movie of a lifetime

Pretend, for a moment that we're in a very crowded theater watching a movie. But, the movie is incredibly good - best and most exciting movie we have ever seen. Drama, excitement, and periodically, people in the audience are actually getting rich. This is NOT the kind of movie you want to leave before the surprise ending you can see building. It's many movies on many screens, all playing in a sensory overloading way. Still, there's a wisp of smoke in the air…

-George Ure

My early education concerning peak energy and climate change centered on learning facts. The world consumes X million barrels of oil or X parts per million of some such greenhouse gas is likely to lead to an X increase in global temperature. Most of it was scary to someone who had grown up thinking in linear terms, someone who had been told by almost everyone that tomorrow would a lot like today only things will be better because everything will be bigger, work faster and be more widely available. Let’s just say I wasn’t reading Limits to Growth in high school. When I was little I did wonder how humans could continue to break the laws of nature so recklessly. But like many other Americans I chalked it up to human intelligence.

Now having spent years reading and writing, listening and talking, learning and teaching others about a whole host of topics that range from urban agriculture to bike culture, a curious thing has happened. I've recognized that no matter how hard I try I will not be entirely ready to leave this consumer culture, no matter what happens, until it more fully collapses. That is, it will never completely end. That doesn't really explain what I'm trying to say. Here let me have another go.

My preparation for what I believe is in store for Industrial Civilization (a steady overall decline with a few quick drops thrown in for excitement) eventually led me back to my old idea of convergence. The idea of a self converging personality nearly drove me crazy in my first year at university. I left the nest and struggled heartily with who I was supposed to be; as if there was a perfect person if only I could become him. But after wrestling with this for quite some time I discovered life for me wasn't going to be about converging at all. It wasn't about becoming a 6' - 2" architect with a wife, 2 kids and that perfect picket fence people are always talking about. It was in fact the opposite. Life was about diverging, about expanding not contracting. I like to learn and do new things and try different experiences. So much so that to try and contain myself, even if that containment is centered around a prudent response to a fundamental change in our way of life here in America, just doesn't work.

It's not acceptable for me to respond to peak oil and climate change by creating a new model of just exactly what I should be and then focusing most or all of my energy on becoming that model, a 6' -2" urban farming bicycle rider who doesn't eat meat. It's not that farming or riding a bike or being a vegetarian are bad things in and of themselves. But I think recently I slipped back into a mode of preparation that excludes not only some time wasting activities I used to do for fun but also has strained my relationships with other people who haven't been willing to make change quite as rapidly as I have. I built a mold and then I worked to press myself into that mold as quickly as possible. My direction of change is already proving itself prudent. But my method of change, not so much. To some extent it has depressed me out of my formerly cheerful wandering ways and this I lament.

I once sent a friend a message by carefully cracking open willow oak acorns (think very small) and putting into each one of them a tiny piece of paper and then supergluing the nut back together so it appeared unopened. One letter of the alphabet went into each of about a dozen acorns which were mailed to my friend who eventually figured it out, opened them up and pieced together a completely different message than the one I had intended. In a strange coincidence the new message meant almost the same thing as the originally message had intended one. But I don't send special messages in acorns anymore. In fact I don't collect acorns in the fall as often as I have been known to in the past. No goofing off when peak oil is just around the corner!

Now there's wasting time and then there's wasting time. I'm not going back to watching Wheel of Fortune on weekday evenings. But I think what I've discovered is that what's most important about addressing energy descent and climate change is a change of mind. That might sound a bit cliché but it really is true. What I've learned by adopting new skills and more knowledge is that being open to change- actually inviting it in for dinner and a conversation when it knocks on the door- is the key to being able to handle that change. We can handle a world with less energy. We can handle a world with some fluctuations in climate. Some challenges are going to be difficult. I'm not going all Pollyanna on you but it seems like the most difficult part for most people is accepting that things are changing. We have peaked in oil production and largely wrecked our biosphere but we mustn't shrug from the challenge of change, and it must happen first in our minds if it's going to happen at all.

