps you will discover a few projects you do want to try.
#6: Build up tools and a library
You will need a lot of new tools to become more self-sufficient. Kitchen gear. Hand tools. Gardening tools. Specialized tools. Lots and lots of tools. Don’t buy cheap ones; they don’t last. Get sturdy stainless steel implements for the kitchen, and hardened steel hand and yard tools. Avoid plastic, and go out of your way to find good ones — you might need to do some research — and pay the extra money for them. You’ll be glad you did. There’s nothing worse than trying to do an urgent job with a useless piece of junk when getting a replacement is out of the question.
You’ll also need a library of reference books. Yes, dead tree books. You may see a day when the power is out and the Web is unavailable and your iPad is nothing but a paperweight. Books on gardening, home repairs, cooking, and every other imaginable sort of how-to books.
Good tools and books are hard to find, and they can be expensive. So start accumulating them now, bit by bit.
Eventually you might want to acquire some hand-powered equivalents for things you use now that run on electricity, like hand-cranked kitchen tools and screwdrivers. Or consider other interesting inventions, like this pedal-powered universal appliance for the home. If you’re handy, you might want to consider building your own.
#7: Join your community.
This is where the doomer bunker crowd gets it wrong, I think. You can’t really go it alone. Not for long. And there’s very little point in doing so even if you tried. True sustainability is about having a functional community. It always has been, for as long as there have been humans. Nobody can know everything and make everything and grow everything and do everything. We need each other.
So do what you can to integrate yourself with your local community. Find common ground, and resist the forces that seek to divide you for their own — usually political — purposes. I’m an unabashed liberal (at least on social issues) but some of my most essential gardening friends are social conservatives. Fine. So I steer away from those subjects (except where a very rational and unemotional exchange of ideas is possible and fruitful) and just discuss tomatoes and worms with them. We don’t have to agree on everything to have a mutually beneficial relationship. That’s what true community is all about.
There are several organizations that can help you find like-minded people who are interested in self-sufficiency, and online communities that can provide useful information and contacts. Try theTransition NetworkThe Post Carbon Institute, and Peak Prosperity.
#8: If necessary, reconcile with your family.
Friends and neighbors and gardening buddies are great, but it’s generally true that nobody has your back like family when push comes to shove. If you’re not lucky enough to have a friendly and functional family who can get along and work together, it might be worth your while to try to work on those relationships. It’s not out of the question, some years or decades from now, that you might need to pull together, even live and work together, and count on each other to get through some rough times.
#9: Build cash and eliminate debt.
Most farmers don’t go bust just because they had a bad harvest. They lose their farms because a bad harvest (or several in a row) made them unable to pay their bank loans. The same sort of risk applies to homeowners with mortgages. It’s the debt that really puts you at risk of losing the roof over your head and the land that grows your food.
It’s not easy, and it may take a long time, but it’s critical. Cheap and abundant oil in the past was a big part of the reason why credit was cheap and abundant, and why economic growth seemed assured over the long term. That’s all changing now, as the plateau of oil production signals the beginning of a new era of expensive and difficult oil. Economic growth is no longer assured; in fact, as I have explained previously, I believe we’re heading into an era of economic contraction, which will be dominated by the politics of less. If you want to keep your nose above water in the future, you’ll want to be debt-free and participate in a cash and barter economy.
If you don’t have any debt, you can weather some bad harvests, lean years, periods of unemployment, and other disasters. I’m not saying it will be easy, but at least you’ll be able to keep going.
#10: Get into shape.
If you’re not able to do a full day of hard physical work, then start getting ready for it. You’re going to need to be able to sustain a good deal of physical activity. Fortunately, working in the garden is great exercise.

Just do it

Admittedly, this list just scratches the surface of the subject. But I hope it has at least inspired you, and given you some ideas on how to face down the looming challenges that await all of us.
Becoming more self-sufficient, and preparing yourself — mentally, physically, and spiritually — is truly a lifelong endeavor. It takes time, work and discipline. But it’s not rocket science. You can do it. Many of us had forebearers who did it just a generation or two back. It is possible to live well, and happily, without oil or gas, without food from the supermarket … even without grid power. We did it for millennia!
The important thing is to start now. Don’t let yourself be overwhelmed by all that you need to do and learn and acquire, and give up before you start. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Indeed, the entire journey is made one step at a time. So start steppin’!







Saturday, September 28, 2013

Thoughts on living through a period of collapse


This post is based on a collapse scenario that I briefly outline at the outset.   If you have read any posts in this blog over the past few years, then the basis of the scenario will be familiar to you. I will also quote throughout, the words of some thinkers that have informed my viewpoint on what to expect living through this scenario.


The world is entering a period when continued increases in the net amounts of energy available for human use will plateau and then decline.  This is mainly due to our inability to continue to produce fossil fuels (that is, extract and refine, oil, gas and coal), at ever-increasing rates and at an ever-increasing net energy profit.  In particular, a decline in the net energy in the form of petroleum consumption (that is, the consumption of oil or its products), will occur first among the fossil fuels.  A significant decline in economic output will occur concurrently and proportionally to the declining rate of petroleum consumption.  The rate of petroleum consumption decline, however, will vary from region to region, because petroleum made available from domestic production, plus imports, varies from region to region. Consequently, the decline in the rate of petroleum consumption, and, the economy in general, will be non-uniform. 


