News-Record.com

The Center for Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland will examine the global peak oil theory and its potential impact on public health at a conference in March. People in health care or related industries who are interested in learning more about this can participate in the conference by Web cast.

According to the conference agenda, organizers aim to:

• Describe the linkages among peak oil, climate change, the built environment, and declining
ecosystems;
• Analyze the key implications of peak oil and the linkages to public health;
• Explain the implications of peak oil to key economic sectors like transportation, health
care, and food production and distribution; and
• Describe critical planning activities that must be undertaken to prepare for the challenges
to public health, health care, disaster preparedness, and communities.

The last university that I am aware of that looked at this issue was the College of Public Health at Ohio State University.

Of course, we don't know how the oil situation will play out as its production and consumption are influenced by many factors. People who believe global oil production will soon peak have different prognoses for potential impacts on the U.S., with some believing the country will transition to other energy sources without major economic and social disruptions and others claiming peak oil will have devastating effects on society. They also differ on whether the public or private sector should be most responsible for curtailing society's petroleum use.

Not sure yet where Johns Hopkins academics stand, but a Q&A interview with Brian Schwartz, professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of the School’s Program on Global Sustainability and Health, provides some clues:

Question: What should governments and communities be doing to prepare for peak oil?

Answer: To maintain industrial society and other aspects of our current way of living, energy must be rapidly scalable to capacity, be transportable and storable, and have a high EROEI (energy return on energy invested). It must be energy--dense and renewable, because if it is not, it only postpones the problem, and it must be ecologically sane and not exacerbate climate change. However, there are probably no alternatives to oil that meet all of these criteria. If we had started planning for peak oil 30 years ago—and we could have because it was predicted even before that—with a transition to other energies, public transit, energy-efficient building, and a different built environment than our current sprawling one, we could have avoided much of the likely disruption that is coming. However, we did not do this. So, once we pass peak and begin removing huge quantities of energy inputs to our current ways of living, we will notice it profoundly.

It is thought that nothing that governments do now can entirely prevent some of the challenges that are coming, because we cannot scale up any new energy regime rapidly enough. Experts on peak oil have argued that communities must start planning for this by enhancing their community resilience, by re-localizing and provisioning food locally, for example. The impacts are wide-ranging and the work that needs to be done is extensive. More can be read about this at http://postcarboncities.net and other sources. Many U.S. cities have begun this planning. For example, Portland, Oregon’s peak oil planning describes the different way of life that is coming and what must be done.

The Program on Global Sustainability and Health that Schwartz is a member of describes future communities as:

• Locally based
• Decentralized
• Downscaled
• Low energy
• Resource conserving
• Reorganized for local and regional food production and distribution
• Based on international cooperation

The UK Guardian today featured an interview between journalist George Monbiot and Fatih Birol, chief economist with the International Energy Agency, which released in November its game-changing World Energy Outlook report.

It's hard to understand the change in tone and urgency as well as contradictions within the latest report if you haven't been reading the energy outlooks of the past. I've posted about the report before and the oil situation is not looking good, especially in light of the global recession and climate change concerns.

Anyway, Birol had this to say about the global oil situation:

"In terms of non-Opec [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel]," he replied, "we are expecting that in three, four years' time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. In terms of the global picture, assuming that Opec will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is, of course, not good news from a global-oil-supply point of view."

Monbiot wonders if countries will have time to prepare:

Birol's date, if correct, gives us about 11 years to prepare. If the Hirsch report is right, we have already missed the boat. Birol says we need a "global energy revolution" to avoid an oil crunch, including (disastrously for the environment) a massive global drive to exploit unconventional oils, such as the Canadian tar sands. But nothing on this scale has yet happened, and Hirsch suggests that even if it began today, the necessary investments and infrastructure changes could not be made in time. Birol told me: "I think time is not on our side here."

Yeesh. Just one more thing to worry about.

Plus, an audio interview with peakniks Robert Hirsch and Matthew Simmons. Also, more oil production projects get shelved, according to the New York Times.

Ironically, Robert Hirsch's recent memo to the peak oil community is only helping to spread the message.

