Corporations Are Not the Problem - We Are

I like to think of myself as committed to social change, and very concerned about what I see as a consumer driven society hurtling virtually out of control down a dead end track to environmental disaster. I know there are many around the world who share my concerns. What I often hear are screams of outrage against one corporation or another that is characterized as poluting the planet in its relentless search for profit while constantly urging us to buy things we do not need with money we do not have.

Yes, that rings a chord in the hearts of so many who are despairing at the plight of the world. We love to bleat about the horror of the oilsands, resource depletion or any other short term profit seeking corporate practice. But, when we start to dig a little deeper, are the actions of these corporations the root cause of this destruction? I don't think so. We are taking the easy "let's find someone to blame" route. Let's be clear, corporations can only sell something if someone else buys it, and we keep buying boatloads of the stuff. From Ipods to flatscreens to sushi to constant jet travel to cut roses in winter we the consumer keep lining the pockets of corporations with the proceeds of our insatiable desires. The planet is littered with the detritus of our consumption.

Rather than stamping our feet, going to protests and writing letters about these "terrible corporations" and the "capitalist footprint" on the planet, we need to be holding up a mirror to ourselves and our neighbours about how we are behaving. I don't like what I see.

If we want corporations to stop sucking the planet dry, we have to stop giving them the money to do it. Unfortunately, it seems that most of us are too addicted to consuming to really make this happen.

And yes, I am looking in the mirror as I say this.

Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

I heard that somewhere, not sure where though.

This came to mind as I read today two very different presentations of statistics. First, from Dan Gardner, a columnist I often enjoy to read in the Ottawa Citizen. "Cheer Up", he tells us! "Things aren't nearly as bad as they seem." He then quotes recently published statistics from the United Nations Human Development Report 2010.

"Most people today are healthier, live longer, are more educated and have more access to goods and services. Even in countries facing adverse economic conditions, people's health and education have greatly improved. And there has been progress not only in improving health and education and raising income, but also in expanding people's power to select leaders, influence public decisions, and share knowledge."

He informs us that the report's findings tell us that:

-. All but three of the 135 countries have a higher level of human development today than in 1970.

-. A baby born today in almost any country can expect to live longer than at any time in history.

-. If children were still dying at the higher rates prevalent in the late 1970s, 6.7 million more children would die each year.

-. People around the world have much higher levels of education than ever before. ... No country has seen declines in literacy or years of schooling since 1970.

-. Since 1970, 155 countries -- home to 95 per cent of the world's people -- have experienced increases in real per capita income. The annual average today is $10,760, almost 1.5 times its level 20 years ago and twice its level 40 years ago. These increases are evident "in all regions."

-. Between 1970 and 2010, China's per capita income rose 21-fold, Botswana's more than nine-fold and Malaysia's and Thailand's more than five-fold.

-. The share of formal democracies has increased from fewer than a third of countries in 1970 to half in the mid-1990s and to three-fifths in 2008.

-. Overall, poor countries are catching up with rich countries in the HDI.

And then, later in the day, I pick up from the library the book The Bridge at the End of the World, by James Gustave Speth, where I read the following on the first couple of pages:

Half the world's tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second. About half the wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Twenty percent of the corals are gone, and another 20 percent severely threatened. Species are disappearing at rates about a thousand times fasther than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in sixty-five million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration and desertification. Persistent toxic chemicals can be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.

Human impacts are now large relative to natural systems. The earth's stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before the change was discovered. Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide up by more than a third and have started in earnest the dangerous process of warming the planet and disrupting climate. Everywhere earth's ice fields are melting. Industrial process are fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at a rate equal to nature's; one result is the development of more than two hundred dead zones in the oceans due to overfertilization. Human actions already consume or destroy each year about 40 percent of nature's photosynthetic output, leaving too little for other species. Freshwater withdrawals doubled globally between 1960 and 2000, and are now over half of accessible runoff. The following rivers no longer reach the oceans in the dry season: the Colorado, yellow, Ganges and Nile, among others.

No wonder so many of us are confused. But then...maybe it isn't so confusing after all. Maybe the reason the United Nations can report such a variety of improvement in human development indices is a direct result of humankind's gorging itself on the environmental riches of the planet, as described by Speth. Oh, some of us may be better off, for now. But, can it last?

My "Mea Culpa" on Consumerism

I was in the midst of composing a "mea culpa" of sorts, regarding my sense of shame about being a part of western consumer society when I received this link to an article written by Dan Hamburg. He is a former Congressman of California's First District. These words were like a pie thrown in my face.

We're stuck in a culture (ie., a way of thinking), now roughly three centuries old, that has finally proven itself inadequate. All the way up through the years of my childhood in the Fifties and Sixties, this culture (i.e., western bourgeois) was not only acceptable, it was unassailable. It's core tenet has been the inevitability of progress and the "fact" as Margaret Thatcher put it during her reign as British prime minister, that "There is no alternative (TINA)."

If she's right, we're f**cked. Because while globalized capitalism has brought unparalleled comfort and power for the few--conquering the chronic limitation of space and time as never before--the contradictions of TINA thinking have become too odious to ignore.

