That should be enough, but the pro-nukers are just not going away. Why should it be enough of a dismissal? Well, if Japan can’t be trusted to safely do nuclear, who the hell can?

Think about it: One of the most technologically advanced countries in the world had a nuclear disaster. If a serious accident like that could happen in Japan, it could happen anywhere. In fact, it already did.*

So why won’t the pro-nukers accept that nuclear power is dangerous and we can’t handle it safely? This seems to be a common progression in discussions with pro-nukers, or as I am coming to think of them, dumbasses:

ME: Because Fukushima, that’s why.

Pro-nuker: It was a perfect storm: an earthquake and a tsunami.

ME: Which you’re saying will never happen again, ever? In earthquake and tsunami-prone Japan? You know, the country that invented the word tsunami?

DA: The design of the reactor was inadequate. Newer models would not have these problems.

~Note the change of argument? DA couldn’t answer so abandoned that argument, though not the belief; he’ll continue to throw it out in future discussions. The problem is that DA holds to nuclear power like a Holy Grail, and he (almost always men) simply ignores contrary evidence.

ME: So you’re guaranteeing that these new designs will never have a dangerous radioactive release? Never, ever, ever? Ever?

DA: No, they can’t. Decent maintenance, proper siting – not close to the coast, for example, and Bob’s your uncle. Never a problem.

ME: Never.

DA: Well, statistically, of course, something could happen, but the possibility is remote.

ME: How remote?

DA: Not worth worrying about.

ME: I’m worried. What’s my risk.

DA: Infitesimal. It’s not even measurable.

ME: So, for example, Pakistan, which has nuclear power plants – let’s say Al-Qaeda launches a terrorist assault on one, packs it with fertilizer and blows it to smithereens, steals all the fuel and waste and runs off with it – there’s no risk to anyone from the nuclear part of that? I’m not saying count the people killed in the battle or the explosion, just people endangered from the nuclear material.

DA: Well, that’s a ridiculous scenario.

ME: Have you been following the news on Pakistan?

DA: Well, okay, it’s possible, but that’s in Pakistan and that has nothing to do with developed countries. Politically unstable countries shouldn’t have nuclear energy or weapons.

ME: But they do, dumbass, because people like you seem to think that nuclear energy is the bomb. So to speak.

DA: I don’t agree with selling nuclear technology to politically unstable countries.

ME: [sigh] You do realise that Pakistan was fairly stable when we sold them the nukes? Political situations change. Terrorists and wars happen. And you do agree that such a terrorist action, followed by what they could do now that they have all this extremely dangerous material – could potentially expose millions of people to dangerous, probably toxic levels of radiation?

DA: Look, it’s far-fetched, and it doesn’t really affect us.

ME: Al-Qaeda having radioactive material doesn’t potentially affect “us”?

DA: It’s too late now, anyway. There are plenty of stable countries that can use the new technology safely.

ME: And how long must those countries remain politically stable, free from the danger of terrorist attacks, and safe from wars? Doesn’t the waste remain radioactive for rather a long time? Like, longer than all of human civilization has been around so far?

DA: It’s safe if stored safely. Yucca mountain…

ME: So you can guarantee that all developed countries that have or will have nuclear power will remain politically stable, free of wars or serious internal problems, for the next 10,000+ years.

DA: Well, of course nobody can guarantee that. That’s a ridiculous requirement.

ME: Why?

Responses vary at this point, but most of them come down to either:

• I don’t want to think about that (there’s wilful ignorance kicking in to protect the belief system), or
• I don’t really care about the people who will live here in the future. It’s their problem – we told them it was radioactive. It’s their responsibility to keep the nation and its toxic waste secure, not our responsibility to not produce it in the first place.

And that latter argument, frankly, is pretty damn selfish and a damn poor justification.

So the next time some pro-nuker zealot tries to proselytize the infallible need for nuclear energy, tell him no, because you’re not thoughtful enough or not mature enough to be making those kinds of decisions. Or just say, “Because Fukushima, that’s why.”

***********************************

* Did you forget about Three Mile Island?

Still not convinced? Need more data? Nuclear delusions: Why nuclear power is not a solution to our energy challenge is an excellent, concise critique of nuclear power.

The world oil supply is running down and we have no ready substitutes.

Climate change is happening now – stronger storms, more devastating wildfires, rising sea levels, diseases spreading – the list goes on, and there is every indication that it will continue to worsen.

The US economy, upon which the world economy still depends, is unstable due to corruption at the top, from most Congressmen to presidential advisors all being former bank executives.

Our leaders are not moving quickly enough to protect the economy in general, never mind your or my livelihoods in particular. Some of our leaders are actually doing things to worsen the situation, such as denying the very existence of climate change or ignoring the ever-rising price of oil.

We are facing “interesting times.” The turbulence has begun, and it’s buffeting us from all directions. Have you ever had the experience of going for a walk and, no matter which direction you were going, the wind always seemed to be in your face? That’s what the future is going to feel like for many people.

I could (and have) proposed large-scale responses to the situation, which frankly at this point need to be a WWII-scale mobilization to re-industrialize and re-do our living arrangements to drastically cut oil dependence immediately and, long-term, eliminate pollution of all kinds by moving to a ‘restorative economy.’

But we’re not going to do that in the foreseeable future, are we? Or anything even remotely close. If you take your family’s security seriously, then you will do what you can to buffer yourself against the coming storms. The best way I have seen to do that is Transition Initiative, and you should seriously consider joining (or starting) one in your area.

TI is a completely grassroots, apolitical initiative, and this is what they do:

Transition Network helps communities deal with climate change and shrinking supplies of cheap energy (peak oil). This process, which we call Transition, aims to create stronger, happier communities.

