A gesture is sometimes important...
Posted by Prof. Goose on November 21, 2005 - 10:21pm
In Brief: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the `Man on the Moon' project to address the inevitable challenges of `Peak Oil.'
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
A good start, I guess. The thing will be to see whether the thing gets stuck in committee or not, and even if it passes, this bill by itself won't make much happen.
I wonder if it would help to have more co-sponsors?? People could write in to their Reps and ask them to get on-board.
Step 2: Write a short, specific and respectful message to your representative urging them to support this resolution and give a reason why you feel it is important. Include the link to Global Public Media
Step 3: Forward link to others asking for them to do the same.
Believe me, staffers do read their mail and numbers do matter.
My congresscritter is already a co-sponsor, so my job is limited to giving this more visibility.
I already sent it off to Jerome, so maybe there will be a good diary on dKos in the next day or two about this. I could write it up myself, but it would disappear in 30 minutes and nobody would notice.
The idea of a new "Manhattan project" misses the fact that the people in the atomic bomb project knew what they were doing. They had the theory and the task was to find the technological solutions to build the bomb. The moon flight project was also based on an theoretical model of space travel. The participants of those projects knew that it was doable.
The energy problem is quite dfferent in nature. In fact we know it is undoable - there are no known new primary energy sources. The only concrete project we could think about is the nuclear fusion. But this project has been going on for fifty years already. All the renewables have been under development for a long time. There is no single solution that could be realized by some crash project. The real task is a very broad one - how to use less energy so that the adverse effects are minimized.
- We know how to make synfuels out of coal, and we have lots of coal, and so do many other countries.
- We know how to make battery powered cars, trains, and vans, and we know where the lead and nickel and zinc and vanadium is for those batteries, and that's 90% of liquid fuel use right there.
For noncarbon electricity to combat global warming.- We know how to make windmills with energy payback in months.
- We know how to make concentrator photovoltaic with energy payback in months.
- We know how to build plutonium reprocessing plants to build lots of fast breeders with energy payback in months.
Why do you pretend that we are in some kind of technology crisis instead of a policy crisis?Concentrator photovoltaic uses fabricated modules to concentrate up to, well, 40,000 times sunlight is theoretically possible, but practical is more like 1,000 because of cooling and thermal shock problems.
These modules are expensive because of the labor cost of fabrication and assembly. They are steel and plastic and glass and aluminum and much less energy expensive per pound than crystal silicon. Crystal silicon requires that you not only reduce silica to silicon, but that you hold it in a molten state for days while the cooled seed crystalizes the silicon. I worked in a wafer fab and you should have seen the busbars for the power supply.
So the cost of concentrator photovoltaic electricity depends on the cost of labor instead of the cost of silicon. Despite the fact that silicon wafer prices have been going down since the seventies (till recently) the concentrator economics haven't improved because construction labor costs are only down 20% since the seventies.
Maybe so, but still not cheap, and they will be more expensive still in an energy-poor world.
As always, the problem lies in the the scaling-up.
As my sister put it, we are like fish trying to imagine the desert. Energy has been so cheap and abundant for us, for so long, we have a hard time imagining what it was like when the energy cost of steel and glass was so high that they were reserved for the wealthy only.
This is not high tech - this is low tech. It is easy - the Egyptians used solar reflectors to illuminate inside their temples and pyramids, concentrating more of them when more light was needed. When were silvered mirrors invented? All of these items are hundreds of years old.
The only new parts of the concentrator system are the heliostat and generator parts. If this were to be done in the 1600's or 1700's, then a clockwork heliostat could even have been employed. Generators are simply not high tech either - some magnets and copper wire wound round. Remember that Ben Franklin dabbled in electricity, long before the oil age.
I am currently building one of these things in my free time - pleae don't make it seem like some kind of high tech solution. It simply isn't.
But it does work. How well I should be able to tell you by summer....
Have a happy ....
Yes, although it would crisp it pretty quickly. I don't have all the mirrors set yet (about 70%), and it is quite dangerous at the focal point. At high noon, it's hitting the central focal point with 150 .025 spots at between 350 and 500 degrees...
Temples and pyramids. Not Joe Sixpack's living room. That's my point. "Simple" technology may have been known, but it was too expensive for ordinary folk. Mirrors were luxury items until relatively recently.
It's only in very recent times that a substantial middle class has gained access to relative luxuries and peak oil is likely to reverse that trend sharply.
The clock isn't turning back but going forward. Glass is no longer something enigmatic and valuable, but something ubiquitous and even a significant part of our waste stream. I know you have seen the house built of coke bottles on TV probably. Point being, glass is no longer what it was - now it is everywhere. Unless it is total collapse, glassmaking will continue to go on at a relatively cheap price, because all it requires is heat from ANY source...