We humans are literally destroying our own habitat. While a few feast, billions suffer malnourishment, illness and death from preventable disease and lack of basic necessities of life. (Have you ever attended one of those Hunger Banquets first conceived by the international anti-hunger organization OxFam? The top 15% are served a sumptuous meal. the middle 35% eat rice and beans. The leftover 50% help themselves to small portions of rice and water.)

This is the world we live in and these trends--global environmental collapse and mass poverty--are steadily worsening.

Contrary to a popular view, this state of affairs is neither "natural" nor unavoidable. The logic--resulting from a misreading of Darwin but powerful nonetheless--that we humans are creatures who "naturally compete" for scarce resources has finally revealed itself to be illogic, since its consequence is the demise of our entire species!

I read this nodding my head in a knowing fashion. This is me. This is the world I grew up in and the world I have perpetrated for most of my life. I am part of that top 15%. I get the best food, shelter, education and opportunities. I feed at the trough that is constantly replenished with cheap goods and services provided by the bottom 50%. I was discussing this recently with my brother and I thought his words captured our situation best.

We baby boomers as a group have become so obsessed with the accumulation and conservation of tangible assets that we are willfully blind to the environmental carnage and social justice issues which such accumulation causes. (Wal-Mart has big screen televisions on sale for $300. They're built by people who are essentially slaves in factories which cause massive environmental damage? Who cares, they're cheap! Oh, and yeah, someone should do something about that - so long as it doesn't cause me any inconvenience or increase my taxes so that I have the money to buy the $50 blu-ray player to go with the new TV.

This comment strikes at the core of the problem of our western society. Let's be blunt. We know what the problem is: it is us, the baby boomer generation and our offspring whom we have imbued with insatiable desires. We have fallen, hook, line and sinker for the admonitions of the post-war marketers who redefined citizenship to embody a consumer oriented ethic.

Everywhere I look, I see outrageously obscene consumption and an incredibly greedy sense of entitlement, as David Dingwall so selfishly points out to us.

Our demands are far out of proportion to what we should reasonably expect to be anything close to our fair share of the world's wealth. We have adopted the attitude that if we have the money, we have right to acquire whatever we want with it. Well, that approach is killing us, and it must be turned around.

The problem is clearly getting worse, as the gap between rich and poor widens, whether in the U.S. or Canada. We pay ever escalating millions of dollars every year to individual grown men who are "playing a game" in professional sports, yet somehow can't imagine paying sufficient taxes to ensure adequate housing for everyone. We whimsically change our decor to make the latest fashion statement, tearing out perfectly adequate bathrooms & kitchens while complaining about the price of gas. We are never satisfied because we seem incapable of accepting the notion that sometimes "Enough really is enough!" We are stuck in a rut of borrowing money we do not have, to spend on things and experiences we neither need nor appreciate.

I say this, not to mock others, but to recognize this in myself. This is how I was brought up in suburban, middle class Toronto. It is what my loving parents taught me, and, although I offered occasional token resistance, I followed the same path. I got sucked in by the branding, and the pummeling of my senses with advertising. Whether it was my make of car (Volvo or Saturn), sporting equipment (must be MEC!) or how I identified my trips, (I'm a traveler, not a tourist), I continued to hang much of my identity on what I possessed, and how I could obtain more.

In my most downtrodden moments when I review this, I feel like I have lived almost 60 wasted years of consumerism. When I look around at the plethora of "stuff" that fills my modest home, and flip through the memories of acquisition, I am terribly saddened.

We must hold a mirror up to ourselves, and recognize what we have done. What I see is not pretty. We need to find ways to break this downward death spiral of consumerism. What we are doing is obscene. As Hamburg concludes, we need a

"new narrative...a narrative that celebrates community over competitiveness, stewardship over exploitation."

I continually see sparks of light as I look around, but, unfortunately, they are not anywhere near a forest fire yet, but mere shooting stars. These "points of light" are the untold millions of us around the world trying to come to terms with our imbued "sense of entitlement". Unfortunately, there are still ever greater numbers of us who continue to cling to the old paradigm that money ultimately solves everything and that all poor people around the world need to do is acquire more of it. Then, they too can live like us. If it were only that easy.

Maybe I'll Just "Have Less & Live More!"

I was sitting at my computer when I heard the familiar sound of my rusty mailbox creaking shut. A sure indication that mail was waiting for me. "What could it be?", I thought to myself as I headed to the front door.

Real, hard copy mail comes less frequently these days as more communication is electronic. Perhaps this heightens the anticipation of opening the creaky cover to my mailbox.

It was, however, as expected, a couple more blatant appeals for me to "buy more stuff!" The first envelope was personally addressed, but gave no indication of the sender, other than a local P.O. Box number. Tearing open the envelope I was greeted with an uplifting holiday message.