What should someone living through the 21st century expect based on this scenario? 


Expect the economy to trend downwards erratically


There really is a level of denial about the problem we've got.  Conventional economics doesn't factor in this term energy return-on-energy investment.... Unconventional oil mean you have to put in much more energy in to get energy out....This is not an economics issue.  This is an issue of the biophysical characteristics of the reservoirs....The political and business world look at this problem in 20th century economic terms: that somehow, if you put the price up, everything will be solved.  We will find substitution from all sorts of different sources to replace the cheap oil we've been accustom to using. And that is not happening.  We have recession in the USEurope.  We are desperately trying to get a way out by basically printing money. And it is not working.  ... If you look at what has happen since 2008, the oil industry has poured vast amounts of money into increasing levels of exploration and getting into more expensive sources, and we haven’t been able to lift production.  And so the price of oil has stayed at about $100 per barrel. And at that price it is very hard to kick-start the economy.  Every time we have got to $100 per barrel previously, the economies of the world have gone into recession.

Ian Dunlop  ABC RN Big Ideas ASPO-Australia  Australian Oil Vulnerability Risk Management Conference Brisbane  June 4th 2013


There really is no viable replacement for conventional cheap oil, in my opinion.  

Every new potential alternative source, deep off shore oil, tar sands, shale/tight oil, arctic oil etc..., will be heralded by investment advisors, economists, businessmen, politicians and their media outlets as THE thing that will allow the economy to grow to great new highs.  But, the price of oil needed to support the production of these alternative sources of oil will also strangle the economy, and so, the consumption of oil will go down.  As this so-called petro-business cycle, or more aptly, petro-business spiral, continues, the baseline of conventional cheap oil continues to be consumed and depleted.  For each new upwards cycle, the economic recovery will be a little bit weaker than last time because the cost to fuel that cycle will be more and more expensive.


Expect the standard-of-living to trend erratically downwards, and, don’t expect anyone in power to acknowledge that this is happening. 


It's clear that fossil fuels cannot power us forever because our net energy return on fossil fuels is declining, and at the same time, renewables by themselves don’t have the capacity to give us the energy per person that we are accustom today. So, what does this tell us about the future?  It tells us that either we are going to have a future in which there is less energy per person than we have today and that will probably mean a lower standard of living, or, it tells us that we have to use energy much more efficiently and parsimoniously than we do now.

—Joseph Tainter, October 2012 interview on What Now


A declining standard-of-living means a declining gross-domestic product per capita. This will get manifest as a decline in purchasing power for most individuals, declining employment opportunities, a declining ability to save for retirement, and a break-down of social welfare system. 


Kathy McMahon has referred to this as sucky collapse, and, she's right.  Working  longer hours and/or harder for less pay; taking care of indigent children/parents/relatives, who didn’t know how to live within their means, and now are broke; continually being nickel-and-dimed to death by higher prices for goods and services, increased taxes and government fees, in a word, sucks.


Maybe the elites of society can expect to get an ever-more affluent standard of living, but, for most people, the “American dream,” really is a fantasy. 


Dreams can be hard to let go of.  Most people have not or will not accept that their standard-of-living has declined and is still declining, even as is happens.  And, no one in power wants such awareness to occur, because this would just tighten the steepness of the spiral of economic decline as people correctly react by pulling back on their spending and saving more.  Governments of the world are united in a war against savers by keeping interest rates low.


A downward spiraling economy can be obscured from public view in many different ways. Examples include, printing money, lying or changing the definition of various economic and employment statistics, decreasing the size or quality of goods and services while increasing the price of those goods and service, and, by providing an infinite number of entertaining, mindless, distractions. 


A declining economy and declining standard-of-living are even easier to hide when the decline is not smooth.  Don’t expect a steady decline in the economy or standard-of-living any more than you should expect that petroleum production and consumption rates will steadily decline. I don’t even except a stair-step shaped decline—more of a saw-tooth pattern. Upward spikes in the petro-business cycle will be reported as periods of “hope,” “growth,” or “green sprouts,” even if that growth is just fake nominal growth due to money printing.  Downward spikes will be reported as “temporary set-backs,” with new highs in growth just around the corner. 


A declining economy and standard-of-living are also easier to hide when different regions undergo economic decline at different points in time and at different rates.  Politicians in charge of a region in steep decline will blame another region for its troubles and then foment anger and hatred of its citizens against the citizens of the other regions with softer decline, thereby deflect anger away from themselves.  


Get used to living simultaneously in two different worlds


The problem with the philosophy of MORE is that MORE, as already noted, doesn’t have any intrinsic meaning. After all, once you have it, you then want—MORE! That’s the American Dream. But the awareness of this dynamic—assuming we ever get to that point—puts us in a particular bind, at least as far as serious social change is concerned. We are finally talking about a kind of conversion experience; and beyond the individual level, which is itself no small achievement, that can only happen when history presents us with a no-win situation. The bald fact is that we cannot maintain the American Dream...because we are running out of resources, oil in particular. The American Dream cannot survive without energy, and lots of it.
—Morris Berman In Praise of Shadows
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.

