Whole Earth Disaster Movie: The Kleptogarchy part 13

Whole Earth Disaster Movie

The Day After Tomorrow was a typical disaster film, premised on a sudden deep freeze forcing survivors to flee south from the USA to an apparently unaffected Mexico, where American refugees were made welcome. It did not seem to cross their minds that Mexicans might send them right back! This 2004 film was about indomitable humans surviving against the odds, the message being that even nature’s worst calamities are survivable, at least for some resourceful humans. The Day After Tomorrow presented a disaster on a national scale, unlike many predecessors like The Towering Inferno (a skyscraper on fire) or The Poseidon Adventure (capsized, doomed liner). Humans rather like watching mock disasters, especially if some characters are allowed a happy ending. Real disasters without happy endings are less palatable. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which started on February 24th 2022, was immediately a lethal, resource-destroying, emission-spewing hell. Three days later, on February 27th, the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from Working Group II, warned about the potentially catastrophic impacts of failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability highlights multiple interacting risks.

“Complex risks result from multiple climate hazards occurring concurrently, and from multiple risks interacting, compounding overall risk and resulting in risks transmitting through interconnected systems and across regions.”[1]

The authors amplify the warning:

“Widespread deterioration of ecosystem structure and function, resilience and natural adaptive capacity, as well as shifts in seasonal timing have occurred due to climate change (high confidence), with adverse socioeconomic consequences (high confidence). Approximately half of the species assessed globally have shifted polewards or, on land, also to higher elevations (very high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence) as well as mass mortality events on land and in the ocean (very high confidence) and loss of kelp forests (high confidence).”[2]

It gets worse. According to the report, about 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in areas that are highly vulnerable to climate change, the physical and mental health of people around the world has been adversely affected, and humanitarian crises grow where climate hazards interact with high vulnerability in communities.

Not just climate hazards. When people are competing for depleted resources, peace is rarely the outcome. One of the reasons for Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, apart from a hubristic attempt at empire rebuilding, appeared to be strangulation of the Ukrainian economy, by occupying the major Black Sea ports including Odesa, Kherson and Mariupol, and so preventing exports, and the same time bombing factories and farmland to reduce the products that can be exported. All-out warfare counteracts efforts at emissions reductions for multiple reasons: consumption of fossil fuels by troops and fleeing civilians, carbon-intensive manufacture of weapons, destruction of buildings and infrastructure that must probably be replaced at some stage. Competition leading to conflict accelerates climate change, a multiplication of tragedies. Yet world leaders tend to treat climate change as separate from other policies, when the risk of an uninhabitable world should be a critical factor in all policies.

Lack of resilience may be more immediately obvious among ‘vulnerable communities’ but the relatively affluent world is affected more and more. The insurance and reinsurance industries are a case in point. How many disasters can insurance companies withstand?

“Because only a small number of policyholders are likely to suffer an insured harm in a given period, the money from the lucky policyholders covers the claims of the unlucky. However, this system breaks down when large portions of the population suffer harms at the same time, as is the case with many climate-related events,” wrote Bridget Pals and Michael Panfil about the USA in 2021. “Consider a wildfire, which can affect an entire region. In response, insurers may either raise premiums beyond what most Americans can afford or pull out of a high-risk market altogether, leaving gaps in coverage and reducing accessibility (an alarmingly common trend for homeowners in wildfire-prone areas of California).”[3]

This article was written for an American audience, but commercial insurance faces the same squeeze all over the world: more disasters, bigger payouts, higher premiums that become unaffordable. A vicious spiral.

People without enough food are not going to prioritise insurance premiums. The Sixth IPCC report points out that:

“Climate change will increasingly put pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions, undermining food security and nutrition (high confidence). Increases in frequency, intensity and severity of droughts, floods and heatwaves, and continued sea level rise will increase risks to food security (high confidence) in vulnerable regions from moderate to high between 1.5 deg C and 2 deg C global warming level, with no or low levels of adaptation (medium confidence).”[4]

Soils will suffer, pollination will suffer, pests and diseases will become more prevalent. The negative impacts will be multiplied when separate crises interact.

“Multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously, and multiple climatic and non-climatic risks will interact, resulting in compounding overall risk and risks cascading across sectors and regions. Some responses to climate change result in new impacts and risks (high confidence).”[5]

The IPCC has scant confidence in adaptation measures so far, commenting that there is “increased evidence of maladaptation across many sectors and regions” since the previous report. We are running out of time:

“Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).”

It was against this background of the last-chance saloon that Russia invaded Ukraine, a series of destructive actions that took a wrecking ball to human lives in the path of the advancing troops, and counteracted efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, thereby threatening billions of lives in the future.


[1] ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, February 2022, Summary for Policymakers, SPM 7 (B).

[2] Ibid, SPM 8 (B.1.1)

[3] ‘Climate Change Comes to Insurance’ by Bridget Pals and Michael Panfil, in The Hill, December 30th 2021, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/584240-climate-change-comes-to-insurance, accessed March 8th 2022.

[4] IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, February 2022, Summary for Policymakers, SPM 14 (B.4.3).

[5] Ibid, SPM 18 (B.5).


Dasgupta Biodiversity Review’s Impossible Task

Terms of Reference were Contradictory

“Here we go again”, I thought on first glancing at the Dasgupta Review on The Economics of Biodiversity, “still placing humanity above the natural world, instead of being part of it”. Phrases like ‘natural capital accounting’, ‘standardisation of data and modelling approaches’ and ‘supra-national institutional arrangements’ did not augur well for the new philosophical approaches that I believe need to be taken.

The review, led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Cambridge, was published on February 2nd. It has elicited many responses, including an 18-page document of ‘Reactions’ that the Westminster government released on the same day. ‘Reactions’ has comments from business and third-sector leaders. This is one, from Professor Gretchen C. Daily, Bing Professor of Environmental Science, Stanford University and Co-Founder and Faculty Director, The Natural Capital Project:

“All people – living in ancient or modern times, in luxury or destitution, in mega-cities or vast hinterlands – depend intimately and utterly on nature. Through the microbiome inhabiting our body, the nature in local parks and farms, and exotic forests and underwater realms across the world, we are all deeply embedded within the web of life. This extremely subtle and extensive net of relationships sustains and fulfils us, providing the material basics of nutrition, health, and security to ethereal senses of attachment, beauty, and spirit. The Dasgupta Review comes at a historical precipice, with human activity driving the collapse of nature and the future course of all known life. Through brilliant synthesis of knowledge, the Review lays bare the urgent situation today, its underlying causes, the risks and costs of failing to address them, and the pathways to a future world in which people and nature thrive.”

True. We know what the problems are. We are much less sure about solutions that could be both effective and acceptable to the world’s richer inhabitants, who stand to lose most from a more equitable distribution of the fewer resources available to us if biodiversity and ecosystem collapse is to be slowed.

Reading the terms of reference set for the review, I understood the dominance of the language of conventional economics and accountancy within it. This was what the Westminster government wanted.

The terms of reference include setting the review purpose to “assess the economic benefits of biodiversity globally, assess the economic costs and risks of biodiversity loss, and identify a range of actions that can simultaneously enhance biodiversity and deliver economic prosperity”. There appears no doubt that prevention of ecological breakdown and delivery of economic prosperity are compatible, a perspective amplified in three key questions for the review to consider:

  • How biodiversity supports sustainable economic growth;
  • The implications of further biodiversity loss for the prospects of economic growth over the coming decades, taking into account the interaction with  other aspects of environmental degradation, including climate change; and
  • The impact, effectiveness and efficiency of existing national and international actions and arrangements to limit and reverse the loss of biodiversity and their impact on economic growth [my emphases]

The “simultaneous goals” of the review are to advise on “enhancing biodiversity” and “delivering sustainable economic growth”. No question here whether both are possible.

Given these constraining terms of reference, the review goes as far as it can. The final chapter, ‘Options for Change’, says this:

“The extent to which we have collectively degraded the biosphere has created extreme risks and uncertainties, endangered our economies and livelihoods, and given rise to existential risks for humanity.” (p.485)

Our inadequate response is “a sign of the failure of contemporary conceptions of economic possibilities to acknowledge that we are embedded in Nature, we are not external to it”. (p.485) So, clearly, the review acknowledges that humanity is just a part of the natural world.