Dear Leonard

It's holiday time - we're just counting the days. Are you ready? do you have the extra cash you need to help handle the additional expenses?
Use the attached Access Cheques to:

Be Spontaneous -Sometimes the best parties happen without a lot of planning
Buy some new furniture - A new sofa or reclining chair is a great addition to your home.
Start new family traditions - A family vacation could become an annual event.

Just think about all the fun you can have in the coming weeks. Use the attached cheques just like personal cheques, and start living your dream.

Wow! This is pretty exciting! Who knew that life can be so easy?!?! No money? No problem! I just need to write myself a cheque, or several if I need to, then I can throw caution to the wind, buy things & go places! I can be whimsical! I can Live Large and Start Living My Dream!!!


Feeling the enthusiasm rippling through my veins of how I will be enjoying life now that these wonderful cheques have arrived, I turn to the other envelope. Hmmmm, perhaps the news isn't as good. This letter is simply addressed to "The Resident". Nothing personal here, but I decide to look anyways, because it does proclaim on the front that "It's shiny. It's new." Opening the glossy enclosure wrapped with what appears to be a big red Christmas bow I discover images of gift cards from Best Buy and Future Shop. In bold letters it proclaims GET A FREE $200 GIFT CARD FROM FUTURE SHOP OR BEST BUY. Apparently, all I have to do is sign up for Rogers Digital TV & Rogers Hi-Speed Internet. Ah, but there is a tiny number 3 at the end of that last line indicating a footnote. Could there be a catch? I turn the four page card over to discover the "fine print" written in an ever so delicate, light gray font on a white background. To read it I need to turn on the big overhead light and reach for my reading glasses. With a bit of squinting I discover:

While quantities last. Offer available for a limited time and for new Digital TV and Hi-Speed Internet customers only, cannot be combined with any other discount and subject to change without notice. 1-year term required. Early Cancellation Fee applies. Excludes Rogers Ultra-Lite Internet tier.

So, what do these conditions mean? There is no mention of how much this will cost me, so, I decide some research is needed, and I head to the Roger's GiftCard promotion website. It takes about ten minutes to compile the figures. First, I discover that I will need to either rent or buy two pieces of hardware. A modem that will service my two computers will cost $4.50/mo. or $149 to purchase and a digital cable terminal costs $4.49/mo. or $99 to purchase. The least expensive Internet connection would cost $35.99/mo. and the least expensive digital TV would cost $31.49/mo. Finally, I need to pay $49.99 for installation. All numbers, of course, need to be multiplied by a minimum of 12 months. So, what does this add up to?

If I purchase the equipment required, that would be $248 upfront, before I have watched a single show, or read one email. Then, I would need to agree to pay $67.48/mo for 12 months for a total annual outlay of $809.76. To this, I add $49.99 for installation. All of these figures, of course, are then subject to 13% HST. So, to get my "FREE" $200 gift card I need to commit to spend $280.24 today for hardware, $56.49 for installation and $915.03 within a year for Internet and TV, for a grand total of $1,251.76. This outlay gets me the next to slowest Internet speed (that charges extra for downloads in excess of 15 GB/mo.) and basic cable, for one year. And of course, they would sincerely hope that have hooked me to pay a minimum of $915.03 every year thereafter, for just about the most basic service they provide. Wow! What a deal!

Yes, the sarcasm is dripping off the screen as I type. First of all, I currently spend $34.97/mo. or $418.64 per year, (taxes included!) for high speed Internet from National Capital Freenet (a local, not for profit group) that includes up to 200 GB of download per month. I obtain a free local digital TV signal from three channels with a homemade aerial that provides an uncompressed signal. The quality is far superior to the compressed cable signal. By next summer all broadcasters in Canada will be required to provide a digital over air signal. Sure, I don't get the cable only, or any American channels, but, why do I need 24/7 advertising streaming into my home?

Of the 33 channels offered on "Basic" Cable, I immediately discount one third of them as being completely superfluous to my needs. Five are in the French language, two are government legislature channels that are available online, two feature children programming, and there are two shopping channels. There are several other channels that I would never count as real channels. These include the TV listings, Rogers TV local, CP24 (it's local news out of Toronto. I live in Ottawa.) or the Entertainment! pop culture offering. APTN, W Network & CTS are marginal at best, essentially showing long forgotten re-runs intermixed with a show that may be of modest interest to a narrow audience. We are now down to about a dozen channels, half of which I can get for free with my antenna. This latter group includes CTV, CBC, Global, OMNI & the A Channel. So, it seems I am being urged to pay several hundred dollars a year extra for a more restricted Internet service, a news channel, the weather network, and three American TV networks. Maybe that gift card isn't "FREE" after all.

Back to my mail, the absurdity of it is that the so called "gift card" urges me to purchase yet ever more junk that will continue the media onslaught that implores me to buy more, and more, and more, while, the marketers hope, I sit on the couch, eat chips, and gaze at the screen imagining how I can spend money I don't have on things I don't need.

But wait! I've got money! I've just got to write myself one of those cheques that came in that other bright red envelope! Just in time for Christmas!

Hmmmm...on second thought,

Maybe I'll Just

and enjoy life, all year round, with less stuff!

