Part IV

Post-peak Plan B(ike)?

If you’ve read any of the recent blog entries I have posted here, you would have noticed my use of the term “appropriate technology.” Now, I admit that I am no expert on the subject, but as a self-described bike geek I have a pretty good grasp of the concept. Although appropriate tech may seem pointless to more than most of us just now, it’s a concept I recommend thinking about, even in this age of 4G networks and SUV’s. Indeed, despite the abundance, privilege and entitlement of the consumer society we enjoy, it may yet prove to be much more than just an eccentric hobby or the stuff of “eco-geeks”… With just a few turns of events the playing field may quickly favour such geeks and those who have the wherewithal and the wits to respond to sudden challenges. Appropriate technology will then become one of the most coveted elements in our daily life. As I alluded to in my last entry, these concerns stem from the prospects and promises served up by that elephant-in-the-room known as peak oil, a concept I’d like to revisit in just a bit of detail here. For another (insightful) reiteration on the matter please visit John Michael Greer’s latest blog entry on the subject, neatly outlined with a clear metaphorical analysis.

Some readers of this blog may be old enough to remember the two successive oil shocks of the 1970’s – the line-ups for gas being among the most poignant memories. I was alive then, but a bit too young. What I do know from reading a fair bit on the subject more recently, is that there are a host of factors that point to the likelihood of similar shocks in our lifetime again – as in the next decade or so.

Peak-oilers, if they’re smart, distance themselves from the apocalyptic types sometimes referred to as Cassandras, Chicken-Littles, or simply doomsayers. As Jane Jacobs rightly noted at the outset of her last book, prophesy is mostly for charlatans. But then she proceeded with the writing of “Dark Age Ahead” – remarkable read for its accounts of history’s examples of collective amnesia and societal break-down – even if she herself was not focused on the peak oil angle.

For my part, I choose neither to echo worries of doom and gloom, nor to forecast how events will play out in the years ahead. If society (Western Civilisation) is destined to collapse (like all civilisations have to date) I don’t expect it to happen overnight, or even within a decade or two. But if a closer look at how energy systems and dependence upon supply-flows has taught me anything over the years, it’s that the people who really know about this stuff know that the future promises less, not more of the lifeblood of industry known as petroleum.

For about fifteen years now the second generation of “peak-oilers” have been estimating the arrival of the global peak in conventional oil production. Dates ranged from 2001 to 2030 or so. Once corporations (and PR firms) got in on the debate, outright denial of the peak oil phenomenon entered the picture. In typical fashion, the corporate interests took the economic view that supply would always meet demand because humans are resourceful, and that’s what we wished for. Peak-oil was brushed off. But slowly the deniers have faded, for the most part, since the concept of petroleum being a finite resource is pretty well understood. Now the debate focuses on not if, but when. The “cornucopians” who don’t want to rock the boat of consumer confidence typically pushed their predicted date so far into the future that they effectively justified ignoring the matter. These views were consistently supported by the International Energy Agency, who routinely assesses the world’s supply of petroleum and projects what they think we can all count on for the years ahead.

To make a long story short, the IEA recently went from making production estimates that simply matched economic growth and demand projections, to announcing last year, that in fact global conventional petroleum production has actually entered decline, having peaked in 2006(!?). This about-face may prove to be the most under-reported story in recent times. The implications are stunning, not simply because the peak oil community can now say “I told you so.” Rather, it’s because from now on, oil will keep getting harder to get, and if there’s one I agree with conventional economists on, it’s that the reduction in supply will translate into higher prices.

Now of course the cornucopians consistently chime in here to remind us that everything is looking up, since we seem to have limitless supplies in the form of Tar Sands, deep-sea sources and “tight oil plays”. Setting environmental concerns aside for the time being, the numbers associated with these resources never quite add up to much of a long-term solution (for more on this, check out the recent essay by John Michael Greer, mentioned above). What’s more, the costs involved – again, excluding environmental costs – will guarantee that the price of a barrel is heading North long into the future…

And this was always the point made by peak-oilers. No-one ever expected the taps to run dry overnight. Instead, non-conventional sources will make up the post-peak shortfall for some time – difficult to say how long, since there are so many geological variables and economic factors at play. But this was precisely what peak-oil forecasters were calling for – along with the resultant hike in crude oil prices that we see now. Another salient point coming from those experts who have a more sober approach to crunching numbers is that these non-conventional sources will likely keep pace with declines from conventional sources for a while, but will likely fail to provide for increased demand associated with economic growth in the long run.

When the U.S. government commissioned Hirsch Report came out in 2005, peak oil was given real and official recognition. In the report, it was suggested that we would be very lucky if in fact that we had a number of decades for which to prepare, in a concerted and conscientious manner, for the realities of petroleum’s inevitable depletion.

