i ride my bike

Enough with the gloom and doom over peak oil and climate change you say. You want an empowering story of change? Alright here’s an example of a personal adjustment I’ve made in my own life in an attempt to address both the above events because after all, the basic answer to both peak oil and climate change is roughly the same. Stop using fossil fuels; or at least cut way back on using them. But that's so hard everyone says. It can't be done. Nonsense. Or as Tom Athanasiou recently said, “Change is necessary and because it is necessary it is possible.”

I decided 2007 would be the year I got rid of my car. Not completely, but I’ve known for some time that driving a car keeps me dependent on the oil economy and pollutes this planet. I’ve known I needed to cut back on my automotive oil addiction. But it wasn't until 2007 that I got serious about making change. Here are the numbers for the year so far.

At the beginning of the year I was driving 52 miles a day to work (round trip) in a larger city nearby, and roughly 40 miles on the weekend.

300 miles a week. 15,600 miles a year.

Then I convinced my employer to let me adopt a 4 day work week.

248 miles a week. 12,896 miles a year. A 17% reduction.

Then I found a new job closer to home, and convinced my new employer to let me keep my 4 day work week.

120 miles a week. 6,240 miles a year. A 60% reduction.

Then I got a bike and started biking to work which further reduced my time in the car.

25 miles a week. 1,300 miles a year.

A total reduction of 91% a year! Now in addition to spending considerably less time in a metal box driving over asphalt I getting more exercise, and spend thousands of dollars less per year on auto related expenses, not to mention gas. I should add that these miles reflect my daily car usage. I have driven to the beach for vacation and to visit my parents a few towns away on occasion. I have also taken a train to Washington D.C. for a conference- there is more still to do in changing my habits, but I think a 91% reduction in daily driving is pretty great.

What made such a change possible? My mindset. I don't live in an overly bike friendly town. I don't have professional experience that companies are clamoring for. I'm a fairly ordinary guy who just wanted to change. And I did and you can too. It is the idea that we can't change that is holding us back. That is all that stands between us and a reasonable response to peak oil and climate change.

"i used to fantasize about living in a healthier place, one where i could ride my bike, for example. then, one day, i started riding my bike. now, without having fled or escaped to anywhere, i live in a place where i can ride my bike." – heretic fig

declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples

One of the topics given great coverage at last weekend's IFG teach-in was the recent passage of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On September 13, 2007 after more than 2 decades of discussion, the U.N. General Assembly passed this non-binding declaration. Now I find most of the folks actively involved in the issues of climate change, peak oil and resource depletion to generally be well informed and well meaning individuals. So at first glance it didn't seem strange at all that this group would be celebrating the passage of such a declaration. It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them." That is only a good thing no? But the emphasis of importance that accompanied this declaration seemed unusually strong until one of the speakers spelled it out for us.

The 46-article declaration establishes a framework for the respect of indigenous peoples’ rights, including self-rule, autonomy, land ownership, access to natural resources on lands they have traditionally held or used, and that the state provide these peoples with legal support to back their claim to these lands.

This declaration gives decision making power over to the native people who live on the lands containing a large portion of the developing world's remaining natural resources. Up until now that power has been held largely by the governments of those developing nations. And other than for a few exceptions it's easy to see how corporate powers have been able to manipulate governments in the global south to surrender those resources. Usually there's some talk about how parting with those resources will pull the citizens of those colonies- I mean countries- out of poverty. The truth on the ground though is that doesn't really happen. I heard first hand accounts of Nigerians living near the oil drilling not only still impoverished but now suffering from the pollution those operations produce.

There is no doubt that a certain rise in the standard of living of those impoverished in the south would be a welcome benefit. And to that end we should work to ensure that any resource extraction in an impoverished nation helps its citizens and doesn't just line the pockets of the elite. And while still non-binding, that is what this declaration might be able to do. If the people in these nations themselves have the power to authorize or not to authorize the extraction of resources in their own backyards, or what might happen to those resources once they're dug up, might there be a chance that this process might happen in a more equitable way?

There is always the danger of the 'Iced Tea' phenomenon. That is what some Alaskans call the money they are paid as a part of the agreement to drill for oil in that state. Each year each Alaskan gets a check for a certain amount, a percentage of the oil revenue derived from that industry's presence in Alaska. They get this money not from 'Texas Tea' as oil is known in that state but from a chillier beverage in a chiller state, their 'Iced Tea'. For this reason while working in Alaska I found many Alaskans quite happy about the drilling of oil in their state. Of course accidents like the Exxon Valdez spill have put a dent in that happiness. I haven't' been to Alaska in a decade so I can't tell you what the citizens of that state think now, but from my experiences there I would guess that many of them share the opinion of their Senator, Ted Stevens that ANWR should be drilled and more oil extracted; and more Iced Tea money paid out to Alaskans, even if it greats a tremendous ecological disturbance in on of the most untouched areas on Earth and only gives us a few more months of the fossil fuel party.

While working on a project in the City and Bureau of Juneau Alaska, I had occasion to spend time with quite a few of the natives of the area. Some too shared the sentiments of the non-natives of whom the majority liked oil drilling and its revenue (there were non-native exceptions to this). But more often than not the natives I spoke with were not in favor of wholesale resource harvest, even as a way to bring about financial improvements to the many Southeastern Alaskan communities who experience high levels of poverty. They were not totally against using natural resources or developing to fight poverty (many were strongly interested in tourism as an alternative) but they seemed to have more of an aversion to the selling what nature has blessed that part of the Earth with. It is the most beautiful part of the world I have ever visited. And I welcome any thoughts about my experience shared above concerning the people there. It has been a while. Much might have changed.