How Do We Slow Down the Train?

Those who read my blog or the links that I consider newsworthy on facebook will (or should) realize that I am profoundly concerned about how the 21st century will play out for humanity on planet earth. I believe we are witnessing the slow motion train wreck of human civilization. There we are, gorging ourselves in the dining car as we occasionally glance out the window to gaze upon the passing scenery. Only the sober ones amongst us seem to realize that we need a healthy planet far more than the earth needs healthy humans. If the earth had a say in the matter (and, ultimately, it does), I expect it would rather not have us here at all.

There are many around the planet who share my fear for the future but are despairing as to what to do. We have been convinced by the science that humanity is slowly but inexorably incinerating the planet with the last of our remaining fossil fuel endowment as we desperately seek to satisfy our addiction to economic growth. I will be sixty next year, so I expect that I will not be alive to witness the conclusion of this unfolding catastrophe. I think it doubtful, however that my children and grandchildren will avoid suffering through the collapse of civil society as we know it.

For quite some time I have been trying to do my part to ring the warning bell. I have searched for ways to encourage more of us to appreciate that we must change our ways, not just personally, but at a broad-based, systemic level. I am beginning to sense though, that I may have been going about this in the wrong way. I have been working on the assumption that if I, in conjunction with the millions of other concerned souls linking together around the planet, simply continued to make reasoned arguments, based on fact and logic, that change would happen.

Hmmm. Noble thought. But is the earth going to wait while we humans engage in our anthropocentric "reasoned debate"? Perhaps not. What I hear the earth saying is that it could care less what humans think or decide. It will continue to be here regardless and would probably prefer that we hasten our own destruction so that it can get back to enjoying a flourishing biosphere without humans.

I may have been to one too many "group hugs" of late. You know, those wonderful progressive sessions where like minded people get together and nod knowingly about how important it is to reduce consumption, change light bulbs, lobby governments, write letters to the editor, make noise, or do whatever we can to get our "point" across.

I, in concert with millions around the globe, have been beating this drum for years. Beyond writing a blog I have joined groups such as my local Transitions Town movement, attended rallies, participated in seminars, workshops, meditation sessions, run for political office, written letters to the editor, protested in front of 24 Sussex, given up my car, (almost) sworn off air travel, ridden my bicycles thousands of kilometers, bought a bus pass, tracked and reduced my resource consumption, yet the stark reality is; the train keeps hurtling down the track, and most of the passengers aboard take little if any notice as they look for yet another way to spend money they don't have, on things they do not need. Why is that, I ask myself?

Speaking of things we do not need, I doubt that the person who drove past me recently in his Maserati (yes, it really was a Maserati) while I stood on the Vanier Parkway in Ottawa waiting for my bus cares a whit about climate change or long term sustainability. I have the same opinion about the comfortably dressed thirty something dweeb (I don't know what else to call him without launching into a vituperative rant) I watched a couple of days ago nonchalantly toss his water bottle against a tree (after he urinated against it) in my local park before hopping into his car and driving off. Something tells me that what these two people value is probably not anything close to what I consider to be important in life. Not only that, it is highly unlikely that they are interested in listening to what I have to say. They tuned me out long ago, because to do otherwise would mean they would have to consider a more modest form of transport or, heaven forbid, that they may need to acknowledge that they are responsible for cleaning up after themselves.

And that, perhaps, is the crux of the matter. It is our value systems that are clashing. When I go to one of my "group hug" sessions, I am surrounded by those who are "in synch" with what I value. It feels wonderful, of course, they are profoundly life-affirming events and I have no intention of giving them up, but, something is clearly missing. There are a lot of other people I need to be having this conversation with. I want to know how I can be a part of connecting with that Maserati driver, or, that dweeb in the park.

I find it sobering to acknowledge how monumental this task is. In my view, the Maserati driver and his dweeb brother are indicative of what I see as the slothful plague that is decimating our planet. From their perspective, however, they are pursuing what they see as their inalienable right to move about the earth in whatever way they see fit. We are, I suppose, of two extremes. They value personal freedom, believing that humankind has the absolute right to exercise dominion over the earth. In their view, money is power, they have lots of it, and they resoundingly resent any perceived encroachment on their ability to spend that cash and exercise their power as they please. I, like many others of a similar socialist and/or progressive persuasion value collective responsibility. We believe that as a species humans must rein in their egotistical, domineering ways or we will soon destroy the one and only planet we have. Is it any wonder then that we find it difficult, if not at times impossible, to listen to one another? (I know I go to great lengths to avoid the writings of Ezra Levant or David Warren.) We not only figuratively, but literally don't believe we are from the same planet. We certainly don't talk the same language.

How have we got to this point? And, more importantly, how do we move beyond polarized positions and re-engage in meaningful conversation that may help us uncover our shared interests? I have recently been introduced to an interesting analysis of this issue by reading an article by George Monbiot. He summarizes a lengthy (100+ pages) report written by Tom Crompton, under an initiative developed as part of WWF-UK’s Strategies for Change Project.