That’s how we’re going to get through this; by working together in local communities. As the Transition Network site puts it well:

What we are convinced of is this:

• • if we wait for the governments, it’ll be too little, too late
  • if we act as individuals, it’ll be too little
  • but if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time.

Your level of involvement can be minimal or massive; the choice is yours. Here are some things that local TIs do:

• Teach people how to grow a garden, save seeds, preserve foods
• Educate people by showing documentaries about peak oil, climate change, solutions, and more
• Host online and IRL forums to discuss and learn
• Show people how to insulate their homes or build a solar greenhouse

Like it or not, the world is changing. You can adapt, or not.

Helen Caldicott and George Monbiot have recently attacked each other in anti and pro-nuclear articles, and honestly I now am entirely unsure of the truth. Both claim scientific backing, though Monbiot appears to shred Caldicott’s claims. I have a great deal of respect for Monbiot; back when I was doing my own research on climate change (I was a sceptic and was attempting to see if it was real, was human-caused, was dangerous, etc, and I read lots of real science in the process), I found him to be ruthlessly honest and perfectly aligned with the actual science.

That said, I think the pro-nuke crowd, now including George Monbiot, is making two grave errors. The first is claiming that low levels of radiation are safe.

As an example of this, something that really struck me as a blow to the nuke movement was a seemingly unrelated article posted on Reddit a few weeks or so ago discussing the nude-o-scanners used by the TSA. The author interviewed a scientist who flat-out said that the scanners would cause cancer in some people. The reasoning went thusly:

• The risk of a mutation caused by the scanners is very low, say 1-in-10,000,000
• However, many tens of millions of people pass through the scanners each year
• Therefore, some of those people will develop cancer caused by radiation from the scanners

In this case, “low risk” still means “will cause cancer in some people.” Not everyone wants to take that risk, and may be unhappy about others forcing that risk upon them.

This brings me to my second point; Monbiot seems just as political in supporting nuclear energy as Caldicott is in opposing it. In fact, this seems a common theme among many pro-nuclear ‘environmentalists.’ Take these paragraphs from his article, my emphasis added:

If…we make the wrong decisions, the consequences can be momentous. …that countries [will] shut down their nuclear power plants or stop the construction of new ones, and switch instead to fossil fuels. Almost all of us would prefer them to switch to renewables, but it seems that this is less likely to happen.

In response to the Fukushima disaster, for example, the German government insists that it will replace its nuclear plants with new renewable power sources – particularly large wind farms. But as most of its wind is in the north and much of its nuclear capacity is in the south, this will require a massive new construction of power lines. That gives the government just as much of a political headache as the current anti-nuclear protests. The new lines are also likely to take around 12 years to build, raising the possibility of shortages.

In other words, Monbiot (and “almost all of us”) think renewables are a better idea, but will support nuclear because it seems politically more feasible. Chalk one up for the nuclear lobby. He also states that new power lines will take about 12 years to build – which is about the amount of time required to build a nuclear plant, assuming it’s not stopped by the kinds of mass protests recently seen in Germany.

Monbiot digs himself in deeper by assuming that power lines will be opposed equally as have been nuclear plants, but this seems a stretch.

In his book Heat: How to stop the planet from burning, Monbiot thoroughly analyses nuclear energy, and some of the dangers he points out are not trivial:

• p. 90: “…every nuclear power station leaks radiation into the environment. As well as their routine emissions into the air and the sea, the nuclear generators are surrounded by dumping scandals.” He then goes on to detail numerous examples, and as we have seen with Fukushima, the same leaks and cover-ups occurred there.
• p. 92: Monbiot discusses the intractable and so-far insoluble problem of nuclear waste, and that there have also been cover-ups in this department, in which proponents of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada “falsified the rates at which water percolates through it.”
• pp. 92-95: Monbiot discusses the financial cost of nuclear power, concluding that it only exists courtesy of large taxpayer subsidies and that the actual “price of nuclear power is a function of your political position.”
• p. 97: “…sixteen years would be needed to obtain finance and planning permission and to design a build [a new nuclear] plant.” Monbiot does agree that this timeline also rules out any large-scale energy development, and so the government would have to fast-track (i.e. ram through) projects like this.

And Monbiot’s conclusion?

Because of the industry’s record of corner-cutting, because of its association with weapons of mass destruction and because of the unresolved questions about waste disposal and energy balance, I will provisionally place nuclear power second from last in my list of preferences, just above generation using coal from open-cast mines.

So George – which of these things has changed in the last few years? The answer, of course, is none. The only thing that has changed seems to be that Monbiot has abandoned hope that we will embrace renewables or conservation – for political reasons. He has thus given up and is now shilling for his “second from last” energy choice, the one he places one short step above coal, because he thinks that’s the best we can get – even though it’s not very good at all.

George Monbiot is entitled to his change of political views. But to become a proponent of nuclear power now, not because it’s better than the alternatives or even necessary, but because that’s all the nuclear lobby will allow, is a disgrace. His words again:

This is an especially difficult time to try to make the case for keeping the dangers of nuclear power in perspective. The frightening events at Fukushima are still unfolding, the disaster has been upgraded to category 7, making it one of the two worst such events on record. But it is just when the case is hardest that it most urgently needs to be made, however much anger this generates. If we don’t stick to the facts, if we don’t subject all claims to the same degree of scepticism, we could make a bad situation worse.

Sometimes, George, the reason the case is hard to make is because it’s not a very good case. And yes, we should stick to the facts. Those facts are that conservation and renewable energy are the best, and ultimately the only, path out of our current spiralling energy addiction that is causing climate change. Nuclear power is at best a stopgap measure; it just pushes the problem down the road a ways.

