"Saudi Arabia has Peaked..."
Posted by Prof. Goose on April 19, 2007 - 11:30am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: saudi arabia [list all tags]
This a guest post by Alan Drake.
Tomorrow morning, as you are starting your first cup of coffee, you turn on the morning news to “In a surprise announcement last night, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced that Saudi Arabia would not be able to increase oil production. He urged conservation by oil importing nations. Reaction has been …”
After cleaning up a messy coffee stain and vainly trying to log onto TOD, what to do?
And what should, and will, the US and the rest of the world do?
Every responsible government will immediately raise gasoline taxes (this excludes the United States of America).
Switzerland will investigate how their 31 billion Swiss franc Alp Transit and related railroad improvements might be speeded up, completing the shift of freight from truck to (hydro).electric rail. Completion by 2020 does not seem quite so comfortable as it did yesterday. German standards for insulation in new construction are adopted and the push for more geothermal heat is intensified. Debate about a new nuclear plant starts anew.
Basically, Switzerland just speeds up along the path that they were already on.
Thailand will add wind turbines in the south to their Laotian hydroelectric projects and create a 95+% renewable electrical grid. They will pay the contractors building their extensive elevated Urban Rail system in Bangkok bonuses for completion ahead of schedule, the plans for more Urban Rail lines on the drawing board will be started ahead of schedule and streetcars will be built in smaller Thai cities and towns. Aid to small farmers to install manure fed bio-gas reactors for cooking gas and to fuel small tractors will be quadrupled and the national rail network will be improved and electrified with plans for expansion. Electrical assist bicycles and tricycles will be promoted as alternatives to motorcycles.
Basically, Thailand just speeds up along the path that they were already on.
And what of the USA?
I would suggest the following measures, divided into when the conservation effects will first become significant (most will grow in significance over time) and not when they are first implemented.
I would advocate only measures that improve Global Warming or at least, make it no worse.
I also see a North American natural gas crisis shortly after Peak Oil, so massive shifting from oil to natural gas is a poor strategy. However, there will be increased use of Natural Gas and Propane/Butane for transportation and this will require reduced natural gas use for generating electricity, and less NG as well as Propane/Butane for water heating and space heating in order to make available light hydrocarbons for transportation.
Immediate Savings –
National 50 mph speed limit for the next decade (likely to be renewed unless things turn out “better than expected”).
Increase fuel tax on airlines for improved Air Traffic Control (higher taxes > less used)
Reduce mass transit fares via federal subsidy, especially off-peak (a dime?)
Put a 50% federal tax on all tolls, increasing tolls and commuting costs.
Reduce sports events parking and set up remote Park & Ride lots (some in near by cities).
A federal tax of 30% on private paid parking lots. (Higher parking fees increase car pooling and transit use).
Media campaign to promote walking, bicycling, taking transit and car pooling. Also promote 4 day work week (4 x 10 hours instead of 5 x 8 hours or even alternating 4 and 5 day weeks, 9 hours/day).
Short Term Savings (1 to 4 years in the future)
Enact a federal gasoline tax that increases at 3 cents/month for 25 years. The funds will be used to steadily reduce payroll taxes and Medicare premiums, depending upon the prior year gas tax receipts. Minimal initial pain due to taxes, but this will motivate people to start making long term structural changes.
Stop all new highway construction projects except HOV lanes
Enlarge bicycle parking and bike lanes, taking street traffic lanes in some cases.
Increase CAFÉ by 50% immediately coupled with Gas Guzzler taxes on any new vehicle under 27.5 mpg (modest tax at 27 mpg, prohibitive at 18 mpg). Further increases in CAFÉ 4 years later.
Have the US Gov’t assist the merger of GM & Ford, as it once assisted Chrysler.
Add a federal “Gas Guzzler” tax to license tag renewals to speed scraping of oversized SUVs. Etc.
Revoke authorization for all Bus Rapid Transit projects not actively under construction. Either rework as streetcar or electric trolley buses or postpone for a decade.
Build more vehicles for existing Urban Rail lines on a crisis “3 or 4 shift” basis. Many more rail cars for Amtrak as well but on a slightly less urgent and more economic basis.
Increase incentives for ground source ('geo-thermal') heat pumps to replace oil and natural gas heat. (Air source along the Gulf Coast). Encourage localities to require for new construction. Low cost federal funding for a fraction of the cost is one option.
Increase incentives for solar water heating and require it in some cases for new construction (such as rental units). Low cost federal funding for a fraction of the cost is one option.