Not at all, according to many in the peak oil community, including Richard Heinberg and writers for The Oil Drum. They argue that the tumbling fuel prices, in response to the global economic slowdown, could actually result in global peak oil production arriving sooner because less wealth is available to invest in projects that will increase production over the long term. We'll see.

While some groups argue that countries should direct a bulk of its remaining wealth in mitigating both peak oil and climate change, others say dividing our efforts to stave off global warming is a mistake.

"Our obsession with climate change is dangerous," said Randy Udall, co-founder of ASPO-USA, at a recent peak oil conference. "It's dangerous because it's distracting us from the more immediate peril that we're in."

I've been reading about peak oil for two years now and find the theory fascinating, frightening and compelling. Of course, some people believe peak oil is hogwash. So what do you do? Ignore it until there is undeniable evidence? Throw money after it with abandon? Or hedge your bets?

It is true that oil depletion doom-mongerers have cried wolf for decades and their predictions this year that oil prices would just keep rising to the $200 per barrel mark were wrong. But major oil companies now acknowledge that the Age of Cheap Oil is over. And history -- just go back seven years! -- shows us that experts and leaders often wait until too late to prevent or mitigate a problem, even though they had ample warning: Sept. 11; Hurricane Katrina, the housing and economic crises of 2008. And we saw what happens when gasoline prices at the pump double within a year.

Wise adults and institutions prepare for high impact events that have both low and high probabilities because the cost of doing nothing will more than outweigh the cost of preparations. That's why we have insurance. If peak oil is wrong, great. We only have a monstrous national debt to worry about, the current recession, the mass retirement of Baby Boomers, the future of social security and other federal entitlement programs, drought and so on.

But what if they are right? Can and should peak oil and climate change be tackled together? Or should we wait for more evidence?

The Financial Times ran a story yesterday saying that it obtained a draft version of the much anticipated World Energy Report by the International Energy Agency. In summary: "Without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent."

The story says, "The findings suggest the world will struggle to produce enough oil to make up for steep declines in existing fields, such as those in the North Sea, Russia and Alaska, and meet long-term de­mand. The effort will become even more acute as prices fall and investment decisions are delayed."

The IEA is not happy about the leak.

I was talking with my father one day about the prospects of my committing to live in Greensboro and he remarked that one of city's features that makes it economically viable over the long term is the plethora of colleges and universities. Higher education establishments here should keep state and private monies flowing in, my dad said, and attract businesses because of the city's age- and skill-diverse workforce.

Of course, I regularly hear local and state leaders talk about how vital our colleges and universities are for preparing young people to "compete in a global economy." But some in the educational system worry that the glue that holds globalization together is an achilles heel for higher education: cheap oil. Like other institutions in America, the higher ed system's business plans, physical infrastructure and study areas rely largely on fossil fuels.

I touched on this concern in a peak oil project I completed for the News & Record in June. Gerald Cecil, a physics professor at UNC Chapel Hill, one of the top liberal arts universities in the state, said the school's long term success depends on how it prepares for a decline in oil supplies. He is currently working on an freshman introductory course on the subject.

His concerns are more than reasonable. Higher energy and tuition costs are already creating stress for families and the colleges themselves and driving changes in the educational system, such as an increase in online learning; the late Peter Drucker, a renown management consultant who coined the term "knowledge worker," predicted in 1997 the demise of residential colleges within 30 years (yet public universities in North Carolina, including UNCG, are in the midst of a building boom). The Chronicle of Higher Education featured an article this month encouraging colleges to prepare for peak oil.

Expensive and isolated schools may be at a disadvantage. I attended Campbell University in Buies Creek (a town that had one traffic light when I was there) and students drove 30 minutes or more to Fayetteville and Raleigh for entertainment. Will students do that at $7 a gallon gasoline? Will families spend $20,000 plus a year on tuition and fees in an era of lower job availability?

Public and technical schools such as N.C. A&T (as well as community colleges) may be at an advantage because of their low tuitions and program areas. UNCG, Elon and Guilford College have sustainability programs, but my understanding is that staff are motivated more for environmental reasons than peak oil. My question is, how long will it take before high oil prices contribute to a gradual decline in enrollments rather than an increase? Should colleges continue to rely on government and private loans to fill their seats? Time will tell.  

