Oil Things Considered

Peak Energy Liberation (5/07)

2012-01-05T22:31:00.000-08:00

Recovered a copy of this essay after it was lost when the Eat the State archives were reorganized
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=19895941

Peak Energy Liberation by Colin Wright May 24, 2007

As if oil depletion wasn't scary enough, now comes news of Peak Coal. According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, a peaking of all oil and natural gas will come as soon as 2010. Now we have a detailed report that US, Chinese and global coal production could all maximize by 2020 (see http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter179). Since these three fossil fuels represent over 87 percent of total world energy, Peak Energy is really just a few short years ahead, probably between 2010 and 2020. Could alternatives fill the gap? Unfortunately not. According to Richard Heinberg, "a realistically possible 2.5 percent annual decline in all fossil fuels averaged over the next 20 years would require developing almost 10 quads of energy production from new sources each year." Then consider that the current world amount of installed wind and solar capacity, the result of many years of effort and investment, stands at less than one quad. Neither could nuclear be expanded quickly enough. Future prospects for an expanding industrial society look grim. In fact, "collapse" is a common word in the Peak Oil literature. The pithy title of Richard Heinberg's 2003 book The Party's Over sets the tone. Yet, is doom-and-gloom just over the hill? What if the Party was just beginning? What if energy depletion was really liberation from oil and coal (and global warming angst) and it led to liberation from oppressive workplaces and alienating governments? And why not? We have all we need for satisfying lives: plenty of company, art, food, technology, money, even energy, at this point. All we have to do is demonstrate to people how to channel their creativity into building sustainable, walkable communities with non-polluting renewable energies and low-input manufacturing and agriculture! I don't believe the current paradigm--corporate-dominated governments, free markets, individual material accumulation--can do this. In fact, because world economic growth is dependent on cheap energy, many Peak Oilers believe world GDPs will begin to shrink. As the capitalist economy contracts, we will have plenty of time to re-employ laid-off people in cooperative workplaces. (The Mondragon region of Spain provides an example.) That will require the expertise of local and state governments, non-profits and the cooperative sector to redesign workplaces to meet more and more of our needs regionally, if not locally. Above all, it will have to call on people's suppressed talents to work for the community in new democratic ways. All we have to fear is orthodoxy, cynicism and paralysis. How much of the human spirit is repressed dealing with the stultifying atmosphere of hierarchical workplaces and overbearing bosses? Much more than we think, I believe. People have a need to be part of active communities that accomplish tasks, without fear of being fired. It's in our DNA. It's how we thrive. Barn-raising, with a keg and a pizza. When people are forced to work for money and survival by selling their souls to the highest bidder, much of their life/psychic energy goes into maintaining their equilibrium. It's an emergency response that we inherited that was only supposed to be used for short periods of time. We cannot flourish in such an environment. But for over a million years, our bodies and minds have evolved to enhance group survival. Freedom and cooperation, perhaps even group competition, provided the species with the maximum flexibility and creativity to fill all existing land niches on the planet, from desert to tundra. That's why the most fulfilling feelings we are capable of (things like a sense of accomplishment, love, friendship, etc.) are all related to others and the group (or, in some cases, nature). My suspicion is that the coming decades could be among the best for many privileged communities. Those with social stability, responsive governments and local resources will be best-suited for the transition to low-carbon economies. (Others may fragment, if they can't keep the lights on and the water running.) We can hope that energy depletion rates will be mild enough to allow most communities to adapt. Lessons learned can now be sent around the world in microseconds. And there is nothing like a crisis, even a drawn-out planetary crisis, to focus the mind. In the words of Studs Terkel, ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things. We must continue to push at the national level for an end to war and militarism, and a redistribution of money to social and infrastructural needs, including mass transit and renewable energies, including wind, solar, geothermal, wave and tidal. We must work for global justice, and equitable, aggressive global warming agreements that will preserve the world's remaining forests and the biosphere. But it is at the local level where people can work together to make quick progress, which can feed into the social movements we so badly need. We are at a unique point in human history. Can it be a turning point? Can we put together all we have learned to provide meaningful and sustainable lives for all? Perhaps, but I think we must act as if we can. The secret may just be in unleashing the freedom of the individual to work for the good of the community (without coercion, needless to say). To turn from self to other. That released social energy could just more than compensate for the decline in fossil fuel energy. Together we thrive, or individually we will all sink.

