The view expressed in recently reviewed books like Holmgren’s Energy Scenarios and Chamberlin’s The Transition Timeline is that peak oil will be followed by a long, slow decline- Energy Descent- rather than an abrupt collapse.
For an alternative view, Dmitri Orlov, author of the acclaimed Reinventing Collapse puts the case for sudden collapse very well in his recent post The Slope of Dysfunction
What, then, of our canonical Peak Oil scenario, which is that global crude oil (and natural gas condensate) production will rise to a lofty peak sometime soon, and then gently waft down, over several decades, until, by the year 2050 or some other distant date, less than half as much oil will be produced globally? Ever eager to present a hopeful vision, I will say here and now that I believe this scenario to be entirely plausible… but it requires alien intervention. As Russian oil production was saved by foreigners, so Earthling oil production must be be saved by aliens from outer space.
Orlov’s basic premise is that sudden collapse can only be mitigated once a country’s indigenous oil has peaked by making up the difference with increased imports, something that will not be possible after global oil peak.
The Soviet Union provides a historical model for this-
“There, production declined 43% between 1987 and 1996. The decline was arrested and reversed by the introduction of foreign investment and technology”.
It could be argued that the Soviet Union is not a good model because of other reasons such as its political system, but in fact, as he shows in his book, parts of the West, especially North America, are much less well placed to withstand abrupt declines in oil supply.
If Orlov is correct, our efforts at creating Energy Descent Plans and Transition Strategies would be better spent flashing SOS signals up into the night sky or hanging around those crop circles in the hope their alien authors will return with a few barrels of crude.
It will be very hard to mitigate any such sudden collapse, but Orlov links oil peak directly with financial collapse, which he predicts will be followed by political collapse, and then social collapse; these scenarios could be just around the corner, judging by the gathering speed of financial and political decline.
All is not lost however, and to read Orlov’s unique and side-ways look at how we might prepare (and how we might not) essential reading is here in his adress to last month’s Feasta Conference in Dublin Definancialisation, Deglobalisation, Relocalisation.
See especially slide no. 19 on this post “Collapse” or “Transition” ? for his sardonic view of the Transition movement.
Slide no. 2 helps explain why I take issue with Chamberlin’s views on population in my review of The Transition Timeline. On paper of course it may be possible to argue as he does that if we all did the right thing and reduced our consumption to, say, half of what it is now- the level of energy consumption of Cuba- reducing population might not be so urgent; in reality, it is incredibly difficult for us to voluntarily reduce our energy consumption. Most people living at the level of Cubans would love to increase their consumption and have an easier life!
I probably have a lower energy cosumption thatn average for ireland (not by much, mind you) and earn my living teaching how to reduce consumption, but the one thing I could do right now that would make a significant difference would be to get rid of the van, something that is not currently an option for financial reasons.
See also the comment from Andy Wilson at the end of the Transition Timeline review -we may be heading for just of 1/10 energy availability by 2040 which would be closer to the per capita consumption of India, not Cuba. Great for a gap year back-packing trip, but not something most of us would choose voluntarily no matter how motivated we are.
12 Comments
“not something most of us would choose voluntarily no matter how motivated we are…”
When people think of India they often visualise street beggars, disease, and totally grinding poverty and hardship. This is one reality of India. But India is also a major technological power with a massive manufacturing capability, and also ‘supports’ an elite of super rich who may individually consume 1000 times as much energy as a shanty town dweller.
The hill farms of the North may represent an in-between position perhaps not so far from the hypothetical average in terms of energy and resource consumption.
For a future inhabitant of Ireland, working close to home and eating food grown mainly in the local area, a 90 percent reduction in energy use does not seem unduly far-fetched providing there is time for society to prepare.
The problem arises, as Orlov alludes to, when the supply chain degrades very quickly, there is no overall strategy and people are forced to make do in potentially very difficult circumstances.
Thanks for the links to Orlov Graham. I particularly agree with his comments under point 18 of his talk. Excellent. Time to get serious!
