Peak Oil Matters

[Last in a series]
Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday for the past six weeks, I’ve taken advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. This is the final installment of the discussion inspired by Ms. Klein’s essay [links to installments 1 - 6 are at the end of this post].

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

~~~

If oil production can’t grow, the implication is that the economy can’t grow either….This is such a frightening prospect that many have simply avoided considering it.…
Economists and politicians continually debate policies that will lead to a return to economic growth. But because they have failed to recognize that the high price of energy is a central problem, they haven’t identified the necessary solution: weaning society off fossil fuel [1]

And as the author of this above-cited article notes, “Unfortunately, since most governments are unwilling to admit the prospect of indefinite economic stagnation due to our reliance on fossil fuels, they’ve been unable to generate the political will to even begin these efforts.”

We’re at a crossroads. Up to this point, cheap and abundant energy has fueled consistent economic growth. The only real discussion among the managerial elite was how to grow the economy—whether in planned or unplanned ways, whether with sensitivity to the environment or without.
Now the discussion must center on how to contract. Sadly, that discussion is radioactive—no one wants to touch it. It’s hard to imagine a more suicidal strategy for a politician than to base his or her election campaign on the promise of economic contraction. Instead, discussions in policy circles tend to turn on how to maintain the illusion of growth. Denial runs deep, but sooner or later reality will make itself known.
And sooner or later we must make conservation the centerpiece of economic and energy policy. The term conservation implies ‘efficiency’ in the usual sense—building cars and appliances that use less energy. But it also means cutting out non-essential uses of energy. Rather than continuing to increase economic demand by stimulating human wants, we must begin to think about how to meet basic human needs with minimal consumption of resources, while discouraging extravagance.
This of course amounts to a profound change of course for our economic system, and it will not be undertaken except by necessity. But necessity is inevitably approaching. We will have less energy, like it or not. And with less energy, we will no longer be able to operate a growing consumer society….
The transition would go much better if we were to plan for it, pre-adapting to a low-energy global economic regime. However, little of that planning is likely to occur, simply because nearly everyone—from investors to policy makers to ordinary consumers—wants the fossil fuel-fed fiesta of manic consumption to continue as long as possible. So we are most likely in for a wrenching shift. [2]

We are unwilling to compromise, much less relinquish, the historically unprecedented material living standards associated with our industrialized American way of life, which we consider to be a birthright. Our vested interest in the continued success of our existing lifestyle paradigm is simply too great to permit us even to consider deviating from our current trajectory, despite the fact that our current trajectory leads to collapse. [3]

If large-scale mitigation of peak oil and climate change is not feasible soon, what will happen? Given current investments in the existing pattern of trade and the high costs of reorienting it, change will be resisted, with resulting widespread economic disruption. But change will occur. Clearly, increased fuel costs and higher transport risks will cause supply chains to shorten and long-distance trade to decline…..
It is now critical for economic planners, laypersons, and governments to recognize that long-term energy and climate realities will impose limits on the global movement of goods. …This is not the result of either ideology or policy. Only when we accept these realities can we design and rebuild less vulnerable patterns of production and trade throughout the world. [4]

Common sense about our energy supplies and what needs to be done should not be among the shortages we’re going to contend with. A finite resource–magnificent to be sure—whose substitutes simply do not match the original resource in terms of its efficiency, availability, cost, and other essential criteria, cannot and will not last forever. No matter how optimistic one is about the still-available reserves of conventional crude oil, what’s left is now on borrowed time.

And for all the hoopla about the tar sands and shale oil and North Dakota’s great economic miracle, those resources are not up to the tasks which conventional crude has performed so ably for so many decades. A recent opinion piece by Tom Dennis in North Dakota’s Grand Forks Herald, gushing about the wonders of the state’s increased oil production, is yet another example of the half-truths, context-free assertions which do nothing but provide false assurances to an uninformed citizenry.

The author cites a statement by a University of Michigan economics and finance professor that the state’s production is “currently on track … to exceed 800,000 barrels per day” by the end of 2012. Furthermore, we’re offered this assertion: “‘At that point, North Dakota oil could be [my emphasis] enough to displace either Venezuela’s or Nigeria’s imports.’ Venezuela and Nigeria, of course, are longtime members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
‘So, now that North Dakota is poised to pump oil at the rate of an OPEC country, can we at last retire the notion that the world is in the clutches of ‘peak oil’”?

Seriously? The U.S. consumes some 18 million barrels of oil per day. Our total oil production is currently in the neighborhood of 6 million barrels per day, down from a four decades-ago peak of more than 10 million … which we have not come close to since the early 1970’s. And we’re supposed to be doing cartwheels about 800,000 barrels of an inferior quality, harder to extract, more expensive substitute? (Of course, there was no mention in that piece about depletion of existing fields which might counter the wonder of 800,000 barrels, nor are readers given any information whatsoever about the process….)

And displacing “Venezuela’s or Nigeria’s imports” means … what? Did space considerations prevent the author from offering any context? If just mentioning OPEC, coupled with some vague reference to the import totals of two lesser producers serves as one’s argument that our energy worries are over, perhaps some reconsideration is in order. Adding facts and context would be a good place to start.

Recently, beliefs have shifted again, with people worshipping just one part of a god, the invisible hand. Thanks to Adam Smith and those who followed him, especially the current neoclassical economic theologians, we have seen such an increase in the world’s wealth and sheer numbers that it is hard to imagine life before the industrial revolution, with its shift from mostly human and animal muscle power to the energy dense fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas. It is also hard to imagine that humanity could someday slide back into another age of scarcer and more expensive energy, but that is a possibility that cannot be excluded from our thinking.
The Faustian Bargain
What about the Faustian bargain? It remains deeply hidden from view because its exposure by the high priests of modern economics would force us to rethink how we live and why we live this way, as well as what we’re planning to leave for future generations. The Faustian bargain goes something like this: Thanks to the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuels, humans (really just a small minority of them) are able to live richer lives today than even the queens and kings of yore could have dreamed of.
The other side of the bargain, the side hidden from view and never mentioned in economics texts is this: At some undetermined time in the future, one that creeps ever closer, this economic system, fed by energy and other resources at ever increasing rates at one end and spewing out waste products at rates that cannot be absorbed by Earth’s ecosystems at the other, is unsustainable. What that means is simple enough: Industrial society as we know it cannot go on as it has forever—not even close. [5]

… [I]t’s such a huge change, the implications of the end of growth and what that means for our institutions and the way that our society is organized. The politicians now would be thrown out of office because people, the average American, is not educated to understand these things, so it’s a very threatening story. I mean, it’s very difficult to grasp that the biggest threat to the American way of life is the American way of life. And that’s kind of a profound crossroads that we’re at….we are not going to respond to this crisis until the crisis is truly upon us….
… [S]o we have this physical constraint that’s coming because of Peak Oil. There’s nothing we’re going to do about it. We can’t out-clever that. It’s just a constraint, it’s a limitation, there it is. We could manage it well or we can manage it poorly, but it’s there. We have a political system that’s not really geared for the magnitude of the change that we’re seeing, so the most likely outcome is that we’re going to wait, we as a culture are going to wait until we’re forced to deal with this. That’s probably going to come with disruptions….[6]

What to do? It will not be enough for us to hope our leaders start planning at some point. We need to educate ourselves and get involved in the process in our own communities. It’s not pleasant to contemplate no matter what spin you conjure up; but the alternative—to just wait for       life as we’ve known to change because of the drastic changes in our supplies of energy—seems like an utterly foolish relinquishing of opportunity.

At some point, we’re going to have to accept the facts for what they are and begin the long, complex, not-always-satisfactory process of planning for and then implementing change on a grand scale beyond our individual capacity to fully appreciate at this moment. Without the steady supply of high quality, affordable, always-at-the-ready crude oil to provide the energy which makes possible almost every aspect of our personal, economic, and cultural lives, adaptation and transition to something other than the profit-driven capitalism we’ve all reaped countless benefits from will be an inevitability.

And because that process is so all-encompassing, revising if not undoing major elements of a multi-centuries old, entrenched economic system is an undertaking that will be years in the making. How much farther down the short road do we kick this can?

And in the end, although almost none of us will approve, agree, or enjoy this, Naomi Klein’s conclusion about the economic system we’ve built and enjoyed may be our only viable option:

It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises.
There is simply no way to square a belief system that vilifies collective action and venerates total market freedom with a problem that demands collective action on an unprecedented scale and a dramatic reining in of the market forces that created and are deepening the crisis.

Crisis or opportunity? The choice is ours.

Links to this series:

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/03/26/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-1/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/02/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-2/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/09/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-3/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/16/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-4/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/23/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-5/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/30/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-6/

Sources:

[1] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/weve-hit-peak-oil-now-comes-permanent-price-volatility.ars; We’ve hit “peak oil”; now comes permanent price volatility by John Timmer – 01.26.12 [quoting the University of Washington's James Murray and Oxford University's David King in a late January article published by Nature magazine]
[2] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-07-25/conservation-there-no-alternative; Conservation: There is no alternative by Richard Heinberg – 07.25.11 [Published by Post Carbon Institute - Original article: http://www.postcarbon.org/article/415728-conservation-there-is-no-alternative]
[3] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50623; Continuously less and less – the New American Reality [PDF] by Chris Clugston – 11.05.09 at pp 34-35 [from http://www.wakeupamerika.com/ ]
[4] http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1042; The new geography of trade: Globalization’s decline may stimulate local recovery by Fred Curtis, David   – 01.24.12
[5] http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/01/09/the-faustian-bargain-that-modern-economists-never-mention/; The Faustian Bargain that Modern Economists Never Mention by Dr. Gary Peters – 01.09.12
[6] http://www.chrismartenson.com/page/transcript-nate-hagens-were-not-facing-shortage-energy-longage-expectations; Transcript for Nate Hagens: We’re Not Facing A Shortage of Energy, But A Longage of Expectations [comments by Chris Martenson and Nate Hagens, respectively] – 08.02.11

[Sixth in a series]
Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (and for one more week), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. This is the sixth installment of the discussion inspired by Ms. Klein’s essay [Links to Parts 1 - 5 below].

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

