Sunday, June 27, 2010

The lost civilization: Finding a reality-based frame of reference in the age of delusion

SUMMARY: We are a lost people. Here in the frantic, waning days of industrial civilization, we have almost completely lost our bearings. We no longer know who we are, what we are, when we are, where we are, or why we are. And as we prepare to embark on a harrowing descent from our civilization’s peak, it would behoove us to find an honest, reality-based frame of reference. So c’mon everybody -- let’s get out our navigation equipment. It’s time we вЂfound’ ourselves!

NOTE: This essay is a follow-up to my short story, вЂThe Lost Civilization: A Dream’, posted at www.energybulletin.net/53103. The story ends, chillingly, with the line, “As a dull axe slams repeatedly into the back of my neck, we begin our descent.” …Yikes.

WE ARE LOST

We are a lost people. I think most of us feel it on some level, even if we can’t quite pin it down. We no longer know who we are, what we are, when we are, where we are, or why we are. We are adrift on a plane of unreality that we have fashioned ourselves. And we have tragically disabled almost all means by which any true reality can be honestly observed.

The reality we can no longer detect is, of course, as complex as it is increasingly grim: (1) our well-advanced moral and physical degradation, (2) the anti-evolutionary state of our physical and social existence, (3) the late-stage temporal coordinates of our civilization, (4) the alarming and accelerating dilapidation of our biosphere coupled with a deep disconnect from the natural world around us, and (5) the profound loss of any larger purpose for our lives beyond perpetuating economic вЂgrowth.’

And our вЂlostness’ was, of course, arrived at purposefully. We have been shepherded here, and have arrived here without complaint – even enthusiastically. That we have come willingly, for the most part, does not lessen the evil of those who guided us here. It merely makes us complicit. We are both the victims and co-perpetrators of our downfall.

And as with most вЂwrong turns’ that are unwisely coupled with acceleration, our civilization-scale detour into the realm of the make-believe will not end well. And it will end soon, no doubt. The oil-powered, rube-goldberg contraption that is our industrial civilization is already coming apart at the seams in a steadily worsening orgy of environmental, economic, and social disintegration. The unspeakable tragedy currently playing out in the Gulf of Mexico is but one more entry in a long, growing, and increasingly destructive list of such industrial tragedies. Our civilization is a horror show now and it will become orders of magnitude worse before we reach anything resembling stability in the necessarily lower-energy and lower-complexity societies that follow. And nobody, of course, has any idea when these new steady states may arrive --or if they ever will.

We are simply as lost as lost can be. And hardly anybody in this country knows it yet -- on anything more than a superficial level, at least.

FINDING OUR BEARINGS

But even if we could finally summon the courage to admit that we are indeed lost as a civilization, what then should we do about it?

Should we jam down the accelerator even harder? This, of course is the Deepwater Horizon, mountaintop-removal coal mining, hydro-fracking shale-gas, and Alberta tar sands mentality. It is the mentality of apocalypse. Should we seek out and destroy those deemed responsible? Well, we might not like what we find. Should we turn on each other and fight for diminishing scraps? It is already known how this strategy ends. These are indeed seductive responses to our predicament, but we should know better.

No, we have a better choice open to us – one that will not вЂsave’ us, but will at least allow us to confront our future productively and with dignity. And that is to renounce our cleverly-constructed floating bubbles of unreality and work to reclaim some reality-based frame of reference – some contact with the ever-present and increasingly pressing biophysical reality. We simply need stop for a minute, take a look around, and find our bearings.

For it is only by accurately identifying what is real – by illuminating and dismantling the elaborate web of industrial myths – that we can hope to move forward in any positive way within the coming maelstrom of industrial collapse. And while I suppose the swift and brutal revelation of reality will become the hallmark of our civilization’s decent, perhaps a head-start might make the trip down a little less painful.

So let’s try.

(Note: If you’re in a hurry -- or just pathologically impatient -- you can skip to the вЂSummary’ at the end. But, of course, then you’d miss out on some passably good stuff about rats biting off their feet, humans learning to talk, the slaying of alien mutants, and The Grand Post-Industrial Catabolic Orgy. Your loss.)

WHO ARE WE?

Well, let’s start out by stating who we are not. We are not rapacious consumers of synthetic food, mind-numbing electronic gadgetry, pre-packaged amusement, and fossilized sunlight. We are not unfeeling cogs in an elaborate, growth-producing, industrial apparatus. We are not interchangeable employees waiting for вЂrecovery’, вЂstimulus’, or вЂjob creation.’ We are not machines. Our children are not consumers-in-training. Nor are they machine-gun-wielding storm-troopers or brave inter-galactic slayers of alien mutants. (And they are not sick in the head – their civilization is.)

All this industrial nonsense, of course, defines who we have been PRETENDING to be. But it is not who we ARE.

No, we are discreet biological organisms – each of us. We are similar to each other, yet different in very many ways. Gloriously different. And we each have a calling – something we would gladly do for a lifetime for no money. Just for the joy of it. Something skilled and useful. Something productive. Something beautiful. Something ecologically sane. Something that humbly respects the inviolable Laws of Thermodynamics, the sanctity of life, and the sanctity of human communities.

And even if we don’t know what our calling is, we each have one. It is not your fault if you do not yet know what yours is -- they have been trying mightily to keep you from finding it. But they will be gone soon. So keep trying. Open your eyes, your heart, and let it come to you. It will. Grab onto it. Fall into it.

And in fulfilling our calling we become so much more than the pathetic consumers we have been pretending to be – we become PRODUCERS. We become makers and skilled users of useful tools. And in our necessarily-small, managed domains, we become competent conductors of the timeless ecological orchestra. We renounce our tragic industrial roles as bumbling conquerors and destroyers; as arrogant machine-part-wanna-bes. We become skilled partners with Nature, nurturers and protectors – proud stewards of beleaguered-but-still-glorious Creation.

THAT is who we are, who we CAN be. Enough already with our puerile industrial pretending. Limitless consumers, corporate cogs, and slayers of alien mutants, indeed!

WHAT ARE WE?

Look for a moment at the following timeline for our species that I scratched together from Nicholas Wade’s wonderful book, вЂBefore the Dawn’ (2006). While my timeline is admittedly rough, I think it gives us important insight in answering the question at hand: WHAT are we?

5,000,000 ybp (years before present): Human lineage diverges from chimpanzees and other apes. Still very much ape-like.

2,500,000 ybp: Begin to fashion primitive stone tools. Still primitive head-size, body, and mind.

200,000 ybp: Obtain modern head and brain-size. Still primitive body and mind.

100,000 ybp: Obtain modern body appearance. Still primitive mind with no true language and only simple social structures.

50,000 ybp: Watershed evolutionary time period. Obtain modern mind and behavior, with modern language and complex abstract thought. Invent complex social structures (warfare, religion, trade) and vastly more complex tools. Fitted clothing is worn. A small band of maybe 150 individuals (from a population of maybe 5,000) leaves Eastern Africa to become the descendants of all humans today. But still only mobile hunter-gatherers with no agriculture, and lack of social skills required for larger settlements.

10,000 ybp: Climate stability and advanced cooperative skills allow invention of agriculture and the formation of modern, settled communities – the seeds of вЂgreat’ civilizations to come. Human influence on biosphere vastly increases.

200 ybp: Start of industrial civilization. Vast quantities of energy from concentrated fossilized sunlight replaces diffuse modern-sunlight-derived energy sources. Entropic destruction of biosphere greatly accelerated.

(Note: If that’s not just the coolest timeline you’ve ever seen, you’re in the wrong species, pal. I very highly recommend Wade’s very enlightening book.)

So what does this timeline tell us? For one, it tells us that we have really become who we are as humans VERY recently, geologically speaking. We are babies in this world – newborns, even. Secondly, it tells us that tight community organization is an evolutionarily-engrained social construct of our species. And I think it is important to note here that this evolutionarily-mandated proclivity towards tight communities is the antithesis of the atomizing industrial social organizations increasingly being thrust upon us.

We are simply not blank slates to be scribbled on with whatever economic ideology and social constructs are currently вЂin style.’ We are not soft clay to be molded into precise geometric patterns that fit snugly inside some вЂbrilliant’ new economic, social, or governmental model.

No, we are the products of billions, millions, and thousands of years of evolutionary kneading. We are multi-cellular organisms. We are animals. We are primates. But specifically, we are intelligent, SOCIAL apes with the improbable gifts of language and complex abstract thought.

It is ultimately because of our history as a species that we are humans who simply NEED to be deeply close to other humans. We are evolutionarily predisposed to small, tight communities in which to participate in the intricate social interactions and face-to-face sharing of information that are the hallmarks of our species. That this close interaction and sharing doesn’t go on much anymore is the reason so many of us are going so damn crazy lately. It defies our very DNA. The junk-food mental diet of our modern info-tainment society is literally making us mentally ill.