In reality, we don’t have those decades to work with. We only have the present, where peak oil is upon us. If it’s all we’ve got, then from now on peak oil should find its way into the centre of the public discourse when preparing for the future activities of our society. Typically (or presumably) this is the purpose, role and responsibility of politics and governments, since it is through political debate that democracy governs the affairs of a nation. The glaring absence of peak oil in most public or political discussions pertaining to energy stewardship (as the driver of our economy) may prove to be just a running joke of the tragic-comedy of history. While we find ourselves grappling with the challenges of “going green” and addressing climate change in some meaningful, effective way, peak oil threatens to disrupt many of our fantasies about technological solutions that would save our carbon-intensive asses.

Transitioning from a petro-heavy, carbon-intensive lifestyle, after all, is in itself a carbon intensive proposition. Hydro lines and wind generators, photovoltaic panels and hydrogen fuel cells will not just materialise out of thin air. Meanwhile, agriculture’s dependence on petroleum (and carbon intensive fertilizers) poses a host of challenges in its own right. The sheer amount of things we require to replace the existing (fossil-fuel based) infrastructure runs in the area of stupendous to mind-boggling.

Dependence on petroleum in an era of abundance and ever-growing supplies (as problematic as it may be) is not half as bad as over-dependence in a time when supplies are diminishing. Somewhere, someone or something has got to give: whole countries may be shut out of the picture at times, and the next thing you know you’re looking at the geopolitical arena on CNN scratching your head (as in recent events unfolding in north Africa).

At some point we may have to ask ourselves not how, but why we would try to sustain the unsustainable. The question becomes rhetorical. Does it now make sense to build and expand road-systems in anticipation of increased traffic flow? Should we really expand our airports in anticipation of ever increasing volume in air traffic? Might that money (and energy) be better spent on other arrangements more suited to the energy realities of peak oil that are taking shape?

So far, the responses at higher levels of government have ranged from war in Iraq to “drill baby drill” (or in Canada’s case, “dig baby dig”) in an attempt to put off the inevitable day of reckoning and sustain the increasing rate of consumption that we have established as a society. The consequences of this continue to be disruptive, and disastrous.

On the other hand, conservation measures that would ease our dependence will have the benefit of mitigating disruptions. In the absence of officially sanctioned measures and incentives, the best response I know of is to reduce one’s own dependence on fossil fuels and carbon-intensive systems, which, just in time for the end of this week’s entry, brings us to the running theme of this series of posts: the bicycle!

As a proven technology in its own right, the bicycle provides many great advantages as outlined in previous entries here. It is the perhaps most readily available alternative to the predominant, carbon-intensive activity of driving. A sturdy bike in good working order doesn’t have to be kept solely for the purpose of having a back-up plan, but it is very flexible tool that can also serve that purpose when Situation Normal isn’t working the way it should. What’s more, the more your bicycle is a part of your daily life, the less painful the transition will be in the eventuality (temporary or permanent) that your car is not much of a useful tool for lack of cheap energy.

In closing, I think I’ll add this quote from the sometimes hyperbolic James Howard Kunstler. Say what you will about his colourful, shock-therapy style, but he has maintained a pretty clear view of the broad trends in America over the past ten years.

This latest comes from his recent blog:

“Also last week, Wikileaks released papers signifying that Saudi Arabia's oil reserves were quite a bit less than they had claimed. It was basically an old story, one that the late Matthew Simmons had published in 2005 just from poring over reams of production data from the Saudi oil fields. The difference in the Wikileaks story was that this time a Saudi Arabian oil ministry official confirmed the story. You can bet they are going to have problems keeping the flow rate up. They can sell off some stored inventory for a few weeks, but after that the world will know the truth: Saudi Arabia is in depletion and the oil markets will never be the same.”

See also http://www.peakoil.net/headline-news/wikileaks-saudi-arabias-oil-reserves-exaggerated

Biking Part III

The Long Arm Of Dependence

Last entry I alluded to a cyclist’s encounter with a snow-plough, and only later suspected that I might have created the expectation of some tale involving an errant snowplough driver and a locked bicycle. Certainly, this is a topic worth exploring, since the lack of space allotted to bicycles after the winter begins is a huge problem in this city that claims countless numbers of bicycles every year. I invite anecdotes from readers on their experience of losing a bike to this hazard, or others who may have witnessed some such accident. Perhaps we can build a case that might help persuade the powers-that-be to provide resources, infrastructure or at least public awareness about this problem.

But this is not the focus of my current blog entry; the snow-plough I’m thinking of was heading right for me, while I was riding… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Earlier this winter, as I biked home from downtown in the wake of a blizzard, I first started thinking about what I might write in this series of blog entries on biking, and winter biking in particular. On that ride, I was met with the rather daunting task of climbing a snow-covered bike path up Park Avenue next to the Mountain. Just getting started involved a lot of wasted energy as my rear wheel spun in the thick and chunky snow at the foot of the hill. But then I found my groove and began to climb, working up a lot of heat in doing so. I passed people walking, and I kept pace with rush-hour traffic (always nice), and then I had to stop. Straight ahead was the aforementioned snow-plough barrelling down the hill toward me. My only choice was to dismount and step aside. The driver, a woman in her thirties, was just doing her job, and couldn’t possibly have known that she broke my rhythm, destroyed my momentum, stole my thunder… but before I could even worry about any of that, she was gone and in her wake, all the way up the hill, lay a beautifully cleared trail of compacted snow with a sprinkling of pebbles for good measure. What can I say: the rest of the ride up was a breeze… I could only chuckle to myself, thinking as I pedalled how my ride was now freshly subsidised by diesel power.