~~~

The biggest and most difficult changes will have to be in world view and values.  The present commitment to individualistic competition for affluent-consumer ‘living standards’ and endless increases in wealth must be replaced by a strong desire to live simply, cooperatively, and self-sufficiently, and by concern for the common good. [1]

It has been another of my main themes that small changes here and there, every now and then, by a few of us when we can spare the time, are not the optimal strategies for us to pursue in the face of Peak Oil’s looming challenges to our well-being and our industrialized society (with all the attendant benefits we currently enjoy). Change is coming….The sooner the majority of us recognize and accept that fact, enabling us to then prepare intelligently for what we’ll all adapt to, the better our chances of creating a rewarding future for us all.

And as I have noted in the most recent posts in this series, others better credentialed than me have stated with more than a bit of urgency that we will need an entirely new and different economic and industrial system to not only provide us with the opportunities and the means to continue growth, we will need such systems to function at all. As with most great undertakings, the saying is easier than the doing.

The media and the government understandably see the preservation of the status quo as good, and anything threatening it as bad. But if we adopt that outlook, we condemn ourselves to a future of endless bad news. In order to make our way through the decades of transition ahead, it’s important that we adopt a longer view, and devote much less effort to preserving a beguiling veneer of normalcy. The more of us who have a long view, the better. Without it, people (including world leaders) will get scared or unrealistically, giddily optimistic and do foolish things. [2]

The responsibility rests with all of us. Ceding that to others clearly possessing their own agenda (or worse, serving masters who clearly have different agendas which do not allow for concerns about the community at large), is no longer acceptable—if it ever was. While speaking specifically to the issue of climate change denial, Naomi Klein’s observations apply with equal force to Peak Oil and the opposition mounted against that reality:

Heartland’s campaign against climate science grew out of fear about the policies that the science would require. ‘When we look at this issue, we say, This is a recipe for massive increase in government….Before we take this step, let’s take another look at the science. So conservative and libertarian groups, I think, stopped and said, Let’s not simply accept this as an article of faith; let’s actually do our own research.’ This is a crucial point to     understand: it is not opposition to the scientific facts of climate change that drives denialists but rather opposition to the real-world implications of those facts.

… ideas about minimal government, no matter how demonstrably at war with reality, remain so profitable to the world’s billionaires that they are kept fed and clothed in think tanks by the likes of Charles and David Koch, and ExxonMobil….
The deniers are doing more than protecting their cultural worldview—they are protecting powerful interests that stand to gain from muddying the waters of the climate debate.

As President Obama noted recently:

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them – that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans. [3]

We need to come to a decision—soon—about whether or not this system which clearly favors so few at the continuing expense of so many must be allowed to continue in its present form. On the near-horizon are critical, complex, consequence-laden assessments to be made about what kind of a society we choose to be going forward and in the kind of nation we choose to occupy. And it is not because there must be a declared winner in the idiotic partisan war we’ve been engaged in with increasing fervor since we elected a Socialist-Martian-Kenyan-tax-loving-America-hating-whatever-the-hell-‘Charming’-Newt Gingrich-is-calling-him-this-week President.

As much fun as it has been to paint the other side delusional and unpatriotic (but only when we want to be nice; and yes, I’m guilty, too), we’ve accomplished absolutely nothing beyond a near-paralyzed state of governance and deeply-embedded animosity to the “other side” who are clearly intent on destroying all that our side holds near and dear.

The decisions to be made are not limited to the kind of culture we’ll adopt or which political ideology triumphs. To take but one popular source of never-ending contention, banning gay marriage so that those satanic, heterosexual-marriage-destroying and choosing-to-be-gay-for-the-hell-of-it sickos no longer have the opportunity to destroy this entire country by encapsulating us (apparently) in some kind of destructive force fields which will then presumably cause every heterosexual marriage to spontaneously combust (whew!) … should be shelved. And that’s but one of too many other equally idiotic distractions that do nothing but play to irrational fears of the clueless. Policy by ignorant, red meat sound bites ought to be trashed once and for all. We’re better than that … or at least we should be, by now.

We’ve got more important things to worry about than whether or not Bill and Dave’s marriage to each other will end civilization as we know it. (Here’s a clue for the clueless: it won’t. People loving for one another and committing themselves a permanent relationship has rarely led to the downfall of nations, and it won’t now either. Perhaps the more-than-once married heteros who fight that fight might instead spend a bit of time in introspection … or at the very least familiarize themselves with the term “hypocrite.”)

The reasons why we need to start making adult decisions about our very serious adult problems are much more pronounced:
For decades, our best science has suggested that staying on our present growth-based path to global development implies catastrophe for billions of people and undermines the possibility of maintaining a complex global civilization. Yet there is scant evidence that national governments, the United Nations, or other official international organizations have begun seriously to contemplate the implications for humanity of the scientists’ warnings, let alone articulate the kind of policy responses the science evokes. The modern world remains mired in a swamp of cognitive dissonance and collective     denial seemingly dedicated to maintaining the status quo. We appear, in philosopher Martin Heidegger’s words, to be ‘in flight from thinking.’ [4]

Now might be a good time to try something else. We all have skin in this game, and since the consequences that spill out across the landscape once we really start having to deal with the impact of Peak Oil in our day-to-day lives are going to affect just about each and every one of us, we need to join in the debate. And as I have been urging throughout, that means we all need to become better educated about the facts and the risks. Relying on the feel-good pablum dispensed by those with interests at odds with our own is another tactic we should toss into the trash heap.

NO ONE wants to even think about, let alone plan for and then step into an entirely new lifestyle where the fundamental tenets of capitalism, growth, and profit-making are subsumed to something much less “appealing.” Who among us wants to spend the rest of our days living in a society which, after all of our technological achievements and progress, resembles something much more like a life on a little house on the prairie, circa 1756? That existence and the sacrifices which might be be necessary as we transition to a world powered by some other less efficient and less plentiful sources of energy are as foreign to us as adaptation to life on the outer moons of Jupiter.

But the question which will confront us all soon enough requires some hard choices and levels of involvement and change few of us are prepared to even think about, let alone act on. Do we want to survive and carry on with new definitions of success and contentment and prosperity as our guides, or do we continue to drive the profit-and-all-the-gadgets-we-can-muster bus over a cliff?

What to do?

Choices….

I’ll have some final thoughts on this series in an upcoming post.

Links to Parts 1 – 5 of this series:

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/03/26/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-1/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/02/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-2/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/09/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-3/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/16/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-4/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/23/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-5/

Sources:

[1] http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/TSWmain.html; WE MUST MOVE TO THE  SIMPLER WAY: AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT by Ted Trainer, Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W. – 10.22.09
[2] http://www.postcarbon.org/beguiling_veneer; A Beguiling Veneer of Normalcy by Richard Heinberg · 04.23.09
[3] http://robertreich.org/post/13852130536; The Most Important Speech of His Presidency by Robert Reich – 12.06.11
[4] http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html; Rees W. 2010. What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 6(2):13-25. Published online Oct 14, 2010.

[Fifth in a series]
Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (and for two more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. This is the fifth installment of the discussion inspired by Ms. Klein’s essay [Links to Parts 1 - 4 below].