In other words, industrial civilization has been trying to tell us that we are something we are not – that we CANNOT be. We simply cannot maintain healthy psyches in the atomized consumerist lifestyles industrial civilization is requiring of us. It doesn’t work. The seductive mirage of happiness we feel as we plunge into the immersion pools of our personal entertainment systems is just that – a mirage. It’s fake. It doesn’t work. Is it really any wonder our civilization is going collectively insane?

Social rats kept from being deeply social with other rats bite their feet off. Humans kept from being deeply social with other humans – i.e. kept from participating in real communities -- shoot up schools, they shoot up heroin, and they shoot up local economies. It was the height of foolishness to deny our biological need for community – to pretend that it could be replaced by the thin, saccharine substitute of вЂentertainment’ or вЂservice to the country’ or вЂservice to the global economy’ or whatever. And we are now, of course, paying a heavy price for this arrogance.

We are biting off our feet.

WHEN ARE WE?

You’d think that this one would be a no-brainer, huh? We’re beginning the second decade of the 21st century, dummy! Question answered. Next.

But wait. If our stated goal here is honesty, I think we need put aside the vacuous вЂdawn of the new century’ crap and peg this question to some aspects of biophysical reality. Namely, WHEN are we living in terms of the various key biophysical inventories and trends on this planet – trends that will surely define our future as both a civilization and a species. And THAT is not a vacuous question; it’s a vital one. And if we have the courage to look carefully at the accumulated geological and ecological information, the answers that reveal themselves become quite frightening indeed.

First, let’s disabuse ourselves of the ridiculous industrial myths about the present and the future. We are NOT on the cusp of glorious liberation from our evolutionary and ecological constraints – where science and technology will soon have mastered and harnessed the biosphere and its genomes for our own noble purposes. That is a lie. Nor are we are on the verge of possessing access to unlimited cheap energy – or even maintaining our current energy production, fossil or otherwise. That is a lie. Nor are we on the verge of вЂworking through the current economic troubles’ and establishing a completely globalized economy run on the eminently fair and self-sustaining principles of the вЂfree market.’ That is a lie. Nor are we still in an ecological вЂgrace period’ where we have the appropriate societal momentum and sufficient time to avert monumental (and likely catastrophic) changes to Earth’s ecosystems. That is the biggest lie.

Lest you think I exaggerate on our potential for self-delusion here, try verbally inserting any of the above myths into literally any story from any mass media outlet. It will fit in perfectly with both the content and tone. Liberal or conservative -- the various media outlets are impressively united on the core industrial myths.

So, all of that is certainly not вЂwhen’ we are. No, the FOLLOWING is вЂwhen’ we are: We are in the early-stage catabolic collapse of the largest, most complex civilization this planet will likely ever see. It has already begun. We have already started down the back-slope of industrial civilzation’s finite life-cycle. We have already begun The Great Simplification, The Great Collapse, The Grand Post-Industrial Catabolic Orgy, The Long Emergency, The Long Descent, The Big One – whatever you wish to call it. It has begun.

And if it feels perhaps less-than-monumental to you at this point, it is for the same reason that any exponential function appears slow at the start – the slope takes a little time to вЂpick up speed.’ See Chris Martenson’s вЂCrash Course’ video for an enlightening tutorial on this. And just realize it can work in the вЂdown’ direction even easier than the вЂup’ direction. And as we’ve spent the past 200 years frantically pumping it up, we’ve got a lot of вЂdown’ comin’ our way. A LOT of вЂdown.’ More вЂdown’ than we’ll know what to do with. And all this вЂdown’ will mean, as Jim Kunstler says, that just about everything in our society that depends on fossil-energy-derived complexity will cease to function very well – or at all. The simple life, here we come!

For we are losing our access to our beloved fossil energy and all the entropy-defying services it offered. (And likewise for any of the other вЂstarting materials’ for our industrial lifestyle – minerals, potable water, clean air, etc.) We are witnessing the unraveling of the nascent globalized economy and all its tenuous connections that this fossil-energy made possible. And frighteningly, for a people so accustomed to the just-around-the-bend promises of immortality, we are entering the time when we will once again be subject to the same pitiless directives of ecology and evolution our species has labored under for 99.9% of our existence.

Oh yea, and did I mention the biosphere itself might be collapsing? Our favorite whipping-boy, the biosphere, seems to be having a bit of trouble. It appears to be collapsing or simplifying in a manner analogous to the human economy – key parts are falling away, and connections between still-existing parts are snapping like over-stressed bridge supports. And while obviously the biosphere has great powers of resiliency, past a certain point (that we’ve likely already passed) the recovery is in GEOLOGIC time, not вЂpeople’ time -- not on a time-scale that you and I would recognize.

And don’t discount the informed, scientific warnings of James Hansen and others that we may be in the process of climatically snuffing out the entire circus, clowns and all. (Not that even this warning-of-all-warnings would engender even a hint of urgency into the autistic industrial consciousness!)

So yea, THAT’s вЂwhen’ we are. It’s a little different than what they teach you in school, huh?

WHERE ARE WE?

Now, I don’t know where you are, but I can tell you where I am.

I am on the northeastern edge of the North American Piedmont geologic province. The terrain is composed of rolling hills. The soil is a (now) relatively thin reddish loam, underlain by a crumbly Triassic shale. It has a particular, pleasant smell – an ancient smell. Occasionally there is a small igneous вЂmountain’ poking up through the shale, surrounded by a heavier, grayish soil that is somewhat less pleasant to me (although not, of course, to the wild organisms that grow there).

The climate is temperate. It is difficultly-but-refreshingly cold in the winter, and gloriously hot and humid in the summer. It rains a sufficient amount – usually -- during the medium-length growing season. The weather is perhaps acting a bit strangely of late for reasons that I know, but can scarcely comprehend.

This is a good place to grow trees. There are oaks, maples, ashes, and hickories of various species, along with many other kinds. Fruit and nut trees also grow well here, some producing more abundantly than others without sprays. Vegetables grow abundantly with proper care, and they tend to be especially flavorful in the red soil. Grass grows richly much of the year, to the pleasure of my sheep and chickens -- and thus myself.

There are abundant birds, insects, amphibians, and mammals here -- at least in the places we allow them to inhabit. There are, of course, far fewer in number and type than could be here. But there are still enough to be ever-present if one opens their eyes and ears to them. I know some of them more intimately than others, but they are all beautiful to me.

Many people have lived here before me. Some have cared tenderly for the land, some have ignored it, and some have abused it horribly. Because of this abuse, it is, in many ways, far less healthy than it could and should be. I am saddened by this.

And there are, of course, many people here now – more than there ever were. Some care tenderly for the land; more ignore or abuse it – more every year. This both saddens and worries me. We perhaps have nascent kernels of real community; kernels that may have the potential to sprout and grow when conditions favor them. But I don’t know. In the coming times of stress, it could just as easily splinter violently across any number of latent differences. We’ll see. Maybe it’ll do both at once.

And so on.

So that’s a bit about where I am. I don’t claim to know even remotely enough about my place, but I’m at least starting to find out where I am. You likely live somewhere much different. What is there? Well, THAT is where you are.

In other words, we are not just anywhere. We ARE of course on the Earth. And we ARE, of course, on a certain region of a certain continent. But more importantly, we are -- each of us, in a very particular place. And each particular place has a very particular human and natural ecology that can and must be learned. Again, THAT is where we are.

It is time for us wake up from the вЂeverywhere and nowhere’ industrial delusions of place – where any place is treated essentially the same as any other place; where we can hop around between far-flung places at a whim; where we can confidently depend that products mined or produced in far-off places can be had at a moment’s notice, if only the price is right. We desperately need to start opening our eyes to where we REALLY are, what is there, and what is required of us there.

Because when the fossil fuel security blanket is snatched away – and it will be soon – we will ALL suddenly be exactly where we are -- and nowhere else. We will then need to know our places as intimately as we know our own bodies: What is there and how is it structured? What can we fashion from it to help us live lives of quality? What makes our places healthy and productive? How do we tell when they are unhealthy? How do we restore them to health and sustain productivity? These place-based questions will indeed be THE key questions of the post-carbon era. And it is only by knowing exactly WHERE we are that we will be able to answer them.

So make sure you know where YOU are – and if you don’t, start finding out.

WHY ARE WE?

Ahhh, finally the age old question: Why are we here? Well, industrial civilization, that self-proclaimed pinnacle of humanity’s physical and intellectual achievements, has come up with the most inane answer imaginable: to вЂgrow’ the economy. Huh? Seriously? That’s the best we could do? And they give Nobel prizes for pointing out new and exciting ways to do this. No worries that, on a finite planet, achieving this perpetual growth means necessarily snuffing out the biosphere in the process -- did you see that quarterly report for Monsanto! The darkness of this industrial goal is further revealed when we realize it shares eerie similarities with the goal of the cancer cell – namely, infinite growth in a finite medium, вЂtil death do us part.

As I say to my students when they’re acting absurdly below their intelligence or maturity level -- c’mon.