At this point I shall let Monbiot speak for himself, as I flagrantly "cut and paste" his comments. (Please contact me, George, if you take offense.)

The acceptance of policies which counteract our interests is the pervasive mystery of the 21st Century. In the United States, blue-collar workers angrily demand that they be left without healthcare, and insist that millionaires should pay less tax. In the UK we appear ready to abandon the social progress for which our ancestors risked their lives with barely a mutter of protest. What has happened to us?

The answer, I think, is provided by the most interesting report I have read this year. Common Cause, written by Tom Crompton of the environment group WWF, examines a series of fascinating recent advances in the field of psychology(1). It offers, I believe, a remedy to the blight which now afflicts every good cause from welfare to climate change.

Progressives, he shows, have been suckers for a myth of human cognition he labels the Enlightenment model. This holds that people make rational decisions by assessing facts. All that has to be done to persuade people is to lay out the data: they will then use it to decide which options best support their interests and desires.

A host of psychological experiments demonstrates that it doesn’t work like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information which confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to change.

Our social identity is shaped by values which psychologists classify as either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic values concern status and self-advancement. People with a strong set of extrinsic values fixate on how others see them. They cherish financial success, image and fame. Intrinsic values concern relationships with friends, family and community, and self-acceptance. Those who have a strong set of intrinsic values are not dependent on praise or rewards from other people. They have beliefs which transcend their self-interest.

This helps me understand the chasm between myself and the Maserati man and his Dweeb brother. I've been thinking all along that all I need to do is "explain the facts" and they and everyone else will understand. Duh, no! It ain't gonna work that way. The more I, and my "progressive" friends talk, the more we challenge the extrinsic value system of those we don't understand. And, of course, the more alienated from each other we become.

Monbiot points out that:

Rightwing politicians have also, instinctively, understood the importance of values in changing the political map. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that "economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul".

Conservatives in the US generally avoid debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more. The progressive response has been disastrous.

Doesn't this sound remarkably similar to the approach of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in Canada? Constant appeal to personal pocketbook issues, every tax is a bad tax, government is bad, turning away from data by dismantling the census and on and on. They are in the process of successfully changing the conversation in Canada by appealing to our personal greed, our extrinsic values, as opposed to "bigger-than-self", collective responsibilities.

Monbiot then chastises progressives,

Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to it. Once progressive parties have tried to appease altered public attitudes: think of all those New Labour appeals to middle England, often just a code for self-interest. In doing so they endorse and legitimise extrinsic values. Many greens and social justice campaigners have also tried to reach people by appealing to self-interest: explaining how, for example, relieving poverty in the developing world will build a market for British products, or suggesting that, by buying a hybrid car, you can impress your friends and enhance your social status. This tactic also strengthens extrinsic values, making future campaigns even less likely to succeed. Green consumerism has been a catastrophic mistake.

Tom Crompton proposes a simple remedy. Progressive campaigners

should stop seeking to bury (their) values and instead explain and champion them. (They) should help to foster an understanding of the psychology that informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – that make us insecure and selfish.

I haven't finished the Crompton article yet, and my response to it is very much a work in progress. It is proving to be a fascinating read. I am continuing to look for ways to be a part of slowing down this greedy train. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Jeff Rubin on the Effects of Peak Oil

"We shouldn’t be looking at oil prices as the effect of the recession. They are the cause." - The Globe and Mail:

One often hears disparaging comments about those that suggest that there will ever be any substantive "peak oil" effect on how we live. They are portrayed as radical doomsayers. Those expressing concern about the impact of climate change are often discounted in a similar fashion.

The question I put to those who toss aside such concerns is this: Can we afford to be wrong about this?

Consider the following numbers:

• There are 6.7 billion people on this planet
• The world population has more than doubled since 1950, predicted to reach at least 9 billion by 2050
  
• Since 1980 the world daily consumption of oil has increased by more than a third
• Even with oil reaching more than $140/bbl in July 2008, the oil industry was unable to increase production to match demand
  

As everyone will tell you, whether one accepts the concept of peak oil or not, there is plenty of oil still in the ground. The fundamental question is not how much supply is ultimately available but what will be the cost of extracting that oil at a flow rate that our economy, as currently construed, demands? Are you willing to bet the farm on the prospect that the oil industry can continue to supply an expanding population with sufficient quantities of fossil fuel energy at a price it is able to pay?

It will cost ever increasing amounts of money, time and energy to extract the remaining oil and bring it to market. It is an accepted fact that the oil we have extracted to date has been the easy stuff to get out of the ground. Although there is a lot more to exploit, it will become increasingly more costly to do so. If we want the oil, we will find ourselves paying a lot more for it over time.

Of course, as the price does inevitably rise, there will be those who will start to change behaviour and demand less. As the cost of commuting inexorably rises, people will attempt to find ways to reduce their costs through a variety of means. Some people will switch to transit or look at carpooling or other alternatives. Others will move closer to work. Such changes take time, but they will happen.