Forget immediate concerns about irradiated food and water, and increased cancer risk, for the moment; let’s say they’re exaggerated or a trade-off we’re willing to make in order to phase out coal (because conservation and renewable energy are ‘politically more difficult.’) A nuclear accident like Fukushima has the potential to render large areas uninhabitable for generations. What is the cost of that?

And consider this; if we decide to forge ahead with nuclear power, we will need thousands more nuclear plants all over the world, including in many countries far less politically stable or technologically advanced as Japan. The risk of accidents will surely increase exponentially, as will the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Finally, not a damn word about conservation, which could cut our need for energy enough to make battles over nuclear versus renewable much less of a concern – and, if we don’t start conserving, will ultimately lead to massive energy generating plants and related problems all over the globe anyway.

George Monbiot, I am disappointed.

******************

UPDATE: Guy Dauncey has written an excellent dissection of nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima: Nuclear – Hope or Hype? It is an extract from his equally good book, The Climate Challenge: 101 Solutions to Global Warming. Dauncey takes a no-nonsense, fact-based approach to his evaluation, looking at nuclear from all angles: economic, waste storage, global warming, and more.

Freedom with a capital damn ‘F.’

You may not agree with everything WikiLeaks is doing, but you must admit that it is necessary. Our governments, in particular the U.S. government, have gone too far. They are keeping too many secrets, and a secretive government cannot be trusted. The truth must come out.

Many Redditors are donating. Others may be helping with the current hacking of those banks and other institutions attacking Assange and WikiLeaks.

(To digress slightly, I really think governments and corporations are going to be in for a very rough ride. Once a few million young people realize they can make a difference by hacking to help WikiLeaks, why would they stop there – whether or not Assange is freed? Why would they not start choosing targets for transparency? If I were the CEO of CitiBank or Goldman Sachs I would be very worried right now.)

A whole lot of people want to do something but don’t want to risk arrest. So let’s do something.

Post your ideas on Reddit; upvote the best, and let’s donate to make the best happen.

Choose formats that are in the real world. Internet freedom is not enough, not will it last without wider freedom. First they came for Julian Assange, and I did not speak up, and so one day they came for the web….

I tried to choose messages that would be appealing to conservatives, because we need them on our side. It’s not conservatives versus liberals, or right against left. It’s those who value liberty against those who lust for money and power, and original conservative values are very much for freedom. I also picked formats that are IRL – we need to get our message off the net and ‘out there.’

If this takes off, we’ll need to coordinate donations and route them to the areas that donated. Does anybody have a suggestion for the best way to do that?

My suggestion for a relatively inexpensive way to get the message out:

Billboards, bus stop ads, any organization with digital advertising boards.

Benefits:

• Relatively cheap
• Message stays for at least a month, not one day like a newspaper ad or a few seconds like a TV spot
• Unavoidably visible to millions of drivers and passengers in good locations; you can’t miss them
• Local – donate to one in your area
• Makes a statement
• Sound-bite size – easy for MSM to briefly cover…while repeating the message

Suggested messages:

• “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  - Thomas Jefferson
• Let Freedom Ring – subtitle: Support WikiLeaks
• The truth will out – support WikiLeaks
• It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Looking at you, Koch brothers.
• “A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.”  - Winston Churchill
• “There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Everything you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight; what you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed from the rooftops.”
  – Luke 12:2-3  - Love this one; found it on Daniel Ellsberg‘s (the Pentagon Papers leaker) site.

As someone on Reddit said today, he just realized we are witnessing history in the making. Wilileaks has exposed our governments, and they don’t like it.

But the true historic event that may come of Wikileaks is that it’s something a lot of young developers can do. Easily. They can become Leakers. Destroy Assange and WikiLeaks and you will move the young, disaffected, and technically savvy, who have realized voting changes little of importance, to start another site to host the files. In fact, probably a peer-to-peer filesharing site, so that there are thousands – millions – of sites.

The cats out of the bag now. Knowledge is power, and suddenly the big guy just lost some to the little guy. And the harder he tries to grab it back, the worse he’s going to look and the more legitimate the Leakers will seem.

UPDATE: And I forgot the obvious next step – attacking the attackers. Fighting fire with fire. Young developers can – and now are – hacking the sites of those who attack WikiLeaks: http://www.antemedius.com/content/payback-bank-froze-wikileaks-funds-hacked.

Those of you who follow me know that I have recently ceased making posts urging large-scale reform. The reasons for that are fairly simple, but they involve a psychological hurdle to get over.

I have been communicating with James Howard Kunstler, John Michael Greer, and David Holmgren, all of whom I have interviewed, about a Wise Action Plan. The goal was for us to agree on this Plan and then publicly pronounce it in an effort to get some sensible action on peak oil and climate change. Initially, I urged a response that included a revitalization of rail, large-scale wind or solar farms, and other actions that require the federal government to take a strong leadership role.

While the others generally agreed such actions would be a good idea, especially if they have been started 20 or more years ago, two of the three thought they were a waste of time. They had two reasons for this:

1. It’s too late. We needed to be getting off oil while we still had a surplus. Now that we’ve hit peak oil, diverting any oil to build solar panels means there is less for cars or crops.
2. They ain’t gonna. What politician is going to do that, barring an emergency situation? (Emergency is here defined as rioting, fuel rationing, or other severe measures.)

To be fair to our politicians, it’s hard to get elected telling people their lifestyle is going to change drastically, including many of them giving up their cars. The problem is partly cultural; we want what we want, and we’re going to keep electing politicians who give it to us until that is no longer possible.