My point thought is that I believe those people who have a strong connection to their land, not hundreds of years but thousands, will probably be more willing to tread likely on that which has sustained them and their ancestors. Who better but these people to decide how to use what they have been given. And further who are we, thousands of miles away, to tell them what to do with their resources. This declaration came at a time when resource depletion is pushing the corporate peddlers of consumerism further into the dwindling areas of our planet in search of the last fix of a drug that is by now becoming increasingly known for what it truly represents, a temporary turn from the true sources of happiness that include our relationships with ourselves our family, our friends and our wider world. It is my great hope that the indigenous peoples of Earth might just be able to help show us the way back to the balance we have been missing for quite a while.

More on this declaration

4 day work week

Originally posted at The Oil Drum and Groovy Green, here is the original essay.

The Four Day Work Week
by aaron newton

The notion of our standard work week here in America has remained largely the same since 1938. That was the year the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, standardizing the eight hour work day and the 40 hour work week. Each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday workers all over the country wake up, get dressed, eat breakfast and go to work. But the notion that the majority of the workforce should keep these hours is based on nothing more than an idea put forth but the Federal government almost 70 years ago. To be sure it was an improvement in the lives of many Americans who were at the time forced to work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 6 days of the week. So a 40 hour work week was seen as an upgrade in the lives of many of U.S. citizens. 8 is a nice round number; one third of each 24 hour day. In theory it leaves 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for other activities like eating, bathing, raising children and enjoying life. But the notion that we should work for 5 of these days in a row before taking 2 for ourselves is, as best I can tell, rather arbitrary.

The idea of a shorter work week is not a new one to anyone old enough to have lived through the energy shocks of the 1970’s. It should be fairly obvious to anyone interested in conserving oil that reducing the number of daily commutes per week would reduce the overall demand for oil. There are about 133 million workers in America. Around 80% of them get to work by driving alone in a car. The average commute covers about 16 miles each way. So let’s stop and do some math:

133,000,000 workers X 80% who drive alone = 106,400,000 single driver commuter cars each day.

106,400,000 X 32 miles round trip = 3,404,800,000 miles driven to work each day

3,404,800,000 / 21 mpg (average fuel efficiency) = 162,133,333 gallons of gasoline each day

Each barrel of crude oil produces, on average, 19.5 gallons of gas. (It is important to note that other products like kerosene and asphalt are produced from that same barrel)

162,133,333 / 19.5 = 8,314,530 barrels of oil each day.

What this shows is the impact a 4 day work week could have on crude oil imports. I’m talking about a 40% reduction in the amount of oil we need Monday through Friday simply by rearranging our work week. No wonder this idea was utilized in the 70’s.

But the clear fact that a 4 day work week would save such a precious non-renewable resource is just the first of 16 reasons why I think it’s time to revive the idea of reducing the numbers of days we work each week.

Reason #2 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants.

As you pull out of your driveway on your way to work your automobile has already begun to emit Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, particulates, Lead and Chlorofluorcarbons. Some of these compounds are responsible for the greenhouse effect that is warming our planet and throwing our global climate system into increasing instability. Others of them contribute to air pollution that causes everything from dramatically rising rates of childhood asthma to cancers, heart disease and respiratory illnesses. Sometimes I drive to work too, so don’t think the whole thing is your fault. But it’s true that we’re playing fast and loose with our ecosystem and poisoning ourselves with our autos. 60 – 70% of urban air pollution is caused by cars. Taking 20% of them off the roads during the most heavily traveled time of the day would obviously reduce the overall amount of pollutants produced by our autos. And this is key, if a worker transitions to a 4 Day Work Week and then spends all day off driving around when he or she would have be at work, then the savings in terms of fuel and pollution will be lost. This is not a plan to provide everyone with more time to drive around but a plan to bring people back into their homes and their local communities. It’s an effort to give them more time with family, more time to exercise, more time to write the great American novel or learn to keep bees, or get another degree, or start a garden.

Reason #3 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce workers exposure to pollutants.

A recent study by the California EPA says “50% of a person’s daily exposure to ultra fine particles (the particles linked to cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses) can occur during a commute.” A report by the Clean Air Task Force in 2007 found diesel particle levels were between 4 to 8 times higher in commute vehicles than in the surrounding air. It makes sense when you think about it. The pollution coming from the tailpipe of a vehicle is mostly likely to affect you while you’re sitting directly behind it, especially if you’re stuck in slow moving traffic where the concentrations of such particles can build up.

Reason #4 The 4 Day Work Week would mean less traffic congestion.

Rush hour exists because everyone needs to get to work at about the same time. Anyone who’s lived in a city of size can tell you that early in the morning and late in the afternoon the roads fill up. The average 16 mile commutes takes 26 minutes each way. That’s 52 minutes a day traveling at roughly 35 miles per hour. Imagine if 1/5 of the cars suddenly disappeared? If the work week was staggered so that 1/5 of all workers took a different day off, the U.S. commuter would see a 20% reduction in rush hour congestion without building a single new road. Which leads nicely to the next reason…

Reason #5 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce money spent on new road construction and existing road maintenance.

With 1/5 few cars making the commute each day, fewer new road projects would be necessary and existing roads would last longer with less maintenance. This is not to say that we shouldn’t take advantage of this cost savings to invest in alternative transportation systems. In fact it’s the opposite. This could be a gift to the tax payer who would receive new and better options for travel without any rise in taxes.

Reason #6 The 4 Day Work Week would result in a reduction in personal expenses.

From www.ridetowork.org,

“2002 annual household private vehicle expense is $7,371. This is divided into $3,665 for vehicle purchases, $1,235 for gas and oil and $2,471 for insurance and misc.”

If workers used there cars 20% less often to drive to work, they would see a reduction in the frequency of oil changes, tune ups and the purchase of new tires just to name a few savings. The above numbers also reflect the price of gasoline in 2002. We all know it has increase since then and will continue to increase now that global oil production has peaked. Remember those 162,133,333 gallons of gas we’re going to save?