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

~~~

If you’ve read the first four installments of this series, “What the f*ck are we going to do?” would seem a reasonable inquiry right about now. Unfortunately, finding even a reasonable approximation of just one well-developed comprehensive response is a pipe-dream at the moment, although there have been many well-reasoned contributions to the discussion.

If/when a petroleum shortage impacts it will concentrate minds wonderfully. But when it comes the window of opportunity could be brief and risky. If things deteriorate too far too fast there could easily be too much chaos for sense to prevail and for us to organize cooperative local alternative systems. [1]

I’m fairly certain that that should not be our first option. And while there’s no disputing this sage observation, we’re going to need much more, as is duly noted:

I submit that most of the world today is in the thrall of a grand, socially constructed vision of global development and poverty alleviation centered on unlimited economic expansion fueled by open markets and more liberalized trade (Rees, 2002). This mythic construct springs from the demonstrably flawed assumption that human well-being derives from perpetual income growth….
Mere information, including scientific analysis of a problem, is generally not enough to stimulate policy reform or effective action. [2]

Here’s what I see as a fundamental and quite serious obstacle to Peak Oil/Climate Change-mandated adaptations: We will soon be asking several billion people to adopt an entirely new mindset about how to live their remaining years on the planet—economically, industrially, socially, personally—with all that this entails. At the same time we’ll be telling several billion more on the verge of finally enjoying at least some semblance of the economic and personal lifestyles of the former that most if not all of those expectations are not going to be met. Messenger volunteers?

All major governments and international development agencies are committed to maintaining the growth in per capita income that has characterized industrial countries for more than a century and to extending consumer culture to the three-quarters of the world’s people who have yet to join the party [3]

In essence, absent planning (and education) at levels and in scope at this moment beyond our rational embrace, a distinct possibility is that all of us are going to have to live our lives and conduct our commercial enterprises in the much more limited manner which this latter group of several billion have been obliged to all their lives.

Who’s prepared for that option?

In my very first post I made my position on the subject quite clear:

… I am definitely not the peak oil movement’s poster child.
I’m an American consumer through and through, but/and yes, a political and social liberal. To our teens’ never-ending annoyance, we recycle religiously. Nearly every one of the seeming seven million light bulbs in our two homes is an energy-saving one. I installed them all myself. But that’s pretty much it for now.
We own two very nice, new luxury automobiles—one an SUV. We have a terrific second home a short walk from the ocean; less than an hour’s drive from our home in the ‘burbs of Boston….
We drive [there, in lieu of public transportation]. Often. Always. Sometimes we make two round trips in the same day. Most times we take at least two if not all 3 vehicles (the third belongs to our 3 teenagers. A fourth—car, not teenager—will soon make its appearance in our driveway). We go to our summer home a lot between May and October.
We’ve traveled a fair amount, have lots of neat household toys, and in general have enjoyed a very nice lifestyle in recent years. I do not recite this to boast about what a great life we have, which we admittedly do—none of which I take credit for. We are indeed very, very lucky, and we know it. But I also understand that we won’t be donating or selling any of our possessions in the near or not-so-near future.

Still haven’t, by the way. Like more than 99% of you, I do not want to have to deal with this; think about it; figure out how to plan, or do anything else of the kind. The enormity of it all is paralyzing!

It would be naïve to think that any attempt to articulate a new sustainability-oriented cultural narrative would not be met by strenuous pushback. We have already shown how reluctant society is to respond consistently to evidence that the world is on a collision course with biophysical reality. Few people opt for ‘voluntarily simplicity’….
‘Contraction’ is simply not a narrative that resonates with the times. On the contrary, most people are psychologically committed to continuous economic growth, the illusion of ever-increasing material prosperity, and the myth of progress (citation). Powerful and privileged elites, those with the greatest personal stake in the status quo, control the policy levers that are steering us onto the ecological rocks.  [4]

It is thus perfectly understandable why instead we are inclined to deny, deceive, or hope that technology will somehow lead or find a way….Some clearly have more than a vested interest in ensuring that we don’t tinker too much with what has been working—for them.

The truth is different. Harsher. Daunting at its best.

[F]or reasons confined to sustainability consumer-capitalist society is so grossly unsustainable that it cannot be fixed. You cannot reform such a system so that it remains focused on affluence, market forces, and growth yet does not cause ever-increasing problems of resource depletion, environmental destruction and social conflict. If you still want to claim that such a system is redeemable the above discussion makes clear the magnitude of the problems you will have to show can be solved by technical advance; statements of faith in technology are not acceptable here. [5]

This not a value judgment about the merits of capitalism versus its drawbacks. It is beyond that. It must be if we are to successfully adapt in some semblance of “just in time.”

This is no longer about blame or condemning the wealthy. We need to move beyond that cat fight. It is instead a recognition we must all come to terms with: That life as we have known it, as wonderful and thrilling and rewarding a ride as it has been, depended on certain fundamental conditions and resources to make it all happen, and now the availability of those essential provisions is diminishing.

We’re still blessed with all kinds of choices. Not a single one of us has to accept this premise or believe in it even a little bit. We are free to continue to go right on living as if life had no limits, and enjoy this until reality puts an end to it. Soon enough, the unpleasant truth is that reality is going to smack each and every one of us upside the head. Denial and hope have their effectiveness limitations, too.

This is instead a simple recognition that certain outcomes flow from the many wonders of capitalism. There are countless good rewards and benefits. Who can rationally argue against that proposition? A peek out one’s window is sufficient proof; a glance around the room inside is no less convincing.

But some results are not so good. There exists an amply-documented inequality in income and opportunity that all but the most viciously self-centered or delusional must admit to. That cannot continue. It’s also quite true that it is admittedly and practically impossible for us to conceive of any other kind of economic system. It’s almost as difficult to believe that we won’t find a way to adapt through even more technological advances and thus continue to carry on.…

But the critical difference is that the fuel—literally—which enabled and supported the creation and maintenance of the society we’ve known over the past 150+ years is simply no longer available as it has been throughout this great ride. Again, not good or bad; just an end result. What to do?

Choices….

Links to Parts 1 – 4 of this series:
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/03/26/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-1/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/02/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-2/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/09/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-3/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/16/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-4/

Sources:

[1] http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/TheTransitionProcess.html; Thoughts on THE TRANSITION To a Sustainable Society by Ted Trainer – 04.10.11
[2] http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html; Rees W. 2010. What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 6(2):13-25. Published online Oct 14, 2010. http:///archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html
[3] Rees
[4] Rees
[5] http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/ted-trainer-the-simpler-way-perspective-on-the-global-predicament/; Ted Trainer: The Simpler Way perspective on the global predicament – In Around the web – 06.01.11 [from TED TRAINER, The Simpler Way]

[Fourth in a series]
Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (and for three more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. [Part 1 here; part 2 here; and part 3 here].

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

~~~

Late last month, in the course of my research and readings, I came across a number of essays and articles by and about Ted Trainer, the proponent of The Simpler Way….

Echoing themes raised by others which I’ve noted in recent posts—and in particular a key feature in Ms. Klein’s essay—Trainer argued that the very system which has produced so much prosperity and technological wonder is simultaneously the very reason why we face monumental challenges in the coming years—most notably the economic inequality front and center these days, as well as the effects of climate change and Peak Oil.

Resolution of the problems we’ll confront, while ensuring the hopes for a future which can and will support our continuing well-being, necessitate much more than a tweak here and there. More troubling still is his (and others’) assessment that the economic system which brought us to this point is not the one to rely on for the next part of our journey.

These considerations of sustainability, global economic justice and social cohesion show that our predicament is extreme and that it cannot be solved in consumer-capitalist society. This society cannot be fixed, because its problems are caused by its fundamental structures and processes. There is no possibility of having an ecologically sustainable, just, peaceful and ‘spiritually’ satisfactory society if we allow market forces and the profit motive to be the major determinant of what happens, or if we seek economic growth and ever-higher ‘living standards’ without limit. [1]

Ms. Klein was a bit more expansive in her similar assessment:

Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency. We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South. Of course, none of this has a hope in hell of happening unless it is accompanied by a massive, broad-based effort to radically reduce the influence that corporations have over the political process. That means, at a minimum, publicly funded elections and stripping corporations of their status as “people” under the law. In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.

Piece of cake! Can’t imagine anyone offering even the slightest objections … couple of weeks and we oughta have everything switched over to ah, um, whatever Plan B is. In truth, the enormity of such an undertaking is for all intents and purposes inconceivable. What to do?

Critical for us all to understand and accept, as Ms. Klein also noted, is that:

Outside the [right-wing, climate change-denying] Heartland conference and like-minded gatherings, the return of planning is nothing to fear. We are not talking about a return to authoritarian socialism, after all, but a turn toward real democracy. The thirty-odd-year experiment in deregulated, Wild West economics is failing the vast majority of people around the world. These systemic failures are precisely why so many are in open revolt against their elites, demanding living wages and an end to corruption. Climate change [and Peak Oil - my comment] doesn’t conflict with demands for a new kind of economy. Rather, it adds to them an existential imperative….
There is a growing body of economic research on the conflict between economic growth and sound climate policy….
The way out is to embrace a managed transition to another economic paradigm.…But the role of the corporate sector, with its structural demand for increased sales and profits, would have to contract.

Her observations are no less relevant to the onset of Peak Oil, and every bit as daunting in execution.

