Great site! I started out researching climate change and discovering that we face a huge challenge with no guarantee of success. As I continued to delve into matters, I came across peak oil, and soon came to realise that peak oil will get us long before climate change - and that the solution to both is the same: get off fossil fuels.

In reality, we need to make some fundamental changes in how we live. We simply cannot afford to keep living unsustainably. To help this along, I started the Go Green or Die site (http://www.briangordon.ca/)> Some find this idea extreme, but the reality is that we must live within our means or we are gone.

I fear that these scenarios may be too mild, and the reality may be nearly unimaginable. We may find ourselves inhabiting a planet no more hospitable than Mars (if the more severe climate impacts are realized) at which point, preserving a limited number of life forms and prototyping “hostile planet” shelter for the surviving population would preclude an orderly transition. In fact the likelihood of extinction is more probable…

Here is one supporting link: http://mb-soft.com/public3/disaster.html

While this one is rambling in presentation, and a little shrill in tone, you can’t blame the author too much – the conclusion IS very disturbing. And he seems to have done his homework…

Of course, things aren’t going to get that bad (he chuckles confidently…) we’ll just wind our civilization down a little and 4 or 5 billion people will quietly lay down and cease being a problem to the more enlightened ones who survive to carry on…

We can only hope that the more severe scenarios are in error, as planning for extinction is a fruitless exercise, so with that in mind, a more positive future, where some of the benefits of our current civilization are retained features in my planning,.

But, a reliance on the stability of centrally managed resources is probably unwise, so a lifestyle combining a permaculture approach, combined with self reliance, automation, machine building capability and retention of technical knowledge. As a return to a pre-technical lifestyle looks un-appealing and eventually lethal to the old man I will become…

So while we are still “Rich” to the degree that I can order a sophisticated product from halfway around the planet and have a reasonable expectation of getting in my hands in a week or less I intend to build a system of manufacturing machines that can be built by anyone with the will to do so – eventually I hope to us recovered trash (beer cans and window frames, engine blocks and miscellaneous junk) as feedstocks to harvest the materials to build all the essential bits and pieces to keep a technical farmstead running
The concept starts with these: http://www.cubespawn.com to make: first, their own parts and then parts for pumps, pipe, hardware, saws, hammers and all the complex bits one needs to keep a technical village running…

I've really enjoyed this site. Someone sent it to me last week, and I pretty much read it cover to cover. I think it's one of the most insightful websites on Permaculture Metascenarios and possible futures for out planet.

Certainly want to say thank you, and hope to meet you some day...

The corporate elite and their government cronies will desperately try to re-inflate the burst bubble of the speculative globalized "free market" economy. They haven’t learnt anything from the financial-economic crisis of the past year because they inhabit a bubble universe pinched off from physical reality and founded on abstract flows of currency, the status and false wealth based on those flows. Despite recent green-mouthing, the elite does not grasp that all REAL wealth is ECOLOGICAL in nature, based on living, self-regenerating processes; real wealth is not found in non-renewable resources (which, by definition, deplete and exhaust).

The proof is in the pudding!

- Industrial economics depleted the planet’s non-renewable resource base in a mere 2 centuries.

- Life, on the other hand, has been self-sustaining, self-regenerating (and evolving) for 4 BILLION YEARS; that’s 20,000,000 times longer than the entire life of industrial society!!

Obama and company make the error of attempting to revivify a corpse: the globalized, fossil fuel economy IS ALREADY DEAD. They mistake post-mortem twitches as signs of life and imminent recovery..

In reality - physical reality - the fossil fuel economy is dead because of Peak Oil. The global economy may indeed “recover” in fits and starts for a few years, only to falter again as oil prices spike due to increased demand. The fact is, the days of cheap oil are over and, with them, the globalized “free market” economy based on cheap oil.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50450
(som e of these folk work in the oil industry!)