And to be brutally honest, most of us have bought into the idea of unending growth and improvement, that the market will find solutions to concerns like oil depletion, and that if it were really that bad, somebody would do something.

At that point, we will be well into the emergency.

It has been difficult for me to give up on the idea of leadership from above. I ran federally as a Green Party of Canada candidate last go-round, but wouldn’t do it again. Even in the fantastic unlikelihood that the Greens got a majority next election, they could not do what needs to be done. Still too many people will resist change, and this resistance will be encouraged and financed – by vested interests.

Think Globally, Act Locally

As a result, I’ve gone local. Leadership is going to have to come from the grassroots, from us, from those who understand the reality and are willing to take some action. I believe that every village, town, city, and region should create a Transition Initiative to get off oil.

This is acting locally, and it is vitally important for your survival. Local resilience is ‘in,’ and for good reason. When oil prices go up, imports of everything – including food – are going to get more expensive and harder to get. If you’re already shopping at the farmer’s market, for example, you have helped support a local farmer who will now support you as options in the supermarkets get scarcer and pricier.

This is my new Wise Action Plan:

1. Start or join a Transition Initiative in your area.
2. Reskill.
3. Develop personal self-reliance, which includes everything from starting a garden to insulating your house.

If we’re lucky and good, these local movements will take off, multiply like viruses, and infect the planet. These local movements will bond together and require their governments to do the right thing – to protect us. They will do this not by lobbying or influence-peddling, but by sheer strength of numbers.

I’m sure s/he must be asking itself the same question at this point, given what we’ve done to the planet. I suspect it was boredom. After 65 million years of the dinos, God had had enough. S/he needed something new, fresh, exciting to rejuvenate its creative energy. After awhile it must have been like having the fish tank screen saver on your computer. Very cool…but for 65 million years? So, fire a meteor into the earth, presto-blammo, dino-die-off, now taking applications for new species or new variations on old species. Must be creative, like Me.

Now, after only 1 million years, humans have developed the capability to kill God, or any concept of the sacred, both figuratively and literally. We are destroying the planet, which is our source of life, because to us no life is sacred, every life has a price or a use for someone else. The dinosaurs lasted 65 million years and it took a meteor to wipe them out. We’ve been around 1/65th of the time and are wiping ourselves out. Who had the tiny brain, again?

Life is sacred, not just mine but yours, too. I have no right to kill or exploit you in order to enhance my own life. And you will similarly respect me or I reserve the right to defend myself by whatever means necessary. When capitalism or communism or fascism or any other ‘ism’ permits this exploitation, that system is immoral, destructive, and ultimately self-destructive.

This basic truth, that life is sacred, has been lost, killed, sold.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us?
– Friedrich Nietzsche

As we lose respect for others, and for that which created and sustains us, so we lose respect for ourselves, and we decay into moral lassitude, on a path to destruction but too drunk to care.

Not everybody is like this, of course. There are many people more aware of reality, and more moral. I believe the vast majority of people contain an innate degree of conservatism, meaning our natural preference is to move slowly and cautiously forward. That’s our history; generation after generation saw little change.

And when changes did come, often they were bad. A new oppressor, perhaps. Invasion. Some mysterious disease.

As a result, most of us fear change. We were bred to maintain the status quo. Unfortunately, much as we fear change we fear not to reproduce, and inevitably this puts a civilisation in a predicament. So far, no civilisation has escaped this predicament, and now it is our turn.

However, we have something no previous civilisation had: we know that they existed, and roughly what happened to them.

We also know how to avoid the predicament: live sustainably. Live within the limits set by God and nature, and you and your heirs will prosper. Destroy that which God and nature have provided, and barren will be your earth.

I deliberately phrased some of this article in Biblical-sounding prose to remind us of where most of us got our first concept of the sacred: in a church or synagogue or mosque or some holy text. Those with an allergic reaction to the word of concept of ‘God’ may be offended; that is their choice. I was once that way, but it doesn’t make sense to throw away the lessons of the past, including moral teachings, because one doesn’t like the source.

We have killed God and put The Almighty Dollar in its place, and we have the morals to match. We have embraced the Seven Deadly Sins and made them virtues. Prudence and thrift and “waste not want not” are quaint relics that we believe are better replaced with Greed is Good.

There is a part of all of us that understands the concept of the sacred, and thus worships life. Spiritual leaders like Jesus and Gandhi sought to get us to expand that consciousness to other aspects of our character, to other people, even animals.

Jesus shielded the prostitute and kicked over the tables of the money-lenders; we do just the opposite. We judge harshly those we fear, like prostitutes and drug dealers, to evade the reality that we go much easier on crooked CEOs and banksters because we benefit from the system they represent. We are complicit in our own entrapment.

We can avoid the predicaments of overpopulation, resource scarcity, pollution, peak oil, and even natural climate change like ice ages by simply living sustainably. For example, if we know that large areas of the earth get covered by ice every 20,000 years, we don’t put billions of people in those areas.

That would be planning ahead. This, by the way, would have kept us to a much smaller population centred around the equator, except for the Inuit. Of course, we didn’t really figure out the cycles of the ice ages until fairly recently and we had already carved up the planet into nations by that point. But at least we could agree that countries affected by the ice age need to plan accordingly, and as some of them are likely to disappear entirely (like Canada and the Scandinavian countries, for example) they should start planning for their demise. Preferably by attrition, meaning to let the population naturally decline to zero sometime in advance of the ice age.

The situation described is roughly the reverse of the one we do face under climate change, with the countries close to the equator likely to be wiped out and the northern ones – well, benefitting from warmer and shorter winters, but starting to pay the price from wild storms, wildfires, and water shortages that are going to get much worse soon.