That’s all good and well I can hear you saying. It sounds easy but I know it is not. I will even assume that some of you reading this will not bring yourselves to initiate the changes of a lower energy lifestyle until you are forced into that change by situation. And I feel bad for you because in the end, the changes won't be nearly as bad as anticipated. Like a math test or breaking up with a love interest, the worst part is the dread leading up to it.

Take for instance this riding-my-bike change I’ve made. It isn’t a pain in the ass. It's actually great. If little green women arrive tomorrow from the planet Xervzeron and offer us a source of unlimited energy that can fuel our fleet of automobiles with no damage to the environment what so ever I will still ride my bike to work next week because it is just more fun than driving a car. Alright I might drive on rainy days in January but my point stands. Biking is just better than driving. We've adopted some really silly habits as a result of cheap energy and breaking them, like breaking any habit, can be difficult. But it starts with the idea that you can change, that it is possible. The hard part is deciding to decide.

I am very fearful of what will happen when it suddenly becomes apparent to most people that the theater is in fact on fire. The metaphoric run for the exits could get ugly. In a way it already has. Those in power in this country understand that our way of life is based on oil and have sent our armed forces (and a lot of other hired guns) to try and keep control over the last great quantity of oil. But I'm talking here about the reaction of Average Joe and Average Jane America when they find out that they can't drive huge cars and eat grapes from Chile in December and that suddenly they're poor because their country’s economy has imploded. And I think that will happen. The most noticeable effect of energy descent early on (and then a little later climate change) will be economic implosion. Our economy is after all based on expansion and will not work well as resource availability contracts. But as contraction is forced upon us in terms of material goods and all the resources needed to create them, we have the opportunity to reverse our thinking; to allow our minds to imagine again other possibilities. We can choose to expand our minds even as our economy contracts.

Which is a long winded way of saying that I think I need to broaden my plan to include not just one strategy but more of an idea of flexibility. It’s a balancing act because I don't want to spend time on activities that will be useless in a few years but inherent in that statement is the idea that I know what will happen in a few years. I have an idea of what will happen. I think I have a better idea than those folks who think a few years from now will look like today only things will be better because everything will be bigger, work faster and be more widely available. I now understand a crucial idea left out of my early education- limits. But I don't know exactly what the future will look like so how can I say exactly what I should be doing as those limits show up?

Instead I’m developing parallel strategies that will keep me flexible. One will hedge against a collapse of the dollar and severe and rapid changes to American society just in case that happens. This translates into activities like putting more food away and saving money outside of the formal banking system. Another strategy though will focus on fun and happy changes that are just better for me like riding a bike and cooking with whole ingredients. And yet another will focus on enjoing life as it exists now. This might include driving a car on a date with my wife where we eat food even though we don’t know where it came from. Later we might see a movie made about all that is American in the very first part of the 21^st century. It is important for me to strengthen my relationships with people in my life who are significant to me even if they have yet to commit to some of the other changes I am making. And even if I am hoping they will make more change soon. This will mean keeping one foot in the mainstream world even as I prepare for something different. And that’s ok, it’s important until the future revels itself a little more fully.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm trying to view my response in more broad terms now because I can't be sure of what will actually happen. It seems prudence to blend making change, having fun and taking up the challenges of being ready if more serious disaster descends.

To end this afternoon’s ramble I’d like to return to the idea of the movie mentioned at the beginning of this story; the fascinating show that keeps most Americans mesmerized and completely oblivious to that ‘faint wisp of smoke in the air.’ When I was younger I used to attend movies by myself. On one particular evening while at University I went to see a late night movie and sat through almost all of it. I don’t remember the name of the film but it wasn’t particularly good. I had a lot on my mind and was having trouble paying attention. So, near the end I simply got up and walked out of the theater. It was a brisk, fall night and I remember the cool air and sudden rush at being outside in the dark and in the silent grassy courtyard next to the school theater. I sat down on a bench and was alone with my thoughts. Everyone else was watching the last of the show. And then after 20 minutes or so, with my nose now pink from the cold, people started to trickle out of the building. They emerged from the movie and I was no longer by myself outside. For the life of me I can’t remember what I was thinking after I abandoned the movie but I remember the shock of getting out; the images gone, the sounds gone, the peacefulness of loneliness and the loneliness of loneliness. And when the movie was finished and I was no longer alone, I remember being happy it was over.

