Comments Bart Anderson has made

I'd like to see a wider sample of reactions to the bill. If Grist only posts reactions that it agrees with, we will all have lower IQs. Here are some other reactions:

Dennis Kucinich

I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.  The reason is simple.  It won’t address the problem.  In fact, it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods.  It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies.  And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense.  There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

Bill McKibben (Greenpeace interview)

...  You can't do what needs to be done with the current constellation of political forces. I was in the White House a month ago and the clear message was 'Make us do it.' Build us a movement that gives us the room to do the things that we want to do. Because they don't have it now.

Climate Change Activists Dismayed by Some of Bill's Provisions (Washington Post)

many green groups seem to be supporting the bill -- now stuffed with benefits for emitters such as utilities, manufacturers and farmers -- while holding their nose. "We're not saying, 'Kill the bill,' " said Frank O'Donnell, of the group Clean Air Watch. "But we're saying it sure as heck ought to get better in the Senate, or it's going to be a sorry day."

Bart / Energy Bulletin

>> After all, sports is a business, and the fans are the customers.

This is a strange sentiment.  I thought that sports were what people did for pleasure and exercise and as an excuse to get together.  At any rate, those are the sports that I like to participate in.

It seems that any time consumerism gets into the picture, people's IQ goes down, their weight goes up, and greenhouse emissions skyrocket.

I guess this is a subject for people who like spectator sports more than I do. There are definitely ways to make them greener.

But my tendency is to say, to heck with them. Turn off the tv, get out of the car, go out and run around around, play with your kids and neighbors. It's cheaper, greener and better for you.

Washington Monthly has an excellent article on Henry Waxman, the Congressman behind the bill:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.homans.html

Marathon Man
("Henry Waxman's climate change bill won’t make it into law this year. That’s why he’s the right guy for the job").

Excerpt:

Waxman has borrowed his negotiating tools from USCAP, leaving open the question of how exactly the emissions allowances will be allocated—how many will be auctioned off, and how many will be given away. The proposal would also include a system of emissions offsets, which would allow federal regulators to count carbon-absorbing resources like forests against the pollution limits.

While such flexibility is the greatest strength of Waxman’s plan, however, it’s also its greatest weakness. The bill’s wiggle room improves its chances of passing Waxman’s committee and later the Senate—but, if abused, could also gut the bill of its effectiveness. "The [draft] bill includes two billion tons of offsets, which is far too many," Greenpeace’s Steven Biel says. "You could meet the requirements under this cap with no emissions reductions at all for twenty years or more." There is also the cautionary tale of Europe, where a poorly conceived emissions-trading system did little to reduce actual emissions in its first several years while saddling industries with copious red tape.

Ultimately, the biggest obstacle to Waxman’s goals is the fact that climate change is exactly the kind of problem that Congress is least well calibrated to confront: a threat of existential scale but unclear contours, where all short-term incentives point in the wrong direction. ...

- Bart / EB

Anybody can get a blog account and copy posts from other sources. This tells us nothing about you, Aletho. On Grist, people can be anonymous - it just doesn't do much for one's credibility.

The reason the cost of marginal production will rise is covered in economic geology courses. As a resource continues to be exploited, the quality of the ore or raw material declines, since we access the cheap and easy supplies first.  You will notice that the deposits that are now mentioned are in deep water, in the polar regions, or in very difficult unconventional sources like tar sands and oil shale. We are not discovering any more huge oil fields like those in Saudi Arabia. 

The reason to suspect that oil prices may shoot way past the cost of marginal production is because of increasing demand for oil, for example from India and China, as well as its addictive nature. When you have an infrastructure based on oil, you don't lightly switch to other energy sources.

Oil has another appeal that makes it less sensitive to price increases than other commodities -- and that is its utility in making war.   A big motivation behind World War II was to get access to oil supplies. Klare's special interest (the original point of this discussion) is that rising prices and declining supplies will increase tension and possibly lead to wars. Again, this is not a particularly controversial point.

Bart / Energy Bulletin

>> You make an allegation

I asked a question, Aletho.  That is not an accusation. And actually some of my best friends work for oil companies! (many of the technical guys are behind the peak oil thesis, as vs the PR people).

Would you be willliing to provide some background on yourself? It's not necessary, but it helps give one credibility.  I don't see much bio on your blog.

CERA are actually consultants to the oil industry. They published a skeptical report on peak oil which was not made publicly available.  They do not make the data available on which they base their forecasts. So although CERA's opiinions are frequently mentioned in the media, they do not qualify as a scientific source.

Incidentally, a CERA spokesperson just admitted the existence of peak oil - although he said it was because of peak demand rather than for geological reasons.  See CERA Official Acknowledges “Peak Oil is Here” There is a full discussion here: Peak oil = peak demand?. Both articles are published by ASPO-USA, a non-partisan group which includes people from industry, academia and the activist communities.

Bart Anderson / Energy Bulletin

Look at the numbers, my friends, and you will see why many oil companies and investors have accepted the peak oil thesis. The oil monitoring agency, the IEA, has begun to sound the alarm. The only question is exactly when oil production will peak.  Some argue that it has already peaked, but we won't know for several years.

Mexican oil production has peaked, as has North Sea oil production. There are new discoveries but they aren't on a scale to materially affect the situation.

Yes, there are non-conventional sources but they are MUCH more expensive to exploit, and they typically have very harmful environmental impacts (like the Canadian tar sands).   Much of the technology will not increase the amount of oil, only the speed with which the oil is extracted.

Klare is only one of many researchers and analysts who espouse peak oil. The coverage of peak oil by the media and on the web has grown exponentially so that now there are 2,360,000 Google hits on "peak oil." When I started monitoring peak oil five years ago, there were only a few hundred.

The awareness of peak oil does lag behind climate change. However, high oil prices attract people's attention in a much more immediate way. 

I've found that environmentalists are often not very educated about peak oil, but thinkers like Joseph Romm, James Hansen and David Suzuki understand that peak oil and climate change are inter-connected. 

As Tom Engelhardt wrote in his introduction to Klare's article at TomDispatch:

Buckle your seatbelt, you may be going nowhere -- and it could be a very bumpy ride.

Bart Anderson / Energy Bulletin

The problem, Jestbill, is that the legislation is framed and modified by highly organized special interest groups.  The media and politicians are not able to defend the public against them.  The Democrats have become highly entwined with industry. 

If there is not a separate political force and separate media, then the public will get screwed, as is happening right now. 

For example, the blog I quoted earlier cited an article from the Washington Post

During the final days of the drafting of a 946-page climate bill, Rep. Gene Green D-Tex.) won support for an amendment that deleted a single word and inserted two others. The words could be worth millions of dollars to U.S. oil refiners.

The Green amendment deleted the word "sources" and inserted "emission points." In the arcane world of climate legislation, that tiny bit of editing might one day give petroleum refiners valuable rights to emit carbon dioxide when it otherwise might not have been allowed. Refiners could get the extra allowances in return for cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent at a single point of a vast refinery complex instead of slashing emissions by 50 percent for the entire facility. 

How would you propose to stop such abuses?  Note that this amendment is from a Democrat. The goal is not to get any legislation enacted, it is to get good legislation.

Bart / Energy Bulletin

The keyword is critical support.  This is a difficult strategy, but I don't think there is any other choice.  The idea is to go with the flow of the movement, but keep pointing out the problems.  In other words, don't treat the bill as an end point, but rather as a stage in a long, ongoing process. 

I have to say that the news about the bill keeps getting worse.
http://postcarbon.org/what_bleeping_joke

Obama may be a great guy, but the Democrats are getting more and more funding from industry.  In the bank bailout, healthcare, and now climate, the Democrats are now overtly the party of big business. They need to be pushed from the other direction to make them stay honest.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Could you put up a good English translation when one becomes available?  Thanks.

Bart Anderson
Energy Bulletin

Don't fool yourself, Katharine. This is psychological warfare and it's dead serious.  Humor is a weapon that propaganda experts wield in any campaign.

If you can ridicule someone and damage their self-image then you weaken them as a political force. Look at the WW2 propaganda that makes Hitler and the Nazis appear as buffoons.

I don't mean the creators of the show are aware of what they are doing.  However they have the social consciences of gerbils and acutely sensitive antennae for what will sell.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Thank you Miss Couggrad (sorry about the "Mr." - the internet doesn't show gender).  Well, now, this is a much more interesting discussion to have.  I'd be very eager  to hear about your experiences and your criticisms about specific things that Pollard says.

I am not saying all of Mr. Pollan's arguments are wrong.  But there are several of his solutions that would never work on my farm because of our marginal land and low rainfall.  This is what I am talking about when I say it is not scientifically accurate.  Cow's cannot fertilize our fields as efficiently as anhydrous ammonia.  I really wish we could use more natural methods (I HATE loading anhydrous ammonia) but with our current technology, we cannot.

Yes, no doubt about it, anhydrous ammonia is a fast way to put a lot of N on a crop. Also, it's true that different areas require different approaches.  I don't think Pollard would say any different.

What he and the alternative ag people are criticizing is an automatic set of answers (chemicals and machinery). They are saying - changes are coming (for example, new demands by consumers and higher prices for oil and fertilizers).  Some of these changes will require some very new answers.  For example, last year in Australia, some farmers started turning to animal power and compost because the prices of fuel and fertilizers made it economic to do so.

Pollard is not anti-farmer. He (and I) would like farmers to get more respect and be more rewarded.

All best,
Bart / EB

You know that Pollan has hit a nerve when his book is censored and the trolls come out to play.

Bart / EB

Christopher S. Johnson:

I have no interest in giving up my car.

The problem isn't your car or my pickup truck, Christopher.  The problem is the infrastructure of personal vehicles and highways.  You may cut your carbon footprint, but you (and we) are supporting a system which has no future.

The problem is that we are not alone. The Chinese and Indians are copying our insanity, and there is no way that earth can support billiions more vehicles, even if they were to be low-emissions (which they won't be). 

Remember too that every new vehicle, every change in the infrastructure, requires energy and resources for its manufacture.

I still have a car, but like you I'm arranging my life so that I hardly ever use it. It actually has cobwebs on it! 

We really should separate the personal from the policy, otherwise we fall into the trap of ad hominem argument. 

Suffice it to say that it is hard to do without a car in present-day America, but ALSO that a transport system based on the car is not the way to go.  For environmentalists to try to keep the car-system going is as great an ecological sin as for the coal companies to keep burning coal.

Bart Anderson / Energy Bulletin

 Terry Tamminen wrote:

both hydrogen and batteries are sources of power for electric cars.

We need to get this straight --  neither hydrogen or batteries are sources of power.  They are energy carriers.  How the power is generated is a different question altogether.

There are many different questions wrapped up in this debate. 

• The cost of re-tooling for a new infrastructure, whether it's electric or hydrogen
• How the energy will be generated to create the hydrogren or charge the batteries.
• Whether we can afford personal transport, as we've been accustomed to. Can we afford it economically or environmentally?
• Considerations of efficiency and Energy Returned on Energy Invested.

I am put off by the large propaganda element in the arguments for hydrogen. As far as I can see, hydrogen is not viable for widescale use  There may be some niche applications, but hydrogen as a whole seems to me to be an eco-boondoggle.

Electricity seems much more flexible and realistic. I do not think widespread use of EVs is desirable or possible in the long-run, but developing this technology does make a lot more sense.

Bart / Energy Bulletin

Nice job of tracking the news, Tom.

BTW, the two references you have at the beginning of the article to the Guardian should be to the Times (UK).  The URLs are right, but the link text should be changed.

Bart / Energy Bulletin

Absolutely right, Mike.

I like looking into the traditions of different groups, and celebrating the practices and beliefs from the past.

Food and gardening are a great place to start.  For example, East Palo Alto in California has an annual collard greens festival
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070730/ai_n19436736/

Here's an interview about Growing, cooking, eating, remembering collard greens
http://www.epa.net/launch/comvcs/tellstry/item?item_id=604890

Turns out that collard greens have killer nutritional value, are easy to grow, besides being an integral part of Southern culture. 

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Thinking more about this...

The article raises my hackles since one expects an academic, like a doctor, to give objective advice suited to the situation.

For example:

1. What are the circumstances in which market-based policies work best? Worst?
   
2. What are the side-effects, the possible dangers?
3. Who wins / who loses ?
4. Which sorts of problems call for which sorts of solutions?

It's critical to put a discussion of policy into a historical context.  Policy does not exist in a vacuum. It makes a big difference whether the context is Guatemala 1952,  USA 1933, USA 2002, China 1965, Somalia 2009. For one thing, circumstances change.  It looks like the world will be more hostile to the concept of the market following the catastrophe in the financial market.

Finally, it's important to look at contrary evidence.  For example, cap-and-trade in Europe has some important lessons to teach us about what can go wrong.

One question is why cap-and-trade has become the centerpiece of climate policy when most economists favored a tax.  It is not the superior wisdom, apparently, that has made cap-and-trade the winner.  David Robert and others maintains that cap-and-trade is politically feasible while a carbon tax is not.

Bart / Energy Bulletin

Well, David, you have done your part.  You and Grist have presented your case, and I read your work the way that I don't read other sources of environmental information.

The problem for me is this. Let's say I try to sell this idea to grassroots, green or peakoil people, what do I have to work with?  The arguments are:

1. Trust us (Democratic politicians, mainstram environmentalists and consultants, neo-classical economists, big business)
2. We're running out of time. 
3. There is no choice.
4. We know better than you.

Not very persuasive.

The level of distrust is pretty high. Obama's a great guy, and I don't think anyone from my neck of the woods is going to fight the proposals.  But enthusiasm? Trust? 

Here is an approach that I think has possibilities.

1. 'Admit the validity of at least some of the criticism (e.g. concern about lack of oversight, and people gaming the system)
2. Show a reasonable response to these objections.
3. Show that even though this is an imperfect first step, it will lead to something better.
4. Show us that if we support these measures, we will get something in return. Better policy for small farms, for example.  Paul Krugman as part of the administration. 
5. An ongoing engagement with greenies. 
   

Grist is a step in the right direction because it provides a place for mainstream environmentalists and greenies to meet. But I think it is the exception.  In general, I think that greenies are better served by working on their own projects than by getting sucked into the great Democratic maw.

Gotta side with Friedman on this one.

Agree with him or not, it's worth paying attention to Thomas Friedman because he has an intuitive grasp of the American psyche. 

For example, I think he's absolutely right about people being suspicious about the complexity of cap-and-trade. Yes, a carbon tax is prone to manipulation too, but cap-and-trade is much more so.  The record from Europe is poor and I don't have much confidence in Obama and the Democrats preventing manipulation here.

Keep in mind that the Zeitgeist is changing. A few years ago, the Market was God, the solutions to all our problems.  Now, with the financial debacle, we are acutely aware of how markets are manipulated. The response of the Obama administation to the crisis has been disgraceful, a giveway of titanic proportions.  This does not inspire trust in cap-and-trade. 

I think what Friedman is picking up on, is that American attitudes are undergoing a sea change.  They will be much more open to the idea of a direct tax - if it is presented directly for what it is.

I am unsympathetic to David's argument that This Is A Crisis, You Have No Other Choice.  Nah - energy policy is going to be around for a long time.  We've just begun to think about this.  Cap-and-trade and a carbon tax won't solve the problem by themselves. There is much more to come.

The posts iin Grist by people from industry and mainstream economics have turned me off. I get the feeling that they have a stake involved in cap-and-trade which distorts their analyses. They are more interested in repeating their line, than in advancing understanding.

It's important to lobby from the green side, and not to cave in to threats.  Naomi Klien's idea of The Shock Doctrine applies as well to Democrats, as it did to the Bush administration.  Hold out for what you want, rather than be cowed by manipulative politicians.

At a certain point one has to compromise, but we have to make sure we get something in return for our support.

Gristmill too?

Are you turning off comments on Gristmill as well as Grist?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Where lies truth?

The words of the prophets are written on subway walls

Davedenali writes:

To the poster who wrote "In this, Friedman is ahead of most environmentalism and President Obama."

Yes. He also doesn't have to get votes.  Go tell the  UAW that the economic growth model is fatally flawed.  I dont mean that Friedman isn't right about this -- of course he is.  But columnists and elected officials live in very different worlds -- with different challenges.

Same thing is true of mainstream organizations and publications.  They depend on sponsors who are invested in the status quo.

This situation is not a problem when things aren't changing fast.  However, when conditions are about to change dramatically (e.g. the financial meltdown), it is foolish to rely on mainstream voices. The truths emerge from the edges.

The significance of Friedman's article is that a formerly taboo concept has been taken up by a mainstream commentator.  