But we don’t think 20,000 years ahead, and we don’t think even 100 years ahead now. Many of us think in very short terms indeed: executives quarterly, workers paycheque-to-paycheque; our houses are built to last 70 years. No need to worry about any signs of them being around come the ice age.

We don’t even consider our children’s future any more. Nothing is sacred. We consume everything and leave nothing for our children, not even hope. What kind of parents are we? Our family lines deserve to die out.

We don’t have to end this way. We can rediscover the sense of sacred within ourselves. And we must exert our right to restrain those who would harm that which is sacred: life; creation itself.

A word of warning: To many, the Mobilisation Plan given here will seem extreme, even ridiculous. It calls for a radical restructuring of our economy, how we use energy and where we get it, how we transport things, including ourselves, how we grow our food, build our buildings, and even govern and educate ourselves. Radical it may sound, but necessary it most certainly is, and the sooner we implement something like it the more of civilisation we get to keep.

To those people who think this plan too ‘radical,’ I would suggest two things: First, what you or I think is entirely irrelevant in the face of reality. If the reality is that declining oil supplies will wreak havoc on our civilisation, then no amount of scoffing will prevent it. I would suggest you acquaint yourself with reality before deciding upon a sensible course of action. I will admit that it was only a few years ago that I would have considered this plan extreme, but I have been busy educating myself about the truth of our situation. This article assumes that you have done some research already and are aware we face multiple crises; you know I am not scaremongering, but simply confronting reality.

Second, if you are willing to think sensibly about our current economic model, that is what you will find to be ultimately insane. And you will realise that one reason such ‘radical’ changes are needed now is because we did not make smaller changes earlier. We are like the smoker who has ignored doctor’s warnings for a long time, and now faces radical surgery and possibly even death as a result.

Here are the things that must be done in developed countries, particularly Canada and the United States; you can see why we’re unlikely to do them – there will be great resistance from vested interests and the majority of unaware people. As a result, we will likely suffer greatly.

Energy

• Redirect all oil subsidies to conservation and renewable energy
• Immediate 10-year plan for energy self-reliance; no more imported oil, even from “friendlies”
• Redirect a portion of existing energy to create renewable energy; eg: take 10% of hydroelectric and dedicate it to making wind turbines

Our entire civilisation is built on “cheap oil.” This cannot be overemphasised. Oil is in virtually everything, from food to pharmaceuticals, from cars to houses. As the price of oil goes up, and it is, so will the price of virtually every single thing we need or want.

We should have been ‘getting off oil’ years ago. Back then, when the warnings first started coming in about peak oil and climate change, we had decades to make a gradual transition to an economy that used much less energy thanks to conservation, and where that energy we did require came from renewable, clean sources. Now, we are in trouble and must move very rapidly.

Transportation

• Passengers, mail, and parcels: high-speed electric rail
• Redirect all road and automaker subsidies to electrified local rail (light rail, streetcars) and long-haul rail; develop high-speed on/off loaders for freight trains
• Ban private jets; ban short-hop flights; phase out medium haul flights; ban air freight
• Overseas and long-haul flights must be off oil in 5 years or they’re grounded
• Shipping, from cruise ships to freighters, must be off oil in 5 years

Every single one of our transportation choices is entirely dependent upon oil. The recent oil price spike (up to $147 per barrel just before the recession) started to get people thinking about the cost of commuting everywhere, but it was nothing compared to what is coming. Because we transport everything by oil-fueled means, and because so little is produced locally, oil price increases will drive up the price of everything from food to iPods.

Government

• End all subsidies for anything that uses fossil fuels, including farming
• Completely open government up to scrutiny; no need for Freedom of Information requests
• Ban all lobbying; end the revolving door between government and business
• U.S.: withdraw entirely from the Middle East (including Israel) over the 10 year ‘get off oil’ plan; downsize the military to strictly national defence; use demobilised personnel to rebuild the national rail system, net-zero housing, etc.

Government is not the problem, but it is a big part of it. Any business subsidy favours that business and distorts the market. Had we never subsidised oil (in the form of tax breaks to oil companies, free roads for trucking companies, and foreign occupations), we would likely be driving electric cars and riding electric streetcars now. We would be eating organic foods. And we would not be dependent upon hostile nations for energy.

However we did, and we also did not forbid pollution; we allowed companies to use the atmosphere (and everywhere else) as a dump. In doing so we dug ourselves into a big, dark hole, and we do not have time for ‘the market’ to figure a way out. That is why I have called for subsidies to renewable energy and conservation, because we now need to overcome years of going in the wrong direction.

Government must be made entirely transparent. Every report, minutes from every meeting, budgets – all must be made immediately public (and readily searchable). Corporations must also be brought to heel; many are so large that they have more power than our elected representatives. Only by doing these two things do we have a chance of keeping these new subsidies from becoming as big and permanent a problem as the ones they replace.

Economy

• Move to a stable and sustainable economy – abandon the growth economy to the trash heap of history where it belongs
• Stabilise population now; more people need more resources
• Break up large companies; replace organizations that must be large with co-operatives with strict rules on size and influence; no business can be allowed to become To Big To Fail or large enough to influence government
• Ban advertising aimed at children; make all advertising non-tax-deductible
• Re-localise as much as possible, from decision-making to farming; decisions should be made by those affected, not remote capitalists or bureaucrats

The whole idea of a continuous growth economy on a finite planet is insane. Unchecked growth in the body is a cancer; in a segment of the economy it is a bubble. When the entire economy must grow constantly, then the entire economy is a bubble. This includes population, which must be stabilised in every country as quickly as possible. In developed countries, where population is only growing because of immigration, population can be stabilised immediately.