Continue incentives for tankless gas and propane water heaters.
Require rental units to replace hot water heaters with tankless, solar or heat pump hot water heaters.
Require minimum energy efficiency on new rental unit construction.
A federal tax of $200/space/year for commercial parking lots, increasing to an inflation adjusted $1,000/space/year. This will speed changes in our urban form to a more energy efficient form and provide funds for tax cuts and spending initiatives elsewhere.
Extend the wind and other renewable tax credits several years into the future with a slow phase out instead of the current abrupt cut-off (the risk of abrupt cut-off inhibits building new wind turbine factories). The subsidy during the Phase out period can be increased later as events warrant.
An 80 cent tax on each incandescent bulb.
Intermediate Savings (5 to 12 years in the future)
Start construction ASAP (within 1 to 3 years) of “on-the-shelf” Urban Rail plans listed in appendix.
Any freight railroad that electrifies will be exempt from property taxes. This will also encourage additional infrastructure.(more tracks, better signals, more grade separation) since the railroads will not have to pay property taxes on improvements. Perhaps tax credits or low interest loans (via federal guarantees) for electrification and capacity increases.
Amtrak can allocate $2 billion/year to freight railroads that will increase capacity via tracks and signals that will, in turn, speed Amtrak trains.
Require that rental units meet certain energy efficiency standards before being sold (an idea borrowed from Germany). This may lead to a faster change in our urban form.
Work with Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaskan villages and small islands to reduce oil used for electrical generation.
Improved Air Traffic Control reduces aviation fuel use by 3% or so.
Long Term Savings (13 to 50 years in the future)
Stop all new highway construction, including HOV lanes and remove selected urban highways.
Build a network of semi-High Speed Rail lines that service both passengers (at say 125 mph top speed, 110 mph average speed ) and express freight at 100 mph on electrified rail lines.
Encourage, via property tax exemptions, tax credits and low interest loans the development of long distance HV DC transmission lines and pumped storage as long as these projects are linked to renewable generation (mainly new wind turbines).
Explore bio-sources to replace selected petrochemical feedstocks.
Install electric trolley buses on heavy bus routes that are not appropriate for streetcars or light rail.
Add a “risk premium” to federally funded or guaranteed mortgages that are more than 1 mile from a stop or station for electrified transportation (rail or bus).
The above is a diverse set of government led actions, the free market will respond in a variety of ways to both higher oil prices and government actions.
Are any of these bad ideas with negative unintended consequences? What other actions can be made at a government policy level? And should you skip breakfast and go immediately to the nearest gas station and fill up the car?
Here is another idea... Implement change to work schedules - possibly four 10 hr days instead of five 8 hr days to cut down on commute. Encourage where possible work from home/telecommute, etc. (Depends on if more net energy is consumed by folks staying at home vs shutting down homes and congregating in offices)
just a thought
He already has that one.
I was thinking of a return to Sunday as a day of rest, but people want to drive to church, the mall, the ball game, the golf course, etc. Even if businesses were closed, it would require massive rescheduling of community activities.
So how about Monday instead? Close businesses on Mondays, require special plates to drive Mondays and limit the work week to Tuesday thru Friday.
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
I want to shoot
The whole day down.
In the '70 there were carless sundays. With exceptions for emergency services, but the highways were pretty much deserted. It's annoying, but justifiable if the alternatives are rationing, by price or otherwise.
I remember. I also remember the '60s when most every store was closed on Sundays. I was thinking that there's no point to a four day work week if everyone goes driving on their extra day off.
Also, less driving forces one to think locally.
When I lived in Massachusetts, they still had the Blue Laws, which required that the stores be closed on Sundays. There were lots of loopholes though - a 7-11 could be open, but a grocery store could not. Restaurants were unaffected by this. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas the law was suspended so people could go out and buy useless crap for gifts.
When I lived on Long Island, only businesses with a few employees were allowed to be open. My Dad could buy his Sunday morning paper and pastries, but Mom couldn't go grocery shopping. So they'd send us outside, so we didn't trash the house, and go for a nice, relaxing drive. Back then the neighbors were afraid of us, not the other way around.
As I recall, the larger stores began to argue that they sold newspapers and pastries too, that they were losing business to small stores and that they were being treated unfairly. In response, the supermarkets were allowed to open on Sundays with only as many employees as were allowed for the small stores. But people liked shopping on Sundays and bought more and more than just newspapers and pastries. And it went from there.