We must guard against the notion that Peak Oil’s impact (like climate change) is just a one-time, cataclysmic episode “scheduled” to happen but only at some random time at an indefinite point sometime in the future, and thus we can put off dealing with it until “later.” It’s already here … has been for more than five years! We’re now cruising along atop a somewhat steady (?) plateau of crude oil supply while feverish exploration continues; but the mountain tops are now all below us.

The fact that we’re addicted to Middle Eastern oil is a national embarrassment.
We’ve had almost a half-century to prepare for this situation, and we haven’t done jack. If we remain in denial, fighting to preserve the status quo, a transition of Middle Eastern oil will ultimately be forced on us. And it’s hard to see why we would ever want that.
So it’s time we focused on this problem. And it’s time we did what any individual or company focused on fixing a long-term problem would do: Start by developing an intelligent long-term plan….
[W]e can elect people who will actually lead us, instead of telling us what we want to hear. And we can encourage these leaders to develop a 10-Year-Plan to cure our Middle Eastern oil addiction.
Such a 10-year plan would likely have elements that will initially be unpopular. The alternative to this unpopularity, however, is continued lack of control over our destiny—which most folks who look at this situation objectively will probably agree is worse. [2]

The assessment is spot-on, but seriously: Who DOESN’T want our marvelous capitalist system to continue full bore, pumping out one astonishing technological feat after another, while producing enormous wealth for many, and equal opportunities for so many more? Who doesn’t want to do all that they can to ensure the continuation of the promises of this lifestyle (present woes duly noted and notwithstanding)? Who in their right mind wants to contemplate for even a micro-second the creation of Mr. Blodget’s suggested ten-year plan, let alone the twenty-year proposal suggested in The Hirsch Report (see related links in the Category sidebar)?

The problem is that at some point, we bump up against reality. We may be enjoying this heady ride for all its worth, but we are doing so because we have enjoyed the untrammeled use of a seemingly-endless supply of resources … and the ride is going to come to an eventual end because reality tells us that the “seemingly-endless supply” is instead quite finite. The end of the ride won’t happen next month or next year or maybe even 2016 or 2020. Who knows for certain?

The issue is that whenever it does arise, based on current observations, we will have not done anywhere near the amount of work and planning and transitioning needed. We will then be faced with more people with more demands who will then be dealing with limited and declining supplies (with alternatives insufficient to match and meet demand) at the very point where they most need them and are most prepared to use them. And no one will have been informed about what we’ll all be confronted with or what we all must do. Is that really our best strategy?

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the costs of peaking can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship [3]

Sound like a good idea to implement? Or: Sit back, wait, hope for the best, and see what happens?

More to come….

Sources:

[1] http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html; Rees W. 2010. What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 6(2):13-25. Published online Oct 14, 2010

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-eastern-oil-addiction-2011-12; It’s 2012–It’s Just Absurd That We’re Still Addicted To Middle-Eastern Oil by Henry Blodget – 12.28.11
[3] http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf; The Hirsch Report p. 52 [PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT by Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader Roger Bezdek, MISI Robert Wendling, MISI - February 2005]

[Third in a series]

[NOTE]: Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (and for four more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. [Part one here; part two here]

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

~~~

Our difficulties and our dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them   — Winston Churchill

Our civilization is driven by an economic system that expects continued and limitless growth. However, during the summer of 2008 when the price of a barrel of oil reached $147, we reached a tipping point for our global economy. The impact on the transportation system and on micro economies and the collapse of global financial systems created a worldwide wakeup call.
We, as a civilization, are totally dependent on oil and fossil fuels. During the summer of 2008, I personally heard the wakeup call and asked my top leaders to gather in our executive conference room. I had a simple question for them. What would happen to our business when the price of a barrel of oil reaches $250? What do we look like in terms of raw materials costs, supply and profitability? Our analysis and relevant contingency planning showed that the business would collapse and most likely disappear if we adopted a wait-and-see strategy. [1]

What if … what if the already-overwhelming and still-growing body of evidence about our warming planet and the peak in crude oil production actually might be the truth? What if the tinfoil hat crowd’s paranoid fears about this Agenda-21-guided, liberal-conspiracy-to-control-the-world sort of nonsense they rant about is in fact nothing but nonsense after all?

What if the countless tens of thousands of scientists and energy experts across countless industries aren’t actually scheming to lie to the citizens of planet Earth in order to … ah, you know … do nefarious conspiratorial liberal things that are “bad”, but are instead merely telling the truth to inform and assist the countless billions who simply do not have access to the information and thus don’t know what faces them? Imagine that!

What a concept: provide sound information to help people plan! Who knew humans could do such things? Some of them Liberals, no less!

Two choices, it seems.

First: continue to deny and delude yourself into thinking that there simply is no conceivable way any—all 100%—of that great body of evidence/facts and the only rational conclusions to be drawn are entirely wrong (and nefarious, etc., etc.). Business as usual, the magic and wonder of just-in-the-nick-of-time Technology rides to the rescue, and “what, me worry?” attitudes can thus continue their paths to limitless growth and prosperity.

Second: there’s more than a bit of truth contained in that great body of evidence/facts and the only rational conclusions to be drawn. It might not be an iron-clad guarantee (what is?). It might not be an 80% or even 65% certainty. But in a rational, practical world where risks are weighed and addressed based on examinations of not-always-100%-guaranteed-facts at hand, the accumulated body of knowledge, evidence, facts, and truths (take your pick) about climate change and Peak Oil are now well past the point where they can be ignored in totality for any sane person or business owner expecting some future measure of continuing well-being and prosperity.

And by “future”, I mean some period of time extending beyond the next-week/next-month-only “long term” calendar some of our leaders seem to utilize in making decisions. We’re talking not just this decade or the next … we’re talking about all of the future—everything after today! “Good right now” is not how we address potential problems of such magnitude unless you simply do not care about what happens to you, your friends, your family, your colleagues, your company, your community, your nation. Hell of life that must be….

In addition to reversing the thirty-year privatization trend, a serious response to the climate threat involves recovering an art that has been relentlessly vilified during these decades of market fundamentalism: planning. Lots and lots of planning. And not just at the national and international levels. Every community in the world needs a plan for how it is going to transition away from fossil fuels, what the Transition Town movement calls an ‘energy descent action plan.’

It has been a consistent theme of mine, and of many others much more credentialed than me, that we are going to have to implement expansive and in some cases quite drastic plans in how we conduct our day-to-day affairs if we are to give ourselves the best chances of success as we adapt to the changes global warming and Peak Oil will impose. We can just wait until the last minute and then scramble around like hell to see what we can come up on the fly—only then realizing the scope of the problem—or we might consider something in advance. The Hirsch Report (here, and see related links in the Category sidebar) offers sound guidance on that score.

Last May, I offered this:

We need a better vision to guide us. And for those looking for reasons why a smaller role for government is what’s called for, I’ll save you the time and tell you this is not the place to be. As the main theme of this series expands in the months to come, I’ll discuss in greater detail why the libertarian/conservative-inspired vision of small government is completely inappropriate a strategy to pursue in light of the challenges we face. (How a bigger role for a better government with honest leadership takes shape will determine whether this ideology is valuable and a necessary pursuit.) Let’s begin with all that needs to be done, and then decide what role the various players will be required to fulfill….
The policies and guidelines supporting those objectives will require a focus on such policies and principles as smart growth, more transportation options, and more research and implementation of alternative energy strategies—while educating ourselves and others of the great changes that will and must take place across all levels of industry, production, commerce, and lifestyles. To that end, there will be a great deal of discussion on greater citizen involvement, energy and industrial policies, the political/partisan elements which too often hinder and harm much more than they assist, and a more detailed role for local governments.

There’s also this from the not-particularly-liberal NewGeography website:

[P]ublic policy can play a useful role in bolstering the long-term resilience of society in the face of the resource challenge, including taking measures to raise awareness about resource-related risks and opportunities, creating appropriate safety nets to mitigate the impact of these risks on the poorest members of society, educating consumers and businesses to adapt their behavior to the realities of today’s resource-constrained world, and increasing access to modern energy, so improving the economic capacity of the most vulnerable communities. [2]

Ms. Klein observed:

It is true that responding to the climate threat requires strong government action at all levels. But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.

And in a terrific essay I’ve cited previously, James Quinn offered these related observations:

We need to prepare our society to become more local….If our society acted in a far sighted manner, we would be creating communities that could sustain themselves with local produce, local merchants, bike paths, walkable destinations, local light rail commuting, and local energy sources.

It’s not rocket science. We can either start taking into consideration essential advice from varied sources such as these and develop new ways of producing and transporting and all kinds of other “ing’s” we now do courtesy of decades upon decades of once-plentiful sources of affordable and highly-efficient energy on a planet once not so burdened with climate change; or we can just wait, hope, cross fingers and toes, and believe in the Magic Right-On-Time Technology Fairy.

Do we (and that includes—especially and significantly—those whom we currently identify as “leaders”) have a say in how this all unfolds? Or is the whole wait, hope … strategy the wiser course? Everyone will be affected; everyone should have a say in how plans develop. A more localized Everything will in due course become the dominant paradigm, and so the more who volunteer their insights, expertise, assistance, or whatever else might help make a difference, the better our chances.

Will we want these same leaders to assume those roles in whatever changed economic and cultural systems are ultimately fashioned? If they are unable or unwilling to assume responsibility now by first acknowledging some harsh realities and then contribute their considerable knowledge and expertise to the demands climate change and Peak Oil impose, why would want them to fill those roles later on?

Step up to the plate or sit on the bench.

More discussion on this topic is on the way….

Sources:

[1] http://www.sbnonline.com/2012/01/stephan-liozu-oil-dependence/?full=1; Oil dependence by Stephan Liozu [“President and CEO of Ardex America Inc. (www.ardex.com), an innovative and high-performance building materials company located in Pittsburgh”] – 01.03.12
[2] http://www.newgeography.com/content/002605-the-us-needs-look-inwards-solve-its-economy; The U.S. Needs to Look Inwards to Solve Its Economy by Adam Mayer – 01.03.12

[Second in a series]

[NOTE]: Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (beginning last week here, and for five more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil.

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

Capitalism in its present form has been a great ride. The technological marvels alone are extraordinary to consider, to say nothing of the advances and opportunities created for most Americans for decades. Despite the snarky commentary from some with nothing better to offer, dispensing “gloom and doom” is not an objective for those of us concerned even just a little about climate change and Peak Oil.

There’s very little joy confronting the facts about these twin challenges. The truth is that nothing would please us more than to continue Business-As-Usual, expand the “pie”, and then carry on with no concerns about the world outside our door, awaiting only the next great technological trends.

But we socialist-marxist-nazi-commie-jovian-hippie-redistributist-taxaholic-liberals are willing to recognize the need for change in ways the Right is not: if more of us are to have the opportunity to restore some semblance of success and prosperity and comfort and economic well-being in the years to come rather than continuing to be at the mercy of systems and policies catering only to the well-off, then significant changes in those very systems are called for, painful and disruptive though they may be for the few.

One simple reason is sufficient: Peak Oil and climate change are going to cause painful and disruptive changes to all of us and for extended periods of time. The strategy of denial and dismissal of facts and evidence will run its course no matter how powerful a hold ideology may have on individuals from every political stripe. Why should we continue to advocate for policies which will protect only the few and widen the gaps even more?

Is this what all of our progress over decades has had as its ultimate aim: reward the few and allow them to survive while ever-larger groups among us suffer that much more?

What to do is itself a monumental challenge, given the rampant, take-no-prisoners partisanship dominating political discourse and policy-making. If you do not agree with me, you are automatically, 100% incorrect (and probably insane, too). Great sound bite; ignorant tactic.

Ms. Klein sets out the challenge:

There is simply no way to square a belief system that vilifies collective action and venerates total market freedom with a problem that demands collective action on an unprecedented scale and a dramatic reining in of the market forces that created and are deepening the crisis.