Biking is one of the greenest ways to go in this day and age, hands down. But it’s humbling to be reminded just how the technology of the bicycle is thoroughly dependent on industrial systems, supply chains and ultimately – as with just about everything else in our industrial society – fossil fuel supplies. The studded tires that I champion so enthusiastically here are a prime example of petroleum products (as are all tires), which in turn contribute to pollution –in the form of particulate matter while riding, and later as landfill at the end of their usefulness.

Bikes themselves are also dependent on infrastructure for their practicality and mobility: mostly in the form of concrete (a major contributor to greenhouse gases emissions in its manufacture) and asphalt (a petroleum by-product), both of which are expensive (and energy-intensive) to maintain. On the other hand, arguably the right bike for the right conditions can handle the off roads in most kinds of weather – I can ride reasonably well along a foot path of compacted snow – but, this is not the “even playing field” that makes biking accessible to the majority.

I say all of this not to be down on the bicycle, but because I think it’s important to remind ourselves of these facts: that biking is really only more green in relation to the predominant, pervasive culture of the automobile, and like most every form of commonplace technology in the current era is thoroughly dependent upon the use of fossil fuels for it’s existence.

What’s interesting is that it is significantly and overwhelmingly so much more green, despite this revelation. In fact, in today’s global industrial world of resource depletion, energy challenges and global warming it would be an enormous progressive measure of conservation and to transition every able-bodied car driver to the bicycle as quickly as possible. A pipe dream, it may be, but it makes for a good thought experiment at least: imagine we could get past the cries of “injustice” and “hardship” and have every car driver trade in for a top-of the line bicycle. Think of how much less space would be required for infrastructure to accommodate all the commuters: probably less than half (the other half could be reserved for cargo transport and other specialty vehicles – which would not be tied up in congestion). Next think of the amount of energy would be saved: the volumes of gasoline not burnt off in the practice of shuffling about in one-tonne of plastic and metal every day would be staggering. Of course it would require a lot of physical exertion on the part of each and every commuter, but this has its benefits as well. But as reluctant as I am to admit it, for all practical and emotional purposes the idea is an impossibility.

It is however, worth thinking about just a little bit more… Consider if you will just how much room there is for improvement in our transportation formula; just how much cost could be absorbed by efficiency/ conservation measures alone. These costs could be measured in terms of public health, reduced carbon (GHG) emissions, and infrastructure wear and tear/maintenance.

In terms of public costs to society, biking is on record as one of the most beneficial practices one could take up. Contributing to the health and fitness of the public is just the start. I suppose if we had many more cyclists than we do, the statistics might be different, but generally a bike’s lower top speed and adept manoeuvrability means that it has a much better safety record than the car. And in fact, it has been shown that the presence of more bikes has a generally calming effect on all traffic across the board.

As far as “doing one’s part” to reduce, and otherwise limit carbon emissions in hopes of forestalling runaway climate change, it is well documented that the cost of doing nothing far outweighs the costs involved in making changes. And yet, biking represents one of the easiest, cheapest transitions available to nearly every citizen in the western world (health permitting). Changing our habits has long been one of the most recommended methods promoted by environmental groups, and, in the light of the international community’s repeated failures (Kyoto, Copenhagen, etc.), doing one’s own part may be the last line of defence in this struggle.

Which brings us to the cost to you, the consumer: a high-end bike costs about half or less than the cost of your run-of-the-mill scrap-box used car. Now, in my opinion, unless you have aspirations in the area of professional cyclist, you don’t need to go anywhere near “high-end” to be completely satisfied with your ride. In fact, the budget of a typical driver (purchase, insurance, gas, repairs, tickets etc.) amounts to an enormous windfall that most cyclists would be hard-pressed spend in its entirety, even if a trailer and a second (winter) bike was thrown in. What’s more you could cancel your gym membership once the practical use of your bicycle takes up the time and calories you would otherwise spend money to burn.

It may be true that as an industrial product of the global economy, the bicycle is not entirely neutral: it has a carbon footprint. And if we want to keep a whole lot of them rolling, there will always be costs to society to do so. But it is safe to say that the absence of a tailpipe that characterises the bicycle is a very attractive attribute which represents a very potent advantage over that other mode of transport that we somehow used to love so much. Isn’t it about time that love affair was put to rest?

Now, it is unlike me to go on so long on such topics without conjuring the notions of energy shortages and supply challenges in the years to come. I write these posts as a “peak-oiler” after all…. Next week I’d like to take a closer look here at the energy/ transportation equation, and why it just might be a good idea to have a “plan B” in your toolkit if the car is currently your primary mode of transport.

At the same time, it’s important to have a reasonable grasp on what the likely consequences of our society’s general inability to meet the challenges of reducing green-house gas emissions are, for it’s the consequences that will likely reshape the living arrangements of the future.