Is a Collapse Imminent or Inevitable? The Relentlessly Optimistic Guy Dauncey Says “No.”

On our current course, a collapse is, barring a miracle, inevitable, and many would say that it could come at any time. Indeed, some have pointed to the recent U.S. and global economic fiasco as a sign that the collapse has begun. Others point out that, just prior to the economic meltdown, oil prices had spiked to USD 147/barrel, roughly double what they are now – and that prices now are much higher than they have been for decades. This could be a sign that “peak oil” has arrived and that the future will hold many more, and more extreme, oil price spikes.

In an interview with long-time environmentalist/green energy/green solutions guy Guy Dauncey this past Tuesday, I raised some of these concerns and he replied “bollocks,” or words to that effect. Regular readers will know that I lean toward a collapse being considerably more likely than not, and that I suggest preparing for it. Part of the reason for my prediction is reality – oil really is running out, climate change is really happening – and part is political: our ‘leaders’ are going in the wrong direction, heavily influenced by their corporate sponsors. (Politicians should wear Nascar-style jackets, covered with the logos of major contributors.)

Guy Dauncey is absolutely, relentlessly optimistic that we can make the transition to a post-oil, carbon neutral world – and quickly. As he spends much of his time researching solutions, and as I have read some of his books and attended some of his lectures, I believe him when he says we can do it. But Dauncey goes further – he also says we can build the political will in time to makes this transition, and this is difficult to support based on recent evidence.

Both Dauncey and I refer to the mobilisation for World War II that occurred within months. Most peak oil scholars suggest we need to start any transition twenty years prior to the time of peak oil, which could well be upon us now. This puts Dauncey at odds with some well-respected folks who have done a great deal of research of their own in the field. But could he be right?

We did convert the economy very rapidly in World War II. Auto factories were turning out tanks and planes very quickly; in fact, no new automobiles were produced in the United States during the war at all after a point, and the price of used vehicles shot up. Could we do the same today? The peak oil folks generally say ‘No,’ because we need cheap oil to fuel the conversion. We don’t have enough solar and wind plants powering automakers, for example. (I would not be surprised if the percentage of electricity that GM gets from ‘green’ sources is near-zero.)

Pre-war, there was very little political will for this retooling, this transition to a wartime economy – until there was. In England, Churchill called for years for a response to Hitler’s arms build-up and was roundly ridiculed. The British had come through a horrendous war in recent memory and didn’t even want to consider that another might be necessary, and various vested interests were more than happy to fuel this dis-enthusiasm.

Today, we also have very little political will for facing up to the predicaments of climate change and the end of oil, for greening the economy and going carbon-neutral, for ‘getting off oil.’ We also have a very well-funded denier movement, thanks to the vested interests of the oil, coal, auto, and assorted other industries. These industries fund climate denial in order to keep the general public – you and me – confused and hesitant to take decisive action. At the same time, they contribute heavily to key politicians. In both cases and in different ways, they are undermining political will (and democracy).

Dauncey asserts that we, as a society, have changed attitudes and political will very rapidly in the past and will do so again once enough people become sufficiently aware of the dangers of climate change, and once politicians are sufficiently educated about climate change and peak oil. Both of these he seeks to do through various means, including his books, public lectures, and consulting with government. Most peak oil people would say it will be too little, too late.

I’ve done plenty of research on the topics of peak oil, climate change, and politics – including running as a Green Party of Canada candidate. (I am no longer affiliated with any political party.) I do agree that political will can change very rapidly; if the populace believes we face a crisis, things will change very quickly. That’s why the oil and coal and auto CEOs have poured so much money into discrediting scientists, denying climate change, and pooh-poohing the thought that the oil might run out someday soon. They know damn well that if people knew the truth of the situation, the deniers and their CEOs could find themselves on the wrong side of a tar-and-feathering very quickly. And, of course, their business model and profits and prestige would be adversely affected.

Dauncey also pointed out that other countries are aware of these dangers and are taking great strides in the right direction. He mentioned China as a green leader, which is correct, despite their recent sabotage of the Copenhagen talks. Of course, there are entire continents where concepts like peak oil and climate change are not being addressed in any significant way, including North America. By ’significant,’ I mean carbon and methane emissions are going down and oil dependency is being rapidly reduced. Even China, as Dauncey acknowledges, is leading in green energy while at the same time building one coal-fired generating plant per week.

I do not dispute that the solutions exist. If in doubt, read Guy’s recent book, The Climate Challenge: 101 Solutions to Global Warming (The Solutions Series), or Paul Hawken’s Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. You will find practical solutions galore. Many of them exist now and only need to be ramped up.

The key questions are:

1. Can the solutions be implemented in time, or is it too late?
2. Will the solutions be implemented in time?

Like Guy Dauncey, I have also said that a WWII level of mobilisation could get us where we need to be. It would mean revamping the economy, retooling industries, and a lot fewer single-occupant vehicles commuting in from the suburbs. It would mean less land for meat and more for food fed directly to humans. A great deal of sunk investment in coal plants and suburbs would have to be abandoned. (I.e. The value of houses in the suburbs would drop to zero.) Government intervention would be required; the private sector alone will not move quickly enough. However, it could be done.