Donal; I already mentioned that. You are on the same wave as me, The world is spinning on time, 24/7 and everything has to do with pay back. We need the "day of rest" back but much different. Its hard to stop everyone or telling people they cannot do this or that but it would provide the cheapest form of conservation, just don't travel on this particular day. If you do (other than essential services or emergencies etc) then you pay a small fine going towards Climate change funding or subsidies, for without oil, Al Gores dream will not bear fruit!
For one day a week or a month, it would be nice just to "tinker" about the home.
Wishfull thinking! & it probably will never happen
The world wasn't designed for 24/7,.. day and night, yet our craving for speed increases, and the faster we go, the harder time bites back.
OCB
I know this is an American site, but to give you an idea what other countries would do (my guess).
1)
Most thinkers in Finland, including key politicians, would be clueless. It would not register on their radar.
When other countries would start to act swiftly, Finland would play the catch up game (we are good at the catch up game).
Once they understood the significance, they'd try an improve emergency stock of oil (double, triple).
This approach would be seriously hampered by other countries doing the same (a bit earlier).
2)
Finnish politicians would procrastinate and bicker about the need to build the sixth, seventh and eight nuclear power plants (EPR type, 1600MW minimum / plant).
By the time Finnish politicians got around to it, nuclear power plant makers would be back ordered in their delivery capacity for a decade or so.
3)
They would then start changing the legislation to allow easier ramp up of windmill farms on the coast line. This would take a few years. They'd also consider subsidies for wind mills or a guaranteed minimum price for electricity produced this way.
Windmill manufacturers might also be constrained in their delivery capacity for some time, due to a surge of orders from most European coastal countries.
4)
Then they'd try to accelerate current bio-fuels program in order to try and ramp up the production swiftly. They'd consider switch grass type perennial grass, rapeseed (to some extent) and cellulose waste feed from forestry/paper industries.
Forest industry would complain that it messes up their value chain and would try to prevent this development to some extent. Regardless, things would go forward without a single serious net energy calculation done for any of the biofuels that would be ramped up.
5) They'd tighten the taxes on certain type of fuels in order to curtail growing consumption (esp. heating oil) and try to encourage swift (10 years) transition from oil heating in residential buildings to geo-thermal exchange heat pumps. In addition, they'd probably improve minimum insulation standard for new buildings and give incentives to retrofit existing ones with more insulation.
Initially people would complain, boycott and not go along with the program. However, a sharp and steady price in oil (with increased taxes) might change people's opinions quickly.
This would cause a big boom in heat exchange and geothermal exchange pumps. Construction industry would have to adjust and would be capacity constrained for a while.
6)Economists would start calculating losses and risks for various sectors:
Obvious losers: Asian air traffic by the domestic airline. Already tightly squeezed trucking companies delivery goods on the roads. People doing very long commutes daily. People living outside big cities, away from rail and coast. All this according to the economists.
Risk analysis would not take into account: falling future export levels from oil export countries, falling eroei of oil production, relative inelasticity of oil demand, agriculture, food import dependence & systemic influence on world economy and the growth paradigm.
Of course, all of the above is just a wild guess based on how this matter is dealt publicly and in research papers here in Finland.
At least you have several agencies in USA that have researched (are researching) and acknowledge the potential risk of the situation.
Hello SamuM,
TOD welcomes all members because you may post an idea or link that is applicable to someone else that may help their particular situation, and vice versa. I regularly check the other TODs, and I think many others do too. Energy is global: our cooperation must be global too. Post away my friend!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Finland and Sweden are quite simmilar but Finland seems to be better managed from my Swedish point of view. But we have more often gone ahead and done both dumb and smart things ahead of Finland.
I dont think a Saudi proclamation of a peak in their oil production initially would change much. They would not be the first country to peak, peak oil isent realy news since our former prime minister had it as his last main issue but the priority for oil replacement etc would go up.
I would guess all kinds of budgets for oil efficient infrastructure, energy investments and research would get a 5% increase and then a 10% increase and then more if other countries start to panic. Municipialities and lots of private companies will probably do the same when the writing is on the wall.
There would probably be massive investments in electricity infrastructure and biofules. Our nuclear power debate would probably complete its 180 degree turn but it is likely that we would be in the 10-15 year queue alongside Finland 7 and 8. That would probably trigger a reestablishment of the Swedish industry for making major nuclear reactor components and perhaps even complete powerplants.
We would probably rewind a lot of our red tape to avoid cost driving delays for misc investments. There could be a change in general consumption patterns from private consumption to both public and private investments. It might even be quite good times for a country with a lot of the know-how and resources needed post peak.