People have been making glass for 5,000 years. The problem is the heat it takes to work it. The ingredients are relatively cheap, it's working it that is expensive.
Getting enough fuel (firewood, dung, etc.) to cook and heat with was a neverending struggle before we discovered fossil fuels. It still is, for much of the undeveloped world. The fuel cost required to heat glass to 2000 degrees is what made it expensive, not the "mystery."
This is what I mean when I say we're like fish trying to imagine the desert. We assume that ancient peoples didn't do what we do because they didn't know how to do it. The idea that they knew how to do it but it was too energy-intensive is hard for us to understand.
Of course we have lots of scrap now. Plastic, aluminum, steel, glass. However, it will take a lot of energy - heat - to work into new uses. This might be a good temporary solution. If we do it with the knowledge that we are just cushioning the drop and it is not sustainable, I'd be all for it. But it's not a long-term solution.
IOW...yes, glassmaking will most certainly go on. But not at a "cheap" price.
We aren't in that time period any longer - the argument isn't valid with all the cheap crap we have cluttering up our world these days.
The U.S. is obviously the coyote in this histogram and energy solutions are abundantly running around untouched by us loathesome Yankees
Wind and photovoltaic energy are great, but won't provide the amount of energy we currently use, unless you are willing to cover a good portion of the country with windmills and solar collectors.
At current usage rates we have something like 50 years of uranium left, if we suddenly start building lots of nuclear plants we'll find uranium peak right around the corner.
It is not a technology crisis nor a policy crisis. It is a worldview or paradigm crises. The view that endless growth is sustainable is being shown to be insupportable. There is no choice but to reduce consumption and design a new worldview, a new economy.
David
We are very far from the uranium peak if we consider breeder reactors. Also, there is an alternative reaction that we could probably do using thorium, which has a several times greater natural abundance than uranium.
I think there is a perception crisis. Our society has a strong conditioned response to nuclear power that is handicapping the technology that is most likely to sustain us into a somewhat recognizable future.
Fears about potential mishaps have restricted all forms of nuclear power technology. With peak oil upon us, as well as the actual cumulative damage caused by our fossil fuel fixation, alot of people will need to reexamine those fears of nuclear nonevents.
Why not reprocess fuel where it is burned? You don't need a boat for your plutonium if you don't move it. Also, on the topic of boats, we are already shipping LNG in ships that would flatten a port if ignited. The risk to life embodied in just these ships must be greater than the combined risk of all our nuclear power cycle.
In the UK, the nuclear authorities have been very poor at covering up major mishaps and even worse at doing something about it. These radioactive spills have gone on for weeks before being detected, let along something being done about it. The public are right not to have any trust in these scientists (and I am speaking as someone with a degree in physics). The scientists are/have been hiding major pollution problems (Windscale, Irish Sea etc, etc), hoping that no one will notice, what right do they have to try something that could be even worse and devastate the Irish Sea or mainland Britain or Ireland. As much as I would want nuclear power stations to help out in producing electricity, the nuclear workers (or more likely their managers and accountants) have so little regard or care to the consequences of radioactive leaks that it would be better that they were shut down. Frank Spencer would be amongst the best workers in the nuclear industry, given the widespread radioactive disasters they have inflicted upon the British Isles.
Reprocessing isn't something that can be done just anywhere in order to avoid having to transport plutonium. The THORP plant at Sellafield cost billions of dollars. I can't imagine other governments building similar structures all over the place, as well as building the huge number of reactors it would take to supply them and use their output. Transporting plutonium would be inevitable. Not that transporting LNG is a good idea either, but plutonium is in a class of its own.
As far as plutonium being in a class of its own, there are many things that are far worse, if human life is the measure. A peak oil induced economic collapse would probably kill billions.
Fast breeder reactors extract 100 times as much energy from uranium than our current reactors do. With breeders, available uranium reserves also expand because of the greater EROEI, so much so that even extracting uranium from seawater would be viable.
Fast breeder reactors, combined with advances in design over the last 40 years, have made them much safer than what we are currently using. The EBR II safely shut itself down after all of its control rods were pulled and its cooling pumps were stopped in a test in 1986.
I think the primary reasons we are not yet pursuing breeder reactor technology has to do with short-sightedness and fear. The myopia is the same short term behavior that has our society flying off the tracks as we pass over peak oil. Breeders cost more to build than conventional reactors, so it is hard to justify to those who make decisions on a bottom line that only goes out 10 or 15 years. Currently, breeder reactor electricity would cost more than coal-based electricity, but are any investors considering how peak oil will multiply the cost of coal extraction in the near future? With breeders, all of the uranium 238 that we need for the next 100 years has already been mined.
