The Bridge at the End of the World

Heating System - washingtonpost.com

James Gustave Speth is the dean of environmental studies at Yale, a founder of two major environmental groups (the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Resources Institute), former chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (under Jimmy Carter) and a former head of the U.N. Development Program.

I have only just begun to read reviews of his most recent book "The Bridge at the End of the World". At first glance, he seems to be addressing what I view as a serious conundrum in current thought on responding to the threat of human induced climate change.

On the one hand we hear the strong cry that it is only by using the market to properly price carbon (capturing the cost of environmental externalities), that we can change human behaviour. But then, there are those who believe that it was the slavish promotion of overconsumption of material goods by our growth driven capitalist system that created the problem in the first place. How can we expect a system that depends on perpetual growth to cut off the hand that feeds it?

It is for this reason that Speth lays the blame of our current crisis on "a result of systemic failures of the capitalism that we have today". In the Washington Post, reviewer Ross Gelbspan describes this goal of perpetual economic growth as one that "has brought us, simultaneously, to the threshold of abundance and the brink of ruination."

I have been convinced that capitalism has brought us to this brink. However, I am in a distinct minority who hold this view. To re-state the now oft-used Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." Most of us don't know when "enough is enough", thinking instead that if enough is good, then more must be better. Our society firmly believes that our wellbeing is absolutely dependent on perpetual economic growth. To think otherwise is usually viewed as bordering on heretical. Mainstream pundits are virtually unanimous in the view that the projected slowing in growth of the North American economy is bad. Is it any wonder that everyone believes that only the market can save us? But, is this a problem that we can consume our way out of?

Clearly, I want to be part of convincing more people that in this instance continually clamouring for more is actually ensuring that we will have less. I want more of us to understand that, in fact, we have enough, and that fueling our aspirations for more is making things worse, not better. The fundamental problem is the distribution of the incredible wealth that is available. It is concentrated in the hands of the few. They have the power and they don't want to let go. This, however, is a very tough argument to make across large segments of our society. How do we reach the tipping point on this?

Unfortunately, although the market has provided us with untold riches, it could also be responsible for our ultimate downfall. How do we unpack that conundrum? This is what Speth is attempting to do.

Commentary from the Archdruid

The Archdruid Report: Business As Usual:

Once again I find myself drawn to the analysis of John Michael Greer, otherwise known as the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America (AODA). Here is an excerpt from this week's column.

"What we most need to realize at this juncture is that the way things have been in the world’s industrial societies over the last century or so is in no way normal. It’s precisely equivalent to the new lifestyle adopted by winners of a lottery whose very modest income has suddenly leapt upward by $1 million a year or so. After a few years, the lottery winners might well become accustomed to the privileges and possessions that influx of wealth made possible, and children growing up in such a family might never realize that life could be any other way. The hard fact remains, though, that when the lottery money runs out, it runs out, and if no provision has been made for the future, the transition from a million dollars a year to the much more modest income available from an ordinary job can be very, very rough.

The huge distortions imposed on the modern industrial nations by the flood of cheap abundant energy that washed over them in the 20th century can be measured readily enough by a simple statistic. In America today, our current energy use works out to around 1000 megajoules per capita, or the rough equivalent of 100 human laborers working 24-hour days for each man, woman, and child in the country. The total direct cost for all this energy came to around $500 billion a year in 2005, the last year"

Watching commentary today on the CBC news, one analyst was asked,(and I paraphrase), "With these rapidly increasing prices at the pump, have consumers begun to change their choices about where they work and live?" "No, not yet, but I expect to see this coming in the near future."

And that is the challenge, isn't it? Gas prices are increasing much more rapidly than the cycle that people usually choose where they live and work. When a family chooses where to live, they make assumptions about expenses. Since the fifties most families have sought the refuge of the suburbs, where they have determined that they can expect to enjoy more space at less cost. The additional expense of the longer commute was worth it to most people.