I experience the cognitive dissonance of living in two worlds every day.  I hear media/government reports about how great things are going, and how the “dream” is still alive, but at the same time, see people in the neighborhood or friends and family members getting into serious trouble.  For instance, the US is supposed to be having an economic recovery right now, and, I do see some improvements. 

At the same time, I know of people who have lost their jobs but continue living the same lifestyle, in denial, until they run out of money, or their working spouse gets sick or loses their job, and even then, they continue to live in their house in the same way as before.  Maybe eventually they just disappear, moved out or evicted, I guess.  I know of people that go on lavish vacations and eat out nearly every night, but when a basic appliance or their car breaks down, they have to take out a loan to get it fixed or replaced. 

The Future Has Arrived — It’s Just Not Evenly Distributed Yet

attributed to William Gibson


Gibson’s 1980s fiction novels were based on a view of the future that extrapolated the trends at the time and this resulted in the prediction of highly technologically complex society forming in some countries, Japan, while other countries, the USA, languished in old technologies.  The differences were not just regional differences in advanced technologies: there were also vast differences in populations within in each region.   In today’s parlance, a small elite class, (“1 percenters”) had access to the latest technology and a larger non-elite class (“99 percenters”) had comparatively little access to technological advances. 

But there has always been an elite class and they have always had first access to the latest technology—in fact this tends to drive and fund technological innovation.  I think that the future that has already arrived, and ongoing, is a shift within the 99 percenters, from middle class to poor class.

It happened 4 years ago, almost a year after the December 2001 crisis. It was a social studies class and this teacher... was explaining the different kinds of social pyramids. ... We even had a text book with those darn, cruel pyramids! The first pyramid explained the basic society. A pyramid with two horizontal lines, dividing those on top (high social class) those in the middle (middle class) and the bottom of the pyramid (the poor, proletarian). The teacher explained that the middle of the pyramid, the middle class, acted as a cushion between the rich and the poor, taking care of the social stress. The second pyramid had a big middle section, this was the pyramid that represents 1st world countries.

...

Then we turned the page and saw the darned fourth pyramid. This one had arrows from the middle class dropping to the low, poor class.

 

“What is this?” Some of us asked. The teacher looked at us. “This is us”


“It’s the collapsed country, a country that turns into 3rd world country like in pyramid five where there is almost no middle class to speak, one huge low, poor class , and a very small, very rich, top class.”


“What are those arrows that go from the middle to the bottom of the pyramid?” Someone asked. You could hear a pin drop. “That is middle class turning into poor”.

—ferfal, Studying the SHTF at the University: Dark omens.


I don’t know exactly what pyramids ferfal was looking at in his class in 2002, but they were probably the so-called, “social class pyramids,” like this.  For a society with a large middle class the pyramid actually looks more like a diamond, with a fat center such as recently attained by Brazil.  

The uneven future arriving is the trend for large portions of the populations in the developed regions North America, Europe, Japan to shift from middle to poor class, with a shift in the opposite direction for the developing countries Brazil or China.  Again, I don’t expect the shift to be smooth and I don’t expect the developing countries will be able to hold onto their gains in the long term.  

I also except the same shift to play out unevenly, at smaller scales, within countries, within provinces/states, within cities, within neighborhoods and within families.

Don’t get too upset, its just human nature


It is important to understand that we did not evolve as a species to be broad scale thinkers, that is, to think broadly terms of time or space.  If you think about the conditions in which our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved, these were conditions in which they only needed to know their own territory, perhaps the territory of adjacent hunting gathering bands.  And, they had no capacity to understand long term history. They had only oral accounts, perhaps accurate for two or three generations, and so we never evolved the ability, or the inclination, to think broadly in terms of time or space.  It doesn't come naturally to us.

...

The high complexity that we have today is a fairly recent phenomenon in human history.  Our ancestors lived in much simpler societies. And we tend to equate the term complexity with the term civilization and think of complexity as progress.

...

Complexity is not free. ... There is no free lunch in the world of complex systems. Complexity always has a cost.  We express the cost in terms of currencies like: work, time, labor, many-that's a big one, standing in line at airports, annoyance....whereas in fact the ultimate currency is energy.  All of these come from energy.  Money comes from energy, work comes from energy, even time spent standing in line at an airport takes up your metabolic energy....  So, complexity comes from energy and complexity requires energy. But if complexity requires energy, then why does complexity grow?

...

Complexity grows because it is useful to solve problems. We usually solve problems by developing more complex technologies.

...

As complexity grows, society has to produce more and more energy to "fund" the complexity, to pay for the complexity. Conversely, during the rare periods when humans have had surplus energy—and we are in one of those periods now—that also allows complexity to grow. This relationship is what I call the energy-complexity spiral.  Surplus energy allows complexity to grow, but most of the time complexity grows to solve problems requiring more energy. ... Complexity and energy are the twin keys to the problems we have today and the problems in the future, and, how our societies can’t be as they are today.