Like many great leaders, President Obama will not be the one to broach unpopular ideas. (The leaders who do this have arrows in their back.) Instead, he creates an environment where others push the ideas and develop political support. When the political climate is right, he begin to adopt the ideas.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Nice critique

Appreciate the detailed critique of the article, Tom.  

I think what bothered me was the tone, as if a great wave of innovation was waiting to be unchained if only the pesky organic, local-food people weren't around.

The organic, local-food people are the ones who have come up with the innovative ideas and techniques over the last few decades. The amount of government research and support they've received has been minuscule in comparison to what industrial agriculture gets.

One striking exception is National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA) - long may it wave.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Strategy - all the eggs in one basket?

Do you ... not think that we might significantly improve our position and power if we shifting all our staff onto one joint effort and put, let's say, 10 times as much money into climate campaigning as we are now?

However, your suggested strategy assumes that we know the future and the right repsonse, and thus we should put all resources into one effort.

I don't think that's the case. For example, right now, there are multiple interacting trends, such as peak oil, financial meltdown and impending political turmoil.

Responses such as corn ethanol, that we thought was so great, turn out to be flawed.  

I don't know that a massively funded campaign will be that effective in shifting opinions in the US. I think that grassroots efforts like Transition Towns may be more effective than anything coming out of mainstream environmental organizations.

In situations that we don't completely understand, making all-or-nothing bets isn't a good idea.  

Instead, I would argue for a broad coalition, with multiple voices and approaches.  We need to keep talking and be ready to change course if conditions change.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

ML King rubs people the wrong way

Whenever there's social change, the people in the forefront are going to be attacked in exactly this way.

It was the same story with M.L. King, organic farmers, women's rights, anti-Apartheid.

It is a sign that Alice Waters is doing something right.  

From a tactical point of view, the opposition has decided they can't attack the idea of sustainable food directly, so they launch personal attacks on leaders of the movement.

The idea is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), and unfortunately Tom W. is helping.

If you look carefully at Tom's post, there is no substantial criticism, nothing real. It's the sort of make-believe criticism directed at Obama.

Alice Waters is extraordinarily successful and has been committed to the cause of sustainable healthy food for longer than most of us have been alive.  

And Tom's big news is ... some people don't like what she is saying.

I dunno, looks like concern trolling to me.

A recently declassified World War II manual on sabotage recommends such techniques to derail any effective action: "Advocate 'caution.' Be 'reasonable' and urge your fellow-conferees to be 'reasonable' and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on... Be worried about the propriety of any decision

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The demand for BETTER economics

Re: not listening to economists.

I don't think the problem is economics as a discipline. It is the dogmatic neo-classical economics that has monopolized the field over the last 30 years.  

Many of us (correctly) feel an instinctive distrust which is not always easy to translate into words.  

If one cares to go into the subject, there are multiple attacks on neo-classical economics by other economists and social scientists. (For a good popular bookon the history of economics, see "The Worldly Philosophers" by Robert Heilbroner).

I find it hard to agree with Adam Stein when he implies that by listening to neo-classical economics we will have better environmental policy.  

Their record of failures is unprecedented. Only when Vladimir Putin sent them packing was Russia able to get control of its energy resources and achieve some prosperity.  The Asian tigers pointedly ignored their advice and became economic powerhouses.

The financial instruments now at the center of the economic collapse are the brainchildren of neo-classical thinkers.

And with this record, we should trust them on the environment?

I think we are in the midst of an intellectual paradigm shift, re-discovering the importance of government intervention.  So, let's not do away with economics, but  -- as David Roberts said -- let's have BETTER economics.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Theory vs experience

The design, discussion and implementation of environmental proposals does not happen in a vacuum.  Corporations have the resources and motivation to influence them for their own benefit, whereas advocacy for the public good is weak and diffuse.

In the real world, government agencies are dominated by the corporations and other entities they are supposed to regulate.

One cannot discuss environmental regulation meaningfully without getting into the conflicts of interest that are intrinsic to the process.

This means getting into nitty-gritty history - listening to the different voices. Tales of success and tales of corruption.  

For example, there are all sorts of stories emerging about how cap-and-trade is actually working out.  I trust an empiric collection of experiences much more than theoretical discussions.

Imannuel Kant:

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play."

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Mythmaking and ideology

1. MYTH: Economics is a science.

In fact, mainstream economics is a combination of science and wildly controversial assertions, often reflecting the interests of powerful economic entities.  Soothing posts such as this one mask the conflicts of interest.  When looking at advice from economists, we need to ask "Cui bono?" - who benefits?

What I find intellectually duplicitous is the slight-of-hand in a passage like this:

[The first theorem of welfare economics], easily proven, is exceptionally powerful, because it means that no one needs to tell producers of goods and services what to sell to which consumers. Instead, self-interested producers and self-interested consumers meet in the marketplace, engage in trade, and thereby achieve the greatest good for the greatest number

The key to understanding the flaws in mainstream economics is to examine its assumptions.  For example, the idea of "efficiency" -- efficient for whom? what are the criteria?

Or the idea that the hypothetical markets of economics bear any resemblance to historical reality.  

2. MYTH: Modern mainstream economics is the only form of economics possible.  

Please!  Do some reading in the historical development of economic theory! Read some of the economists (Michael Perelman for example) that are on the outskirts of American orthodoxy. A post like this will be intellectually deficient if it omits the many schools of economic thought. What about Keynes, Marx, ecological economists?

3. MYTH: Any objection to mainstream economics is due to misunderstanding.

I think what gripes me the most about posts like this is the tone of condescension - as if any objection is due to misunderstanding. The underlying message that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds" - don't worry your pretty little heads about economics, we experts have it all figured out. To test the truth of this assertion, a simple look at the headlines is sufficient.

Now would be a very good time for mainstream economists to begin questioning their assumptions. What went wrong?  Why are societies becoming polarized into rich and poor? Why did the financial system fail so spectacularly? Why was it outsiders and not economists who warned us of a coming failure -  like Nassim Taleb ("The Black Swan") and Nouriel Roubini? Why has increased economic prosperity brought devastating ecological problems (e.g. China)?

Unfortunately, I see little evidence of any change in the economics profession.

4. MYTH: The graphs and mathematics that appear in modern economics texts means that economics is as rigorous as physics.

Most of this is just for show - a mathematical formula is only as good as the model on which it is based.  Garbage in - Garbage Out. For a case study, consdier "The Gaussian Copula". As Kevin Drum writes:

There might have been technical problems with the Gaussian copula function, but even if it had worked the way people thought it did it wouldn't have mattered.  The rating agencies and the sell-side BSDs were just using it as an excuse to pretend that house prices would rise forever anyway.  That was a far more fundamental problem than the statistical shortcomings of the formulae they used.

I agree with Mythbusting in one respect - economics is a critical discipline for the most important problems we face today.  I just would like to see it more rigorous, less ideological.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Yes, but

Yes, Dave, but now it's *RESPECTABLE* !

(Good work, the message is now in the mainstream.)

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Peak lithium

Many of the same ideas surrounding peak oil can be applied to lithium.

One famous motto can be rearranged thus:

What is OUR lithium doing under THEIR altiplano desert?

Keith Johnson who keeps the Energy Capital blog on the Wall Street Journal continues the comparison:

Concerns about global supplies of lithium are a lot like the debate over peak oil. Some experts believe the huge increase in electric cars will actually strain the world's lithium supplies in a few years; as with peak oil, "above-ground" factors like Bolivia's politics may be just as critical as geology. Other experts figure lithium supplies are ample and exploding demand will just juice more lithium exploration, as happened with oil.

Peak Lithium: Will Supply Fears Drive Alternative Batteries?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Pandora's box

The Hoover Institute is a conservative think tank, a hotbed of Republicans. It is located on the Stanford campus but is separate from Stanford University. I'm not sure, but I think it is more traditional conservative Republican/libertarian than neo-con.

The entity to which Exxon gave money for energy research is the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford (http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/index.html).  Other funders include General Electric, Schlumberger, and Toyota.

I don't think anyone claims that GCEP is involved with climate denial.  They focus on "technologies that will permit the development of global energy systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions."

My impression is that Exxon has backed down from aggressively denying climate change and funding deniers.  Unfortunately the damage has been done. Like Pandora's box.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Learning from criticism

One of the best interviews David R. ever had on Gristmill was with a neo-con communications strategist.  One thing he said stuck with me. The problem with liberals, he said, is that they do not learn from their opponents.

That seems to be the case here.  NY Times points out some hypocrisy, and the daggers comes out.

Wrong reaction.

Why not say, "Mmmm, maybe they are right. If we're getting flak from the NY Times, we will continue to be criticized in the future by lots of people.

"Let's look to see what can be done.  What are other groups doing?  We can't be perfect, but we certainly can improve our own performance."

What would this accomplish?

1. It would model thoughtful, non-defensive behavior. We are all going to need to accept criticisms of our behavior, whether we are environmental film directors or the managers of coal companies.

2. It would give recognition to people who are thinking about greener ways of life.

3. Those who attend Sundance are rich and/or creative.  If they aren't prepared to be innovative, who will be?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Lean and clean

BiggusCattus: "Efficiency is not the solution, conservation is. "

Actually I think both are important when it comes to the Internet.

Short of social collapse, there's no possibility of going back to a pre-Internet world. It just does so much for us. Access to a computer and the Internet means that you have more information at your fingertips than all the previous generations.

In the long run, the Internet is a key part of our getting through the coming scarcity of energy and resources.  

But it does make sense to make the whole Internet infrastructure as efficient as possible.  

1. Computer hardware has become much more efficient, but there's still a long way to go. There's also the waste involved in having to discard an entire unit in order to upgrade. Electronic equipment can be designed with upgrades and repairs in mind. (In my former life, I worked in the computer hardware industry.)

2. Software tends to evolve into energy-hogging bloatware. This in turn fuels the requirements for faster processors, more memory, faster networks.  Users can help tame the beast by not making purchases based on flash and pointless bells-and-whistles.

3. The same is true of web software. Glitz = bloated software, prone to errors.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

No shame, no guilt. Instead: insight

From an interview with Dr Alex Wissner-Gross (UK Times)

For a typical website experience, the dominant contribution to its footprint comes from the electricity consumed by its visitors' computers, followed by the network infrastructure needed to transmit the website, with the servers and data centers providing the website as the smallest contributor.

Many prominent sites are, however, increasing emissions through software errors and other problems, which increase the time - and energy - needed to access them.

Since electricity for PCs is the dominant factor, the most effective response would be energy-efficient PCs and turning them off when not in use. Turning to green sources of electricity would reduce the carbon footprint.

Dr. Wissner-Gross's point about the inefficiency of much web software is a good one. It's all too easy to design a website to be an energy hog. That's one of the reasons I've argued against needless complexity in website design. Simple interfaces also reduce the time you spend waiting for an article to display.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Coal supplies - a blind spot in climate analysis

Thanks for writing about this, Joseph. You are one of the few climate writers who "gets" the peak oil and peak energy ideas.  

As one researches "peak coal," it is astonishing to find how little good data and analysis exist.

Amazing, when one realizes how important this issue is - in terms of both climate change and energy.

BTW, Richard Heinberg has been writing long essays on peak coal, which I believe will be incorporated in an upcoming book.  You can see online versions at
http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/archived/2008

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Good books

Good books, JMG.

Another one I like is Living More with Less, also by Doris Janzen Longacre:

Doris Janzen Longacre provides a pattern for living with less and a wealth of practical suggestions from around the world in chapters on money, clothing, homes, transportation and travel, celebrations, and recreation.

Here is a Good review of the books

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Context

Hello Peter,

Doesn't it depend entirely on your audience?  "Voluntary simplicity" is widely understood in many religious settings and within the Simplicity sub-culture.

Other audiences require different approaches. For a general American audience (whatever that is), I would start out along the pragmatic line that you're talking about, pointing out the benefits for one's personal life.  

The book "Your Money Or Your Life" holds out the possibility of retiring early if you follow a 7-Step-like self-help program.

Bill McKibben and other intellectuals appeal to the environmentally minded, citing Happiness Studies.

Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping uses comedy and street theater.

So, what is your approach?  It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Cultivate poverty like a garden herb

David: those seeking a less resource-intensive society should think less about how to cajole, brow-beat, guilt-trip, or otherwise force people to give up things, and more about alternative ways to provide people the sense of belonging, security, and status that things provide.

The reality is very different. If you attend groups or read books/websites with the voluntary simplicity idea, you will find people who go overboard NOT to threaten or guilt-trip people.  They do all the things you suggest, giving people with "the sense of belonging, security, and status that things provide."

It's all very warm and fuzzy.  

Due to my Puritan New England blood, I prefer Thoreau's flinty approach:

Cultivate poverty like a garden herb, like sage. Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Good points

I'll second your appreciation of editors and moderators, Gar.  That's why I keep coming back to Gristmill (and why I never read the Comments sections in online newspapers).

About the Matt Yglesias kerfluffle, I don't think it's a real issue.  I'm glad to see all the concern about censorship, etc. but it's misplaced.

The REAL problems in the media are the ones that you don't see. The stories that aren't run. The framing that is taken for granted in the mainstream media.

The major problem now is the disappearance of the newspapers, and the cutting of science/environment reporters.  Only when they are gone, will we realize how much we needed them.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Nice timing

With the financial meltdown and recession, this is a good time to re-examine the different schools of economics.  Mainstream economics always seemed to me about 40% rational thought and 60% ideology. More like a religion than a science.

For what it's worth, I think we are headed towards greater government intervention.  At the moment, it looks like Socialism for the Rich.  Hopefully we can turn the ship towards social democracy, in the  European tradition.

The slogan of "a Green New Deal" is a good starting point.  

But to make this transition, we need some fresh thinking about economics. Hopefully your posts will provide that.

BTW, for economics wonks, we posted a piece about the economics of oil prices.
http://energybulletin.net/node/47523

Basically the idea is that oil prices are difficult/impossible to predict.

Prices ARE NOT a good guide for planning an energy transition.  While the long-term trend may be upward, the path will probably be marked by sudden dramatic drops, such as we have recently experienced.  

Low prices means that people don't want to invest in oil development or renewables.  The resulting energy shortage will ensure price spikes when demand rebounds.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not intimidated

Richard: I don't believe this discussion between us will get anywhere. I'll not waste your time anymore.

Too bad, because conversations on Gristmill are usually pretty good, and people are usually considerate even if they disagree.

You have not responded to any of the issues that were raised -- which will be questions that will be raised by any good journalist or researcher. If you are associated with the CE industry, you'd better get ready for them.

For me the key dilemma is that our current energy needs are big and growing. Cars, in particular, need an incredible amount of energy.  

We've been spoiled with our abundant supplies of oil. Oil's flexibility and high Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) has made us forget how difficult it is to get energy. We tend to think that our high-energy lifestyle will continue, no matter what.  So, when we turn to the fields and forests for energy, we come with that expectation.

All biofuels have a low EROEI compared to oil, and cropping them has inevitable environmental consequences.  This is especially true if the process is scaled up to meet the needs of millions of automobiles.

The industries pushing the different biofuel schemes are pursuing their own interests.  To make wise decisions, we need to ask hard questions and not be intimidated.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Missionary or fellow seeker?

Richard: Perhaps it's my mistake for thinking that Grist might be a particularly useful place to discuss issues pertaining to energy and the environment. But if not here, I don't know where... and that's a bit of a shame.

My impression is that you are saying the same things over and over, and not listening to the objections that are raised.  If you want to understand and influence the rest of us, it's vital to have a good grasp of what the opposition is saying.

David R. once interviewed a neo-con PR consultant whose excellent advice was to listen to the people who disagree with you.  

For me, there are two aspects of the biofuels debate.

The first aspect is pure con job. Industry, investors, and their government supporters are lobbying for research dollars and subsidies. Misinformation and exaggeration are rampant.

The second aspect is a more objective analysis of the technology.  This has been difficult to find. Even scientists and researchers are prey to wishful thinking.  However, the discussion has been improving, as we begin talking about concepts like EROEI (energy return on energy invested), working conditions in the biofuel industries (e.g. on Brazilian sugarcane plantations), and the long-time environmental effects of growing biofuels (e.g. on the soil).

If you come as a Missionary to spread the biofuels gospel, it is just as well that you are frustrated by skeptical natives.

If you are willing to listen and to discuss, then more power to you.

BTW, another place that biofuels are discussed is The Oil Drum - in particular the posts by Robert Rapier.  The discussion is more technical, but biofuels get no free pass there either.