The “options for change” are “geared towards three broad, interconnected transitions, requiring humanity to (i) ensure that our demands on Nature do not exceed its supply, and that we increase Nature’s supply relative to its current level; (ii) change our measures of economic success to help to guide us on a more sustainable path and (iii) transform our institutions and systems – in particular our finance and education systems – to enable these changes and sustain them for future generations”. (p.486)

Indeed so. But how?

The review proposes (p.487) “…quantity restrictions, informed by science and supported by legislation, will help to correct the externalities pervasive in our engagements with Nature”. (‘Externalities’ are damaging but uncounted repercussions of economic transactions, such as ocean pollution, rain forest felling, removal of finite resources, and man-made climate change.)  

Can we both reverse a catastrophic loss of biodiversity and continue to grow economies?

‘Quantity restrictions’ can also mean ‘lower consumption’, but maybe sounds rather less harsh.

Other measures proposed include “[t]echnological innovations” which can “contribute enormously to reducing our footprint”. Genetically modified crops, vertical farming, and meat analogues are among the examples given. Plant-based diets are advocated because “it would be possible to feed the world’s present population with as little as 50% of current agricultural land”. (p.489)

Environmental taxes, accounting for the use of ‘natural capital’, and more controversially ‘family planning’ (contraception) are all suggested.

But how to organise these measures globally? Even if all world leaders signed up, would their populations accept ‘quantity restrictions’ rapidly enough to slow the rate of biodiversity and ecosystem collapse, let alone reverse them?

The review argues that the financial system would “shift its lending and credit activities towards the protection of Nature if consumers signal their distaste for investments that are rapacious in the use of Nature’s goods and services”. (p.494)

Given the acquisitive history of humanity, can this happen quickly enough to make a real difference? The consumerist mindset is entrenched and the global economy is built on resource extraction. The Dasgupta Review, which in its terms of reference was asked to reconcile ecosystem protection with continuing economic growth, cannot show conclusively that both are possible, because in the circumstances of today’s economic and governance structures, they are not.  

The Dasgupta Review is online at The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (publishing.service.gov.uk)

PDR


Rethink!

The organic Alamar urban farm east of Havana, Cuba, supplying a rich variety of fruit, vegetables and herbs for a densely populated city suburb. The production methods and the crops seem to fit Colin Tudge’s definition of ‘Enlightened Agriculture’.
(Photo by PDR, November 2011)

Ecopolitics Today is back, starting with an introduction to The Great Rethink: a 21st Century Renaissance, a soon-to-be-published book by biologist and scientific author Colin Tudge. So here goes.

Yes, we are making the Earth uninhabitable for humans. Not a startling statement, but as Greta Thunberg has to keep pointing out, too few powerful people are trying to take corrective action.

Colin Tudge, in his new book The Great Rethink, notes that the personality traits driving ambitious people into positions of power and influence – such as the desire to secure wealth and political control for themselves and their associates – are the opposite of the characteristics required to share Earth’s resources between all people, living principled lives in thriving, diverse ecosystems.  The big questions are how to remove power from those who crave it for themselves, and then how to transfer it to benign agents capable of enacting policies for Earth rescue.

‘Renaissance’ is an answer proposed by Colin Tudge in this book. By Renaissance he means the creation of societies that are convivial, in the sense of happily collaborative rather than fiercely competitive, and are set in a flourishing biosphere. Renaissance would be the work of “Ordinary Joes and Jos”, building the world they want alongside the extractive systems that now dominate. The author prefers the Renaissance concept over Revolution (unknown outcomes!) or Reform of the existing system (too slow and timid).

But time is the enemy, even of Renaissance. As the earthy character Arthur Fallowfield used to say on the radio comedy show Beyond Our Ken, “…the answer lies in the soil”. Yet topsoil is being lost at such alarming rates that its capacity to provide answers is but a fraction of its potential when the radio show was made between 1958 and 1964. The Sustainable Soils Alliance warns that soil is being lost ten times faster than it is being formed, that between 1850 and 2015 the UK lost 84% of its best-quality topsoil, and that the current annual soil loss from wind and water erosion, from this one small quartet of countries, is about 2.9 million tonnes, weighing as much as 240,000 double-decker buses.

Without soil, we cannot feed ourselves. This harsh truth is rushing towards us like an apocalyptic thunderbolt, but most governments do not seem to care.

