In a recent post (and several others published at about the same time—here and here, for example) I raised the issue of planning for our future in a world where the ready availability of fossil fuels we’ve enjoyed to date is simply no longer there for us. We face a future of great change, one that we can either embrace for its immense opportunities, or fear its great potential for harm and disruption. That’s a choice we own.

It is from this decision that we will determine whether our lives in the years to come (and those of our future generations) are to be defined by success and prosperity as will then be possible, or hardship and regret for failure to seize the opportunity when it was so clearly at hand.

“We will never do the things that are needed unless we know the full extent of our predicament.” – Michael Brownlee [1]

I understand the anxiety that a situation not in our control promotes. Most people like to think of the world they inhabit as being generally “safe”—the political and economic discord of the times notwithstanding. Any message laced with doom and gloom (as both Peak Oil and global warming have the easy potential to be) is more than likely going to be discounted, if not ignored/denied entirely. In our current environment—with so much bitter politics as the norm and genuine fears about our economic prospects serving as the framework from which everything else seems to spring—messages that our world as we know it is going to “collapse” because of either declining oil production or warming temperatures is hardly welcome or cheery. Thinking about all the dominoes that will start to tumble when our comfortable lives are interrupted by the lack of fossil fuel resources in the amounts and at prices we’re accustomed to is likewise unappealing.

And where there is so much confusion (a nice way of saying the all-too-often intentional misrepresentation of facts) about these scenarios, it’s easy to understand why human nature’s first response or inclination is to simply dismiss or discount the warnings. Either they are too much to handle right now if one is inclined to believe the facts; or they’re viewed as fear-mongering and thus at best useless as a communication strategy. We want to wake up every day having at least the impression that we have some control over what is happening, and when events as monumental as climate change or a future without the same levels of oil to power everything we do intrude on an already disquieting set of circumstances, it’s simply too much. I get that.

So the choice then becomes: just ignore the facts, promote more fear, or do … something.

Unfortunately, we are facing a future where the supply of oil will no longer satisfy demand—including our own. Ignoring the facts won’t make them go away. (Wish they could!). Fear won’t help, either. So there go the first two options.

But what are the strategies? What can we do? It’s clear that we’re not going to fashion by tomorrow afternoon a new scheme of design, production, transportation, and consumption for a world with limited supplies of fossil fuels; but we do need to begin the discussion and start considering the broad implications. I don’t see too many volunteers, however. Can’t say that I blame anyone for that. Most of us have plates that were full long ago. Piling on more would not be anyone’s first choice, especially where solutions are not readily apparent or available, and certainly not quickly or easily attained.

“At a time of federal paralysis on energy and climate legislation, our push for progress must happen from the ground up, in our schools, churches, cities, states—and sports teams” [2]

Given how utterly dysfunctional our government seems to be right now, at first (second, and third) glance that approach makes sense. Our history is filled with stories of successes and changes instituted at the local or individual level when it was clear that the institutions normally relied upon for change were unable to fulfill their responsibilities. The dilemma is that while this is true, waiting for small groups here and there to effect any semblance of meaningful change is the most time-consuming and haphazard approach we could take—given the broad impact declining fossil fuel supplies will have on virtually every aspect of our lives.

Without some national vision of what goals are being sought as we transition from an industrial economy once effortlessly powered by fossil fuels, we’ll wind up with tens of thousands of approaches! We clearly will not have sufficient time to allow for all of these (we hope) local successes to spread to the general populace, if they are not first tied in to some greater purpose and set of objectives. Only then can regional and local governments and agencies best address the needs of their constituents, guided as they will be by national objectives which recognize both the limitations and opportunities resource availability makes possible; only then can we turn loose the private sector to design and then implement needed structural and industrial/transport modifications, guided by those same considerations.

The challenge of creating readily available and price-favorable alternative energy supplies only highlights the importance of developing critical and comprehensive plans now.

“[I]t is often assumed that alternative energy will seamlessly substitute for the oil, gas, or coal it is designed to supplant—but this is rarely the case. Integration of alternatives into our current energy system will require enormous investment in both new equipment and new infrastructure—along with the resource consumption required for their manufacture—at a time when capital to make such investments has become harder to secure. This raises the question of the suitability of moving toward an alternative energy future with an assumption that the structure of our current large-scale, centralized energy system should be maintained. Since alternative energy resources vary greatly by location, it may be necessary to consider different forms of energy for different localities.” [3]

“A clean, secure, safe and affordable energy future is clearly among the preeminent challenges facing the United States and other nations. It calls for a major acceleration in the pace of energy technology innovation: invention, translation, adoption, and diffusion.” [4]

All fine and well, but where will that vision come from? As I mentioned only half-jokingly in that recent post mentioned above, I doubt that we could get Congress to unanimously approve a resolution declaring December 25 as Christmas Day. How can we expect the majority of our congressional leaders to relinquish their fierce grasp on partisan ideology so as to cooperate on a scale they seem wholly incapable of understanding, let alone embracing? “Acting for the common good” apparently no longer means what it once did, and we are all the poorer for it already.

That’s going to have to change. Will it? Can it?

I don’t know for certain. I do believe that we must find a way to impress upon our national leaders the fierce need for a national vision about powering our future with something other than fossil fuels. Sadly, to date they are seemingly unprepared, or at least unwilling, to discuss the challenges of a world already in the throes of Peak Oil. If we—or they—fail, then we cannot rationally hope or expect to successfully deal with the myriad complications that are certain to arise in world needing an energy resource that is simply no longer as available as it once was.

That political non-approach cannot be our option. Plan B, anyone?

I’ll explore this complex issue in greater detail over the course of my next few posts.

Sources:

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-k-comstock/the-transition-town-movem_b_788693.html; The “Transition Town” Movement’s Initial Genius by Craig K. Comstock – November 27, 2010
[2] http://blogs.forbes.com/amandalittle/2010/11/15/can-professional-sports-do-more-than-politics-to-save-the-planet/; Can Professional Sports Do More Than Politics to Save the Planet by Amanda Little
[3] http://www.postcarbon.org/report/127153-energy-nine-challenges-of-alternative-energy; The Post Carbon Reader Series: Energy – Nine Challenges of Alternative Energy By David Fridley, p3-4 [Excerpted from The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century’s Sustainability Crises, Richard Heinberg and Daniel Lerch, eds. (Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2010 - http://www.postcarbon.org/reader)
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-energy-tech-report.pdf; REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON ACCELERATING THE PACE OF CHANGE IN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH AN INTEGRATED FEDERAL ENERGY POLICY by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, November 2010 (p17).