---

To Tom Philpott: Sorry, my mistake about the biofuels series.  That was an excellent job of reporting I thought.  A couple of years in advance of the mainstream media!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Won't fly

If oil spikes upward again, which is likely, don't expect aviation to continue as it has been.  Flying will be too expensive for most purposes.

Don't expect biofuels to fill the gap - they are expensive, inefficient and don't work well as an aviation fuel.

This is in addition to biofuels' devastating effects on food prices and the environment, if they are planted extensively.

We are approaching the Age of Limits.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Critical support

I think the basic rules for political action still hold true. Keep your mind focussed on your objectives.  Support your allies, but don't lose your independent judgment..

Obama is first and foremost a politician, not a savior. He will respond to political pressures.

He is a political centrist by any definition of the political spectrum. I do not expect miracles, but he is immeasurably better than Bush or McCain

What I'm curious about is how we will react as our economic situation deteriorates or as foreign crises develop. I could see him veering to the left or right.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Let's look at the original research

Dave, You're right that food miles are only one of many reasons for eating locally.

But it's a a complicated issue, and requires more than cherry-picked studies from libertarians to make sense of it.

I would not describe Ronald Bailey as being on the cutting edge of environmental awareness. It was only recently that he finally accepted global warming. The main citation in his article is from work done at Mercatus Center, a well funded think tank that lobbies for deregulation, especially environmental deregulation.

If you look at some of the researchers in the UK who seem to have done the most work, they point out that "food miles" is indeed a big deal, but it's only one of many factors.  

See for example: All About: Food and fossil fuels (a CNN video that features Tim Lang of City University London, the UK researcher who came up with the idea of "food miles").

Another good source of information is Food Climate Research Network. For example, a slideshow on Food and Climate Change by Tara Garnett. She writes (slide 45) that food miles represent 2.5 to 3.5% of GHG emissions for the UK.

In slide 46, she writes:

What about air freight?

The most GHG intensive form of transport

Less than 1% all food carried by air but = 11% total food  transport CO2 (including car trips)

1.5% fruit and veg carried by air but accounts for 40% total f&v transport CO2

Kenyan green beans 20-26 times more GHG intensive than seasonal UK beans

To be fair, food systems are complicated and "food miles" is a first-approximation of reality. However, eating ethically is not that complicated:

    * Eat lower on the food chain (plants versus animals)
    * Avoid processed and junk foods.
    * Eat in-season produce (vs strawberries in winter).
    * Favor local agriculture.
    * Don't waste food.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Form a circle and start firing

If there is going to be a change, it will have to extend farther than "sandal-wearing riders of bicycles" like biodiversivist and me.

It will have to include people and groups with whom we don't share all our values.

One approach is to attack anyone who does not agree with us completely.  ("Form a circle and start firing.")   "Sectarianism" is what the old-time Marxist groups called it.  At this moment the Republican Party is giving us a living example.

A second approach is what Carolyn Casey calls "the art of being a good ally."  Thomas Friedman is an ally on many issues, and on those he deserves our support.  He will get the message across to a much greater audience than we can.  If he has a 7-figure income, that is fine with me. If he cobbles together ideas from the Internet, so much the better.

I am interested in understanding where people agree and disagree with Friedman.  Personal attacks, of the sort that the far-Right specialize in, are counter-productive.

The important thing is to move forward, not to insist on ideological purity.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Subsidies?

I don't think it makes sense to demonize subsidies as such.

They've gotten a bad rap because they've been so abused.

They can be an important tool of policy - if they are seen as temporary or as part of an overall strategy.

The problem - as the libertarians tell us - is that subsidies are seductive. Special interests, politicians and favored parts of the population love them.

It's important to have counter-forces in society which can provide an objective judgment. Common Cause and the GAO are examples.

Subsidies and special interests have been with us for thousands of years.  (If you think the US is bad, read about Ancient Rome!)  There's no magic solution.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

You say you want a ...

Closest thing I've seen to a revolution! There will be dancing in the streets.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Hard to disagree

I continue to find it hard to disagree very strongly with you, David.  (Probably agree on more with you than with most of my peak oil colleagues.)

There are some differences though...

I don't think this is a matter of ideas as much as power. We are in the present position not because we lack clever insights, but because of 1) powerful special interests 2) 30 years of conservative political effort in building institutions, influencing media, etc.

With the economic meltdown continuing, I suspect that political events are going to move faster and farther than we can imagine. There is more talk of Keynes and the New Deal than I've heard in a long time. Even old Marxists are being trotted out for their opinion.

I think we're going to be like kayakers going through whitewater - the most we can do is try to avoid the rocks and move in the right direction without flipping.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Michael Pollan thinks so too!

I'm sure many Gristmill readers have seen this, but just in case ...  There is a long related essay by food writer Michael Pollan in the latest New York Times Magazine: Farmer in Chief

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food. Food policy is not something American presidents have had to give much thought to, at least since the Nixon administration -- the last time high food prices presented a serious political peril. Since then, federal policies to promote maximum production of the commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat and rice) from which most of our supermarket foods are derived have succeeded impressively in keeping prices low and food more or less off the national political agenda. But with a suddenness that has taken us all by surprise, the era of cheap and abundant food appears to be drawing to a close. What this means is that you, like so many other leaders through history, will find yourself confronting the fact -- so easy to overlook these past few years -- that the health of a nation's food system is a critical issue of national security. Food is about to demand your attention

... Which brings me to the deeper reason you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on -- but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them. Let me explain.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Some truth

I don't think McCain is necessarily wrong. I've read before about how structures at sea promote biological activity, including fish.  

I think I read this in relation to the Valdez disaster. Does anybody else know more?

Doesn't mean that offshore drilling is a great idea or that it will solve our energy problem.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

More complicated than our little minds can handle

Opinions are hot and heavy about invasive species. The reality - as with most ecological issues - is more complicated.

There is a strong anti-invasive stance, as you note, among most enviros.

On the other hand, there are counter-movements, for example in permaculture, that either embrace or are less hostile to new species.

I would like to see a greater depth of understanding.  

We come from a culture that is biologically and ecologically retarded. As a result we demand simple black-and-white answers.

The mark of good biologists, in my view, is that they begin their comments with the phrase: "It depends..."  

A few years ago, I collected links for some good articles on the subject, if anyone wants to learn more:
http://www.cwo.com/~bart/invasive.htm

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Using judgment

People in flyover country will rally to her. This could turn into a landslide victory for Palin/McCain

So, personally, I like her. It's just that as a politician, she's getting caught up in the Rightwing machine, and I'm not sure she really knows what she's getting involved in. Most of her positions are against the interests of working people and the environment.

A Palin/McCain ticket will just continue the failed policies of the Bush years - war, tax breaks for the rich, declining economy, incompetence.  No thank you.

Do you choose a supplier, a carpenter, a surgeon, because you "like them"? Wouldn't you look at their qualifications? Same thing here.

Let Palin stay in Alaska. She and her family will be much happier there.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Differences - real or symbolic?

From the commentary on the web, it's hard to figure out exactly what Palin would be like to work with.

I think there are two things to consider.

First, does one agree with her on the issues? For me and probably for most Gristmillers, the answer is No.

Second, though, is she someone with whom we could work?  I tend to think Yes. She does not seem to be part of the Right-wing machine that's taken over Republican politics.

I like the fact that she comes from local politics and that she's married to a blue collar worker. The fact that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant makes her seem more human to me, and it may make her more tolerant.

I don't mind the fact that she comes from a religious background and has conservative social values. The question is - would she be willing to work with others who have different beliefs?

The fact is that a good percentage of America is made up of people like Sarah Palin and identify with her.  If environmentalists and progressives ever want to get anywhere, we must learn NOT to get hung up on symbolic cultural issues, and instead to focus on what we can agree on.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

More on the conference

Thanks for your coverage of Slow Food, Russ.  I'll be watching for more.

We just posted an article on the conference by Shepherd Bliss for those who are interested:
Slow Food Nation Attracts 50,000 -- Beneath The Surface.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Good news

Oil sands visit was not a shopping trip, says Buffett (Reuters):

Warren Buffett toured Canada's oil sands with his friend Bill Gates this week to understand how the resources are developed, but the billionaire investor said on Friday he had no plan to buy into the sector.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not so hard to beat MESSes

hankherra:

One other small point:  To supplant the global, industrial supply chain, local supply chains would have to deliver healthy food with the same reliability and consistency as global, industrial supply chains now deliver manufactured, edible substitute substances (MESSes).  

First, industrial food is very good at delivering MESSes (love that acronym!) and local supply chains should NOT compete head to head.

This is basic marketing. Instead of imitating the giants, you determine the unique value that you offer the customer, and market to that.

For example: Fresh and local, knowing the person who grew your food, heirloom varieties, great taste, supporting the local community.  Plus the  factor of it being chic.

Second, even though industrial food can presently deliver food cheaply, that will probably not be true in the future (as fuel, fertilizers and water become more expensive). So, all that is necessary is for alternative food systems to beat the declining economics of the food giants.

Things are changing, and huge industrial systems are not very nimble when it comes to change.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Truer words were never spoken ...

Jason S.

I have learned to be humble when talking about oil and energy markets....

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Pixie dust

Bob Wallace:

Luckily we have sufficient free energy falling on us every day to power those rides.

And do you think  China and other developing countries are going to opt for renewables when coal is so much cheaper?  And especially with the vastly increased demand for electricity to power all the new vehicles?

Powering the vehicles is just one part of the problem.  What about the asphalt and concrete for the roads? And the metals and plastics in the vehicles? All take energy to mine or produce, and eventually, to dispose of.

Do you really think the earth can sustain a global population driving cars the way Americans do?  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not an attack, but reality

I thought the New York Times editorial was very good. They say what no candidate can say at the moment: We must have high gas prices, if we are to have a chance of kicking our oil addiction.

I don't see this as an attack on Obama at all. After all, they say:

Compared with his slightly hysterical opponent, Mr. Obama had been making good sense on energy questions, and his recent speeches had included a menu of proposals for energy efficiency, conservation, alternative fuels and new technologies

Obama is under pressure about oil, as David noted, and has to trim some of his positions. That's political reality. No reason to get excited.

I don't think "record prices" are a good reason to start tapping into the SPR. It sends the message that the government will step in to keep prices low.  Wrong message. The message should be - we will help with conservation and alternate sources, but we have to accept the reality that the age of cheap oil is over.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Kick the habit

Following up on racc's comment about the viability of personal motorized vehicles.

Kant's Moral Imperative urges us to

act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)

It's not just about our immediate needs in America. What we do here will be the blueprint for much of the rest of the world.

Building the new vehicles will require prodigious amounts of energy and resources, as will maintaining them and their infrastructure (e.g. asphalted roads).

As Ivan Illich reminds us, beyond a certain threshold, motorized vehicles degrade the transportation system for other modes of transportation. Cars supplant  mass transit, and they make riding by bike difficult and dangerous.

Most insidious, encouraging private vehicles spreads the psychological addiction to automobiles -- perhaps the most potent force opposing sustainability.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Does suburbia drive people crazy?

Thanks for the reply, Nickz. I agree with a lot you say this time, so I'll focus on the things that I think are the most interesting.

Recent article/video from CBS News: The Decline Of Suburbia?

Suburbs being energy-inefficient. I agree that technology can make suburban housing units more efficient. Yet we still have...

• an existing stock of inefficient houses
• an infrastructure (roads, pipes, cables) which is more expensive to build and maintain than the corresponding urban infrastructure
• The permanent problem of having to move people and supplies over long distances since employment and stores are elsewhere.

In a way, the debate is moot. The suburbs are there, and people will cope with the situation somehow. I'm sure there will be some ingenious approaches. (Retrofitting the suburbs for sustainability by permaculture co-originator David Holmgren).

Our family has talked, half-jokingly, of buying several properties and forming a family compound.  The Washington Post reported on this phenomenon: Relative Comfort. So re-discovering extended family living is one possibility.

Nickz: "Why would fuel costs send anyone back to the city??"

I think we're seeing something bigger than the dollar cost of fuel vs housing prices. You are unusual in your quantitative approach to making a housing decision. Impulse and feeling count for much more, in my experience. For most people under stress, the regular pain of higher gas prices is an emotional flashing red light. Plus, as herd animals, we tend to follow fashion. Before it was suburbia, now it's back to walkable neighborhoods.  (I notice that you seem to ignore the economics and choose to live close in!)

As to condos in the suburbs, I think that would be the worst of both worlds. Isolation and cramped quarters. That brings up ...

The psychological cost of the suburbs. I'm beginning to think there's a lot to this - haven't seen much written about it though. Suburbs can be great for those years when one is raising a family. But when one gets older, or when hard times come, one really wants to be around other people. Or after a divorce and you're looking for potential partners and more of a social life than the PTA.

I'm thinking of the mother of a friend who slowly went crazy living alone in an isolated resort town.  Or the pinched faces of friends as they  bravely talk about their hour-long commutes. Or the tech writer friend who got a cheap house in Tracy, but who lost his job and could only find work there as a security guard.

What do other people think - are there psychological problems with living in suburbia?

Is it just a matter of money? In my family, the key to whether people are in suburbia or urban centers is not money. The factor seems to be whether they are conventional or not.   The conventional family members have the big houses, designer kitchens and big mortgages.  The unconventional family members are not rich, but they found older housing in 2nd or 3rd tier cities (Napa vs San Francisco), or small units (e.g. condos) in big cities.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Idi Amin Green

MAD MAC: "that's market forces driving solutions, not a government run by Idi Amin Green making it happen."

Careful, Mac! You're hyperventilating again.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Suburbia - dying or only sick?

nickz: serious, peer-review, evidence based articles.

The best evidence now available is from people in the field.  And the evidence of the market itself. I have a half dozen friends who cannot sell their houses (at the prices they want). However, the one person who had a house in a close-in suburb had little trouble selling her house.

nickz:  EV's have been around for 100 years

"prices will probably go much higher"

Nah. That would be unaffordable.  Before that happens, people will reduce their consumption (aka "demand destruction").

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The mind - horrible thing to waste

David R:

IMHO, the mindset changes after the rest of that stuff changes. Trying to change mindset directly (by what? persuasion?) is futile. Change the constraints, change the material circumstances, and the mindset will change to adapt to it. Start with the tangible, I say.

I'm just saying that I personally am interested in changes in mindset/paradigm.  I think circumstances are ripe to develop a new vision, and that in the confusing times ahead, people will be receptive to new worldviews.

One thing that Donella doesn't mention is the creation of networks and institutions, where new ideas can develop and grow, where people can find companionship and support.  

I actually think this is the most important thing that is happening now.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The puppets stand up

[Suburbia] isn't a big buisiness conspiracy like you crazy people here make it out to be. This was the logical market response to the demands of the market.

It doesn't mean that suburbia was a conspiracy. As usual, it was a combination of factors: cheap fuel, pent-up demand after the War, consumer preferences, the national highway system, lobbying. Business people saw an opportunity and took it.  
 

You can live with Big business and it's influence in the political sphere, or you can have a directed economy. They suck and still trash the environment. The current model you see if the best out there - both from an environmental perspective and a political one - warts and all. You guys want what doesn't exist.

You say either we have to choose between big business corruption or a directed economy. And of the two, we now live in "the best of all possible worlds."

But wait a minute! There are more than two choices! We can think, discuss, choose -- we don't have to be puppets either of Big Business or of Centralized Rule.

It isn't an either/or choice.  

It is possible to put brakes on special interests when they threaten the common good. And to encourage markets where they make sense.

In other words we've got to think, rather than rely on dogma.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Reality check

MAD MAX ... mmmm... where to begin?

Suburbia didn't just happen. It was a result of corporate lobbying and government action. Washinton Post gives some background: Gas Prices Apply Brakes To Suburban Migration:

Cheap oil, which helped push the American Dream away from the city center, isn't so cheap anymore. As more and more families reconsider their dreams, land-use experts are beginning to ask whether $4-a-gallon gas is enough to change the way Americans have thought for half a century about where they live.

"We've passed that tipping point," U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said.

Since the end of World War II, government policy has funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle, subsidizing highways while starving mass transit and keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries.

(Note that this blindness is only a characteristic of current dogmatic conservativism. Many traditional conservatives have a more honest and balanced view of government action.)

Bangkok. Just finished talking with a Thai woman about Bangkok -- traffic jams aren't considered serious unless traffic has been stopped for at least an hour. Problem is so bad that some policemen are now trained in delivering babies (for women undergoing childbirth and stuck in traffic).  I haven't been to Bangkok, but these details flesh out MM's rosy view.  The traditional settlement patterns in Thailand sound appealing though.  The best thing about Bangkok seems to be the Thais, rather than their urban planning, or lack thereof.