Unregulated capitalism is as much as disaster as the so-called socialism that led to the Soviet Union. As history has clearly demonstrated on more than one occasion, capitalism sooner-or-later devolves into crony capitalism, where one or a few companies control large market segments – and exert far too much influence on government cronies.

As corporations and governments increase in size and centralise power, people become pawns for profit. Decisions must be made by those who are affected by them, not just those who profit from them.

Food and necessities

• Relocalise farming starting immediately
• End all farm subsidies except those transitioning small, local, family farms to organic
• Enact trade protection for necessities; limit food imports to luxury items

Almost all our food is grown on massive factory farms. Every piece of farm machinery runs on oil or a derivative. Irrigation pumps run on gasoline. Fertiliser is derived from natural gas, also in decline. Pesticides and other agro-chemicals, without which industrialised farming cannot exist, are petrochemical based.  All transportation – trucks, trains, ships, and aeroplanes – run only on oil products.

Oil price increases will ripple through the system raising food prices dramatically. The only food that is immune from this effect is locally grown, small-scale organic, and we know how much that costs. We are ‘eating oil,’ and as the price of oil increases, so must the cost of our food.

There is no advantage to international trade in food, except to the multinationals receiving subsidies to do so. The United States has a population in excess of 300 million; is there really any economy of scale for food that is not possible in a market of this size?

Any country not self-reliant for necessities is vulnerable and prone to war: see: current U.S. involvement in the Middle East; any empire in history.

Shelter

• Change building codes effective immediately to net-zero energy; use current best practices until we develop more ways to build sustainably
• Plan to abandon cities like Phoenix

We can build houses and office buildings right now that require no net energy to construct or heat. It is also true that building codes favour current, grossly inefficient methods of construction. We should end this favouritism immediately.

Some cities, particularly those in the American Southwest, are completely unsustainable without a reliable supply of cheap oil. Phoenix is the poster child for this; it essentially consists of 4 million commuters living in the middle of a desert. All food, water, and energy must be brought from far away. Mass transit is not even possible because the city is so spread out. We either begin a planned rampdown of cities like Phoenix or oil shortages will do it the hard way.

Education

• Launch major research programs into sustainable building
• Educate people, rather than indoctrinate them

Our current educational system is dysfunctional, to be kind. It is really designed to train children to be obedient factory workers and unquestioning consumers, and in that it has succeeded all too well. A glance at the number of intelligent idiots (and many not so intelligent) who unquestioningly believe Fox News tells the story. Here we have a supposedly advanced society where citizens allow themselves to be rebranded as consumers, where they believe talking heads rather than scientists on matters of science like peak oil and climate change, and where economic ideology is still taken seriously despite decades of being just plain wrong.

Suggested books if you want to learn more

Lester R. Brown has proposed a plan in much more detail. It is available for free download or can be purchased.

The first two books discuss peak oil and its consequences. The second two books are plans to at least mitigate some of the crisis we face.

We are likely at or near peak oil. The effects will be devastating, including a permanent recession/depression and a major scaling back of civilisation-as-we-know-it. The current recession may well be as much due to high oil prices – now ~$80 per barrel, or quadruple the price of just a few years ago – as to the banksters.

Note: This article is aimed at people with some awareness of peak oil. (It has been increasingly in the news lately.) For a frightening and well-sourced look at expected outcomes, check out Life After the Oil Crash. If you don’t want to ‘believe’ that site, there are plenty more where that came from; I’ve sourced a few reputable sites at the end of this post along with some good peak oil books.

The key points are these:

• Our economy requires continuous growth. Our economy runs on oil. Oil substitutes are nowhere near being ready in sufficient quantity to take over, if that is even possible. Therefore, a reduction in oil supply/increase in prices means an economic contraction.

• Because oil is used for virtually every single thing in our society, from factory-farmed food, to our entire transportation system, to even building alternative energy systems, price increases will ripple through the economy and bankrupt countless people and companies.

What I want to talk about here is the expected response of various governments, especially mine (Canada) and the U.S. Given a serious depression brought on by spiking oil prices and a shortage of supply, what will governments do?

Ignore the problem

Up till now, they have largely ignored the problem, but reality is about to rear its ugly head and become quite unignorable. Still, so-called ‘conservative’ governments have a solid track record of ignoring the suffering of millions of their own people, and there’s no reason to believe that they will not try to do so again. The Great Depression was a perfect example, in which right-wing governments in Canada and the United States believed that ‘the market’ would correct itself given time.

When that didn’t happen, those governments were replaced with more activist leaders, but by then millions were utterly destitute. And now, unfortunately, all the major parties in Canada (Conservatives and Liberals) and the U.S. (Republicans and Democrats) are essentially ‘conservative,’ which in practice means in service to the wealthy.

Token gestures

This is really a variation on ignoring the problem, in which a leader pretends to take something seriously but does not actually take realistic steps to address it. Token measures may be taken, often announced with great fanfare, but the problem continues to worsen because nothing is really being done about it.

In fact, the token measures usually make the problem worse, because the powers-that-be squander money and other resources that could have been used to combat the problem. Case-in-point is the recent Canadian ‘economic stimulus,’ in which the Conservative (in name only) government handed out billions for paving driveways and adding decks to houses. A sensible response would have been to insist that all stimulus money be used for conservation, say insulating one’s house, or for alternative energy generation. This would have had the effect of saving people money and energy and slowing climate change and reducing the impact of peak oil. However, that contradicted ‘conservative’ ideology so could not be done, and as a result Canada now has billions of dollars less and continues to increase energy usage.

Baby steps

The masses are getting, restless, so Something must be done. Token gestures are no longer adequate; too many people are losing houses, going hungry, turning to crime, and otherwise making the government look bad. If Something is not done, the current government may actually be replaced.

