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.