Colin Tudge is especially skilled at interpreting and setting science in the wider context of our civilisation. He is a biologist who has spent decades explaining scientific topics to non-specialist audiences, has written several books including The Secret Life of Trees and Global Ecology, and in 2008 with his wife Ruth West launched the Campaign for Real Farming. Two years later the duo, with writer and former agricultural adviser to The Archers, Graham Harvey, set up the annual Oxford Real Farming Conference. Colin Tudge bridges the divide between humanities and sciences, famously labelled “the two cultures” by C P Snow back in 1959. Snow, in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, argued that the schism seriously complicated the task of advancing knowledge, culture and governance. In The Great Rethink Colin Tudge takes bridge rebuilding a step further into the world of metaphysics, essentially the study of mind, including our understandings of reality, and importantly what we do not know and can never know. In this respect, The Great Rethink is a work of philosophy as well as of anxiety at the current trajectory of Earth mismanagement.

The book is divided into six parts: setting out the problems, the goal to work towards, the fundamental importance of craft work in the production and preparation of good food, the necessary infrastructure, the scope and depth of thought required, and how to start translating thought into the next steps we need to take. William Morris and John Ruskin would appreciate the arguments, I think. This may alarm some technophiles, because William Morris, who died in 1896, and John Ruskin, who passed away on the 20th day of the 20th century, favoured skill and craftsmanship over the reduction of work to simple processes in automated factories, the assembly line mentality that has done so much to spur damaging, resource-gobbling techno-consumerism.

Colin Tudge proposes that the numbers of farmers in the UK needs to rise up to tenfold. There would be more small, mixed farms practising what he calls ‘Enlightened Agriculture’, and plant-based diets with some meat but not much, and a great deal of diversity.  Food growing and cookery would become fundamental components of the school curriculum.

There is no shortage of potential farmers in the UK, evidenced by the interest in Wales’ policy for One Planet Developments, and the numbers applying to the Ecological Land Co-operative for smallholdings, but the status of land as a prime investment class in a neoliberal world means that, apart from special schemes like these, land is too expensive for new farmers who are ‘Ordinary Joes and Jos’.

Neoliberalism, the belief that market forces result in the most efficient decisions, has led us in completely the wrong direction, the book insists, far away from the co-operative, compassionate and convivial societies, living in flourishing ecosystems, that are our best hope of survival.

Personally I think we lack time for a Renaissance, to build a new structure capable of replacing the old one as it implodes, although I do not doubt the need for one. I am more inclined to think of scattered lifeboats, which could in time form a pioneer flotilla.

Colin Tudge has not lost hope, though. The very last sentence of the book is: “Truly we are on the brink of catastrophe but there is still hope”.

The Great Rethink: a 21st Century Renaissance is scheduled to be published on January 7th 2021, by Pari Publishing, ISBN (International Standard Book Number) 9788895604343, 364 pages. £15 to pre-order.

PDR, October 2020


Environmental News Worldwide Round-up

Helpful round-up of the week’s environmental news from around the world, from Debra on Under the Pecan Leaves:

http://mylandrestorationproject.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/environment-news-this-week-416-422/

News includes marches against Monsanto, two counties in Oregon ban GMOs, wildfires take hold in Arizona, waste water from fracking damages streams, radioactive water from Fukushima being released into the Pacific, and a lot more.

 


Oh Dear There’s an Asteroid Heading Our Way…..

…but let’s not worry about that yet, say the crowd in the pub.

An asteroid might or might not slam into Earth, but there are more immediate dangers to understand. Richard Heinberg — link below — argues that we must build more resilience into our straining, breaking systems — environmental, social, political, economic…  In ‘Fingers in the dike’ on http://www.resilience.org, Richard Heinberg looks at the unpleasant interactions between energy, money and climate systems:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-01/fingers-in-the-dike?utm_content=buffer1ffcb&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

The ways that we compartmentalise and certificate knowledge are, I think, partly to blame for the difficulty we have in visualising our world as a complex adaptive system in which the linkages between component parts are as critical as the parts themselves. The people who analyse the functioning of broad systems, across the boundaries of traditional ‘subjects’ are often on the receiving end of academic and political marginalisation, sadly.