Letter to Seattle Times on the Death Penalty, 9/23/11

2012-01-05T22:19:00.000-08:00

The company we keep

What do these countries have in common: China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and the United States?

Well, excepting the U.S., you might guess authoritarian government is the common factor. But these are the top five countries for execution by death penalty for 2010. Meanwhile, our neighbors to the north and south and all of Europe have long abolished capital punishment.
With the recent executions of Troy Davis and Lawrence Russell Brewer, we are reminded that the U.S. remains on the wrong side of history, if we conceive that the future will be more civilized than the past.

Since 1964, we have had expanding definitions of what constitutes a hate crime. Yet it seems to me that the death penalty itself constitutes a hate crime, though one legitimized through government. For how much longer?

— Colin Wright, Seattle

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2016300496_deathletsblog25.html
Also, a shortened version made the Sunday print edition.

Androfeminism. What is it?

2012-01-05T21:50:00.000-08:00

Forthcoming...

Letter to the Times on NAFTA (Oct. 2010)

2010-11-01T20:20:00.000-07:00

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2013271368_therisingcostofwashingtonapplesinmexicanmarkets.html

Kate Riley makes a seemingly straightforward case for allowing Mexican truckers onto U.S. highways: Washington apple growers are being hit with a 20 percent tariff on their exports to Mexico [“Obama administration needs to resolve Mexican tariff dispute,” Opinion, Oct. 26]. It is time, she opines, for the Obama administration to meet its NAFTA obligations and open up the highways.

What she leaves out, though, would be the impact of the loss of American jobs to Mexican truckers. In fact, not only would we lose trucking jobs but the lower labor costs would exert downward pressure on all our wages. And that is what NAFTA and free-trade advocates don’t tell us. They promote a “race to the bottom” that hurts both U.S. and Mexican workers, while increasing profits for corporations, now “free” to troll for the lowest wages.

If the Obama administration were really intent on meeting NAFTA obligations, why does it not enforce the labor standards that were once-upon-a-time part of the agreed-upon side agreements used to sell NAFTA to the American people? Instead, conservative Mexican president Calderón is now “free” to use brutal military repression on striking workers at the Cananea copper mine, for instance. Without a peep from Obama; or The Seattle Times for that matter!

In any case, what sense does it make, in a time when we ought to be decreasing our carbon footprint, that we entice Mexican workers (forced off their land by cheap U.S. agricultural imports) to come to Washington state to pick apples destined for the Mexican market? Why not promote the Mexican apple market by encouraging the Mexican apple industry to produce locally?

— Colin Wright, Seattle

Letter to the Seattle PI (Aug 2010)

2010-08-26T22:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.seattlepi.com/letters/index.asp?entryID=1127

Time for a Green New Deal

The economy continues to slide, with what looks like a double-dip recession not far away. News of housing, stocks, and unemployment look grim. As consumers pull back, we could even see the onset of deflation like that which killed Japanese growth for over a decade. Meanwhile, world demand for oil is approaching the level which kicked off the Great Recession in 2008, which could mean another oil spike as soon as next year.

Surely it is time for President Obama to replace his economic team and bring on New Deal policies in earnest. Economic measures which increase productive activity will pay for themselves over time, and can be funded by restoring the upper-income tax levels of the Clinton years and paring the bloated military budget. Putting people to work on needed projects will pay dividends to them and to us.

The calling of our time is to save the world from runaway climate change. Meanwhile, peaking oil production will bring severe stress to the U.S., the country most heavily dependent on automobiles. These two factors can be mitigated if we design government projects that transition us to renewable energy, rail-served urban centers and sustainable agriculture. By doing so, we will expand the manufacturing base which will grow the economy. We may even save the planet for future generations.

If not now, when?

National Energy Corps (Nov 2006)

2010-08-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

Letter to Editor
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/293633_ltrs26.html

I read with interest U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott's proposal for one year of national service for young people, including possibly in the military (Wednesday).

I hope he is open to a related suggestion. First, we withdraw from Iraq, and shrink our armed forces by cutting the military budget by 25 percent. After reparations, we use that savings of more than $100 billion for a national energy conversion program to wean ourselves off foreign oil. At the same time, we would be well on the way to joining the world community by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
An Energy Corps of young people could retrofit every house and building in the country for energy conservation. It could help build local solar, wind and biomass facilities as well as upgrade an aging electrical grid. It could help set up a transportation infrastructure that reduces our reliance on oil, including more public transit, pedestrian sidewalks and bike paths. Finally, it could help foster a local agricultural economy, whereby much of our food could be grown without costly petrochemicals and long-distance transportation.