In one way, though, I agree with MM. Urban patterns that spring up spontaneously often have a vivacity and ecological sense that are lacking in the last 60 years of urban planning. The problem is that cheap gas distorts the process. And when cheap gas is gone, we're stuck with an infrastructure that sucks.

Odd that Jim Kunstler is taking hits on this list. He has been right about the effect of gas prices on suburbia, and the common wisdom has been wrong.

The world loves the US (or does it?). It would be reassuring to think that we're such a lovable country and it's only those snooty Europeans that get in the way of our getting the unstinting admiration we so richly deserve.

In my experience, it's more of a mixed picture. On the one hand, there is an immense reservoir of good-will and admiration for America. On the other hand,  US government policy is often very unpopular. Especially under Bush, the US has lost a lot of the respect that it formerly had.

MM says that Europeans can be pricks.  True, but Americans can be pricks too - in a different way.

Funny thing though, when I'm living abroad, I realize how American I am in my outlook and personality. And I get to appreciate the U.S. for what it has been and what it could be.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Sex, markets and conservation (and sex)

Good discussion.

I think conservation has been ignored by markets because it has not been seen as sexy. Sean makes some good points, but markets often have blind spots and I think conservation is one of them. (The great investors and business people are able to see the blind spots and exploit them.)

I think this will change, as the awareness percolates through our consciousness that fuel prices are going to continue to go up, and that alternate fuel sources are over-hyped (= bad investments).

One other thought -- why do we consider conservation not sexy?  

Is there a chance that it might be that the US viewpoint might be a wee bit infantile?

Reminds me of correcting the papers of high school students who found Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Dickens, etc. boring.

Judging from the mass media, we prefer to be exposed to:

Fast cars, raw sex, explosions, invading foreign countries, fighter planes, torture,  obesity, magical diets, stupid decisions, whining about the consequences of stupid decisions.

On the other hand Paris Hilton has a fairly intelligent contribution to the energy debate:
Paris for Prez?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Theory vs practice

Yes, great ideas.

However...  social changes don't occur because they are efficient or reasonable.

One has to look at the underlying trends in economics, political power and natural systems. Is the time ripe for the new ideas?  What political forces can be mobilized to support them? How should the ideas be presented?

Globalization didn't occur because it was a good idea, but because it was very profitable for certain entities and because they did a very good job of pushing their program forward. Cheap fuel and the dominance of capitalism were preconditions.

Is it time for Jon Rynn's return to continental economies? Maybe so, with cheap fuel coming to an end and a growing concern about global warming.

The question remains - what are the political forces? Who would benefit, who would fight it?

Personally, I'm much more enthusiastic about bio-regionalism and relocalization.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not really about Nixon

I think it's more complicated than Perlstein makes out.

This is not so much an issue of whether Nixon really believed in environmentalism, but rather how American politics has changed in the last 40 years.

Nixon was pragmatic, non-dogmatic and ruthless. Very different from the modern conservative movement which is strongly ideological (but still ruthless).

As a result of his pragmatism, Nixon pushed various programs that are now considered liberal. In some ways, Nixon is more liberal than most current Democratic candidates.

What has happened that the political center of gravity has moved far to the right since then.

Also, environmentalism was much more bi-partisan at that time.  Nowadays, it takes a brave Republican indeed to support environmental policies, because the Republican Machine has become so anti-environmental.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

my favorite things

MAD MAC: there was not one post anyone could describe as optimistic or positive.

... these are a few of my favorite things ...  (tra-la)

Gristmill debunking PR crap from agro-business.

Permaculture.  

New understanding of soil ecology.

Re-discovering traditional methods of raising and preparing food.

Feisty 75-year-old Master Gardeners raising vegetables and helping newbies.

People searching out good information and thinking for themselves.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Culture Wars

Tauger: Why the need to attack such people?

I think we are in the midst of culture wars, and NYT journalist Kim Severson seems to have a chip on her shoulder about the eat-local movement. Rather than attack it directly, she is concentrating on irrelevant issues.

The Wall Street Journal just published a less tendentious article on the same subject:
The Vegetable Patch Goes Luxe by Ellen Gamerman.

One thing to keep in mind is that food trends seem to start at the top. The US/European elite until recently went in for white bread, meat and fatty foods. So, when industrial agriculture made it possible, all the other classes followed them.

The move to organics and local food came first from the idealistic-hippie movements. The elite have picked it up, and gradually the ideas are spreading throughout society.

Fortunately, healthy organic food is within the reach of most people. You just have to be willing to shop around for inexpensive healthy food, or have a garden (or know someone who does). And you've got to be willing to put the effort into preparing the food (get some good knives).

Example. Instead of buying processed breakfast cereal, buy bulk organic rolled oats.  Cook or eat raw. I prefer rolled oats soaked in water/milk with yogurt on top. Add raisins, fruit or nuts. Heavenly.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Magic of the markets

MAD MAC:

Wolverine, you want to rebuild every community in the world so it's more walkable and more bikeable? Any idea what that might cost (in dollars and Carbon emissions?)

Communities are being re-built now, because of high gas prices. We just don't see it clearly.  

It's the magic of the markets at work. Far-away suburbs are losing their value and being abandoned, whereas walkable close-in housing is keeping its value.  Guess where real-estate money will be invested?  

The process will accelerate as gas prices continue to increase.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Electric cars not the answer

Good post generally. I disagree with the point about autos.

We must ask Detroit and all automakers in America, foreign and domestic, to retool immediately to make cars of more than 30 mpg, hybrids of 40+ mpg and the mass scaling of plug-in hybrids that connect to our electric grid.

How certain are you that the U.S. will continue to have the wealth and natural resources to sustain a transportation system that is intrinsically hoggish on resources?  Isn't it true that we are near peak oil production now, and that oil will essentially run out during the next few decades?

Even electric cars are great users of metals and energy. Where will the electricity come from? All known methods of generating electricity have side-effects and require resource inputs. (Even the more benign wind and solar technologies need inputs.)

And let us say that the U.S. is able to finance and supply a fleet of efficient cars.  What about the hundreds of millions new car owners in India and China?  What we do here sets the pattern for the world.

Are you willing to bet that the earth can support hundreds of millions of autos indefinitely.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

A meme is born

Paleocon writes:

Additional domestic oil should be sold under the "methadone" brand.

Love it!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Green and Red

Odograph: I'd take recent Chinese (and Soviet) history as proof that industrial communism destroys nature even better than industrial capitalism.

If you look into the subject, O, I think you'll find it more complicated than the stereotypes. In the early years of the Soviet Union, there were apparently some far-thinking environmental policies. Also, the Soviets were leaders in soil science.

Remember that they were undergoing a transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society, and environmental concerns are pretty low on the list of priorities in any society undergoing that phase of its development - whether the society is capitalist or communist.

China is a strange case, since it seems to have more the characteristics of a capitalist economy after the time of Mao.  Even so, it has a green movement that periodically becomes visible.

On one thing you're definitely right -- after Stalin, environmentalism was NOT part of official communist doctrine. In fact, official communism was anti-environmentalist, labelling it "neo-Malthusianism."

However Soviet-style communism is only one segment of the vast spectrum of socialisms. It's dead now, and shows little sign of returning.

In any case, environmentalism is no longer verboten, although there's a residual suspicion of it among some old-timers. Many socialists now are active environmentalists. In Australia, for example, there is the publication Green Left.

One of the best of the socialist publications is Monthly Review, which has just published a special issue on ecology.  What's funny is that in spite of their association with Marxism, they don't sound much different than many current activists who have never heard of Marx. Editor John Bellamy Foster who co-wrote  the intro to the current issue (The Moment of Truth) is an environmental thinker worth reading. He teaches at U. of Oregon, Eugene. (I have no ties with him or with MR).

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Dogma and flexibility

MAD MAC writes:

The altnerative to a free market is a directed market. And who directs it? The government. A quick glance at history and current events tells you what you get there.

We've got problems and the "free-market" philosophy of the last few decades is largely what got us into the mess.

Our thinking about economics and policy has become so ideological - as ideological in its own way as the dogma of central planning in the old communist economies.

If you look at the most successful policies in modern history, I think you see a pragmatic combination of government intervention and the market.  Examples: New Deal, European social democracies, Chinese communism-capitalism, Asian Tigers (government-led capitalism).

I think the problems of energy and climate will challenge capitalism as nothing else has before. Capitalism is resilient, but will it be able to adapt?  An open question.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Gold star for honesty

Good for you, Jason, to write such a post.

Could I offer a non-professional hypothesis on what is happening with the oil price?  The oil price rise is essentially being driven by a change in perception about the availability of oil.

There have been several indicators in the couple of years. Russia is apparently close to its peak production. Mexico's phenomenal Cantarell field is in decline. North Sea oil is in decline. And it seems as if Saudi Arabia's ability to increase production may be very limited.

Millions of people are beginning to connect the dots. Many of the facts have been available for years, but for some reason we have reached a tipping point.  This realization set off other trends.

I think the speculation is an epi-phenomenon. Once one sees a trend developing, it's natural to bet that it will continue. If the price were to begin dropping, we'd probably see speculation favoring the other direction.

The desire for oil-producing countries to control their own resources is related. With the realization that supplies are limited, wouldn't you - as  sheik of Scorse-land - want to get the most value for your oil? Why drill more, if the current oil revenue is enough? Especially if you were going to be paid in dollars, the value of which declines with every day.

And if you were far-sighted, as some of the leaders are, wouldn't you want to leave some oil in the ground for the future?  

The conflicts in oil-producing countries also may be related. With oil near $150/barrel, control of the oil reserves are a rich prize.  (As versus a few years ago when oil was at $10/barrel). Some have argued that a concern with oil supplies was behind the Iraq invasion (some say this approvingly, others disapprovingly).

Ironically, as unpleasant as the price rise has been, it may be just the thing to save us. Just about everyone serious realizes that peak oil will be here sooner or later (now to 20 years from now).  Serious students realize that it is critical to make preparations beforehand, since being caught by surprise would be catastrophic. But serious students also understand that moral suasion is insufficient; real change requires the economic incentive of high prices.

And so we must thank the Markets for giving us this early-warning signal.  In this, at least, your faith in markets is vindicated.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The Malthusians are always with us

The problem with Malthus is that he was profoundly reactionary - a fact which Kaplan glosses over. This makes it hard to disentangle the truths in Malthus from the ideology.

His ideas become a justification for inaction in the face of preventable death and suffering since "the poor are always with us."  

For example, Wikipedia notes that Malthus's idea influenced British policy  of "not entirely benign neglect" in allowing famines in India and Ireland.

The problem with Malthus's analysis is that there is more at work in human society than biological factors.  Yes, there are biological limits but what's critical is how we as a society deal with them.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Nutrients, nutrients, I need nutrients

Jon Rynn writes:

I thought that permaculture and biointensive farming build up the soil -- or do they also need phosphorus to be imported from time to time?

Even with wonderful farming practices, soils will have problems with nutrient depletion. For one thing, crops take up nutrients which are then sold and eaten elsewhere.  So there's a constant stream of nutrients leaving the farm.  

Interestingly, this became a big issue in the 1800s with the growth of big cities. We had the twin problems of stinking sewage in the city, and nutrient depletion in the countryside. It's a little known fact, that Karl Marx was obsessed by this problem. (Liebig, Marx, and the depletion of soil fertility: relevance for today's agriculture).

Some of the solutions I've heard proposed:

1. Improve the soil. Good humus, soil structure and soil ecology (micro-organisms) keep nutrients bound up, so they aren't washed away (especially K and N; P is not very mobile).

2. Grow green manure. Raising crops with deep roots brings minerals up from down below. These crops are left in the field to decompose (or are taken  to other fields).

3. Apply rock dust. Popular with many organic farmers.

4. Bring in compost and organic material from elsewhere. Return urine and humanure to the soils.

5. Apply some synthetic fertilizer when first changing from chemical to organic farming. Primes the pump, apparently. Suggested by several organic farmers I respect.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Recycling nutrients not enough to solve problem

It's true that recycling wastes would help a great deal with the fertilizer crisis, however they will never be enough.

It's all part of an ecological cycle. Since nutrients are lost at each step in the cycle, the end products (wastes) can never supply enough nutrients by themselves to keep the cycle going.

Consider the steps in the cycle:

1. Soil has nutrients (N, P, K in particular) that were formed by geological and other long-term processes. Rocks breaking down, for example. N-fixation by some plants.

2. Plants use nutrients to grow.  After the plants die, most of the nutrients are returned to the soil as it decomposes.

3. Animals eat some of the plants. Their poop and carcasses return many nutrients to the soil.

4. We eat plants and animals. Unfortunately our modern civilization diverts many nutrients away from the soil.  Most of our urine and feces - prized by earlier civilizations - goes to the ocean. Much food waste becomes garbage which is burned or buried in such a way that it will ever decompose.  Biofuels cause nutrients to be burned - thus, by their very nature, biofuels are unsustainable on a large scale. Even our corpses, burnt or buried in non-decomposable containers, remove nutrients from the cycle.

Cheap energy saved us in the 20th century. The Haber-Bosch process enabled us to create nitrogen synthetically (at great expenditure of energy). Cheap energy made it possible to mine and transport other minerals.  

With the end of cheap energy, what do we do?  Other posters describe the problems and possible solutions.  The discussion is just beginning...

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Nitrogen an easy fix compared to phosphorus

Good points, Tim.

What really worries me though is phosphorus - another essential nutrient - the "P" in N-P-K.

Unlike nitrogen (which can be obtained from the air or via N-fixing bacteria), the supplies of phosphorus are limited. Once the phosphate deposits have been mined out, that's the end of phosphorus fertilizers, the end of modern agriculture.

Estimates of phosphorus deposits are hazy - we might have 50, 100 or 200 years before phosphorus "runs out."  The problems begin much sooner, however, since phosphorus will be getting harder and more expensive to mine. Just as with oil, we go after the easier deposits first. And just as we will have Peak Oil, so too with phosphorus. We published one analysis which concluded that we are at or near Peak Phosphorus.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had an excellent interview on the subject.

Links and comments here:
http://energybulletin.net/node/45534

It would be a wonderful topic for writers/journalists in agricultural sustainability. Not much has been written about it.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Just let ME be The Decider

David: Perhaps we share the distrust of numbers because of our liberal arts background?

Colin Wright: thanks about Energy Bulletin. It's been a struggle!

Although it may sound like it, I'm not really manning the barricades for localism. I'm just saying it is an issue that should be out there.

You're exactly right to pose the problem of freedom vs access to centralized electricity. It is a trade-off.

Governments would NEVER cut off a service like electricity would they?
Israel to begin cutting off electricity to Gaza

It's not just electricity.  Europeans are very aware that they are dependent on natural gas from Russia. Does this constrain their independence?  Does our dependence on Saudi oil affect our foreign policy?

One of MacKay's suggestions is for the UK to get electricity from (projected) huge solar developments in North Africa.  There's much to be said for the idea... but one has to keep in mind the problem of depending on energy from other countries.  

Energy will increasingly be a tool/weapon of geopolitical power. I'm afraid it also has the potential as a tool of repression as well. Physical measurements don't capture this all-important reality.

hapa:

wouldn't sharing revenue from larger facilities empower?

On the average, the system is much more efficient.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

S/he who controls the frame

I probably agree with 2 wheeler on many things, so maybe his quote would be a good candidate for de-constructing the inordinate love of numbers.

2 wheeler wrote:

It's clear to me at least, that he doesn't underestimate the psychologic barriers that must be overcome to make the necessary changes in energy sources at this time.  Lordy, what a bunch of NIMBYS they have over there in the UK, all over wind and other stuff, you think they want their power for free or something.

1. Other people have psychologic barriers that must be overcome. This implies a technological master plan that will be enforced upon an ignorant public. Note that this is a different model of change from a bottom-up grassroots effort. Note also, that this technocratic, anti-democratic view has nothing to do with science.  One can argue for it, but one cannot take it for granted or claim that it is sanctified by science.

2. The term "NIMBY" is code for the assertion of the power of a central government/corporatocracy over the rights of local residents. In general, the term is used by people who benefit from the process to deny the legitimacy of those who suffer from the process.  The outstanding example here at Gristmill was an environmental leader who inveighed against those who opposed wind farms in their neighborhood; in the same interview, he admitted his addiction to traveling by airplane to beautiful far-off places.

I'd rather see numbers and debate their merits than simply argue endlessly about opinions without anchoring them in technological fact.