The Sustainable Development Commission had a greenwash type of name but, led by Jonathon Porritt, it acted as a subtle ecological conscience for the United Kingdom.  It was an advisory link between government departments, and a reminder that systems do not stop at the exits of ministerial domains.

The commission was abolished by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government in 2010. In fact, axing the commission was one of this government’s early acts, although the British people were told it would be the “greenest government ever”, a misleading statement which adds to the widespread distrust of politicians, and to apathy.

Both Richard Heinberg and Gail Tverberg (what is it about the bergs?) see clearly how systems form interacting hierarchies that should not be analysed solely in isolation from each other. Gradually the power of their arguments is gaining support from green-minded people.

Pat Dodd Racher


Our Rur-urban Future

Thought-provoking from New Economics Foundation:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/great-transition


Politics sets out to reclaim the people!

Why are people so suspicious of politics? Not only politicians, but politics too. Political debate is at the heart of democracy. Even our limited democracy, for most confined to an occasional vote, is better than none at all – that way lies the resurgence of slavery and totalitarianism, which are both evident in more of the world than we may imagine.

The idea of politics as a fundamental element of our society has to become strongly rooted again, and this is why Plaid Cymru had a stall at Llandovery’s busy Sheep Festival last weekend (Saturday and Sunday September 29 and 30, 2012). Over the two days of this popular festival in east Carmarthenshire, hundreds of people made circuits of the stands in the big striped marquee, in what was just as much a social as a commercial occasion – bumping into friends and neighbours, exchanging news. Our stand was between two enticing ones, selling hand-made wool-topped footstools and woollen clothing hand-spun from sheep with fleeces of many shades.

Lots of passers-by looked at our stand, and on the Saturday – fine and sunny – several children were attracted to the sheep-and-farmyard colouring competition. It was different on Sunday, when the rain was horizontal, the wind tore at the sides of the tent, and the temperature was many degrees lower. Most of the smaller children, swathed in waterproof clothing, looked as though they would rather be at home. The adults seemed readier, on the whole, to talk about the aims of the Transition Town movement than about Plaid’s policies (we had Transition Town Llandeilo information sheets on the stand). Is this because Transition Towns are seen as non-political?

The Green agendas of Transition Towns and Plaid Cymru overlap. For both, sustainability into a resource-poor, climate-challenged future is a top priority. Transition Town members work up small-scale practical solutions such as new allotments, community orchards, local currencies, barter systems, and volunteer-led enterprises like village shops that could not survive if left to face supermarket competition on their own.

The World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report 2012 tells us (p.44) that “If everyone lived like an average resident of the USA, a total of four earths would be required to regenerate humanity’s annual demand on nature”. The UK is not quite as profligate, but is still depleting our planet two and a half times faster than it can regenerate, an overshoot that led the Welsh Assembly Government to release One Wales One Planet in 2009, representing “Our new vision of a sustainable Wales, based on using only our fair share of the earth’s resources.”

Even worse now: this graphic from the World Wildlife Fund, using 2003 data, hints at the scale of  our over-exploitation of Earth. The USA is using up our planet’s resources four times faster than they can be regenerated, the UK two-and-a-half times. Since 2003 countries then further down the over-use scale, such as Brazil, China and Thailand, have become much more exploitative.

As yet unspoken is the detail of how we attain this necessary objective. Many of the people who came to the Sheep Festival were ready to do their bit, by growing their vegetables, recycling more, cutting back on fossil fuel use, but there is still a gap between these individual efforts and the national good intentions.

Different parties, different gaps: Labour at their annual conference this week appear to have ditched green policy in favour of spend, spend, spend and build, build, build. The Conservatives can be green-tongued but their tongues are somewhat severed from their Gradgrind policies. LibDems cast some green splodges on Conservative agendas, but softening the hard Tory edges has become their defining feature, rather than distinctive ideas of their own. That’s how it seems from where I sit, at least.  No wonder why so many of us look on politics as a disreputable game of trading insults – but as Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (House of Commons, November 11 1947).

If we don’t plan a rapid reduction in our consumption of resources that are not renewable, the alternative is likely to be a much more uncomfortable rationing by ability to pay, or even by ability to defend your local resources from raiding by others, in ferocious Viking fashion perhaps. We can’t create a radically different, more sustainable society without participating in political discussion and planning. So thank you, Sheep Festival, for the opportunity to be there, and here’s to next year’s event!