I can think of scores of better reasons for our presence on this planet than to effectively commit mass suicide. It’s really not hard. What is hard, though, is to think of the BEST reasons – to cut through the crap and figure out the most noble and beautiful reasons we have for continually pushing bits of matter around the surface of this big blue marble.

Religions, of course, have much to say about why we’re here. So do professional philosophers. So do shoe-store clerks, bus drivers, and gravediggers. And so do I. In a previous essay (вЂA Land & Community Ethic’ www.energybulletin.net/52973), I suggested (with the help of Aldo Leopold and our other great teachers) that we use the following as a sound justification and guide for our continued presence on this rock:

The Land & Community Ethic: Maximizing the health of human and biotic communities is the highest earthly goal of humanity. Thus, a thing is right when it tends to increase or preserve the health of both human and biotic communities. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

I then went on to flesh out some of the details of this ethic (again, with the help of our great teachers) in terms of the following angles: health, justice, nature-as-standard, scale, limits, ignorance, technology, morality, tradition, and some practical design principles.

While I, of course, was thoroughly impressed with my summarization of the accumulated wisdom of our great teachers, I realize it may be lacking in organization, clarity, and completeness. But I think it’s hard to argue with the basic premise (which is essentially Aldo Leopold’s & Wendell Berry’s – not mine). And I think that any other worthy justification for our presence here wouldn’t be too radically different – even the religious ones.

So I’ll let it stand at that. Come up with your own reason, if you like. But sheesh! --please come up with something better than вЂgrowing the economy.’ C’mon.

SUMMARY: A REALITY-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE

Now, since this has been a long essay, let me just summarize our efforts at finding our bearings as a civilization -- at scraping away the delusions that will certainly hamper our efforts in constructively facing a very trying future. Here they are below – our coordinates, so to speak. We move on from here.

Who we are NOT: Consumers; interchangeable industrial employees.

What we are NOT: Socially-self-sufficient individuals realizing our fullest personal potential in a virtual reality of our own design.

When we are NOT: At the dawn of the information / technological / globalization / unlimited-clean-energy revolution.

Where are we NOT: Just any-place; everywhere and no-where; in cyberspace.

Why we are NOT: To вЂgrow’ a potentially-infinite human economy within a finite biosphere.

Who we are: Potential producers; unique individuals with a true personal вЂcalling’ -- even if it hasn’t yet been identified.

What we are: Intensely social apes who thrive only within the deep relationships and intricate web of close social bonds that constitutes a real community.

When we are: Beginning the down-slope of industrial civilization’s extended collapse: the Great Simplification, Kunstler’s вЂLong Emergency’, Greer’s вЂLong Descent’.

Where we are: In a very specific physical location with a unique & well-defined (but changeable) human and natural ecology.

Why we are: To maximize the health of human and biotic communities.

So does that clear everything up? OK, good. It’s about time we started being honest with ourselves.

Now letвЂs now close with one more вЂbeing lost’ analogy.

CONCLUSION: FINDING OUR WAY BACK

The defining moment of being lost in the woods is not the sudden panicky realization that one is in deep shit. Anybody eventually comes to that conclusion. And neither is it the understandable jumble of KГјbler-Ross stages that follow: denial, anger, bargaining, and depression.

No, the defining, clarifying moment is acceptance -- when one finally sits down on a log, takes a deep breath, and says this: I am lost, but I am alive. I am me – a semi-intelligent and semi-healthy human being. I am in a temperate pine-oak woodland, somewhere in the vast New Jersey Pinelands. It is late Spring. It is beautiful here. My task is to stay alive, stay as comfortable as possible, and find a way to get back home.

In other words, the defining moment comes when we cut through the nonsense, the self-pity, the self-delusions, and finally have the courage to be brutally honest with ourselves about our predicament. It is only then that we can gain the reality-based frame of reference necessary for dealing skillfully with the cards at hand. Only then can we honestly answer the key questions: Who are we? What are we? When are we? Where are we? and Why are we? And only then can we muster our full capabilities as the clever apes that we are, and give ourselves a fighting chance of making at least a passably good lemonade out of the biophysical lemons we’ve been given.

Well, guess what? We are a civilization lost in the woods of delusion, with the hungry wolves of biophysical reality lurking in the shadows, and the storm-clouds of climatic destabilization gathering on the horizon. And we need to find our way back to reality. Soon. And then we need to start figuring out how to live there again – in whatever form it begins to take. But luckily, all the navigation equipment we need to get back to reality involves simply being honest with ourselves and each other. And all the tools we need to live there have already been invented. We just need to reclaim them. And we need to get pretty darn skilled with them pretty darned quick.

So can we do that? Can we at least try?

Good. And again, we should probably start soon.



Gulf spill won’t dampen U.S. appetite for oilThree Chinese curses

The Trillium Patch: wine, local food, and local resilience, part 3

Gene Logsdon writes that his inspiration for home wine making is not the large industrial-scale wineries of California or the commercial cellars of Europe, both of which produce high-quality wines, but the back yards of German and Italian immigrants in American cities from the late 1800s through much of the 20th century. They would make wine out of “everything from rhubarb to dandelions, but especially Concord and Delaware grapes” (Logsdon 78). I believe Logsdon has observed something valuable and useful that will allow the production of quality wines to continue in eastern North America after cheap energy is no longer available. I want to explore this idea here in Part 3.

First, it will be helpful to discuss the current state of the commercial wine industry in the eastern states. Since I’m in Ohio and am most familiar with Ohio, I’ll concentrate on Ohio; what applies to Ohio is probably largely true in other eastern and Midwestern states.

Commercial Wineries in the East and Midwest

Ohio has well over 100 operating commercial wineries. I have seen numbers from 125 to 145, and two or three new ones seem to open every year. Wineries can be found in all parts of the state, which means that no Ohio resident is very far from an operating winery. Wine operations are concentrated, however, in the north, along the shore of Lake Erie, and in the southwestern Ohio River Valley region.

Not all of these wineries are doing what I’m talking about here: making wine primarily from grapes they grow themselves. Some make wine from fruits other than grapes (one in the Columbus area specializes in different kinds of mead). Some make wine from California grapes. While these wines are often very good, they are, like fruit wines, outside the scope of this discussion (and probably not long-term sustainable once energy costs get too high). And many of them, whether they grow their own grapes or not, seem to be more in the entertainment or tourism business than the wine business. (To be fair, some, though not all, who operate restaurants and wineries manage to deliver both good food and excellent wine.) The commercial operations I think have the best chance for surviving the end of cheap energy are mixed farming operations that make wine from grapes they grow themselves as an “added value” commodity, but sell other farm products as well. (A good example is the Smith-Berry Winery in New Castle, Kentucky. Mary Berry-Smith, who founded the winery along with her husband Chuck, is the daughter of noted agriculturist Wendell Berry.) Purchasing wine from such mixed farm operations reminds us that good table wine is essentially a farm product, produced by farmers and consumed with food.

Small-scale Advantages

The eastern and Midwestern wine business today has several advantages, going into energy decline, over the huge industrial operations of the west coast. Most operations here are small, family-run farms. Although they can’t compete with California’s economies of scale, they’re far less dependent on industrial-scale machinery and equipment. Yes, most use tractors, of course, but one won’t, for example, find very many mechanical grape pickers in Ohio; in most of Ohio’s small vineyards, that work is done by hand. And some use temperature-controlled fermentation tanks, but one can make good wine without them—it will just have a different character. Our vineyard and wine operations operate on a more human scale here.

Another advantage, I believe, is rooted in the unique history of grape growing in our region. We grow and produce wine from a very wide range of grape varieties originating in different grape species. The old V. labrusca varieties are still popular and still grown. Great strides have been made in growing V. vinifera, and wines from these “noble” grapes are more widely available. The French hybrids have expanded the variety of wine flavors and characteristics. New crosses from the breeding operations I mentioned in the last post not only have extended the flavor characteristics of regional wines but also have expanded the geographical range in which it is possible to grow wine grapes successfully. Winegrowing is now taking place in such unlikely-seeming places as Minnesota, Vermont, Nova Scotia, Nebraska, and Quebec. The wide variety of grapes of so many different types increases the chances for would-be organic and small growers to discover a variety or two particularly well suited to their local conditions.

Concerns

These advantages are partly offset by some disadvantages, going into the future.

One of the biggest concerns going into an age of energy decline is distribution. Wines from small, family farm wineries simply aren’t picked up by the normal distribution methods that larger operations enjoy. That means that in many cases, small producers must be their own distributors. I know one premium operation in Ohio that makes the rounds to retail outlets around the state in their own vehicle after every new release. This is costly, not only in dollar terms but also in carbon footprint. In some cases, those who enjoy a particular winery’s products must drive to the winery or have it shipped to their home by UPS or Federal Express. If fuel becomes too expensive for customers’ winery visits and/or local delivery services, some wineries may lose the market for their products.