—Joseph Tainter, October 2012 interview on What Now


Humans are short term thinkers, and, society certainly doesn’t reward long term thinking or decision-making with a view of historical contexts.  As the size of the group of humans being considered gets larger and larger, the group in the longer term, doesn’t behave too much differently that a group of bacteria when exposed to a new finite supply of energy, say some sugar cubes.  Those cubes are consumed as quickly as possible, the population grows, and when the cubes are gone, the bacterial population drops back down to the level that the environment could support before the cubes showed up.   


Of course, humans are smarter than bacteria, in that we can find hidden cubes of energy, for instance, in the form of cubic miles of oil.  Society as a whole is busily chewing through those cubes of oil, and becoming more complex with each passing year, with little regard to the longer term consequences when the number of cubes available starts to dwindle.  But that’s just human nature. 


If the energy problem can’t be solved, then it will be reframed as an opportunity


Our conversion to a different mental outlook will thus come in the form of a crunch, in which the subdued lights and the quiet shadows...will get praised because we can no longer afford to have the bright lights burning 24/7. The Russian-American sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, called this the shift from a “sensate” culture to an “ideational” one, and it is this shift that we are now caught up in. If history is any guide, it won’t be a whole lot of fun, because when you’ve been doing something for a long time it becomes very hard to shift gears. It’s a little like detoxing from heroin, I suspect. But there could be a few benefits as well....

—Morris Berman In Praise of Shadows


If Tainter is right, and our complexifying society requires ever-increasing amounts of energy to support it, but, the available sources of energy are in decline, then society is in for a very rude awaking.  And, as Berman says, it won’t be a whole lot of fun.   

Still, collapse has to happen, and so, it will eventually.


Decreasing available energy means that societies will have to de-complexify and become simpler.  It means that new problems will not get solved, or, the solutions will have much higher human costs than they did in the past.


Perhaps economic de-growth will some day be acknowledged as inevitable and celebrated as a great opportunity. 


Who hasn’t at some point, during a crazy hectic day, thought that living at slower pace with more free time on one’s hands for more local community involvement and self-discovery, wouldn’t be a good thing, an opportunity, in fact?  


This sounds fine, but, I don’t think that my grand-parents and great-grand-parents, or their contemporaries, thought too much about the benefits of simple life, or, of self-discovery. Rather, unless one was in the idle gentry class, I think that people in the not too distant past were just worried about putting food on the table or making their next payment to their landlord or the tax collector. 


I think that idolizing a return to the “simple life” is manifesting a coping feature of human behavior—psychological reframing. 


Reframing is a very useful way of dealing with the trauma of an external problem that just can’t be solved.  A declining standard-of-living due to declining rate of energy production and available energy to consume is exactly such an external intractable problem.  I see the growing media and political attention to the “happiness index” as a form of reframing.


Don’t give up hope: you still may have a purpose


Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now.


Victor Frankel, Man’s Search for Meaning


After all of this perhaps you think that you should just head for the hills and bide your time in a bunker until all hell breaks loose and collapse sets in, or, just go on a party binge because there is no tomorrow.

I think taking either of these actions would be a mistake. 


I suppose you can hide in a bunker for a while—until you run out of money or get sick. Likewise I suppose that you could party—again, until you run out of money or get sick.  But, by then you will be in a much poorer position than now and make yourself a burden on someone else.  Don’t do that.


I expect this decline, for most regions except maybe Africa, to unfold over decades of time, and, people close to you, your friends, neighbors and family, are going to need your help. 


At present those people are probably blind to what is unfolding and why, and, they also are probably not ready to hear about it from you.  It’s just human nature—for most—so just get over it.  There’s not too much that you can do right now to help them see what you can see. Accept that, and your relationship with those people will become a lot easier.  


So, what can you do?


1) First, you can adopt the purpose or goal of at least avoid making yourself a burden on others by not wasting your time and resources and by saving more. 


Accept it that most likely everyone of working age that you know, including yourself, is probably going to have to face extended periods of unemployment.  In the USAthe average duration of unemployment after losing a job is about 9 months; in Europe, that number jumps to 15.7 months.  I expect these statistics to worsen going forwards, but not in a straight line.  For most of those in their 50s and 60s, once they lose their jobs, then that will be it, unless you have a hobby that you can turn into work, or, have your own business. 


So, don’t give up your day-job just because you feel depressed about the future. 


And, if you unemployed now and eventually find work, keep that job as long as you can and build up a reserve of money to cover your living expenses for at least an extend period of unemployment in the future.  


Accept it that large portions of the population of older people have saved almost nothing for retirement and living on social security or old age pension benefits alone is a pretty Spartan lifestyle.  One interesting SSA statistic is that 23% of married couples and about 46% of unmarried seniors rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.  There are also reports that Social Security will “run out of funding” by the early 2030s.   But it has already been since 2010 that payroll taxes are not enough to cover the benefits paid out and so already the government has to borrow or print more money to pay some of these benefits.  The excess payroll taxes not spend on benefits from previous years got spend on other things. 