I would argue that the ONLY way you can make intelligent use of numbers in energy policy is to understand their social context.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The blindness of science

Bart Anderson wrote: Numbers don't remove the need for clear thinking

Nucbuddy: When you say clear thinking, do you mean bigotry?

I had in mind scientism in which numbers, graphs and jargon are used the frighten the natives and cow them into accepting things without question.

I love science and am prejudiced in favor of scientists, but I recognize that they can be just as illogical and bloody-minded as anyone else, especially when they step outside their field.

In particular, there is often a blindness when it comes to history and ecology.

For example, any student of history has got to be very nervous about the idea of nuclear energy. Human beings have a poor record of being able to handle the power and responsibilities that such a technology brings. The sleepy little peasant society of today becomes a totalitarian powerhouse within 20 years.  The stable empire overextends itself and breaks up into little states run by unbalanced dictators.

Many scientists are dazzled by the technology, but are shocked and surprised when things don't quite turn out as they expected (for example, the Iran nuclear industry which encouraged by the U.S. back in the 50s).  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not sure how drilling more would really help

Sam Wells writes: The reasons I support a narrow short-term drilling policy in relatively "good" areas such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico...  It simply is a hedge against other countries bidding up the supply side.

?? I don't get it. The oil would go onto the world market. Yes, for a while the new supplies will keep the price of oil from going as high as it otherwise might. I'm not sure how significant the price difference would be.

BUT - we will have used the oil up in the short-term, when in the future, oil is bound to be much more valuable. In the future, many countries may engage in energy nationalism and husband their supplies carefully.

What will we have done with the oil? Used it to build a sustainable infrasture? Almost certainly not. We're still in the addictive mode.

Maybe you can explain more, Sam?

Thanks

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Watch out -- invasive weeds

The idea points out one of the basic problem with using any plant for biofuel... the characteristics that make a plant good for biofuel production also make it a great candidate to become an invasive weed.  

From New Trend in Biofuels Has New Risks (New York Times)

"Some of the most commonly recommended species for biofuels production are also major invasive alien species," the paper says, adding that these crops should be studied more thoroughly before being cultivated in new areas.

Controlling the spread of such plants could prove difficult, the experts said, producing "greater financial losses than gains." The International Union for Conservation of Nature encapsulated the message like this: "Don't let invasive biofuel crops attack your country."

To reach their conclusions, the scientists compared the list of the most popular second-generation biofuels with the list of invasive species and found an alarming degree of overlap. They said little evaluation of risk had occurred before planting.

Does anyone remember the Disney cartoon of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"?  Be careful what you wish for!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Why bother?

Thanks to biodiversivist for giving a balanced view.

About global issues, ditto to what Wolverine said.

On a personal basis, I think a regular bike beats electric bicycles hands-down.

1. Who needs the hassle of a complicated machine that's prone to malfunction? The older I get, the more I want to simplify my life, not add more gadgets. Every hour spent reading manuals, diddling/adjusting, and searching out repair people - this is an hour wasted.

2. The average American is overweight, out-of-shape, and chronically depressed. Bikes cure all those ills. Healthy people do not need electric bikes, and thrive on daily aerobic exercise.

3. One can do most simple bicycle repairs with a minimum of skills and tools. Neighborhood bike shops can fix anything more complicated. Industry could make bikes even easier to maintain and repair, if there were a need to - especially the low-end bikes that are what most people should be using (e.g., steel vs aluminum).

4. Pleasure.  Bicycle riding is one of the finest legal pleasures around.  The relaxation and sense of well-being after a ride. The pheromones released by exercise. The pleasure in being fit. The increase in libido. This is something we want to replace?

5. Wuss-factor. Are we so enfeebled and weak in spirit that we can't locomote ourselves? How our hardy ancestors would have laughed at us!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Alliances

The first part of Gar's essay is right-on: "solving climate chaos is incompatible with an aggressive military policy."

It does not follow, however, that it is counter-productive to form alliances with parts of  the military.

1. The military is a HUGE enterprise with many different groupings and individuals. It is unwise to write off so many people with a blanket policy.

2. There is a difference between an "aggressive military policy" and "the military."  If and when the United States changes its course, there will still be a military. At some historical junctures, the military has played a progressive role, for example, in the Carnation Revolution in Portugal.

3. I wonder if part of the appeal of blanket condemnations is that they avoid the difficulties of working with real people. Alliances take effort and thought: When are they worthwhile? How to deal with disagreements? The solution of the 60s/70s was to retreat into self-righteousness and moral absolutism. The result: 30+ years of conservative domination of U.S. politics.

4. If there are emergencies and social disorganization, the military will become involved.

5. I've found that some military planners and think tankers are far ahead of the environmental community. For example, they picked up on the idea of peak oil much more quickly than mainstream environmentalism and they are not as prone to wishful thinking.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Nature, jealously guarding her secrets

Joseph Romm writes:

Time to scrap no-till farming as a carbon offset or greenhouse-gas mitigation strategy.

Biological systems are complicated and we as a society have paid little attention to them.

To me this issue looks like the usual: wanting quick, simple answers for our immediate needs. Nature is jealous of her secrets and does not reveal them readily.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Let bygone be bygones

Thanks for braving the lion's den, Mr. Territo. I have noticed that there's been an uptick in the green awareness of auto manufacturers lately.

Still, what is most convincing is action, not words.

Also, it would be good to have an honest reappraisal of the role of the auto industry. Yes, there were consumer preferences which it was profitable to respond to (e.g. pick-ups and SUVs), but the U.S. industry was not been overeager or forward looking when it came to efficiency. I think part of this is inertia, part culture.

The Japanese manufacturers were selling to the same consumers and have managed to come up with some profitable high-efficiency designs.

But let it pass. The main thing is what happens in the future.

One thing to look out for -- the price of oil will probably continue rising in the long run. I hope the auto industry has some think tanks and white papers with plans for when oil is $200 or $300 a barrel.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Cottage industry

Thanks for mentioning the relationship between oil prices and responding to climate change.

As some Gristmillites know, predicting oil prices has become a cottage industry. Investment analysts, government agencies and oil companies all come up with predictions.  

In my opinion, the EIA's predictions have not been very good (in Eric's words, "wildly and completely wrong"). I'm not sure exactly why.

Government and international organizations tend to be very optimistic about oil prices. An agency within the UK government is predicting $70 oil in 2020. The International Energy Association (IEA) had been optimistic, but recently has sounded a much more worried tone.

The official oil industry view could be summarized as "We're at the end of cheap oil, but don't worry, we'll be able to get oil somehow."  Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) probably represents the official line best. They foresee a plateau of oil production, with unconventional oil picking up the slack from declining conventional oil production.

Investment analysts are all over the place, with their predictions. However, predictions of high prices are getting headlines, such as those by Goldman Sachs.

For more coverage and commentary, see The Oil Drum or the site I work for Energy Bulletin

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Don't under-estimate her

I worked for Carly Fiorina (as a peon behind a computer screen), while she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

One suggestion: Do not under-estimate her. She is a dynamite marketing-person, fearless, and with abundant energy. She is smart and a quick study.

As CEO of HP, she had a tragic flaw that led to her downfall. But she seems to have dusted herself off and gotten back on the public stage.

I was critical of her as CEO, but her talents may be well suited for politics.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Everything is hitched to everything else

>> It is peak GHG that is more important here, not peak fertilizer or peak oil.

Problem is, amazingdrx, several interconnected trends are going on at once. To say that peak GHG is more important is to say that the Law of Gravity is more important than the Laws of Motion.

It's critical to see how the different trends affect one another.

For example, the rising price of oil pushes people into increased use of coal.

Or, food riots and competition for oil may prompt resource conflicts which would distract from efforts to control GHG.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Cloud cuckoo-land

Could I interject a note of reality?

Whoever controls the purse strings, controls the application of CBA.  

Client: How much is two plus two?

Consultant: How much do you want it to be?

Most of us here are verbal, reasonable people. We like the world of rationality because we are comfortable in it.

We are prone to the serious mistake of putting too much weight on rationality, in a world of Machiavellian politics and Godfathers.

The neo-conservatives are the most successful political movement in modern times, and they do not make this mistake.

The opponents of environmentalism do not make this mistake.

Yes, it's fun to talk about the fine points of CBA but the real world operates according to different rules. Forget this reality and you can forget about political power.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Tools and assumptions

Great essay, Lisa.

I think the problem is with neo-classical economics as a whole, which is permeated with ideology and hidden assumptions.

Maybe someday, when neo-classical economics is in eclipse, cost-benefit analysis could be dusted off and used -- but this time with scrupulous attention to the assumptions.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Klare fan

I'm glad to see Gristmill posting Michael Klare here. Welcome!

I've been following Klare's writings for several years. They are essential reading, in my opinion, for understanding the international situation.

Many of his previous essays are on the web. His just published book Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet puts together a compelling picture of how the race for energy resources will largely determine alliances and conflicts in the years to come.

I come away with two conclusions.

One: Anything we can do to reduce our need for energy is a step towards peace. Especially oil.

Second: We have to learn to co-operate with China to move towards renewables and efficiency, both because of climate change and so that we don't accidentally come into military conflict.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Psychologizing

Sorry guys, but I think this is psychologizing b.s.

That is - instead of talking about issues, we turn it into a psychological b.s. session.

The ploy is a common one among the pathological right. "Why do you hate America"  "Why aren't you wearing your flag pins?" "Why do you hate white people?" etc.

Let's step away from the navel-gazing and look at the issues:

1. Is it not true, David, that suburbia, car-culture and consumerism require much more energy and resources than other ways of life?

2. Is it not true that such dependence is bad for the economy and the environment? (e.g., oil revenues flowing out of the country)

3. Is it not true that with rising fuel costs, people in suburbia will be particularly hard hit, and that it would be very smart to start developing fallback strategies?

4. Is it not true that reliance on foreign sources of energy causes the U.S. to deploy its military throughout the world to ensure supplies? That we are headed on a collision course with China and other countries to get the energy to supply our lifestyles?

5. Is it not true that India and China are replicating the U.S. car culture with disasterous effects?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Those who are last shall be first

David, you may prefer a more mainstream documentary, such as Energy Crossroads. As I wrote in a review:

How do you get your older Midwest relatives to swallow the Red Pill and understand why you're obsessed with peak oil? Or your scientific and engineering friends who wrinkle their noses at the mention of eco-villages and collapse?

Tiroir A Films has just released a DVD for when End of Suburbia just won't do.

Energy Crossroads: A burning need to change course covers peak oil, climate change and some of the things we can do about them.

The tone is sober, reasonable, matter-of-fact. The speakers are scientists and technical professionals. Their command of the material inspires confidence.

Where I disagree with you is that I think that a good part of building a movement should be preaching to the choir - deepening commitment and knowledge, affirming counter-cultural values.

Right now, your radar tells you that the people in the film will be dismissed as eccentrics. I'd argue that this will be the case in any social movement. Consider the unconventional lives of a Tom Paine, Vaclav Havel or Rachel Carson. The people who have the motivation and persistence lives to pursue the unrewarding career of a critic or pioneer are going to be different than the norm.

The people I've met in the peak oil and relocalization movements are intense, bright, creative, alive. Sometimes they stand out; other times they take on the protective coloration of a business person or academic.

In many ways, the present reminds me of the early and mid-60s, a lull before a social revolution that happens more quickly than anybody expects.  The values that are unusual now will become the standard in a few years.

For example, I will bet that the tastes of Gristmill readers in food, clothes, music and even sex have more in common with the rebels of the 60s than they do with the mainstream of that period. (Good thing too, since the 50s were repressed, narrow and colorless.)

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Prophets and journalists

"You two agree on most things, I think..."

Jon, I'm not sure whether you're talking about Kunstler and David or David and me.

In any case, I think the differences are more of style than substance.  David and I are trained in journalism, whereas Kunstler is a prophet with a moral vision.

David is right that one shouldn't expect literal truth from Kunstler. No more than one should read Jeremiah or Isaiah for a dispassionate history of the Biblical era.

I do think that in times of change, prophets may have the more accurate view of the future.  Kunstler exaggerates and grandstands, but that's what you have to do to be heard by an inert public. It is looking as if he was right -- in his vision -- and the mainstream environmentalist views were wrong.

Suburbia is not dead, as David points out, but I would be willing to bet that it's on the decline, and perhaps faster than we think.

For Kunstler in a less fiery mood, see his The agenda restated

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Oil as inalienable right

Jonas:

low oil prices should be an inalienable right, at least in developing countries. Of course, luckily, they can follow the substitution logic and invest in biofuels (which is what most of these poor countries are doing). That's their only option.

First, oil physically will not be there for anyone, in the quantities and at the costs to which we have become accustomed.

Second, developing countries are ill placed for the remaining supplies, since the developed world has the guns and wealth to enforce its claims.

Even biofuels are a sucker's game for developing countries. Whose land will be used? Where will the biofuels go? Who will be earning the money?

The only direction I can see is rejecting the old model of development and coming up with a new one. A low-energy, indigenous model, relying heavily on traditional patterns (one example, Kerala in India).  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Back to the 70s

Well-written article, Ryan. And the problem is going to get worse - Qatar and the head of OPEC are now talking about $200 oil.

Even though US infrastructure stinks, for the reasons you mention, there are many things individuals can do to shield themselves from the hit.

All of these are familiar to people who lived through the 70s oil crisis:

• Reduce the speed limit to 55 mph. Because air resistance increases with the cube of the speed, mileage drops precipitously at high speeds.  
• Drive with fuel economy in mind (avoiding stops/starts, keeping tires inflated, removing unused loads from vehicle)
• Bikes and walking - auto mileage is terrible on short trips
• Mass transit and car pooling.
• Consolidating errrands
• Eliminating optional car trips

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Sad truth

Nice post - it's good to see some real differences in policy between Obama and Clinton.

"The only way we're going to lower gas prices over the long term is if we start using less oil," Obama said in Anderson.

Candidates can't be too upfront about this, because voters aren't ready for it. On the other hand, whoever is elected had best make policy based on the assumption of ever higher oil prices.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Reasonable/unreasonable

Thanks for the notes on the discussion - v. interesting.

... these are people who are walking their talk instead of posing in their Rogan jeans and "Save the planet" t-shirts.

Putting solar and renewables on the agenda, that was the work of activists and visionaries 30-40 years ago. Even now, you've got to keep your eye on the investors and industrialists.  They are quite good at playing the game they see in front of them - making money through alternative energy.  They are terrible at things outside the system.

For example, 95% of the talk is about new sources of energy, whereas the cheapest, most effective and most environmentally strategy is efficiency and conservation.  It's hard to make money in that sector, so it generally gets ignored.  

The most effective way to solve the transportation problem is patterns of life that center our activities in an area that doesn't require long-dx transportation. Not immediately profitable, so it's dismissed. Instead, 90% of our attention is focussed on enabling Americans to keep driving.

If you want to see what is going to be profitable and "realistic" in the future, look at what the dreamers are doing now: the permaculturalists, the simple living people, the relocalization movement.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- George Bernard Shaw

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Several strands

There has been lots of talk about survivalism in certain peak oil circles.  From what I can see there are three strands:

1. People who are obsessed about guns and defense, for whatever reason.  This sub-culture has been around at a low level for a long time, but it gets an uptick when people are worried.

2. People who are into self-sufficiency, preparedness, survival (as in wilderness survival, survival courses).  Also gardening, food preparation, DIY. To me, this is a positive interest -- something that everybody should learn about.  I've taken first aid and EMT courses, wilderness survival courses, etc. It's good for self-confidence and can be very useful.

3. People who are into group efforts - neighborhoods, communities, etc. Another positive step, no matter what happens.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

If not you and I, who?

David R:

This is kind of my point: I'm not asking anyone to make a sacrifice I'm not willing to make. I'm asking politicians to pass policies that realign incentives to encourage energy efficiency at both the macro and micro (personal) level. I'm asking other people to live under those policies; and yes, I'm perfectly willing to live under those policies.

So where's the hypocrisy?  

Some people will have to endure man-made structures that they abhor (the subject of this thread). Other people will lose their jobs. Developing countries will not have access to coal-power to supply energy. Many poor people may not be able to raise their standards of living. Some companies will not make the profits they otherwise might.

There is going to be pain, bright green promises to the contrary. It may be necessary, but it will hurt just the same.

Query: Are we as scrupulous in examining our favorite goodies, as we are in examining the goodies of other people?  

In the case of US environmentalists, three areas stand out:

• Air travel
• Individual autos
• High consumption lifestyles

We get a taste of this with the rise in car ownership by China and India.