This reduction in demand will have a negative impact on the price of oil. If it has a big enough effect, some people will continue to maintain their energy consumption at previous levels. That is why I expect we will continue to have a roller coaster ride of undulating pricing in oil. When the price drops, there will be many proclaiming yet again that the "peakists" are simply doomsayers who are wrong yet again. When it starts swinging back up, while the "peakists" will be saying "I told you so", their opponents will simply blame the oil companies for profiteering. Over the long term though, year after year, decade after decade, the price will be going up and up and up. The only thing that will keep prices down is if the entire world collectively consumes less.

As Jeff Rubin points out, we are currently mired in one of the deepest world wide recessions in more than sixty years, yet oil prices are more than $60/bbl. If the economy ever does start to rev up, he predicts it will be beaten down again by rapidly increasing oil prices as supply constraints kick in. It is not a matter of if, but when.

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.

A Troubling Aspect of the "Green" Revolution in Agriculture

A clear explanation of the science of the most radical transformation of agriculture in 10,000 years. The "green" revolution in agriculture that began to unfold fifty years ago, has simply postponed the inevitable. A century ago it was estimated that a typical farmer expended 1 calorie of energy to produce one calorie of food. With the advent of the oil age, and the introduction of mechanized farming, pesticides and herbicides, the average 1 calorie of food production now requires 10 calories of energy input. Is agriculture, and humanity, prepared for the withdrawal of oil from the food cycle?

I'm looking for a Petition that says "I Demand Less!"

I must be obsessed with the notion of "peak oil". Recently I woke up in the middle of the night trying to calculate the worldwide average daily per capita consumption of this incredibly concentrated energy resource. I was thinking about what Thomas Homer Dixon had pointed out to us in his book The Upside of Down:

Three large spoonfuls of crude oil contain about the same amount of energy as eight hours of human manual labor. When we fill our car with gas, we're pouring into the tank the energy equivalent of about two years of human manual labor.

I wanted to know, if we divided this precious stuff out in an equitable manner, how much I would get. Upon rubbing the sleep out of my eyes in the morning I unearthed these numbers from Wikipedia:

(A) Total World Oil Production as of March 2008 = 87.5 mb/d
(B) Total World Population as of January, 2009 est. 6.756 billion
(C) One barrel of petroleum = 158.99 litres

A divided by B multiplied by C = my equitable share, or about 2.06 litres per day (.54 U.S. gallons/day).

I then compared this to recent U.S. consumption figures:

(A) Total U.S. Consumption as of 2005 = 20.7 mb/d
(B) Total U.S. Population as of Oct. 17, 2006 = 300,000,000
(C) One barrel of petroleum = 158.99 litres

A divided by B multiplied by C = what America takes, per person, about 10.97 litres per day (2.9 U.S. gallons/day)

I sat stunned looking at those numbers for some time. I re-calculated them. I crunched them some more. I knew this was a gross over-simplification. Yet, it was quite obvious that Americans (and I expect Canadian numbers to be similar, although I haven't searched out our numbers yet) consume far in excess of their equitable share of world oil resources daily. And why do we consume so much? Because we can. And, of course, just last week, we all heard Barrack Obama say:

"We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense."

How can he say with a straight face to these people living in this neighbourhood in Indonesia:



That Americans have nothing to apologize for when they use fuel for the likes of this:


I like Barrack Obama. I like him a lot. However, ultimately, someone needs to start saying it the way it is. Americans, and the rest of us in the gluttonous western world, have a lot to apologize for. It's time someone started speaking the truth to the masses. As pop psychologist "Dr. Phil" likes to tell us:

"You can't change what you don't acknowledge."

After looking at these very sad and disturbing numbers and photos, it helped me understand why I cringe every time I hear another populist demand for "more of this" or "more of that". A union wants higher wages, or this sector of the economy must be bailed out, or we must protect our pensions, so that we can be secure, retire, and play golf during our "golden" years. Actually, no. It is the constant demand for more that is killing us. We not only appropriate through our profligate spending far in excess of what is our fair share, we also, in essence, are stealing from our own grandchildren. Bring me a petition that will demand less. Where do I sign!?!?

Dan Gardner on Why He Writes

Dan Gardner-Provocateur

Dan Gardner opens his article by provocatively telling us that he doesn't care what his readers think. Now firmly gripping our attention, he moves on to a discussion of Sir Francis Bacon's observation that

"human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it".

Fast forward 300 years and Bertrand Russell tells us:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

Modern psychologists have dubbed it "confirmation bias." As Dan points out, once we have an opinion of any sort, we seek to confirm it. He equates surrounding oneself with opinions that confirm our beliefs (imagine George Bush, in bath robe and slippers, watching Fox News), with slipping into a warm bath.

As an opinion writer, he sees his role as akin to turning on the cold tap while we relax in comfort. He encourages us to:

look for information that contradicts your views and give it real consideration -- while remaining aware that the brain that is doing the considering is biased against it.