Meanwhile in an important development an American man has eaten 68 hot dogs in 10 minutes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8134741.stm
Andy “For a future inhabitant of Ireland, working close to home and eating food grown mainly in the local area, a 90 percent reduction in energy use does not seem unduly far-fetched providing there is time for society to prepare.”
Yes I agree, although as you point out it is an issue of time rather than energy availability; but my point is that, at whatever rate of consumption we currently live at, the tendency for humans will always be to take whatever is available- it is a natural inclination to improve our lot. If more energy becomes available, those hill farmers will probably have no difficulty finding ways to use it to make their lives a little easier; they are unlikely to say, “no thanks, we already live at the optimum level of per capita energy consumption and are doing fine thankyou”. Also, while most of the time we might be happy at a certain level, we should not forget the support systems that we in the west have- especially medical and emergency services, machines and power tools when we need them, cheap food available if the crops fail. Together, these systems probably add quite a lot to our average consumption, but how many of us would voluntarily do without them even when they are still easily available?
PS I meant to go onto say, and then what happens to my “voluntary” energy consumption if I have a child or children? Not only will they be an additional consumer, who will contribute to population and thereby have an impact, averaged out over the population, on per capita energy availability, and they will then be faced with the same issues that I am, but I will be under enormous pressure to do better for them, and will likely succumb to some temptation to use more energy to ease their lot no matter how strict and fundamentalist I am about keeping below a certain limit (assuming more energy is available) .
Such is the human dilemma- I’m not saying it isnt possible to live well at a low level of energy consumption, just that most of us wouldnt choose to stay at an equilibrium given the choice.
Just to respond to your thread Graham in more detail: It’s not necessary to copy the exact lifestyle of the Indian hill farmers ( although some of them – albeit a minority, large tea farmers for example – would actually be enjoying lifestyles comparable to many farmers in Ireland) in order to achieve the 90 percent reduction.
The 10 Percent Society needn’t preclude access to health care. The biggest factors for achieving health are good diet, hygiene, clean water, shelter from the elements, avoiding unhealthy or dangerous activities – essentially preventative measures that have little separate energy footprint – combined with good first responder principles and vaccinations where appropriate, not high tech treatments. The high tech treatments are valuable to those who receive them, but not necessarily to society as a whole. I think this is implicitly acknowledged in most societies as only the rich can avail of the most advanced life-extending measures, and many people die, prematurely when compared to the wealthy, whilst on treatment waiting lists. Within modern western societies life expectancy varies by over 30 percent depending on which side of town one is born into (most marginalised social groups compared to wealthiest).
Also to return to the point of the struggling hill farmer wishing to improve their lot, maybe that should be seen in the context of the perception that a better quality of life will naturally follow greater consumption? It raises the question, is the desire to consume more inevitable of humanity, and if so why? For example it may be an instinctive trait inherited from hunter gatherer days, when it made sense to consume as much (food) as one could during times of plenty! It remains a very logical response of people with immediate or recent memories of great hardship.
Armed with the knowledge ( and conviction) of fossil fuel depletion, consuming more doesn’t seem such a great option.
But yes, to follow on from your thread, few people will voluntarily join the 10 Percent Society! However, I would like to add the qualifying words, ‘AT PRESENT’. Because a coherent case for doing so has yet to be presented. Also no-one really knows what it will be like except per capita energy consumption will be on the level of the average person in India, which I agree sounds pretty frightening to the average citizen of the world’s highest consuming nations.
But what would the 10 percent society really look like?
Looking into this in more detail, we find total primary energy consumption in Peak Ireland ( 2006-2007) was 16000 Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent per annum, that’s 3.8 TOE per person. So the personal allocation in the 10 Percent Society is only 0.38 TOE or 4,400 kWh per annum.
It’s not very much! However, it looks a lot healthier when combined into household units of three person, and healthier still in larger households, as many things (energy for domestic heating for example) do not increase proportional to the number of people.
If we continue with this exercise a little further, we might ask what would be the allocations for domestic heating, domestic electricity, personal transport, freight transport, consumer goods, food production, other employment, local and national infrastructures?
Maybe one third of the personal allocation should go on infrastructure. Or should it be more? Or less? How would society decide?