Now I agree with your belief that public policy is critical and we over-obsess with individual behavior. The problem is that we tend to ignore policies that would interfere with our pleasures (cars, air travel, consumption). Environmental organizations like Sierra Club don't talk much about air travel (has Grist done much on the climate effects of air travel?), and don't push much for legislation.

The great environmental problem seems to be how to keep our car habit going - except for a fringe, we don't question car habit itself.

I'm not targeting David Roberts or Gristmill particularly; I'm not eager about targeting anybody.  

But if Grist/Gristmill doesn't take the lead, who will? If you and I and others here don't think deeply about this, who will?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Hypocrisy

Many at Grist and Gristmill, I'm afraid, apply different standards to themselves than to others.

The level of self-righteousness is out of place, when one has not applied the same standards to one's  own sins: car travel, air travel and high-consumption lifestyles.

I think the height of hypocrisy was a high-powered environmentalist writing in Grist (can't find the URL), who lambasted the Kennedys, but confessed his love of travel to far-off countries.

Yes, wind power is important. Yes, it probably means putting man-made crap up in beautiful areas.

But step #1 is to reduce energy usage as much as possible - through efficiency and conservation. Negawatts are much cheaper than megawatts - both economically and environmentally.

If one is not willing to do that, then one is still looking for magic ways to keep the party going.

P.S.  I  admire Komanoff's work, which does emphasize lower energy usage.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The right to be taken seriously

>> whats creepy to me is people who beleive no one else can have an opposing discussion or view on an issue.

Bud, let's say I'm trying to fix my car. I'm under the hood, looking for burnt spots and liquid spills. I've got the troubleshooting guide out and am following it step-by-step.

Neighbor 1 tells me that the car is possessed by spirits and I need to sacrifice my cat.

Neighbor 2 (who happens to be a car salesman) tells me the car is hopeless and that I should buy a brand new XXX (which his dealership happens to sell).

Do Neighbors 1 and 2 have a "right" to their opinions? Absolutely.

Do they have vested interests and irrational beliefs, and would I be a fool to listen to them? Absolutely.

One has to earn the right to be taken seriously, and on global warming, that means listening carefully to the vast majority of climatologists and following the methodology of science (the troubleshooting guide).  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Good to see Sharon here

Sharon Astyk is one of my favorite writers on food, sustainability and energy. This essay shows her serious side, but most of her posts at Casaubon's Book are spiced with humor and personal insights.

Two of her books are coming out soon. Highly recommended.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Shape of Things to Come

kmp: "Drilling here would equal a drop in the bucket of global supply and seems unlikely to have any impact on oil price at all."

Good point. However when people are upset, they will grasp at straws and are easy to manipulate. Energy crises are a good time for Big Players to push their solutions - coal, nuclear, tarsands, etc. It's starting to happen now and will become more intense, I think.

kmp: "what might ease social & political unrest related to oil prices?  Alternative energy."

Even with alternative energy sources, the price of energy will be going up and up. I think we need to step back, give up the search for magic solutions and take a long-view.

How do we live meaningful lives in a world with less energy? What are the pluses and minuses of different energy sources (e.g., EROEI)? What are the long-term environmental impacts?

BTW, I listened to the whole Charlie Rose interview with Shell president John Hofmeister. Hofmeister is a very articulate spokesperson - he would be an excellent person for environmentalists to study and sharpen their wits against. There are probably points of agreement as well.

Last month, Shell released its 20-page report, National Dialogue on Energy Security (PDF). Read it to see what people in the most PR-literate of the oil companies are thinking.

My take: "an interesting mixture of openness and the same old stuff. Much of the report is quite reasonable."

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Peak oil aware

Now NY governor Paterson is peak oil aware. I think this makes him the first governor in the U.S. to have spoken publicly about peak oil and M. King Hubbert.  

Whether he will be able to do anything about it is another story.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

You said it!

Kit Stolz: "still socialism is viewed politically in this country with great suspicion"

You said it!

Problem is, socialism is as much part of the human experience as business, science or religion.  One can't understand modern history without it.

Ironically, the socialist tradition has been a source of ideas for people from all parts of the political spectrum, from conservatives to environmentalists to the ultra-left.

I don't think one can be an educated person without an awareness of socialism. That's why it's discouraging to see the subject being written out of the movie.

Again, thanks for the post.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

A missing part of U.S. history

Interesting view of the movie, Kit, and compelling enough to make me go see it.

I want to comment on the fact that all references to Sinclair's socialism were removed from the movie. From the point of view of movie-making, this may or may not have been a good idea.  I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know.

I do know that removing the socialism from the movie is distortion of the literary work, as well as a censorship of American history.  You say:

... socialism has been more of a bogeyman than a reality in American politics ...

If you look at the period from about 1880 to 1950, socialism (in its many varieties) was a powerful influence in America. Among the many writers and intellectuals who were socialists were Jack London, John Dos Passos, Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Lincoln Steffens, John Steinbeck and Arthur Miller.

The labor and civil rights movements were closely associated with the socialism. Many of the protections and freedoms we enjoy today came from socialist programs - for example, the 40-hour week.

As a sign that Sinclair and his beliefs were not marginal, consider that he was a best-selling author and that he ran for Governor of California on the Democratic ticket in 1934.

Without an appreciation of the role of socialism, it is hard to understand U.S. history. Hard, actually, to make sense of where we are now.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Need an overall strategy

I'm much more in accord with Nader's values than with the current crop of Democrats.  

However, I think that his running again is a mistake, and that most effort spent on Presidential politics is a waste of energy right now.

The U.S. political situation is a difficult one, and one needs a long-range strategy to make any headway:

• Where does one want to go?
  
• What are the balance of forces?
  
• What options are available, and which are the most promising?

The Internet is an unprecedented tool, allowing motivated groups to bypass the mainstream media. It's possible to have virtual think tanks, as here at Gristmill. There are more opportunities now than I've seen in 30 years.

So why bother with Nader for president, either pro or con? Just vote Democrat and get on with more important things.

In the meantime, work with anyone who shares your position on specific issues.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

In favor of the NYT

Just thought I should mention that the New York Times IS doing a lot of good environmental reporting. And when the Times journalists take on a subject, they usually do an outstanding job of it.

The decision to run the McWilliams piece was probably made by one of the Op Ed editors. On the other hand, the Op Ed page has also run some great pieces in the last few years.

Many people work for the NY Times, some of the best in journalism. It's vitally important to keep our newspapers afloat, disagree though we might with some of their policies.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Transformation, yes! Electoral politics, ugh.

I'm with you all the way, Bill, on the need for radical, transformative change. Unfortunately, I do not see any hint of it in Clinton vs Obama.

Participating in current electoral politics seems like a huge waste of energy to me. Sure, I'll vote Democrat, but I know that at best we'll get someone whose views are what we used to call middle-of-the-road Republicans.  

If there is to be transformative change, I think it will come from OUTSIDE the process: building a culture that offers an alternative - research groups, websites, music, literature, networks, community organizations, etc.

This is where the ideas and visions will develop.

This is how the Right Wing became dominant in U.S. politics, by building an alternative set of institutions, such conservative thinktanks and right-wing radio.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Diversity

sustainable-ag remains a passion limited largely to white, middle-class folks.

There are other related areas that are more diverse.
Gardening (e.g., Ethnic gardeners)
Food security
Agro-ecology (eg Miguel Altieri and practices for small farmers in 3rd world countries)
Farm workers

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Population debate rises from the dead

JohnF, Thanks for the thoughtful post. I just put up three related articles on Energy Bulletin:
The third rail of world politics
Population, consumption drive global climate change and environmental degradation (readable summary of the scientific report you pointed to)
Population (links to recent articles)

Perhaps it is time is right for a renewed discussion of population.

Some further thoughts on persuasion (I'm sure David Roberts would have more)...

1. Instead of talking in the prophetic mood ("Wake up, oh ye unenlightened ones"), it's often more effective to present the ideas as a way for  readers to achieve their own goals.  For example, "Concerned about climate? Don't forget the other part of the equation: population."

2. Address people's fears directly (as you and other population proponents did in various places in the 78 above comments). Do not slight or be condescending to people who express their fears.

3. Keep a respectful relationship with people or groups who seem to be opponents. They are possible allies. Above all, don't ridicule people who seem to be opponents (e.g. religious groups or conservatives). These groups are much more complex than one would think at first. Besides, people change.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Heat vs Light in the population discussion

Good point, jabailo, about the aging of the population. That's an excellent UN report you linked to.

The problem with discussions about population is that it is a complex issue. It's much easier to accuse and blame than to understand.

For example, in an industrialized urban society, it is  rational to have a small family.  However in a peasant society, it may be a wiser choice to have a large family. Children provide labor power and security when you are old. One suggestion, therefore, to reduce birthrates is to provide programs like Social Security which provide peace of mind for older people.

Another issue is that industrial societies are aging, as jabailo pointed out. Age distributions are no longer a pyramid, with children outnumbering seniors. The result can wreak havoc with our economic and pension systems. Instead of 7 workers for each retired person, the number may be under 2.0 in the future.  This is one reason why countries like France and Russia are encouraging childbirth. It's also why governments are loathe to stop immigration - immigrants supply needed hands to do the work of an aging society.

I can understand why David Roberts is not to eager to encourage fireworks around the population question. On the other hand, it could be very useful to report on the underlying issues and new thinking about population.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Warmer, warmer, gettting warmer

These policy suggestions are getting better, but we are still quite a ways from reality:

1. No mention of peak oil or other energy resource constraints. These will affect the viability and timing of alternatives, so omitting the issue means that the planning will not be realistic. Some oil execs and international agencies are finally getting onboard with the idea of peak oil (they call it "the end of cheap oil"), so it is time for environmentalists to start incorporating it into their analyses.

2. Keeping motoring cheap for Americans still figures as the centerpiece of energy policy. Fortunately the authors diplomatically demote corn ethanol to be merely a "transitional" measure. Switchgrass is seen as potentially a great answer. But is anyone seriously considering what the soil and ecological considerations would be for massive switchgrass plantations cultivated in perpetuity? Or what the effects would be on food supply?

3. If we are serious about doing something about climate change, we've got to reduce consumption and waste. The report does mention efficiency, but it somehow gets lost in the enthusiasm for jobs and new forms of fuel.

But this is the way things go... reality trickles into the political arena a little at a time. We've got some bitter truths ahead of us, and one doesn't win political campaigns by drawing attention to them.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Two cents to two cents

Atreyger:

Wars have been fought for millenia without oil. Plentiful oil will not determine the winner of a war either (Iraq anyone?), although it will help.

A key change in warfare was signaled by Winston Churchill's decision to convert the British naval fleet from coal to oil power, giving them a much greater range.

Does anyone remember old WWI footage showing soldiers on bicycles and horses? A Hungarian friend of mine was in the cavalry as his country was drawn into WW II. Maybe we'll see some of that again.  

One thing we won't see as much of is air warfare.   The Air Force is looking for alternatives, but they are not easy to find - much harder and more expensive than for ground transportation.

 It's probably superfluous to mention that we've been in the Iraq oil war for longer now than the duration of WW II.

A big reason for Japan's entry into WW II was that we cut off their supply of oil. A Japanese relative told me a chilling story that shows how important oil is for fighting wars. Her brother was in line for duty aboard a naval vessel. Its mission was to sail out against U.S. ships and inflict as much damage as possible -- and not return. There was not enough fuel. Basically, a Kamikaze mission. (Fortunately the war ended before the ship was ready and her brother survived.) More about oil and the Japanese navy.

The Caucasus oil fields were a prized objective of Hitler's forces (which were experiencing shortages), as they drove into the south flank and fought The Battle of Stalingrad:

It is often considered the turning point of World War II in the European Theater and was arguably the bloodiest battle in human history, with combined casualties estimated above 1.5 million.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Economics - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Ron Steenblik:

You do no justice to a potential group of allies, Bart, by turning the latter into straw men.

The problem is that there is a Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde aspect to economics.

On the one hand, there is the rich history of economic thought with important and intriguing insights like those of Pigou, Jevons, Malthus, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes, and Pareto.

On the other hand, there is the closed system of economic discourse that now prevails. It's an over-simplified fairy tale that does not allow discussion of critical subjects, such as unequal power relations.  For example in Ryan's post about trade that begins this discussion, there is no mention of imperialism - the key to understanding how trade relationships were established.

Despite the possibilities for meaningful economics, in reality it mostly functions as an updating of Dr. Pangloss's philosophy:

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"

("All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds").

The most interesting economic ideas are coming from outside the current mainstream:  Ecological economics, happiness studies, and alternatives to the GDP. And it looks as if Keynsian and Marxist economics will only be re-discovered when there is widespread unemployment and demonstrations in the streets.

So, yes, hip-hip-hooray for good, critical economists who venture outside orthodoxy. But boo-hiss to economic fairy tales that omit reality and numb thought.

BTW, I agree about Pigou and note with approval that economists in general favor a carbon tax and higher energy prices.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not necessarily wrong - but incomplete

Odograph, you are not a true believer if you are proposing taxes to limit consumption or if you persist in talking about externalities!

Where mainstream economics is best seems to be in limited domains -- the effects of taxes on bicycle vs car use in Denmark, for example. Or studying specific markets.

It's when mainstream economics tries to speak more generally that its shortcomings show. For example, when free market economists sought to re-make the Russian economy in the 90s:

After the disintegration of the USSR, the Russian economy went through a crisis, far worse than the Great Depression.[54][55] The dismantling of the planned economy towards a market based one resulted in the economy being shattered, with tens of millions plunging into poverty and a severe fall in the standard of living, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organised crime.
- Wikipedia on Russia

Or in this discussion, a superficial treatment of the localization question. It's not that what mainstream economics says that is necessarily wrong; it's that it doesn't recognize its own limitations and is reluctant to admit other ways of thinking.

I've found that the best thinkers are often refugees from dogmatic worldviews.  People who have left Libertarianism or Marxism or Catholicism, for example, have experienced the exhilaration of an all-encompassing system of thought and yet are very aware of the pitfalls.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Can anyone understand China?

Thanks for the first-hand reports on China, Patrick.  Your point about China being a BIG country, too complex for easy understanding, is right on. Does anyone really have a grip on what's going on in China?  I have the feeling that not even the Chinese themselves can keep track of all the trends and changes.

In my lifetime, they have gone from backward peasant country, to hardcore far-left communism (U.S. enemy #1), to neo-capitalist success story. With the dynamism, energy and talent they have, I suspect that they will make the transition to some sort of sustainable economy ... and they'll do it with a single-mindedness that will astonish us. And they'll do it in their own way.

When I was in the computer industry, one of my best friends was an engineer from Shanghai. It struck me that, had world events happened a little differently 20 years earlier, we might well have fought each other on the battlefield.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Dubious about 1960s-style chemical agriculture

Jonas writes:

A simple question: how do you get a hungry African farmer with a life-expectancy of 45 years, who lives in a typical rural village in subsaharan Africa to grow more food to feed his children and to make money with which to send his children to school and to pay for their health?

Cuba basically followed the Soviet philosophy of agriculture (mechanized, chemical, aggregation of small farms into large units), which you seem to favor. In some ways it worked well. It wasn't environmentally sound, but it improved the standard of living, etc.

The problem came in the early 90s when the USSR folded and Cuba could no longer get cheap subsidized oil. Fertilizers and pesticides became expensive.  Tough problem. North Korea, faced with similar conditions, spiraled into an Orwellian nightmare.  In contrast, Cuba began a crash program for organic, low-power agriculture. They divided some of the larger state farms into smaller units.  The "special period" was not fun, people lost weight, but Cuba succeeded in feeding its people.  The State pushed the change, but it also allowed more of a market in agriculture than previously.

The significance of Cuba is that it provides a model for poor countries undergoing peak oil. (I'm not sure that a Communist government is necessary. A strategy like this could probably work with other forms of government.  But there will be some combination of the market and state intervention.)

What really scares me is the millions of farmers in developing countries who have become dependent on oil, fertilizers and pesticides from outside. Oil was up to $96/barrel today and promises to go higher. People in poorer countries are being priced out of the market.

Apart from considerations of peak oil, I haven't seen that globalized trade is all that good for farmers. For one thing, the neo-liberal solution you promote has been tried for the last several decades without significant opposition. Have we seen the eradication of rural poverty?

Chinese farmers are falling far behind their fellow citizens in the urban and industrial sectors. The pollution and rapid loss of topsoil are huge problems.

The bigger farmers in India are doing nicely, since they can afford the chemicals and equipment for Green Revolution crop varieties. Meanwhile, small farmers are committing suicide by swallowing pesticides.