Yes, he makes me think. A cold shower is good for the soul and wakens the brain. Of course, that being said, I notice that I continue to hold tightly on to many opinions, such as:

• A world that continues to increase consumption of material goods is on a collision course with physical reality
  
• George W. Bush has been the worst President of the United States in my living memory
  
• The term "Fox News" is an oxymoron, and
  
• Stephen Harper and his brand of Conservatism will never get my vote

Of course, truth, as is often said, is stranger than fiction. What is most important is that I own my biases, and keep an open mind. However, in the same breath, I am deeply concerned that the planet may not afford us the time for such petulant navel gazing. It has been suggested by many that ultimately, the planet doesn't care one way or the other if the human species continues to exist. It will continue to exist with, or without us. If it had the opportunity to voice an opinion on such a matter, it probably would prefer that we not be here, given the mess we are creating.

Workers of the World Relax

Here is an interesting video that explains how the traditional view that we can have economic growth forever is bumping into the harsh physical reality of biology and physics. It also points out that increasing energy efficiency often results in more, not less energy consumption. Confused? Watch the video.

Herman Daly's Views on The Current Economic Situation

Herman Daly: The Disconnection Between Financial Assets and Real Asssets

According to Wikipedia,

Herman Daly (born 1938) is an American ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park in the United States.

He was Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, where he helped to develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development. While there, he was engaged in environmental operations work in Latin America.

Before joining the World Bank, Daly was Alumni Professor of Economics at Louisiana State University. He is a co-founder and associate editor of the journal, Ecological Economics.

He is also a recipient of an Honorary Right Livelihood Award (the alternative Nobel Prize), the Heineken Prize for Environmental Science from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Sophie Prize (Norway) and the Leontief Prize from the Global Development and Environment Institute, Man of the Year 2008 Adbusters.

In his view,

The current financial debacle is really not a “liquidity” crisis as it is often euphemistically called. It is a crisis of overgrowth of financial assets relative to growth of real wealth—pretty much the opposite of too little liquidity.

Essentially, we have come to believe that our dreamlike ability to increase how much "stuff" we produce through increased borrowing actually equates to real wealth, that is, what we have actually paid for. Follow the link for more.

Economic Armageddon - Or Re-Birth?

Many people must view my stated aim to "promote a Post-Carbon World, where we are learning to consume less, while enjoying life more" as akin to promoting economic Armageddon. For those who believe that humanity should forever expect to produce and consume more it must seem heretical to propose that we need to consider ways to enjoy life by consuming less. It can seem particularly galling to people who are becoming unemployed during this economic slowdown.

The history of my anti-consumerist slant goes back decades. I first started to shy away from the "buy-buy-buy" mentality of Christmas during the early seventies as I finished university. A self-described "hippie" at the time, I turned to making gifts rather than buying them. At the same time I started my still held practice of shopping at thrift stores such as the Salvation Army for clothes and other items whenever possible. I took on the "Reduce, Re-Use, Recycle" mantra long before it was embraced by the corporate world.

I expect I was viewed as eccentric by many of my friends and family, but, the concept worked for me. It wasn't until much later, just over the past few years, that I began to fully grasp the extent to which humanity's promotion of a collectively wasteful lifestyle of over consumption was destroying our planet. I realized that we were, quite literally, consuming ourselves. Much more than fouling our nest, we were eating it whole, and burning the refuse without a thought to cleaning up after ourselves. Ever increasing growth in world wide consumption levels of goods and energy was not a sustainable option. In the words of Kenneth Boulding: Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

I saw the world as being on a drunken binge of over consumption fueled by the promotion of greed. Fueled by the greed of those who already owned and consumed far in excess of their fair share and told us that we too could dream of unending riches. The ultimate Ponzi scheme. As the American economy lurched toward recession a couple of years ago, George W. Bush urged Americans to go shopping.




Like sheep being herded to slaughter, Americans took the advice of their President, borrowed against their homes, and went ever deeper into debt.

This never was a situation that we could simply shop our way out of. It was the encouragement of irresponsible spending and taking of debt that exacerbated an already shaky world economy. As Dan Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen recently pointed out, "this is going to hurt and hurt some more." We aren't in Kansas anymore, and closing our eyes, clicking our heels together and wishing we were elsewhere will not get us out of this mess.

For my part, for several years now, I have endeavoured to rein in my over consumptive ways and expectations, in preparation for what I saw as the ultimate crash. I felt that it would be a necessary life lesson to be "learning to consume less, while enjoying life more. " (I guess I wanted to be ahead of the curve on at least one thing.) Seriously, though, believing in ever increasing material riches and consumption simply seemed such an empty pursuit. I have sought to replace it with an appreciation of the more intangible yet just as real riches that I am surrounded by. These include family, friends, and, fortunately, good health. I live in a part of the planet that is peaceful, where citizens enjoy freedom of conscience. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but, when I look around the world, I am very grateful for where I happen to live.

Unfortunately, it appears that restructuring is being forced upon us. It is very painful for so many people to have their dreams of undulating wealth into retirement smashed on the rocks of this current economic shipwreck. People have seen retirement investments vanish, and those dreams of unending travel and leisure vanish with them. What to do?