Many respected economists are afraid that we are entering a major recession. Many independent geologists say that the world's oil production will peak by the end of the decade. We can either wait and see if the are correct or we can take preventive action by stimulating our economy and moving toward a peaceful, sustainable way of life that heads off the worst of global warming and ensures that civilization will continue into the next century.

I trust McDermott is not asking for an even bigger military. But how about proposals more in line with the challenges we face?

Colin WrightSeattle

A New Economy for Puget Sound (Nov 2009)

2010-08-17T13:07:00.001-07:00

Letter to the Editor (Nov 11, 2009)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2010252199_reflectionsonboeingssouthcarolinamove.html

Taking Jon Talton’s advice one step further

Economic worries top regional and national concerns, as Jon Talton noted [“Our future economic strength depends on adding value,” Business, Nov. 8].

Top companies like Boeing and Microsoft seek to make the quick buck by selling out local constituencies in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere. Talton, as usual, offers us his sage advice: Keep the Puget Sound a competitive region by fostering innovation, education and a high quality of life. Keep one step ahead of the race to the bottom.

But can we really prosper if we accept the main tenets of the neoliberal model of free trade? If cheaper labor is always available elsewhere, are our jobs safe when companies can just pick up and go? And anyway, what future does the neoliberal model have in a world of diminishing trade and higher energy prices due to global warming and oil depletion?

What if instead we try to make the Puget Sound region a center of quality and stable employment by developing new economic models that tie companies to their roots. What if, at the same time, we tried to foster a new regional economy that puts us at the forefront of ecological sustainability.

We can do this by offering incentives to local companies to use regional products. We can explore new ownership models where workers and unions get a seat at the table, and a stake in the company. Our credit unions, an alternative to large distant banks, with help from local government, could be used to provide the needed seed capital.

With a new mayor promising green jobs, we have the opportunity to make Seattle an innovator not just of new products but of new ways of doing business. A robust and resilient local economy could make us secure and prosperous and less dependent on the fickle and devious attitudes of multinational corporations.

— Colin Wright, Seattle

Oil Spill in the Gulf (May 2010)

2010-08-17T12:56:00.000-07:00

Published Letter to Seattle Times, May 3 2010 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2011770408_oilspillingulfofmexicogetsmessy.html

Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico gets messy

Editor, The Times:
The spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico ought to make us rethink more than just the wisdom of expanding offshore oil drilling. It should make us rethink our dependence on petroleum in general [“Underwater oil gusher a crisis no one imagined,” page one, May 1].

This latest environmental disaster should open our eyes to the damage our oil addiction is making. Not only does our oil dependence prop up autocratic, unfriendly regimes, it fouls up our own nest.

Tens of thousands of us die prematurely due to the air pollution associated with automobiles. Tens of thousands more die in car accidents. More important, we endanger future generations by generating greenhouse gases that are pushing the planet toward an inhospitable, ice-free state.

As if those aren’t enough reasons, consider how our society is organized around the assumption that oil will always be cheap and readily available, though independent geologists warn us that we are close to the peak of global oil production.

The Department of Defense estimates that surplus oil-production capacity could entirely disappear by 2012. That means a future of high gas prices and increasing international tension over remaining supplies.

We could be planning a future based on walkable communities and electrified public transit. Instead, we close our eyes to the damage oil does to the environment and ignore the future, wildlife and future generations be damned.

— Colin Wright, Seattle

Can Peak Oil Save Us? (Eat the State, March 2007)

2010-08-17T12:45:00.000-07:00

note: also scavenged from Peak Oil News

Occasionally I run into someone who has heard about Peak Oil, but doesn't think it will matter much. Usually they are convinced that the peak is at least 30 years off. Or that we have copious amounts of alternative sources of energy (tar sands, oil shale, methane hydrates, etc.) that we can tap into as soon as the market signals. They may have read somewhere that people have been warning about the depletion of oil ever since it was first discovered. Or they may dismiss Peak Oil as the rantings of a doomsday cult, much like the Y2K prophesies of societal collapse.

Unfortunately the Peak Oil deniers are usually not familiar with the writings of world-class geologists like Colin Campbell and Ken Deffeyes. Or energy analysts (and Friends of Bush) like Matt Simmons. They usually don't know about the Hirsh Report, a DOE-sponsored study concluding that Peak Oil would need 20 years to plan for and would require multi-billion dollar investments in coal-to-liquid projects.