 

Does anyone still doubt, going forwards, that the promised benefits will be cut back, or, will purchase less then what they do now? 


So, once again, don’t give up your day-job just because you feel depressed about the future, or, because you are sick of your job, or, because you just feel tired.  Hang on for as long as you can, and do the best you can to get out of debt and build up some saving.  Your future self and your relatives will be grateful. 


2) Accept that most people in your life are not going to follow step (1), and, therefore they will need your help–that will be your second purpose.


As Tainter points out, most humans are very poor long-term planners and the idea of voluntarily setting aside money for a period of unemployment or for retirement doesn’t work very well for the vast majority.  Maybe after repeated cycles of downturns and partial recoveries, but never as good as last time, for most people it will finely sink in that we are living in different times, but, I’m not holding my breath.


You probably know people in your life, whose lives already look a financial train wreck waiting to happen, and you know that they are not going to listen to you until it is too late.   When their financial train wreck does occur, you will have to help them. 


The burden of doing this is high.  In my opinion it is, or will be, much harder to decide how to do (2) than just doing (1) because you likely won’t be able to help everyone that needs, or wants, help.  How many people can you afford to assist without putting yourself at risk of become a burden your self?  This is a tough question to answer. 


Here’s another tough question: should there be strings attached to giving help?   In my opinion, help, or continued help, should at least be conditional on a putting a rational budget and saving plan in place.  What I think should be avoid is a display of anger and resentment because of the unfairness of it all—that just isn’t going change anything.  Just be happy that it is not you in need of help and you are capable of helping.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, September 28, 2013

The Third Carbon Age

"we are just prisons here
of our own device"
- Don Henley


Greetings

      Many of us  have hopes for a quick transition to a non-fossil fuel future.  Leaving a substantial amount of oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground, is probably the only way to avoid a seriously bad future.   For instance, according to James Hanson, the US's preeminent climatologist,,   an increase of three degrees could result in the extinction of 50% of the species on Earth.       But, a business as usual policy is reasonably likely to lead to  a  7 degree increase by 2100 and a 3 degree increase by 2050 .   

          But, yet our focus seems to be to continue to  burn as much oil and coal as is humanly possible.  As Michael Klare reports below  investment in the extraction of fossil fuels continues to outpace investment in alternatives, by  3-1 margin.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an inter-governmental research organization based in Paris, cumulative worldwide investment in new fossil-fuel extraction and processing will total an estimated $22.87 trillion between 2012 and 2035, while investment in renewables, hydropower, and nuclear energy will amount to only $7.32 trillion. In these  years, investment in oil alone, at an estimated $10.32 trillion, is expected to exceed spending on wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, hydro, nuclear, and every other form of renewable energy combined.
   


         Meanwhile, our president recently gave a speech at the UN.   He re-asserted the Carter Doctrine, The US is willing to use its military might to ensure the conued flow of Mideast oil.  

So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.
The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region.
We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.
We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy..

     I
=====================

Michael Klare: The Third Carbon Age – Drop the Fantasy of a Coming Era of Renewable Energy