162,133,333 X $2.75 per gallon = $445,866,665.00

This would save US workers a lot of money! And because our cars would be driven less frequently, they wouldn’t need to be replaced as often. That’s not to say that would shouldn’t try to replace inefficient older cars with more efficient new ones, but this could give the auto manufactures time to wake up to the global peak in oil production and make changes in the types of vehicles they offer. It could also give communities time to respond with planning strategies that favor other types of transportation including walking, biking and mass transit.

Reason #7 The 4 Day Work Week would mean fewer auto accidents each year.

I don’t have statistics on the number of automobile related deaths and injuries that occur specifically during rush hour but almost every radio station on the dial offers a regular update of car crashes throughout each morning and evening commute. It seems safe to assume that fewer cars on the road during those periods of time would result in fewer accidents and the injuries that result from them.

Reason #8 The 4 Day Work Week would mean less time spent in VSC or Voluntary Solitary Confinement

Now some people tell me the time they spend alone in their car is relaxing. Personally I think if that’s true then what those people are really enjoying is time alone on uncongested roads. Rush hour on a busy street is not relaxing. Personal time away from other people can be a positive experience. But we don’t have to spend our time alone in a metal box burning nonrenewable resources that heat the planet. If less time was spent commuting each week, people would have more time for themselves to enjoy, even if they wanted to enjoy that time alone. It seems to me that as a nation we are experiencing an epidemic of disconnect. Ever see those people early in the morning on their way to work at 6:30am talking on their cell phones? Just who are they talking to? Maybe some of them are already working (before even arriving at work) but I bet many of them are talking to other friends and family who are, quite possibly, out in traffic too. How many of you have ever made a cell phone call because you were bored or lonely in your car? I have friends who will call me and announce that’s what they’re doing, calling me to get some company. The car is an insulator that keeps us from interacting and as naturally social creatures this isn’t a good practice. Less time spent in cars can mean more time spent with other human beings living life.

Reason #9 The 4 Day Work Week would mean a reduction in absenteeism

A recent survey found that 43% of respondents admitted to playing hooky last year. That is they stayed home from work even though they weren’t sick. Another day scheduled during the week to address the needs and wants of workers would give people more time to complete all sorts of activities. It could keep them from taking their own day off. It could also give people a day to schedule appointments like medical, dental, tax, attorney or other. A Four Day Work Week would mean fewer random interruptions when workers must leave the office to take care of these matters. Even the occasional summer day spent hiking with a child sounds like a good national exercise to me.

Reason #10 The 4 Day Work Week would increase productivity

Yes I said increase productivity.

In 1930 famed cereal maker W.K. Kellog had this to say about his decision to decrease his companies work week from 40 to 30 hours.

"The efficiency and morale of our employees is so increased, the accident and insurance rates are so improved, and the unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight."

Peak oil and climate change could make for turbulent business waters ahead. This country needs more business leaders willing to navigate these waters not by burdening their workforce with limitations or restrictions but with a willingness to try new strategies. Ideas such as this one should be strongly considered by corporate America or maybe it’s time for the Federal government to revisit this issue through law. New ways of working really could benefit both businesses and employees. It’s important in the time ahead not to simply saddle the workers of America with the rising costs of energy and ecological destruction.

There are lots options concerning the number of hours a 4 Day Work Week could contain. Employees could work 10 hours a day and keep a 40 hour work week. Or they could simply eliminate an entire day and drop down to a 32 hour work week. In between is the idea of working 4 days a week, 9 hours a day. But regardless of how many hours people work, the important part to remember is that most tasks are going to get accomplished each week just as they did before. A recent survey by salary.com of over 10,000 American workers revealed that on average, we waste more than 2 hours each day surfing the web or making phone calls to friends. Might these distractions be activities that workers must be willing to trade for an entire extra day off to spend surfing on the Internet? I say that tongue in cheek as there are better ways to spend your new day off but the point is that the inbox is never empty and that important tasks could probably be completed in a shorter work week if time spent at work was all about work. A shorter work week would sharpen this focus and make the workplace more productive.

Reason #11 The 4 Day Work Week would give us more time for family

60% of Americans say they do not have enough time for family. To be sure we could change that statement to read, make time for family, because time is after all what you make it. It’s important to note that we work more hours than any other nation on the planet. But why? Why do we work? I think this question is at the heart of support for a shorter work week. We work so we can support our families right? But is more money and the always increasing amount of stuff that money buys really supporting our families? We have to pay bills but would your son rather have you at home or have a new flat screen television? 7 out of 10 teenage pregnancies are conceived at the home of the young girl between the hours of 3pm and 5pm. It is my view that what might be in my daughter’s best interest isn’t me working 50 hours a week so I can buy her a sweet sixteen car. It might be spending more time at home with my daughter talking to her about her future. A shorter work week would give this nation an opportunity to spend more time at home with our families.

Reason #12 The 4 Day Work Week would decrease labor costs

Long work hours increase the worker turnover rate which leads to more money spent on acquiring and training new employees. Employees who have almost as many days to spend on their own as days they spend working will be much happier and more loyal. These are employees who will work harder and stay longer at any given company.

Reason #13 The 4 Day Work Week would decrease operational costs

Depending on just how a company chooses to structure its 4 Day Work Week, any number of operational costs could be reduced. The energy savings from the climate control of unoccupied buildings could be enormous. Fewer security or maintenance issues could result from having a smaller number of people in the office each day. A shorter work week could mean more infrequent cleanings and less information technology service calls.

Reason #14 The 4 Day Work Week would mean a reduction in the cost of childcare

If a two parent household were to switch to a 4 Day Work Week then their childcare costs could be reduced by 40%. Childcare ranges in cost depending on the type care and the specific location in which a worker lives. Estimates range from $3,000 to $15,000 annually per child. A family spending $5,000 who could reduce the number of days their child is in care from 5 days to 3 could save $2,000 a year. This also means more of the child’s time spent with parents which fosters stronger families. It is important to note here that childcare that exceeds the normal 8 hour work day is more expensive. If both parents switched to 10 hour work days their childcare costs might not decrease.