Personal transportation will be very limited.
On the other hand, a certain minimum amount of heat is desirable for comfort, and no amount of juggling of the figures will provide much more than 4000 kWh per annum per household of three. That’s a ton – or slightly over – of well seasoned firewood, or equivalent in another fuel.
I live in a household of three. We currently use much more than 4000 kWh of energy per annum for heating. So what could we do? Well we could add more insulation, but that will only get us so far as the main building (a stone cottage) is already quite well insulated. Still, it would probably be worth doing. We could build a connecting corridor linking two of our buildings, thus reducing draughts and air leakage. This would also be worth doing. We could also settle for a colder house SOME OF THE TIME. In the 10 Percent Society, we might have to! As we currently have a very warm house all year round, a 3-4 degree drop in temperature seems quite manageable.
But also we could increase the size of our household from 3 to 5, by adding two small sleeping spaces (adding little to the overall heat-energy footprint) and bringing in extra people to live here. In our own case this would be a very logical step and would suit younger people wishing to live in for a few years and learn some basic post-oil survival skills (!) whilst provide muscle power.
I’m just offering these as possible options to explore further. Similar processes can be followed for all the different sectors. For example, suppose a typical household buys in 0.5 tonnes of consumer goods per annum? That would cover your power tools Graham, or maybe new aluminium frames for the solar panels or maybe other goodies. The embodied energy in that might be 280 kWh ( 0.5 tonnes aluminium cast from recycled sources) or much more depending on the goods. Hopefully power tools can be made to last for a decade or more, with exchangeable parts and easy repair-ability, so it won’t be necessary to keep buying new drills every year.
I’d like to keep exploring the realms of the 10 Percent Society, and invite further contributions.
Thanks Andy, very good.
2It raises the question, is the desire to consume more inevitable of humanity, and if so why? For example it may be an instinctive trait inherited from hunter gatherer days, when it made sense to consume as much (food) as one could during times of plenty!”
Yes, absolutely, I think this is the most promising line for exploring why we consume; but im not just talking about consumer goods for the sake of them, but the solar panels and power tools you are talking about; it’s hard to stop consuming all this stuff- not to mention building more sheds, looking at chicken fencing, developing more food processing and storage, the list goes on! I take your point about health care- the issue is still what we would do given the choice (the rich will ten to buy what they can in this field); the other issue is, if we can reach a hypothetical “homeostasis” can we really keep at that?
Yes I agree we’re really caught up in it! I think energy being so cheap, it’s just incredibly easy to go out and buy STUFF! Truckloads of it over a lifetime!
I wonder how much we have unconsciously bought into instant gratification consumerism , even if ours includes solar panels and sheds instead of private jets and Armani suits!
Some of the images that captured best a future I liked the look of, low on consumerism but high on improvisation and repair, are those by Peter Harper in Radical Technology, now long out of print but just as valid now as it was back in 1976!
But back to health care, as this is a particular thing of mine having mistakenly bought into the idea I could be ‘fixed’ by high tech treatment – on a health care waiting list – only to realise afterwards it was a lot to do with my own fear of illness and dying that propelled me thus. Now, at 49, wiser and older, I’m a long way short of three score years and ten – not ‘fixed’ by technology or its medications either as it turns out – but much more comfortable about death. Quality of life and dignity in dying has become more important than a mere tally of years.
Modern’ health care’ is a highly lucrative consumer product, very successfully sold by invoking the spectre of death – and cleverly peddling the illusion that we can achieve immortality provided we pay enough in private health insurance and/or specialist treatments, spare body parts, blood transfusions or plastic surgery!
I wonder, however, if a fraction of the those resources were devoted to illness prevention, would there be a far better outcome, not necessary (though possibly) in life expectancy figures but in quality of life for most concerned?
Sorry I know that’s a bit of a digression.
In response to the question, if we reach a hypothetical “homeostasis”, can we keep it at that, I guess there will always be snake oil sellers who will try to peddle a ‘better’ world, ‘better’ in this instance meaning a world of greater levels of material consumption! Perhaps that will be the challenge for humanity, to mostly resist such impulses, whilst remaining creative, inventive, imaginative, open to new possibilities, yet also content with the world we have!