Dear estamos...is it possible to say somos jodidos or does that not make sense?
Hi,
This is way off-topic, but here goes an answer to
your question:
As you probably know, there are two verbs in Spanish
that can be translated as "to be": "ser" and "estar".
"somos jodidos" uses the "ser" verb, which implies
an intrinsic quality. This is not what you mean
to say, I think. Use the verb "estar" instead:
"estamos jodidos".
As I said before: "Alan Drake for President"
I second the nomination.
How about stopping the corn to ethanol madness and exchanging our corn (70% of world exports) only for oil.
Or, on a related matter, how about encouraging the raising of grass fed beef and other kinds of meat such as poultry on integrated pasture based farms that incorporate a heavy emphasis on localized consumption of same. Corn is an energy intensive, environmentally destructive crop; the primary reason it is being used for ethanol is because it has become, through subsidization of mega monocultures, such a dominant part of our agricultural landscape.
Ugh. A giant statist approach to reduce demand is sound policy?
No, a big statist approach isn't sound policy. It simply reveals that the author is perhaps a bit naive.
Heat pumps -- good idea. They sell themselves without subsidies. They could use a good marketing campaign though. There is a HUGE heat pump project in Honolulu.
"Require minimum energy efficiency on new rental unit construction." -- I'm all for improving building codes. Good luck on getting it done on a nationally mandated basis.
Tankless water heaters -- sometimes they save, sometimes they don't. Drop the subsidies.
"Put a 50% federal tax on all tolls, increasing tolls and commuting costs." -- If you convert all existing roads to toll roads, maybe. Why not simply increase the Federal gas tax and let it do the work for you??? Then, you don't need to disinguish toll roads from freeways from local roads.
"Have the US Gov’t assist the merger of GM & Ford, as it once assisted Chrysler." - Please put the bong away before you post.
"...remove selected urban highways" -- Why waste money & energy tearing up existing roadways before their useful life is finished? Bad idea. After a LARGE gas tax increase (or simply a steep decline in oil exports), maybe demand will fall enough to not make maintenance worth the cost? Then, consider conversion to bike lanes. Recumbant bicycles & tricycles just might be the next big item.
"An 80 cent tax on each incandescent bulb." -- Why not just progressivley tax electricity usage directly and stop trying to pick winners & losers? This way Al Gore & John Edwards will pay for almost every reader of the Oil Drum!
Forget trying to add federally mandated "risk premiums" to anything. Financial engineers will find ways around the mandate. Save your time & energy for higher value-added items.
"National 50 mph speed limit for the next decade." -- Again, let the gas tax do the work for you and allow people to live their lives as they wish.
"Reduce mass transit fares via federal subsidy" -- Who coughs up the $$$ to fund the susbidy? I hope it's from gas tax proceeds.
Start with taxing all energy consumption from non-renewable sources -- gasoline, electricty from natural gas or coal etc. Then let the free market pick the winning & losing technologies. Let people choose how much they consume -- get out of dictating what they can & cannot do. Use the increased tax proceeds NOT for reducing payroll taxes, but to provide the LARGE mass transit subsidies you propose.
Several points.
Taxes must come from some source. Taxes will alter behavior (why am I waiting to May 1, 2007 to sell a big gainer of mine even though I am itching sell the stock today ?) A distortion of the capital markets (MAJOR SIN) but many of those that decry other market distortions love the capital gains exclusion.
So I see no sin in sending signals via the tax code to change behavior.
Personal behavior and choices are driven by other factors than economic New Present Value. First cost is often the primary driver with little or no knowledge of long term operating (read energy) costs.
Landlords have no (or very little) incentive to increase energy efficiency for tenants.
The 50 mph speed limit places another tax on auto use; a time tax. So it saves energy, but it also makes that 55 minute commute a 62 minute commute and makes driving less enjoyable. Enough to perhaps alter behavior, particularly of higher income individuals who are unaffected by gas taxes, etc.
The market, as already distorted by gov't policies (90% federal matching for building Interstate highways) has failed us. So I see nothing wrong with statist actions to reverse the impacts of previous statist actions. And "distorting" a market that has failed us does not concern me either.
No mortgage interest deduction if one's home is not within 1 mile of an electrified transit stop and meets certain energy requirements. How is that more statist than the mortgage interest deduction that we have today ? Since 95% of Americans (rather than half) would not get the mortgage interest deduction, I see this as fairer.
