GroovyGreen.com – Start Today :: Save Tomorrow

The Post Carbon Institute has published a Real New Deal for President-Elect Obama to use as he guides his administration into the future.

It’s an interesting read about what thoughts they have to adapt our society to a post-fossil fuel future, and how important it is to get started today.

Below is a video from Richard Heinberg that I found on the site.

The title of this book is Reinventing Collapse, and I have to say that’s exactly what this book manages to do. It’s a short book, so you could read it in just a few hours, but it is packed with information and “make you think” moments. Orlov’s unique perspective on American life engages the reader and opens your eyes to what life in America is like to an outsider. It also questions ideas and notions from the perspective of an outsider; things that a native American wouldn’t even think to question.

Without a doubt the most useful aspect of this book are the details of what the situation was like in Russia after their political collapse. This book is a tutorial on how the reader might modify their life in the future if (or when) America collapses.

If you get a chance check it out today. I don’t think you’ll regret it.

You can read more of Dmitry Orlov’s writings at Club Orlov, his blogspace. If you do a little searching you can also find his writings at Life After the Oil Crash and the website Surviving Peak Oil.

What will the next 10-20 years be like? With global climate change and peak oil what can we expect? David Holmgren co-originator of the permaculture concept has developed a new website investigating some possible outcomes.

Future Scenarios: Mapping the cultural implications and climate change.

The simultaneous onset of climate change and the peaking of global oil supply represent unprecedented challenges for human civilisation.

Global oil peak has the potential to shake if not destroy the foundations of global industrial economy and culture. Climate change has the potential to rearrange the biosphere more radically than the last ice age. Each limits the effective options for responses to the other.

The strategies for mitigating the adverse effects and/or adapting to the consequences of Climate Change have mostly been considered and discussed in isolation from those relevant to Peak Oil. While awareness of Peak Oil, or at least energy crisis, is increasing, understanding of how these two problems might interact to generate quite different futures, is still at an early state.

FutureScenarios.org presents an integrated approach to understanding the potential interaction between Climate Change and Peak Oil using a scenario planning model. In the process I introduce permaculture as a design system specifically evolved over the last 30 years to creatively respond to futures that involve progressively less and less available energy.

The site is arranged as a long essay. Holmgren has recently been contracted by Chelsea Green to write a book based on this website that will be published in the US, early 2009.

ASPO Day 2:  “Demand Meet Supply”

The second day of the conference started with the official welcome from Steve Andrews and others, followed by a panel entitled “Oil” Once Cheap, Never Easy” moderated by ASPO Board Member, Sally Odland.  The first presentation that I attended had Sally filling in for Gil Mull, from the Alaska Geological Survey (ret.)  Sally noted the increased impact of the rising factor costs in ocean research.  In the past 3 years, with rising fuel costs, cost overruns have been 40% above budget.  Interestingly she noted that the cost of a gallon of oil delivered to the Antarctic was $100.  Her presentation described the history of Prudhoe Bay, its discovery and initial drilling, and where it was located geographically in relation to ANWR and another restricted area called NPRA.  Expected recoverable oil in currently undeveloped areas of Alaska include 10 Billion barrels from ANWR, 15.4 Billion from off-shore areas, and 10.6 Billion from NPRA.  Most importantly she noted that production from these sources combined will not stop depletion from Prudhoe Bay, but will at best cause a temporarily plateau.

Jeremy Gilbert, the former BP Chief Petroleum Engineer gave the next presentation entitled “Time For America to Wake Up”.  It’s always nice to infuse a little levity into heavy discussions, and Mr. Gilbert tried to do just that (although the end result was a bit dire).  He noted little had changed since the first ASPO meeting that had 55 attendees.  He noted no improvement in resource discovery, some more accurate calculations (but still a lack of industry data), and the political will to increase supply in oil producing nations was clearly absent.  Despite rising costs to others, Saudi Arabia has reduced the cost of gasoline by 25% over last year.  More optimistically, the IEA has had a recent change of opinion, no longer believes that demand = supply.  More soberingly, Mr. Gilbert noted that Russian oil production had increased from 9.2 to 9.9 Mb/d in 2007, but that 2008 projected production was expected to fall to 9.7 Mb/d in 2008.  He voiced his concerns about a Russian peak.  Some improvements in the OECD situation were the decreased amount of energy needed per unit of GDP growth, and decreased energy use due to higher prices – however he felt these trends were insufficient in solving the looming energy crisis.

I’ll briefly touch on the Q&A session, which included some interesting discussions.  When asked about suggestions for the next presidential administration, Jeremy Gilbert suggested a “10% in income tax for attending a 10 hour session on energy supply.”  Ken Verosub suggested that the enormous changes coming demanded drastic action, pulling resources from NASA’s Mars manned space program, earmarks, and stripping the budget to dedicate resources towards this problem at a national and global level.  He thought that we needed a interdisciplinary approach to finding solutions with natural, physical and social scientists all working together. Read more »

It’s difficult to imagine a person not having heard the old axiom “Buy low, sell high”, and it is prudent advice when you are making financial decisions. It’s the second part of that adage that might warrant a look at our strategy for infrastructure improvement in this country. If you are looking to make the maximum amount of money by selling something you want to sell that something when it’s at its highest value. I wonder then, is it time for our government to sell its infrastructure? You know, since the effects of Peak Oil are beginning to make themselves felt, the value of the infrastructure developed to serve cars running on cheap oil will decline each year into the future; starting soon. Selling high might mean selling soon.