~~~

As we move into an election year, in which U.S. residents will have prolonged debate over our collective priorities and values, we must pursue answers to a broader question. Since at least 1981, when the Reagan revolution overtook public policy, we have built an economy on two related fictions. The first is that boundless growth is sustainable. The second is that unrestrained capitalism, particularly in the financial sector, will create wealth for everyone. These are discredited ideas, and the question of 2012 must be how we begin building a society based on something different. [1]

Many Americans, including politicians, are under the impression that certain ‘isms’ are magic bullets for prosperity while other ‘isms’ hold prosperity back. For instance, conservatives like to use the talking point that ‘socialism’ will destroy America. Similarly, many of those on the left protest against as what they see as ‘capitalism’ leading to widening inequality. Being for or against a particular ‘ism’ does nothing to improve the economic situation but only serves to inflame rhetoric and kill policies that could potentially help the U.S. economy. [2]

… [I]n truth, the problem extends past the economy. Look around and you’ll find one broken institution after another, each of them buckling under the weight of the late 20th century consensus that greed is good, that a winner-takes-all individualism will somehow improve our collective endeavors….
Our chosen political leaders have tolerated all of this in order to maintain the fiction that our economic system still works, that the organizing principles of our society remain valid. So the central question of 2012’s likely all-consuming political debate must be simple: How do we acknowledge that our current economy is built on lies and then start erecting a new one based on equity and sustainability? [3]

How much longer should we wait before we begin having different discussions about the problems we face and the possibilities for addressing them? And what exactly are we waiting for?

You don’t have to be a rocket-scientist to appreciate the magnitude of changes which a decline in the availability of quality, affordable fossil fuel resources will force upon us across every facet of industry and society (while we patiently wait for Magic Technology or Fully Tested & Proven Alternatives to make their belated appearances).

… [T]he gravity of the climate crisis [and Peak Oil - my comment] cries out for a radically new conception of realism, as well as a very different understanding of limits. Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems. Changing our culture to respect those limits will require all of our collective muscle—to get ourselves off fossil fuels and to shore up communal infrastructure for the coming storms.

Just how quickly are we thinking these changes will fall neatly into place so that we can continue on with Business As Usual? What’s the plan, expectation, or hope for those who still insist on disputing every single bit of evidence that we are facing some constraints in the supply of the very resource which makes growth, progress, and economic prosperity possible? Just how well will life be for the deniers when Peak Oil (and irreversible climate change) are full upon us?

“We’ll be dead by then….” Is that it? Is that good enough? Yikes! Sure hope not….

“It’s not a problem for me now so it obviously won’t be a problem for me later” is likewise an interesting approach and absolutely the correct one to pursue … if one can also stop time simultaneously; otherwise, changes will continue apace, and soon enough that tactic will go the way of delusion and denial….A bet worth making?

Perhaps better notions about planning might be worth considering? I’ll turn to that topic in the next post in this series.

Sources:

[1] http://www.alternet.org/economy/153614/our_economy_has_failed_–_until_we_admit_that,_we%27re_screwed/; Our Economy Has Failed — Until We Admit That, We’re Screwed by Kai Wright – 12.30.11
[2] http://www.newgeography.com/content/002605-the-us-needs-look-inwards-solve-its-economy; The U.S. Needs to Look Inwards to Solve Its Economy by Adam Mayer – 01.03.12
[3] Our Economy Has Failed…. by Kai Wright

[First in a series]

Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday for the next seven weeks, I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. [A related recent post can be found here.]

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

The fact that the earth’s atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly extract. But it is not just the atmosphere that we have exploited beyond its capacity to recover—we are doing the same to the oceans, to freshwater, to topsoil and to biodiversity. The expansionist, extractive mindset, which has so long governed our relationship to nature, is what the climate crisis calls into question so fundamentally. The abundance of scientific research showing we have pushed nature beyond its limits does not just demand green products and market-based solutions; it demands a new civilizational paradigm, one grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal—and acutely sensitive to natural limits, including the limits of human intelligence.

Aside from delusion and denial, what would lead an otherwise intelligent person to just blithely assume that natural resources are limitless or that there won’t be drastic changes as the supplies start to slide down the other side of the slope? These changes, by the way, might be offering at least the hint of a suggestion that some planning would be a good idea … and well in advance to boot.

How can that same intelligence leave one thinking that the technological and industrial growth we both marvel at and use in stunning, creative ways, carries no impact on the surrounding environment? What kind of magical thinking leads one to believe that the cumulative effects of billions upon billions of automobile and commercial vehicle and airline trips over decades—each and every one adding a small or not-so-small measure of exhaust into the surrounding air, combined with the industrial and factory emissions spewing out in their own steady streams over those many decades from all four corners and in countlessly creative yet damaging ways—have done nothing at all to the atmosphere or environment?

We didn’t worry too much about these things back in 765 A.D., or 1393, or 1876, or the Roaring Twenties. But now, in a complex, technologically-advanced industrial and commercial world none of those generations could have envisioned at their most imaginative, we still shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves “all is well”? I remain wedded to the belief that we’re so much better than that. We just need to give ourselves permission to demonstrate it more assertively.

Facts—the kinds we have all used all of our lives to base all kinds of personal and financial and professional decisions from the insignificant to the magnificent—suddenly have limited application and utility when it comes to perhaps the two greatest challenges to mankind’s continuing prosperity we’ve ever confronted! Seriously? (If you are a betting man or woman, which odds do you prefer: the ones offering a much better than 50/50 chance of a particular outcome, or do 3% odds of a different outcome work better for you? 5%?)

Those facts tell us with some considerable degree of certainty that we have reached the limits of easy, accessible, high-quality energy resources which make … everything possible, just as a similar set of facts (which some 97% of those with far greater knowledge than most of us confirm with considerable certainty) tell us we have a warming planet with a broad array of drastic consequences. Not guaranteed, I agree.

But since when is Perfect, 100% Guarantee Every Time All The Time the standard we must now apply to climate change and fossil fuel depletion? Do business owners plan act using that standard? NFL head coaches? Surgeons? Electricians? Farmers? Politicians? Everyone for every decision? That’s about the best, most effective method of ensuring nothing is done at all. Hmmmm. I wonder who might benefit most from that strategy?