In the meantime, alternative educational systems are trying to fill in the peak oil educational gaps: I've seen plans for bioregional colleges and "communiversities." Given all of the educational resources in Guilford County, it would make sense for leaders here to retool and adapt early rather than start from scratch when it is too late.

Starting this Sunday, the News & Record will feature a three-part series I worked on this year about peak oil. I'm encouraging you all to take a look because you will likely hear more about it in the news from now on.

If you want a head start, take a look at this article.

In addition, Peter Kauber of Guilford Solar Communities will do a two-hour presentation on peak oil on July 12. Details:

What:    Guilford Solar July Program: "Peak Oil -- Theory
           and Evidence"
Where:  Kathleen Clay Edwards Family Branch Library,
           1420 Price Park Road
           Greensboro
When:   Saturday, July 12, 10 AM -- 12 Noon
Cost:     Free
Description:  Transportation is the lifeline of our current global and US economies.  Over 95% of our transportation is dependent upon the refined products of oil -- gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and bunker fuel.  As the price of oil sets new records weekly, the question naturally arises: Why is this happening?  One increasingly common explanation is that the rate of production worldwide of cheap, high-quality oil has peaked or will do so in the near future.  This is the "peak oil" hypothesis.  Guilford Solar's July program will explain the meaning of peak oil and will examine the evidence that supports it.  The presenter is Peter Kauber, who has researched the topic over the past four years.  Kauber was employed by Marathon Oil Company during the 1979-1981 "oil crisis" and thus brings a historical and industry perspective to the discussion.

Shell just released a report summing up the dialogue that occurred between company executives and the consumers, community groups and politicians in 50 cities over the past two years. The purpose of the tour was to better educate the public about the challenges the country will face in diversifying its energy portfolio and to find out what was on the minds of the average Sally and Steve.

So what did Shell learn? A few notable points:

Further along the coast, in the Southeast, we found a focus on education. Residents want the public to be more aware of the current energy situation -- and they also emphasized the need to educate elected officials. We found considerable support for increased access to domestic resources and greater refinery output, again balanced by a concern for safety and environmental protection. Clean coal and carbon sequestration were in the mix. We also heard a call for greater fuel efficiency through automotive technology improvements and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, commonly referred to as CAFE standards. Throughout the state of Florida, residents told us that they did not want, and would fight, new exploration and production off the Florida coast."

Shell stated in its report that while it does not buy the "peak oil" argument (instead believing in a plateau and then general decline of oil supplies), the company is concerned about unrealistic expectations of energy independence from the public:

"What was most frightening? The overwhelming disconnect between the perceptions of many consumers and the hard realities of the energy picture. This is the crux of our dilemma as a country in determining an energy path forward – the belief that there are easy answers that are readily available, when in reality the choices we have to make will not come easily or swiftly."

Obviously there is a disconnect in the political sphere when our Congressmen and women are busy talking about profits from greedy oil companies rather than engaging in a comprehensive public discussion about the changing energy environment we find ourselves in. We need to move from scapegoating to honestly assessing our predicament and devising appropriate strategies for adaptation.

Megan Quinn Bachman, outreach director for The Community Solution in Yellow Springs, Ohio, spoke to members of Presbyterian Church of the Covenant tonight in advance of a film showing at UNCG on Thursday about Cuba's loss of access to oil in the 1990s.

She talked to a crowd of about 40 about the need for American towns and cities to radically curtail their energy use and rebuild community connections as preparation for the approaching era of dwindling fossil fuels. That means retrofitting existing homes to save energy, growing more food at home, decreasing the amount of grain-fed meat and processed foods in our diets, using public transportation and creating car-sharing plans in cities where public transportation is not feasible, she said.

"We got into this one bad decision at a time and we will get out of this one good decision at a time," Bachman said about the nation's oil dependency. "We need to recognize that if we don't choose a different path, then the choices will be made for us."

The country will need practical models of low-energy living and community building and the changes will have to come from within the community rather than top down from the government, she said.

"I really think Greensboro is on its way to becoming one of those models," she said.

Greensboro has a long way to go, but the fact that Bachman found her way to the city this week gives me some confidence that the paradigm shift that is coming may soon be at the forefront of people's minds and actions. 