no '08 run

It's official. I have decided not to run for the office of the President of the United States of America in 2008. I made this decision for several reasons but not because I think I couldn't do a better job than the idiot who is doing it now. Say what you want about past presidents, both Democrats and Republicans alike but this fellow we have now is an absolute moron. Which is one of the reasons I was thinking of running. Because it seems that the back-to-back elections of George W. Bush proved a point. America's collective reasoning is at an all time low. Here's my chance, and the chance of anyone else who isn't really qualified to run a nation, to become "a leader" or as he puts it, "a decider" in charge of guiding the course of American events. I mean if the public could be convinced that this fool is capable of running our country, then all I need is several hundred million dollars and I too could be come decider of the free world!

And Al Gore wins the Noble Peace prize today. Don't get me wrong, Gore has done more to break our national sleepwalking stance towards global warming than anyone else in the world. But he didn't do anything about it while in office; not even an elevation of CAFE standards to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of children who died as a result of his administration's sponsorship of Iraq sanctions. Never mind working off his extra pounds, do you know how many lifetimes it'll take to work off that karmic weight?

Even Jimmy Carter who seems to be telling it like it is these days was a former oil sympathizer. He did try, with what seemed like real conviction, to tell the American people in 1979 that we were headed for ruin if we continued to consume everything, including oil, with reckless abandon. But six months later he had changed his tune. The Carter Doctrine was born and now we kill for oil. It seems that those who lead us officially, even those of them who are bright, do an awfully bad job of it while in office. So I'm going to skip the official position and stay sane, keep my soul and try and help from the outside.

What is it about being President or holding any political office that makes that person into a stooge capable only of pointing us in the wrong direction? I would argue it's mostly money. When corporations sponsor elections in almost the same fashion that they sponsor NASCAR races then this is what we get. Not leaders- intelligent, thoughtful, communicative people helping to lead our country- but corporate clowns doing what is in the interest of big business first and attending our needs when they get around to it, if at all. How long the American people will put up with this depends on how long they are willing to sit in stupor amid a mix of infotainment and propaganda that makes most of them thoughtless. Or as my friend Jim says of the situation, "a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid." In other words we have gotten what we deserve.

But enough! you say. Offer a solution and stop your bitching. OK! I answer here you go. How to fix the US government. Solutions offered with he help of my aforementioned friend Jim,

Number One: Publicly Fund Elections. The right to free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire" in a crowed thearter. It also does not include the right to completely corrupt our system of government. Tax the riches 1% of Americans who own 35% of everything in this country to fund all federal elections. If you don't make several millions dollars a year you won't feel anything, except possibly freedom. Congressmen and women get $500,000 a piece to run elections. Senators get $1.5 million. For a grand total of about $1.5 billion. Or less than we spend in a week in Iraq. By the way that number includes enough money to fund a mandatory minimum of 4 candidates per office. No more "two" party crap.

Number Two: No Incumbents. One term and then you run for a different office or become a private citizen again but once you've held an office you can not hold it again. No time for you to catch the D.C. disease of corruption.

Number Three: Public Housing For Representatives. If you get elected you serve like our soldiers do. You go to Washington and live in barracks with your fellow representatives. You go home 4 times a year to hear from your constituents but otherwise you serve like the men and women of our armed services. You take your meals with your fellow representatives and you bunk with everybody; Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Number Four: Spend What You Collect. Make it illegal to run a national budget deficeit. Representatives set our budget and then they adjust taxation to meet the budget. If representatives spend money, we pay for it and then we vote on better representatives if we don't like what they did. None of this 'taxing our kids' crap. We handle our national budget like a responsible family runs its own budget.

Number Five: Abolish All Income Taxation. Instead tax consumption. Exclude basics like housing and food but if you buy anything more expensive you pay more in taxes. If you save your money you don't.

