Overall vision: scenarios and timescales

[Smithy]

I've started to think about a positive vision, and wonder what people think:

It seems to me that our vision must depend on the future scenario, ie. our expectation concerning future circumstances. If we imagine that technological total solutions will be found tomorrow to climate change and/or peak oil (highly unlikely in my view), then those problems need not affect our future vision. If on the other hand we expect a much worse scenario, then our vision will be highly influenced by that scenario.

Without attempting to specify the possible scenario and associated timescale there is no framework for a vision.

So I believe the visioning should start with one or more proposed scenarios with timescales. However, to some extent attempts at visions can inform our understanding of the scenario/timescales, so we shouldn't get locked into analysis paralysis trying to define the scenario/timescale. A plan is a basis for change...

Regarding climate change there are various existing targets concerning reduction of emissions. We may feel these are adequate or inadequate, and we should discuss them to help with our time scales. It is widely recognised that the IPCC is behind the curve when it come to making predictions, this is because they are a large organistion having to keep so many on board, and hence incurring a delay on the science that they can use. With the way the Arctic is breaking up (accelerating that breakup which reduces the Earths albedo (reflectivity) and so accelerating the change), and atmospheric methane concentrations are rising we could so easily be near a serious tipping point... How much of a margin for error would we like?

Regarding peak oil there is uncertainty concerning the urgency, since the timescales vary so much. There are no recognised targets that I am aware of other than the Hirsch report (commissioned by the US government) which says we need to start preparing at least 10 (if not 20) years before the peak. The peak will only be absolutely confirmed after the event, perhaps as much as a few years afterwards. The peak without biofuels may have been 2005, only time will tell. How sustainable is using biofuels to convert the peak into a plateau? I believe the PowerSwitch statement says it will be within the next 10 years, which could of course be this year, and doesn't exclude the possibility of it having occurred.

Reducing oil dependency addresses both peak oil and climate change.

Perhaps identifying ball park/rough timescales we have a basis for our vision. As we improve our understanding on timescales we can hopefully tweak our vision rather than starting again from scratch.

SO to start the ball rolling I'll make the first bid as follows: I believe peak oil will become urgent before climate change (if I'm wrong then the Party's Really Over...). The International Energy Authority (IEA) predict a global energy crisis in 2012, three and a half years away. In the 1970s we saw the effect of imposed oil shortages. This year we are already seeing what it could involve with fuel and food protests round the world, remembering that food production depends on oil and land not being uses for biofuels. A number of oil producing nations are nationalising their oil industries by fair means or foul, read up on the Export Land Model. From my reading we should expect the decline in oil production to accelerate over just a few years. The difference between the 1970s and the imminent peak is that the problem of oil supply is not under our control (nor even under the control of the oil producing nations), unless we want global resource wars and mass starvation. An economist would talk of the elasticity of the oil price, referring to the degree to which demand is reduced as the price rises. We have indeed seen reduced demand as the price has risen, but to what extent is this easy efficiency savings, and when do the hard choices start? How about ?2/litre by 2012, and a faster rise thereafter? In the UK, alot of this cost is tax, how much scope is there for it to be reduced, and how sensible would it be to allow the economy to remain dependent on oil? Is it likely that certain kinds of transport will get preferential treatment on fuel, and private travel will get more difficult as the price rises or quotas are introduced? Are we going to start behind the curve?

Regards,
Smithy

[peaky2]

All interesting evaluations Smithy, but I think we just need to get started, but from what I've been reading on the Oil Drum recently the gas and electricity shortages look to be the first thing to get peoples real attention, maybe even more than oil.

So, check out:

www.transitionculture.org/about

and

www.transitiontowns.org

[RenewableCandy]

I think you're right about tax being one of the first noticeable issues here in the UK. We may not have food riots, but we have OAPs dying in their houses because of fuel poverty, and things like the Polis having to cut back on other activities to budget for costly fuel for their patrol cars...it only takes one vociferous victim of either of these ("My Gran could still be alive if..." "police could have saved my mum from that burglar" and money would be found...from the rest of us, who can look after ourselves.

Which is as it should be. Until the rest of us start to become poor enough not to be able to look after ourselves any longer. That, if you ask me, will be the moment when tshtf here.

[kenneal - lagger]

From this article in TOD: Europe it would seem that we won't be able to afford to do anything about Climate Change or Peak Oil because the country will go broke in the next few years with the rising cost of importing oil as our own supplies reduce and the cost of imports increases.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188#more