The fear has to do with plutonium. There is a widespread impression that it is one of the most toxic substances around and to be avoided completely. Many were panicked by the Earth fly-by of a plutonium carrying spacecraft. These people should have kept in mind that over 10 tons of plutonium had already been released by atomic bombs, with no discernable worldwide health effects over many years. Swallowing a 50 mg pellet of plutonium oxide might give you the runs. Swallowing a 50 mg pellet of nicotine would probably kill you on the spot.
I think that everyone has to be truthful and transparent when it comes to nuclear power. The industry and agencies need to let everyone see what they are doing. The public should be able to judge nuclear power on its merits, but also has the responsibility not to hold it to a standard that is incredibly higher than any other energy industry. Maybe if we had not been so fixated on potential problems with nuclear, we would not now be in such a pickle with the previously ignorable issues associated with carbon-based fuels, like global warming.
Maybe Michael Crawford could be an analogy for nuclear power. After years of being nearly type cast as Frank the loser, he went on to great success in other roles.
To bad most people "believe" we can work our way out of the oil crisis with some good ole technology! They do not get the fact that oil depletion and technology are two different subjects.
But the politicians have found a new mantra to feed to the sheeple and they will use to their own demise..
You're reading this on the internet, a perfect example of a distributed network: open, multiple, and non-dependent technologies combine to make one working whole. So why do we have to replace oil with one magic technology? We can't replace oil with one thing, but if we put enough effort into it (not just energy technology but also better environmental technoogy, populaiton control and socal organization) we can replace it with a lot of things.
The "fix" is to "reform" the social order in which the politicians thrive, which is why the politico's are going to oppose it.
Better than 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond?
http://www.museletter.com/archive/154.html
My take on it is that Tainter's work is more fundamental than Diamond's. Basically, Tainter's argument is a thermodynamic one. People can solve problems, including resource depletion, but only if they have enough energy to do so.
Diamond pretty much deals only with the problem of environmental degradation. This often the same problem as running out of energy, as we are discovering. But there are societies that appear to have collapsed due to reasons other than environmental problems (none of which are discussed by Diamond).
Both books are worth reading, IMO. Tainter's book is heavily theoretical, and a bit dense in places. It's an academic work, that is often used as a textbook (so it pretty expensive, even used). Diamond's book is much more empirical, and aimed at a popular audience, not an academic one.
We need to buy as much time as we can to allow us to re-engineer our society around lower energy use, and technology will play a big part in that. The alternative is doing nothing and giving up, and I owe my kids a bit more than that.
But your kids are all majoring in business and other "money making" educations rather than in engineering and science. (And by "your kids", I don't mean "you people", I mean my kids too.)
It is our society and it's "values" system that is heading us ever closer to the edge of the cliff.
But still, there is much that can be done. Right priorities are important. May be, insulating houses and reducing heating costs is more important than shifting to hybrid cars. It is easier to drive considerably less than freeze in the winter. This is not only an oil crisis and oil is not just gasoline but multi-purpose energy. So it might be sensible to look for right priorities and low cost, low energy solutions to conserve energy and use it for the most basic needs. This is not same as trying to preserve the present level of energy consumption in the US or keep up the growth.
I don't want to ruin your day, but ....
scientists have discovered a huge fusion pile ...
they call it the sun.
Our planet intercepts only a tiny fraction of the radiated energy that comes off this fusion pile. Are any ideas coming into your head about how to have "more energy"?
Like the collapsing Nordic civilization in Greenland (was it there?) as depicted by Jared Diamond, we are limited mostly by our own lack of social flexibility. There were plenty of fish around Greenland, yet they died of starvation ... because it wasn't permitted in their society to think about eating fish.
There is much that could be done right now with technology already on the shelf, but there is a lack of willingness to commit the vast amounts of capital needed to make even a small step toward a transition away from fossil fuel.
Private and corporate investors are understandably squeamish about making major investments in energy systems with little or no track record and dubious prospects for a decent return on that investment. Our government could theoretically do it, but it is already up to its eyeballs in debt, has a $300 billion war in Iraq to pay for, and has hundreds of pork barrel projects that come first.
So, I have a very hard time seeing how we're going to get from here to there before the situation really gets out of control.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1821
with much more fervor and appreciation. It maintains the familiar status quo, doesn't call for sacrifice, and is basically yet another entitlement, which are the bread and butter of the government yoke system.
The words "hardship" and "sacrifice" and others which imply working together and contributing to a common goal have yet to be used. This is only a statement of position, without any money behind it or even a vague plan. It is something politicos can point to and say "See? I supported this!" when the steaming energy turd hits their desk...