Reason #15 The 4 Day Work Week would provide time for a transition into the informal economy

There are a lot of reasons why consumer culture is bad for us. It focuses not on people and their relationships to one another but instead on things, on stuff, on cheap plastic crap from Mal-Wart. It’s worth pointing out that not only is our habit of consuming mass quantities of junk toxifying our lives and our environment with all sorts of chemicals and pollution, it’s also using up a number of nonrenewable resources at an alarming rate. It seems reasonable to assume that we can’t continue on this ride of infinite growth for a whole lot longer. The coming era will be one of a decline in the availability of all sorts of resources we take for granted right now. Learning how to reshape and relocalize our lives will be an immense effort for both communities and the individuals living in them. Having an extra day each week to begin this process could prove invaluable. Need time to learn how to cook or garden? Have you always wanted to start a new cottage industry business from home? Maybe you’d like to be more activity in volunteer efforts in your community to address peak oil and climate change. This extra day could be our ticket as a nation to scaling back on our consumption while we reconnect to local life.

Reason #16 The 4 Day Work Week feels great!

I write this proposal not as an academic making a theoretical suggestion but as a participant in the new 4 Day Work Week movement. At the beginning of 2007 I renegotiated my contract with my employer and started staying home on Fridays. I now have more than a two day speed bump on the highway of American employment. I get to enjoy almost as many days at home each week as I spend working at my job. And it feels wonderful. Since making the change I have even taken a new job and was still able to continue with my shorter work week. 25% of U.S. companies already have some sort of policy towards alternative work schedules.

Telecommuting, cell phones and the Internet are just some of the other tools that can offer more flexibility to the outdated idea that we should all be at the office from 8 to 5 on Monday through Friday. I can tell you from experience that this feels great. I am able to spend time on projects that are important to me. I get to see my young daughter more. Lately it’s been a Friday bike ride together. And I have a chance to share my ideas with more time to write proposals like this one.

Changes require action. Our nation is at a point where we need change. Not politicians talking about change but an actual change in the way we live our lives. The 4 Day Work Week could be a catalyst for a change from a nation that lives to work into a nation that works to live. Come join me won’t you?

rob hopkins "at" the global triple crisis teach-in

Rob's presentation in absence got quite a round of applause. There were many other excellent speakers and my mind is full and I have an updated sense of fear, hope and awareness. One thing's for sure, the next few decades will be an exciting stretch of human history. Buckle up.

You can watch the rest of Rob's presentation by clicking the following links.

Part Two

Part Three

More about Mr. Hopkins at his website Transition Culture.

$80 oil doesn't translate

There is a reason that, as the price of oil rides a new high, the mainstream media avoids the term peak oil. Surely by now at least some of those reporters have investigated Hubbert’s Peak, the prediction of an all time global maximum in oil output that is happening during this decade. And the peak oil community is partly to blame for this quiet response. I should follow immediately by including myself wholeheartedly because I have done what other regular folk have done as we’ve stumbled onto the idea that in the near future we will see less fossil fuel energy available to human race. As a movement I think we’ve freaked out a bit.

The impact of peak oil isn’t to be taken lightly but the framing of the issue, in hindsight, could have been a bit more productive in my humble opinion. Personally I could have done a better job of discussing the possible positives of the response. Instead I have responded fearfully at times. Angry at others. Mostly though people just want to know how to cope. They want to see some examples of positive change.

But the G & D response can’t help but be expected, in our defense. If you go rearranging the future of almost anyone to an extreme degree, that individual is likely to respond with some sort of negative emotion. My wife sometimes kiddingly explains that I am planning for the end of the world, which is not at all true. But seen through the eyes of others who do not better understand our society’s utter dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil, this massive wave of chatter about everything and anything ‘peak oil’ must seem as quite the gloomy doom prophecy- ‘The End of the World’ indeed. We’ve focused largely on the negatives and who wants to be a part of that?

Regardless it looks more certain now that Crude Oil plus NGL peaked in May of 2005 and all liquids peaked in July of 2006. In other words it seems increasingly likely that the world’s oil supply will be unable to increase and meet world oil demand; no matter how many majick wands the traditional economists wave. Still though few among the regular media want to be the bearer of bad news. And such a harsh reality visited upon the western world won't be favorably received. So we get coverage of an event like to day- the historic high price of oil at more than $80 per barrel- without a mention of peak oil. Oh the author hints all around it but won’t come out and say it. The emphasis of course is mine.

“The combination of robust long-term demand growth and lagging non-OPEC supply suggests that strong support for oil prices is set to remain a feature of the markets beyond 2010,” he quotes Deutsche Bank chief energy economist Adam Sieminski as saying.

“The tight supply and demand picture is the main reason cited for oil’s price surge since 2002, when it traded at just $20 a barrel,” article author Hargreaves goes on to mention.

“High demand in the United States, as well as developing nations like China, India and Brazil, has not been met with a similar increase in oil supplies," Hargreaves says before adding,

“That means the difference in what the world could currently produce and what it consumes has narrowed, which magnifies the effect of any supply disruption - such as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico or even a possible war with Iran - as there is less spare capacity elsewhere to pick up the slack.”

In other words since we can’t get more oil out of the ground than we did this time last year, the growth economy is going to groan under this new limit.

I would like to pause and add that the author of this article did his home work and recognized that the price of oil is still below the all time high when adjusted for inflation. That number, which he does offer, is approximately $90 per barrel. With an increase in oil prices this year alone of around 30%, I’ll let you guess when we’ll pass the majick $90 per barrel mark. And I’ll let you guess as to if that new peak in price will offer enough incentive to those writing for the mainstream media to come out and say peak oil is here. Or if it will scare them further into avoiding the truth.

Sam explains that the Economist (yes that publication) has mentioned peak oil.

Ok so I haven’t heard of Peak Oil either.

Alright so what do I do about peak oil?

What else?