Yves here. To put none too fine a point on it, the most important steps to reduce carbon emissions would be a Marshall plan level effort to reconfigure living and resourcing arrangements so as to reduce energy demands, and to go particularly aggressively after the worst polluters (for instance, the cars you see spewing fumes, are surprisingly large contributors to total emissions from automobiles). But it’s much easier to go the Easter Island route and keep carrying on more or less as before until you hit insurmountable constraints.
By Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of The Race for What’s Left. Originally published in TomDispatch.
When it comes to energy and economics in the climate-change era, nothing is what it seems. Most of us believe (or want to believe) that the second carbon era, the Age of Oil, will soon be superseded by the Age of Renewables, just as oil had long since superseded the Age of Coal. President Obama offered exactly this vision in a much-praised June address on climate change. True, fossil fuels will be needed a little bit longer, he indicated, but soon enough they will be overtaken by renewable forms of energy.
Many other experts share this view, assuring us that increased reliance on “clean” natural gas combined with expanded investments in wind and solar power will permit a smooth transition to a green energy future in which humanity will no longer be pouring carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. All this sounds promising indeed. There is only one fly in the ointment: it is not, in fact, the path we are presently headed down. The energy industry is not investing in any significant way in renewables. Instead, it is pouring its historic profits into new fossil-fuel projects, mainly involving the exploitation of what are called “unconventional” oil and gas reserves.
The result is indisputable: humanity is not entering a period that will be dominated by renewables. Instead, it is pioneering the third great carbon era, the Age of Unconventional Oil and Gas.
That we are embarking on a new carbon era is increasingly evident and should unnerve us all. Hydro-fracking — the use of high-pressure water columns to shatter underground shale formations and liberate the oil and natural gas supplies trapped within them — is being undertaken in ever more regions of the United States and in a growing number of foreign countries. In the meantime, the exploitation of carbon-dirty heavy oil and tar sands formations is accelerating in Canada, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
It’s true that ever more wind farms and solar arrays are being built, but here’s the kicker: investment in unconventional fossil-fuel extraction and distribution is now expected to outpace spending on renewables by a ratio of at least three-to-one in the decades ahead.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an inter-governmental research organization based in Paris, cumulative worldwide investment in new fossil-fuel extraction and processing will total an estimated $22.87 trillion between 2012 and 2035, while investment in renewables, hydropower, and nuclear energy will amount to only $7.32 trillion. In these years, investment in oil alone, at an estimated $10.32 trillion, is expected to exceed spending on wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, hydro, nuclear, and every other form of renewable energy combined.
In addition, as the IEA explains, an ever-increasing share of that staggering investment in fossil fuels will be devoted to unconventional forms of oil and gas: Canadian tar sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy crude, shale oil and gas, Arctic and deep-offshore energy deposits, and other hydrocarbons derived from previously inaccessible reserves of energy. The explanation for this is simple enough. The world’s supply of conventional oil and gas — fuels derived from easily accessible reservoirs and requiring a minimum of processing — is rapidly disappearing. With global demand for fossil fuels expected to rise by 26% between now and 2035, more and more of the world’s energy supply will have to be provided by unconventional fuels.
In such a world, one thing is guaranteed: global carbon emissions will soar far beyond our current worst-case assumptions, meaning intense heat waves will become commonplace and our few remaining wilderness areas will be eviscerated. Planet Earth will be a far — possibly unimaginably — harsher and more blistering place. In that light, it’s worth exploring in greater depth just how we ended up in such a predicament, one carbon age at a time.
The First Carbon Era
The first carbon era began in the late eighteenth century, with the introduction of coal-powered steam engines and their widespread application to all manner of industrial enterprises. Initially used to power textile mills and industrial plants, coal was also employed in transportation (steam-powered ships and railroads), mining, and the large-scale production of iron. Indeed, what we now call the Industrial Revolution was largely comprised of the widening application of coal and steam power to productive activities. Eventually, coal would also be used to generate electricity, a field in which it remains dominant today.
This was the era in which vast armies of hard-pressed workers built continent-spanning railroads and mammoth textile mills as factory towns proliferated and cities grew. It was the era, above all, of the expansion of the British Empire. For a time, Great Britain was the biggest producer and consumer of coal, the world’s leading manufacturer, its top industrial innovator, and its dominant power — and all of these attributes were inextricably connected. By mastering the technology of coal, a small island off the coast of Europe was able to accumulate vast wealth, develop the world’s most advanced weaponry, and control the global sea-lanes.
The same coal technology that gave Britain such global advantages also brought great misery in its wake. As noted by energy analyst Paul Roberts in The End of Oil, the coal then being consumed in England was of the brown lignite variety, “chock full of sulfur and other impurities.” When burned, “it produced an acrid, choking smoke that stung the eyes and lungs and blackened walls and clothes.” By the end of the nineteenth century, the air in London and other coal-powered cities was so polluted that “trees died, marble facades dissolved, and respiratory ailments became epidemic.”
For Great Britain and other early industrial powers, the substitution of oil and gas for coal was a godsend, allowing improved air quality, the restoration of cities, and a reduction in respiratory ailments. In many parts of the world, of course, the Age of Coal is not over. In China and India, among other places, coal remains the principal source of energy, condemning their cities and populations to a twenty-first-century version of nineteenth-century London and Manchester.
The Second Carbon Era
The Age of Oil got its start in 1859 when commercial production began in western Pennsylvania, but only truly took off after World War II, with the explosive growth of automobile ownership. Before 1940, oil played an important role in illumination and lubrication, among other applications, but remained subordinate to coal; after the war, oil became the world’s principal source of energy. From 10 million barrels per day in 1950, global consumption soared to 77 million in 2000, a half-century bacchanalia of fossil fuel burning.
