Peak Oil: Capitalism & Sustainability (Pt 4)

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?

Peak Oil Matters