Enough already. You’ve mentioned gloomy doom. Tell me something cheerful about peak oil. Please…

please come and join in the change

This coming weekend, September 14 - 16, 2007, the International Forum on Globalization is hosting a Teach-In with an incredible line up of speakers at George Washington University in Washington D.C. There's also a pretty big anti-war demonstration going on that weekend in D.C. so here's your chance to express yourself and get educated about the effects of America's imperial nature. See you there?

More info here

national hoarding

What are the odds that this blog has influenced Russian domestic policy? I would estimate somewhere around 0%. I did read with interest though when a little birdie told me about an article in the Financial Times entitled, Moscow Considers Wheat Export Ban.

Russia is considering a ban on cereals exports in a move that exacerbates fears that wheat prices, already at an all-time high, could surge further on reduced supplies, European cereal traders said.

Russia, the world’s fifth largest wheat exporter, is concerned about rising local bread prices and inflation ahead of legislative elections in December.

The first interesting aspect of this article is the way it seems to suggest that the Russians are learning from past mistakes. In a previous post I suggested that USSR's inability to *grow* enough grain, not Russia's inability to buy it, led in part to the instability that brought about the collapse of that nation. Maybe some Russian policy maker somewhere in Moscow came to the same conclusion and wants to avoid making the same mistake twice.

Something else to take from this article is the ripple effect the food export ban is having worldwide.

The discussion of an export ban is also fueling panic buying by some food-importing countries, such as Egypt and India...

What we don't need to add to the geopolitical soup of the 21st century is a sprinkle of spicy countries unable to produce enough food to feed their people.

And it turns out Russia isn't alone in their coming limitations on food export.

Moscow’s concern comes as other food-exporting countries, such as Ukraine and Indonesia, try to rein in foreign sales amid rising prices.

So we see this has the makings of a trend. And I think it's worth mentioning that post peak oil we're likely to see a whole host of other export limitations. The current Bush administration might call it, "A necessary step to increase national security through the limitation of the sales of important resources to other countries." I might call it national hoarding. Whatever it's called it's not surprising to see it start with a basic commodity like grain, and there's little doubt that we're going to see such restrictions on oil exports in the future. It might even spark a war or two.

It's also important to note that the article explains that global wheat inventories are at a 26 year low. This is because we have more mouths to feed and also because of poor weather conditions in many of the wheat producing regions of the world. Climate change and unsustainable agricultural practices are already having an impact on our ability to feed ourselves as a species. I'm hoping it won't have to get harder for us here in America (producer of an above average percentage of global greenhouse gasses and a large amount of grain) to feed ourselves before we start to make change.

When civilizations collapse one often sited aspect is a disconnect between the leaders and problems facing those in the rest of society. As the world's reigning superpower we are undoubtedly leading, albeit in the wrong direction. And I would argue we're doing so because of a huge disconnected from the hunger and unrest pervasive throughout the rest of the world.

For instance our neighbor to the south, Mexico, has seen rioting because of a rise in their dietary staple, the corn tortilla. The media is even calling them The Tortilla Riots. This is a direct result of farmers selling corn to the U.S. for ethanol production. But do we hear about this in mainstream America? Nope. What we hear is politicians, choking on hubris, telling us that we can keep the SUV's running on ethanol. Such is the dangerous disconnect that could lead, this time around, to a collapse not just of an individual society but to a larger collapse including the much touted globalized economy. The possible decision by the Russians to stop selling grain abroad appears to support the idea that at least someone in that country is paying attention to a potiential political spark that could destabilize that country, a basic need that left unmet would mean an angry population. I dare say that the leaders of government in the U.S. seem largely unaware of anything other than the needs of their corporate sponsors.

But is that a bit harsh? After all many of us know someone who works at Wal-Mart and uses that paycheck to buy food. Where would they get their food if the global economy collapsed? The truth is we have allowed a small percentage of the population to gut this country of it's ability to do for itself; systematically destroying the ability of citizens and local communities to take care of their own needs, especially in terms of agriculture. As a people, we've sat idly by watching the whole makeover on television as we've been transformed from a nation of producers into a nation of consumers.



We are as much to blame as Monsanto. OK maybe not quite as much to blame as them but still it has happened on our watch and now we must do something about it. Just as the USSR found itself unable to provide food for its people and faced an angry populace, we too are in for a rough ride when the economics of growth run up against the unarguable limits of energy and resources. And it appears our leaders are in the driver's seat, pedal to the floor as we approach the cliff. It is us the people that must address this concern and we must address it from the local level up.

This article should be a wake up call, another ring in the chorus of alarm clocks begging us to wake up from the American dream and recognize that the way we live is unsustainable and that we can change now because we have the foresight and courage to do so, or we can wait until the change is unmercifully thrown upon us.

feed your children as told

The following is part of an article run recently at MSNBC. If you are still skeptical as to who runs this country- its citizens, the government, or corporations- just have a read. All emphasis added is mine.

Industry pressure waters down breast-feed ads
Under pressure from infant formula lobby, appointees dilute campaign

By Marc Kaufman and Christopher Lee

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity. In a February 2004 letter, the lobbyists told then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson they were "grateful" for his staff's intervention to stop health officials from "scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding," and asked for help in scaling back more of the ads.

The formula industry's intervention -- which did not block the ads but helped change their content -- is being scrutinized by Congress in the wake of last month's testimony by former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona that the Bush administration repeatedly allowed political considerations to interfere with his efforts to promote public health.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating allegations from former officials that Carmona was blocked from participating in the breast-feeding advocacy effort and that those designing the ad campaign were overruled by superiors at the formula industry's insistence.

Political interference?

"This is a credible allegation of political interference that might have had serious public health consequences," said Waxman, a California Democrat.

The milder campaign HHS eventually used had no discernible impact on the nation's breast-feeding rate, which lags behind the rate in many European countries.

Some senior HHS officials involved in the deliberations over the ad campaign defended the outcome, saying the final ads raised the profile of breast-feeding while following the scientific evidence available then -- which they say did not fully support the claims of the original ad campaign.