Oil will not run out tomorrow (or the day after) but CHEAP oil production cannot keep pace with rising demand from burgeonning economies (India, China..). Prices will rise, creating a “tight supply” market (Classical Economics 101, freshman year).

Worse, speculation on oil futures will create oil price spikes followed by crashes when bubbles burst and panic selling sets in. This is called “volatility” and will stunt alternative fuel development projects.

Consider Natural Gas Liquification. Infrastructure costs are huge which requires a long “look ahead” period of stable fossil fuel prices in order to ASSURE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. (Oil and gas prices are linked because they can inter-substitute as energy sources, to some degree.)

The facts are simple: we waited too long to deploy “bridging technologies” as transitional energies sources to a sustainable, renewable energy future.

Bridging technologies (large sense): natural gas, remaining cheap oil reserves, energy conservation / efficiency, public transport, (even) nuclear energy.. We frittered away these resources and the most precious resource of all, TIME, in order to persue the short term pleasures our ad men programmed us to persue. Now we pay the consequences..

For me, the “golden window of opportunity” to use bridging technologies to transition to a clean energy future was, roughly, 1960 to 1990 (at the very latest).

Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, outlining some of the threats to the environment and the consequences thereof, was published circa 1960. If the political will existed, world governments could have commissioned scientific teams to investigate global environmental challenges and appropriate ways to deal with them. This work could have been completed by 1970. Again, with political will, the UN could have initiated a global “Manhattan Project” (atom bomb program of World War II) to assure that global energy and food requirement would be met in a sustainable, self-regenerating fashion. Such a project could – with political will – have gotten off the ground circa 1975.
This, however, was not the trajectory followed. As a result, we are today IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT BALL GAME WITH A NEW SET OF RULES. The business and political elites are blissfully ignorant of this reality, I feel, although some commentators hypothesize that an "Inner Circle" of hypercynics has understood the implication of Peak Oil for years and is deliberately attempting to profit from the last days of the dying fossil fuel economy to the detriment of future generations. This would explain, I guess, the bizarre behavior of the oil industry friendly US government during the Kyoto Accord discussions: not content with simply not participating in carbon emission reductions, they appeared to willfully sabotage the diliberations for all parties.

However, all is not doom ‘n gloom! There is, in fact, reason for hope even with the poo in the fan. Life, science tells us, evolves under the pressure of change, even REQUIRES it: adapt or die off! There is plenty of evidence to support this proposition from the fossil record of early life. “Cephalized” (”brainy”) lifeforms – if they survive an extinction event – respond by becoming brainier, more adaptive. “Necessity is the mother of invention” in the biological and social-cultural realms.

If this is true, we should “look forward” :0 to a time of increasing stress, chaos, and conflict with – on the PLUS SIDE – a real chance to AFFECT REAL POSITIVE CHANGE TOWARDS A BETTER, MORE HUMANE, MORE HUMAN SOCIETY. In Ecolgical Christian terms we are given the challenge \ opportunity of becoming ”co-creators with God in bringing about his Kingdom on Earth”. Researchers like Edgar Morin (“La Méthode”), Illya Prigogine (Nobel Prize for research into self-organizing systems), Robert Reid (“Biological Emergences”, MIT Press) recognize such times as critical phases of RAPID transition / selection that “program” the future evolution of the system in question for long periods of time. Example: the asteroid that slammed into earth 65 million years ago, ending the reign of the dinosaurs and beginning that of the mammals (us!). As Illya Prigogine who won the Nobel prize for his work on self-organizing systems put it, “timing is of the essence” at such times: relatively small efforts or impulses can deflect the system off along one of SEVERAL RADICALLY DIFFERENT evolutionary trajectories. In our times, we could envision “scenarios” like

- extinction of life on earth (exceedingly unlikely in the extreme)

- extinction of human life (quite unlikely)

- extinction of SciTech culture (”new stone age” – moderately unlikely)

- a chaotic, nasty transition to a sustainable Space Age culture (a weak version of the previous scenario which includes a rebound / recovery – fairly likely)

- a “utopian” revolution (à la Marx) to a sustainable Space Age (rather unlikely)

- various HiTech dystopias (?? likelihood ??)

and so on (use your imagination!). The point is, THIS IS A TIME OF CHOOSING, SELECTING THAT WHICH WILL COME. The hick is that none of us knows whether or not his action will have the intended outcome. :0 But change things we must; in fact, we cant’t help it: even BREATHING actively maintains the atmosphere at its current chemical composition. In an interconnected world, we are actors WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE IT.