Now, I don’t think we should sell all of it, by any means. We should keep the ports and the train lines, but is now a good time to start selling our roads, highways and airports? There has been news recently of other governments selling their infrastructure (check here for one opinion or here for a story about Pennsylvania, and this guy has the same idea I do, although he doesn’t tie it to Peak Oil), and considering the value of these items in an energy scarce future I would contend that their value will never be higher. In fact, there is already plenty of news about airlines facing massive losses. (And starting to charge for baggage, pillows and normal drinks) How valuable will an airport be if we don’t have airlines? Or what if the ones we do have are marginally profitable? I say it’s better to sell now while the full force of Peak Oil hasn’t quite made itself felt.

I would say the same about roads and bridges. Now, you can’t sell every bridge because you wouldn’t want it to be impossible to cross a river in the future, but the states could certainly lease some of them to companies looking for stable investments. They could at least see some return on all the money we’ve sunk into them. You could say that this is not “fair” or it might smack of fraud, but I would say that it isn’t. If these companies and profiteers can create our current credit crisis, and then look for a bailout from Uncle Sam, they should be smart enough to see through this and see the future for what it will be, but most likely they won’t.

Read more »

Both presidential candidates have stumped for a new “green” economy.  To me this smells of the supposed transformation to the “information economy” touted only a decade ago.  Fortune had this to say on June 30th:

What senators McCain and Obama believe about U.S. energy policy matters – hugely. To fight global warming, the next President will oversee the transition to a new, green economy , which will result in one of the biggest business transformations of the 21st century and potentially one of the largest transfers of wealth since the creation of the income tax.

(emphasis mine)

Leaders, lauded by environmentalists for jumping on the green bandwagon, have promoted alternative energy technologies, alternative transportation, green homes, etc.  It is my belief that these politicians care less about the state of the environment, and more about maintaining the status quo growth of the economy.  The manufacturing economy in the 1970’s and 1980’s faced the insurmountable obstacles of higher energy prices, inflation, and globalization of trade, and rapidly declined.  While many continue to pin their hopes on the “information age” to continue to propel the US economy – technology stocks remain at less than half their value achieved in the initial boom, US economic growth has been anemic, and job creation minimal.  Decoupling of the information economy from the real economy did not take place, and the promises of six figure IT jobs for workers laid off from manufacturing jobs did not pan out.  Likewise, I fear the “green economy”, for all of the good that it may do for the environment, will be unable to be the next engine of economic growth.

Why not?  The reasons are three-fold.  First, the credit crunch.  Business start-ups require infusions of capital in the form of business loans and venture capital.  If the current trend in business lending continues to worsen, funds will become less available for new businesses, and the higher interest rates may make borrowing unaffordable.  The highly technical nature of many “green” jobs and businesses require high start-up costs and a long term commitment.  Consumers, too, will find it difficult to finance large investments in personal alternative technologies, home upgrades, or retrofitting without access to cheap home equity loans.

The second factor that will limit the growth of green industries and infrastructure is the consumer’s shrinking pocket book.  Electric-hybrid cars like the Chevy Volt promise to dramatically improve fuel mileage and transportation.  But at a cost of over $40,000, how many struggling American families will be able to afford these vehicles?  Promising alternative energy technologies, like solar electric and geothermal heating/cooling, also require massive up front costs.  While never having to pay a utility bill again sounds wonderful, the nearly $100,000 cost to do so (Solar PV + Geothermal) is cost prohibitive.  “But surely costs will come down as the technologies are adopted,” you say.  Maybe, maybe not.  If the cost of energy continues to rise, manufacturing processes and installation costs for solar and geothermal will also continue to rise.  Barring a massive government subsidy, these technologies may stay out the reach of many Americans for decades.

These subsidies if enacted would require increased taxation at the federal, state and local level.  With the economy on life support, tax revenues declining, and health care costs for aging baby boomers rising rapidly, how else will we pay for such a plan?  While I support carbon taxes as a means to reduce greenhouse gases, surely the increased tax burden on consumers will reduce out of pocket spending.

The third factor is our crumbling infrastructure.  Today, many cities rely upon water and sewer systems that are over a century old.  The electric grid is aging and is incapable of supporting the proposed transition to 25% renewable energy production.  Bridges, roadways, and rail system maintenance has been delayed over the years, and will require massive spending to maintain systems.  Projects like these require tremendous amounts of energy, and the expense grows each year that they are delayed.  The required spending on infrastructure projects will further strain state and local budgets with a resulting decline in available funds for “green” projects. Our national debt is already approaching $10 trillion, a number that is quite unfathomable.