Number Six: Dissolve the Federal Reserve: Put the US government back in charge of its money. No more debit creation as a way to make more money. Further support local currencies and a gift economy instead of one where the people creating items of value get poorer while the people printing money get richer.

Number Seven: Severely Restrict Corporations: Corporations aren't people. They have no souls, no conscience and no loyalty to humanity. They serve one purpose first and foremost- to make money. This usually happens at the expensive of all but a slim majority of the population. If a group of people wants to pool resources to build a bridge, fine, let them incorporate to do so. If a handful of corporations want to take over the vast majority of the agricultural industry then no, they should not be allowed.

That's it. Seven steps to a more democratic and fair republic. Hell the first three would go a great distance towards recapturing this country from those who would profit until its destruction. I'm sure there's more that could be done but maybe if we could accomplish these modest goals we could get leaders who didn't suck until they left office. We might create a system where they could offer real leadership while still in charge.

christians killing over oil?

I have a friend who serves as a Christian youth minister here in North Carolina. He lived with my wife and I during part of his seminary experience and helped me in my failed attempt to learn Biblical Greek. caraV! He recent wrote a bit about war, about our culture and about Christianity. His words brought up some thoughts I’ve been considering for a while. Wes says,

I find it very disturbing that there are faithful Christians who get deeply offended, and at times angry, when you posit the idea that war is bad, even morally wrong. And I'm not talking about veterans. It is pretty breathtaking when you think about how deeply ingrained war is in our national psyche.

And with that this youth minister has hit on one of the reasons I have distanced myself from organized Christianity of late. There are several reasons, but chief among them is the overwhelming support of American Christians for the imperialistic behavior of our nation. This behavior manifests itself as our government currently killing people in other countries. I mention this not just to point out what I believe to be a morally inappropriate position by many Christians but also to let the Church know that it is missing at least one member who is actually interested in following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Of course I know there are plenty of anti-war Christians, but their objections are far from deafening. There exist both sins of commission and of omission. More from my friend,

Someone in the workshop made a very interesting point about arguments about just war. When we talk about war, we are usually using models of geopolitics that are about 50 years out of date.

He mentions that the notion of 'just war' is out of date but I'll go further and say that such arguments aren't even necessary in the case of Iraq. That country and its leader did not have weapons of mass destruction. That country had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and yet still I hear mostly silence from the Church about an attack on Iraq that has killed thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including many children. He finishes the thought from above.

The idea of the nation-state is rapidly being superseded by the reality of the multinational corporation. I've read somewhere that WalMart represents the 7th largest economy in the world.

And this is what really piqued my interest. Here’s a Christian minister making the connection between war and big business.

Theologically speaking, we are presented with a new set of questions. The old questions (that we are still grappling with) focus on church-state issues. These are important questions, but we as the church have yet to really explore church-corporate relations. And if you want to talk about systemic sin, greed, and oppression in our world, look no further than your local walmart/taco bell/mcdonalds/exxon...etc. This is a deep, difficult, and important question because it implicates all of us in America. I'm reminded of Jesus' conversation with the rich young ruler about how to get into the Kingdom. Would I be willing to get off of the grid for the sake of the call of Jesus? Would I get rid of my tv? Internet? My car? How far would I be willing to go? I don't like that line of thought because it calls into question some very ingrained parts of my life.

I was excited to hear him address this issue because I think there has been a real failure of leadership in the Church to address the issue of war and its motivations. I have been waiting to hear not only a strong Christian call to end war but also a condemnation of a way of life dependant on war.

It's completely appropriate in my opinion that this minister raises the issue of corporate domination in an age where Nation States are losing hegemony. It's not enough to slap on a bumper sticker that says, "What Part Of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' Don't You Understand." Most anti-war activists support American Imperialism every day. When we drive our cars we support the war. When we eat processed foods we support the war. When we shop at Mal-Wart we support a way of life that is predicated on oil which we are now killing people to acquire. Here in lies a whole host of action points for Christians but largely I see nothing from greater Christianity but support for a lifestyle of consumption; a life style that requires war and so I question the sincerity of a religion that preaches one thing and practices another.