We have radio blowhards and nitwit politicians and perfect-hair media personalities insisting that this is indeed the measure we must utilize before accepting climate and energy facts, while assuring the masses this is all just nonsense anyhow … just a gigantic liberal conspiracy!

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in any of these loons offering a sound assessment about my medical condition, or financial strategies, the plumbing in my home, or which toothpaste to buy. Would you? Yet far too many of us place our future well-being in the hands of these same morons when they have no greater experience or expertise in these two vital matters than Homer Simpson! At the very least, this merits a serious “What The F*ck!?”

Ten thousand or fifty thousand years ago, whether the planet warmed or not as part of some natural geological cycle is irrelevant to what is happening now for one simple reason: we weren’t there, then! Our industrial society wasn’t there, nor were there 7 billion other fellow travelers.

Should we march to a tune which suggests that those thousands-of-years-ago consequences on a barely-inhabited planet supporting an ultra-simplistic lifestyle from top to bottom are every bit as relevant and applicable to what will happen in the 21st Century? Wow!

And so too is it just as irrelevant what did or did not happen as was or was not predicted about oil supplies fifty or eighty years ago. This industrial, highly-advanced, technologically sophisticated, interconnected world with 7 plus billion people wasn’t impacting fossil fuel production back then as we all do now. There’s no rational comparison to be made!

And given that many billions of people are just now coming into their own industrially and technologically, just as their successful “models” have been for decades here in the United States, the demands to leapfrog their societies into something resembling our own calls for needed energy resources on a scale unimaginable even just a few decades ago. We’ve consumed a fair amount of them in those intervening years while warming our planet, and what’s left for us just isn’t as “good.” And now we have to meet not just our own demands, so too must the dwindling pool of resources be shared by billions more. The math just doesn’t work….Facts!

Ms. Klein offered answers to the one question too few of us ask of those who work so diligently to convince others to deny: Why are they doing that?

… [T]he real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of building a much more enlightened economic system—one that closes deep inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power.

…[I]f you ask [certain groups of climate change deniers], climate change makes some kind of left-wing revolution virtually inevitable, which is precisely why they are so determined to deny its reality.

For example, among the segment of the US population that displays the strongest ‘hierarchical’ views, only 11 percent rate climate change as a ‘high risk,’ compared with 69 percent of the segment displaying the strongest ‘egalitarian’ views. Yale law professor Dan Kahan, the lead author on this study **, attributes this tight correlation between ‘worldview’ and acceptance of climate science to ‘cultural cognition.’ This refers to the process by which all of us—regardless of political leanings—filter new information in ways designed to protect our ‘preferred vision of the good society.’ As Kahan explained in Nature, ‘People find it disconcerting to believe that behaviour that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behaviour that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it.’ In other words, it is always easier to deny reality than to watch your worldview get shattered.

Where is the advantage in being “wrong” about what we must deal with so as to continue receipt of peer approval, if being wrong ultimately harms you and yours far more than will a display of courage and integrity to accept the truth and make needed changes?

Do we just meekly submit to a misguided notion that the well-off “deserve” whatever they’ve acquired regardless of the impact upon or consequences to society at large, and so until the rest of us poor slobs reach those same heights we just have to accept a skewed system which favors the 1% at everyone else’s continuing expense?

To me, the bigger question remains unchanged: What is the Goal? What is it that we are trying to achieve not just for 99%, but for 100% of us … beyond next week or next month? Should we continue to care about the process, or is the outcome genuinely more important not just today, but long term?

Under current conditions here and world-wide, do we really think that there is much opportunity for most of us? The odds are stacked against it: climate change, the damaging, long-lasting effects of this prolonged Great Recession, and Peak Oil make business-as-usual growth potentials all but inconceivable for the foreseeable future … at best!

So why not try to change the “systems” so that more of us benefit in more ways under the changed conditions and circumstances our great achievements have also produced—however unintended and “blameless” they may be?

Just getting started….

** Yale University’s Cultural Cognition Project, which found that political and cultural world views explain “individuals’ beliefs about global warming more powerfully than any other individual characteristic.” Ms. Klein then elaborates on those findings:

Those with strong ‘egalitarian’ and ‘communitarian’ worldviews (marked by an inclination toward collective action and social justice, concern about inequality and suspicion of corporate power) overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, those with strong ‘hierarchical’ and ‘individualistic’ worldviews (marked by opposition to government assistance for the poor and minorities, strong support for industry and a belief that we all get what we deserve) overwhelmingly reject the scientific consensus.

The conservative approach of starving the nation’s transportation system is bound to prevent it from being an effective engine for economic growth and could potentially lead to the loss of more than a half-million jobs. (How’s that for a bill that calls itself an ‘infrastructure jobs act’?) But to add to the insult, conservatives are turning the legislation into a virtual pharmacy of poison pills. [1]

More and more, I’m tempted to set aside considerations about Peak Oil and wonder when we reach Peak Ignorant, Narrow-Minded, and Shortsighted—hoping it arrives this week!

The (we can only hope) soon-to-be-buried transportation bill winding its way through Congress shows all the wisdom, planning, and foresight of your typical three-year-old [“I don’t care about later; I want only what I want and I want it now ... and you can’t play, either”!] We have a legion of the Clueless and the Dumb legislating on behalf of the (mostly innocent) Uninformed … and all for the benefit of the Few. American exceptionalism on display? Yikes!

As have many others (most much more knowledgeable about transportation policy than me), I recently offered commentary on the hideous bill sponsored by the GOP in its “leaders’” latest demonstration that recognition of reality and the needed long-term planning for said reality is for them defined as about a week, give or take, because facts and reality don’t count for much if they conflict with their narrow-minded ideology of Bad, Bad Federal Government 24/7.

Eliminating the federal transit tax benefit for public transportation users [2] was one of several credits benefiting the mostly middle and lower class lopped off the books in the payroll tax negotiations, demonstrating that transportation policy is not the only arena where it’s possible to kick citizens when they’re down. I keep wondering when the great majority recognizes that most of the legislation coming from the GOP nowadays screws them royally! But as long as the wealthy are catered to, I guess we shouldn’t complain, isn’t that right, Right?

For all practical purposes, the GOP’s transportation bill* eliminates funding for anything other than highways and roads. Eliminating the Mass Transit Account from the federal Highway Trust Fund, as the GOP proposes, eliminates the established source of funds for public transportation. Just like that….In the GOP’s future-less world, funds long-committed to an intelligent vision for the future will have to fight for scraps in a Congress being run mostly by the delusional and short-sighted. Terrific!

* [As I write this before the weekend, rumors are circulating that this provision may be dropped due to strong opposition, including some from members of the GOP as well. Last night one report indicated it had been dropped. The question remains: why would such a provision have been entertained to begin with? What does that suggest about their priorities and the long-term interests of this nation?]

More congestion! More pollution! Screw urban dwellers! More oil and gas sales! Let the poor walk! We dance to the Tea Party tune, and since they don’t understand much, we don’t care! (Actually, that’s a great title for the legislation; wonder why they didn’t give the bill that name? Kinda long, so perhaps that’s the reason….)

The Tea Party is superb at disguising cultural battles as the pursuit of responsible thrift. And mass transit exists at the vortex of many of their No. 1 ideological targets. It’s brilliant, when you think about it.
Defunding transit is how you smack down urbanites, environmentalists, and people of color, all in one fell swoop. It’s how you telegraph a disdain for all things European. It’s how you show solidarity with swing-state suburbanites who don’t understand why their taxes are going toward subways they don’t even use. And it’s how you subtly reassure your base that you’re not concerned about the very poor. [3]

(Neil Pierce also wrote a very nice column in the wake of this ridiculous legislation, expounding on the Tea Party’s nonsense—and influence over—transportation and related policy, even in the face of considerable bipartisan opposition. Worth the read. The Agenda 21 paranoia-driven, fear-based cluelessness he writes about would be comical if it wasn’t so genuinely disturbing.)

As PeakOilMatters has been discussing since its inception, as have many others with even more knowledge than me, at some point in time much sooner than most of us realize, and long, long before we are even remotely prepared, the effects of declining fossil fuel availability are going to extend into every facet of our lives—personal, commercial, professional, and social.

Given how much our entire transportation system is dependent on those fossil fuels to function, when availability and quality are in decline as costs increase, severe disruptions not just in industrial transportation but in our own every-day travels are inevitable. If the gas you use all the time isn’t as plentiful, as “good”, as available, or as inexpensive as you’ve been accustomed to, change is going to happen. And for all the reasons and FACTS Peak Oil proponents share, that’s the reality we’re heading towards. When? Who knows? The date doesn’t matter.

It will be a process that begins quietly and barely noticed at first [already has], and will likely continue for an extended period of time. But all the while that snowball will be gathering momentum as the decline continues. Then, the “potential might possible’s” and half-truths about shale oil and tar sands which the deniers toss out to cloud the issue about fossil fuel production and supply will stop mattering at all.