Meanwhile world oil production has been flat for two years now, even as increasing demand from the US, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East has priced the third world out of the little oil they have been using. Peak Oil means that half the world's usable reserves are gone, but more importantly, that falling production rates will have devastating economic consequences on the global economy.

The Portland City Council takes Peak Oil very seriously (see www.energybulletin.net/26922). Their 12-member Peak Oil Task Force is recommending that the city cut its fossil fuel consumption by 50 percent over the next 25 years. They think this is achievable through high-density planning and zoning and increased public transportation. Additionally, they "see the potential for profound economic hardship and high levels of unemployment, and recommend having plans in place to adapt social and economic support systems accordingly."While Portland has been actively preparing for an expensive-oil future, Seattle has been planning to spend billions of dollars on a new highway replacement. While claiming to be a leader in the fight against global warming, the city of Seattle seems to have no recordings of greenhouse gas emissions, like Portland, on its web site. It's not clear whether we're on target to meet even Kyoto standards (which apparently we're not). Biofuels are going to save us and our auto-centric lifestyles, I suppose, if we can believe the mayoral photo-ops.

The silver lining of Peak Oil and Gas is of course that it may save us from the worst of global warming (if we leave the remaining coal in the ground). A low-carbon diet will be forced upon us, which will make Ron Sims' 80 percent carbon reduction targets by 2050 much more realistic. (But if we don't manage to construct an effective mass transit system in the next two decades, increased energy costs will probably mean it will never be built.)But I see another possible "upside" to Peak Oil. It forces upon us the chance of a paradigm change in our behavior.

For almost all of our history human populations have been growing and we have sought out just about every available niche. "Go forth and multiply" has been the biblical imperative. In North America, Europeans decimated native populations and spread west when group or class conflicts arose. Elites urged imperial expansions in places like Hawaii, the Philippines and Iraq. When African Americans and other minorities demanded equitable treatment in employment, housing and education, many whites simply fled to the newly-developing suburbs.These expansions were all made possible by developments in technology (among other factors)--Guns, Germs and Steel. But underlying this were new ways to harness energy, be they in sailing ships or automobiles. Human population growth has been mirrored and enabled by energy growth. In fact, while the population quadrupled over the last century, the energy in the food production system has gone up by 80 times (according to Thomas Homer-Dixon).

We are now close to the pinnacle of net energy use. (In fact, we have long passed the net energy per capita peak.) To use an analogy from physics, the centrifugal forces which pushed humans out into the world will soon be replaced by centripetal forces which will draw us back together again. As we go over the energy peak and move onto the energy down-slope, we will be forced to learn to live with less. This will require a new outlook, but one for which I believe we are well equipped.Humans are extremely adaptable. It's one of our defining traits. But above that, we are social animals. Except for a few outsiders, our hopes, dreams and efforts are all motivated by group purposes. Everyone wants to be well-regarded by their peers and neighbors. We crave respect and status. (How do you want your obituary to read?)The mythical figure of the macho, rugged individual suited imperial expansion. In their time and place, these Davy Crockett figures were common heroes. (They were for my boyhood. And no doubt for W's.) But now, driving a Hummer signals the driver as someone decidedly un-cool, a square, out of touch with the new zeitgeist. The new status symbols are high-tech, but low-energy. Think iPod. Bicycle. Condo. The Dandy Warhols.

Anecdotal evidence for a change in zeitgeist, perhaps. No doubt, change will be uneven and drawn out, dependent on local circumstances. But my feeling is that when people are forced to live and work closer together, this will unleash the creativity to produce a richer social environment that will counter the isolated consumer/worker ethos that corporate capitalism fosters.

Just because we are moving into a low-energy future does not mean we will move backwards in time, like a movie in reverse. Writers like James Howard Kunstler look to a dystopian future, where women lose their freedoms and ethnic tensions are exacerbated. But the "Long Emergency" is definitely not the only possibility in the history books not yet written. We have accumulated fantastic wealth and know-how, including hundreds of years of science and technology, and advances in human understanding. The trick is to convince enough people of the changes that are coming before we are overtaken blindly by events. To plan for our future.Over 70 years ago, in a country using little oil, Bertrand Russell wrote in In Praise of Idleness that we could meet all our needs with less than four hours of work per day. His evidence was how England mobilized its economy during WWI. As he put it:

"Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for the others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish for ever."