I would expect the Church to point out that we have abandoned our former ways of meetings wants and needs largely though local, even homegrown means. Now we buy everything at Mal-Wart. We don't eat homemade bread, we eat Pop-Tarts. We don't walk to work, we drive our SUV's. And in doing so we support a small group of people who make lots of money selling us what we used to do for ourselves in our own communities. This way of life is not only very insecure and unjust but requires incredible amounts of energy, which comes to us mainly in the form of fossil fuels; most notably petroleum. Petroleum production peaked worldwide in July of 2006. Less oil will be available to us each year from now until forever. Two thirds of the oil that is still in the ground lies under the sands of the Middle East. There is little wonder why we attacked Iraq without real cause. It is a shame that the American business interests mentioned above mean to keep us consuming, or as John Michael Greer recently put it, “turning resources into pollution”, as fast as possible until those resources are gone because that is how those in power acquire wealth. But it is our shame that we continue to let them.

It really doesn’t even have to be about our over consumptive culture supporting an empire driven to war. Our consumption, our greed and gluttony themselves should be enough to turn our Christian stomachs. I know of another bumper sticker on the car of a Christian friend that says, 'Live Simply So That Other May Simply Live,' and I want to ask her why not give up the car itself? Sell it and use the money to help others “simply live.” Why not walk? Why not bike? Why not abandon the idea that more, bigger, faster is an appropriate national mantra? Why not reject the idea that stuff is more important than people? Why not imagine a better American dream? Why not step outside of a culture that has replaced its citizens with consumers? Doing so would not only be in keeping with the teachings of Christ. It would also make us healthier, happier and a better nation- truly evangelical and patriotic ideas!

Let me end by saying that more than one person has already labeled me a copout because I don’t engage directly with my congregation on these matters or at least find a more peace-friendly church. These are legitimate criticisms of my distance from the church. But anyone who has struggled with faith knows that such efforts are complex. And I wrote this not as an indictment of all Christians. I wrote it because I think my friend raises some good points. I wanted to share them and the fact that at least one disillusioned Christian is missing from the fold because he is dismayed that those of fellow faith are not leading the way back to a life of balance, of simplicity; a way of life that wouldn't require war or the use of so much oil on which the current war is based. I'm looking to the Church and the majority of Americans, who claim Christianity, for leadership on issues of energy and the environment and I am mostly disappointed.

how the internet could save us

This post isn't going to start off sounding like it has anything to do with peak oil, climate change, resources depletion or any of the other topics I use to organize my thoughts here. It's going to be about technology, about communication, about music and about just how handy the dang 'ole Internet might turn out to be post peak carbon. Of course anyone reading these words knows how different life is today because of the Internet. Without it maybe I'd be writing these words in a diary or more likely I wouldn't be writing them at all, but rest assured several hundred people wouldn't read them over the next few days. Largely the thoughts I'm about to type out would have resided, pre-Internet, only in my head for me to ponder or perhaps share with a few friends or with family over dinner this evening. My ability to communicate with other people all over the globe has been magnified by a factor thought impossible only a few decades ago. How has that got anything to do with the problems facing us in the post carbon era? I'll get to that but first a revelation of enormous proportions.

This morning I read an article that I think heralds the biggest change in music since radio began broadcasting it back in the very early part of the 20th century. If you didn't think the band Radiohead was the best band in the world when you woke up this morning I urge you to reconsider. They are about to release their latest album entitled In Rainbows but you won't be able to buy it in stores. In fact, you won't have to buy it at all.

The band has decided to shun not only the traditional music industry that sucks the majority of the profits out of the recording industry (currently artists make only a fraction of what you pay for their album at the mall) but also to deny online distributors like i-tunes. If you want their new album all you'll have to do is go to their website and download it. The price? You decide. That's right, you pay whatever you want for the album. The music industry is, to put it mildly, shocked.

