Greens efficiently onto it, again
Yet again, an example of the rest of the world cottoning on to what the Green movement has been saying for years: delegates at a UN Environment Programme Forum today have concluded that saving energy at home, work and on the roads will help to tackle the fuel crisis.
Apparently this conclusion came after a three-day brainstorming session - we could have told them this years ago! - but, promisingly, more detailed conclusions from the forum will be delivered in a report to the commission on Sustainable Development in May.
In the meantime, governments are being urged to take the lead on encouraging energy efficiency by adopting energy efficient standards for various goods and equipment. Again, the Greens are ahead of the pack on this one, and hopefully our proposals on emission standards for cars (contained in our peak oil toolkit) will be adopted before too long.
February 11th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
A bit depressed this evening, considering the fate of my children.
Greens here must face a reality. Unpleasantly, we are going to see (if we live long enough) the ocean take the lower floors of TePapa and significant swathes of our coastal property. We are going to see a vastly diminished capacity for individual mobility and just plain automotive fun. Some of my fondest memories were of doing “double the double-nickel” back in the 70’s with my 4 banger still pulling 30 MPG most of the time. Crossing the USA in 2 days by myself, talking to the truckers and piling on the miles.
My son will never have the opportunity to feel that sort of rush. He won’t be able to casually drive across the hill to Masterton either… my daughter won’t be able to just fly back to the USA to visit her cousins. Diminished expectations. I see the restraint on humanity and the coming conflicts over oil as the beginning of the end.
NZ may manage to hold it together, may manage to survive longer than any other place, but without getting off the planet entirely that is ALL we will do. Like I said, depressed. The chances that our children have to survive and to ensure the survival of their children will depend largely on the restraint and intelligence of people who have shown no sign of either.
We must, if we are to be true to ourselves and our children, prepare them as best we can for the diminished reach and the chances they must take. We must prepare the country for the flooding and the complete cut-off of the oil imports that we currently receive. With the US and China facing off over oil from Iran and Iranians preparing to close the straits if they can and the Saudi’s telling fibs about how much oil is left and the Russians already shutting off gas to Ukraine and the destruction of pipelines into Georgia…. it isn’t looking good.
Yet there is still scant attention given to the seals of the windows of the rental housing and the rarity of getting a decent double glazed window installed even in new construction, the scant insulation and doors that barely lock much less seal out the elements. Great “Indoor-Outdoor” flow in the 4 effective weeks of Summer lead to huge energy losses through the sliding doors in the 4 effective months of winter. Which are supplied with resistance heaters and gas heaters and woodburners… and when it runs out there is no more except for the wood and our air quality suffers.
I feel sorry for our children.
respectfully
BJ
February 12th, 2006 at 12:55 am
I am sure that it has been mentioned many times previously, and certainly I am preaching to the converted (which makes me question the worth of blogging in this spot.)
However, if we all removed and replaced all the energy inefficient appliances and accessories for more sustainable bits and pieces, then we would not require new high tension power lines across our countryside. Nor would we need to flood our valleys with hydro schemes, fill our atmosphere with carbon-fuel smoke, or irradiate our grandchildren with the waste of carbon-friendly nuclear power. Less still the need to fill the empty spaces of our landscape and rivers with turbines. Imagine if we make it mandatory for every new building to be CO2 neutral, with solar hot water heating, passive solar heating and composting toliets, with above-standard insulation and glazing. Perhaps then our growth could be sustainable.
I am utterly astonished that we are unable to make the sensible choices that will perhaps cost a few more dollars, yet save the lives of many. To me, the old story that green solutions cost too much, makes me ask, how much is the real cost of not following the green solution. Logic suggests, the green solution in the sensible solution. Otherwise is utter madness.
Unfortunately, this forum is pretty much for those who already agree with the Green concepts, therefore my rant falls on coverted ears. Or eyes in this case.
Carry on then, as you were.
regards,
moralpanic
February 12th, 2006 at 9:53 am
MP
“However, if we all removed and replaced all the energy inefficient appliances and accessories for more sustainable bits and pieces … Perhaps then our growth could be sustainable.”
How can any growth be truly sustainable? At some point, in a finite world, growth in any system must cease. Growth requires ever increasing through puts of materials and energy - impossible in a finite system. Efficiency improvments deliver the low hanging fruit quickly but then the laws of diminishing returns quick in. Jevons paradox can also lead to increasing use of scarce resources (as demand falls, prices drop which leads to increasing use …)
I’m not saying there isn’t heaps we can do (e.g. I last owned a car in 1991 - live in a thermally efficient house etc and have a higher qol than many around me) but at some stage increasing population and decreasing natural resources collide. They already have in much of the less developed parts of the world.
Development (i.e. quality of life rather than std of living) may be sustainable, if planned and implemented appropriately.
Take a look at Prof Al Bartlett’s website to get a quick reminder about the fundamentals of exponential growth.
February 13th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
bj
I sympathise with your thoughts.
Kiwis are descended from people who left their homes and families far away and never went back, or looked back. We also have a reputation for being practical and innovative.
Have you thought of encouraging your kids into yachting, kayaking, cycling, and/or various other means of travelling and just “zooming around” for fun … and opportunities to “feel that extra rush”? It’s also good for their future know-how (honing skills) and possible preparation for future careers … (just one example: windpower for shipping etc.)