Lack of distribution leads to the second concern: the wine business in Ohio and other eastern/Midwestern states is largely dependent on tourism, an industry that won’t be sustainable in an era of high fuel prices.

Unfamiliarity is another problem. Many people simply don’t know about local and regional wines and are often afraid to try them. They frequently are pleasantly surprised when they do, but it’s just so much easier to reach for a California, Chilean, or Australian bottling than a local offering. This unfamiliarity is often compounded by retailers who segregate the local wines on a separate shelf (usually reserved also for the sweet wines, fruit wines, ports, and sherries) instead of shelving them with wines from other regions that share similar characteristics, thus treating them as afterthoughts not worthy of serious attention.

A disadvantage everywhere, not just in the east and Midwest, results from the lingering effects of Prohibition, including its attitudes and hypocrisies. Prohibitionism has made it difficult for small producers to sell their wine simply as an agricultural product like, say, eggs or maple syrup. To sell wine legally, one must jump through regulatory hoops that vary in each state. The claim, of course, is that these restrictions are intended to discourage alcohol consumption, but in reality they do nothing whatsoever in that regard; rather, they reward vested interests and reinforce bureaucratic domains. These regulations probably make it prohibitive, for example, for a CSA to include a bottle of farm-made wine in the box along with the week’s produce distribution.

Finally, for the would-be grape grower, the fungus disease pressure simply doesn’t let up around here. Seasonal weather conditions create variations in that pressure from growing season to growing season, and some geographical regions have more pressure than others, but the inoculum is always present, ready and more than willing to grow and spread whenever conditions are right. Neglecting preventive treatment for disease can cause the fungi to build from season to season, making re-infection more likely and more severe the following year; this is one of the factors that led to the demise of the Ohio River vineyards 150 years ago. Although I love the wines from vinifera grapes that are now being made here in Ohio, I have to wonder about the long-term sustainability of cultivating these varieties, which are really not at home here, once chemical fungicides become too expensive or not readily available. Perhaps if local sources for disease-fighting agents can be found and/or cultivated, we can maintain vinifera cultivation, but that’s a big unknown. (Most hybrid varieties also need preventive or curative treatment, even though some varieties are more tolerant of the fungi than others. More about that later.)

A Way Forward

This brings us back to Gene Logsdon’s comment about home wine making operations. Growing grapes and making one’s own wines may be a partial solution to limits on cheap energy. While I encourage everyone to support local and regional wine operations to whatever extent is possible, wine made at home keeps things as local as they can be.

The federal government allows a household consisting of a single adult of legal age to produce up to 100 gallons of wine every year for his/her own use. If two or more legal-age adults share a household, they can make up to 200 gallons per year. (Some states restrict home wine making beyond what the federal laws do; check your state’s regulations before making any wine.) Two hundred gallons is a lot of wine—it amounts to more than 1,000 regular-sized bottles—enough for almost 20 bottles per week. I doubt whether Liz and I go through more than 1/8 that amount in a year. To make that much wine, one would probably need about 250 vines, covering 1/5 of an acre, depending on their productivity. Federal restrictions on home winemakers: homemade wine is strictly for household consumption, although one is allowed to take a bottle to a friend’s house to share with them. Homemade wine cannot be sold; I assume that it also cannot be bartered.

Within these restrictions, though, making wine at home is a great idea. It’s not difficult to learn how to do it; as I said in an earlier post, it isn’t any more complicated than some other food preservation methods. I’m not going to talk about how to make wine here; several excellent books on the topic are available, and local winemakers’ supply shops can give plenty of advice as well. But I do want to talk a bit about cultivating grapes at home and especially about overcoming diseases, since historically disease has been the biggest stumbling block to success here in the eastern third of the continent. We will discuss these topics in my fourth and final posting in this series.



Urban farms don’t make money - so what?Ardent agrees to buy Ohio hospitals

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Natural gas, the green choice?

Natural gas is regarded as a relatively environmentally friendly way of generating electricity. Gas burns cleanly without many of the problems associated with coal. Coal is a chemically complex substance. When it is is burnt, it releases oxides of sulphur (SOx) and nitrogen (NOx), traces of mercury, selenium and arsenic, as well as particulates, and a non-combustible slag remains after burning. Coal mining is also a dirty and dangerous job.

Coal emits considerably more CO2 than natural gas per unit energy. However, natural gas (CH4) itself is a potent greenhouse gas, and its release to the atmosphere without being burnt can quickly compensate for the CO2 advantage against coal.

Natural gas, the green choice?



On the left, CO2 emissions per kWh for coal and natural gas. On the right, the global warming potential of leaked CH4 expressed as CO2. With a leak rate of 3%, gas fired electricity has a similar global warming potential as coal.

Generating electricity from fossil fuels typically involves their combustion in large power stations. Due to the molecular differences of coal, oil and gas, different amounts of carbon dioxide are produced for each unit of thermal energy. For example, the EIA tells us coal (anthracite) releases 227 pounds of CO2 per million BTU (or 351 g/kWh thermal), fuel oil or diesel 161 lb/MBTU (249 g/kWh) and natural gas releases 115 lb/MBTU (178 g/kWh). This, coupled with the variability in power station thermal efficiency leads to significant variations in the amount of CO2/kWh of electricity emitted.

The figures below are for the UK electricity grid.

Natural gas, the green choice?



This table was lifted from: http://electricityinfo.org/co2emissions.php

These CO2 emissions are directly related to the fossil fuel combustion and power station efficiency. Lifecycle emissions are not included, leaving nuclear and renewables at zero, because emissions related to construction, decommissioning, uranium processing etc. are ignored. Natural gas is considered the вЂgreener’ fuel as electricity from gas emits 2.5 times less CO2 than coal, as well dramatically lower CO, NOx and virtually no SOx or particulates.

There is an issue of system boundaries here. The figures above only consider the power station and not any upstream supply system. While CH4 may leak from the gas pipelines, there are also CH4 releases from coal mines. For this post, let’s consider emissions after the mine mouth or well head, and ignore emissions associated with transporting coal.

For oil and coal, the only significant route into the atmosphere is via combustion. However, besides being burnt, natural gas can be released without combustion as methane, CH4. This becomes interesting when one considers both the impact of atmospheric emissions of CO2 and CH4. Both are greenhouse gases in that they that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, however their respective radiative forcings are very different. The radiative forcing measures how much a greenhouse gas (or other factors) alters the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system.

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) part of the US Dept. of Energy uses Global Warming Potential (GWP), as it provides a simple measure of the radiative effects of emissions of various greenhouse gases, integrated over a specified time horizon and relative to an equal mass of CO2 emissions. Over a common 100 year time horizon CDIAC state the global warming potential of CH4 as 25 times greater than CO2 [link]. The calculation is not trivial, and estimations do vary a little, but for this analysis the factor 25 is sufficient.

We saw above that natural gas emits 2.5 times less CO2 than coal when used to generate electricity. However, when CH4 is released to the atmosphere without first being combusted, the global warming potential is 25 times higher than CO2. It is a more potent greenhouse gas. If only a little natural gas is released without being burnt, it will dominate the radiative forcing and more than compensate for the 2.5-fold advantage gas has over coal.

The chart illustrates this effect:

Natural gas, the green choice?



On the left, CO2 emissions per kWh for coal and natural gas. On the right, the global warming potential of leaked CH4 expressed as CO2

If the natural gas leak rate is 3%, the global warming potential of a kilowatt-hour of electricity from gas is equivalent to coal.

Leak Rates

So what are pipeline leak rates? A 1997 US Environmental Protection Agency report states US methane leak rates were 1.4 +/- 0.5 % in 1992. The largest source of leakage at that time was compressor components used in the processing, transmission, and storage, followed by the distribution network itself, with the small length of old cast iron pipes leaking disproportionately highly. The natural gas production process also contributes through millions of slowly leaking pneumatic control devices. A larger study carried out from 2005 by Brazil’s largest gas distributer Comgas suggests cast iron pipe leak rates double the EPA study.

A 1990 study for Greenpeace considered the UK distribution network then operated by British Gas. Greenpeace estimated low, medium and high scenario leakage rates of 1.9%, 5.3% and 10.8% respectively. This was in contrast to the 1% claimed by British Gas at the time. The authors were confident leakage rates were above 1.9%. These figures are likely obsolete today as there still existed a large amount of pre-1970 cast iron pipe work, much of it since replaced. In 1990 only 39% of the UK mains and 74% of the service pipes were plastic.

The 1.4% figure is also old, and only refers to the US, but it is a significant magnitude, it represents a 70% increase in global warming potential compared to the CO2 alone and halves the CO2 advantage gas has over coal based on the 360 and 890 g/kWh figures above.

