It Can Be Depressing Sometimes...

globeandmail.com: New York-sized ice cap collapses off Antarctica

No, I'm not talking about the reports of ice melting in Antarctica. I'm talking about the "discussion" (if it can be called that), that follows such reports.

Within an hour of the above article appearing on the Globe & Mail website, numerous comments were posted bashing the integrity of G&M for posting the article and ridiculing any suggestion that Global Warming/Climate Change was either a threat to the planet or that humans had anything to do with it even if it was happening.

I'm not a climate scientist, and don't expect I ever will have the credentials or qualifications to identify myself as such. I am a layperson who seeks out the expert opinion of those qualified in their field of expertise to help me form my own opinion on such matters.

I said as much to Professor Denis Rancourt a couple of years ago when he fired off a rant on his own website ridiculing those who were concerned about global warming. Back in June, 2007 I told him that...

I am of the opinion that some aspects of climate change are attributable to an anthropocentric source. However, I accept that, as a "layperson" I am out of my depth in discussing this with you on a scientific basis. My rather "simplistic" notion is that I find it very difficult to believe that the massive increase of human population and the subsequent large scale increase in emissions would not have some form of impact on the earth's climate systems. Maybe I am naive, but I note that it took over a million years to sequester carbon in oil and coal. It was, in the human time scale of things, a fairly lengthy process. We, as humans, have managed to release into the atmosphere roughly half of it in, essentially, the blink of an eye of time. Call me crazy, but it seems to me it would have an effect.

I don't believe that you need a Doctorate in Climatology to reach this conclusion.

However, to this day, whenever there is another report in the media of melting ice in polar regions, or anything else which may be supportive of the peer-reviewed IPCC scientific reports, comment blogs light up with ridicule from the masses. Almost inevitably, they question the motives of the scientists they mock, often suggesting they are only in it for the money. I get it. These scientists are somehow manipulating the data that purports that human activity is affecting the weather to keep them employed. Furthermore, they have been able to dupe every scientist who participated in the peer review process, not once, not twice, but hundreds of times. Talk about a conspiracy!

At this point, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that those who claim that any suggestion of human induced climate change is a hoax are themselves simply trying to protect their own profligate ways. They actually can see the writing on the wall. They see the big picture. They have more intelligence than I have, until now, been attributing to them.

They understand that if in fact the science is true, that the only way to protect the earth from human induced climate change is to greatly curtail the release of CO2. Such a prospect, of course, scares the hell out of them. What, cut back their automobile use, give up that annual trek to the Caribbean because it's too cold in Canada for them? Stop eating strawberries in February? They really are in a state of denial, but not just about climate change. What they categorically refuse to accept is that the way we have been living is completely unsustainable. No wonder they say such stupid things.

James Howard Kunstler on the Tragedy of Suburbia

Kunstler can be so cynical and rude, but he tells it as he sees it. His passion shines through as he implores us to promote communities "worth caring about".

Barry Schwartz on the Paradox of Choice

Choice is good, right? Therefore, more choice must be even better! Well, not so fast.

Ten Years Out

The year 2019 seems, in some regards, unfathomable - a distant time only written of in futuristic sci-fi novels. But 1999, the same length of time - over my other shoulder - doesn't seem that long ago at all.

What future were we envisioning for ourselves "ten years out" in 1999? The phrase 9/11 was not part of our lexicon, except as a 3 digit phone number for assistance. The dot com bubble was just that - an as yet unexploded bubble. We didn't view it as such at the time. No, we saw only expanding wealth, choosing to believe it was a payoff of the computer age. In 1999 the future was now - and wealth and prosperity was to become everyone's reality.

Did anyone think then that within ten years they would live through the infamous redefinition of 9/11 or witness wars in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq? Who amongst us thought that $100+ oil and food riots were ever possible? Climate Change? That was for others to worry about. Worldwide recession? Not a chance!

There were a select few, however, who were very concerned about all of these issues. Some foresaw part, if not all of what ultimately unfolded. I, however, certainly wasn't amongst that elite group in 1999. I blithely went about my existence, not engaged in long term speculation as to such possibilities on the world stage. I had recently purchased a new car and home. All was well with my corner of the planet. Like many, I was benefiting from the aforementioned stock market bubble of the day. What was there not to like?

Like most, I had never heard of the concept of "Peak Oil", let alone "Peak Everything". I did not understand the extent to which my lifestyle was entirely dependent on the provision of cheap carbon based energy. Who understood, other than agricultural scientists, that the "green revolution" of the past few decades that fended off world starvation had only been possible with vast increases in the use of oil based fertilizers? To the majority of us who spent an ever decreasing proportion of our income on food we simply interpreted it as a sign of the improving times. Life was good, our bellies were getting bigger, and we had to find other things to complain about - like the cost of cell phone rates, or hockey tickets.