It may seem ephemeral, and of little solace during these very difficult times, but, I urge everyone to consider the possibility that forever pursuing material consumption really is a trap. It traps us not only financially, but spiritually. Humans, apparently, are the only creatures on the planet to excessively consume beyond their need. We readily allow ourselves to be manipulated into having our whimsical desires transformed into wants and then into needs. We need to step back, and take a breath, and appreciate.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, to all. In the words of my good friend Paul, received in email earlier today,

Hug everyone who will let you!

Enough is Enough!

2009 Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Vehicle Review – Full Review of the 2009 Honda FCX Clarity - Honda FCX Road Test

I received this link from an acquaintance recently. "I'm sold," he enthused! "Have already started saving my nickels and dimes!"

It is easy, I suppose, to get quite excited about the wondrous possibilities that technology can bring. An apparently endless supply of fuel whose only waste is water. Who could ask for anything more!

Unfortunately, such proposals don't deal with what is the root of the problem. There are simply too many of us trying to do too many things on the limited confines of our planet. There is nothing sustainable about a world population of 7 billion people that doubles its population within its own lifetime that also collectively thinks that it is reasonable for all of us to aspire to have and consume more. If only we all had a hydrogen fueled vehicle we could all travel around whenever we wanted is what the hydrogen car implies. Instead, we should take the massive investment required to build a hydrogen fuel infrastructure for individual transport and put it into redesigning our urban infrastructure such that it truly is sustainable over the long term.

We need, as a civilization, to find a way to rein in our expanding desires, not feed them. We need to start saying "Enough is enough!"

Why did the boomers cross the road?

Randall Denley asks a very good question in his Sunday morning article, Why did the boomers cross the road?

Why indeed.

He opens by imploring us to take a long look in the mirror:

One of the curses of being a member of the boomer generation is that everywhere you go, you find that a crowd of similar-aged people just got there ahead of you. We used to flock to inexpensive, unspoiled countries, driving up the cost and spoiling whatever was there. Then we all decided to move to certain popular urban neighbourhoods, driving up the cost and changing the neighbourhoods for the worse with our demand for condo buildings and upscale coffee shops. Now we're flooding to the countryside, buying up waterfront, lakeview properties and even properties with views of lakeview properties. Costs are heading in the usual direction. As a generation, we're like a plague of locusts, destroying everything we touch.

I often note the cynical touch to his articles. He doesn't disappoint with his conclusion:

By my observation, my generation is well on the way to ruining the attraction of rural living. But hey, we're boomers. Ruining things is what we do.

I don't always agree with him, but this article prompted the following emailed words of encouragement:

Good Morning Randall,

Spot on with your Sunday morning article!

We have met the enemy, and, so often, it is us. If we could only understand that for every action, there is a consequence. Over the long term, nothing is free. There is always a price. What you speak of is one more consequence of our consumer driven, must always have more society. For this to be turned around, everyone of us must start taking the concept of stewardship to heart. I am deeply concerned that this will not happen within my life time as too many of us continue to believe that we can build/buy/consume our way out of the mess we have created.

Over dinner with friends just last evening we discussed how essential it is that we begin moving far beyond simply changing personal habits. We need policy change at at all levels of government that start to shift the focus of our society to long term sustainability. If the activity is not sustainable over the long term, why do we as a society allow it to happen? Because we continue to believe that the promotion of ever expanding unrestrained personal wealth (what else can you call it but greed), is a good thing. I enjoy experiencing the comforts of what our society has to offer as much as the next person, but, when is enough, enough? The Europeans, particularly Scandinavian countries, are more than a generation ahead of us in this regard. We are so caught up in chasing our own tail in the blind pursuit of excessive material and experiential consumption. So sad. If only we could learn to Consume Less, While Enjoying Life More!

Thanks for writing this, and keep it up.

Leonard Poole

Building the Consumer Fixated Society

The Gospel of Consumption | Orion magazine

In this Orion Magazine article, Jeffrey Kaplan details the evolution of what one industrial consultant of the late 1920's called "the gospel of consumption" - otherwise known as the notion that people could be convinced that however much they have, it isn't enough. As President Herbert Hoover's 1929 Committee on Recent Economic Changes observed: “By advertising and other promotional devices . . . a measurable pull on production has been created which releases capital otherwise tied up.” They were flush with excitement about this conceptual breakthrough: “Economically we have a boundless field before us; that there are new wants which will make way endlessly for newer wants, as fast as they are satisfied.”

Kaplan points out what this has led to in the U.S.:

...by 2000 the average married couple with children was working almost five hundred hours a year more than in 1979. And according to reports by the Federal Reserve Bank in 2004 and 2005, over 40 percent of American families spend more than they earn. The average household carries $18,654 in debt, not including home-mortgage debt, and the ratio of household debt to income is at record levels, having roughly doubled over the last two decades. We are quite literally working ourselves into a frenzy just so we can consume all that our machines can produce.

Spinning our wheels ever faster. And then we wonder why the environmental systems are collapsing around us.

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.

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?

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.

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.