The 10 Percent Society will still need a manufacturing capability, a transport infrastructure, places of employment and education, and a culture to celebrate. Invoking the concept of triage ( borrowed from emergency health care – save those you can save) might simplify the process of separating the essential items – vital to societal well being – from sheer consumer clutter.
Doom and gloom again?
Why can’t legislation be passed that rations our oil use, massively increases our trolley bus systems (5 times cheaper than trams) and moves us into a clean, green electron economy WHILE also adopting Velib bike sharing programs and developing New Urbanism etc?
10 year plan to get Australia off fossil fuels (including massive roll out of rail, etc.) http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zerocarbonplan
Cities can be 50% rebuilt around density and diversity (or ecocity developments or New Urbanism, whatever model you prefer) by 2030. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html
Even if we don’t achieve the 10 year plan above, aiming at that goal will “peak oil proof” us somewhat so that we at least keep the good stuff (like the lights and internet going) while the “bad stuff” (choked highways) might fall into disrepair.
As a follower of peak oil for about 5 years now, I’m convinced that half the movement is belief and meme sharing, not actually valid engineering and science.
YES there are limits to growth, YES peak oil is a real and present danger, but acting like the conversation stops there seems a bit dishonest to me. There’s so much we can do!
Who is Dmitri REALLY anyway? “He is an engineer with a BS in Computer Engineering and an MA in Applied Linguistics. ” What does that mean? He’s a computer engineer that saw something horrible happen in his homeland, picked up the peak oil meme and decided to sell some books on it? Beware the meme sharers! There is so much more that we can do than just harp on about “Collapse”! In fact, I see some of this stuff already starting to happen just at a market level, let alone when our governments FINALLY wake up and have the public debate.
Regards, and love your house! Did you see “Grand Designs” on the Brittany Earthship?
Cheers.
PS: Dimitri is probably doing what he sees as right, but I just want to find out if he’s a real engineer or another I.T. engineer. I don’t know HOW many I.T. guys are into peak oil!
Must be a geek thing.
PPS: I forgot to mention something.
“Cities can be 50% rebuilt around density and diversity (or ecocity developments or New Urbanism, whatever model you prefer) by 2030. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html“
That is, the REZONING job can be finished in the next 20 years!
Once about half the region is rezoned into New Urbanism (in scattered vital corridors of TOD’s) the lower density accommodation surrounding the TOD’s has something to plug into for essential goods and services. Not saying I love sprawl, but am just trying to avoid societal collapse and those nasty Mad Max scenarios that used to keep me awake at night.
Read it: Point 7 at the link above, “My other car is a Bright Green City”.
Thanks Eclipse, fair points well made. But isnt the real issue a time scale thing? Remember the Hirsch Report- there are many mitigation options but they have to be effected at least 10 years before peak- and peak was July11th last year (according to Heinberg). I think Orlov is a real engineer by the way and he has written a lot about how long it takes to get new designs into the market place- and i dont think you can talk about the Soviet collapse just in terms of “something nasty” happening. Anyway, the gloomer vs transitioner, or “hard-landing/soft-landing” debate can happily role on- until we personally experience collapse; after that, we may be only interested in filling our bellies. And lots of places have collapsed already.
The Hirsch Report just assumes that we are going to continue car and truck driving BAU! Matt Mushalik, town planning engineer with experience designing all over the globe, has contacted Robert. Matt expressed his frustration with Robert narrowly thinking of this as a liquid fuels problem. There is no “trucks to trains” section of his report (is there? I’m going from memory of a quick perusal?) Anyway, I’m assuming so because Robert apparently told Matt that a massive roll-out of rail is “socialism”.
In other words, we can’t just take the bottom line of the Hirsch report (which I refer to all the time when discussing liquid fuel limitations and the limits of tar-sands, CTL, etc).
“Anyway, the gloomer vs transitioner, or “hard-landing/soft-landing” debate can happily role on- until we personally experience collapse; after that, we may be only interested in filling our bellies. And lots of places have collapsed already.”