I can probably count you all on two hands here in the great GREENSboro, but perhaps, in time, some of you will be sending me tips.

The following lists are pretty comprehensive -- and overwhelming for the peak oil/green novice. But I find if I take a slow, steady approach and be honest with my resources and time commitment I can realistically work on a few of these each year. Just last year I started gardening and shopping at farmers markets, replaced paper towels with cloth towels, changed my bulbs to compact flourescents and bought two racks to hang dry clothes indoors. Remember, slow and steady.

This list of 100 steps by Sharon Astyk breaks down steps by season. Examples include setting up rainbarrel systems and joining community-supported agriculture. Residents can find resources for doing these two things right in the city. Astyk's remaining 100 steps are here.

Some of these tips are good to do even without peak oil or climate change as a motivating factor. I view them as part of a general lifestyle change to self-sufficiency and simplicity. I also find them quite an experiment in self-education and discovery. So much about our local environment people do not know. And so much knowledge has been lost because of an economy that promotes a complex division of labor and outsourcing of generalist skills that a couple generations ago people took for granted (i.e. food preservation, knitting, herbal medicine, bartering/bargaining).

For example, how many of us know how to treat a cold without running to the local drugstore? While my maternal grandmother didn't frown at over-the-counter medicines, her repertoire of cures included prune juice and castor oil for regularity, honey/lemon and onion tea for coughs, steam for runny noses and cold baths/alcohol rubs for fevers.

And what about bartering/bargaining? That's looked down upon in commercial shopping centers that increasingly rely upon credit (kudos though to the 50% off sale on China-produced sweaters that will unravel before the winter's out). But in some parts, bargaining is an acceptable part of the purchasing process. Bargaining can go a long way in a financially contracting economy, but it does require skill.

Some people may find these skills obsolete but I believe they will regain popularity over time because they are actually more efficient than buying a whole bunch of stuff at the store. For example, honey has many uses so even if I don't use it to treat a cold, I can still eat it. But there have been many occasions when I have purchased a medicine that did not work as advertised, or combined with other chemicals had the potential to cause a negative reaction. Some medicines and antiobiotics, such as penicillin, are a must. But how many types of cold and sinus medicine do we need?  Of course, one of the main reasons we take medicine is not because we can't recover without it, but because we can't let a cold (or menstruation, for the ladies) interfere with our paychecks.

This week, Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer acknowledges that the world is running out of cheap oil. His prediction of peak production is 2015, less than a decade away.

What I don't mean by "debate" is engaging in a he said/she said argument about whether global peak oil production will occur because it will. It is an actual physical, geological phenomenon; U.S. production peaked in the early 1970s. What I mean is, when will Greensboro and the rest of Guilford County engage in public discourse about how to best adapt to this ominous threat to our society? One can argue whether the outpacing of oil and natural gas supply by demand will lead to an unfaltering rise in prices because economic and geopolitical factors will likely cause the prices to become volatile. That presents its own problems. The trouble with American communities is their utter dependence on these fossil fuels for food, transportation, heating/cooling, electricity and economic growth.

Peak oil primers now abound on the Internet, with some oil analysts believing peak oil arrived in 2005 and others claiming we have a few decades left. Then the peak oil discussion breaks down into a few camps: the doom and gloomers who believe peak oil will kill the global economy and modern civilization, the optimists who believe technology will save the day, and the others in between.

If you want a crash course in peak oil, I would suggest checking out Energy Bulletin, which compiles articles, reports, speaches and other dialogue on peak oil and climate change from across the country on a daily basis. Good reads include U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett from Maryland (recent speech given in November) and the Hirsch Report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy. Even Matthew Simmons, an oil investor and advisor to the Bush Administration, believes America is in trouble.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) has a different view.

You will need several hours to digest all this. Take your time.

Eventually, however, residents and leaders here will need to address this. How vulnerable is North Carolina and Guilford County? How do we marry the concepts of climate change and peak oil and address them coherently and comprehensively?

The Post Carbon Institute has a list of cities that are already taking a stab at it. You need to scroll down the page to see the list. The population of the cities involved range from about 2,500 to 744,000 people and up, so Greensboro/Guilford County has no excuse.