Stealth Powerdown

Powerdown is the term used by Richard Heninberg for the best option for the future of the industrialized world to survive the next century. Or I should say it's the ONLY option, the difference being whether we embrace it or fight it. It WILL happen.
http://www.museletter.com/Powerdown.html

I'm basically in agreement that ultimately calls for Powerdown are "Cries in the wildernes" that will never well become mainstream voices necessary for action.

It seems most likely that most people are incapable of imagining something else besides "Like the past and present, but better". Eternal optimists win the day on the strength of their illusions, at least for the indefinite future.

Politics won't "solve" our problems because every realistic solution has demands outside of the acceptability of the majority.

When you live in a world of unlimited growth, where the future always looks brighter, then you're willing to struggle a little now, seeing what's waiting just around the corner.

How do you face a world where the future is in unavoidable decline, where year-after-year, whatever you have now, next year likely will be harder. Every difficulty now will be added to more difficulties later.

The reality of the future probably must be, sooner or later, a "die off" activity for some large portion of humanity. It seems inevitable, a necessary "sacrifice" for future generations. A contradictory perspective at an individual level. Will the "die off" occur because of a new disease, failed harvests, or war. What are those four horseman of the apocalypse?
http://www.answers.com/topic/four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse
--> pestilence, war, famine, and death

Really that looks like 3 horsemen, and one "clean up crew".

It seems impossible to contemplate any sort of "die off". Sure local famine is yet a fact today, and it would be an interesting graph to see "How many people starved to death in each decade past". All-in-all, it would seem there might be a "steady" level - maybe even 2%/year, and then spikes historically when 10+% of humanity was wiped out in a short period of time.

On the "evolutionary sense", times of mass death are also times where evolution can have an effect. There's lots of room for variations in a population of 6 billion, but the "natural selection" doesn't REALLY kick in to high gear until we lose a good fraction of us.

As an individual, I don't really want to participate in a "die off". I guess I'd rather perish in pestilence or famine than war though. At least there's more democracy in disease and hunger. I mean overall we've all got some chance of making it through if we've got good genes, good luck. Same true for war, but it is just sad to lose out because of violence between peoples.

Hmmmm.. ugly thoughts. I had planned to imagine ways to encourage society to voluntarily powerdown, but too depressed now to continue....

The "I Hate America" movement

I read a disturbing article today. Since the Strib doesn't have free archives (after a few weeks), and it was short, I pasted it below.

---

House moves to ban desecration of flag

Associated Press June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment
that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote, House members approved the amendment — as they have six times before — after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections. The measure now advances to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in its 16-year history.

If the amendment wins two-thirds majorities in each chamber, it moves to the states for ratification.

With the exception of Rep. Collin Peterson, the four Democrats in the House delegation voted against the amendment; the four Republicans voted for it.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center,'' said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.''

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.''

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of theUnited States.'' For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

---

My first response to such a "threat" is to say "Well, time to GET POLITICAL".

I'll be the first one out there to offer my symbolic burning of the American Flag, well a small one, since I'm cheap.

It is interesting to consider that "protecting the flag" by default stands as "patriotic", while "burning the flag" stands for traiters and Haters of America.

Is there any way to show my love for America by burning the flag?

Overall, I'm not much into symbols anyway, and the primary reason I'd burn the flag would as an act of civil disobedience AGAINST the movement that seeks to protect the flag.

There are so many gray issues out there, it's just FUN to have a single issue that is so clear cut. I have no DOUBT which side "God" is on here. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS talks about flag burning. Flag burning is no sin in God's eyes. I'm sure!

AND the commandment about not making idols might just offer evidence FOR flag-burning, just to "prove" we're not worshiping them.

I can TRY to imagine being on the "other side" perhaps, for a moment.

Let's pretend an "America hater" came up to me with a gun, a flag, and a ligher. Then he hands me the lighter and commands me to light the flag on fire, OR he'll shoot me in the head. (Oh, he had a friend also with a video camera which will tape my "act of desecration")

Of course I KNOW he wants me to burn the flag because the flag represents evil to him, and he thinks if he can broadcast an American-lover like myself burning my own symbol for freedom, he'll be one step closer to throwing America into the dust.

Well, I'd see if I could delay for a while, at least to challenge his authority, just a bit. You know, I'd stare at the lighter, flick it a few times, let it go out. Give him a little drama to see if I'll actually do it. But he starts getting violent, you know, shooting the ceiling or kicking me or something, I'll just as well shrug and do as he says.