Tearing down highways has been shown to be an excellent way to revitalize the areas that they once ran through (the reverse happened when they were originally built). And as it makes urban areas more desireable by removing the auto sewers, it makes long distance commuting more undesireable. A clear energy gain !
Decades ago, the gov't spend billions picking losers (inner cities got auto sewers to degrade their quality of life and disrupt local transportation patterns) and winners (suburbs). Just spend a few dollars reversing prior market distortions tearing them down, one by one.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I wouldn't necessarily tear down highways but I would let them deteriorate to the point where only the truly dedicated would choose to use them. The primary result of widening and straightening the highway to my little town has been the elimination of local services and a significant increase in the number of people who choose to commute from someplace that they otherwise wouldn't be commuting from. People go to the "big city" more often because it is relatively convenient. Pre wider and straighter highway days, people would try to minimize their trips to the "big city".
This is just a tiny example but it is true, of course, that if you build it they will come, especially those who require convenience.
To the extent that development is contiguous to existing infrastructure or done on an infill basis, the more compact our cities and towns are and the more likely that mass transit, walking, and bicycling, electric or not, will be viable. I would extend the tax incentives to transit stops of not just an electric nature. After all that non electric transit stop might be a feeder bus for a light rail system.
Hello from Esperance, Western Australia.
We have banned the incandescent lamp.
Joe Sixpac is clueless when it comes to energy.
The hospital that I worked at as an electrician spends a grandiose amount of government money on Gas and Coal electricity.
I told them that we could reduce their expendature by 80%, and then use that money for nurse accomadation.
They stuck their fingers in their ears and called me horrible names.
I am afraid that Mr. Darwin will have to work his magic.
I am building big ships and boats,
Putting up monuments, jotting down notes.
Everybodies in dispair, every girl and boy.
This might not be as hard as you think. Building codes are usually administered at the county level and counties almost alway adopt the The Uniform Building Code with some localized additions. A full set of commercial and residential codes would be beyond the budgets of most counties to research and create, hence the UBC. So there would really only be one target for ecology-enhancing legislation.
How else are you going to do it? Let the Invisible Hand work it out?
For all the evils markets cause, I trust them more than naive technocrats with competing agendas.
I tend to agree, expecting governments to solve the problem of PO in a sensible manner is a "non sequitur". Governmental rear view driving always ends up in a ditch, splattering everyone with unintended consequences. Also, giving governments additional money via well meaning taxes would also be verging on criminal incompetence.
Government are part of the problem, not part of the solution. A sensible mitigation programme would become the disaster "du jour" in the hands of government.
Give the Government something inconsequential to do and keep them happy, whilst allowing the rest of us to muddle through the crisis unimpeded by their disastrous policies.
I don't like the Gov - BAD! Market - GOOD!!! Method of thinking – ideology will not get us out of this one
You said it, brother...we need our highest order of thinking to mitigate this one. Needless to say, said thinking is not forthcoming at this time.
Ahhh, but one does not have a real free market does one?
One free of government meddling, one where ALL external costs are fully charged (with the ability to predict the future correctly so full-charging CAN happen), and one where the money system is somehow magically acceptable to all parties.
Oh, did I mention honest and transparent government?
redcoltken, I never said the Market was "GOOD" either. I agree ideology will not get us out of this, but thinking "BIG" probably won't get us out of it either.
Government and the Market are going to do whatever it is they want to do, whether good, bad or indifferent - who's going to stop them? As it is, this wonderful mix of Government and Market is what has got us into this situation in the first place, so its unlikely the same mix will get us out of it.
Society, IMO, will have to cherry-pick what it needs from what is available, whether from government or market, and disregard the rest. I've seen this process described as "triage", the process of allocating resources where really needed. Keep what's useful and junk the rest (including government, corporations and financial institutions if they're not required).
If that leaves you thinking "whose going to sort out the problem then?", just look in the mirror. Our individual actions is what's going to sort out the problem, both for ourselves and society as a whole.
Look, people often get themselved wrapped up in ideology of extremism. People like things in black and white. Its better when you realize:
1. Markets usually work best.
2. Markets can fail.
So if you want to start meddling with markets, fine and well, but try to make sure that you're trying to fix a failure rather than breaking something that wasn't broken.
There are many organisations that are neither for-profit nor an extension of the military power of the state. Usually this debate becomes, regretfully, too polarized.