The words "invest" and "boom" are better ones because they imply that whoever invests in battery powered car factories and mines, or windmills and flow batteries, or solar power and flywheels, is going to be better off.
David
Too often those prescribing "hardship" and "sacrifice" are experiencing too little of it themselves, and those to whom it is being prescribed are well aware of that. I don't have everything I want, but I'm lucky enough to have what I need am I'm thankful for it. I'm glad to see people with less get a break on heating oil, and I hope it keeps them warm this winter. I also hope our government gets it's shit together and looks at how to keep them warm next winter. Many of them probably don't even own the heating systems they're buying fuel for. I suppose they should be more far sighted, refuse to accept the assistance? Maybe we should research suspended animation so we can put all these inconvenient people into storage until after we develop fusion power. Until the oil fired heating infrastructure that provides their heat is replaced, they will need heating oil or they will die. Why should we scoff at attempts to prevent that?
Terms like "demand destruction" serve to mask the painful truth, which is that many of those doing the demanding will be destroyed too if it happens on a wide scale. I know I am not immune.
I buy all my gas from CITGO.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
Legislative Achievement or Management Fiasco?
Ronald R. Cooke, The Cultural Economist
http://tceconomist.blogspot.com/2005/09/energy-policy-act-of-2005.html
"(...)The point is, before we invest our money in the development of energy solutions, we need to understand the energy industry as a whole, including exploration, production, transportation, refining, distribution and consumption. Against this knowledge, we can select options that make common sense because they fall within existing industry attributes and the evolution of consumer demand.
If we do a good job, we now have a clear definition of the problem. We have characterized our challenge by fuel type, by application, and by development objectives. Available technologies have been identified. Government, corporate and academic resources have been evaluated. We have factored cultural change and economic impact into our strategy. We have given due consideration to ecology and energy efficiency. This report would then be communicated to the public in multiple media formats and forums. Public education is a vital component of our program.
By the way. Did Congress take these steps? No.
Why not?
The next step is to create a business plan to address the problem. Yes Virginia. If we are to make any sense of this highly complex effort, we need a real business plan with a statement of goals and objectives, a comprehensive strategy, and an organization.
* The statement of goals and objectives establishes what we need to accomplish and a timeline for the completion of our strategy. It is highly likely that an honest job of market research will reveal we Americans must moderate our energy intensive lifestyle. We have to move from a carbon-based energy cycle to an energy resource that does less environmental damage. Energy moderation will mean cultural change on a scale we have never experienced. So although our goal will be to gradually reduce per capita petroleum consumption, it will have to be done in a way that sustains our economy and the transformation of our culture. The objectives we then postulate will address the means to achieve these basic goals.
* It appears our strategy falls (roughly) into three phases: those changes and developments that can be done within 5 years (improved energy efficiency, introduction of hybrid vehicles, etc.), those changes and developments that can be done in 5 to 15 years (development and distribution of alternative fuels, diesel fuel from coal, the nuclear option, enhancements to public transportation, etc.) and those changes and developments that will take longer than 15 years (introduction of a new fuels technology, lifestyle changes, etc.).
* A task of this magnitude requires the resources of a large organization. It must have the funding, structure, responsibility, and authority to carry out its mission. This organization must provide, or identify and contract, the technical, manufacturing, and distribution resources needed to ensure the success of America's energy program. It should make periodic reports to Congress on its progress.
(...)"
Here is the `problem' with our problem:
Life After The Oil Crash
Matt Savinar
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280341.shtml
"At the Paris Peak Oil Conference, Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik of the Netherlands Economic Institute explained that because of the financial shortcomings of all currently available forms of alternative energy, a sudden crash is the profitable solution for the oil companies.
Furthermore, according to Dr. Colin Campbell:
"The major oil companies are merging and downsizing and outsourcing and not investing in new refineries because they know full well that production is set to decline and that the exploration opportunities are getting less and less.
The companies have to sing to the stock market, and merger hides the collapse of the weaker brethren. The staff is purged on merger and the combined budget ends up much less than the sum of the previous components. Besides, a lot of the executives and bankers make a lot of money from the merger."
Expecting the oil companies, the government, or anybody else to solve this problem for us is simply suicidal. You, me, and every other "regular person" needs to be actively engaged in addressing this issue if there is to be any hope for humanity."
Paraphrasing that old preflight stewardess monologue, secure your breathing mask first, then help others.
Of course, people generally don't take too kindly to their demand being destroyed, particularly when it comes to things like eating and staying warm.
Does this have the makings of a peasants-with-pitchforks scenario? If you look at any major civil disorder, there was usually a minor incident that served as a spark to ignite a latent explosive situation that had been building up for a long time.