I just can't get much moral outrage at destroying a flag. In comparison to say directly harming someone. Perhaps if I knew my own MOTHER had sewn the flag, I might have a little more guilt in the act.

AH, but what about the symbolic american flag, raised in the rubble of the world trade center collapse. Don't I feel patriotic at that sight?

Well, I won't burn THAT flag. And I promise not to burn any historical flags. I won't even burn the american flag left on the moon from Apollo.

STRANGELY, I'd be much more unconfortable burning books. How about a constitutional ammendment that prohits political statements that burn books?

Nah, I like books, and in a different time and place, I'd protect books, like a library, with my own life, but really, we've got plenty of books, so let'um burn if there's a reason - whether keeping warm, or protesting their "lies" or whatever.

What about the soldiers that dies to keep America free? Doesn't the flag symbolize their sacrifice?

I admit in life and death circumstances perhaps a flag will mean more to me. I admit that life sometimes demands personal sacrifice, and having a symbolic focus for that sacrifice is meaningful. Still, a accept every symbol, like dreams, can have multiple interpretations and I deny the singular idea that burning a flag harms anyone else for the act.

I wish there was more of an argument for banning flag burning, but I can't find it.

I am lastly curious, if the constitutional ammendment got its 2/3 support, if my act of burning it in protest would inspire states to support it. Obviously backlash must be avoided.

Oh, I'm just peaved because it's such a NONISSUE. It's fun because it's easy, but come on, don't have more important things to debate?!

Sharing the oil dregs

One interesting question on a world oil crisis is how available oil will be distributed.

On the surface capitalism says rsources go to the highest bidder.

The curious thing is the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil. That's perhaps fine and dandy while there's "excess capacity", but is it going to hold if there's supply shortages? Will we continue to get our 1/4 market share? Will our market share go up as we might pretend to be willing to pay more than most?

Then, given "modern" food production is largely dependent upon oil, where's the "moral choice"? I mean if it is a matter of some countries starving, and others like ours continuing to waste oil just because we can afford it?

I can't really set up a clear scenario. Higher oil prices might be feasible for the U.S., but it won't be easy either. Even if we have the land, and can afford the energy and fertilizers to produce food, will that food have a cost which can be paid? Will U.S. food exports be competitive under higher oil prices? I expect not.

Again, and again, I can't predict the future, except that higher oil prices must come, even if not uniformly by market forces. Again and again, I say its best to adjust to higher prices now through higher gasoline taxes.

It is hard to know how Europe gets by with $4-$5/gallon gasoline/diesel. Without the high fuel taxes, would their consumption also be higher like ours? If our taxes are raised, will this curb our consumption?

There's a strong self-interest (for global trade) to import fuel cheaply, and use it to generate wealth, which is exported back out again. In fact, that's the only clear way for oil importing nations to compete at all in a global economy.

There is little short term incentive for the U.S. to raise fuel costs, to raise the cost of goods which we export, because that makes us less competitive with others. The same argument can be used on lowering environmental protections for global competitiveness. Fortunately the U.S. is weathy enough to set some standards on air and water quality, even if the primary effect is to outsource industry that isn't competitive here.

You could argue something like "If we raise gasoline taxes by $2/gallon, similar to Europe, that we'll "lose" 1 million jobs which will be displaced to other countries where taxes are lower. I don't know if such an argument is valid.

On the other side, you can argue that the U.S. Trade deficit is the most key measure for our long term strength, and while it continues to expand, as a country we continue to get weaker.

Protectionism is the knee-jerk response to losing jobs or reducing imports. Reducing imports will raise the cost of goods sold here. In response exporters who are hurt by this will raise their own import costs of our goods.

Now given thoughts of a global energy crisis, this sort of protectionism might be considered good because it increases local self-reliance.

On the other hand, there will be objections as long as the danger is not apparent.

Is there any other way to reduce our trade deficit? Certainly it is a self-limiting reality - at some point foreign investors will stop being interested in "investing" in the U.S., and the debt will slow. If the dollar loses international value, people won't want to trade with it, and will divest themselves. Such action, applied by millions of investors, will spiral out of control. Actually big investors are the saviors since they have so much invested, they CAN'T divest because they own too much, and have an interest in keeping the dollar valuable.