This equation, however, is in the process of changing. What we thought were sane and reasonable expectations about an ever secure and modestly priced energy source are now being shown to be a blip in the history of civilization. We are victims of our own success. We have built our expansive, seemingly limitless society by burning through most of the easily obtainable oil. We are now beginning to realize that what is left will be increasingly more expensive to extract.

Sadly, in the process of releasing all this energy so quickly, we have often used this energy to lay waste to our planet. Whether it is climate change, reduction in bio-diversity or resource depletion, it is a terrible legacy we are leaving for future generations. We are also more than doubling the population of the planet within our own lifetimes. This puts exponentially increasing demands on the limited resources we have available.

It is beginning to sink in with the general population that "We aren't in Kansas anymore". For those who have chosen to incorporate a daily hour plus driving commute into their lives, many are starting to consider alternatives. For those contemplating a move, the suburbs may not seem quite as attractive as before. In the words of James Howard Kunstler, who wants to be "...stuck up a cul-de-sac in a cement SUV without a fill-up."?

CIBC Analyst Predicts Forced Transformation of Economy as Fuel costs Double in Five Years

reportonbusiness.com: Oil prices, gasoline costs to double: CIBC report

Increasingly, mainstream analysts and oil industry watchers are predicting that we are about to embark on a fundamental shift in how we do business on the planet. Such views are no longer seen coming on from the 'fringe' forecasters.

In a new report, Jeff Rubin, chief economist with CIBC World Markets Inc. forecast a continued run-up in crude prices, despite a slowing world economy and slumping petroleum demand in United States, the world's leading oil consumer. He predicts that

...crude prices – now trading at above $116 (U.S.) a barrel - to average $150 by 2010, and more than $200 by 2012. That would translate into pump prices of $7 (U.S.) per gallon in the United States, and $2.25 per litre in Canada, double the current levels.

He points out that world oil production levels has essentially stagnated at about 85-million barrels per day over the last two years, while demand is escalating from the emerging powerhouse economies of India and China. He observes that “millions of new households will suddenly have straws to start sucking at the world's rapidly shrinking oil reserves”.

This, of course, comes at the same time as surging world food prices. The price of Thai rice has now topped $1,000 per ton, which is more than triple the price from the start of this year.

Of course, those with money will continue to be able drive their SUVs to buy their rice and meat, and snow peas imported from half a planet away, while increasing numbers go hungry. Quite the world we live in.

The Saudis Decide that they must preserve for the future

Saudi King Abdullah drops quiet bombshell; U.S. media sleep through it

Have you always thought that the oil companies are just trying to squeeze more out of us? You might want to rethink that judgment.

This link to the Energy Bulletin website provides interesting analysis from a variety of mainstream financial and industry analysts regarding a recent pronouncement from King Abdullah. Apparently they are beginning to accept that oil is not inexhaustible, and we need to preserve for future generations. I may be going out on a limb, but I expect to see gasoline reaching in excess of $2/litre by 2010. There will be bumps on the road. Only a significant drop in demand will bring about a fall in prices. Demand will fall either because a/ Consumers start to seriously conserve, b/ The worldwide economy seriously tanks, or c/ a combination of the two.

What scenario are you betting on? or, Do you discount this notion entirely and think that this rapid rise in price is just an anomaly and that we will return to the good old days real soon?

More and More People are Going Hungry - Every Day

Little Blog In The Big Woods: Hunger compilation - and ACTION

A perfect storm is brewing. It hasn't swept across Canada yet. We are, however, beginning to feel the harsh winds and the sting of the salt spray. There is a tremendous need for vast numbers of us to educate ourselves and begin to take action. We need to understand that our irresponsible, profligate ways are destroying this precious planet we call home. It is becoming more difficult with every passing day for increasing numbers of people to simply provide nourishment for themselves and those they love and care for.