That’s the kind of meme-pushing I’m worried about. You do not KNOW the future, and seem to be just assuming that you are right and there is no hope and we’ll all have empty supermarket shelves in the future. I was in a bad place 5 years ago with a kid with cancer, right when I discovered peak oil. It was like “Great, not only do I have to save Harry from cancer, then I have to save my kids from Mad Max!”
I spent an afternoon with Geoff McKee, whose 19 year old boy Tas McKee carefully rode his push bike up to the Blue Mountains, found a nice tree deep in the bush somewhere, took a bit of rope and HUNG HIMSELF because he did not want to witness everyone he knew and loved starving to death. They did not find his body for 69 days. The email he sent to his parents to say goodbye broke my heart.
Ask yourself this. Is there a Russian government today? Did South Africa survive oil trading sanctions? Are there towns powered 100% by renewable energy in the world? Can societies adapt in a crisis? Does the average European survive on about HALF the oil of the average American? (How DO they do it! How can Europe possibly be civilised!?) Do leaders have emergency executive powers when peak oil becomes obvious? Are there 1000 ways society can decide to use less oil and ration it for the more important tasks, like constructing the new electric transport systems? Is the domestic user able to be freed up by both fast tracking REZONING (my preference) and a LITTLE bit of “Better Place” electric cars (where absolutely necessary, like doctors on call, delivery vehicles, etc). See this 20 minute talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html
As long as the ERoEI from renewables like wind and solar thermal is high enough, we’ll have the potential to adapt to something, and the future could be “Bright Green” after all.
Also, on some peak oil graphs I see there’s still more oil per day by 2030 than we used to run WW2 AND build the American interstate highway system!
I’m not saying it will be “Bright Green”, we could nuke each other back to the Stone Age in an all out fight over the remaining oil. But I’m saying we don’t know the future. Peak oil might provide the incentive for international co-operation on a scale we’ve never dreamed imaginable.
Mind you, what would I know? I’m not an engineer or scientist, and freak out when I see chemical or physics equations. But I AM able to read and comprehend “missing points” in an argument. If I read the “executive summary” of all these reports, and if I see something as bleeding obvious as RAIL missing from a prestigious report like the Hirsch report, I start asking questions.
Your peak oil questions are right and good to ask, and the risks of collapse are real. But when we act as though there is no hope of a Bright Green future then I think we are both being a bit dishonest, and are maybe even trying to enact a self-fulfilling prophecy? (Spreading the meme that there’s no hope might prevent some from taking action, meaning that essential activism and information is not spread as rapidly as possible).
What do you think IF my memory is correct and the Hirsch report doesn’t explore rail and rezoning?
Well that is a very tragic story. I certainly don’t mean to belittle it but I have never experienced anything similar, nor heard of such. However, even if Hirsch was a raving neoliberal lunatic, the point still stands: we need to prepare well ahead of time and we are past that time as far as I can see. I dont claim to know the future accurately but already many people have fallen on very hard times on account of the recession which seems to be peak oil related. I think it is necessary to prepare psychologically for hard times- there is no inevitability that things will be rosy. However, this is all a question of perspective- I personally feel very optimistic and am looking forward to a bright and cheerful future. I am saddened that for many in the world this will not be a possibility. It is not a question of there being no hope- but a different perspective between what is realistic or likely. And then it is a question of what are we hoping for? Yes we will have as much oil as in the 1930s- but with a much bigger population. These are very old peak oil debates, there is not much mileage in them really. Speaking of which, trains dont actually score much higher than cars amazingly- see Pat Murphy “Plan C” he advocates the smart jitney, we dont have time or resources to construct a whole new rail infrastructure. I like rail, and Im surprised if it is missing from Hirsch, but it may not be a pancea. Russia only has a functioning gvt because of foreign investment and the possibility pre-peak of increasing oil availability once again. As Orlov explains, those options will not be open to us. Plus see his analyses that the US is far more vulnerable to collapse in areas of housing, food and energy than was the USSR; Europe may fair better, but many will drop out of the game as soon as there is less oil- that is happening already. Dont give up and do whatever you can, good luck!
Post a Comment