Driving the global ascendancy of petroleum was its close association with the internal combustion engine (ICE). Due to oil’s superior portability and energy intensity (that is, the amount of energy it releases per unit of volume), it makes the ideal fuel for mobile, versatile ICEs. Just as coal rose to prominence by fueling steam engines, so oil came to prominence by fueling the world’s growing fleets of cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships. Today, petroleum supplies about 97% of all energy used in transportation worldwide.
Oil’s prominence was also assured by its growing utilization in agriculture and warfare. In a relatively short period of time, oil-powered tractors and other agricultural machines replaced animals as the primary source of power on farms around the world. A similar transition occurred on the modern battlefield, with oil-powered tanks and planes replacing the cavalry as the main source of offensive power.
These were the years of mass automobile ownership, continent-spanning highways, endless suburbs, giant malls, cheap flights, mechanized agriculture, artificial fibers, and — above all else — the global expansion of American power. Because the United States possessed mammoth reserves of oil, was the first to master the technology of oil extraction and refining, and the most successful at utilizing petroleum in transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, and war, it emerged as the richest and most powerful country of the twenty-first century, a saga told with great relish by energy historian Daniel Yergin in The Prize. Thanks to the technology of oil, the U.S. was able to accumulate staggering levels of wealth, deploy armies and military bases to every continent, and control the global air and sea-lanes — extending its power to every corner of the planet.
However, just as Britain experienced negative consequences from its excessive reliance on coal, so the United States — and the rest of the world — has suffered in various ways from its reliance on oil. To ensure the safety of its overseas sources of supply, Washington has established tortuous relationships with foreign oil suppliers and has fought several costly, debilitating wars in the Persian Gulf region, a sordid history I recount in Blood and Oil. Overreliance on motor vehicles for personal and commercial transportation has left the country ill-equipped to deal with periodic supply disruptions and price spikes. Most of all, the vast increase in oil consumption — here and elsewhere — has produced a corresponding increase in carbon dioxide emissions, accelerating planetary warming (a process begun during the first carbon era) and exposing the country to the ever more devastating effects of climate change.
The Age of Unconventional Oil and Gas
The explosive growth of automotive and aviation travel, the suburbanization of significant parts of the planet, the mechanization of agriculture and warfare, the global supremacy of the United States, and the onset of climate change: these were the hallmarks of the exploitation of conventional petroleum. At present, most of the world’s oil is still obtained from a few hundred giant onshore fields in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and Venezuela, among other countries; some additional oil is acquired from offshore fields in the North Sea, the Gulf of Guinea, and the Gulf of Mexico. This oil comes out of the ground in liquid form and requires relatively little processing before being refined into commercial fuels.
But such conventional oil is disappearing. According to the IEA, the major fields that currently provide the lion’s share of global petroleum will lose two-thirds of their production over the next 25 years, with their net output plunging from 68 million barrels per day in 2009 to a mere 26 million barrels in 2035. The IEA assures us that new oil will be found to replace those lost supplies, but most of this will be of an unconventional nature. In the coming decades, unconventional oils will account for a growing share of the global petroleum inventory, eventually becoming our main source of supply.
The same is true for natural gas, the second most important source of world energy. The global supply of conventional gas, like conventional oil, is shrinking, and we are becoming increasingly dependent on unconventional sources of supply — especially from the Arctic, the deep oceans, and shale rock via hydraulic fracturing.
In certain ways, unconventional hydrocarbons are akin to conventional fuels. Both are largely composed of hydrogen and carbon, and can be burned to produce heat and energy. But in time the differences between them will make an ever-greater difference to us. Unconventional fuels — especially heavy oils and tar sands — tend to possess a higher proportion of carbon to hydrogen than conventional oil, and so release more carbon dioxide when burned. Arctic and deep-offshore oil require more energy to extract, and so produce higher carbon emissions in their very production.
“Many new breeds of petroleum fuels are nothing like conventional oil,” Deborah Gordon, a specialist on the topic at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in 2012. “Unconventional oils tend to be heavy, complex, carbon laden, and locked up deep in the earth, tightly trapped between or bound to sand, tar, and rock.”
By far the most worrisome consequence of the distinctive nature of unconventional fuels is their extreme impact on the environment. Because they are often characterized by higher ratios of carbon to hydrogen, and generally require more energy to extract and be converted into usable materials, they produce more carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy released. In addition, the process that produces shale gas, hailed as a “clean” fossil fuel, is believed by many scientists to cause widespread releases of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas.
All of this means that, as the consumption of fossil fuels grows, increasing, not decreasing, amounts of CO2 and methane will be released into the atmosphere and, instead of slowing, global warming will speed up.
And here’s another problem associated with the third carbon age: the production of unconventional oil and gas turns out to require vast amounts of water — for fracking operations, to extract tar sands and extra-heavy oil, and to facilitate the transport and refining of such fuels. This is producing a growing threat of water contamination, especially in areas of intense fracking and tar sands production, along with competition over access to water supplies among drillers, farmers, municipal water authorities, and others. As climate change intensifies, drought will become the norm in many areas and so this competition will only grow fiercer.
Along with these and other environmental impacts, the transition from conventional to unconventional fuels will have economic and geopolitical consequences hard to fully assess at this moment. As a start, the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas reserves from previously inaccessible regions involves the introduction of novel production technologies, including deep-sea and Arctic drilling, hydro-fracking, and tar-sands upgrading. One result has been a shakeup in the global energy industry, with the emergence of innovative companies possessing the skills and determination to exploit the new unconventional resources — much as occurred during the early years of the petroleum era when new firms arose to exploit the world’s oil reserves.