Now if you don't know who Radiohead is there's no reason to feel bad. Their music isn't exactly mainstream Americana, but they are one of the most popular bands in the world. They aren't my favorite band but after seeing them live in 2006 I can say from my perspective that they are the best band in the world. Plenty of other people agree but let's just suffice it to say that this is a really, really big band with a huge following. So that makes this morning's announcement border on outrageous.

When lead singer Thom Yorke was asked about the move he had this to say. "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'F___ you' to this decaying business model."

And he's right. Personally I've been waiting for this day for a long time, when I could stop paying a bunch of suits somewhere to package my music up for me in an age when any kid in his kitchen can record he and his friends banging on pots and pans and offer it up to anyone with an Internet connection.

Now for the moment I want to focus on the access issue not the fact that you can download Radiohead's new album for free if you'd like. We'll get to that in a minute. With one slice this band has cut the rot out of the process and has accessed the freedom to deal directly with its fans. What a wonderful business model! Anyone arguing that we should still be paying $1 per song like we were in the 80's is arguing that we should be wasting a lot of money on people other than those who create the music. Artist plays great music- Artist sells great music to fan. It has become that simple. But I think this is a big deal because it's shows us how free we've truly become from all the information containers. We don't have to pay special people for special boxes to hold our information any more. Want a recipe for pumpkin soup? You don't have to get in your car and drive to the bookstore and buy a book of recipes, with all its paper and glue and energy costs in terms of printing and shippings and heating the bookstore. You can simply download one of a thousand recipes for pumpkin soup from the Internet. If you like it you can write it down on one of those neat little 3X5 cards my mother used to keep good recipes on, ready for next time.

A few weeks ago I went to the Triple Threat Teach-in sponsored by the IFG at George Washington University in part because I was looking forward to meeting Rob Hopkins in person. The schedule said Rob was presenting but he lives in the UK and I knew he had decided a while back not to fly any more. He made the decision because of the amount of carbon airplanes produce- a personal choice of his. When I saw his name on the list of speakers I thought maybe he was making an exception. I found out before going to the conference that he was not. He was presenting in absentia. He sent his prerecorded video presentation which was played for all of us in attendance. While I would have like to have gotten a beer with Rob at day's end, he was able to present his thoughts without having to travel all the way from the UK. What a marvelous use of technology to spread information.

And this is what I meant by the title of this post, 'how the internet could save us'. It's safe to say that we have never faced the kind of systematic change approaching the human race. It appears we will have to address our issue of population and come to terms with the decline of our impact on this planet least we destroy its capacity to offer us life. In every way this appears a truly monumental undertaking. But one of the bright spots is that we are at a point in human history when sharing information with millions of other humans has never been easier. I was listening to Tim Winton of The Permaforest Trust Centre for Sustainability Education, give a presentation on permaculture the other day. (The presentation was prerecorded and available to me over the Internet by the way.) He was mentioning the fact that permaculture, a system of thinking that envisions a symbiotic relationship between man and nature that is truly sustainable, is happy to present its mistakes. It is a relatively new way of thinking for most modern Westerners and so the people practicing permaculture are making some mistakes. But by sharing them, Tim said he hopes those mistakes can help others avoid making similar ones. And of course they are having all sorts of successes that are quite worth sharing too. In fact, there is so much information available on the Internet about permaculture that you can learn a lot about it without buying a book or taking a class or ever leaving your office chair. In fact you can learn a lot about a great many things from in front of your 'puter. I have developed a fairly significant understanding of resource depletion and energy descent without ever earning a degree. MIT is offers a dizzying amount of its curriculum online- over 1700 courses. You won't get a piece of paper that says you graduated from MIT but you can still have plenty of the knowledge they offer there. Of course there are plenty of great books for sale or for borrow but those are increasingly available for download or for sale used on the Internet. You can and should attend conferences on topics you're interested in but as I pointed out, those too are beginning to utilize "distance shortening" technologies that will allow all of us to share from far away. I have listened to hundreds of interviews, almost all of them over the Internet. So much information is available online.