The Importance of Local: Wendell E Berry’s vision of revived communities

This post is a link to environmentalist, novelist and poet Wendell E Berry ‘s lecture last Monday, April 23, on the necessity of attachment to place and community.

http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/wendell-e-berry-lecture

Here are just two paragraphs from the lecture, which I hope many people will go on to read in full.

‘The economic hardship of my family and of many others, a century ago, was caused by a monopoly, the American Tobacco Company, which had eliminated all competitors and thus was able to reduce as it pleased the prices it paid to farmers. The American Tobacco Company was the work of James B. Duke of Durham, North Carolina, and New York City, who, disregarding any other consideration, followed a capitalist logic to absolute control of his industry and, incidentally, of the economic fate of thousands of families such as my own.

My effort to make sense of this memory and its encompassing history has depended on a pair of terms used by my teacher, Wallace Stegner. He thought rightly that we Americans, by inclination at least, have been divided into two kinds: “boomers” and “stickers.” Boomers, he said, are “those who pillage and run,” who want “to make a killing and end up on Easy Street,” whereas stickers are “those who settle, and love the life they have made and the place they have made it in.”2 “Boomer” names a kind of person and a kind of ambition that is the major theme, so far, of the history of the European races in our country. “Sticker” names a kind of person and also a desire that is, so far, a minor theme of that history, but a theme persistent enough to remain significant and to offer, still, a significant hope.’


Riots as a Micro Form of Extractive Economics

Smash-up riots are a microcosm of our attitude to the Earth’s resources, which we have looted to give us ‘economic growth’ involving vast quantities of unnecessary consumer goods.

We have already consumed over half of extractable oil. I think the peak was passed in 2005-06.

What is the ethical difference between looting our planet and looting personal property constructed upon the planet? Both are selfish and unjust. Both are done for human enrichment and/or satisfaction. We have privileged personal property above virtually everything else, of course, and in doing that we only accelerate the rate at which we are extracting oil, gas, coal, iron, precious metals, rare earths and all the other finite constituents of our Earth. There’s also the soil we are destroying, the oceans we are polluting and the ancient trees we are felling.

Rioting looters may not, in most cases, make the connection between the destruction of Earth and their own behaviour, but they are on a micro scale copying – to give just a few examples — the oil companies whose activities have destroyed the livelihoods of inhabitants of the Niger delta in Africa, the cruise liners which discharge rubbish into the ocean, the mining corporations which poison water supplies as in Bolivia, the nuclear power plants which threaten future generations with radiation.

It seems that only big accidents, like the radioactivity spewing from the broken Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and the acute rioting in England in early August, focus our attention. Once out of the headlines, it’s back to business as usual, in resource extraction and on the streets of London, until the next eruption.

Let’s look at the resource issue more closely, using oil as the example.

World oil consumption in 2011 is likely to be about 32.193 billion barrels.[1]

The US Energy Information Administration reckoned that in 2009 the world’s proven reserves of crude oil totalled 1,342.207 billion barrels. That equals 41.7 years’ supply at the consumption rate in 2011. Rising demand for oil, notably in China, India and Latin America, will shorten the already frighteningly short timeline.

Saudi Arabia and Canada are supposed to have the world’s largest oil reserves. Our assumptions about the amounts of oil in both countries are more than questionable.

Saudi Arabia has almost one-fifth of the world’s stated oil reserves, 266.710 billion barrels of the 1,342.207 billion total. Amazingly, despite thirty years of continuous pumping, and the absence of major oil finds, Saudi Arabia’s reserves in 2009 were 60% higher than in 1980. The reserves figure jumped from 172.575 billion barrels in 1989 to 257.559 billion in 1990. Similar inflation happened in other members of OPEC, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in the late 1980s. The main reason for the reserves inflation was OPEC’s introduction of production quotas based on each member’s stated oil reserves.

No major fields have been discovered in Saudi Arabia since the 1960s, the last of any size being the Zuluf field in 1965, which started producing in 1973 and contained between 8.5 billion and 10 billion barrels. The Ghawar field, the largest in the world, was discovered in 1948, started production in 1951, and contained between 66 billion and 150 billion barrels.[2] The field yielded over 65 billion barrels by 2010.[3] This means either that the field is almost empty, or in the best case scenario, it is about half empty.