Even today, machine technology and cooperative economics may offer the keys to a prosperous and sustainable low-carbon economy, as writers such as Jon Rynn have suggested. The biggest challenge may be convincing people that our current economic system, after a century of state and corporate propaganda, is not the only option. In fact, I would argue that the current system is one which supported a growing population and a growing GDP during the up phase of the energy curve. (And that is why the working classes went along with it, bought off with the trickle-downs.) In a world of diminishing energy, we will need to rethink our economy--and that implies our relations to one another. Peak Oil will provide us with that opportunity, perhaps sooner than we expect.

The Warning of Peak Oil (Dec 2005, Eat the State)

2010-08-17T12:33:00.000-07:00

Note: Eat the State back issues no longer appear to be online. This version was scavenged from Peak Oil News. http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2005/12/warning-of-peak-oil.html

After years of work by a small group of dedicated activists, the concept of Peak Oil is slowly percolating into mainstream dialog. Peak Oil is not, as a friend once surmised, a marketing campaign for a particular brand of gasoline. Rather it is the imminent maxing out of global oil production, the point after which each succeeding year produces less oil.

By now Peak Oil has been covered (at least briefly) by most major media from Time magazine to USA Today. It has been debated on campuses such as Caltech and Stanford. Even Congress is getting in the act. A Peak Oil caucus has formed in the U.S. House, whose members recently held hearings: see http://www.energybulletin.net/11621.html, which ought to be required reading for every person.Perhaps like me, you had thought oil depletion would be something to worry about around 2030. In fact, the alarm bells have been sounded by the independent Association for the Study of Peak Oil (http://www.peakoil.net/). Consisting of academics and former oil industry analysts, ASPO is perhaps the most credible oil research group. They're currently predicting 2010 as the year of peak oil production.

That would not be bad in itself (given the way global warming has taken off), except that it doesn't leave us much time to plan for alternatives. In the words of Dr. Robert Hirsch from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory: "Unless a mitigation crash program is started 20 years before peaking occurs, the economic consequences will be dire" (http://www.energybulletin.net/11647.html).

Why? As world-wide competition for the remaining oil increases (particularly from China and India), prices will escalate. Oil supplies about 40% of the world's energy and powers over 90% of the world's transportation. Our entire industrial society is based on cheap oil, and just about every product these days, from pharmaceuticals to plastics, is oil-based.

It is not only the date of oil peaking that is unknown, nor the amount of time we will have before oil is essentially gone from our lives (perhaps 30 years after peak). The consequences are impossible to predict. On one end of the spectrum of opinion are the worst case scenarios -- worldwide depression followed by mass starvation (e.g. http://www.dieoff.org/). On the other end, we have business-as-usual with alternative sources of energy. The problem is that the alternative sources of energy are mostly expensive, dirty and finite themselves. Renewable sources of energy, while a welcome partial solution, are not "energy-dense," meaning that the energy return is small per dollar invested. (For a survey of our energy landscape, I'd recommend Richard Heinberg's excellent ground-breaking book "The Party's Over.")While we can't know the future, it's a safe bet that expensive energy will lead to less travel and more conservation. Price inflation will surely follow expensive oil, as production and transportation costs increase. In other words, we can expect a negative effect on the world economy with a possible recession.The task for progressives and environmentalists will be to situate oil and natural gas depletion in an ecological context. We are pushing the Limits to Growth, as GDP's increase annually all over the world, populations continue to increase and one resource after another appears to be finite within our lifetimes. (For example, natural gas is expected to peak a decade after oil. Copper extraction has been reported to be near peak at http://www.energybulletin.net/11647.)

We can continue to grow our consumer-capitalist economy until we have exhausted and fried the earth, guaranteeing ecological collapse. Or we can start pushing for a sustainable society that is not based on material accumulation, increased energy consumption and market competition. We can work for a culturally-rich, less-affluent and community-oriented society.

Fortunately, in Seattle, we have many advantages that will help us in the years ahead. We have a fairly well-educated, environmentally-friendly population with a progressive tradition. We have a relatively mild climate and useable hydroelectric power. (Note: that hydro-power could help electrify our transit system.) Much of our food could be grown in-state. The challenges will be to localize our economy to provide our basic needs and our livelihoods. (For example, eventually, the demand for jet airliners will slow and we will need to foster new eco-technologies.) Sweden is pushing ahead in this regard with the formation of networks of "eco-municipalities", which create local employment.