There are plenty of groups and individuals who have alternatives to industrial-style agriculture (whether Soviet or neo-liberal).  Farmers unions, agro-ecology specialists, etc.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The forced march towards industralization

Well, you have an argument, Jonas, but it isn't leftist.  As you say, "I would side with Brazilian, Indian and Chinese leaders." This is a nationalist, elite-driven agenda. Within the countries you mention, there are significant conflicts, with the rural and poor typically the losers in the march towards globalization.

Two main points against this agenda.

1. It is not possible. The sort of industrialization you advocate depends on cheap energy, which is coming to an end. Some in the Chinese leadership are well aware of peak oil (see here and here., and there are some efforts to change direction (see Green China and young China by Pan Yue).

2. The environmental consequences of copycat industrialism are devastating. Pollution kills millions before their time, and global warming threatens to melt the Himalayan glaciers. As is becoming apparent, the brunt of global warming will be borne by the poor in tropical zones.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Magnificent propaganda apparatus

Part of the problem is that the right wing has a magnificent news and propaganda apparatus. They are able to frame the issue ("partisan Gore") and put out the most absurd lies and distortions. It infects our entire discourse.  Instead of analyzing, reasoning and solving problems, we have to waste energy dealing with these absurdities.

In the long run, I think the answer is to develop our own network of news and information.

This is why I think Grist/Gristmill is so important. Not just for the content, but for the community it is creating. If I disagree with people at Gristmill, I trust them to tell the truth as they see it, and I will learn something from our discussion.

There's a similar dynamic in the peak oil blogosphere. So much so, that a critic called it "a slick public relations machine."  (Amusing to us, since this "PR machine" operates almost entirely through volunteers.)

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Hoping for something more up-to-date

If I had run across this book ten years ago, I think I would have thought it forward-looking, but now it sounds like the same old stuff.

My reaction is based on the quotes and the reviews at reviews at the Grist/Amazon store

Problems:

1. The worldwide energy crisis is interpreted as "how to enable Americans to keep driving their cars."  It's a much bigger problem than that.

2. No mention of peak oil. How can one make intelligent recommendations if one has not investigated this issue? The GAO, National Petroleum Council and International Energy Agency are all expressing worries about the supply of oil.  Bill Clinton and Al Gore both have mentioned peak oil.

   Former CIA director, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy, James Schlesinger announced "the battle is over, the peakists have won." In an interview, Schlesinger said that many oil companies recognize the reality of peak oil, even though they aren't saying so publicly.

   Even if one is skeptical about peak oil, one cannot ignore it as this book does.

3. Apparently biofuels are a major part of Sandalow's proposal. Increasingly the argument is turning against biofuels - corn ethanol is braindead, the food vs fuel conflict is reality, and continual biofuel cropping is not sustainable. Perhaps David Sandalow should be reading Gristmill more regularly!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

When in doubt, plug your ears?

In a situation full of uncertainty, this is my preference:

• Listen to a wide range of opinion
• Pay closest attention to those voices that are informed and well-reasoned
• Don't be fixed in one's own ideas
• Don't rule out outcomes prematurely

On the question of energy shortages and violence, one does not have to predict it. It is already here. The repressive crackdown in Burma was set off by protests against sharp increases in the prices of fuels.  The war in Iraq is mostly about oil, as the former chairman of the Federal Reserve recently reminded us.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Probability

Costello:  How did you calculate that probability?

Anderson: I've been following peak oil news/analysis for about four years as a full-time volunteer. I've read a wide spectrum of viewpoints, including those of industry, governments and the military.

My background is journalism, technical writing and the liberal arts (history, literature).

I think you are asking for an engineering-type argument, odo. My response is that engineering is appropriate for physical systems but wildly inappropriate for predicting human behavior.

Technical approaches for human behavior might be chaotic systems, catastrophe theory and the butterfly effect - but these don't yield the nice probabilities you would like.

If I remember correctly, odo, you argue for complete skepticism - that is, since there are no ironclad guarantees, there is no sense in thinking or talking about the future.

I would offer an empirical argument. Looking at history, one sees that certain people and groups were much better at coping with historical change. FDR as opposed to Calvin Coolidge, for example.

FDR didn't have a calculus of human behavior which  yielded certainties about the future. Instead he had a background in history and an intuition for how it worked. Fully aware of the uncertainties involved, he nonetheless monitored events, looking for dangers and opportunities.

That is what I suggest that we do.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Scenarios - a better way to think about future

JMG expresses my thoughts as well. The question of oil supplies can be expressed in terms of probabilities, but the key unknown is what the human responses will be. I think it's much more helpful to think in terms of possible scenarios (as the IPCC does) rather than probabilities.

In a long debate about a paper discussing Global peak energy: Implications for future human populations (which I edited), I wrote my take on predictions:

A single scenario (or even two closely related ones) gives a false claim of certainty about a complex situation. It tends to restrict our thinking, encouraging a sense of doom and fatality, when instead we need be aware of the choices and what their results might be.

The purpose should be not to get the "right" numbers, but to stimulate intelligent thinking about possible futures.

Therefore it would be good to present multiple scenarios for different sets of assumptions.

...It would be good to see scenarios for possible but hard-to-predict events, such as wars, significant energy discovery, collapse of an environmental system, etc.

Any scenario should have its assumptions clearly spelled out, as well as the reasons for those assumptions.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Time to clean up the comments

John Bailo's comment is juvenile, sexist and stupid. Why he is still allowed to post on Gristmill is beyond me.

Anyone else for voting him off the island?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Is the floor open for suggestions?

Okay, granted that it's going to take more than light bulbs and cloth shopping bags... how do we make this massive change happen?

My take:

1. Changes will be much deeper and more widespread than we can imagine. There is no one magic fix - no one technological improvement, no decisive piece of legislation, no one approach.  

2. For individuals, the most productive course is to find the area that one knows about, cares about... and get to work on that.

3. Mutual support networks are key (aka alliances).  I may not know much about your particular field, but I can support your work. We need to learn to be good allies (e.g., we don't have to agree 100% with one another; courtesy is an under-estimated virtue).

4. I'm particularly interested in institutions that will generate and support green thinking. And in new forms of media to get the word out.

5. Rapid change won't originate in established institutions like corporations, government or mainstream media. New ideas and pressure will have to come from outside. (Case in point: the Democratic Party with about zero original thinking about energy and the environment. On the other hand, they have been absorbing ideas from green groups.)

6. Individuals and small groups are pioneering sustainable lifestyles. They are living research laboratories, and their ideas/practices will spread rapidly. Examples: eco-villages, permaculture, and Eco-keeners.

7. At a certain point, demonstrations and civil disobedience are inevitable.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

In the land of PR

Some reasons for suspicion:

1. Any article that ends with a general statement like "What the world needs now is more deregulation, not less" is making an ideological point rather than a technical one.

   My reaction is: it depends. It depends on who is doing the regulating, on who the market participants are, on who you are (some will benefit, others not).  I distrust any generalization that ignores these issues.

   And I think I distrust this argument in general. It has been used so many times in an unscrupulous, sloppy way - my skeptometer kicks in whenever I hear it.

   When I read the article, I have the feeling that someone is trying to sell me something. There is probably some truth in parts of the essay - but it's hard to disentangle. I'd prefer to get my information from a more objective source.

2. When you cite studies about a specialized field, it is very hard for the rest of us to determine their validity. Are you cherrypicking data?

   It's hard to know whether to trust you or not. An effective PR trick is to throw technical information at readers like pixie dust.

3. If you are an interested party to the discussion, you should really mention it in your post. On the plus side, you did give your background at your Gristmill bio:

   President & CEO of Recycled Energy Development, a company dedicated to the profitable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Past President/CEO of Turbosteam Corporation, and 2007 Chair of the US Combined Heat & Power Association.

4. This essay reads as if it were written by a skillful PR person, rather than by an executive. Most execs I've met are too busy to spend the time polishing an article like this.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Triangulation vs original thought

Thanks for the pointer to the TNR article, Jon. So, it's boondoggle capitalism they are pushing!

The real problem I have with S&N is that there isn't much original thought there. It's triangulating among other people's positions and labeling it a "Manifesto."  That sort of strategy can work well when things aren't changing very much, such as the last few decades. But when big changes are coming, one needs to pay attention to the underlying trends.

And then there is the opportunism - telling people what they want to hear, rather than the truth. For example, it is true that spending more on alternative energy sources is probably a good idea. But... as you say, we are spending $$$ on military adventures.  Even worse from an economic standpoint, the tax cuts for the rich have made the surpluses evaporate. It may be difficult for Americans to realize, but we may not be able to afford the huge World War II-style investments.

Also (with a tip of the hat to conservatives) you may not be able to solve the energy problem by throwing money at it. Corn ethanol is the poster child for this dysfunction. But many other alternative energy sources as well look like dead-ends or hype.

The truth is - and energy experts will admit it - efficiency and conservation are BY FAR the best investment.

Unpalatable as it may be, the deep truth is that energy use will decline. It's already happening in many Third World countries which have been hit by rises in the price of fuel.

How do we deal with making the transition to a low-energy future? That's a challenge which will call for creative thought and solutions. S&N are still stuck in the past.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Our side has more fun

Lots of good ideas.

For the kind of cultural change that is required, one cannot rely on preaching, self-sacrifice and idealism. That way lies burnout.

One quote from a grandmother-kayaker-activist in my permaculture class:

Our side has more fun!

• Security
• Belonging
• Meaning
• Status
• Food
• Joy

Currently, people attempt to satisfy many of their needs by consumerism - which puts them under financial and time pressures - which makes it even more difficult for them to satisfy their needs in any other way.  This is why I think a key strategy is to break the lock that consumerism has on people, and to provide alternative ways to satisfy needs. (Voluntary simplicity, downsizing, etc.)

Another area that is much more powerful than appears at first is FOOD.  Gardening, sharing food, talking about the food traditions of  one's family or ethnic group, learning about where our food comes from -- there are so many ways to get people involved. The subject of food is related to almost every environmental and social issue. For example: pollution, energy usage, corporate control and climate change.

If a movement and its institutions can satisfy  basic human hungers, then the political action will follow.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Counterproductive way to frame the issue

Let us imagine that all the suggestions about lifestyle change were to magically disappear overnight. Are you saying that this would be a big plus for environmental awareness?

I'm afraid that this way of framing the issue is unproductive from multiple viewpoints.

1. Alienates allies and the general public. It would be good to look to past struggles to see why "solidarity" is important.

2. It's the usual in-fighting, in which the bulk of one's energy is spent fighting positions that are 90% the same as one's own. The voices who are real impediments to environmental awareness are elsewhere.

3. Completely neglects the psychological aspects of how people develop attitudes and opinions. Please, let's do some research and listen to the social psychologists, rather than spinning theories of our own!

4. Completely neglects the prospect of developing an alternate culture to the consumer culture, with  alternate institutions and belief systems. The conservatives have been wildly successful at developing an alternative culture over the last few decades. It would be good to learn from them.

5. It's perfectly possible to raise similar issues within a different, more positive framing. For example, "An emphasis on lifestyle change alone is one-sided. How can we build on the popularity of that approach for organized political changes?"

6. I'm surprised at the logical and historical fallacies in Alex's recent post:

   Here's the biggest problem with this theory of social change: we've been at it for decades, it hasn't worked and it probably never will.

   A perfect example of all-or-nothing thinking. Could I just mention the phenomenal rise of organic agriculture as a counter-example?

Lifestyle environmentalism is one place in which people could keep the flame alive, in which they had a sense of control over their lives. Those who participated reaped many side benefits. They reduced their stress and expenses. They became aware of the day-to-day decisions that either alleviate the problem or make it worse. As a result, their awareness is often much more advanced than those who concentration on lobbying and raising money. Case in point: air travel.

In terms of success alone, maybe we could learn something from the fact that lifestyle changes seem to speak to so many people, whereas lobbying and political organizing leaves so many people cold. Let's learn from success, not try to throttle it in its cradle.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

This is nothing

I think this is nothing compared to the anger that is going to be unleashed, as people start to be affected by climate change.

Many of us at Gristmill are liberals, who are all for worthwhile causes

...as long as they are polite and well-mannered.

...as long as we are not personally affected by them ("Stop flying? Isn't that going a little too far?").

Real political movements for change are powerful and messy.

We are going to be confronted by young people, famine-victims, and flood refuges and they will ask us:

What did you do?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Environmental justice

Good point, wildleaf. I think JMG's post is really about coal producers, and the remark was an ill-considered aside.

I second everything you say about people from West Virginia and Kentucky. Good people, for whom the legacy of coal mining has been mostly unhappy.

By the way, there is a great article about pollution and environmental justice by Grist's Amanda Griscom Little that will appear in Sunday's New York Times: Not in Whose Backyard?.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Making choices

Sometimes one has to make a choice between what is fun and what one knows to be right. This is how character is formed.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Build a different culture

The most spectacular political success in recent U.S. politics has been the revolution from the Right. Frustrated and defeated in the early 1970s, the extreme conservatives built a set of alternative institutions -- newspapers, think tanks, and institutes for training journalists. They made it possible to have a career as an advocate (imagine being able to have a middle-class lifestyle as an activist!). They cobbled together a coalition of disparate groups such as fundamentalists, libertarians and corporate elites.

From this base, they reached out into the mainstream culture and have dominated political discourse for the last several decades. Under Bush, they controlled all three branches of government (for a while).

The liberal-left and environmentalists do not have the same depth of strategic thinking. Thus far, they have not displayed the same level of commitment - though global warming and President Bush seem to be pushing them to get more serious.

The lessons seem to be:

1. Think deep and long-term.
   
2. Build coalitions.
   
3. Build institutions.

I am not at all enthusiastic about jumping into electoral politics. Better to be part of an organized group (think tank, lobby, social club, etc.) whose support is courted by the various parties.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Not either/or

I detect a nostalgia for the good old days of environmentalism, when issues were concrete and more easily solved. Alas, those days are gone for good.

Global warming and related issues like peak oil have undercut all the other environmental issues. For example, global warming will dwarf all other causes of species extinction and invasive organisms. Peak oil will probably prompt a resurgence of environmentally destructive coal exploitation.

These are the new ground rules, which we are only beginning to understand.

We are still in various stages of denial, far from being as obsessed as we need to be.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Resource wars - a growth industry

cfigallo :

There's plenty of scarcities out there now. How many are igniting conflict?

The prime example of resource wars is oil and World War II. Japan's entry into the war was precipitated by the U.S. cutting off its supply of oil. Much of Germany's strategy was designed to gain control of oil fields in the Soviet Union.

Nowadays, we have:

• Iraq war. Possible attack on Iran.
  
• US bases throughout the Mid-east and Central Asia. Some in the military and intelligence communities are not at all happy over the prospect of ongoing wars for oil.
  
• US-Venezuela tension.
  
• Tension between Russia and Europe over energy supplies.
  
• Water rights seems to be an issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  
• Civil wars and strife in countries with energy resources but weak governments (e.g. Nigeria and other African countries).
  
• Long history of intervention by industrialized countries into the affairs of countries with resources (e.g. US-UK toppling of Iranian government in the 1950s).

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The collected emails of Joe Hansen

Joseph, at some point would it be possible to collate Dr. Hansen's emails?

They make important points, and they are easier to read than academic papers.

Selfish motive: I'd like to link to them!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

FOR a gas tax

1. European countries enacted high gas taxes years ago. Why can't we?  Are we as dysfunctional as all that?

2. Permanently higher gas prices are coming soon. We'd better get used to it.  Much better to get the warning signals early, rather than all at once (e.g. if Iran is attacked). Much better to have the added portion of the price of gas going to government coffers, rather than to foreign producers.
   
   If the peak oil theory is correct (and lately the National Petroleum Council and International Energy Agency are moving in that direction), then the question will be decided for us. As author Richard Heinberg describes peak oil: "Sustainability with teeth."

3. Cars have multiple deleterious side effects - congestion, pollution, sprawl. Is it not fair that car drivers pay for them?  Who is it that suffers most from the side effects? The lower income brackets.

4. Higher gas taxes can be regressive. But there are ways to correct that. (With carbon taxes, Gore suggests combatting their regressive nature by using them to replace payroll taxes.)
   
   The fact is that U.S. society has been moving in a regressive direction for 30 years. This is a much bigger problem than gas taxes. If we are concerned about regressivity, let's have a deeper analysis about that problem - rather than kneejerk rejection of a gas tax. A much bigger issue is what's happened to income and inheritance taxes.

5. There is no point in trying to wish away the inevitable conflict about personal transportation. It's coming and it's going to be fierce -- the addict does not give up the addiction willingly. Gas taxes are one aspect. Fuel subsidies and congestion pricing are others.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Technological "answers" to addiction

Sounds like neat technology.