But other current and former HHS officials say the muting of the ads was not the only episode in which HHS missed a chance to try to raise the breast-feeding rate. In April, according to officials and documents, the department chose not to promote a comprehensive analysis by its own Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of multiple studies on breast-feeding, which generally found it was associated with fewer ear and gastrointestinal infections, as well as lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.

The report did not assert a direct cause and effect, because doing so would require studies in which some women are told not to breast-feed their infants -- a request considered unethical, given the obvious health benefits of the practice.

entire article available here

coming economic gut punch?

The government said this morning that the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 4% in the second quarter of 2007. However, there’s an awful lot of interesting talk from less official sources. I have to agree with John Michael Greer- that we have wasted our eleventh hour and we might be about to experience some of the painful consequences of our dependence on oil.

Does this mean that we’re finally, for real, at the eleventh hour? That’s the richest and most bitter irony of all. As Robert Hirsch and his colleagues pointed out not long ago in a crucial study, the only way to respond effectively to Peak Oil on a national scale, and stave off massive economic and social disruptions, is to start preparations twenty years before the arrival of peak petroleum production. The eleventh hour, in other words, came and went in 1986, and no amount of pressure, protest, or wishful thinking can make up for the opportunity that was missed then. Listen carefully today and you can hear the sound of the clock tolling twelve, reminding us that the eleventh hour is gone for good.

Here’s a quick round up of charts and articles that all point towards a swift punch in the stomach for the U.S. economy.

Peak Oil is real and in the rearview mirror.

charts from The Oil Drum

Of course that means trouble for automotive America.

chart from Gas Buddy

Why would someone bet a huge amount of $ against the $ system?

From Money Morning,

Insiders trade when they know something. They’re not supposed to, but they do anyway. It’s just a fact of life.

Most of the time, it’s pretty petty-ante stuff, but occasionally a trade comes along that makes even jaded professionals like me sit up and take notice.

Just such a trade surfaced last Wednesday when anonymous parties agreed to buy and sell 120,000 SPY September call options using deep-in the-money strikes ranging from 60 to 95…

Any way you cut it, this is a monster trade because it controls 12,000,000 SPY shares. In fact, at a blended price of $7,500 per option, this works out to a $900 million bet that will play out by Sept. 21, when these options expire…

In essence, this trade potentially suggests that a very large player has effectively sold his or her SPY holdings for cash, without pressuring the market downward. If this is true, whoever placed this trade is essentially betting that the SPY – and, by extension, the broader market – will lose anywhere from 35% to 55% of its value in the next three weeks.

And there’s the current level of instability in the economy.

From Financial Sense,

As we move into September we must keep in mind that historically it is the worst month of the year for the stock markets. Years ending in 7 are particularly nasty as outlined in the July 15^th edition of the “Crack up boom” series. With the events this year, it would argue for more turmoil. As outlined in the previous edition of ‘Fingers of Instability’, we are waiting for the cockroaches to emerge into the headlines and in this missive we will put a few “fingers” on them. The turmoil unfolding in the financial sectors of banks and prime brokers has a lot further to run before it will be safe to play on the long side. On the short side however, opportunities would appear to abound.

And this last one sure doesn’t exactly make me want to go out and spend money.

chart from George Ure

Perhaps the U.S. economy (and by default the global economy) will keep chugging along just fine. Maybe I’m just being silly. There is after all plenty to be happy about as the GDP surged ahead this spring… said the Commerce Department.

‘Hug me till you drug me, honey;
Kiss me till I'm in a coma:
Hug me, honey, snuggly bunny;
Love's as good as soma.’

-Aldous Huxley

fighting over the way we live

Two videos I recently watched have been haunting my dreams. The first is Henry Rollins, "short, gray and angry" in Israel doing his spoken word best about the war. The second is Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil giving a great 30 minute talk about how peak oil could very well bring more violence into our world. Klare spells out his concern with a clarity that might make any peak oil activist more concerned about the geopolitical response to peak oil and less concerned about renewable resources, although the two are obviously intertwined. If we're willing to let our President continue a war we know to have been started based on an inaccuracy (or a combination of inaccuracies) are we really going to stop him or others like him from fighting once peak oil makes our energy situation much more apparent to the general population? I certainly hope that we can recognize the unsustainability of our lifestyle and accept changes in the way we live and do so in a peaceful manner, but there are people saying things like, "The American way of life is non-negotiable," which loosely translates, "Kick their ass & take their gas."

Peak oil is very much an issue of social justice. We are already seeing its effects on third world countries and on the poor right here in America. But we must also recognize that we are trading our children to the military so we can drive big cars and eat cheap food from far away. More oil means more fighting. It's just that simple. And I'm not saying that over night we should condemn those among us who drive big cars or eat food from far away. Many people are unaware of the depth of the connection between oil and our American way of life. I'm saying it's up to those of us who do know to share that message. And I think sharing it by shouting at SUV drivers isn't going to help. We must make changes in our own imperfect lives and then share those changes with others. That is how we can share the message without alienating others. We must make and share change first and foremost because it is the right thing to do, but like Henry Rollins points out, we must also do so because if we do not change and we do not stand in opposition to violence on our behalf- if we do not stop this war over oil- our children will inherit it. And I for one do not want to have to look at my daughter and say, "I'm sorry, I stood by and let the war rage on. Good luck with your depleted, dirty world full of violence."

Step One: Openly Oppose The War

Step Two: Reduce Your Dependency On Oil



Click Here for the Michael Klare Video

Shalom

learn from the fall of rome, u.s. warned

This article is a must read for every American.

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

It was published today in the Financial Times. From the article,

The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.

It goes on to say that,

there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

Who is being interviewed for this article? Mr. David M. Walker, the current comptroller general of the United States. That means he runs the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Here a little from the official website of the GAO.

Mr. Walker is the nation’s chief accountability officer and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO’s mission is to help improve the performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. GAO has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and balanced reviews of government programs and operations.