Whilst these figures do not tip gas beyond coal, they halve its advantage. They are also only national. For the US this is quite understandable, but for the UK and Europe, the gas system is changing. Could leak rates become important as natural gas supply routes become longer? As Europe increases its reliance on Russia, as previously stranded gas is brought to market through longer pipelines than before, as a larger number of smaller deposits are exploited and as existing infrastructure ages, it seems likely that leak rates will increase. We often hear about struggles in the former Soviet states related to gas – is the leak rate there one percent or five? Is it economically feasible for the pipeline operator to make investments to stem the last percentage point of a system's leaks?

Is it possible that a вЂgreen’ gas power station in the UK is making a greater contribution to global warming than one burning coal?

Does anyone have recent data on leakage rates, especially for Russia and Eastern Europe?



Let the hollow media optimism sound a warningGulf spill won’t dampen U.S. appetite for oil

ODAC Newsletter - June 25

Welcome to the ODAC Newsletter, a weekly roundup from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, the UK registered charity dedicated to raising awareness of peak oil.

The IEA's latest medium term report on oil and gas presents a rosier outlook than before. The supply-demand balance will be easier than previously forecast, the Agency now says, as continuing economic weakness dampens demand growth, and stronger oil prices encourage more investment in production capacity. But the report hedges its optimism, warning that potential geopolitical eruptions, and ripple effects from the Deepwater Horizon disaster on offshore drilling remain as risks. A report from Barclays Capital this week takes a distinctly different view, predicting that oil demand will hit a new record high this year.

It now looks increasingly likely the Gulf of Mexico disaster will have a significant impact on the wider oil and gas industry. The effects range from the US drilling moratorium to increased exploration and production costs due to stricter safety rules and higher insurance premiums. It also looks as if the disaster will have a knock on effect on public perceptions of the dangers of other forms of fossil fuel extraction.

Until now most of the press around shale gas in the US, has focussed on its purportedly "game changing" impact. This week however saw a highly publicised documentary on the industry Gaslands aired on HBO. The programme reported on pollution issues allegedly caused by 'fracking', which interviewees say has poisoned water sources, caused gas to leak from domestic water taps, and made people ill — although the programme's allegations have been strongly refuted by the industry. The issue was also taken up in a high profile article in Vanity Fair magazine accompanied by an online video. Growing distrust in energy companies precipitated by Deepwater Horizon, could strengthen the hand of environmental campaigners calling for stronger regulations around the industry.

Europe had its own gas scare this week. This one was geopolitical in nature as a row over unpaid bills flared between Gazprom and Belarus. Russia cut gas supplies to Belarus by 60% on Wednesday, sparking fears of a knock-on effect in Europe, as seen during similar disputes with the Ukraine. In the end Belarus paid up, but the threat remains clear.

View our Reports and Resources page

OilJudge Won't Stay Drilling DecisionJudge who overturned drilling bans had shares in the oil industryBP Reinstalls Cap on Gulf Oil Leak, Intercept Well on Track BP boss hands over control of oil crisisOffshore Insurance to Shrink as BP-Like Risks Shunned Oil spill: BP reassures over Russian, North Sea assetsDeepwater oil drilling under scrutiny as Brazil's Petrobas delays flotationOil Trades Below $77 as Equities Drop Renews Growth Concerns US politicians oppose 2,000-mile oil sands pipelinePeak oil postponed againBP Is Pursuing Alaska Drilling Some Call RiskyPetrostates: What BP spill?GasShale gas pollution fears leave Americans with another energy headacheA Colossal Fracking MessRussia 'to restart' full gas supplies after Belarus rowGas imports rule as green supply slowsGas power stations 'should have carbon capture'China to double natural gas share of energy basket to 8% by 2015NuclearGreenpeace slams Government 'handouts' for nuclear industryIEA backs nuclear in low-carbon raceUKChris Huhne: Belarus gas dispute underlines Britain's desperate need for renewables and nuclearReprieve for Britain's polluting power plantsUK To Make Major Business Investments For Renewable Energy ProjectsEconomyChina unpegs yuan to let it rise againPoll Finds Deep Concern About Energy and EconomyGold reclaims its currency status as the global system unravels

Oil

Judge Won't Stay Drilling DecisionLiz Robbins, New York Times, 24 Jun 2010View original article

The Obama administration's efforts to suspend deepwater oil drilling were dealt another setback in court on Tuesday when the federal judge who struck down the administration's six-month moratorium refused to delay the decision's effects.

The Interior Department petitioned Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the United States District Court in New Orleans to grant a stay of his decision, which lifted a ban on new drilling projects and on work on the 33 rigs already in place in the Gulf...

Back to top

Judge who overturned drilling bans had shares in the oil industryMatthew Weaver and agencies, The Guardian, 24 Jun 2010View original article

The judge who overturned deepwater drilling bans allowing BP to resume oil extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, had shares in Transocean and other firms in the industry, it was revealed today.

Yesterday, a Louisiana-based judge Martin Feldman ruled that Barack Obama's six-month drilling moratorium in the Gulf was unjustified because it assumed that all deepwater drilling was as dangerous as BP's...

Back to top

BP Reinstalls Cap on Gulf Oil Leak, Intercept Well on Track Jessica Resnick-Ault and Jim Polson, Bloomberg, 24 Jun 2010View original article

BP Plc said it has reinstalled a device on its Gulf of Mexico well to capture leaking oil, as an intercept well intended to plug the gusher began homing in on its target.

BP said in a statement last night it had "successfully reinstalled" the cap containment device on the well and resumed funneling oil and gas to the drillship Discoverer Enterprise on the surface...

Back to top

BP boss hands over control of oil crisisRobin Pagnamenta, The Times, 23 Jun 2010View original article

Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, has stepped down from direct control of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill crisis and handed over control to Bob Dudley, the former boss of the oil company's fraught Russian joint venture TNK-BP.

"Effective immediately, Bob Dudley has been appointed president and chief executive officer of BP's Gulf Coast Restoration Organization," BP said in a statement, adding that Mr Dudley would continue to report to Mr Hayward...

Back to top

Offshore Insurance to Shrink as BP-Like Risks Shunned Natalie Obiko Pearson, Bloomberg, 24 Jun 2010View original article

BP Plc's rig explosion that caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history is set to curtail insurance coverage for offshore drilling, forcing companies to self-insure or exit deepwater fields.

BP's leak in the Gulf of Mexico is "a market-changing event," said Dieter Berg, senior executive manager marine at Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurer and among those exposed to losses. "Buyers and sellers of coverage will be reevaluating their appetites for offshore energy risk," said Berg in a June 11 e-mail response to questions...

Back to top

Oil spill: BP reassures over Russian, North Sea assetsRowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 22 Jun 2010View original article

Its shares fell by 4pc on Tuesday, closing down at their lowest since 1996 at 334.28p, as Russia also sought guarantees that BP's investments are financially secure following its US oil leak. The energy giant's market value has now halved since the accident on April 20, amid fears that the first summer hurricane could hit the Gulf of Mexico next week.

The news came as a Louisiana judge reversed President Barack Obama's six-month ban on US offshore drilling. The White House said it would challenge the ruling...

Back to top

Deepwater oil drilling under scrutiny as Brazil's Petrobas delays flotationGraeme Wearden, The Guardian, 23 Jun 2010View original article

Brazil's national oil company Petrobras has surprised investors by postponing its $25bn (ВЈ16.86bn) stock market flotation, potentially delaying its efforts to extract oil from deepwater reserves off the coast.

The Petrobras stock offering, which had been scheduled for July, will now be delayed by two months until September. It blamed the move on Brazil's ANP energy regulator, which needs more time to assess the value of oil reserves which lie deep below the seabed off the coast of Rio de Janeiro...

Back to top

Oil Trades Below $77 as Equities Drop Renews Growth Concerns Ben Sharples and Yee Kai Pin, Bloomberg, 25 Jun 2010View original article

Crude oil traded below $77 a barrel in New York, poised for the first weekly decline in three, as a slump in equity markets renewed concerns that global economic growth may slow down and limit fuel demand.

Oil rebounded yesterday from a two-day drop as U.S. durable goods orders climbed in May and applications for jobless benefits fell from a two-month high. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index is in the midst of its longest losing streak in seven weeks. Asian stocks declined the most in three weeks today on disappointing earnings forecasts by U.S. companies...

Back to top

US politicians oppose 2,000-mile oil sands pipelineStacy Feldman for SolveClimate, The Guardian, 24 Jun 2010View original article

Members of Congress yesterday implored the State Department to scrutinize the "significant" environmental impacts of a proposed massive pipeline that would carry Canadian tar sands oil 2,000 miles — from northern Alberta, across U.S. states to refineries in Texas and tankers off the Gulf coast.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, nearly 50 members of the House of Representatives said the agency "must determine whether the project is in the national interest" in terms of "clean energy and climate change priorities" before rubberstamping it...

Back to top

Peak oil postponed againAmbrose Evans-Pritchard, The Daily Telegraph, 23 Jun 2010View original article

So there is plenty of oil and gas after all. Prices will bumble along gently until well into the next decade. We are becoming more efficient in our use of energy, with 3pc extra savings annually. That is a faster pace than the rising real cost of fuel. Mankind will not run out of fuel for a very long time.