SOME positive outcomes of de-globalization as the fossil fuel economy fizzles out:

- shipping food over god-awful distances will disappear. Food will be grown regionally / locally (except, ideally, for exotics like tropical spices which have a high value per unit weight). This saves energy in transport, reduces pollution. If well managed, this transition could lead to healthier, fresher, more nutritious food which is less contaminated by carcinogenic / mutagenic pesticides. Land management should – and should be MADE TO – improve with less nitrogen and phosphorous runoff to watercourses. Land quality should improve. At present, industrial agrigulture impoverishes the organic, life-sustaining properties of the soil. In an overpopulated planet such practices are non-sustainable, patently insane and MUST BE ELIMINATED! The collapse of globalized agro-industry can aid this process by elimination faulty, unecological farming practices. People will be able to get to know their farmer again: farmer, consumer and farmer / consumer coops are becoming viable business models, all to the benefit of local famers and consumers. We need to ACTIVELY ACCELERATE THESE PROCESSES OF POSITIVE CHANGE IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES as much as we can! “Think globally / act locally” is truer now than it ever was.

- if the transition to “post-growth” economies is well managed, so that people don’t end up starving for example, people will once again begin to make contact with the REAL VALUES OF LIFE like family, community, personal effort and achievement, group effort and achievement, cultural and spiritual expression, artistic creation, etc. Consumerism, in order to function, must expel such vital values from human life. The lack of real satisfactions in life creates an ETERNAL HUNGER for SUBSTITUTE satisfactions which globalized consumer industry feeds off. Man does not live by bread alone.

- localized / regionalized production of energy in DECENTRALIZED / DISTRIBUTED consumer /producer grids, if well designed, produces energy intelligently. Less infrastructure is needed for energy transport and less energy is lost in transmission since most energy (electricity) is consumed close to the point where it is generated. This means less pollution and less use of non-renewable resources. Electric meters should run both ways: you buy electricity from the grid when you need it; your house (or neighborhood) supplies electricity to the grid when you produce a surplus (for this YOU get paid by the electric utility).

- More local / regional production means less road, rail, air or sea transport of goods: less energy consumed, less pollution, less environmental destruction (for example in extraction of energy resources). This means, in practice, cleaner air and water, less climate change, less extreme weather (and geopolitical instability from crop failures). It also means less health problems related to pollution. We have paid a high price for our consumer society! There are many “externalized” – hidden – costs in the present system of production !!! (”Hidden subsidies” to pollutors for example: the pollutor saves money on pollution abatement equipment; the poor sucker living down wind / stream pays with health problems as does the public health system: “socialism for the rich”!)

Sorry for the botched up alignment of my text!

When I wrote that I "favored" the two rapid climate change (CC) scenarios, I did not say that I meant this in a global sense. As I wrote, I believe the descent from peak oil will be "spotty" both geographically and over time. Some places will likely experience something more like a slow CC / rapid oil price rise or even a slow CC / slow oil price rise. This is because CC does not affect all regions equally: the north is warming incredibly rapidly.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.htm l?id=50c89709-aa8f-4da9-bef8-27e051d2cfc8&k=26596

Aga in, some countires have already begun to seriously transition to a post peak oil economy ("the New Economy"). This may, if lucky, provide them a shock absorber to reduce the impact of coming oil price hikes / volatility.