The point I was trying to make was that Chavez responded more effectively than our own government did. Socialists use people for their own political ends just as much as necons do - they just use a different group. I don't think the "elite" placed Lenin or Stalin or Mao in power...
According to Ludwig, and confirmed by Katelyn's account, Ludwig then shot Borden in the back with a .40-caliber Glock automatic pistol. Ludwig then shot Kara Beth's mother, Cathryn Borden. ...
The search of Ludwig's home turned up 54 firearms.
If old Ludwig had been born in 1350AD, then the facts would only have changed slightly.
Instead of shooting them, he might have stabbed them, speared them, hacked them, or shot them full of arrows. Upon inspecting his home, they may have found 54 weapons of various lethalities, none of which were firearms. From crossbows to scimitars to poisoned daggers...
Firearms just happen to be more effective at what they are designed to do, and thus are the weapon of choice for our current society.
But none of these weapons has a brain - they are simply tools. It is the tool-makers who do the deed. We just have some very efficient tools at our fingertips.
Killing our fellow man is something that weapon control will not stop. Even a rock is lethal, or a fist when the blow is placed correctly and with sufficient force.
I think that firearms are a very non-personal way to kill others, and as such, they insulate their users from the reality that is death.
I would prefer that when people wanted to kill others, they had to get up close and personal, and that it would be very, very messy.
"Of course, people generally don't take too kindly to their demand being destroyed, particularly when it comes to things like eating and staying warm."
Bush plans to use the military more and more in domestic emergencies... destructing peasants?
http://www.yuricareport.com/Civil%20Rights/TheCampsOfICE.html
How valuable and reliable the information, inferences, and other links it contains are, you yourselves may judge. There is plenty of material of this sort floating around on the web, for those who care to look into it.
The investment to make these changes, in terms of labor and money, is not going to be trivial, and I cannot fully fund it now. I still have to upgrade insulation and better seal up windows. How are people at the bottom end of the economic pile going to make these changes? Beyond that, I'm doing a lot of it myself, but most people will not be able to do that. The investment to move away from oil and NG is going to be huge on a large scale. And in the mean time we still have an obligation to keep people from freezing to death.
It's a problem, to be sure. The item that made the biggest impact for me was to reduce the living area. The second was to go to a ground-sourced heat pump, and then third to place some thick, stone interior walls as "heat banks" to help moderate things passively. You could heat these stone walls through windows reflectively as well. If this worked in central Montana, I'm sure it might work for you.
You can build a castle if you want to - just make sure you design it so that in winter you are only heating a very small piece of it, preferably deep in the middle.
The government has no, zero, nada obligation to keep anyone from freezing to death. Nowhere will you find that in our basic rights. That they do so is due to our election of officials on the basis of their ability to dole out government assistance.
We as fellow humans should feel obliged to help others help themselves, but none of us is "owed" anything by government at any level or by our neighbors. We are certainly not "owed" anything by people we have never met.
Responsibility for everything, including staying alive, ultimately rests with the individual themselves. To live otherwise is to place your fate in the hands of strangers and fair-weather politicains at every turn.
"Responsibility for everything, including staying alive, ultimately rests with the individual themselves."
It is a first principle to think and act for yourself. As a sentiment it skillfuly sidesteps all those bad people who happened to be born poor however.
I are one of those born poor. It was my choice to not remain poor and to educate myself and work my way free of that situation. My family didn't even own a television until 1969 - we watched at the neighbors. I began working after school when I was 11 years old - and walked miles to the bus and all of that crap. Ancient history.
I am of the opinion that being poor here in the US of A is really simple to do, and that it is a regal lifestyle when compared to places like Papua New Guinea or Nigeria or Afghanistan. C'mon man - we get a totally free education to the end of High School!! Everybody! Are you sick? Walk into any ER and they will take care of you - you may have to wait, but they will.
There are situations with respect to being disabled and such to my general philosophy - I give at church (another privilege) and help out volunteering for several causes. But my life experience and my guts tell me that many of the "poor" are that way by choice. And the choice is made because it is simply easier to be poor here than many other places.
I've had intersection panhandlers throw food at me - you know those guys who have the signs saying "HOMELESS - PLEASE HELP - GOD BLESS" - I have handed them fresh lunch in a sack before and had it literally hurled at me with curses. Not once or twice - I have told people about this and then we tried it out during lunch. If they didn't outright ask for money instead, then when you drove away, they tossed your food to the curb. Only in America do the poor throw food at you and curse you for not giving them cold, hard cash. Only in America do hurricane refugees take their FEMA cards to topless bars and blow it all on drinks and dancers, forcing the government to stop the program for everybody else.
The real problem may be that Americans do not know what poor really means...
GeoPoet,
Maybe we are getting way off topic,
then again maybe not?