FACING UP TO THE    Nation’s Finances

National Debt Clock

I don’t want to give the wrong impression, I do favor programs to encourage home retrofitting, public transportation investment, and alternative energy projects.  I just worry about the ability of “green” technology to power the entire U.S. economy, given the dire straits we are in.  The reduced availability of cheap energy is reverberating through our economy.  Any actual shortages of gasoline, heating oil, and diesel would sound the death knell for our consumer driven economy.

Trying to fuel the US economy with “green” initiatives can be likened to trying to run all of our 250 million vehicles on ethanol.  Just because the technology exists, doesn’t mean that it is feasible to do so.  My advice?  When politicians start campaigning on “green economies”, make sure you listen to what they are saying out of the other side of their mouths.

[green jobs pic from here]

From CNN:

For months, the 23-year-old singer-guitarist had been budgeting money and booking show dates for Something Fierce’s third tour, but skyrocketing gas prices have put the brakes on those plans.

“Once I ran the numbers, it was a ‘there’s no (expletive) way’ kind of moment,” Garcia said. After much hand-wringing and grumbling from bookers who’d scheduled the band to play, Garcia canceled the tour.

Cramming into a rusty, creaky van and playing dive bars and house parties is a summer ritual for many young musicians and ambitious independent bands trying to get exposure, make a living and maybe build a solid future in music.

But like everything else that requires lengthy time on the road, filling up at $4 a gallon or more is taking a toll.

On the grass-roots level, cost has always been a concern for touring bands. But the nearly $2,500 in gas Garcia and his two bandmates would have had to pay just to make it to Vancouver, Canada, and back was too much to overcome.

Yeah, yeah, I know there’s youtube and myspace and iTunes and all of that good stuff now, but that doesn’t compare to seeing a band live.  How will young upstarts make a name for themselves?

Some of my most fond memories in college were at a dive music bar called Broadway Joe’s in Buffalo, NY.  Bands came in from all over the East Coast, and all over the country for that matter.  The band moe. who has made quite a name for themselves in the jamband scene, used to open up for bands there.  A sample setlist:

10/30/92 Broadway Joe’s – Buffalo, NY

Opening for Sonic Garden

That Country Tune, Spine Of A Dog, Timmy Tucker, Dr. Graffenburg > Havah Negilah, Long Island Girls Rule > Sensory Deprivation Bank > Y.O.Y.

Apparently the band was wearing space helmets throughout this entire gig.

Yes, there are more pressing issues, like continuing to feed the world…  But sometimes you realize something else that your kids are going to miss out on (like touring independent bands) and it makes you real sad.

Falling out of favor after the interstate highway system was built, the Erie Canal is still an appealing option for transporting large loads.  With diesel prices at the $5 per gallon mark in New York, the canal is looking more appealing for smaller loads too.  Of course it has a large competitor to overcome.  It is tough to forsake the convenience and speed of delivery by tractor-trailer.  However, if you can afford to wait, you can afford to ship a higher weight.Syracuse Post-Standard:

According to the federal transportation department, shipping by water is far more energy-efficient.

In a tractor-trailer, one gallon of fuel is needed to transport one ton of freight 59 miles. On a barge, the same load will go 514 miles on a gallon of fuel.

[snip]

Today the canal is used mainly as a recreational waterway.

But the tide may be turning for the canal’s commercial use, said Carmella Mantello, director of the state’s Canal Corp.

“The canal is slower, but it’s fuel-efficient and it’s greener,” Mantello said. “One barge can carry the equivalent of 60 tractor-trailers.”

“Hopefully, we’re beginning to see a trend,” Mantello said.

Last year several large tanks, bound for the Northeast Biofuels plant in Volney, were shipped from Virginia to Fulton along the canal.

“All forms of transportation are essential for the success of the biofuel plant, but the canal is definitely energy-efficient and has a small carbon footprint,” said Stewart Hancock, speaking for the ethanol plant.

(emphasis mine)

Again, time is money and I don’t believe in this “gotta have it now” age, that the Erie Canal will be booming again in the near future.  However, having kept the barge system maintained all these years in the face of declining use, may have been one of the state’s saving graces as we begin to feel the effects of peak oil.

[pic found here]

This was in our local paper – a sign of the times.

Post-Standard:

New York state Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker today announced that gas stations with non-digital fuel dispensers can apply for half gallon pricing, since older equipment cannot compute prices in excess of $3.999.

Signs advertising fuel prices must still advertise the price for a full gallon of fuel, but the price displayed on the pump would be half the per-gallon price.

Amazing to think that the manufacturers of those fuel pumps couldn’t imagine a world where gasoline cost more than $3.999.

Coming soon?:

[Update: This is a badly photoshopped picture of a gas station sign that I took when I thought that gas at $2.25/gal was expensive. Sorry if there was any confusion regarding its validity. And no, it wasn't $2.25 per 1/2 gal of ice cream, heh heh]