Article From ODT

This was in the ODT today. Shows that the mainstream media are waking up:

No future in fossil fuels Home » Opinion » Opinion Fri, 31 Oct 2008 Opinion The spectacle of political parties seeking voter favour with election inducements and the spectre of planetary financial collapse are overshadowing the crucial underlying political issue facing us all. Dugald MacTavish makes a case for what he believes should be at the heart of every party's policies. Essentially, a government's job is to protect its people. Political leaders know that 80% of the energy used by humanity is derived from fossil fuels. New Zealand itself is 48% dependent on oil for total energy, and 98% dependent for transport, so is highly vulnerable to any supply interruption.

Our agriculture and food supply chain is also vulnerable, as every calorie of food we eat has taken a great deal more fossil energy to produce. Political leaders should also know that oil industry leaders are now acknowledging maximum global oil production is effectively upon us. Soon supply will permanently decline. This is inevitable, as globally we are using oil at six times the rate we are finding it. And even if there were globally-significant new oil resources to discover, they would not provide a solution. The atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) released in tapping and using them would make our already-heating world yet more inhospitable, accelerating the frequency of serious natural hazards and undermining our capacity to grow food and sustain our population and ecosystems. Likewise, using or developing other fuels from the likes of coal, gas and uranium may extend our high-energy and high-consumption lifestyle but in so doing, will only bring us closer to runaway climate change from which there is no return. Moreover, like oil, these fuels are finite resources, with their own imminent peaks. Proven renewable energy systems based on the likes of wind, geothermal, biomass and solar, as well as technological improvements, will have a crucial role in our future, but in terms of scale, convenience, cost, energy density, and portability, they are no substitute for oil. And our political leaders must surely have observed how modern capitalism works by raising our aspirations and exhorting those of us that can, to consume more each year. Accordingly, the stability of the global monetary system is utterly dependent on growth, underpinned by an ever-expanding supply of cheap energy. Any shortfall will have serious political, economic and social consequences.

If nothing else, the speed and ferocity of the credit crisis reminds us how little control we have over our own financial security and should have us reassessing what we have of real productive value to fall back on. Most importantly, humanity's material demands on the Earth already exceed its total biological capacity by some 30% without any allowance for wildlife. Again, our phenomenal success in providing virtually unlimited access to very cheap energy has made this possible through the combined impact of population, affluence and technology. We are simply living beyond Earth's capacity to replenish the resources we use and absorb or remediate the waste that we produce. After decades of denial, our political leaders must surely now concede that the situation created by this combination of circumstances is unsustainable. From the perspective of both climate change and oil/coal/gas depletion, reducing fossil fuel dependency by changing our living and working arrangements is seen increasingly not only as a matter of ethics, but also economic survival. It should be self-evident that a simpler, more intimate way of life is the most rational, risk-averse and compassionate response to our predicament. While New Zealand's fuel use and emissions are small in a global sense, such action shows good faith, leaving developing countries no pretext to further imperil us all by intensifying their own fossil fuel use. With our low population, abundant resources and moderate climate, what other country is better placed to take the lead? And while the emissions trading scheme may be well intentioned, the dexterity with which business invariably evades public schemes that affect profit margins suggests it would be very foolish to expect it to deliver anything like the huge order of reduction required. Because we are dealing with a finite planet and finite resources, ultimately growth is a dead-end street, making this transition unavoidable and not temporary. But we have a choice. This transition can either be made on our own initiative in a planned way or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of physics. Core assertions in this assessment of our circumstances are founded in mainstream science which, on the balance of probability, can no longer be accorded lip service by politicians and even less by voters, if we wish to secure a future. As a matter of utmost priority, our next government needs to opt for the planned route and I suggest the following are key steps. • The new government must stand up and tell all New Zealanders what the scientists are saying - that we are at serious energy, security and climate change risk and must immediately and quite radically change our culture and expectations. • At a national level set bold, staged milestones for reduction in fossil fuel use, GHG emission reductions and for carbon capture (such as extensive tree planting/protection and soil recarbonisation programmes) that generate real motivation and can be monitored and enforced, even though this may be at significant short-term economic cost. • Create real incentives and allocate revenue for structural adaption such as oil-resilient sea and land transport networks, renewable energy systems, appropriate technologies and transition-orientated business. Our leaders must also secure future access to essential materials like steel and fibre, for when we need to again make goods here at home. • At a local government level, require the development of energy and GHG emission reduction plans that focus on continuity and decentralisation rather than the premise of infinite growth. They must include explicit provisions to promote sound community self-help initiatives like protecting and conserving local resources, growing food locally and rebuilding local skills and local economies. With the close relationship between energy use, GHG emissions and wealth generation, it is inevitable that the implementation of such measures will result in economic contraction and hence additional hardship. Arguably, this is why peak oil is studiously avoided by political leaders. But it is also absolutely clear that our predicament demands this compromise and it is eminently preferable to the worst imaginable alternative of abrupt societal collapse. We can expect many benefits to planned transition, including reduced vulnerability to fuel cost increase, reduced exposure to the kind of economic and geopolitical volatility we are experiencing now, helping to maintain an equitable and productive climate, and slowed rates of resource depletion, waste production and wildlife loss. And at a personal level, we can expect a renewed connection with the natural world, greater community and intergenerational fellowship and improved health. We would also have the satisfaction of managing on less for the sake of our children and grandchildren and in fact, for all other life forms on this planet. The crucial question is, will our next government remain in denial or will it take ownership of the energy crisis and begin to make a solution possible? Promoting such radical change requires real moral and political courage but with our oil culture and its economic structures gasping, never before has so much depended on it. As climate change educator Leo Murray says: "Those who came before us didn't know about this problem, and those who come after will be powerless to do anything about it." But for us, there's still time! We'd better get a move on though.

- Dugald MacTavish The writer is a water resources engineer based in North Otago and chairman of Hampden Community Energy.