And when all of this is still gathering strength and affecting pretty much everything we do (absent a lot of planning and adaptation well in advance), what transportation options will be available to us if we continue to allow shortsighted, narrow-minded ideologies dictate how we plan and prepare for our collective future? No option is pain-free, easy, or inexpensive. But cutting off the viable options which may ease much of the burden in blind fealty instead to a system of (non) governance which will do nothing but cause untold and avoidable harm to tens of millions of us is … idiotic! Our leaders may not be better than that, but we are, and we need to step up.

Crisis, or opportunity?

I’m planning to be back with some final thoughts on the transportation matter in an upcoming post, laying out some of the more popular arguments against federal funding of mass transit and why most of it is indeed shortsighted; but for now, I’ll leave you with an additional comment first from Isaiah J. Poole’s column referenced above, and then a final one from the Neil Pierce column also linked to above. Food for thought….

Through this transportation bill, conservatives are pushing the transmission into reverse on everything from environmental policy to workers rights to women’s health. Their efforts would cost the nation’s jobs, make the movement of goods and services less efficient, convert what should be public resources into private profit centers, and keep us mired deep in the 20th century when our global economic competitors are pressing toward the future.

[W]e need courageous leaders — national, state and local — to assert that the United States does need a world-class transportation system, combining road and rail and air, and based on sane low-carbon energy alternatives, not overwhelming but rather serving accessible, livable, walkable communities. And that we’re willing to pay for it.
Ideology aside, what’s wrong with that?

What kind of a future do we want?

Sources:

[1] http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012020714/conservatives-transportation-throw-america-reverse; Conservatives On Transportation: Throw America Into Reverse by Isaiah J. Poole – 02.14.12
[2] http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/18/transit-tax-break-buried-in-partisan-debate/; Transit Tax Break Buried in Partisan Debate by Janet Babin – 02.18.12
[3] http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/the_tea_partys_war_on_mass_transit/; The Tea Party’s war on mass transit by Will Doig – 02.13.12

Although it is likely that the President and his Secretary of Energy understand that a decline in world oil production is not far away, it is simply not a topic to be raised prior to an election as the political risk is simply too great. Someday, likely within the next decade, the US and the rest of world’s governments will have to acknowledge there is a problem here, and unless alternative sources of energy can be developed and brought     into general use quickly, major changes in economic activities and lifestyles are going to take place. [1]

So that’s sufficient reason to be allowing moronic decisions to serve as current policy instead? Do any of our “leaders” in Congress understand the concept of “long-term planning”? Foresight? How about just plain ‘ol basic “planning” … the kind that runs beyond Election Day? Are they all clueless … and self-serving beyond all bounds of basic decency?

The latest demonstration of short-sighted, narrow-minded “leadership” comes courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee. Last week, the Committee’s majority, in their infinite wisdom, proposed a much-needed transportation bill which managed to all but eliminate currently-legislated funding for public transit, among other egregious, ignorant and decidedly ideological proposals having very little to do with national best interests.

This awesome display of brazen hypocrisy (and a giant “screw you” to millions of not-wealthy citizens who use and/or rely on public transit) calls for that funding to now take a number and wait in line for crumbs from the general fund—the same general fund which supplies the needed revenue for all other government spending. Now, the billions collected from the (wildly insufficient) gas tax will be directed exclusively to road programs, rather than allocating a percentage of those revenues to transit as has been customary and routine for decades.

But the good news is that the House wants $40 billion in spending cuts to offset this “transfer” of funding to the general fund. Another giant “screw the future” message….

With a House like this, what advances can American transportation policy make?
Actions by members of the U.S. House over the past week suggest that Republican opposition to the funding of alternative transportation has developed into an all-out ideological battle. Though their efforts are unlikely to advance much past the doors of their chamber, the policy recklessness they have displayed speaks truly poorly of the future of the nation’s mobility systems. [2]

Wouldn’t it be easier for them to just announce that they genuinely don’t give a shit about 99% of Americans? Think of how much time and energy they’d save by making it obvious to even the densest of right-wing, (non-wealthy only, of course) supporters that what’s in their best interests really does not matter any more than it does for those who support the Democrats.

Dan Smith of USPIRG put it like this:
The House Ways and Means Bill stops just short of defunding America’s public transit system. Instead it says that the real money with a funding source will all go to highways, while the tooth fairy will pay for transit. For Big Oil and the highway lobby, this is a dream, but it’s a nightmare for America’s transportation future. [3]

Here in Eastern Massachusetts, the state’s Department of Transportation recently rolled out a grim set of proposals designed to counter severe budget shortfalls. All indications are that an increase in the state’s gas tax as a viable source for funding is a dead issue before it’s even raised in the legislature, so cutbacks in Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [MBTA] services—  coupled with fare hikes affecting commuter rail, bus, ferry, and subway riders—are Plan B. Parking fees at various transit stations would also be raised.

Under one scenario, fares overall would increase by 43 percent, while under the other, they would increase by 35 percent.
Under both scenarios, MBTA ferries would be eliminated, commuter rail weekend service would be eliminated and nighttime service would end at 10 p.m., and weekend service on [specified transit lines] would be eliminated.
But in the second scenario, a larger number of bus routes would be cut, generating savings that would enable the smaller fare increase. [4]

The MBTA also provides commuter rail service to the Massachusetts North Shore community where our summer home is located. We try to spend as many weekends there as we can during the late spring through mid-autumn period. But under what I labeled as the MBTA’s Plan B as noted above, elimination of weekend rail service there is also on the table.

… [O]fficials said there is no way to quantify exactly how many weekend visitors who come by commuter rail would stay away if they had to drive instead.
But during the summer, Rockport and Manchester fill with out-of-towners, many of whom take the commuter rail in order to save money or to avoid the difficultly of finding parking space. [5]

(That same article also notes this distressing fact: “According to the MBTA, 12 percent of commuter rail passengers would be affected by the cuts, and 6.7 million fewer people would ride the commuter rail each year than do currently.” That’s not an insignificant number of people obliged to now use autos instead….)

I’ll admit that to date this is not an issue affecting me personally. We drive to our summer home, as I’ve noted in other posts such as this one. I did, however, make use of public transportation on one notable occasion back in 2010, as I recounted (here):

As I noted way back when in my introduction to this blog, we are very fortunate. We own an exquisite (at least to us), spacious summer home a hundred yards or so from the Atlantic Ocean. We vacation here and enjoy every blessed minute of it! In normal driving conditions, it takes us fifty minutes or so to go door-to-door from our suburban Boston home to the ‘beach house’, which is where I am as I write this. What a treat for us!
Summer vacation usually means grabbing as much time as we can here—work and young adult schedules permitting. That means frequent travel along the Route 128/Interstate 95 corridor … most times with more than one vehicle; most times more than once or twice a week.
As a strong proponent of Peak Oil, I have decidedly mixed feelings about this, as I have mentioned before….I love this lifestyle, and I approach my task of disseminating information about our soon-to-be-curtailed availability of fossil fuel supply with more than my fair share of selfish trepidation. We do not yet own hybrid vehicles, and so we spend more than our fair share of time filling the gas tanks of my wife’s German import and my Japanese SUV in order to make many trips to and from our summer home from Memorial Day through mid-October. I balance that guilt with the acknowledgment (rationalization?) that I work from home, and that my wife’s office is about 6000 feet from our home, so we actually spend no more on gas than most other families.
Once gas prices begin their inevitable climb up, whether that’s later this year, next year, or a couple more years down the road, and with a simultaneous curtailment in how much fossil fuel will remain available to us to meet all of demands and expectations and needs, my rationalizations may not matter much.
With that in mind yesterday, for the first time in the 6 summers that we’ve owned this home, I used public transportation to make most of the journey from home to here at the beach house. My daughter drove me a couple of miles to a commuter rail stop which took me into Boston’s North Station, where I then—some fifteen minutes after my
arrival—boarded a different rail line to take me to the North Shore. I then hailed a cab to take me the three miles or so from the train station to our summer place. (I’ve already informed my wife that I will soon take public transportation door to door, just to see what that’s like. That will add two bus trips and a decent amount of walking at the beginning and end of my trip, along with two separate subway rides. I’m expecting at     least an additional hour of travel each way, but no more than a few more dollars in fares.)
The one way trip yesterday cost me about $20.00, and took me two hours and ten minutes door to door. Compare that to less than $10.00 of gas and less than 60 minutes of travel time when I drive. More expensive certainly, and clearly more time-consuming, but all in all it was a pleasant enough experience, and surprisingly scenic in several places along the way. It was nice to be able to read and engage in some computer work while traveling … not an option when I’m barreling along at 65 miles per hour on Route 128.