Saudi Aramco, the state oil company of Saudi Arabia, is secretive, and if the field is nearing depletion, would want to keep this information to itself for as long as possible. There are many signs, though, that the field is in the latter stages of its life. Aramco intends to inject carbon dioxide into the field, at the rate of 40 million cubic feet a day, to reduce the viscosity of the remaining oil. The injection is due to start in the Uthmaniyah zone in 2013.[4] Carbon dioxide injection is typically a technology of the tertiary or final stage oil recovery. Water flooding, to fill the space created by the extraction of oil, is regarded as the secondary stage: the remaining crude oil floats on the water and rises nearer to the surface. Water injection in the Ghawar field began as long ago as 1964. Aramco was at pains to stress that the carbon dioxide injection programme is not because the oilfield is depleting, but to “quantify how much reserves we can recover and for the environment”. So said Saad Turaiki, vice president of Aramco’s southern area oil operations.[5]

The Saudi Gazette reported, on November 10th 2010, a speech by King Abdullah to Saudi students at universities in the United States. King Abdullah was explaining his decision, made in summer 2010, to stop oil exploration in the kingdom, so that oil wealth would be saved and passed on to future generations. “Thank God, your homeland is proceeding resolutely to a prosperous future, God willing. And what is unknown is even better,” the king told the students.[6]

King Abdullah’s comments reinforce the circumstantial evidence that Saudi Arabia’s oilfields have passed their peak. If this is the case, it would be logical to save oil for coming times of scarcity and high prices. The energy investment banker Matthew R Simmons, in his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert: the coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy, concluded that Saudi Arabia’s fields were in decline, but his arguments were not universally accepted. Mr Simmons accidentally drowned in his hot tub, at home in Maine, in August 2010. That was the verdict of Maine’s Chief Medical Examiner, who noted that Mr Simmons, aged 67, suffered from heart disease.[7]

Canada has the world’s second largest reserves of crude oil according to the US Energy Information Administration. In 2009 those reserves were estimated at 178.092 billion barrels, or 13.3% of the global total. Canada is a newcomer to the oil reserves leader board. In 2003 its oil reserves were just 4.858 billion barrels. What accounts for the massive increase? Answer: the oil sands of northern Alberta, regions of bituminous sands that can be processed into usable oil – but the extraction and processing themselves consume huge quantities of energy.

Richard Heinberg, in his web book Searching for a Miracle: ‘Net Energy’ Limits and the Fate of Industrial Society[8] explains the impact of Energy Return on Energy Invested, or EROIE. This ratio summarises the energy input required to obtain one unit of energy output. The world’s largest oilfield, Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar, has yielded an EROIE of 100 to 1, according to Heinberg’s calculations. The global average EROIE for crude oil is some 19:1. As new oilfield discoveries wane, oil companies seek to drill in more challenging places, like the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic shelf of Alaska, and northern Siberia. Very large amounts of energy are expended in securing oil from hostile and marginal environments. The oil sands of northern Alberta were regarded as marginal until the ‘00s. Their ROIE is between 5.2:1 and 5.8:1, Heinberg suggests. That is still a positive return, but has severe economic implications. As the energy demands of finding and extracting fossil fuels grow, the proportion of energy returned to the economy will fall. Put another way, the energy industries will themselves absorb escalating amounts of the energy extracted to power the world.

Oil shales are a case in point. The manufacture of usable oil from shales, fine-grained sedimentary rocks with high levels of organic matter, results in serious environmental harm, such as carbon dioxide emissions to groundwater and surface water pollution, as well as returning a low EROIE ratio, typically in the range 1.5:1 to 4:1, according to Heinberg, although the very complexity of the technology means that EROIE figures are fuzzy. From an environmental point of view, the exploitation of oil shales is similar to the adulterated drugs that heroin addicts use when nothing better is to hand. China, Brazil and Estonia all use the dirty technology of oil shale extraction, and several pilot projects are running in the USA.[9] When oil companies start drilling oil shales, it is because all the easily extractable oil has gone.