This has been especially evident in the development of shale oil and gas. In many cases, the breakthrough technologies in this field were devised and deployed by smaller, risk-taking firms like Cabot Oil and Gas, Devon Energy Corporation, Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation, and XTO Energy. These and similar companies pioneered the use of hydro-fracking to extract oil and gas from shale formations in Arkansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and later sparked a stampede by larger energy firms to obtain stakes of their own in these areas. To augment those stakes, the giant firms are gobbling up many of the smaller and mid-sized ones. Among the most conspicuous takeovers was ExxonMobil’s 2009 purchase of XTO for $41 billion.
That deal highlights an especially worrisome feature of this new era: the deployment of massive funds by giant energy firms and their financial backers to acquire stakes in the production of unconventional forms of oil and gas — in amounts far exceeding comparable investments in either conventional hydrocarbons or renewable energy. It’s clear that, for these companies, unconventional energy is the next big thing and, as among the most profitable firms in history, they are prepared to spend astronomical sums to ensure that they continue to be so. If this means investment in renewable energy is shortchanged, so be it. “Without a concerted policymaking effort” to favor the development of renewables, Carnegie’s Gordon warns, future investments in the energy field “will likely continue to flow disproportionately toward unconventional oil.”
In other words, there will be an increasingly entrenched institutional bias among energy firms, banks, lending agencies, and governments toward next-generation fossil-fuel production, only increasing the difficulty of establishing national and international curbs on carbon emissions. This is evident, for example, in the Obama administration’s undiminished support for deep-offshore drilling and shale gas development, despite its purported commitment to reduce carbon emissions. It is likewise evident in the growing international interest in the development of shale and heavy-oil reserves, even as fresh investment in green energy is being cut back.
As in the environmental and economic fields, the transition from conventional to unconventional oil and gas will have a substantial, if still largely undefined, impact on political and military affairs.
U.S. and Canadian companies are playing a decisive role in the development of many of the vital new unconventional fossil-fuel technologies; in addition, some of the world’s largest unconventional oil and gas reserves are located in North America. The effect of this is to bolster U.S. global power at the expense of rival energy producers like Russia and Venezuela, which face rising competition from North American companies, and energy-importing states like China and India, which lack the resources and technology to produce unconventional fuels.
At the same time, Washington appears more inclined to counter the rise of China by seeking to dominate the global sea lanes and bolster its military ties with regional allies like Australia, India, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. Many factors are contributing to this strategic shift, but from their statements it is clear enough that top American officials see it as stemming in significant part from America’s growing self-sufficiency in energy production and its early mastery of the latest production technologies.
“America’s new energy posture allows us to engage [the world] from a position of greater strength,” National Security Advisor Tom Donilon asserted in an April speech at Columbia University. “Increasing U.S. energy supplies act as a cushion that helps reduce our vulnerability to global supply disruptions [and] affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our international security goals.”
For the time being, the U.S. leaders can afford to boast of their “stronger hand” in world affairs, as no other country possesses the capabilities to exploit unconventional resources on such a large scale. By seeking to extract geopolitical benefits from a growing world reliance on such fuels, however, Washington inevitably invites countermoves of various sorts. Rival powers, fearful and resentful of its geopolitical assertiveness, will bolster their capacity to resist American power — a trend already evident in China’s accelerating naval and missile buildup.
At the same time, other states will seek to develop their own capacity to exploit unconventional resources in what might be considered a fossil-fuels version of an arms race. This will require considerable effort, but such resources are widely distributed across the planet and in time other major producers of unconventional fuels are bound to emerge, challenging America’s advantage in this realm (even as they increase the staying power and global destructiveness of the third age of carbon). Sooner or later, much of international relations will revolve around these issues.
Surviving the Third Carbon Era
Barring unforeseen shifts in global policies and behavior, the world will become increasingly dependent on the exploitation of unconventional energy. This, in turn, means an increase in the buildup of greenhouse gases with little possibility of averting the onset of catastrophic climate effects. Yes, we will also witness progress in the development and installation of renewable forms of energy, but these will play a subordinate role to the development of unconventional oil and gas.
Life in the third carbon era will not be without its benefits. Those who rely on fossil fuels for transportation, heating, and the like can perhaps take comfort from the fact that oil and natural gas will not run out soon, as was predicted by many energy analysts in the early years of this century. Banks, the energy corporations, and other economic interests will undoubtedly amass staggering profits from the explosive expansion of the unconventional oil business and global increases in the consumption of these fuels. But most of us won’t be rewarded. Quite the opposite. Instead, we’ll experience the discomfort and suffering accompanying the heating of the planet, the scarcity of contested water supplies in many regions, and the evisceration of the natural landscape.
What can be done to cut short the third carbon era and avert the worst of these outcomes? Calling for greater investment in green energy is essential but insufficient at a moment when the powers that be are emphasizing the development of unconventional fuels. Campaigning for curbs on carbon emissions is necessary, but will undoubtedly prove problematic, given an increasingly deeply embedded institutional bias toward unconventional energy.
Needed, in addition to such efforts, is a drive to expose the distinctiveness and the dangers of unconventional energy and to demonize those who choose to invest in these fuels rather than their green alternatives. Some efforts of this sort are already underway, including student-initiated campaigns to persuade or compel college and university trustees to divest from any investments in fossil-fuel companies. These, however, still fall short of a systemic drive to identify and resist those responsible for our growing reliance on unconventional fuels.
For all President Obama’s talk of a green technology revolution, we remain deeply entrenched in a world dominated by fossil fuels, with the only true revolution now underway involving the shift from one class of such fuels to another. Without a doubt, this is a formula for global catastrophe. To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.

Labels: , , ,