Why are we converting arable land to the production of biofuels so that those with money can still drive whenever they want? What is so difficult about unwrapping our fingers from the steering wheel? Why must we always have the latest gizmo brought to us from the other side of the planet? Why can't we be satisfied with locally grown fresh food? Why do we think it is acceptable to expend 50 calories of energy to bring a strawberry containing five calories of energy to our tables in the middle of winter? When will enough of us insist that enough is enough and start to reshape what is acceptable?

Denley Nails It This Time

Review panel provides reality check

I don't always agree with Randall Denley, but this time, I think he nails it. He discusses a review of the most recent proposals for light rail in Ottawa. Here is his conclusion:

The key concept for councillors to remember is that this expensive new transit plan will only be justified if it can change our travel behaviour and development pattern, making the central part of our city one where people can live without cars. If it's all just to justify past and future suburban expansion, it's a bad way to spend public money. (emphasis added)

I couldn't agree more. I forwarded the following comments to him after reading his column:

It needs to be recognized that the bulk of our planning decisions for the design of our cities have been based on the assumption that we can always depend on the automobile. It is becoming clear to increasing numbers of us that this is not possible. The 2020 vision in Ottawa of increasing transit use will not be fanciful and a 'nice to have' in a few short years. The clamour for automobile alternatives will be demanded by more people because of the ever increasing cost of automobile use.

This fundamental redirection of our thinking is not going to be easy. It will require substantive compromise. The inner urbanites (self included) are going to have to deal with the pressures of increased densities in their own backyard. The suburbanites and beyond are going to have to accept that they can't have taxpayer supported instant mass transit at their doorstep while living in sprawling communities. Mass transit only is sustainable with sufficient density. If Kanata/Orleans/Barrhaven want mass transit, they will have to become dense enough to sustain it. They will not be viable simply as 'bedroom' communities.

We have been getting it wrong for a very long time. Whether we like it or not, we will be forced out of our vehicles as our primary source of transportation. The type of expansive living we have accepted as the norm is coming to an end within the next generation or two. The convergence of the pressures from peak oil and climate change are narrowing our options. The sooner that individuals and communities come to terms with this reality, the better off they will be in the future. Those that continue to deny reality do so at their peril.

City Transportation Committee Rejects Provincial Funding - And that is Good News!

The transportation committee has accepted the staff recommendation that the City reject $5 million in funding for an environmental assessment to expand Highway 174.

I went to the meeting this afternoon as I expected debate. However, it was accepted without dissent. I was pleasantly surprised, and have sent the following thanks to members of the committee:

Councillors,

I want to commend all of you for accepting the staff position on rejecting the offer of funding for an environmental assessment of expansion of Hwy 174. We must put an end to subsidizing inefficient automobile use. If there are to be subsidies, the most efficient forms of mass transit must be at the top of the funding list.

Within a generation, transformation of the transportation infrastructure shall be imposed on all cities as a result of rapidly increasing costs of energy. Urban areas that depend on expansive road networks shall be left behind. It is imperative that the City of Ottawa become forward looking in how it makes these decisions. We are already hearing increases in the call for efficient mass transit in this city as expansive suburban living becomes increasingly expensive. These voices shall get louder and stronger in the very near future as more of us accept that building a city that is primarily dependent on the private automobile is more costly in the short term and not sustainable in the long term.
I went to the meeting this afternoon assuming there would be some debate. I was delighted to see this pass so readily.

The decision we make with respect to mass transit in the near future will only be the beginning of 'transformation' of the transportation infrastructure in this city.
Thanks for sending a clear message to the Province that we are not prepared to continue to subsidize inefficient individual car use at the expense of needed investment in mass transit.

It's a great start. Now, if we can just transform this thinking into solid mass transit investment.

New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears - WSJ.com

New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears - WSJ.com

One of the reasons I gave up car ownership in early 2006 was that I literally wanted to "walk the talk" in some small way, in moving toward a more sustainable way of living on this planet. I wanted to start to develop the skills that I thought would be necessary in the years to come. I was coming to a realization that what I determined to be a lifestyle dominated by promotion of over-consumption of material goods was simply not sustainable.