That at least is the story today from the International Energy Agency. Their medium-term outlook for fossil fuel markets is a dazzling contrast with last year's warnings that a combination of break-neck industrialisation in China and lack of investment in new oil fields (thanks to the credit freeze) would exhaust global spare capacity by 2013...

View IEA presentations

Back to top

BP Is Pursuing Alaska Drilling Some Call RiskyIan Urbina, New York Times, 23 Jun 2010View original article

The future of BP's offshore oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico has been thrown into doubt by the recent drilling disaster and court wrangling over a moratorium.

The BP drilling station on the artificial island in the Beaufort Sea. Because of its location on the artificial island, it has been exempted from the moratorium on offshore drilling...

Back to top

Petrostates: What BP spill?Steve LeVine, Foreign Policy, 21 Jun 2010View original article

When Big Oil breaks ranks, and one partner in a world-class deal accuses the other of gross negligence, you know that fear has overcome the industry. But fear of what? One presumes it's the permanent loss of future -- or even currently permitted -- drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico because of the disastrous oil spill, in addition to offshore deals around the world. After all, as I've written here before, the primacy of Big Oil rests on its claim to technological superiority...

Back to top

Gas

Shale gas pollution fears leave Americans with another energy headacheRowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 23 Jun 2010View original article

Still politically scorched from BP's giant Gulf of Mexico spill, it couldn't be a worse time for America's oil giants to find themselves roasting in another environmental firestorm.

But new flames of controversy are on the horizon – in fact, literally emanating from the drinking water of US citizens living near so-called "shale gas" fields...

Back to top

A Colossal Fracking MessChristopher Bateman, Vanity Fair, 21 Jun 2010View original article

Early on a spring morning in the town of Damascus, in northeastern Pennsylvania, the fog on the Delaware River rises to form a mist that hangs above the tree-covered hills on either side. A buzzard swoops in from the northern hills to join a flock ensconced in an evergreen on the river's southern bank.

Stretching some 400 miles, the Delaware is one of the cleanest free-flowing rivers in the United States, home to some of the best fly-fishing in the country. More than 15 million people, including residents of New York City and Philadelphia, get their water from its pristine watershed. To regard its unspoiled beauty on a spring morning, you might be led to believe that the river is safely off limits from the destructive effects of industrialization. Unfortunately, you'd be mistaken. The Delaware is now the most endangered river in the country, according to the conservation group American Rivers...

Back to top

Russia 'to restart' full gas supplies after Belarus rowBBC Online, 24 Jun 2010View original article

Russia's Gazprom says it is resuming gas supplies to Belarus after receiving payment for outstanding gas bills.

Belarus said that it in turn had received payment from Gazprom, which uses pipelines across Belarus to pump gas to third countries...

Back to top

Gas imports rule as green supply slowsRobin Pagnamenta Energy Editor, The Times, 25 Jun 2010View original article

Britain imported more natural gas than it produced from the North Sea for the first time since 1968 in a fresh sign of a fundamental shift away from UK energy independence.

Government figures published yesterday showed that in the three months to March 31, gas imports soared by 31 per cent to 16.7 billion cubic metres, compared with the same period of 2009, while indigenous gas production from the North Sea slumped by more than 9 per cent to 16.6 billion cubic metres...

Back to top

Gas power stations 'should have carbon capture'Juliette Jowit, The Guardian, 17 Jun 2010View original article

Britain will miss its legal target to cut emissions by 80% by the middle of the century unless action is taken to cut greenhouse pollution from gas-powered stations, influential government advisers warned today.

In a letter to Chris Huhne, the climate secretary, the climate change committee said the government's existing pledge to fit new coal power stations with expensive carbon capture and storage equipment should be extended to new gas generators as well. Such a move could see the UK be the first in the world to build such a plant and capitalise on a new "dash for gas"...

Back to top

China to double natural gas share of energy basket to 8% by 2015Hong Chou Hui, Platts, 21 Jun 2010View original article

China plans to double the natural gas share of its total energy consumption basket from the current 4% to 8% by 2015, a source close to the country's National Energy Administration said Monday.

The shift would come at the expense of the share of coal in the mix in order to increase its use of cleaner energy, the source added...

Back to top

Nuclear

Greenpeace slams Government 'handouts' for nuclear industryKunal Dutta, The Independent, 21 Jun 2010View original article

Environmental campaigners have accused the Government of preparing to allow a multi-million pound "handout" to firms building nuclear reactors.

Greenpeace said the move went against assurances given by ministers that the nuclear industry would not receive handouts to help build new nuclear power stations...

View report

Back to top

IEA backs nuclear in low-carbon raceEurActiv, 18 Jun 2010View original article

Nuclear power could generate nearly a quarter of the world's electricity by mid-century, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said yesterday (16 June), arguing that it will be a key technology in curbing global warming.

The ambitious goal would require current nuclear capacity to more than triple, but the feat is achievable, according to a 'Nuclear Energy Technology Roadmap' published jointly by the IEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)...

Back to top

UK

Chris Huhne: Belarus gas dispute underlines Britain's desperate need for renewables and nuclearTerry Macalister and John Vidal, The Guardian, 24 Jun 2010View original article

Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary, warned last night that the threat to gas supplies from the political row between Russia and Belarus highlighted once again the desperate need for Britain to build up a low-carbon energy policy and domestic energy security through new wind farms – and possibly nuclear reactors.

Huhne said it was also vital that Britain was better protected from any "big shocks" arising from huge increases in the price of oil, as companies such as BP were forced into increasingly environmentally sensitive areas...

Back to top

Reprieve for Britain's polluting power plantsCarl Mortished, The Times, 19 Jun 2010View original article

Britain's ageing fleet of coal and gas power stations were given a reprieve from the threat of closure with a deal struck in Brussels yesterday by EU member countries with the European Parliament.

Opt-outs will delay the day when power plant operators must fit expensive pollution scrubbers on chimneys or be forced to close power stations...

Back to top

UK To Make Major Business Investments For Renewable Energy ProjectsGovMonitor, 21 Jun 2010View original article

Business Secretary Vince Cable has confirmed Government support for multi million pound investments to secure low carbon and science projects in the UK and the Post Office Network.

This followed the Treasury concluding a review of significant projects announced since January to check they were affordable, value for money and that they fitted in with the priorities of the Coalition Government...

Back to top

Economy

China unpegs yuan to let it rise againJane Macartney Beijing, The Times, 21 Jun 2010View original article

China signalled on Saturday that it was ready to unpeg its currency from the US dollar.

The move, after 23 months of the link between the currencies, will stifle criticism that China's exports have benefited from the state-engineered weakness of the renminbi...

Back to top

Poll Finds Deep Concern About Energy and EconomyJohn M. Broder and Marjorie Connelly, New York Times, 21 Jun 2010View original article

Overwhelmingly, Americans think the nation needs a fundamental overhaul of its energy policies, and most expect alternative forms to replace oil as a major source within 25 years. Yet a majority are unwilling to pay higher gasoline prices to help develop new fuel sources...

Back to top

Gold reclaims its currency status as the global system unravelsAmbrose Evans-Pritchard, The Daily Telegraph, 20 Jun 2010View original article

Jean-ClaudeTrichet, the president of the European Central Bank (EC), talked days later of "the most difficult situation since the Second World War, and perhaps the First".

The ECB's latest monthly bulletin gives us some startling details. It reveals that the bank's "systemic risk indicator" surged suddenly to an all-time high on May 7 as measured by EURIBOR derivatives and stress in the EONIA swaps market, exceeding the strains at the height of the Lehman Brothers crisis in September 2008. "The probability of a simultaneous default of two or more euro-area large and complex banking groups rose sharply," it said...

Back to top



Gulf spill won’t dampen U.S. appetite for oilThe true value of energy is the net energy

BP's deadline to give facts on Gulf oil spill

BP has been given until Friday, July 2 to provide documentary evidence establishing exactly what is happening behind the scenes at their ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

This material would answer current worst-case scenario speculation about the state of BP’s Mocando wellbore – whether it is structurally compromised – and the ongoing attempts to dig relief wells. There is currently a 2,500-square-mile-and-growing oil slick in the area that is spreading to the shorelines, but little is publically known about the state of things under the surface, and the issue is rife with speculation.

The demand comes in a letter written by Congressman Edward J. Markey, chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee. It was Rep. Markey who oversaw the June 15 congressional hearings that criticized CEOs of the world’s largest privately owned oil companies – BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips – for their “zero disaster planning.” His response back then was:

BP said they didn’t think the rig would sink. It did.

They said they could handle an Exxon Valdez-sized spill every day. They couldn’t.

BP said the spill was 1,000 barrels per day. It wasn’t. And they knew it.

This time around Rep. Markey is demanding information from BP that would provide the full picture of what’s going on deep below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. This includes the truth about the condition of BP’s wellbore, reports of seabed oil leaks, the design and timeframe of relief wells and the size of the oil and gas reservoirs in question.

