The impending energy crisis and 9/11

It just happens to be September 11 today that I happen to write, so I'll have to connect this interesting date to my contents, perhaps.

Just 4 short years ago the World Trade Towers and Pentagon were hijacked by some rather bold passengers and rammed by civilian jets.

Some believe this event was somehow known and "allowed" by U.S. leadership, perhaps in a similar way of the U.S. knowing about the 1941 attack of Pearl Harbor, and accepted as an acceptable risk to mobilize the American people to accepting a war they didn't want. I'm saying nothing in my own behalf. I don't much like guessing or at least not extrapolating many steps beyond my guesses.

I also guessed that History wasn't on Bush's side for reelection a year ago, and I was proven wrong. Similar beliefs exist that Bush wasn't honestly relected, that corruption in the ballots of Ohio and Florida pushed victory to Bush, but come on, on the "moral victory" of a national majority of the vote, I've heard none say even this victory was false, so I surrender the unknown truth and say sometimes a half failure doesn't teach the full lesson, and so we must let Bush even convince the majority that we're strongly off track.

It is hard even to say that the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq was initially a bad thing. I mean in the sense that the FIRST gulf war never really ended and only the people of Iraq were seriously suffering and dying because of our sanctions. Of course Bush and Company blew the occupation. So civilians of Iraq continue to suffer because of our mistakes.

In my mind we own the people of Iraq much retribution for the suffering we've caused, but political reality doesn't seem likely that we'll do much. It is very sad we're willing to spend whatever $400 billion in Iraq to fight and who knows how little on reconstruction. Similarly for Afghanistan where we also owe much. I know money alone isn't sufficient, and is easily wasted as well.

The lesson of War is this. Those that suffer, innocent or not, are on their own. Those who get in the way when the gods of hatred fight deserve what they get. If there's war near your home, and you do not leave, you accept your fate. If you DO leave, you will be unwanted anywhere else and you accept your fate. There is no justice for individuals who unfairly suffer from political action. If you spend your life demanding compensation for your loses, you will live a wasted life.

Sorry for my pessimism. Not the world I'd like. Individuals are screwed. Families who stay together might stand a little better odds, if only because they can help each other. Maybe communities as well. Just don' expect the wider world to care.

In this pessimism, I perhaps come back to my original topic, the impending energy crisis.

Do we (those alive now) care that the next generation won't have half the abundance and opportunity that the last generation had? Is there any sacrifices now that we are willing to make that will give the next a chance for something?

Sure, oil will be with us for the century in some quantity, in some locales, in some applications, but the era of unlimited economic growth appears to me to be coming to an abrupt end in the next zero to 30 years depending on your optimism. (My bet is under 10 years)

I accept the premise that economic growth is directly proportional to "energy consumption growth" and when our available energy declines, our economy must decline, and along with that everything we assume from the past is under threat.

For myself the threat seems imminent and unavoidable, an approaching storm, like Katrina. Our economy stands "below sealevel" and the weight of our dikes are sinking us further. The economy ought to be abandoned and we ought to "move to higher ground". The longer we try to defend the undefendable, the more hardship we'll face later when we have to abandon everything under force of flood.

Given such pessimism I'm tempted to wonder "Why not just enjoy what we have now and we can leave lighter later when we must. They we can start clean and rebuild with the manidate of survival a our backs, no question over why we're suffering."

It's true, there's so much opportunity within our system now, that to turn our backs on it before the crash seems hopelessly heroic. A strange phrase, but I can' think of anything better.

I'm really not one of those pioneers, willing to pack up and abandon the past. I'd rather build from what's here, and rebuild as I can. The REALITY is that 300 million Americans will not be able to "pack up and leave", so whatever "new" appears from the "old", it would seem that 90% of it will happen from within.

I must continue to put some hope that giving us more time will give us a bit better chance of managing the transition to what's next. I can't give up on technology to save us, even if I accept perhaps 90% of the development may not be in a direction that is sustainable. But who can say?

Okay, so what would I do? I would promote conservation and the highest principle of survival. We can't conserve ourselves out of an energy crisis, but it can delay and soften the hardships while we muddle to what's next.

Just thinking on the lowest economic and political terms:
1. The U.S. ought to make a 50 year projection of expected oil available to us, assuming a 3-5% decline every year after say 2010.
a. Project a transportation system that can run on these declining reserves - including investing on high-use road materials that minimize long term maintenance costs, possibly planned abandonment of roads that we can't afford to maintain, and lastly probably expanding railway networks for intercity travel.
b. Reduce roadway speedlimits to 55mph now.
c. Reduce average weight of passenger vehicles to lower power requirements.
d. Promote flexible fuel vehicles.
e. Expand transit in metro areas, promoting key corridors and encouraging higher density
housing and businesses along such corridors.
...
2. Diversification and rebuilding of rural america
a. Identify key towns and connect them with rail transit.
b. Diversify farming to meet primary food needs of local populations.
c. Analyze farm through-puts based on local resources and renewable energy.
...

All around, I see it ought to be possible to analyze energy use and reorganize to alternatives that reduce our need for fossil fuels.

I see there is a tension between "internal markets" and "wider trade markets" and I recognize that local wealth and abdundance in the short term is often connected directly to trade. Certainly if any region attempts to reduce consumption of cheap global energy resources, it will be less competitive in trading its products. Equally local production will often be more expensive than imported production.

Somehow analysis must be capable of measuring why local costs are higher. If local costs are higher because we're not depending as much on nonrenewable energy, then we're better off. If local costs are higher because we're better protecting our soil and natural resources, then we're better off.

It seems very hard to understand enough how our larger economy affects us, how it destroys our local self-reliance, and how it weakens our long term survival. Over and over I judge cheap energy in terms of addiction. While we are unwilling to admit we are dependent, we can't see the alternatives.

For the time being, at least high oil and gasoline prices (and Natural gas as well) are the warning signals. We are fortunate to have them come "early". I'll settle for a price plateau now as optimal, but up up and away is my call if we don't change our ways in the coming months and years.