The ramifications of Peak Oil will be immense. We will need to push for a global oil depletion protocol so that the world's remaining oil can be shared equitably without warfare. We will need a new ethic of cooperation and sharing to find new ways of relating to each other as neighbors and citizens. (Groups such as Sustainable Ballard and the Seattle Permaculture Guild are already forging new pathways.) The key to surviving Peak Oil will be to build strong neighborhoods filled with citizen-activists, who elect progressive leaders. Educate yourself, then get active. (One place to start is the Seattle Peak Oil Awareness group, http://www.seattleoil.com/.)

We must create a sustainable society while we still have the energy and resources to prepare. If we wait until the last load of coal or uranium is burned, the last tree cut down, our fate (as Jared Diamond warns) will be that of the Easter Islanders. That is the warning of Peak Oil.

The Global Warming Blame Game

2007-07-09T23:40:00.000-07:00

Published in Eat the State (July 12, 2007)

Many conservatives (and a few leftists) continue to languish in Denial over man-made global warming. Denial is of course the first step of the "Five Stages of Receiving Catastrophic News", a psychological model developed by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, often applied to death and dying.

I wonder now if as a society we aren't moving into the second phase, Anger. As evidence, I look at the global warming finger-pointing that seems to have begun.

The Bush Administration blames China, now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China blames the U.S. which uses emits over four times per capita. Greenpeace blames Exxon, who in turn blames Kyoto. Al Gore is fingering the world's scientists for failure to speak out decisively during the nineties. (Meanwhile Gore himself presided over the largest growth ever in U.S. emissions.) The scientists, of course, blame the politicians for failing to take action. Right wingers blame environmentalists for opposing nuclear power in the seventies. Socialists blame capitalism. Libertarians blame government regulations and the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration ... calls for more study. You get the point.

Now imagine the blame game (and the law suits) that will begin when the economic and human costs really start to escalate. Imagine the blame game if we pass the threshold of runaway climate change beyond which nothing we can do will save the habitability of the planet

The blame game is not a worthless endeavor. (I blame first the Bush-Cheney-Rove triumvirate.) And the blame is not equally shared. The rich nations have produced most by far the most carbon dioxide cumulatively. Further, those decision-makers with their hands on the levers of power are surely more culpable than the children of the poor. We can't blame a faceless "humanity" (when many poor people produce well within the planet's carbon budget).

As individuals, we have a small share in the blame. We all have to reduce our carbon tire-and-footprints. But I think it is more important to analyze our socio-economic system to understand our role in the process and decide how we can best make a difference politically. In the end, all that matters is our own conscience. But did we do all that we could during what Gore calls our "planetary emergency" to get governments to act? We only have a short window of opportunity, roughly ten years, between societal awareness and effective government action, to set in motion a process that will reduce carbon emissions something like 90% by mid-century.

As we all sit around and point fingers and get angry at each other, new evidence has emerged that the effects of global warming may be much worse than the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports suggested. In a new study of the geological record, James Hansen asserts that the polar ice caps do not melt at a continuous rate, but flip suddenly to a new state. Rather than a sea level rise measured in centimeters by century's end, it will more likely be somewhere on the order of 25 meters, as the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets flow into the oceans and melt.

No wonder that Al Gore says we need a new global treaty by the end of 2009. With each passing year with no action the probability of passing the tipping point (estimated at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide) of unstoppable warming increases. (One hopes Gore may be setting himself up as the Global Warming Czar to negotiate such a treaty.)

Nationally, all eyes are on the Democrats to see what sort of climate change legislation they will pass. If they fail us like they have failed us so far on an Iraq pull-out, then we are in deep trouble. Now is the time to contact Congress to pressure them to act.

If they don't, new strategies will be called for. These could range from reform efforts, such as calling for public financing of elections through direct action. Activist Ted Glick and others are calling for a fast on September 4th if the Democrats do no pull through. Another group is calling for nonviolent civil disobedience in DC on October 21st.

The situation we are in unprecedented in human history. (The closest comparison may be the nuclear build up of the 1980's.) Our brains evolved to tackle short-term threats. Now it's not just out little band of hunter-gatherers or our nation that is in danger, but the whole species. (Indeed, half of all species on the planet may be gone by the end of the century).