Problem is, the root cause is addictive behavior. The new fuel is like methadone - a somewhat less  self-destructive way for us to continue our addiction.  Or one could call it an "ennabler."

Techno-fixes like LS9 appear frequently in the news. What they have in common:

• The promise that "maybe, just maybe" we have the solution to energy problems.
• No change in lifestyle or behavior is necessary.
• Fits very nicely into the capitalist, consumerist system.
• Occasionally, mention is made of efficiency and conservation -- but this is quickly forgotten.

What is left out:

• The increasing demand as consumerism and car culture spreads (for example, the hundreds of millions of cars to be built in China)
• Jevons Paradox (Rebound Effect), whereby increased efficiency is offset to some extent by increased demand.
• The environmental effects which are transferred elsewhere, out of sight (to the degradation of farmland and appropriation of wildlands).
• Thought about the scale of production required to feed a huge and increasing demand for transport fuel. Could this process continue for decades?

If you've ever deal with an addicted person, you know how they impulsively grab at anything that promises them more of the drug. They are constitutionally incapable of thinking long-term. That's what we've got going on here.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Cars - our breeding plumage

I think you're on to something Katharine. Owning cars has deep roots in our psyches (at least for males).  Cars are much more than a form of transportation.

Getting your own car is a puberty rite, symbolizing independence.  It helps in attracting and winning girlfriends.  When I was courting my first wife, her family let it be known that if I were really serious I would buy a car... which I did, a '56 Chevy.

Later I went without cars for years at a time. Let me tell you, it's not easy to stand up to the social pressures.

Cars announce to the world your status and view of yourself. Hummer - Prius - Subaru - family van - sports car: each of these conveys a message.  To change your identity, just buy a new car. If you're undergoing male menopause, get a motorcycle.

Advertisements and popular culture pound home the message, again and again.  

For most of my life, cars have appeared in my dreams - despite the fact that I really don't like them. It doesn't take much psychological acumen to interpret them as symbols of power and control over one's life.

All of this would be amusing, if it weren't for the harm that cars do. Somehow, we're going to have to develop better ways to assert power and status.  

Related: Sex sells, but at what cost? (BBC)

"Sex sells" is the mantra of advertisers, but our fixation with status symbols and material wealth is undermining our efforts to tackle climate change, argues Matt Prescott.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

People get ready

The initial post and discussion are framed around the question of how to communicate with people right now.

It's an almost impossible problem because money and goods are so abundant - or at least they seem to be.  Frankly, I don't think people are going to be open to significant action until times get bad.

For me, the problem is more long-term: how to prepare the ideas, technologies, and networks for the coming crises. The looming crisis is the end of cheap oil... and the economic dislocations and expensive food that will follow. Climate and other environmental crises are not far behind.

I don't think it's been mentioned on Gristmill, but two big reports have been issued during the last month which tend to confirm the predictions of peak oil: by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the National Petroleum Council (NPC). We've covered this in multiple articles at Energy Bulletin.

Here are two successful environmental campaigns:

 Home-Front Ecology by Mike Davis (Sierra Club Magazine).

Would Americans ever voluntarily give up their SUVs, McMansions, McDonald's, and lawns?

The surprisingly hopeful answer lies in living memory. In the 1940s, Americans simultaneously battled fascism overseas and waste at home. My parents, their neighbors, and millions of others left cars at home to ride bikes to work, tore up their front yards to plant cabbage, recycled toothpaste tubes and cooking grease, volunteered at daycare centers and USOs, shared their houses and dinners with strangers, and conscientiously attempted to reduce unnecessary consumption and waste.

You are now entering an oil-free zone (Guardian): about "transition towns" in the UK.

an increasing number of towns, cities and villages across the UK are doing it for themselves and committing to "relocalising" food, energy, transport and their economies. "The idea of transition towns has caught people's imagination," explains Hopkins. "All we have been able to do before is protest, lobby or campaign for change. Now we want to give people the tools to be self-sufficient and withstand the kind of shock that a reduction in oil would bring.

Rob Hopkins has a very effective blog about the movement: Transition Culture. Other articles are on the web.

BTW, I was impressed by the way the discussion in this thread didn't spin out of control, and stayed cordial and informative.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Speaking of indulgences

SAN FRANCISCO-(Business Wire)-July 12, 2007 - By agreement with the Vatican, Planktos/KlimaFa is now pleased and honored to announce that the Holy See plans to become the first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state, and it has chosen KlimaFa ecorestoration offsets to achieve this historic goal. In a brief ceremony on July 5th the Vatican declared that it had gratefully accepted KlimaFa's offer to create a new Vatican Climate Forest in Europe that will initially offset all of the Holy See's CO2 emissions for this year.
Press release

Also, I note (as a non-Catholic) that the Catholic Church has been making progress on environmental issues.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Turn, turn, turn

DR: Who uses offsets to relieve guilt and avoid changing their own actions?

• An environmentalist activist-scientist when asked about the air travel she and her group engage in, tells us that they buy carbon offsets.
• A local environmentalist organization emphasizes carbon credits over behavior change.  

Others are less conscientious, and one suspects they use offsets for PR purposes (politicians, corporations and rock stars). But why be indignant?

"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."

David and odograph maintain that a molecule of CO2 is a molecule of CO2 - why should we care about how it is kept from the atmosphere?  In other words, this is purely a scientific problem.

On the contrary, I submit that this is a social problem. Our actions have a cascading network of consequences. For example, by choosing to fly, one enriches the airlines, encourages the construction of more airports, and sets an example for others (friends and family).

If Priuses, cloth shopping bags and carbon offsets were sufficient to deal with the problem, then I'd jump on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, these measures are woefully inadequate.

The underlying cause of global warming is a set of paradigms (consumerism, frequent travel, suburbia,  etc.) which offsets do not address. To some degree, they numb awareness and allow the paradigms to continue.

Because the problem is deeply rooted in our culture and behavior, I don't think that science and techno-fixes are enough.  

To change as much as we need to, we must turn to religion, morality, belief systems.

For a good discussion of different strategies for change, see  Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System, by Donella Meadows, the late co-author of Limits to Growth.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Chacun à son goût

JMG: Sorry, I'm not joining this parade, obsessing about food miles while ignoring frequent flyer miles and all the energy spent making and sending cheap plastic crap, tourists, and raw materials around the world.

If you're saying that local food is not a personal interest of yours, I can understand that. But if you're trying to make a more general point, then I think more rigor is required. Most of the work  I've read puts energy/GHGs from diet near the top of the list, near housing and transportation.

In terms of getting people excited about sustainability, local food is a winner. People have memories and deep feelings about food; it's more emotionally involving than photovoltaics and depletion curves.

I prefer emphasizing local food rather than counting food miles. That seems rather Puritanical - like counting calories.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Pedaling and chopsticks

Thanks for the mention, JMG. The London Times had a phrase like that in a headline from 2006: "Transport experts have seen the future, and it's got pedals"

The article has been taken off the Times website, but it is reprinted here:
http://energybulletin.net/12390.html

John, you're right about disposable chopsticks being a problem in Asia. A full response to your challenge  about introducing bamboo bikes would make a good exercise for a class in environmental analysis.

Some quick points:

• The problem with chopsticks is not that they are made from bamboo, but that they are disposable. In contrast, a bamboo bicycle is a long-term product.
• The process of mining metal, fabricating parts and distributing them is inherently more energy intensive and environmentally destructive than local bamboo construction. (Nonetheless, bicycles from metal are worth it, considering the benefits they provide and considering the alternatives.)
• Bamboo is a miracle material, in its  versatility and botany. The number of products made from bamboo is mind-bending. A documentary on bamboo begins by showing construction workers on an Asian skyscraper scuttling around on scaffolding many stories up. The camera moves in to show that the scaffolding is made of bamboo.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Communicating and mis-communicating

John, I'm not clear -- are you associated with Planktos, or do you have a separate set of proposals?  

In any case, some suggestions for Planktos and you. I work with technical information too and I agree with what David said upthread:

it would be very easy to offer an easily accessible online citation that would provide some technical and scientific background for the project

Perhaps one of the most useful aspects of Gristmill is the thought given to formulating arguments about complex scientific and social issues so that they are persuasive.  

Gristmill also allows you to practice your argumentation in a knowledgeable and relatively friendly atmosphere. Hint: it helps if you don't start off with a chip on your shoulder.

From what I've been able to glean, people are agreed that:

1. That global warming is a big problem.
   
2. That it is possible that remediation could help.
   
3. On the general principles.
   
4. On the large degree of uncertainty.

A helpful next step would be to deal with specific objections, pointing out what you consider to be misunderstandings or errors. This is standard intellectual discourse.

It is no good to say, "Go to my website where all is explained."  If you are not able to explain the basic ideas here, and to make a plausible case, well..., this does not engender confidence that it will be explained better elsewhere.  And I'm very turned off by the name-calling and the suggestion that we do not understand the urgency of global warming. Nor am I convinced that the science is too complicated for lay people. Twenty years of experience on technical subjects leads me to believe otherwise.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Political appointees

GRL Cowan: Government oversight agencies do have political appointees; this is considered a virtue, the virtue of having non-techie, non-industry people  to represent the public.

Government oversight agencies will have members who are unqualified - appointed out of nepotism or in exchange for political favors. Inspectors will be vulnerable to bribes or threats. 'Twas so in Ancient Rome, and it is unrealistic to expect the future to be any different.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The single-issue mind

What troubles me most about your pro-nuke proselytizing, Charles:

1. Your single-focus. Energy is a big problem, and you turn it into lobbying for one special interest. This dumbs down the argument. For example, in this discussion, KC Golden started off with many interesting points, most of which have been ignored.

2. Your name-calling. Please, can we elevate the argument a little?  Name-calling is the first step on the path to trolldom. This alone is reason enough to dismiss your posts.

3. Your lack of balance. The most convincing arguments for nuclear have been those that take into consideration the arguments of the critics. The best nuclear advocates possess a keen sense of the problems of nuclear. For example, no matter what one thinks of nuclear power, one has to admire the intellectual integrity of an Admiral Rickover.

4. Your lack of care about spelling and identifying whether it was David Roberts who was actually writing the initial post. If you can't get these things right, it is difficult to take you seriously when you talk about a technology that requires a great deal of care and precision.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Great quote

"Uh-oh, out of money -- time to think!"

Maybe we could re-phrase it to say,

"Uh-oh, out of cheap energy -- time to think.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

wise as serpents and innocent as doves

Isn't the "if you help me, then I'll help you" sort of agreement what's fueling the corruption in American politics right now?

In the long run I agree with you, that environmental awareness will be widespread, just as we all now agree on the evils as slavery.

But just as the anti-slavery struggle was long and hard, so it will be with environmental awareness.

In the meantime, the advice from Matthew may be apt:

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Soil ecology - the next frontier

Philip Small mentions Teaming with Microbes by Jeff Lowenfels & Wayne Lewis. It's a very interesting book for gardeners and people interested in soil ecology.

The book is based on the work of soil microbiologist Elaine Ingham, located in Oregon.

If you are interested in the subject, I wrote on online article on soil ecology, summarizing a set of lectures that Dr. Ingham delivered.

Soil food web - opening the lid of the black box.

I believe that most of the concepts advanced by Dr. Ingham are accepted by soil scientists, although the validity some of her techniques have not been scientifically confirmed.

I am very excited about Terra Preta. I suspect that its apparent ability to hold nutrients comes from complex interactions in the soil, probably with micro-organisms.

The industrial tone of the Scientific American article turned me off. The soil is something to respect, not to exploit. It is complicated and beautiful... is it too much to ask that we observe and understand it, before unleashing our massive high-tech solutions?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Why, jabailo?

Why are you spending your time here, John?  What's the point?

It doesn't matter who is right. This has become a bad situation for everyone concerned.

You disagree with almost eveyone else. You are not going to change anyone's mind. It must not be pleasant for you.  Why not do something positive? Why not go to another board with people who share your values?

If you have a vision, why not elaborate on it elsewhere and see if you can attract people?

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Population, relgion, greenwash

Hi Wiscidia!

[I] would like someone, somewhere, to address the basic issue I raise and continue to raise.

Population. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the problem has been partly solved as amc89 noted above - many modern Catholics simply ignore the taboo on birth control. I suspect that in the long-term there will be a face-saving workaround.  Right now, a better front on which to engage in debate is the addiction of industrialized nations to a rising birth rate. France and other European countries give money and privileges to encourage women to have more children. We don't have a good model for economic health in nations with declining birth rates.

Religion in general. I think there are two issues. One, is your personal beliefs. That's a big question, hard to deal with here. The second issue is tolerance for other belief systems. That's a useful thing to discuss - we can actually come up with some answers about it.

Greenwash. In the case of the Catholic Church, I don't see what they would be getting out of preaching simplicity - not much big money behind doing more with less, is there? I think the Pope and many in the Church are deeply concerned about the environment and social justice. But like all institutions, the Catholic Church also will do what it can to preserve its power. And like all of us, the Church is limited by its traditions and worldview.

So we are going to see a combination of sincerity and opportunism. As the man says:  "Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue."

In a way, greenwashing is a step in the right direction.  See for example, the amazing story about how press magnate Ruppert Murdoch is going green.  The writer remarks:

the obsession of some campaigners in exposing "greenwash" may be misplaced. Yes, companies will seek to improve their image, but in doing so they have to achieve a real transformation, and also make themselves ever more open to consumer pressure.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Focus

Do we want to solve environmental problems? If so, we have to work with allies, even though we may not agree with all their values.

Like all institutions, the Catholic Church has a history full of wonderful and horrible things. The same is true for capitalism, socialism, nationalism, etc.  Although I'm not Catholic, I grew up among Catholics and was inspired by many of them.  This was the time of Pope John XXIII, a time of exciting developments. Intellecutally and culturally, there is much about Catholicism that appeals to me.

On the other hand, I know that Catholicism and other religions have wounded many people. And I know from history that Catholicism has persecuted people with beliefs like mine.

So I have mixed feelings about Catholicism, more so than for any other religion.

What I think is an illusion is the idea that there is any religion or belief system that is without stain.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Can't ignore the problem

>> amazingdrx: I think discussing troll policy is more of a distraction to the thread than the actual trolls.  Which must make the trolls very happy.

I think the problem is on the verge of getting out of hand. If we don't address it, it will get worse. We have several active trolls which jump into many of the threads. Most of us don't see all their activity because we only follow a few threads.

The Oil Drum banished their trolls a few months ago, plus a few people who were sincere but who were consistent pains.  Those people migrated elsewhere, grumbling, and the discussion boards were much improved.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

This is it

What a delight - informed, adult conversation about things that matter!

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Facts first, then policy

What is disturbing about the German coal study is that it puts into question the assumption of abundant cheap coal.  Government, industry and environmentalists are all operating from this assumption.

Summary and links to original study: Peak coal by 2025 say researchers

The first item of business to get a better hold on what the facts are.  How can we begin to talk about policy issues, such as carbon sequestration, if we are clueless about supplies?

Similarly with oil. The U.S. Government Accountability Office in a February report, pointed out that predictions of a peak in oil production range  from now to 2040. In the GAO's measured language, they said that it would be good to have better analyses for such a key resource.

I'm not saying we should mute our environmental convictions. Rather, that we should understand the importance of basing our arguments on the best information possible - and know when the data are suspect.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick (the late science fiction writer)

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Like inviting people into your home

One way to think of a discussion forum is that you've invited people into your home.

Some people are considerate and thoughtful, others behave boorishly. They insult people, don't listen, go on and on about weird theories.

If I want ignorant comments, all I have to do is turn on the TV. If I want to hear the oil industry's point of view, their multi-million dollar public relations staff make it easy for me.

Gristmill and a few other discussion forums have opened up a space for thoughtful and intellgent debate. Let's protect it.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Tough-Love

Our time and attention is limited. Discussions with these folks are an utter waste. Also, have you noticed, they tend to be nasty and insulting?

There comes a time in the life of any discussion forum when it decides whether to let the trolls and trolloids ruin it for everyone.

Active moderation is a necessity.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

One strategy

1. Keep in mind your long-term goals. Does this particular occasion advance your goals?
   
2. There's no automatic need to rebut skeptics.
   
3. Occasionally, it may be worthwhile to put out the arguments, more for the sake of the audience rather than with any hope of changing the mind of the skeptic.
   
4. Usually it's better to spend one's effort on allies and people with whom one shares most values.
   
5. Ignore trolls.
   

Bart
Energy Bulletin