Germany derives about a seventh of its electricity from Renewable Energy (RE):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_i n_Germany

More than a quarter - 28%!! - of electricity and a seventh of TOTAL energy production in Denmark comes from RE:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3ATKb-Z8 eBKCgJ%3Awww.ambottawa.um.dk%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F8A89D4E5-1E4 0-4042-BA20-1B983B0EB40B%2F0%2Frenewable.pdf+scandinavia+OR+ denmark+OR+germany+OR+sweden+OR+norway+OR+finland+%22renewab le+energy%22&hl=fr&gl=ca&sig=AFQjCNG3Ioolg-9WLzkfOCb6nxTPy-U Ijg&pli=1

Bravo Denmark! Alas! We poor fools in N. America have let ourselves be hog-tied, duped and swindled by the fossil fuel lobby and their shills.

Hi Tim,

Given the speed of current climate change (example: arctic and antarctic warming), I guess I would put more than even odds on the FAST CLIMATE CHANGE scenarios:

Brown Tech: (slow oil decline, fast climate change)

Lifeboats: (fast oil decline , fast climate change)

As the author himself puts it:

"... the characterisation of the four scenarios is difficult and inevitably SPECULATIVE, they do PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK for considering how Peak Oil and Climate Change could interact to reshape global and local energy resources, settlement patterns, economy and governance."

(Emphasis added)

I guess I would have to nuance my interpretation of the 4 scenarios by adding that

- descent from peak oil will be a spotty affair (geographically speaking) and, over time, will precede in fits an starts (it won't be a smooth,
"linear" - or predictable! - process).

- I think there will be early winners and losers. Some high and mighty will fall quickly (Soviet Union!). Other winners will emerge over the medium and long run.

-Because I feel many nation states will fail, some of the long term winners aren't
even born yet!

-In some places the nation state will cease to exist (Somalia..): in the hardest times, the warlords reign (Afghanistan, periods of Chinese history when the Empire broke down..) A variety of styles of governance - some probably not invented yet - will emerge. I think the existence of global communications in an unstable, radically DEglobalizing economy, provides rich opportunities for unexpected synergies to emerge. An (admittedly negative)example: the use of the internet by radical "Islamic" groups to recruit, instruct and co-ordinate members on a world wide basis.

I think the world of tomorrow is very unpredictable, a real dog's breakfast of opportunties and terrors (real and imagined).

I do think islands of sanity and civility will remain or can be built. I think a major job for greens today - especially the young !! - is to prepare themselves to act as resource persons, guides through a rocky period of transition to a destination which is not very clear yet..

Practically speaking, anything that increases LOCAL OR REGIONAL RESILIENCE to energy supply price or availability fluctuations is to be welcomed. Economies should be "modularized": most food produced within a radius of a hundred or so miles.. Modularization provides
"firewalls" which slow or halt waves of economic failure. The present global economic rescession is due precisely to the fact that a financial screw up in the States went viral in a global economy lacking
protective firewalls at national / regional levels. Too much connectivity is toxic!

I think working with one's neighbors is crucial. We sorely need to revivify the lived experience of
"community". Check out the transition towns initiative:

http://transitiontowns.org/

If you want some more stuff on building community resilience, let me know and I can shoot you some links and references I found recently.

Ecologically,
Frank

What of the four scenarios do you think is most likely? Planning for the future is radically different depending on which one comes to pass. For example, if agriculture is possible, then buying land now is a good idea. If it's not possible, then learning urban survival seems like a better idea. Trying to protect my family.

Thanks!

I would like to open up a discussion of the opportunities opened up by the transition to a post-Peak Oil economy.

I would also like to invite people to join our Writers' Circles to Promote Sustainable Development.

Call it "Green Energy" or "Sustainable Development" (SD), whatever.. I also include energy efficiency, resource use efficiency, good "life cycle design" of products, recycling, re-use as well as ecologically viable "life-style changes" in my definition of SD.