So when we all begin experiencing first-hand and on a regular basis the myriad consequences of reduced availability of the fossil fuel resources we’ve long taken for granted, how quickly can our local communities, regional administrations, states, and federal authorities reinstate and create new transportations modes? Has that thought occurred to any of our brilliant Congressional officials who now feel emboldened to all but eliminate these options right now because they are intellectually incapable of thinking beyond November, and morally opposed to anything that might smack of decency and national interest (except, of course, the national interests on the wealthy)?

How much money, time, effort, and resources can we be expected to waste by devoting all of those assets to highways and roadways used by gasoline-chugging vehicles … highways and roadways and vehicles whose usage and very existence will be challenged in decades to come when the availability of affordable, efficient, and plentiful fossil fuels is no longer routinely assured to the masses?

… A]s the consumer of a quarter of the world’s oil supply, we can have a significant effect on the world oil market by making sure that our economy can adjust quickly and easily to changes in the oil price….
Increased investment in alternative modes of transport, such as mass transit (both buses and rail), bike lanes, bike and car sharing, and walking improvements to allow many more workers the option of getting to their jobs without the use of a personal car.
Improvements in our nation’s rail system to allow more freight to be shifted from truck to rail.
Encouraging the electrification of transport (including the alternative transport options mentioned above) to provide transport options which are not dependent on oil.
In short, we need to make the market for transportation services more efficient by encouraging new entrants (mass transit, bikes, trains) and competition with the incumbent car/internal combustion engine infrastructure. [6]

Wouldn’t it be nice to have voted into office leaders who think about these fact-based possibilities on our behalf (even if these contrary-to-their-ideology issues are not 100%, absolutely guaranteed to occur in every moment and circumstance?)

Why should this be wishful thinking?

Sources:

[1] http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/11048-the-peak-oil-crisis-election-2012.html; The Peak Oil Crisis: Election 2012 by Tom Whipple – 02.01.12
[2] http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/02/06/time-to-fight/; Time to Fight by Yonah Freemark – 02.06.12
[3] http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/02/02/house-gop-takes-transit-funding-hostage/; House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding by Ben Goldman – 02.02.12

[4] http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/01/state-unveils-two-mbta-fare-increase-service-cut-scenarios/DoUG26YM6frTKPtULQkOUK/index.html; MBTA fares could rise as much as 43 percent; ferry, bus, commuter rail cuts also eyed by Martin Finucane – 01.03.12

[5] http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1666061106/MBTA-service-cuts-seen-hurting-Cape-Ann; MBTA service cuts seen hurting Cape Ann by Stephanie Bergman – 01.05.12

[6] http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2012/01/26/the-end-of-elastic-oil/; The End of Elastic Oil by Tom Konrad – 01.26.12

We all act much the same way, ideologies notwithstanding. Human nature, I suppose. The more important questions: might we benefit from a bit of introspection before doing more of the same….

What comes after the ideology is appeased? How do we each and collectively deal with the outcomes of roads taken and not taken?

I could spend hours pointing out the nonsense of Republican orthodoxy, and sure as hell ten from the Right will rise up and point out what an idiot I am because they happen to have Chart A, Opinion B, and Evidence C to show me why I’m so thoroughly wrong. And just as quickly, ten of my peers will produce Chart D, Opinion E, and Evidence F to show why the Right is clueless. There are surely no topics having influence or impacting any segment of society which are not subjected to this type of analysis, dialogue, and dispute. And on and on it goes….

As an ideological exercise designed to reassure us that we are obviously correct and our opponents are just as decidedly insane, there’s merit in continuing to wage philosophical, political, and economic war with those on the “other” side who just simply don’t get it … at all! Ever! In a fact-free and consequence-free world, we could indulge ourselves forever by playing this game. Every day is Groundhog Day.

What is this getting us, exactly (besides a healthy stroking of our egos and intellect, of course)?

Back in the day, when all of life was so much simpler and easier, we could afford to just take care of our own, prosper, debate, solve problems, and then carry on with the assurance that tomorrow all but guaranteed better opportunities than those of today. That dizzying pace never got away from us.

But today, “our own” is … everyone else, and the pace has quickened in every direction. Several billion people want to be just like the best of our best. But when the few best resist the efforts and attempts of everyone else, or deny them the very opportunities which boosted them up the ladder, we have problems. And when the game board itself has changed to, and we no longer have all the pieces we need to win the game on our own, we’ll have even more problems if we don’t consider changing the rules a bit—assuming “winning” is still the goal. If not, then the current winners will by and large remain, everyone else loses, and pretty soon, everyone loses … all 100% of us.

Sound like a good strategy for the 21st Century?

I’m thinking a bigger vision is needed. As I suggested several months ago: “do we bog ourselves down by nit-picking—working harder to find out why something won’t work or why it is not perfect in every way under every condition and for every person—or do we adopt a grander strategy that will under no conditions be perfect or even acceptable to everyone, but provides us with the best long-term opportunities…?”

That remains a choice we each and all own.

The challenges are exacerbated by little tricks each and every one of us plays. They must help us in the moment, else we would change, but introspection might offer up some different approaches to help us all, and for a longer period of time. We shouldn’t be turning down any chances to make things better.

… [P]eople who know very little about an issue — say the economic downturn, changes in the climate or dwindling fossil fuel reserves — tend to avoid learning more about it. This insulates them in their ignorance — a pattern described by researchers as ‘motivated avoidance.’
Faced with complicated or troubling situations, these people often defer to authorities like the government or scientists, hoping they have the situation under control….
‘This is psychologically easier than taking a significant amount of time to learn about an issue, all the while confronting unpleasant information about it,’ [Steven Shepard] added. [1]

Too often, the “authorities” deferred to have motivations and interests entirely at odds with those who have turned to them for assurances that everything is being managed and “under control.” The result is obvious: Authorities misinform, misdirect, or even outright lie to promote their own agenda.

More and more we respond by shutting out the assault of cognitive dissonance and retreating from any unwelcome input. We surround ourselves with news outlets, friends and even neighbors who carefully reinforce what we want to believe. We are building our own reality to support our chosen narrative. It doesn’t seem to be working out well on a personal level and it’s rotting our politics. [2]

Is this the better and wiser approach (notwithstanding the pointlessness of it all)? Will there come a time when most of us (I’m not that optimistic!) decide that perhaps we ought to consider choosing paths which give us the best chance of leading to a reasonable and acceptable level of continuing well-being and prosperity—even if those choices do not mesh with the ideologies and beliefs we cling to so tenaciously?

That commitment requires that we take a moment to consider what happens if we don’t do so. This is not the time or place for delusion and denial.

… [A]n array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called ‘motivated reasoning [citation]’ helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, ‘death panels,’ the birthplace and religion of the president [citation], and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts….
We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself….
[O]ur quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about….
‘[We] retrieve thoughts that are consistent with [our] previous beliefs,’ says Charles Taber [political scientist from Stony Brook University], ‘and that will lead [us] to build an argument and challenge what [we’re] hearing.’
In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing … Our ‘reasoning’ is a means to a predetermined end—winning our ‘case’—and is shot through with biases. They include ‘confirmation bias,’ in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and ‘disconfirmation bias,’ in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. [3]

Okay … guilty as charged. So now what?

We obviously wouldn’t be making use of these psychological tricks of the trade if they didn’t provide us with benefits and gratifications. So is that it? Shrug our shoulders, admit that we are all guilty from time to time and then … nothing?

Might we consider the possibility of being “better” than that? If we choose to solve what might appear at first blush to be overwhelming and even insoluble problems, we need more. We need more from our systems, more from our leaders, and more from ourselves. “Greater/better” leads to greater responsibilities of course, and there are ample reasons why we may prefer to just leave that to others.

A choice, of course. But every choice has an outcome, and when the challenges are great, great effort is called for. The alternative outcome is usually quite obvious: worse….

Guilty as charged there, too. Not much long-term benefit, to be sure, but easier in the moment by a long shot….

… [A]ccording to Charles Taber and Milton Lodge of Stony Brook, one insidious aspect of motivated reasoning is that political sophisticates are prone to be more biased than those who know less about the issues. ‘People who have a dislike of some policy—for example, abortion—if they’re unsophisticated they can just reject it out of hand,’ says Lodge. ‘But if they’re sophisticated, they can go one step further and start coming up     with counterarguments.’ These individuals are just as emotionally driven and biased as the rest of us, but they’re able to generate more and better reasons to explain why they’re right—and so their minds become harder to change.
Cherry-picking is precisely the sort of behavior you would expect motivated reasoners to engage in to bolster their views. [4]

Sound familiar?

More shoulder-shrugging, or do we reach for and seek to be … more?

Sources:

[1] http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2011/12/19/1; PUBLIC OPINION: Report finds ‘motivated avoidance’ plays a role in climate change politics, by Umair Irfan – 12.19.11
[2] http://www.frumforum.com/where-the-crazy-may-be-coming-from; Where the Crazy May Be Coming From, by Chris Ladd – 09.16.11
[3] http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney; The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science – How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link, by Chris Mooney – 04.18.11
[4] Mooney