Canada’s oil sands may not be quite as energy-hungry as oil shales, but it is sobering to note that nearly one-seventh of the world’s current oil reserves are in the form of bituminous sands in northern expanses of the Canadian state of Alberta.


[1] International Energy Agency forecast made on 13th October 2010: the IEA predicted 88.2 million barrels a day, which over a year is 32.193 billion barrels.

[2] Saudi Arabia oilfield data from ‘Saudi Arabia: an attempt to link oil discoveries, proven reserves and production data’ by Sam Foucher, www.theoildrum.com, 3rd January 2008, accessed 12th November 2010. The paper includes oilfield estimates from Petroconsultants, Colin Campbell, Matthew Simmons, Fredrik Robelius and others.

[3] ‘Aramco pride at ‘pampered’ Ghawar’, http://www.upstreamonline.com, 8th April 2010.

[4] ‘Aramco pride at ‘pampered’ Ghawar’, op. cit.

[5] Reported in ‘Aramco pride at ‘pampered’ Ghawar’, op. cit.

[6] ‘New oil fields saved for future generations: King’, www.saudigazette.com.sa, 12th November 2010.

[7] ‘Matthew Simmons, who said global crude production has peaked, dies at 67’, by Edward Klump and David Wethe, www.bloomberg.com, 9th August 2010.

[8] Available on http://richardheinberg.com, dated 12th November 2009, accessed 12th November 2010.

[9] ‘Oil shale economics’, Wikpedia, updated 9th October 2010, accessed 12th November 2010.


Insulation for Transition: Routes to Community Supported Agriculture

Transition Town Llandeilo, interested in the idea of community supported agriculture, has been told about a block of farmland for sale, 29.37 acres of pasture at Golden Grove in the Tywi valley between Llandeilo and Carmarthen. The biggest barrier is the cost, £145,000, which works out at £4,937 an acre.

Even within the Transition Town movement, where money is concerned opinions range widely. For some, the prospect of adding to local food supplies has intrinsic merit, and profit is not important. For others, who are no less worried about the repercussions of peak oil and climate change, it would be folly to embark on any agricultural venture without a detailed, checked and monitored Business Plan. We agreed to dip a toe into community supported agriculture, cautiously, by doing a feasibility study into this and other options.

Community supported agriculture can mean a co-operatively owned or leased farm, or community subsidy  — maybe as work – on an existing farm, or community involvement in marketing. There are probably as many forms as there are ventures.  Searching for more information, I came across the Campaign for Real Farming (www.campaignforrealfarming.org), which was started by Colin Tudge and his wife Ruth West. Colin and Ruth believe that the UK needs ten times more farmers than at present, an injection of youthful enthusiasm, and a whole new food chain to link local producers to local customers. They argue that part-time farming will be at the heart of the sorely needed farming renaissance, and that such a renaissance should lead us to agro-forestry, farms where trees, livestock and crops are integrated into a sustainable whole.

This sounds like permaculture, which I think means landscapes designed in accordance with the natural environment. David Holmgren, who with Bill Mollison founded the modern concept of permaculture, sees it as “the use of systems thinking and design principles that provide the organising framework” for implementing the vision of “consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fibre and energy  for provision of local needs”.[1] Permaculture is simple and complex at the same time, demanding knowledge of the natural ecosystem and how to fit the sustainable harvesting of food, fibre and fuel into each ecosystem.

Big profits and sustainable production are rarely if ever companions. Colin Tudge points out in ‘Can Britain feed itself? Should Britain feed itself?’[2] that “farming can never be as instantly profitable as simple, urban, industrial pursuits – not unless it is itself turned into a simple industrial pursuit, as has been the ambition of the past 40 years”. To achieve “good farming”, he says, “we have to insulate the economy of agriculture by whatever means are necessary from the ups and downs of mere cash”.

I am starting to see community supported agriculture as a layer of insulation to protect sustainable production from freezing to death in the blizzards of the open market where only money matters, insulation that enables us to make the transition from oil-guzzling industrial farming to diverse, complex, tree-rich permaculture. What better venture for a Transition Town?


[1] Permaculture Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability by David Holmgren, p.xix. Ref: Holmgren 2002 reprinted 2009.

[2] www.campaignforrealfarming.org, June 29th 2010.