Addressed to BP’s controversial CEO Tony Hayward, Markey’s June 23 letter opens with:

I write to request information related to the integrity of the wellbore and
casing at the Deepwater Horizon leak site, as well as to request further
information on the design, testing, timeframe and likelihood of success for the
relief wells being drilled today. While BP has repeatedly stated that the relief
well would be completed by mid-August, I am concerned that possible damage to
the wellbore and casing and the difficulty of the operation itself could result
in more weeks or months before the flow of oil and gas is finally stopped.

This gets straight to the heart of a speculation, spearheaded by Matthew Simmons, that BP’s problems might be much greater than we could imagine. This line of thought, which ranges from the technical to the frankly apocalyptical (using a nuclear device to fuse the seabed and stop the leak) is that the Mocando wellbore has been so badly damaged that it has spawned multiple leaks from the seafloor – or at the very least that the extreme fragility of the well casing is behind the abandonment of the top kill procedure. This has a bearing on how much oil is gushing from the well – itself a matter of controversy – and what chances the relief wells have of success, as the more damage there is to the wellbore, the trickier and slower a proposition it will be. While Simmons’ more extreme comments have made the headlines, his more regular views about the reality of peak oil have been, at best, buried at the end of interviews with him. For example, when asked by CNN Money what lessons should be learned from the BP spill, Simmons replied: “That oil peaked. The easy stuff is over. We have to continue drilling in shallow water, but we probably need to take a deep breath and step back. Until we develop a new generation of equipment that can respond to these accidents, just don't go into the ultra-deep water and deep formations because it's just too risky.”

Rep. Markey, in his letter, cites this “speculation that the wellbore and casing at the Deepwater Horizon leak site may have been damaged and that leaks of oil and gas may already be coming through the sea floor or through the pipe itself,” then goes on to state:

In fact, in his June 17 press briefing, Admiral Thad Allen stated that “I think
that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the wellbore from below the
blow out preventer down to the actual oil field itself. And we don’t know, we
don’t know if the wellbore has been compromised or not. One of the reasons we
did not continue with top kill at higher pressures, there was a concern that if
we increased the pressure too hard it might do damage to the casings and the
wellbore. What we didn’t want was open communication of any oil from the
reservoir outside the wellbore that might get into the formation and work its
way to the sub sea floor and then result in uncontrolled discharge at that
point.”

In a June 18, 2010 article in the Times Picayune, Bob Bea of the
University of California at Berkeley indicated that there is reason to believe
that oil and gas is leaking from places other than the containment cap. BP
officials said that a disk that is part of the subsea safety infrastructure may
have failed in the initial April 20th explosion, which may have contributed to
the failure of the “top-kill.” As reported by the Wall Street Journal, people
familiar with BP’s “top-kill” attempt have speculated that some drilling mud may
have escaped the well into the surrounding rock.

He continues with questions about the relief wells – is the August timeline too optimistic, and just how structurally similar will these be to BP’s original, and deeply flawed well? He asks BP’s Tony Haywood about the volume of oil still underground:

In the June 17, 2010 hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
you testified that you believed the reservoir contained 50 million barrels of
oil. The damage that such a quantity of oil could do, should it all leak into
the Gulf of Mexico, would be staggering. It is imperative that the efforts to
permanently halt the flow of oil are successful.

Again, no-one knows for sure how large the oil reserve in question is – which is an important issue if BP is not able to contain the leak, with the assumption being that it will run until it is at least half empty. Just asking this question, Rep. Markey seems to be hinting at some of the worst-case speculation.

Rep. Markey goes on to demand BP provides to-the-minute technical information, including “all measurements, images, and other documents related to the condition of the wellbore” and anything relating to “hydrocarbons leaking from anywhere other than the containment cap.”

This information, when it comes in from BP in early July, should silence the ongoing speculation – because we will then be dealing with facts, rather than having to take what BP’s publicity department wants us to believe (who, to recall, initially stated no oil was leaking, and then that only 1,000 barrels a day, then, that the figure might be 5,000 - while Rep. Markey is of the opnion that "the rate could be as high as ~ 100,000 barrels per day up the casing"). This is technical information – and it has a good chance of subsequently being published, considering Rep. Markey’s track record in that area – that means we don’t have to blindly accept what BP’s spin machine puts out.

And recall that Markey, in his response to the June 15 hearings stated that the five major oil companies involved were guilty of a “kind of Blind Faith” that such a disaster “could never happen to them.” It was this thinking “that has led to this kind of disaster,” he stated. Markey illustrates this corporate approach with the following:

What we found was that these five companies have response plans that are
virtually identical. The plans cite identical response capabilities and tout
identical ineffective equipment. In some cases, they use the exact same words. . .

We found that all of these companies, not just BP, made the exact same
assurances.

The covers of the five response plans are different colors, but the content is ninety percent identical.

Like BP, three other companies include references to protecting walruses, which have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years.

Two other plans are such dead ringers for BP’s that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert.

The American people deserve oil safety plans that are ironclad and not
boilerplate.

(I’m not going to comment on the use of the phrases “Virtually identical” and “ninety percent identical.”)

BP does not have to reply, but all the same, it is essentially in a bind. Failure to provide this information would likely lead Rep. Markey to suggest they have something to hide, and possibly land BP in front of a congressional hearing to defend their handling of this ongoing environmental disaster. Basically, if BP is silent on this, it would give mainstream credence to the web speculation that their wellbore is fatally compromised and that the relief wells may not be the immediate fix that we all so desperately want to see. And that would cause even more damage to BP’s share price, currently in freefall.



Nashville families’ beach plans marred by Gulf oil spillWhat caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

Less is more

Less is more

Within the body of Transition movement literature, I don't often see references to the Simple Living or Voluntary Simplicity movement.  Perhaps the Voluntary Simplicity movement is less active in the places that Transition founders Rob and Naresh have lived.  Perhaps it is because at its origins, Voluntary Simplicity focused more on individual choices and individual changes than on community-centric and societal-transformation ones.  I can only speculate.

This week I picked up a small book at my public library, Less is More, edited by Cecile Andrews and Wanda Urbanska.  Its collection of essays focus on "Simplicity," but they are (as our British friends would say) "spot on" about the inner journey of Transition.  I strongly recommend this book as a part of Transition literature.

Simplicity is about much more than ten tips to save money.  Ultimately, Simplicity is asking yourself: "How do I really want to live?  What truly makes me happy? What are my actions doing to the planet?  How does my lifestyle contribute to the greater good?"  Ultimately Simplicity is about knowing who you are, being clear about your values, understanding what brings true well-being.  It's cutting through the commercial static of manipulation and deceit that says that the consumer society is the good life.  Ultimately, it's about discernment and deliberation.

-- from the Introduction by Cecile Andrews

Substitute the word "Transition" for "Simplicity" and read that quote again.

In another essay, Andrews goes on to quote Antoine de St. Exupery, author of The Little Prince:  "He said that if he wanted a boat built he wouldn't just give people a bunch of tools and wood; no, he would teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."

Dare I say that, with its Permaculture foundations, in many cases thus far the Transition movement has been about enthusiastically providing lots of tools and wood and reskilling classes.  Less is More examines how to teach people to yearn for the sea.

Yearning for the sea

As the essays in the book unfold, one after another the various authors address the emptiness people feel with contemporary lifestyles.  The U.S.-centric book was published in 2009, so it is post-Obama's election, and includes the experience of the recession; its essays are written by authors standing in a world that -- particularly economically -- is rapidly revealing itself to be not what it had pretended to be.

Theodore Roszak's essay includes his recognition of what we in Transition call the collapse of the Industrial Growth Paradigm, and reveals the Simplicity movement's similar comprehension.  Interestingly, Roszak writes of the psychological influences that an aging baby boom demographic will inevitably have on our more-more-more consumerism. 

The greatest consciousness-transforming agent of all comes to us from within our own experience and as naturally as breathing.  It is the experience of aging, which brings with it new values and visions, none of them grounded in competition and careerism, none of them beholden to the marketplace. ...

Now, in ever greater numbers, we are aging beyond the values that created the urban-industrial world.  That fact begins with the boomers, but it will roll forward into generations to come as the now-young become the then-old ...  Which means that every institution in our society will be transformed as its population drifts further and further from competitive individualism, military-industrial bravado and the careerist rat race.  It is as if the freeways of the world will one day begin to close down, starting with the fast lane and finally turning into pastures and meadows.

-- from "Enroute to Eldertown" by Theodore Roszak

Voluntary Simplicity author Duane Elgin writes of "The Garden of Simplicity," which includes

Uncluttered simplicity - cutting back on clutter, complexity, and trivial distractions, both material and non-materialFugal simplicity - bringing the opportunity to more consciously choose our path through lifeEcological simplicityBusiness simplicity - the many expressions of "right livelihood"Compassionate simplicity - developing a strong sense of kinship with othersSoulful simplicity - to cultivate our experience of intimate connection with all that exists

Transition topics

Some authors address topics we struggle with in the Transition movement.  Again, substitute the word "Transition" for "Simplicity" as you read.