Are those of the Sheeple who ignore or know not of Peak Oil that way by their "own choice"?
Most people, IMHO, are doing as best as they can in most situations.
Almost no one says to themselves: "I'm going to perform poorly on purpose in all situations." (I said "all")
It is delusional for we who live in North America to praise ourselves as being "better", harder working, smarter than other people around the world. For myself, I usually say, "There but for the grace of God go I."
I thank all the teachers who tried to teach me.
I thank my parents for giving me the "values" I have (well most of them).
I thank the business owners who gave me an opportunity to work and learn on the job.
I do not see myself as a "self-made man". I do not jump to quick conclusions about the plights of those who may be less fortunate than I. Maybe they have physical or mental impairments? Maybe they struggle with demons I cannot see? Who am I to judge myself better or more deserving than they? A little humble pie is good for the soul.
As far as stone walls, yes they are great thermal storage. A masonry wall with southern exposure will gather a lot of heat. My external walls are mostly stone, some well below grade in a bank (terrible moisture trap in the summer), but most not exposed to much sun due to trees. The stone walls that surround my wood stove stay warm for many hours after the fire has gone out. I do have a sun porch that covers two stone walls and a stone floor. I hope to replace that with a better insulated one at some point, as it should make an excellent passive solar heat collector. If I were designing a house now, such passive solar and masonry construction would be a major part of it - but well insulated windows are expensive.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Is not part of the "general Welfare" to avoid freezing to death?
The quoted text is the Preamble to the US Constitution
Also see Amendment XIV: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life ... without due process of law;"
It is this: Government and your neighbors are simply not obligated to take care of you.
Waiting or hoping for someone else to swoop in and save you or make your life easier is total denial of reality. Yet this is the mindset with which many people go about life these days.
If we are all waiting for government to solve this, then we are indeed waiting for a crisis big enough to solicit their undivided attention and one that lasts more than just a few weeks. Look at how quickly Katrina and Rita have receded from the fore of "news" and focus in congress.
For government to take any type of action will require crisis. That is the only way they operate - pick a crisis, politicize it, fight about it and make a big show of passing unfunded legislation. Or passing "resolutions" so that they can reference their "position" in the future if they are called on a voting issue. Yet in the end, nothing changes except that we get taxed more, have our rights reduced or infringed, and the government spends yet more money they do not have.
Unless and until the Peak Oil monster literally kicks them in their respective crotches, they will only pay lip service. The reality is that our congresscritters are just like insurance companies and lawyers fighting legal battles - deny, deny, deny, and when faced with facts, obfuscate and litigate for years, hoping the problem goes away or the issue falls off the radar.
Don't wait on the Fedral Government- you will be waiting until it is truly too late.
We pay for the kind of government corporations want. Horatio Alger like transformations of the poor uneducated take time we don't have.
Providing for the necessities of one's own existence to as great an extent as possible beforehand has to be the wisest course. Think of it as minimizing the consequences of being wrong. If you take steps towards self sufficiency and no crisis occurs then what have you lost? You will still be well placed for whatever the future has to throw at you (within reason). Alternatively, if you take no action and a crisis does occur the consequences for the unprepared could be catastrophic.
Those who are able to look after themselves may also be able to rescue others in their area (family, friends or neighbours) who had fewer resources or less foresight. They will be able to offer something positive to their communities rather than being a burden upon them. Trusting to government action leaves more people unprepared and vulnerable.
Ronald Cooke's business plan for a governmental response to peak oil shows that planning is possible (http://tceconomist.blogspot.com/2005/09/energy-policy-act-of-2005.html). I agree trusting the government is a bad plan, but it is because it is already effectively paralyzed. It bothers me that things can be done to minimize public chaos and continue some type of society, but what we get instead are FEMA mandates and more contracts for Halliburton.So in that regard it really is every soul for themselves.
But "every man for himself" is not a world I want to live in. Moreover, it could quickly become a world that no one can live in.
One of the most interesting parts in Diamond's Collapse was the part about the role of the size of a society or government. For a small society, "grassroots" works fine. Everyone knows everything they need to know to make decisions. Large societies only work if they are "top-down." People can be affected by things happening elsewhere that they don't know about. Therefore, they need someone who can see the big picture - a king who has advisors who are monitoring the whole country, say - to order them to do what's in the best interest of the society. Neither strategy works for medium sized societies; they collapse into internecine conflict. Diamond suggests that large societies with weak central control may suffer the same fate.
Tainter says that societies often grow brutally repressive as collapse approaches. That sucks for the individuals, but I can't help wondering if strong central control would be better for humanity and the earth in the long term. If it's every man for himself, the tragedy of the commons will play out, just as it did on Easter Island.