Now, will it be done? It is often very hard to see beyond how things are now to how quickly they could change. If the public realises we face a crisis, change will be demanded. Even bought-and-paid-for politicians will be hard-pressed to resist, and will be replaced if necessary. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it will take several terms to flush out the turds in the political toilet, and time is working against us. In addition, while I agree with Dauncey that many Americans and Canadians would support greening the economy, they are far from accepting the end of suburbia, giving up their SUVs, or even eating a bit less meat. Very far.

What would change this, quickly? An oil price spike that lasts, essentially making commuting unaffordable. People did buy more fuel-efficient cars after the 1970s oil scare – but they still bought cars. They did not demand the return of public transit. Most likely, people would first demand more subsidies for gasoline, and in this they would be encouraged by a well-funded marketing campaign orchestrated by the oil companies. People rarely insist that subsidies be eliminated on things they want. As gas prices shoot up, they may also demand inquiries into price-fixing and other time-wasting measures. An interesting anecdote that reflects the unreality of this worldview; during the 2008 oil, and therefore gasoline, price spike, I remember an elderly gentleman driving away from a gas station without paying the full amount because gas “shouldn’t cost this much.”

[As an aside, denial came up indirectly in the interview. Guy Dauncey has noticed that the most vociferous opponents of climate change and peak oil are Libertarians. So have I. We have both noticed how quickly these people revert to an economic appeal or insult – as if either is in any way relevant when facing a crisis like climate change or peak oil. In Dauncey's view, Libertarians are immature and unwilling to face reality.]

If we are in peak oil, and it does look quite likely, then more oil price spikes and a steady upward trend in prices seems likely. Peak oil people would say these spikes will crash the economy, much like the current recession, making a transition off oil difficult. Further, the U.S. government is paralysed by a corrupt Congress and an ineffectual, though well-spoken, President. Obama’s suggestions of cutting subsidies to oil companies are countered by Republican cries of “Drill baby, drill,” funded by, or course, oil companies. Coal companies are also pushing to maintain the status quo, and the ‘leadership’ of General Motors, if one generously calls it that, is stuck in the 1950s. (I define leadership Biblically: “Without vision, the people shall perish.” In this case, vision means seeing reality clearly and charting an appropriate course. Wishful thinking is not leadership, nor is imposing one’s fantasies on everyone else.)

Guy Dauncey disagrees with the economy-wrecking-oil-price-spike theory. He points out that there is vastly more energy available than humans currently use, but we don’t tap it. Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and so on could provide our current needs many times over. Dauncey believes that oil prices will increase – how can they not, when we demand more and the supply has topped out – but gradually enough that the market can react to produce alternatives. He also has, it should be noted, a different definition of civilisation than most Canadians and Americans, a definition that includes extensive car-pooling and bicycling, eating much less meat, and a major reorganisation of the economy. He also believes that these oil price increases will contribute to the political will needed to green the economy, and will make people willing to carpool, cycle, etc.

Relentlessly optimistic Guy Dauncey may be right; peak oil theorists who see a rapid and permanent economic collapse may be right. Time will tell. Either way, a major transition is in store. Ideally, we would embrace this transition and plan for it, but we are not. Rather, we are proceeding as if everything will continue as it has for the last 50 years or so, but of course this is impossible. The oil really is running out, the climate really is changing, etc. At some point reality will become sufficiently obvious to enough people that they will demand change – or change will just happen. If oil prices quadruple, most commuting will simply stop, for example. If crops can no longer be grown in the Midwest, then no amount of marketing or wishful thinking will change that.

Whether the political will for change is achieved before it is “too late” is currently debatable. In a few years, the question will be moot and the answer pre-ordained, because we will have passed various climate and energy tipping points. Guy Dauncey is doing what he can to create the political will and educate politicians so that the transition to a green economy – and therefore a sustainable way of living – happens “in time.” So am I, and so are many others. The CEOs of the oil, coal, and American auto companies are doing their best to ensure their business model does not change and their profits and prestige remain unchallenged. Which force wins out will depend partly on circumstances and partly on each side’s ability to persuade the general public of the reality and urgency – or the nonreality and nonurgency – of the situation. And, of course, which side wins determines our future, and your children’s future, and whether your children will even have children.

Resources for this post

Guy Dauncey has done a number of worthy things; has published a number of books, one of which are listed below. He founded the Victoria Car-Share Co-op and the BCSEA (British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association), and remains the President of the latter. He runs the EarthFuture site and publishes EcoNews monthly. He gives lectures on green energy and advises the BC government on same. He has been doing this for decades, and knows his stuff.

The first book listed (from left-to-right), The Climate Challenge, is a “complete rewrite” of an earlier book by Guy Dauncey, Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, which I have in my library. If you’re going to read one, get the latest one.  The second book by Greer (The Archdruid Report) suggests peak oil will cause a “long descent,” with periods of stability alternating with periods of crisis, each lasting one or a few decades. He does think some form of civilisation will remain, although many of the things we consider important now will disappear. So will some number of the population.

The third book by Kunstler suggests that peak oil will cause a rapid collapse in the United States, and is persuasive. Kunstler also expects a population decline, the end of globalisation, and so on. The fourth book is by peak oil expert Heinberg and, like the others, suggests we face dangers from many directions, including resource shortages,  overpopulation, a clueless ruling class and unaware populace.