So, here I am in the spring of 2009, contemplating how my existence will unfold "ten years out", by the spring of 2019. At times I even raise my gaze further to the spring of 2029. I ask myself - are we making the decisions now - on both a societal and personal level - to prepare for the reality of the world to come? Are we ready for the inexorable decline of energy resources? Do we understand that food has been cheap because energy has been cheap?

Like Matt Simmons, I certainly hope I am wrong, but I expect that the energy and economic shocks the world has experienced in the past two years is only the beginning of overwhelming change. I expect that the globalization of trade will be reversing. By 2019 we won't have sufficient flow of cheap energy resources to sustain that type of exchange. One of the perversities of the future will be that at an informational level the world will continue to flatten, allowing us to instantly see and have infinite interpretations of what is going on virtually anywhere on the planet. Simultaneously though, with the shrinking availability of energy per person, we will, out of physical necessity, be developing a more localized economy. Local food production - no, local production of everything- will be much more than cute. Increasing numbers of us will have accepted it as a necessity of survival.

By 2029 these changes will have gone far beyond the tipping point. Those expansive dreams of encouraging unrestrained material wealth envisioned back in 1999 will have long been recognized as unsustainable. My only hope is that it will have been replaced with more enduring, locally based, and sustainable ways of being. One of the biggest battles will be over how we divide up the ever shrinking benefits of economic wealth to an ever increasing population. The friction will intensify as those who feel they must continue to have the right to increase their wealth is confronted by the needs of the growing number of desperate people the world over (and in our local communities), who are fighting for their very survival. I am curious to see how things shall unfold, and, in many ways, quite fearful. Unless we can resolve issues of greed, these shall be very difficult times indeed.

Gwynne Dyer - Climate Wars

George Bush may not have accepted the science of climate change but his military did. According to military analyst Gwynne Dyer the U.S. and British military have for several years been making advanced preparations for future climate wars. A chilling interview as the temperature rises.

Guns in America - A Visit to Knob Creek, Kentucky

Just when you think you have seen it all. Take ten minutes to watch as thousands of shooters, some as young as nine years old, fire machine guns, flame throwers - even using these weapons from helicopters or bringing their own armoured tank, for recreation, and sport. Seeing is believing.

Tamil Protest at Parliament Hill

Went for a walk on a sunny afternoon and ended up in the middle of a Tamil protest at Parliament Hill.

Greenland is Warming Up

My adventurous soul wants to travel to places such as Greenland. I want to witness it before the glaciers disappear. My travel to such distant lands, and that of countless others, however, only hastens their demise.

Rick Steves Discusses Iran

Rick Steves presents a refreshing perspective of an American view of Iran. This is an excellent video. What he says connects very much with my own visit in 2004.

Let's Predict the Future!

I feel in the mood to predict. I figure I can do no worse than Jim Cramer, or Wassily Leontief.

Within the next year, (let's say April Fool's Day 2010), I expect the following to have occurred on the world stage:

• The stock market will, in the short term, continue its rise, perhaps into the summer of 2009. The Dow will struggle to break through 9000, maybe even toying with the 10,000 mark. It will not reach it though. The rise will be fueled by unwarranted speculation that "the worst is over" and the economy is starting to "recover". Inflation, however, will start to dampen those spirits, and by next spring, the Dow will have retreated, probably testing if not falling through the lows of early 2009. Therefore, the Dow at 5888 on March 31, 2010. (How's that for breaking all the prediction rules!)
  
• The oil industry will report at least one of the "super giant" oil fields has peaked and gone into decline. There will be more reports, now carried in mainstream media, that world oil production may already have peaked at 87.5 mb/d and that the world economies need to prepare for the reality of a relentless decline in the flow of oil. Most people though, will fail to understand the ramifications of this and think that oil prices are too high, continuing to blame the oil companies, their government, or Santa Claus for the price of energy. There will continue to be very little recognition that it is our own highly consumptive ways that is to blame.
• The price of a barrel of oil will rise to at least the $65 range by early summer, 2009. Without much trouble, it could peak near, or perhaps even top $100 if there is major trouble in the middle east, or, at the height of the summer "driving season" supply is tightened because of storms or the collapse of a major oil field. All bets are off, however, if inflation starts to kick in and the U.S. dollar drops in value. This could be precipitated by OPEC deciding to price oil in Euros, or perhaps a basket of other currencies.
• IF OPEC decouples the price of oil from the U.S. dollar, watch out below. The value of the stock market could be cut in half again.
• IF OPEC continues to price oil in U.S. dollars, then I expect the price to have fallen back down to the mid to upper fifty dollar range in March, 2010. Demand will have continued to dampen, based on my prediction of lessening economic activity. However, we will start to see the impact of reduced supply, as the geologic reality of peak oil flow takes effect. Of course, this also will be influenced by the extent to which economic activity drops. Less activity will mean that it will still be possible for oil producing nations to supply the need, and there would be less pressure on prices. The unfortunate consequence of this is that it will delay the day when a majority of consumers understand that peak oil flow is a reality.
  
• Steve Paikin will continue to believe that everyone should rightly expect to travel whenever they want.
  