I don't really envisage an 'every man for himself' scenario as a result of peak oil. I imagine there will be an attempt at repression, but that ultimately it will fail because the ability to project power at a distance is dependent on the availability of energy. Instead I would imagine a future of city states and neo-feudalism, with frequent low intensity conflicts (see The Transformation of War by Martin Van Creveld). Humanity would still aggregate into groups rather than try to go it alone, but those groups would be much smaller and life would be more local than at present. Peace would be elusive as we are so far above the non-fossil fuel carrying capacity of the Earth.
One reason for the different outcomes based on the size of the society is that it determines whether the people have a stake in the outcome. On a small island, where everyone knows everyone, it's easy not only for everyone to understand the problems, but to realize they need to work to together to fix them.
A large society can support the complexity that allows central organization to develop. The king derives his wealth from all the nation, and he wants his children to inherit this wealth, so it's in his interest to take care of all his nation.
But a medium-sized island is too small to support the complexity that allows central control. And it's too large for people to know what's going on everywhere on the island. People may be cutting down all the trees in one area, assuming there's plenty of trees elsewhere. But they don't know, in which case they could be making a fatal mistake. It's also too large for everyone to know everyone, so conflict is more common. People end up raiding their neighbors, cutting down all their trees, etc. They have a stake in their valley, but not in the one next door. Everyone ends up looting their neighbors' land.
I have to say...it kind of suggests that democracy isn't the best solution to the problems of sustainability. At least a king or dictator has a stake in the future, because he expects his children will rule after him. In a democracy, people in power may be tempted to loot the country while they can, for they may be thrown out of office at the next election.
The bee hive appears to have a mind of its own, but in reality that is not true. Change the micro-programming of the individual bees and suddenly you have a different collective animal.
This thought experiment actually plays out in the real world everyday. We are so close to the action that we are blind to it. Consider similar cities with similar resources, except that one community is highly "educated" while the other is not. "Education" is another word for programming of the individuals. Depending on what the "education" was specifically, the educated community will behave differently from the uneducated community.
So for our society; irrespective of whether you think of it as being "The Governement" or "The Economy", it boils down to how the individual members were "educated" with regard to their individual behaviors and its impact on sustainability. If they know nothing, they will behave accordingly.
One of the benfits of a site like TOD is that it starts "educating" those who come here. You leave as a different person than when you came.
The study of collective behaviour is fascinating, particularly the unconcious aspects that involve acting according to feeling rather than thinking. It goes far beyond the 'programming' inherent in conventional education as that addresses primarily concious thinking. Thinking and rationality, as important as they are, only go so far towards predicting social behaviour (they are better for protecting oneself against it). The herd instinct, based on emotional perception, explains a great deal more, whether or not the population is an educated one.
Educated people bought stocks at the height of the dotcom boom because of the herd instinct - they bought into a vague sense of euphoria that easily communicated itself amongst our social species and mutated into an extreme form of irrational exuberance. The same people have recently plunged into a real estate bubble in recent years, just in time to climb out of the frying pan and into the fire. For a long time, a majority of people were putting an optimistic gloss on everything - suspending their critical faculties about the sustainability of their lifestyle and surrendering to complacency. Even most educated people don't question the reasonableness of their assumptions when in the grip of a powerful social mood - positive or negative.
The prevailing social climate is changing now - can you feel it? There is a vague sense among an increasing percentage of people that not all is well, which was aptly demonstrated by the article by Peggy Noonan discussed here recently. The worry amongst the general public is mostly non-specific at this point, and it hasn't yet reached critical mass where it would become 'contagious', but more people are gradually becoming more receptive to messages that there is something to worry about.
The next step would be to reach critical mass (the point of recognition) and for a negative social mood to ignite like a wildfire - the mirror image of irrational exuberance. At that point we are likely to begin collectively tearing down the house of cards we have built, before resource limitations have even had a chance to fully manifest themselves. I'd expect it to begin with a stock market crash and the bursting of the real estate and debt bubbles. A full-blown economic depression is likely to follow.
The herd instinct probably served us well when we lived in small groups. A contagious sense of worry in particular would have been as useful to us as to other social animals, which, for example, avoid danger to the group by slapping their tails on the water or flashing the white underside of their tails to signal a warning. It is easy to see why it might have become part of our programming as it would have increased the chance of survival. Like many other things though, it causes problems when it is scaled up.
Social mood swings become much more destablizing when they propagate widely, perhaps even globally. Extremes of optimism cause us to devour resources in the creation of complexity with no regard for the consequences. Swings of pessimism see us tear down what we have created and punish those who became symbols of the previous era of excess out of proportion to their personal culpability (Bernie Ebbers?, Martha Stewart?, Conrad Black maybe?, watch out Bill Gates - you may be next).