Yet fully seven in ten Americans want Federal action on global warming. But people are reluctant to open their pocketbooks (and understandably, since wages have stagnated for three decades). The corporations that favor Cap-and-Trade regulations are likely to pass on the increased costs to the consumer. This will make these policies unpopular with the public, and a right-wing populist backlash could easily derail these sorts of regulations. Writing in the American Prospect, Peter Teague and Jeff Navin argue that, instead, we need to shift the debate from regulation to investment.

For the price of the Iraq War, a couple of trillion dollars, we could build a nationwide renewable energy grid based on wind, solar, geothermal and water power. For more, we could convert our city and town infrastructures to be people- rather than auto-oriented. We could link our cities with high-speed rail. We could largely rid ourselves of fossil fuels in a few decades -- if we could only develop the political will. What will we tell our children we did during these years, if we don't?

Incidentally, the final stages in the Kubler-Ross model of grieving over catastrophic loss are Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Let's hope we reach the Bargaining Stage soon. And finally, let's work together to ensure that we end up grieving only over the loss of our fossil fuel lifestyles and not over the death of our civilization.

That "sinking" feeling

2007-05-24T12:07:00.001-07:00

The Independent UK (5/18/07) reports the first observations of positive feedback in the earth's ability to soak up carbon (carbon "sinks"). Stormier oceans due to global climate change in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica are bringing ocean carbon closer to the surface, hindering the oceans ability to absorb atmospheric carbon. In fact, the absorption potential have been flat since 1981 even as carbon emissions have increased by 40%.

The oceans are now likely effectively carbon saturated and we may be within striking distance of the 450 ppm threshold for runaway climate change, when biogeochemical processes will take over by themselves irrespective of what we do. If we are already commited to 30 years (because of the time lag) of 2 ppm carbon, that would put us up to 440 ppm:

In recent years it has become clear that the rate at which CO2 was
accumulating is itself increasing. The level currently stands at about 382 parts per million by volume (ppm), up from 315 ppm in 1958. In the past decade the rate has jumped from about 1.6ppm annually to well above 2ppm - a fact which, as The Independent reported in October 2004, may well signal that the earth's absorption ability is shrinking.

This is why James Hansen says we have less than a 10 year window to act. Hansen acknowledges that the positive feedbacks are the wild cards in the climate models. If we leave the linear regime between forcing and temperature rise, we will be entering the territory explored by James Lovelock of 10 meter sea level rises and mass die-offs.

At the same time, we are learning that current emmisions are wildly accelerating:

But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 per cent a year, higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).

Perhaps there is a sliver of hope in peaking levels of oil, natural gas and coal. If they all peak by 2020 as Richard Heinberg suggests (search www.energybulletin.net) and we aggressively cut back in fossil fuel consumption, perhaps we can squeeze through and preserve the planet for future generations. More study would be needed to examine this possibility.

That James Hansen has included peak oil in his latest climate predictions is a good sign, even if his numbers don't quite agree with those of Kjell Aleklett (who includes peak coal). We can only hope that the peaking of global energy can compensate for the positive feedbacks we are starting to observe.

Peak Energy Liberation?

2007-05-17T21:33:00.000-07:00

As if oil depletion was not scary enough comes news of Peak Coal. According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, a peaking of all oil and natural gas will come as soon as 2010. Now we have a detailed report that U.S., Chinese and global coal production could all maximize by 2020. Since these three fossil fuels represent over 87% of total world energy, Peak Energy is really just a few short years ahead, probably between 2010 and 2020.

Could alternatives fill the gap? Unfortunately not. According to Richard Heinberg, "a realistically possible 2.5 percent annual decline in all fossil fuels averaged over the next 20 years would require developing almost 10 quads of energy production from new sources each year." Then consider that the current world amount of installed wind and solar capacity, the result of many years of effort and investment, stands at less than one quad. Neither could nuclear be expanded quickly enough.
Future prospects for an expanding industrial society look grim. In fact, "collapse" is a common word in the Peak Oil literature. The pithy title of Richard Heinberg's 2003 book The Party's Over sets the tone.

Yet, is doom-and-gloom just over the hill?What if the Party was just beginning? What if energy depletion was really liberation from oil and coal (and global warming angst) and it led to liberation from oppressive workplaces and alienating governments?And why not? We have all we need for satisfying lives: plenty of company, art, food, technology, money, even energy, at this point. All we have to do is to demonstrate to people how to channel their creativity into building sustainable, walkable communities with non-polluting renewable energies and low-input manufacturing and agriculture!