• There will no longer be a "Big Three" in Detroit. They will have been replaced by a mid-sized one, or two or three small ones. Their total size will be dwarfed by the Japanese and European automakers, who also will have shrunk in size by at least 15%.
  
• It is highly likely that a major terrorist event will unfold to challenge world leaders, and specifically President Obama.
  
• There will be at least one reported attempt on President Obama's life.
• China and Eastern Europe will experience increased social unrest as a result of the economic situation. There will be reports of significant troop movements in China to deal with this unrest.
  
• There will be an increase in nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe, threatening the structure of the European Union.
• There will be increased factionalism within Iraqi society as Obama attempts to remove U.S. troops. He will find it to be an increasingly difficult promise to keep.
• Obama will find it very difficult to rally support for more troops in Afghanistan. The Europeans will have become increasingly insular, and unwilling to participate, as social unrest increases on their home turf.
• Those of us who believe that the combined challenges of climate change and peak oil are the greatest threats to humanity will be greatly disappointed as world leaders focus instead on restoring "economic growth" as the answer to our problems. They will continue to fail to recognize that fueling economic growth without taking into account the ramifications of such growth is the root of the problem.
• Harper and the Conservatives in Canada will continue to characterise any effort to price carbon as a "tax" that will destroy Canada's competitiveness. They have drawn that line in the sand and will continue to stand behind it.
  

I look forward to coming back to this list in a year or so and tally my score. Who knows, I may have read the crystal ball correctly on one of these predictions! Here's to hoping I am wrong, and we will all be back in Kansas in a year, sipping Mai-Tai's. ;)

I remind myself once again of the words of Wassily Leontief: "Regarding the projections, the only thing I am certain about is that they are wrong."

Hot Air, and other Prognostications

In recent reading I have felt, at times, overwhelmed by a sense of "gloom and doom". Richard Heinberg and Matt Simmons both warn of the impending perils of peak oil flows and how it has the potential to catastrophically change civilization. Thomas Homer Dixon speaks darkly about the current economic crisis in his most recent interview with Peter Mansbridge. Jeffrey Kopstein, interviewed by Steve Paikin on The Agenda draws eerie parallels between the current eastern European banking crisis and the collapse of the Austrian banking system in 1931 that was a precursor to Nazism.

And then, just this morning I read Jeffrey Simpson's latest book "Hot Air" where he quotes Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontief. In 1981 he commented on his own forecast of population and energy consumption for the United Nations. "Regarding the projections, the only thing I am certain about is that they are wrong."

Simpson then refers to an oft used remark from perhaps any economics professor to his or her students: "When making forecasts, give a number or a date, but never both."

To say that prediction of future events, even with availability of vast amounts of data and computing power, is an "inexact" science is, without doubt, an understatement. Just ask Jim Cramer. (Better yet, watch Jon Stewart ask him.)

Does this mean, though, that we must stop listening to prognosticators? Should we just throw up our hands in despair and leave ourselves to whatever may happen?

Obviously, no. We need some means to prepare ourselves. We need to seek some kind of understanding of what is happening around us. How did it start? Where are we going? We all, to one degree or another, grapple with these questions. None of us, though, have the BIG picture. Some of us may, in hindsight, have a better grasp on what is going on than others, but, ultimately, the best we can do, to paraphrase Nobel prizewinner Wassily Leontief, is make an educated guess. We attempt to gain a sense of that BIG picture by sucking whatever information we can from a variety of sources, to make sense of it all.

On top of all that, we must attempt to maintain perspective; that is, recognize our biases and own them. Do our best to keep an open mind.

Pretty tall order, for anyone.

Especially when, personally, my bias is that we are going to hell in a handbasket.

As I have oft stated on this blog, in one way or another, there are way too many of us on this planet consuming way too much way too quickly to sustain the kind of activity I witness on a daily basis. The only question in my mind is when is the whole sh*t house going to come crashing down on us.

Yes, I admit that I seek out those who reinforce this bias. This is why I subscribe to Richard Heinberg's museletter and Jan Lundberg's column at Culture Change. Try as I might to keep an open mind to free market boosterism and climate change skeptics (among others), my eyes almost invariably roll back when I hear the predictable rant. To me, this isn't rocket science. We live on a finite planet, yet the vast majority of us lead our lives as if we can continue to expand our consumption. Everyone blithely walks around as if there will be no end to this mindless consumption. It is a tired old saying but This is NOT sustainable!" This will end. The only question is, when? In my lifetime, or after?

There, I have made my prediction, and followed that sage economist's advice: "When making forecasts, give a number or a date, but never both."

My final questions are: Why have we lost the ability to look beyond ourselves, and our immediate selfish needs, and consider seven generations? What happened to stewardship?

Derrick Jensen on "Toxic Mimics"

"If your experience is that your food comes from a supermarket and your water comes from a tap, you will defend to the death the system that brings it to you because your life depends on it. If, on the other hand, your experience is that your food comes from a land base and your water comes from a stream, you will defend to the death that land base and the stream because your life depends on it."