This has lead to interesting discussions in recent years with friends and neighbours. My sense is that most people viewed me as perhaps 'eccentric' in my take on life, but essentially harmless. I watched from my perch adjacent to the Vanier Parkway (an arterial road near central Ottawa), as untold thousands continued to commute back and forth to work, or simply drive their SUV to pick up a few groceries at the big box Loblaws down the street. In the meantime, I fixed my bicycle, and learned the local bus routes. I may have finally unwrapped my fingers from the steering wheel, but many in Ottawa stuck to the highway.

I also remember last spring, when gasoline prices started to surge, that there was considerable outcry fomented by many against 'gouging' by 'Big Oil'. "They are making too much money all ready!" was the rant, and the government should do something about it. I am no lover of big oil, but my take at the time on the matter was that it was essentially an issue of supply and demand. The supply simply was not there, irrespective of price. Prices stopped going up once demand was curtailed. This is backed up by the fact that world wide daily production of oil has remained steady in the 84-5 mb/d range since 2004, despite escalating demand for product, most notably from India and China.

Not many people were considering that perspective last year, but it may be starting to gain some traction. What had been mainly the writing of the the fringe is beginning to hit mainstream. This recent article in the Wall Street Journal is a case in point. Is Wall Street perhaps beginning to concede that there may be "Limits to Growth"? That would have been heretical speculation a few short years ago.

Where exactly will gas prices go in the coming months? Is this truly the beginning of the end of the Oil Age? If so, will people be ready? Just as importantly, are our governments ready, or will they bury their collective heads in the sand until it is too late? Do we have a Plan B other than hoping that we will find more?

It is time for humanity to get serious in developing a post carbon low-energy way of existence on this planet. The sooner we start, the less difficult the transition will be. The era of cheap energy is over and it is time we started to get used to that fact.

The Archdruid Report: The Specialization Trap

The Archdruid Report: The Specialization Trap

I find the writings of John Michael Greer to be amongst the most fascinating I have come across on the Internet. It's a vast world out there, and he helps us connect the dots and see the much bigger picture.

This week he discusses how we are failing to learn from the history of previously failed civilizations. I share his concern that we are on the cusp of some very difficult times as we fall into the Specialization Trap.

He publishes his column once a week. I have come to look forward to it. Check it out, and mull over his thoughtful commentary.

Will Australia Walk the Talk and Start Thinking Long Term?

Australian Labor Party : Australia 2020 Summit

Might this be a breath of fresh air from 'down under'? The new Labour Government of Australia is planning for the future with a summit to be held in mid April.

The Summit will bring together some of the best and brightest brains from across the country to tackle the long term challenges confronting Australia’s future –challenges which require long-term responses from the nation beyond the usual three year electoral cycle.

Let's see if they walk the talk on this concept of planning "beyond the usual three year electoral cycle."

It would be quite something.

Wealth at too great a cost

Culture Change - Wealth at too great a cost

Every so often I come across some writing that I feel compelled to share. Below is an excerpt that says a lot about what I see around me.

Wealth at Too Great a Cost

Written by Jan Lundberg

Culture Change Letter #181 An observation on modern society, from a Mayan village Rich people can afford anything, or so it is assumed. But our rapidly changing world demands a new accounting of what goes on in the creation and distribution of material wealth amidst unprecedented global population size. We've heard that the high mucky-mucks will eventually find they can't eat money, nor get into Heaven as well as a camel can get through the eye of a needle. We've heard that "You can't take it with you," from the Keef Hartley Band's song of that title. But now it's time to think in terms of the historic change facing humanity, as the excesses of the pinnacle of Western Civilization take our breath away.

The result of pursuing gain and privilege has been self-destruction for a large segment of modern humanity and life in general. The obliteration of countless species is seldom mentioned in mass-media commentaries or political speeches. Yet, even as we all -– rich and poor -– notice the unraveling of nature's intricate structure that wealth has been built upon, we see the blind continuation of massive exploitation by the few for the few.