And the best 'fix' of market failure is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I like free markets on a small scale. My own belief is that the bigger and more monopolistic corporations (free market entities) become, the more BAD happens. I agree that people get themselves wrapped up in an ideology of extremism. A pragmatic approach would be better. Decide what we want on a collective basis, then try to tweak the system with methods to achieve the goals, whether free-market oriented or regulated to some degree at some govt. level.
I definitely believe, however, in a very strong set of environmental laws RE pollution and over-exploitation of vital resources (water, trees, topsoil etc). I think, if such laws existed and were enforced, a free market could do well within such a structure. When free market becomes free-for-all, bad things happen.
“Government are part of the problem, not part of the solution. A sensible mitigation programme would become the disaster "du jour" in the hands of government.” Posted by Burgundy
To me, this directly points to the really tough question: How do we keep an elected government out from under the undue influence of a primarily corporate economic class, well organized and financed to make that government see things their way, as well as keep the thinking always in the short-term of the electoral cycle, as opposed to thinking primarily in the long-term future of our society. (Never mind the virtual purchasing of elected positions, via contributions and contracts.)
If at some point in the near future, a US president and congress tried to impliment almost anything on Alan’s list, they would find themselves blocked by a hailstorm of lawsuits from myriads of industries. This alone would delay any implimentation until after a round or two of elections when you can be sure such president and congress would be history. And the legal system is as much a part of the problem as the other two branches of government. Almost certainly, anything that would actually seriously grapple with the situation would step on too many toes and, at some point, be ruled unconstitutional.
So if we can’t clean our “democratic” system out, and we don’t like Communism, Fascism, Feudalism, Socialism Monarchy, Saddam Hussein style rule, or whatever has ever been tried, then what do we do? Are there any other alternative economic and political systems out there that have not been to at least some degree, already discredited? If so, we’d better start looking them over because, as our current US government operates, Burgundy is absolutely correct.
Antoinetta III
At Brazil:
Production of gasoline powerred cars sudenly stops (no governemnt intervention), and ethanol prices skyrocket for a couple of years.
People start to use bikes (people use them a lot on some places, but not on most), and cities become less centralized (alread on the way, no government intervention).
Large distance transportation suffers as government is unable to lead a switch to rails. Agriculture starts to concentrate around big cities again and land price increases on those places. Food price for internal consuption will increase a bit, food price for exportation will increase a lot, and we'll stop being competitive for a while (ethanol being an exception).
The government will probably move into a biggest diesel yeld from our oil, at the cost of reducing other products. It'll also maintain poorly our roads, since it'll be expensiver to do that and won't be able to implant rails on time.
Good suggestions.
I would add:
1) federal subsidies for homeowners to make all the myriad energy efficiency improvements we often discuss here.
1a) Local property tax abatement for those who make changes, perhaps on a sliding scale. Therefore, with more improvements one receives greater abatement.
2) tax all lightbulbs to discourage waste -- mercury in CFL makes it a poor alternative to incandescent.
3) Question: how to encourage community gardens, farmer's markets, and basically shortening the food chain?
4) I would be remiss if I didn't add: education campaign on dietary options that are less fossil fuel intensive - e.g. more plant and less animal protein.
Encouraging to see how many small changes could really add up.
Thanks.
"education campaign on dietary options that are less fossil fuel intensive - e.g. more plant and less animal protein."
How about also eliminating the huge amount of subsidies given to the grossly inefficient, disease-inducing, climate- and environment-wrecking meat and diary industries? People often blather about the free market, oblivious to the fact that the true free market cost of meat and dairy would price them out of the reach of many people (and this would tremendously benefit the environment, human health, as well as conserve massive resources)! In a sane world it would be a no-brainer. :)
Oh wait, that would lose billions of dollars in profits for the mega-corporations, both agricultural and medical. Plant-based diets would drastically reduce chronic disease, and that's VERY bad for business, thus it ain't happening without a huge fight. Boy, how the corporations are going to have to be dragged towards any positive changes! Too bad they run the country.
I've eaten grass fed beef raised just two miles from my door step for the last seven years. I'm lucky.
Personally, I believe the free market is going to hammer the industrial meet market. feed lots don't pencil out at todays corn price. furthermore, more and more marginal land that would be used for hay production is going to corn. look for the price of all meat to go up, at least until the ethanol craze implodes.
I say go local. leave the corps behind.
p.s.
I do appreciate my leather work boots and down comforter. the goat skin on my djembe has a very sweet tone, leather sofa, can't beat it.
I respect your decision and commitment to veganism but I don't see my self in grass work boots: )