The Obama administration’s recent announcement of a few billion for nuclear power is a baby step. It will help a tiny bit – or it may hurt. Either way, a few nuclear plants will not get the U.S. ‘off oil’ any time soon.

Alternate endings

After all avenues of non-action have been exhausted and there is real threat of political change, even insurrection, somebody may get serious about addressing the root cause of the problem – or they may claim to do so in order to seize power.

In the United States during the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt became President and his government took serious steps to end the Depression and to make sure it couldn’t happen again. In the first case, for example, FDR put people to work through civic improvement programs, and in the second the Glass-Steagal act was passed to keep the banksters in check. (Its repeal is a big part of the reason the current crop of banksters again crashed the economy.)

On the other side of the ocean, a madman used the German depression to seize power.

There is another possible ending for us. It could be that no realistic actions are taken and no megalomaniacs attain power, but things just fall apart; the centre cannot hold. Let’s go through each of these scenarios.

The Madman

Nobody wants to take this possibility seriously; I suppose we like to think we’ve ‘evolved’ past this stage of allowing such evil. Realistically, it has happened within the lifetimes of people alive today and the conditions are ripening for it to happen again, especially in the United States.

There are a very large number of seriously unhinged people in the United States, and some of them have achieved quite high levels of power. That Sarah Palin would seriously be considered as a vice-presidential – and now even a presidential – candidate is truly frightening. That tens of millions of Americans think she’s just the ticket is insane. That Rush Limbaugh has 25 million ‘ditto-heads’ speaks to the debasement of the American people.

The U.S. has only two parties, and one has allowed the other to wage a ‘culture war’ for the purpose of dividing the nation and making it easier (for them) to conquer. They are abetted by a sniveling, corporate media that has fought in court for the right to not tell the truth when reporting news. The other party (the Democratic Party, in case you were wondering) is little better, and Obama is, in practice, little different from his predecessor. Many people elected Obama thinking him to be another FDR, not Bush-lite.

All of this sets up the conditions for a strong leader to sweep into power and take control – all that is needed is a crisis. A peak oil-induced depression will be a very serious crisis indeed.

The centre cannot hold

It is quite possible that our political parties are so corrupt that they will dither and hand-wave and make token gestures until the country simply falls apart. If federal governments remain ineffectual and lose sufficient credibility, and if people are suffering greatly, then the federal government may become obsolete.

This could happen in various ways. Regional leaders may arise who provide an answer – perhaps not one that works, but that appears to work long enough. These leaders may push for secession of their region.

Or, things could just disintegrate into something like James Howard Kunstler’s World Made by Hand, where even provincial/state governments fade away and everything reverts to the local level. Communities live or die individually according to the leadership shown therein.

Given that rising oil prices have a strongly localising effect, this ending is quite possible. As oil prices rise, for example, so do transportation costs. That favours local manufacturing, local farming, and individual conservation over giant, remote generating plants. As communities come to rely on their own resources more-and-more, and as the higher levels of government continue to extract taxes that provide less-and-less value to people, there will be a strong pull away from federalism. Nobody likes taxation without representation….

Half-assed action

Both of these outcomes are non-solutions to our current predicament, which is that the price of oil is going to keep going up while the supply diminishes, progressively rolling back technology and civilisation. The final possibility is that a strong leader who ‘gets it’ somehow attains power and takes some action, but not likely enough to get us to a sustainable way of living. Keep in mind that this person could be a Hitler or an FDR.

Let’s think this through from the point-of-view of this strong leader (could be national or regional).

• He (for convenience I’m using the masculine) recognizes that the oil supply is dwindling and there is nothing he can do to prevent that.
• Insufficient action has been taken to prevent many of the worst effects, and so there will have to be a significant change in living standards; in particular, there are many things the government will no longer have the money to do.
• The market did not and will not solve the problem.
• Localisation will be driven by increasing costs of transportation, and this is a threat to national/regional unity.

What to do?

Realistically, the only choice is to redirect remaining energy supplies to building a sustainable society. This sounds simple and even appealing, but in reality it means a huge change in how we live and will be strenuously resisted by everyone from CEOs to commuters. As a result, any leader will almost certainly take a ‘half-assed’ approach to get us through the worst of the crisis, thus permitting a partial recovery and setting us up for the next crash.

For example, fuel economy standards will be raised, school buses may be pressed into service as commuter buses, growth of suburbs may be curtailed, building codes will be revised, and quite possibly a large-scale build-out of alternative energy will begin, with wind and nuclear in the lead.

Conservation will be strongly encouraged, and governments may no longer be able to give plum deals to heavy industrial consumers, for example the aluminium industry. Recycling could take off. Sports teams and rock stars will no longer be able to jet around the country in order to make millions. Local agriculture will revive somewhat. There will be a lot of people who have to find new ways to get by as cubicle jobs evaporate.

All of this may get us to a point where we can plug along for awhile at $100 per barrel oil, or $200, or wherever it settles briefly. John Michael Greer suggests this first crisis period will last 10-25 years, and this seems reasonable. However, the continuous growth economy will still be in place, the supply of oil will continue to diminish, and competition for the remaining oil will increase, so at some point there will be another collision between the two and another step down.

The only way to prevent this is to move to a sustainable way of living. The means exist to do this, but, as mentioned already, there will be very strong resistance, so most likely we will not go all the way there. Unfortunately, the longer we wait, the less resources (primarily oil and gas) we will have to fuel the transition, and the closer will be other, very serious problems like climate change. If you’ve been following the latter at all, you know that the cost of mitigating climate change now is vastly less than the cost of attempting to adapt to it later – and we’ll have less resources to to do.