I have written about my concerns regarding the promotion of over-consumption before. As a society, we are seriously addicted to pursuing the next material thing or experience. It saddens me greatly.

However, such sadness was greatly tempered when I read this post of Richard Heinberg, who has written extensively on the issue of our dwindling resource supply. Now, a lengthy excerpt from his remarks:

Beyond Hope and Doom: Time for a Peak Oil Pep Talk

Awareness of Peak Oil, Climate Change, impending global economic implosion, topsoil depletion, biodiversity collapse, and the thousand other dire threats crashing down upon us at the dawn of the new millennium constitutes an enormous psychological burden, one so onerous that most people (and institutions) respond with a battery of psychological defenses-mostly versions of denial and distraction-in an effort to keep conscious awareness comfortably distanced from stark reality. I discuss this in "the Psychology of Peak Oil and Climate Change," chapter 7 of Peak Everything, where I conclude that the healthiest response to dire knowledge is to do something practical and constructive in response, preferably in collaboration with others, both because the worst can probably still be avoided and because engaged action makes us feel better.

Some people who are aware of global threats respond psychologically with a relentless insistence on maintaining mental focus on possible positive futures, however faint their likelihood of realization. Other knowledgeable people are irritated by this behavior and prefer to plunge themselves into prolonged contemplation of the worst possible outcomes. On various Internet discussion sites this split plays out in endless flame-wars between "doomers" and "anti-doomers" (the latter differ from cornucopians, who deny that there is a problem in the first place).

I generally try to avoid both extreme viewpoints. To me, all that matters in the final analysis is whether awareness leads to effective action that actually reduces the risk of worst-case scenarios materializing.

He then asks:

Who among us hasn't fretted over the likely impacts of societal collapse on oneself, family, and friends? Of course, it's perfectly sensible to make some preparations. We should have some food stored, we should be gardening and making efforts to reduce our energy usage and need for transportation. But the obsessive thought that it's not enough can be paralyzing. What if financial collapse proceeds to economic, political, and cultural collapse; what could one possibly do to insulate oneself in that case? Tough question. There are too many unknowns. No matter what we do, there can never be a guarantee that we will be immune to the consequences of Peak Oil and Climate Change.

But this quandary is similar in some ways to the universal problem of personal mortality: we do what we can to maintain health (we eat right, we exercise), knowing nevertheless that eventually we will die. Still, the point of life is not to spend every waking moment trying to cheat death; rather, it is to enjoy each day as much as possible, to grow, to learn, and to give of oneself. Time spent building a family emergency preparedness kit needs to be balanced against time spent helping make one's entire community more resilient, and raising awareness in the world as a whole-and time spent with loved ones, and time spent singing and dancing or whatever it is that makes us happy.

He concludes with some friendly advice:

Assuming you're reading my words on-line right now, you might want to bookmark this page and jump for a moment to http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/, the site of an on ongoing research project of Carnegie Mellon University that has concluded that "Greater use of the Internet is associated with increases in loneliness and symptoms of depression."

So with this pep talk comes some friendly advice (again, I'm also talking to myself here): Take breaks. Eat well, and make sure you get enough exercise and sunlight. Ask yourself: What would I do for joy if I knew I had only a year left? A month? A week? Would I make love, spend time in nature, play music, or...?

Well, do it! But remember the rest of us, and don't drop the ball entirely.

In the end, there is no blame or guilt attached to any of this. And there is a limit to the utility of pep talks. Each of us has different brain chemistry, a different reservoir of past experiences that has shaped our character and repertoire of behavioral responses, all of which results in differing levels of tolerance for bad news and hard effort. We will each do what we can, given our unique makeup. But if words can help, let no courageous worker down tools for lack of simple reassurance.

We're all in this together. Let's rely on one another's reserves of psychological strength when we need to, and provide strength for others when we can.