The era of oil allowed us to achieve a much greater degree of excess than had previously been the case. The downside could easily be similarly extreme. In order to mitigate its effects, to the extent that is possible, we need to resist our primal programming and rely on rationality in the face of what may become an almost overwhelming urge to give in to panic and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keeping a constructive mindset when the prevailing mood has turned destructive is difficult. It may help to avoid conduits for mass-hysteria such as the mainstream media.
There are 30,000 GM families who are feeling it a little more strongly this Thanksgiving 2005 (Deffeyes PO Day). And that is only the tip of the iceberg because their GM jobs helped support a whole infrastructure of other jobs: waiters in the restaurants they frequented, nurses in the doctor's office they went to, barbers, supermarket cashiers, fast food counter people, ...
Already I hear the minions of thought control on the radio spreading the word about how it was "the unions" and their greed --for want of decent paying jobs-- that is at fault. If only the GM families had been like sweatshop Chinese laborers and accepted their caste position in the Universe with grace (as has blessed leader accepted his) that we would not have all these vague "troubles". Can you hear it? Do you sense the mind twisting control coming on? Not yet? Listen carefully. Parse the mixed messages.
We have been put into hypnotic sleep mode:
http://www.observer.com/pageone_coverstory1.asp
A new scape goat, it's all the Union's fault. They did not spend their "trickle down" tax bonus wisely:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-11-22-uaw-usat_x.htm
You are right to point out the knock-on economic effect of GM's problems. That's how a positive feedback spiral leading to economic depression is initiated. GM is not the first casualty of our hollowed out financial system, but it is far closer to being the first than to being the last. As more and more ordinary people lose jobs that pay enough for them to sustain a middle-class lifestyle, their erstwhile purchasing power is withrawn from the economy, which leads to more business failures.
Globalization sewed the seeds of its own destruction. Hopefully a new social contract will eventually emerge at a much more local level that will allow us to build a less ambitious economy less susceptible to over-reaching its self and its resource base. Unfortunately, there is every reason to think there will be a great deal of suffering in the meantime.
not to get too deep into Constitutional law issues with you, but "promote" is a stronger requirement than "provide".
Promote means to constantly try to take it (our general welfare) to a new and better level. "Provide" can be a one time deal.
If we look at what actually happened, one might think the Constitution said --Promote the military industrial complex--
have a good turkey
Fighting broke out between the Bonus Army & police and on July 28 federal troops attack led by Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur and his subordinates Majors George S. Patton, Jr. & Dwight D. Eisenhower. MacArthur opted to use force over the protests of Patton and Eisenhower.
Using tear gas, cavalry with sabers drawn and tanks, the Bonus Army was driven out of their encampments in the abandoned buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue. The tanks then leveled the Bonus Army's "Camp Marks" on the Anacostia River. The casualty toll was four dead (including two infants) & 66 injured.
The smoke lingered over Washington for two days. Armed police from Maryland and Virginia had blocked all roads out of the District of Columbia until Pennsylvania offered asylum to the marchers in Johnstown.
http://www.prorev.com/dcfacts1.htm
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm
The Bonus Marchers was a short but very shameful episode in American history. No American can be proud of it. Unfortunately, it is an episode of which most of today's Americans are completely ignorant. The fact that these people were WW I vets, some of them permanently crippled, makes it even more appalling. Shows where 'serving your country' gets you.
Tis just another example of the arrogance of power. Once in a while they have to dramatically demonstrate who really runs the show.
But resentment has a very long shelf-life, and things come back to haunt those who try to squash the helpless. Other cultures might call it kharma, but I call it getting what's coming to you. So, the cycle continues.
I wonder if there is eventually going to be an energy version of the Bonus Marchers. What has always amazed me is how easily reasonable, responsible
people can be driven to truly desparate actions during times of crisis.
One should not take for granted the 'civil order' that we have come to enjoy.
http://www.historylink.org/essays/printer_friendly/index.cfm?file_id=2581
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/doclibrary/doclibrary_Hoovers.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10017925/site/newsweek/
When all is said and done, 2005 may be remembered as the year America caught a serious case of energy agita. In the past year, oil has blown by $50 a barrel and peaked briefly at $70 altitudes, sending prices at the gas pump temporarily into the psychologically jarring territory north of $3 a gallon. At the same time, confronted with hurricanes, vanishing Arctic ice and other bizarre weather phenomena, many global-warming skeptics finally acknowledged that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels are altering the Earth's climate. Add to that the fierce ongoing debate about "peak oil" and the declining viability of the Earth's oil supply, the plunge in sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and, finally, the double whammy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which ravaged the Gulf Coast energy infrastructure and closed a third of the country's oil and gas production.