Back to my original question, on sharing the world oil dregs, the second half of world oil resources, with the U.S. owning a 3% world share in this club, and needing a 25% share in consumption, we're in trouble whatever we might want. It is hard to believe the world will continue selling oil for dollars like this.

I know nothing, but it makes sense that the world is now beholden to the U.S. dollar for oil trading, like an international tax that props up our power. It makes sense that at some point, this relation must be broken, and when it happens, the U.S. will have much greater trouble than so far. We'll finally have to be accountable for our debt.

Overall it seems that "culture" is a machine, one that grows more and more complex, more and more dependent upon key resources to keep it functioning. If any resource fails, the machine grinds to a halt. Everyone's running around with their heads cut off trying to keep the cogs turning, and it's a balancing act that can last a long while, but is not a stable equilibrium.

It's like balancing a 10' pole from the bottom, and slowly adding weights on the top. Once you reach a critical level of mass on top, there's no "stable" shut down process. There's only continuing, or crashing.

If only we'd STOP adding more weights on top, maybe the crash won't be quite as hard!

Oil Storm

This Saturday I watched a cable-taped movie called "Oil Storm" fron FX network.

It offers a documentary-style fictional scenario of a hurricane in September 2005 hitting straight on into Louisianna's offshore oil production, sending a short term distruption to U.S. supplies. The president authorizes 1 mbbl/day of oil to be sold from the Strategic reserve, and also makes a deal with the Saudis to send us an extra 1-2mbbl/day as well. Then terrorists attack in Saudi Arabia and distrupt their production. We send in troups to help, but it just further inflames the situation. Then we get Russia to sell us oil and they agree, but midshipment, the Chinese out bid us and the ships divert. We eventually outbid the Chinese and get our shipments. However we over use some seaway in Texas and cause an accidental collision of a chemical and petroleum ship, closing the passage for months.

In the 6+ months this runs, gasoline prices rise to 3, 4, 6, and $8/gallon. Eventually things settle apparently, and the documentary has the chance to interview all the key participants and some ordinary people on how the events were made and affected them.

There was no clear mention about "peak oil". They did say in the opening that the U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil.

I'm not aware that Russia really has large reserves available for export, but I guess with investment money, there is some oil there in the short term, even if nothing like the middle east.

I think the movie was as good as it could be done. I don't know how realistic the events might be, but at least overall they were immediate future and didn't require great assumptions about long term oil limits and how we might respond.

I accept that it is enough to offer the message that the U.S. is headed on a collision course with disaster with our ever expanding dependence upon foreign oil and our high demand.

I'd be interested in a story played on a longer time period, like jumping on key events every decade or so over the next 50 years to show how the world will react to oil shortages. However such predictions are dependent upon extrapolating data that is disputed. Do we have 1, 2, or 3 trillion barrels of oil left in the world? It makes a HUGE difference. I think the projections can still be made, just adjusting the years +/-15 years.

Maybe a Kunsler style "Long Emergency" story would be too depressing. Certainly history is VERY depressing to be viewed in the long term, when things are headed down hill anyway.

Myself, I accept raising Gasoline taxes now is our ONLY firm defense against higher prices later. We either ease our consumption now voluntarily, or later because we have to. If we can't get political will for raising taxes, than a world oil crisis is the next best thing to curb consumption and raise prices.

On the other hand, as long as people thing everything is political, not geological limits, a crisis will be endured, and if an indian summer returns of cheaper oil, people can easily think things have returned to "normal". A wake up call is only helpful if people really understand what it means.

This Fall seems as good a time as any for an "Oil storm". I don't look forward to it, except in an "I told you so" satisfaction. There's no predictibility however. We can play with possible futures, and unfortunately in the short term, $10/bbl oil is perhaps just as likely as $100/bbl oil. Creeping to $60/bbl is nice, but it might fall to $40/bbl just as easily with just a few percent changes in demand or supply.

Overall I accept it is just too nightmarish for anyone to accept. We need a decade of depression perhaps to seriously face our problems.

Funny tonight in Toastmasters, a speaker talked about Pessimists never accomplishing anything - implying to be an optimist is the source of all creation.

Maybe it's true. Certainly I'm not clearly better off for my pessimism, and I won't make nearly as much money as the person who sees a coming peak oil as their chance for wealth and power.