Yes, we are all in this together. I am most curious how the next few decades are going to unravel. Perhaps I will be fortunate enough to experience two or three of them to the fullest. Time will tell. It is going to be an interesting journey.

Water, water everywhere! Will we have enough to drink?

Water rate increases in pipeline for 3 years

I read with interest the decision by Ottawa City Council to increase water rates by 29.5% over three years. I also note that the Citizen (perhaps like any news organization trying sell its product), uses the more provocative term "jump" as opposed to increase, to somehow suggest that this increase is unnecessarily large. A more helpful analysis, however, would point out how ridiculously low our water rates have been.

I have been tracking my personal water consumption since 2004. That year I consumed a total of 88 cubic meters, or 88,000 liters of clean, treated water. This translates into an average daily consumption of 242 litres. At first blush, this may seem high, but is actually significantly lower than the average Canadian, who, according to Natural Resources Canada personally consumes 343 litres per day. (According to a UVic study based on OECD data released in 2001, total per capita consumption exceeded 1600 cubic meters per year, when all use was taken into account.)

For this valuable resource I paid a total of $166.12 or less than 1/5 of a cent per litre. Such a low cost for water does not encourage anyone to conserve. In fact, I believe the charge is so low that for most of us we tend to treat it as almost a "free" commodity. We think nothing of taking lengthy showers, letting the tap run to get the 'coldest' water, or using the hose in the summer time to wash down a dusty sidewalk.

So, in 2005 it wasn't for economic reasons that I decided to curtail my water use. I simply wanted to be more conscious of my consumption habits. Since then, with some modest effort, I have been able to reduce my daily use to about 127 litres per day. This still equates to a personal annual consumption of about 47,000 litres of treated water. My goal is to reduce my thirst further to less than 100 litres per day.

Achieving this reduction would still be more than twice the amount that the UN has calculated as a minimum requirement. As reported in the BBC, they have recommended that people need a minimum of 50 litres of water a day for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation, yet in 1990 over a billion people did not have even that.

As reported in Canada Vs. the OECD: An Environmental Comparison,

Canada ranks a dismal 28th among the 29 nations of the OECD in terms of per capita water consumption. Only Americans use more water than Canadians.

furthermore,

Since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%. This is five times higher than
the overall OECD increase of 4.5%. In contrast, nine OECD nations were able to decrease their
overall water use since 1980 (Sweden, the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland and Denmark).

Clearly, Canadians are gluttons when it comes to water consumption. It is essential that we continue our efforts to change our ways. Properly costing this valuable resource is a good place to start to promote conservation.

I had the good fortune to hear Maude Barlow speak at the University of Ottawa in late January on the topic of the Right to Water. Her work is very important.

Reflection on a Tragedy

Driver loses control of car, injuring three, killing one at bus shelter

Such an ache I feel as I read about this recent tragedy. It involves an 84 year old driver losing control of her vehicle, ultimately driving backwards into a bus shelter. One elderly woman who was in the shelter has died and three others were injured. The victim's five year old grandson who was standing with her apparently suffered no physical scars but will forever bear the burden of witnessing death at such an early age.

I wince as I think of the fear that must have flashed for so many as these events unfolded within a matter of seconds. The final moments of life for someone who simply went shopping. The scared child, the people trapped in the shelter, the anguish of the elderly driver. For the families there is so much anger and grief; so many unanswered questions. My heart goes out to all concerned as they struggle to deal with this.

The direct cause of this terrible accident are not public at this time and should not be pre-judged. However, the inevitable speculation has been repeatedly discussed and editorialized in the news media. "How do we determine the driving ability of a senior?" seems to be the looming question on the minds of many.

As the immediate family struggles many others are also coming to terms with conflicted feelings. It is impossible to contemplate how I would react if it had been my mother or frightened child in the bus shelter, or my grandmother in the car. How would I deal with my anger, grief, outrage, perhaps even guilt?