This isn’t some crazed tree hugging hippie. This is the head of what is basically the investigative arm of congress. We know the GAO gets peak oil. The question is, how much louder will Mr. Walker have to shout before enough people start to listen. Does he have the lungs and can we make a change?

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that civilizations don’t collapse or even decline for just one reason. Jared Diamond, who wrote ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed’ (2005) points to five factors: environmental degradation, climate change, hostile enemies, lack of support from friendly neighbors, and the way in which a society chooses to respond to these problems. Run through that list again with current events in mind. Ask yourself how we’ve chosen as a nation to respond to these problems.

growing our own and more on the bullseye diet

It was mainly Peak Oil that drove me out into my garden with a new mission; no longer just to grow a few tomatoes for fun each summer, but in an effort to grow the majority of the food my family eats. I set out a goal of producing more calories than I consume on my own property and within 5 years. I called my project “Growing My Own.” But there were others factors tugging at me, entreating me to take personal responsibility for the needs of my diet.

And I can see now that there are lots of other people becoming interested in local food and they’re doing so for a variety of reasons. Some of them want to avoid the potential health threats increasingly associated with industrial agriculture. You can get your daily update of just what food has been recently recalled as a health hazard by visiting this handy website – the U.S. FDA recall website. The fact that such a site exists is a telltale sign of our increasingly dysfunctional relationship with what we eat. To be sure there have always been local incidents of accidental food poisonings and the like, but now that our system of growing and distributing food is so centralized, the risk of mass contamination from food borne illness is much higher. My favorite example is the recent Castleberry’s Chili recall in which cans were literally bursting with botulism. In the face of all the human health problems swirling around the anonymous origins of industrial food, many people are now opting to get their food from known local sources.

Some people see local food as a social justice issue. It’s becoming more widely recognized that giant food corporations use money, or sometimes much more dubious means, to displace subsistence farmers in developing nations in order to gain access to cheap farmland; and later cheap labor as the displaced farmers now must work for money with which to buy imported food they once grew themselves. Or as my friend George recently put it, “Now, if you'll just sign over your third world natural resources and any infrastructure you have, we'll send you paper which you can trade back to us for food...ain't globalism grand?” Add to that the subsidies embedded in the U.S. farm bill, recently renewed, that hands out millions of tax dollars to huge AgriBizCorps that then undersell struggling farmers in developing nations. It’s easy to see why buying local makes more sense in terms of global social issues, not least among them hunger in the third world.

But there is another more local reason to get your food from close to home; eating in such a way supports local communities. Why on Earth would I send my money half way across the country when I can put it in my neighbor’s pocket? Supporting local farmers through programs like Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) or just visiting your local farmers market helps share the burden and the benefits of farmers trying to grow food and sell it locally. This is a fast growing trend.

Some people have come to recognize another benefit of eating locally- it tastes better! What’s that you say? You’re store bought tomato tastes like cardboard? Of course it does. It was breed to be shipped long distances and sit on store shelves for weeks; and it has. If you want tasty varieties bred for eating and picked just yesterday and shipped only a few miles, you’ll have to visit more local sources. Maybe even your own backyard.

Other people are worried about the effects of global warming and the coming changes to the overall climate on Earth. Even a steady, gradual increase in global temperature would be difficult to deal with agriculturally speaking but we are likely instead to see a climate system thrown into disorder with wild swings in temperature during the course of individual seasons with some regions experiencing extreme drought while others flood, not to mention bigger storms. Add to this a rise in sea level that will increase the number of people displaced by climatic events and it could be a very tough time to grow food as our global climates changes out from under us. It is no wonder then that some people are seeking to secure their sources of food. And with security increasingly easier to archive as one approaches one’s own home, many people are looking to eat local or even grow their own food as a response to global warming. It’s also worth pointing out that those who look towards local food security as a response to climate change often do so with the knowledge that they are greatly reducing their impact on the warming of the planet by turning away from industrial agriculture. That system of growing food is by the way, responsible for a fair amount of the greenhouse gasses we put off into the atmosphere each year.

I dare say some people are even beginning to think about local food production as an issue of sovereignty. If as a community or a state or even as a nation, you can’t feed your people on your own, then you are beholden to others for one of the most important of human needs. I recently posited that a closer look at the collapse of the Soviet might be more appropriately focused on their need for grain rather than only on their declining oil and natural gas revenues which made it harder for them to buy grain. After all, you don’t have to buy it if you grow it yourself. Individuals and communities of all sizes are beginning to recognize this fact. It’s coming to be seen as an issue of state and national security. I think local food production should be part of local community planning for the very same reason.

So let’s review, we have a highly centralized food system that easily distributes food borne pathogens quickly to lots and lots of people, we increasing use the land base of people in the developing world to cheaply grow our food often at their expense, we line the pockets of far away companies at the expense of our local farmers, we settle for bland food bred to make the long haul across country, we pollute our planet and warm our atmosphere so as to have cheap cumquats when every we want them and we leave ourselves vulnerable to others in terms of meeting one of our most basic human needs, all by not eating local. I think it’s easy to see why people are beginning to reexamine the curious strategy of industrial agriculture.

For me though it was peak oil. My decision to become more self sufficient in terms of food production came from an examination of just how much industrial agriculture depends on oil and other fossil fuels. Global oil production is peaking, in other words there is more oil available at this point in history than there will be ever again. From this high point, worldwide oil production will decline no matter what we do. Likewise a peak in natural gas (NG) will occur within a decade or so. With a little research I discovered commercial pesticides are made from petroleum and commercial fertilizers are made from a feedstock of NG. Not a happy thought when you consider the coming decline in the availability of these nonrenewable resources. And it’s becoming more widely recognized that on average our food travels about 1500 miles from the farm fields to our dinner tables. When I considered the diesel fuel used to truck this food across the country I became even more worried about where my food would come from in the future; and what it will cost.