I think of bicycling. As a pessimist I'll take hard work now for a better life later. Maybe that's not pessimism. It is conservatism. I'd rather bike up hill now, knowing I can rest on the way down later. Going downhill, into a valley is harder. It means I can't enjoy what I have now, knowing harder times are ahead when I must climb back out of the depression.

I see modern culture in a freefall of cheap energy - destroying ancient energy sources, and modern balances of nature, for a few shits and giggles and aspirations of godhood. I'm as attracted to power as much as anyone, but how can I really enjoy something that can't last? I MEAN IF my actions now are the CAUSE of the predictable ending?

I know we "can't take it with you [after death]" so there are limits to saving, but I have a hard time knowing our actions now will make things harder for those who will follow?

Outrage is easy. Action is something else. I'm not willing to give up the game society offers. I mean for work, for modern communication and tools in computers. I can try to give up cars, but not always easy in Minnesota all year.

Either I'm part of the problem, or part of the solution? Is it so simple? At least for oil, I'm less a part of the problem than most, but perhaps 75% will say they're below average for consumption. Even a room full of conservationists can destroy the world if there's enough.

No more great thoughts. I'm not even a pawn in life, just a cog in a machine. I have to wait for the machine to crash, and then see where I land.

Perhaps I'm yet an optimist for not giving up on trying anything. I do appreciate what I have now, and I don't have illusions that the future will look like the past but better.

Downing Street memo

It's always nice to have snappy names for political stingers.

Will the "Downing Street Memo" one day be like "Watergate" as the event that threw down a president?

I got and Democrat Party email today, linking to:
http://bsd.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/downing

It would be cool actually if the president just went on National Television and say "Sure, back in 2002 we wanted to rid the world of Saddam" and we used sketchy intelligence reports of WMD as a political weapon to get the job done."

I don't know. It's really hard to say "Mr. President, you lied." It seemed obvious from the start that WMD were a mere front to justify the invasion.

Perhaps we can blame democracy itself for this "corruption".

Yes, 1700 American lives have been lost in Iraq. Yes perhaps 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the invasion. However what value do we give to the 500,000+ children who died during the 12 years of economic sanctions against Iraq?

The PROBLEM is the President (and UK Prime Minister) DID have a moral position to rid the world of Saddam. AT least we had a moral position to STOP the sanctions which primarily harmed the people of Iraq and actually strengthened Saddam's power over the people of Iraq.

Do the ends justify the means?

Well, we don't even have the ends yet, but at least Iraq is rid of their dicator leader. And the U.S. is free from some of our responsibility for his rise to power and maintaining power. I wouldn't want to live in Iraq now, but some people call it home. If I called it home, I'd be happy Saddam was gone.

For me the issue is not whether invading Iraq was done through manipulating the facts, although I consider it a FOREVER future point to bring up when we use claimed facts to justify another invasion or bombing.

For me the issue is "Escape strategy" - Now that we've done what we "had to do" - how do we retreat without risking a country going into civil war? Power vacuums can be worse than dictatorships.

I suppose I should be on the side of the peacenicks, and I am overall. I must believe there was a BETTER way to free the world of Saddam than what we did. And the results speak for itself - a bloody war - billions of dollars wasted - a budget deficit that will never be zeroed short of revolution HERE!

The hawks have proven their incompetience. They have to live with it. I know, saying "I told you so", isn't overly useful. At least they've demonstrated our weaknesses. We won't as easily be pulled into war against Iran or North Korea, and yet we still have to deal with them.

The biggest lesson for me is that power needs to look in the mirror before it judges others. We've got plenty of housekeeping to do before we can be reasonable character judges of other countries. We've proven we're just as capable at harming freedom and human rights as an country. We've proven money doesn't buy justice.

Look in the Mirror America. Not just our president - all of us.

Look at the WMD issue and let's apply the same standards to ourselves first!

Denial and Fear for the Future

I read a cool new detailed survey for Americans on environment and energy.

http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/environmentalpoll.htm
http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/yaleenvironmentpollspring2005releasetopline.pdf
http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/poll2key.prn.pdf

68% of Americans consider the dependence on foreign oil as "very serious", and 92% very or somewhat serious.

When asked for answers they most support:
93% to FORCE automakers to make more fuel efficient cars
90% support expanding solar power
88% support expanding wind power
86% support research into renewables

On the other side:
6% support charging people per mile driven
11% charging a pollution tax
15% support increased gasoline tax

This shows me a country in a state of denial - not to be blamed - since tough issues require good debate and good leaders to frame the issues as real choices.