Let me stop and say that reading an article on permaculture, or any other skill, is no substitute for practicing it on your own or with the help of others. You can only learn so much mentally before getting your hands dirty. In fact I would argue that is where most of the learning actually takes place, in the muscles. But where to begin? Where to start to make the changes we are going to have to make to respond to peak energy and climate change? There is a cry of despair among peak oil activists that most of us in the modern world have become so specialized that we don't know how to do for ourselves anymore. There is a great loss of knowledge that has taken place over the past few centuries (which has accelerated over the past few decades) that has made most of us the opposite of a renaissance man. Most of us under 30 are lucky if we know how to cook without a microwave. But this lack of knowledge, or at least this lack of a starting place on the road to knowledge, is what the Internet can help us with. It is a huge repository of pornography. This much is true. It is also a growing market place where people buy and sell everything from carbon credits to "green" wristwatches. But it is also doing an excellent job of linking people together from all over the world who can share their post carbon successes and failures, joys and sorrows, hopes and fears about a future that is bound to be much more different than the recent past we've known.

But can it all be free? No. Probably not; at least not in its current form. Radiohead is able to offer their latest album online for $0 (If you decide that's what you want to pay) because they are very wealthy and because they will make an insane amount of money playing to soldout shows to promote the album. Smaller bands won't be able to follow suit. But since smaller bands are already only making a few bucks per album, they could feasibly offer their albums online for $5 and still make more than they are making right now. And it would be cheaper for us the consumers. Ultimately we'll find out just what people are willing to pay for music. Not for all the trappings that go along with the traditional music industry, just for the songs. And that's a good thing. Commerce isn't going to fade away just because the biggest band in the world started giving music away for free. And perhaps someone will make money by helping people sort through all of the kitchen pot and pan banging bands that are beginning to flood the Internet. I am not signaling the end of economy in general, just a new twist that is bound to affect someone. But who will take the blow? Who will get the pink slip as this change takes place?

As our energy resources inevitably decrease, so will our economy in the terms in which we think of it now. Peak oil will mean peak GDP. Count on it. But where will the first fat get trimmed as we transition to what's coming next? It'll come from the middle, from the middlemen taking something from a producer and selling it to a consumer. Ultimately I think we'll all be doing a lot more producing and a lot less consuming. Not necessarily a happy prospect if you make widgets, distribute them or sell them in your store. But I think the first to feel the pinch will be the middlemen. And the sooner they see it coming the sooner they can transition into a position of more value in the post carbon world. The music industry is reeling this morning because it failed to realize its day has come. It thought it could sell us songs for $1 online just the same way it sold us songs for $1 in a store, even though everything about producing those song has change. Music consumers like me are happy to see that middle man go but where will he go to? What is going on in the world and how can he adapt? How is someone to make sense of a world in such flux?

I think the answer lands us back on the Internet. As I mentioned before it is no substitute for hard work or face-to-face relationships or making mistakes while trying something new. And somethings might not change that much at all. I think the pleasure of holding a book while you read it just before falling asleep is not in danger of being replaced by sitting in front of an LCD screen just before you fall asleep. Books might be here to stay but if one examines the traditional method for sharing books, the library, one discovers the original Internet; a public repository of information for all of us to use and share. The difference between the Internet and a traditional library is that now much more information is available at incredibly increased speeds making it much more available to many more people.

I do not think the Internet alone will 'Save Us' from the shocks and pains of entering a post carbon world. I think we're in for a rough ride over the next few decades. And the Internet has its share of weaknesses. It is not currently available to everyone because computers cost money. It relies on quite a few technically complex components. It also requires electricity. There's the real possibility that it will be regulated into unhelpfulness by businesses or governments jealous or fearful of its freedom of information. The reliability of the Internet in an age of depletion is not for sure. It does however represent a democratization of information the likes of which the human race has never seen. And it holds in it the possibility that individuals and their communities might have access to the information necessary to make appropriate changes in a changing world. The internet has the potential to offer us a sea chart of knowledge as we set sail in a new direction. Long live knowledge.

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.