A language barrier exists between the intellectuals and academics who abound in the Voluntary Simplicity movement and the everyday working-class people who use simple and direct speech.  The tendency to employ multi-syllabic words and abstractions in extended conversations and dissertations is pleasing to like-minded sophisticates involved in Voluntary Simplicity.  But for everyday folks whose involvement is necessary if the Simplicity movement is to achieve its public policy goals that benefit all the people, it often comes across as highfalutin and condescending and is misunderstood.  We must do better at using simple language because the goals of the Voluntary Simplicity movement in the US are critically important.

-- from "Simplicity, Simply Put" by Tom Turnipseed

In "Simplicity isn't Voluntary Any More," Ernest Callenbaugh (of Ecotopia fame) basks for four pages in a vision of the future which is spot-on a Transition vision.  It's too long to quote here, but I hope to gain permission to distribute that text widely. 

Callenbaugh's essay directly mentions peak oil, and several other authors reveal their comprehension that our energy opulence has reached its end.  Yet none of them plays "the heavy," going on and on about The Problems.  Instead, they are all focused on positive consciousness change to create the new ways of the future.

We must make community part of everything we do.  When we have our meetings to talk about lobbying the city council, we need to start with tea and cookies and time to chat.  Instead of ruthlessly pursuing Roberts Rules of Order, we need someone who runs the meetings in a relaxed, conversational manner allowing people to talk of their personal experiences.  Interspersed with meetings to save the trees, we need potlucks and picnics where people gather in a congenial, convivial fashion.  We need meetings about global warming, but we also need Scrabble nights.

-- from "The Circle of Simplicity" by Cecile Andrews

Nothing's too small to make a difference

But perhaps the most heartwarming thing I found in this remarkable little book is a short sentence in an essay by co-editor Wanda Urbanska as she writes about the Simple Living television series she hosted.

a mantra which threaded overtly and subliminally throughout the show's 39 episodes ... "Nothing's too small to make a difference."  Picking up a trash-bound paperclip, repurposing your mother's 1960s skirt into kitchen curtains, installing a water-saving, dual-flush commode; each of these action steps qualified.

"Nothing's too small to make a difference."  In the short days since I've read that phrase, it has given me enormous peace of mind. 

In the Transition movement I often immerse myself in the huge problems, the sweeping issues. How do we transform an entire society?  How do we Transition a city the size of Los Angeles?  How do we bring along the poor and the extremely poor, not just the upper-middle-class white faces?  What events or programs will best get the attention of those upper-middle-class faces, entrenched as they are with teeth gritted in the final throes of the Industrial Growth Complex rat race?

So often I forget to value what I do have.  "Nothing's too small to make a difference" has given me enormous relief this week.  An hour spent weeding the community garden.  A meal which includes vegetables from my own backyard.  Watching my kids sit in the cage with our new chickens.  There is great joy in these little moments.

The journey to the post-petroleum future is going to be made up of a bazillion of these "too small" events.  It is the cumulative energy that creates the Transition movement.  Yet there is joy in the details.  No, it doesn't make U.S. dollar sense to raise city chickens, but it makes enormous difference to my kids and to my own heart.  No, it doesn't change the world if my dinner includes only a few homegrown ingredients.  But it's a start.  And at this point on the timeline, we need to remember to value each of those little "too small" steps.  We need to make space in our lives to appreciate and honor the "starts." 

Less is More and the Simplicity movement remind us that the inner goal is "knowing who you are, being clear about your values, understanding what brings true well-being."  In this context, each of the erstwhile "too small" steps has value.  Each brings us that much closer to the mark ...

of living the way we dream of living;

of living a life of deeper integrity; 

of putting a foot more firmly onto the moving sidewalk into that Transitioned future;

of bringing yet one more small bit of the future to reality, today.

 

As you network your Transition Initiative (Step 3 of the 12 Steps), don't overlook local chapters of

Slow Food MovementVoluntary Simplicity - Simple Living Network

Mortgage shoppers stand to gain under new rulesGross National Happiness

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Peak oil — a crisis postponed

As the global economy goes, so goes oil demand. If the outlook for the global economy is not so good, oil consumption will stagnate or increase very slowly. If oil demand grows slowly or not at all, consumption will remain below the world's productive capacity, as measured in millions of barrels-per-day. If oil demand remains below the available supply, there will be no oil price shock.

A new oil price shock tell us that "peak oil"—an inability to grow supply to meet growing demand— has returned with a vengeance. The last time supply could not meet demand was in the years 2005-2007. The growing gap led directly to the oil price shock of 2007-2008. After July of 2008, the world economy unraveled, leading to the relatively low demand environment we have today.

Although this simpleminded explanation smooths out all the messy details, it is basically correct. So where do we stand?

The International Energy Agency has just released its 2010 Medium-Term Outlook reflecting its projections for the period 2010-2015. Here is the relevant text from the summary—

Although economic recovery has become re‐entrenched, in sharp contrast to last year’s back‐drop, concerns persist about its strength and durability. As a result, two oil demand scenarios are again presented. Using May 2010 OMR data as our starting point, we have developed two contrasting views on economic growth, with the lower variant also tempered by weaker assumed efficiency gains. Common features however are the predominance of both the non‐OECD countries and the transportation sector in driving demand growth.

In the higher GDP and efficiency gains case (the base case for our analysis), oil demand grows by an average of 1.2 mb/d annually (1.4%), reaching close to 92 mb/d by 2015. Oil demand recovers to pre‐crisis 2007 levels again by 2010. This presupposes GDP growth around 4.5% per year from 2010 onwards (in line with recent IMF projections) and a reduction in oil use intensity of 3% annually, near the level seen in the last five years.

But many voices still envisage a weaker path for global economic growth, amid world trade imbalances and the weakening impact on activity of aggressive fiscal consolidation. This suggests a lower GDP and efficiency gains case. Here, global GDP grows by a weaker 3% annually, while the progress in oil use efficiency is slowed by the weaker investment environment, pushing anticipated reductions in oil use intensity back to the 15‐year average, near 2% per year. In this case, annual oil demand growth averages 840 kb/d (1.0%), taking total global demand to 90 mb/d by 2015, with the re-attainment of 2007 demand levels deferred to 2011.

I am among those who "envisage a weaker path for global economic growth." In so far as the IMF always expects strong growth—after all, they are run-of-the-mill economists—we can safely ignore their projections. This is one set of bureaucrats (at the IEA) predicting a rosy future based on the optimistic views of another set of bureaucrats (the IMF).

I will not lay out the case for my pessimism here, but recent events in the United States (e.g. in the housing market) are among the many indicators of a global economic slowdown. Here's a chart of global growth from Thomas Berner, the Chief US Economist at UBS—

Peak oil — a crisis postponed


Source

World GDP is above "potential" (3.5%) but is tailing off. Considering recent events in the United States, China and the Eurozone, it appears that the IEA's 3% low annual growth scenario—or perhaps something much worse—is the best we can expect for the years 2010-2012.

The low growth scenario has oil demand growing at 1% per year (840,000 barrels-per-day) and assumes that oil intensity reductions are smaller than in recent years. That takes us to 90 million barrels-per-day (all liquids) in 2015. "All liquids" means any liquid fuel type, not just crude oil (e.g. biofuels, gas liquids). The IEA's term "oil" is a short hand for all liquids. (There will be a quiz later.)

In my view, the world will never produce 90 million barrels of liquid fuels on a daily basis. But I wouldn't mind being wrong—maybe we'll get to 91 or 92. These are mere details in the Grand Scheme of Things. The longer term outlook remains bleak. Sticking to my current view of never 90, that puts the next oil price shock nearer to the end of the 2010-2015 period than its beginning.

Thus I tentatively conclude that "peak oil" is a crisis postponed. Actually, I am fairly confident about this prediction, but it is always wise to hedge your bets. Nevertheless, I am going to wait few months before I update my own "official" estimate of the situation as laid out in The Next Oil Price Shock. When I do update it, I will likely push out the date of the next price shock one year to 2013 В± 1 year. If the global economy goes all to hell next year, I will push the date out further to 2014 В± 1 year.

Many of those concerned about the oil supply write or speak as though The End Is Near, or The End Is Here—I will not name names, although Matt Simmons comes to mind. Needless to say, I have seen many predictions of the Oil Apocalypse come & go.

The End Is Near, but not quite as close as some people think. On human timescales, which tend to be quite short, the deteriorating state of the global economy has bought us some time. I seriously doubt that governments will make wise use of that time. Preparing for the ongoing oil crisis would be a huge departure from their normal behavior, which here in the United States, consists mostly of making matters worse and then telling The People not to believe what they can plainly see right in front of them.



European debt worries worldIs the world falling apart?