For me the way is crystal clear. The price of energy must increase. It WILL increase regardless in the long term. The only question is whether we "help it along" or wait for OPEC to get even richer UNTIL a world crisis sends us into shortages no matter how much we're willing to pay.

It's good that 92% support higher gas milage cars, but:
1) Will they still buy them if gas prices go down again?
2) Will they accept the trade offs needed in size and power?
3) Will they buy the vehicles if they cost much more up front?

I don't see gas prices as high enough to control people's buying habits much.

Sure, someone with a 10mpg SUV now might buy a 15mpg Minivan next year IF prices rise to $3/gallon, but the reality is such conservation efforts are far insufficient to the needs ahead of us.

The immediate future (2015-2060) will NOT have such choices within reach of average Americans. I really believe it possible that the cars being purchased even this year might be the "first of the last class of american cars", at least cars that look anything similar.

I see a future where the average american "can't afford the fuel on an older car" and "can't afford the purchase price of a newer car". I see a future where a BRAVE and BOLD movement arises that teaches people to live without personal cars.

Well, I can't see well at all, and I only know my own choices. I am car-free myself. I have two roommates who both have cars, but I've only borrowed one once since March. I have a girlfriend with a car, and so I ride with her sometimes.

In the past I've considered "sharing a car", and done it with my sister from 1992-2000 until she got married. It mainly worked because I "let" her have 99% priority over it. I shared a previous car my girlfriend for almost a year, and again she got 90% usage, even if II could have asked for more.

Sharing a car in a single house is hard enough, and across a city is even harder. I mean in terms of "wasted miles and time" in transfering it for use. I mostly avoided the transfer driving at least by using a bike and commuting home to work to her place, but it does take time and require advanced planning often.

I'm am ideal person to share a car with since I need one minimally. So I can share with anyone and if we split costs, they'll always get a better deal. However, for example, my cousin roommate, she drives to work, works 6 days a week, and does weekend and evening errands so practically the only time her car is HOME is when she's asleep, which isn't particularly a good time for anything but grocery shopping perhaps!

If we were to share a car, we could consider things like I could drive her to work, and do my errands, and then pick her up from work. However she currrently works about 20 some miles from home, so that's already a 40 mile commute normally, and would waste another 40 miles to do the dropoff/pickup trick - not to mention the time wasted on the road.

Car sharing on any sort of regular basis requires ALL PARTICIPANTS to be capable of alternative transportation 75% of the time. If she could "ride the bus" just one day, that would free the car for me that day.

Anyway, the GOOD thing is america is SO WASTEFUL that we can cut back our transportation probably by 50% quickly if we had to. Since we consume 25% of the world's oil, and 40% of that on transportation, we could save 5% of the world's oil consumption quickly just on transportation alone.

Saudi Arabia pumps MAYBE 10mbbl/day on peak output. The U.S. uses 20mbbl/day, and say 8mbbl/day on transportation, and so we could save 4mbbl/day, 40% of Saudi output. Well, it shows at least "high prices" are our choice and we really could cause a short term oil glut NOW if americans really did take our consumption seriously.

I'm still voting for a $4/gallon gas tax increase, even if transitioned over 4 years. (Heck the MN Gov wants a $0.75/pack "fee" increase for cigarettes - locally produced, job-creating, largely sustainable crop. Oil has a lot more value that cigarettes, even ignoring the foreign dependency!)

God

Letter to editor in Star tribune, final thought copied below:
************
Pray, don't play
...
Here's a final thought: Abortion has taken the lives of well over 40 million babies. Perhaps among those babies were some sent by God to cure Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis. Instead of playing God, we should be praying to him.

Jerry Kassanchuk, Golden Valley.
************

I've heard "jokes" like this, something like: "Hey God, why have you helped us cure cancer?" GOD: "I tried, but you aborted my help."

I'm not going to judge this person's faith in God, but this line of reasoning can go a long way towards unlimited passivity. Perhaps HITLER would have "cured cancer" if ONLY we had allowed him to take over the world, huh? Of course unborn babies are innocent, so we're more sure in God's miracles might be there.

Perhaps all "Good Christians" ought to stay out of politics, and "Let God get the right people in power."?!

Surely many people would be glad for this wish....