I don't believe the current paradigm -- corporate-dominated governments, free markets, individual material accumulation -- can do this. In fact, because world economic growth is dependent on cheap energy, many Peak Oil'ers believe world GDP's will begin to shrink. As the capitalist economy contracts, we will have plenty of time to re-employ laid-off people in cooperative workplaces. (The Mondragon region of Spain provides an example.) That will require the expertise of local and state governments, non-profits and the cooperative sector to redesign workplaces to meet more and more of our needs regionally, if not locally. Above all, it will have to call on people's suppressed talents to work for the community in new democratic ways. All we have to fear is orthodoxy, cynicism and paralysis.How much of the human spirit is repressed dealing with the stultifying atmosphere of hierarchical workplaces and overbearing bosses? Much more than we think, I believe. People have a need to be part of active communities that accomplish tasks, without fear of being fired. It's in our DNA. It's how we thrive. Barn-raising, with a keg and a pizza.When people are forced to work for money and survival by selling their souls to the highest bidder, much of their life/psychic energy goes into maintaining their equilibrium. It's an emergency response that we inherited that was only supposed to be used for short periods of time. We cannot flourish in such an environment.But for over a million years, our bodies and minds have evolved to enhance group survival. Freedom and cooperation, perhaps even group competition, provided the species with the maximum flexibility and creativity to fill all existing land niches on the planet, from desert to tundra. That's why the most fulfilling feelings we are capable of (things like a sense of accomplishment, love, friendship, etc.) are all related to others and the group (or, in some cases, nature).My suspicion is that the coming decades could be among the best for many privileged communities. Those with social stability, responsive governments and local resources will be best-suited for the transition to low-carbon economies. (Others may fragment, if they can't keep the lights on and the water running.)

We can hope that energy depletion rates will be mild enough to allow most communities to adapt. Lessons learned can now be sent around the world in microseconds. And there is nothing like a crisis, even a drawn-out planetary crisis, to focus the mind. In the words of Studs Terkel, ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things.

We must continue to push at the national level for an end to war and militarism, and a redistribution of money to social and infrastructural needs, including mass transit and renewable energies, including wind, solar, geothermal, wave and tidal. We must work for global justice, and equitable, aggressive global warming agreements that will preserve the world's remaining forests and the biosphere. But it is at the local level where people can work together to make quick progress, which can feed into the social movements we so badly need.We are at a unique point in human history. Can it be a turning point? Can we put together all we have learned to provide meaningful and sustainable lives for all? Perhaps, but I think we must act as if we can. The secret may just be in unleashing the freedom of the individual to work for the good of the community (without coercion, needless to say). To turn from self to other. That released social energy could just more than compensate for the decline in fossil fuel energy. Together we thrive, or individually we will all sink.

Half Gone? And I'm Not Talking About Oil.

2007-05-16T20:57:00.000-07:00

To understand the kinds of things we're up against, let's begin with a few facts (and sentences) lifted from the May-June Mother Jones article by Julia Whitty on the sixth mass extinction.

After a die-off -- the previous five in the past 400 million years or so each wiped out between 50 and 95 percent of all the life of the day -- it takes 10 million years before biological diversity even begins to approach the level that existed before the die-off. That's a long time!

The current causes of extinction -- "habitat degradation, overexploitation, agricultural monocultures, human-borne invasive species, human-induced climate change" -- in short, capitalism, are accelerating into the 21st century. (I use "capitalism" as shorthand for the system of production and investment based on private profits that has wildly increased world material consumption, and is often referred to euphemistically as "industrialism". Now that the Soviet Union is no longer in the picture, we need not be concerned with the ecological burden of the "state capitalist" system whereby "private profits" were in the hands of the state managers.)

Fully 40% of examined species are in danger, including 1 in 4 mammals, 1 in 8 birds, 1 in 3 amphibians, and 1 in 3 conifers and other gymnosperms. (And remember, certain "keystone species" influence and support a myriad of plants and animals. Army ants, for instance, are known to support 100 other species, from beetles to birds.)

According to E.O. Wison, (oddly enough, a great believer in the corporate enterprise) our current course will lead to the extinction of half of all plant and animal species by the year 2100. Wilson also estimates the current rate of extinction at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate. No wonder then that seven out of ten biologists believe mass extinction poses a more serious environmental problem than global warming!

Unlike other critics I cannot take solace in the fact that life will continue long after we're gone. You know, the type of "deep ecology thinker" who pines for a human-free planet or the Buddhist "sage" who revels in existential bliss. I want to do what I can to save the life we have right now.