I’ll detail the steps we really need to take in the next article.

Suggested books and sites if you want to learn more

There are several excellent websites that discuss peak oil.

• The Oil Drum: Discussions about energy and our future
• Energy Bulletin: Peak oil primer
• ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas): Understanding peak oil

The books below discuss in much more detail some of the ideas mentioned in this post.

The first book (from left-to-right) inspired the movie Collapse, currently in the theatres. The book pulls no punches about what we can expect in a post-peak oil world.

James Howard Kunstler’s The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century has been a big seller and quite influential. Kunstler explains why peak oil is imminent and a problem.

The third book is Kunstler’s World Made by Hand, which essentially describes the outcome of “The centre cannot hold” scenario. The U.S. reverts to a very local ‘economy’; life is shorter and more brutish.

The next final book describes the outcome of an experiment that took off and became wildy popular: The 100-mile diet. The authors attempted to live only on foods grown within 100 miles of their home. They were motivated by concerns about climate change, but in reality peak oil is going to strike first and make the 100-mile diet a necessity rather than an option. (I discussed some serious concerns about this even being possible today in Why Most Food Could Never Be “Local” – What this means in a peak oil world to your food choices, to the 100-mile diet, and to vegetarians.)

Ok, the short answer is no, because solar greenhouses are not going to be powering someone’s commute anytime soon. However, they could just be a big part of the solution to heating homes, which makes up a very large part of total energy use and will take an increasing chunk of the family budget as oil prices increase. To those who say they will be unaffected because they don’t heat with fossil fuels, think again. Solar greenhouses could also be used to grow food, another major chunk of the family budget and also highly susceptible to oil prices.

In this solar greenhouse (not pictured), the homeowners spent $1,000 and their labour to create a simple but very effective solar greenhouse that reduced their heating consumption – for a 100-year-old, 1,800 square-foot* house in Wisconsin! – “…to less than one cord of firewood and about $50 worth of natural gas.” That is remarkable. If it can work there, it can just about anywhere.

This was no high-tech greenhouse, as you may have gathered by the cost, yet it was still highly effective:

All windows were single-glazed, and some of the recycled storm windows we used for glazing were cracked, yet we were able to maintain “frost hardy” vegetables, even with outdoor temperatures in the minus 30’s.

We were able to “harvest” heat from our greenhouse every day that it wasn’t actually snowing, as long as I kept snow from accumulating on the glazed portion of the roof.

With good circulation, the volume of air in a 9 x 30 foot greenhouse is great enough to keep an 1800 square foot house warm as long as the sun shines.

This, by-the-way, was in a house in the city.

Growing bananas in the Rockies

If we got serious about solar greenhouses, the heat return to the house could be increased and so could the varieties of vegetables – and fruits – grown. My personal goal is to have a solar greenhouse capable of growing avocados, as my wife and family are Colombian and love them. Of course, as avocados must be flown in they are expensive, contribute to climate change, and will likely be unavailable as oil prices rise significantly. I have the advantage of living in Victoria, Canada, so should be able to do so easily.

However, even people living in much colder areas of the country can grow tropical fruits in a solar greenhouse. The bananas in this photo are grown in Amory Lovins’ solar greenhouse in Colorado, which he describes as

…the “furnace” for the building. This 900-square-foot space, plus the heat gain from the other windows, lights, appliances, and people, provides all the heat that’s needed for the entire building most of the year.

The heat is stored in the masonry, the floor, the water, and the earth under the house. Because of the building’s huge thermal capacity, heat is stored for months, not just hours.

Heat captured in September may be used in December.

That is remarkable. The Lovins’ building is a much higher-tech solution than the Wisconsin $1,000 solar greenhouse, and has correspondingly greater capabilities. I hope we start investing in this kind of tech soon, or peak oil may leave us only with the low-tech, low productivity option; better than nothing by far, but no bananas.

All heating costs are tied to oil prices

I should close by addressing those who don’t heat with oil or natural gas (also in decline), and may believe their heating bill will be unaffected by rising oil prices. You will. As oil (and natural gas) prices increase, there will be a switch to electricity for everything from heat to cars, driving the price of electric heat up.

************************************************

* Note: I believe there is an error in the article when it states that the house contains nine bedrooms. I suspect this should be nine rooms, not nine bedrooms, as it is 1,800 square feet. However, it is possible.

Suggested books if you want to learn more

The books below discuss in much more detail some of the ideas mentioned in this post.

The first book (from left-to-right) is Plenty: Eating Locally on the 100-Mile Diet – something the authors found a tremendous challenge. And they live in Vancouver, where far more can be grown than anywhere else in Canada. They found certain foods were simply no longer available, something that will also happen as oil prices rise. Here’s a telling quote from the book:

Call me naive, but I never knew that flour would be struck from our 100-Mile Diet. Wheat products are just so ubiquitous, “the staff of life,” that I had hazily imagined the stuff must be grown everywhere. But of course: I had never seen a field of wheat anywhere close to Vancouver, and my mental images of late-afternoon light falling on golden fields of grain were all from my childhood on the Canadian prairies. What I was able to find was Anita’s Organic Grain & Flour Mill, about 60 miles up the Fraser River valley. I called, and learned that Anita’s nearest grain suppliers were at least 800 miles away by road. She sounded sorry for me. Would it be a year until I tasted a pie?

The next book is James Howard Kunstler’s The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. Kunstler explains why peak oil is imminent and a problem.

The next two books discuss growing your own vegetables year-round in a solar greenhouse. The second also is recommended by the builder of the $1,000 greenhouse, and has instructions for building a solar greenhouse. It is out-of-print, but you can buy it used or borrow it from the library.