So my plan was to “Grow My Own” and by doing so to remove myself and my family from a highly questionable system of industrial agriculture. I wanted to work to regain my own food sovereignty for lots of reasons. In other words I decided to garden like mad!

The problem is though that my goal of near self sufficiency in terms of producing all my own food was an extremely difficult if not impossible goal to achieve. Of course in parallel with my idea of growing all of my own food, a gathering movement of other people, fed up with industrial agriculture, was growing in size. This movement now includes all sorts of programs and strategies devoted towards other options for dinner. CSA’s, the 100 Miles Diet, the Slow Food movement, a resurgence in Farmers Markets, all of these practices have taken off and are proving more and more people with an alternative way to eat. I began to participate in some of them. I did this in concert with my efforts to grow more of my food, which has expanded into a cooperative effort to grow food with neighbors in multiple locations. In my neighborhood we are taking over a vacant lot and we are gardening in the sunny backyard of an elderly neighbor. And it has become increasingly clear that while I probably would never be able to grow all of my own food on my own property, there were overlapping system by which I could get healthy food grown nearby in ways that use fewer fossil fuels and produce less pollution.

But being a philosophical sort of person, I needed a conceptual way to organize my increasingly entangled way of thinking about local food. These multiple strategies seemed interwoven and yet I wasn’t always sure where to focus my best efforts. And that is when the idea of The Bullseye Diet emerged. OK so at first I called it ‘Concentric Circles of Eating.’ I know, how geometrically nerdy. But luckily my friend and co-author Sharon Astyk offered up a much more pleasant name and The Bullseye Diet was born.

The idea is to imagine sourcing your food as a good game of darts where the dart board represents your geographical region. A great shot ends up in the bullseye- your own home- eating food you have grown yourself. As you move outwards on the board, your next nearest food source is usually your best bet. How much food can you grow in your neighborhood? How about buying food from a farmer just outside of town? Can you get other foods from your surrounding region? How much can you obtain from within your own state? The idea is that the closer to home- the closer to the bullseye- the better.

Here is Sharon’s introduction to this new mental model of eating.

And here’s a link to audio of her talking to Jason Bradford about The Bullseye Diet and about her upcoming book Depletion and Abundance: The New Home Front, Families and the Coming Ecological Crises

We both thinking existing ways of encouraging local eating, like the 100 Mile Diet, are great and work well within the bullseye strategy. This Bullseye model though places the consumer at the center where she or he recaptures the rightful role of producer. We have been told for so long in this country that we are first and foremost consumers and that notion has become pervasive in our culture. In fact the idea of a nation of consumers has replaced our national identity as citizens, as participants in our own lives and in our civil institutions. All our modern conveniences of entertainment and travel have offered the same concept and in doing so they have removed us as active and important participants in our local communities. We don’t talk with neighbors as we watch our children play each evening. We mainly stare at reality TV. We do not walk or bike where we are going, using our own muscles to get us there. We drive and burn a nonrenewable resource that pollutes our planet. But eating food from far away, this geographical disconnect from the very sustenance that keeps us alive, is at the heart of direct experience and we have given it up as well.

There are many reasons above to begin again to get involved in how and what we eat. Some of them are out of prudence, others out of loyalty and all of them I think out of common sense. But it is this idea of regaining our ability to feed ourselves by putting our own food on the table for our family, it is this idea that I think can jump start a revolution in rejection of excess consumption and the rampant materialism of our age. Moving from a nation of eaters towards a nation of growers will do more than shed our extra weight. It will directly address our reliance on others to do for us what we can do for ourselves and in doing so it will put us back in control of how we live our lives. It could be, dare I say it will be the first step towards a revolution.

peak oil? tell me more

OK so I was about to share what I think is the best single source explanation of Peak Oil available to date. This combination of two documents by Gail E. Tverberg , contributor at The Oil Drum, includes well thought out explanations of the most frequently offered oppositional questions and it comes complete with graphs and charts. Who amongst us doesn't long for such a document with which to set forth out into our sphere of family, friends and even unknown neighbors in search of others with whom to share the truth! And then I read the latest post from my friend and coauthor Sharon Astyk and realized that even such an excellent document might have flaws based on its universal approach. From Sharon,

…most solutions have concentrated on creating a *single* simple method of explaining peak oil, when what is needed is a highly specialized approach, designed to help people grasp the issue in the most basic terms imaginable. Being a helpful sort, I have undertaken to provide those explanations. Thus, all you need to do is evaluate the person you are explaining things too, and from there, insert the proper explanation.

At which point I realized that her tongue in check approach to explaining this fairly straightforward scientific clarification concerning global petroleum depletion might well serve as the best model. An example of the approach:

-If the Person is a lot like: An Uber-Soccer Mom

The way to explain it is: "Yes, I heard how awful it was that the coach criticized your Christina - I agree, that he was completely out of line to hurt her self esteem like that. Speaking of self-esteem, did you know I've lost 11lbs on the 100-mile diet? I feel great, and I fit into some clothes I haven't worn since Jared was born. All that fresh produce and unprocessed food has been so wonderful - Mike says I look younger too, and it seems to improve my skin. And Jennifer is a lot less hyperactive since we've been biking everywhere. And Lisa is writing her college application essay on the impact of our environmental lifestyle changes. My friend Rita who is a guidance counselor told me that this will really help differentiate her from all the soccer players and school newspaper writers for the people at Yale. Green is the new black, you know."

The solution you offer is: That you will be thinner, happier, sexier and your kids will be smarter if you do this stuff. Oh, and btw, it saves energy too.

Alright so if you want to know how to approach a specific individual I highly recommend Sharon's latest which you can read here:

How To Explain Peak Oil it Anyone

But, least this individualized approach brings you no fruitful results, or if you just don't think that fast on your feet, feel free to use this one-size-fits-all approach.

What is Peak Oil? pdf

Is This a False Alarm? pdf

These two documents really are great. Now go on, write to your Congressperson. Or better yet, share the most important news item of this decade with the people you most care about. They really need to know.