Personally, I must admit to guilt as one of the considered emotions. This tragedy has prompted me to reflect back on another time in my life. It was a few years ago when my brother and I were coming to terms with our own father's advancing years. We were becoming increasingly concerned about whether or not Dad should still be driving.

We had always known him as "the driver". As youngsters growing up in the suburbs of Toronto, no one else in our family performed this task. He was the one who took us places. He made sure that he got us to our destination, safely. He took great pride in his responsible manner behind the wheel. He knew enough to keep a safe cushion around his vehicle, and maintain an appropriate speed for traffic long before it became fashionable in driving education courses. He simply was very good behind the wheel.

As he approached his eightieth year, however, his reflexes were dulling, and others were beginning to notice. A family friend visiting from Europe who hadn't driven with him for quite some time made a point of expressing his concern to me. "He shouldn't be driving", he said to me very bluntly.

We had noticed that Dad seemed to be losing some of his ever present sharpness. (We later found out that he was experiencing the onset of Alzheimer's.) Fortunately my brother and I, in consultation with our mother, were able to convince him that it would be in everyone's best interest that he no longer drive.

We were dreading this conversation with him, but we knew we needed to have it. The biggest hurdle for us was confronting our father on the fact that he was aging. (In retrospect, I see now that we were also confronting our own aging.) More importantly, he was aging in a way that was going to affect how he conducted his life. This wasn't about getting him a new pair of glasses or preparing for a hip replacement. We were going to taking away his ability to immediately go where he wanted to go, when he wanted to go there.

"Just how do you start that conversation?" we thought to ourselves. No, It wasn't going to be easy, but we knew it must happen. As apprehensive as we were, we also knew that it would be far easier to have the conversation before an accident rather than waiting until after.

Although the exact words have faded from memory, I do know that it went much more easily than either of us anticipated. We gently but firmly started by stating our concerns. We quickly shifted the discussion to the responsibility that every driver has for for the safety of not only themselves, but anyone whom they may encounter while behind the wheel. This appeal to his sense of reason and responsibility for others proved to be the ideal segue. It became his choice to unwrap his fingers from the steering wheel for the final time. He ultimately accepted his new reality with dignity and grace.

Whenever an "elderly" driver is involved in an accident, inevitably, and often unfairly as noted above, the question we ask is: "Were they fit to drive?" More pointedly, I would suggest that each one of us will one day be confronted with the question: "Am I fit to drive?" Not an easy one to contemplate, let alone answer, without a little help.

We witness our own habits every day, and, unless something traumatic happens, we feel as sharp today as we did yesterday. Each of us, then, depends on loving family members and good friends to be honest with us, to help us recognize what perhaps we cannot see. This is a time when we may need help to be honest with ourselves.

A part of me feels that it is too soon to be contemplating my own inexorable path to infirmity. At the same time, though, it is the perfect time to be learning, as I have the privilege of witnessing my Dad move through the second half of his ninth decade. As I watch his struggles I contemplate what may be mine in the years to come.

Sadly for all of us, although eight years his junior, Mom predeceased him a little over a year ago. She had been his primary care giver and, with his advancing Alzheimer's we knew that he could not be left on his own. We were very fortunate to find a suitable home for him. The day before she died, Dad was able to tell her that he liked where he was moving to. "It's very nice, I like it." he said to her quietly, with his ever present gentle smile on his face. It was as if hearing this gave Mom permission to let go, and relax, knowing that her husband of fifty-five years would now be safely cared for. So sad. So poignant. So real.

It has been the biggest adjustment of his long and fortunate life. "I miss your mother." he said to me wistfully when I visited him in Toronto a couple of weeks ago. However, he does not allow such feelings to overwhelm him. He chooses every day to partake in the world around him. He has a smile for whomever he meets. Although living on the second floor of the retirement home he carefully uses the stairs. "I need the exercise. It's good for me." he firmly states, as he heads off to the dining room.

My Dad inspired me when I was young with the trust he placed in me. He inspires me today as I witness him now choosing, in his own way, to age with dignity and grace. If I can only be so wise.