"...able to redistribute wealth to encourage greater equity, and can invest in the commons, which are in the long run much more valuable than private capital."

It's hard to take for granted that governments in general and the US government in particular are making positive progress on these fronts. Not to get into the benevolent Big Brother government argument. Just calling out recent track record vis-a-vis the deteriorating income equality in the US.

Jason,

I am amazed to hear a relocalizer say:

But we have mostly lost trust in the very institutions that are required to deal with the unfolding crises. Very sad and frightening.

We both know the Feds aren't going to do it. It is unlikely the State of Califonia is going to do it nor Mendocino County (where we both live) or the City of Willits where you live.

I vehemently disagree with your statement that existing institutions are required to deal with anything. I'm a deep doomer and I sincerely believe that what it is going to come down to is what "you" do on your own "road." I realize city people don't understand the idea of the country "road." For those not in the boondocks, it's your miniture neighborhood. My "road" has 8-10 people and it covers a few square miles.

In essence, what we are talking about is quasi-secession because that is the only realistic choice in order to survive. We will produce our own power, our own food and our own firewood. We will defend our lands. We will not depend upon a caprecious (sp) outside agency. We will not depend upon relocalization.

This leads to a basic question, "Why not?" Because I can trust these people but we cannot trust anyone else. Does that make sense to you?

Todd

Whether the problem can be solved or not, I don't know. I don't think any of us knows which is why I object to government force being used to institute their or their constituents' view of which alternative should be attempted. We all have our views about what might work, just as you have expressed the view that electricity is the answer. If that is so, then you need do nothing but invest in that directly such as with solar panels or in companies that implement the electric solution you see as appropriate; the free market; all we need is government get out of the way and stop the plunder and control so we actually have some wealth left to direct into the solution we see. The arrogance comes in when individuals or groups insist that government fund theses "solutions" at the public expense thus depriving the public of those funds which they could have used to fund what they judge as more likely to work.

My conclusion about horses and buggies is based on the simple facts that after world wide peak, oil imports to the USA (imports equal 60% of what we use) will disappear over a period of probably a single decade, domestic production has been declining for decades and will continue to do so baring some miracle, and EROEI relentlessly declines at about 3.5% annually. The net result of this is that 10 to 15 years after peak, the USA could easily have only 25% of the oil available to use that it had at peak. So if you want a time frame, and rely on the likely date of 2010 as worldwide peak for oil from all sources, then somewhere between 2020 and 2025 we would be down to 25%, a loss of 75% of our oil energy in the USA. That is just 13 to 18 years away. Actually I probably spoke out of turn to say horse and buggy because there are probably not sufficient horses and buggies around to use many of the roads. Rather I should more accurately have described them as wide footpaths. This is my best estimate, but I allow for the possibility that we will soon enter a financial collapse of much greater magnitude than the great depression of the 1930's which would reduce oil consumption and accelerate the human suffering to an earlier date, thusly delaying the peak oil date a few years. But then in no case am I asking government to impose my view of the next few decades, since this is an expression of my thoughts and not a recommendation.

John 15 --

I agree wholeheartedly. Not only is it arrogant to say we will be consigned to horse and buggy, it's deplorably unimaginative.

I also agree that electricity is the best fast track option. For one, it's more efficient than gas so even if all of the energy comes from fossil fuels at first it buys us time. It's also much more diverse. You can generate electricity from any conventional, alternative, or future power source so you can leverage a basket of energy source options. Finally, the distribution infrastructure (the grid) is already in place. So you don't have to spend trillions building it.

With emerging wireless transport of electricity, the 'fuel' becomes even more flexible -- even a possibility for certain aircraft, especially rotary wing aircraft, giving them essentially unlimited range.

There seems to be a backward romance arising in today's society. People don't like civilization, they think lots of people should die and leave the world to the survivors -- whom they envision to be themselves. What these people do not realize is that if civilization were to crash it would be far more brutal and painful than they imagine. It is not something we should ever even accept much less claim is inevitable.