Both my young adult kids have chosen to follow fastbike’s example. They either cycle or walk, and when necessary use public transport. They also are into things that “provide that extra rush”!
eredwen
February 14th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
“we are going to see (if we live long enough) the ocean take the lower floors of TePapa and significant swathes of our coastal property”
BJ, I think you are being overly pessimistic. Even the most pessimistic sea-level rises (debated right here on this blog a couple of months ago) talk about 2mm rises per year. That’s 200mm (8 inches) in a century. I’m sorry, but you are not (in all likelihood) going to live to see water lapping at the front door of Te Papa.
When I first discovered Peak Oil last year via the LATOC site, I, too, became depressed. Life stopped having a future.
But more and more, I have come to learn that the Matt Savinar view of utter collapse back to the stone age is very extreme, and in my opinion is unlikely to happen.
What has changed my mind? A really excellent Peak Oil blog site called “The Oil Drum” (www.theoildrum.com). I thoroughly recommend it. It is full of very level-headed, intelligent, knowledgeable and analytical people that know a hell of a lot more about all this then we do.
In particular, a guy called Stuart Stanisford has analysed the world Oil Production figures and mapped these onto a gaussian curve which indicated 2 things:
1) World Oil Production most likely peaked in May 2005 (months before even Kenneth Deffeyes very pessimistic prediction of Thanksgiving last year)
2) Decline in production will be around 1% for at least the next 5 years reaching 3% after about 10 years - in other words, to use Stuart’s phrase “a long, slow squeeze”
Essentially what this means is that the price of energy will slowly, but steadily rise over the next decade (barring any major geo-political event) as supply cannot meet projected demand.
This is likely to cause a fair amount of hard financial times, but it is unlikely to produce the sudden and abrupt collapse a lot of the doom-sayers predict.
Look at Cuba. They lost virtually all their oil imports in a matter of months, and yet they did not descend into anarchy. Sure, the average Cuban lost something like 20lbs, but there was not mass-starvation and societal collapse.
The “Slide” blog has an interesting list of nine levels of collapse. See: http://theslide.blogspot.com/2006/01/levels-of-collapse-warning-may-be .html
Cuba never really got lower than level 1. North Korea, which was struck by a tsunami as well as losing all it’s oil, got as far as level 3 or 4. But most of the doom-sayers are predicting level 5 or 6 collapse. Sorry, I just don’t see it.
And we have an awful lot of belt-tightening that we can do that would net even 50% efficiency gains without major loss of lifestyle. Heck, we’ve got our monthly power bill to down below $100 and that’s before our solar water heater gets installed.
In my (humble) opinion, the “long, slow squeeze” will force us to conserve with higher prices. It’s going to be tough, but it is very survivable.
New Zealand, if we keep our heads and continue to vote the Greens into parliament, is fairly well placed to become a self-sufficient, sustainable land. But we are now on the down-slope of the hydrocarbon curve and we need to start acting now to ensure that pleasant future.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Growth does not neccessarily require increasing throughputs of materials - materials can be reused. Plants and animals have done this for quite a while now.
We do not live in a finite energy system. The Earth is swamped by huge amounts solar radiation.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Actually Duncan, I am not always THAT pessimistic, but any significant breakup of the WAIS or Greenland cap would put water into TePapa, unless of course, the next earthquake raises it a few meters. The breakup of either is not easily predicted, but the stability of the WAIS is now far more suspect than the last international conference result of a few years back allowed.
I was however, using a bit of hyperbole, because I do get depressed for my children.
The problems are two. Feedbacks which cannot be anticipated easily (release of methane from melting Permafrost for instance) and, to my way of thinking the far worse one. We will be better armed than fed. The drumbeat for war against Iran is quite steady now. True, the drummer is quite insane, but it is not something to ignore on account of that. Even without use of Nukes, the result of further conflict in that arena would be devastating to a world economy already headed over the cliff. This isn’t a long-slow-squeeze process. It can be if we are all very civilized about it, but I haven’t noticed such politeness becoming a MORE prominent feature of diplomacy lately.
Truth, the thing that could save us would be if the economic collapse happens before the WAIS collapse, cause nothing will turn down the global appetite for oil faster than a massive global recession.
That’s the optimistic result. The downside of it is that peak oil won’t let the world recover from that recession. The sea level rise will however, be somewhat delayed.
If I owned this house, I could put in double glazed windows, and insulate the south wall instead of having a damned sliding glass door for the wind to howl through. I don’t own the house. Can’t afford mortgage risk in the leadup to a recession.
As for NZ, I moved here because I believe your last paragraph is gospel truth, but that doesn’t make it likely that my children will be as free to use energy as I have always been… and that is a diminishment that I hate to leave to them.
respectfully
BJ
February 14th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Don
“…materials can be reused. Plants and animals have done this for quite a while now.”
And they keep growing without reaching limits ? Could you please provide some real world examples. And, of the materials they are using, which ones are fossil based ?
“We do not live in a finite energy system.”
Technically correct - but in actual practice and in the medium term, incorrect.
Large quantities of very diffuse solar energy are not the same as limited quantities of concentrated fossil energy.
Now is the time for action - we squandered the time we were given for day-dreams. Measures to move us away from our addiction to fossil fuels will take years (at least 20 according to Hirsch) and globally cost trillions.
Have you seen much current or planned progress that gives you hope that the issue is being taken seriously by business and political leaders ?
Hint: Take another listen / read of Bush’s SOU speech. It makes you weep. TheOilDrum has some good analysis
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/1/12912/90794