America’s denial about the lack of easy oil

At Common Dreams, Michael Klare advises us that easy (i.e., cheap oil) tends to run in concert with prosperity, but that Americans are stunningly obtuse about the fact that we're running out of easy oil:

If American power is in decline, so is the relative status of oil in the global energy equation. In the 2000 edition of its International Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy confidently foresaw ever-expanding oil production in Africa, Alaska, the Persian Gulf area, and the Gulf of Mexico, among other areas. It predicted, in fact, that world oil output would reach 97 million barrels per day in 2010 and a staggering 115 million barrels in 2020. EIA number-crunchers concluded as well that oil would long retain its position as the world’s leading source of energy. Its 38% share of the global energy supply, they said, would remain unchanged. What a difference a decade makes. By 2010, a new understanding about the natural limits of oil production had sunk in at the EIA and its experts were predicting a disappointingly modest petroleum future. In that year, world oil output had reached just 82 million barrels per day, a stunning 15 million less than expected.
What's the solution?
[T]he United States needs to move quickly to reduce its reliance on oil and increase the availability of other energy sources, especially renewable ones that pose no threat to the environment. This is not merely a matter of reducing our reliance on imported oil, as some have suggested. As long as oil remains our preeminent source of energy, we will be painfully vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the global oil market, wherever problems may arise. Only by embracing forms of energy immune to international disruption and capable of promoting investment at home can the foundations be laid for future economic progress. Of course, this is easy enough to write, but with Washington in the grip of near-total political paralysis, it appears that continuing American decline, possibly of a precipitous sort, could be in the cards.
For a lot more on this problem of peak oil, check out some of Brynn Jacobs' writings at this website, including this article.

Continue ReadingAmerica’s denial about the lack of easy oil

Does LEED certification really mean a building is energy efficient?

The U.S. Green Building Council has gotten a lot of attention through promotion of its LEED standard.  I am personally aware of several organizations that have focused intense PR campaigns on claims that their buildings have been modified, usually at considerable expense, so that they are LEED-certified and thus more energy efficient.  Here's the claim as to the meaning of LEED certification on USGBC's website:

LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is an internationally-recognized green building certification system. Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in March 2000, LEED provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.
Consequently, buildings that are LEED certified are understood by the general public as indicating that a building is especially energy-efficient. Today I read a disturbing article in Mother Jones (not yet available online): "Leeding us On."  The article focuses on allegations made by Henry Gifford, a New York City energy efficiency consultant, who calls LEED "a joke." Here's an excerpt: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingDoes LEED certification really mean a building is energy efficient?

Internal conflict of interest, illustrated

It often occurs to me that each of us has intense conflicts of interest between our present self and our future selves. My present self wants to over-eat, fail to exercise, ignore needed house repairs, and I would generally prefer to prepare less rather than more for anything I do. None of these things would be good for my future self.  My present urges seem much more important than my future concerns, so it takes focused effort to keep my priorities straight.  Today I found a cute cartoon to illustrate this recurring internal conflict that we all experience. On a large scale, of course, society tends to live in the present, exhausting the earth's resources, rather than living sustainably, which can would usually require extra effort and planning. Thus, as a country we are collectively engaged in a massive conflict of interest pitting our present selves against our future selves. 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded, much of the damage done by human activities. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingInternal conflict of interest, illustrated

Michelle Bachmann’s crusade against sustainability

In "First They Came for the Lightbulbs," Tim Murphy of Mother Jones explores Michelle Bachmann's war against sustainability. Bachmann has described the enemy as follows:

"This is their agenda—I know it's hard to believe, it's hard to fathom, but this is 'Mission Accomplished' for them," she said of congressional Democrats. "They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That's their vision for America."
Murphy explains that the Republican fears about "sustainability" have mushroomed into something even much larger. Under the environmentalists' plans, people would be:
instructed to live in "hobbit homes" in designated "human habitation zones" (two terms embraced by tea party activists). Public transportation would be the only kind of transportation, and governments would force contraception on their citizens to control the population level. A human life would be considered no more significant than, say, that of a manatee. "Sustainability," the idea at the heart of the agreement, became a gateway to dystopia.

Continue ReadingMichelle Bachmann’s crusade against sustainability