I would like to propose the following challenge to members:

We are obviously at a critical point of transition from one form of society to another: a time of troubles, a time of opportunity.

It is up to US - as citizens of our communities, our nations and of the earth - to inflect this transition in a positive direction. Given the alternatives, not to at least TRY is moral dereliction...

I suggest setting up small - community or web based - writers' circles to promote SD. Each group would research and promote SD in its locality using all media outlets possible: letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, community / club / professional association / church newsletters, community or student radio, etc.

Groups should be flexible, dealing with local issues or, alternatively, focusing on a type of green energy (biomass, wind power, etc..). Local circles could assist each other through the internet.

Lets Be Creative!

If interested contact:

hombredelatierra4@gmail.com

David: Thanks for your response to my question about the Michael Lynch Peak Oil piece. Unfortunately, many of us have, and continue to be, slow to wake up to the situation.

Eric Amend,
I think Michael Lynch is a propagandist not interested in a lively and necessary conversation. The following articles show how he and other use their position and status to continually issue misleading statements about Peak Oil and its proponents. He has consistently refused any open debate with leading Peak Oil experts. This is an old an uninteresting debate. The following links to articles at The Oil Drum and Energy Bulletin nicely review the reality that Lynch is distorting.

The degree of uncertainty that does exist about Peak Oil timing is largely due to secret production capacity and reserve data in OPEC countries, most notably in Saudi Arabia. To believe that successive US administrations have not known the real data and kept it secret from lower level policy makers, researchers and the public, is to maintain a remarkably naive view of geopolitical realities.

Communication and Future Scenarios

In “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore pointed out that all of history up to the time of his birth had produced a world population of 2 billion, there were 9 billion in 2007 and there will probably be 15 billion in his life time, rising even faster thereafter.

As this "Future Scenarios" website shows, we billions of Earthlings have more to discuss with each other than ever before, as virtually all important issues are already World issues, and will be ever more urgently so.

The difference between us securing a positive scenario, or suffering a negative one, may well depend on who is included in the discussion of our planetary welfare.

There are currently two contenders for the position of World Language. English is the popular favorite at the moment as more rich people speak it than any other.

Unfortunately, it is much too difficult, time hungry (up to 2000 hrs), and (consequently) unaffordable for most poor people to learn, so it will equip only the rich to participate in global discussion. Rich English-speakers do not necessarily have access to all the information, a corner on the best ideas, or the welfare of the majority at heart, and so this choice makes the lifeboat scenario more likely.

The democratic choice is Esperanto. It takes about 10-20 instructional hours, possibly from a book or free internet course, followed by about 80 hours of practice to be able to use it effectively. I have conversed in Esperanto with refugees in a camp in Benin, West Africa, who had formed a club and taught themselves the language from old books, demonstrating that this language offers affordable participation for all of the World’s people.

Will we insist on our right to make no effort, and exclude the World’s poor from the World community, or will we adopt an affordable language for World affairs, keeping English for domestic use? (Incidentally, this offers the poor a chance to maintain their languages and cultures too, whilst participating in the bigger picture in cheap Esperanto).

Adults can learn online for free or choose from a wide range of learning materials and strategies. Every Australian child could speak Esperanto before the end of primary school, taught by their normal monolingual teachers using a resource called “Talking to the Whole Wide World”. (A side-benefit is the head-start this provides for the learning of other- possibly Asian- languages in high school).

If this makes sense to you, please drop a note to GetUp,at http://www.getup.org.au and tell them you would be interested in a campaign to make Australia a leader in global citizenship (and languages education) by making “Talking to the Whole Wide World” the minimum language entitlement for Australian kids in our developing National Curriculum.

Dear Dave:
I would appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have to Michael Lynch's (a former director for Asian energy and security at the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an energy consultant) claim that the Peak Oil claim and science is a bogus(in his 8.25.09 New York Times Oped)? He has fired up a lively and necessary conversation!