There is certainly a certain degree of rational sense in the European and U.S. desire for this outcome. I.e. Why not lessen your energy dependence on any single source, in this case Russia, if you possibly can? Diversification is hardly evil by definition. For Russia on the other hand the desire to maximize their involvement in the evolving Caspian energy matrix is a business strategy as common as dirt. In fact such maneuvering is considered as natural as a physical law when the West is on the winning side of such stratagems. When we are at it we call it “consolidation” and praise the “synergies” and “economies of scale” it is presumed by our elites to allow.

The following is what is at stake in Georgia as far as the energy question goes.

Georgia has no significant oil or gas reserves of its own but it is a key transit point for oil from the Caspian and central Asia destined for Europe and the US. Crucially, it is the only practical route from this increasingly important producer region that avoids both Russia and Iran.

The 1,770km (1,100 miles) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which entered service only last year, pumps up to 1 million barrels of oil per day from Baku in Azerbaijan to Yumurtalik, Turkey, where it is loaded on to supertankers for delivery to Europe and the US. Around 249km of the route passes through Georgia, with parts running only 55km from South Ossetia.¹

It is, however, those matters that are outside of the question of energy that are leading this relatively banal struggle for economic advantage to turn violent. As I see it, first and foremost among these factors is the fact that the U.S. shredding of international law in its invasion and occupation of Iraq has opened the door to all sorts of similar pandemonium. Would Russia or Georgia be so militarily emboldened in their response to a political issue if the U.S. were not so flagrantly flouting the rules of the game that the great powers have more or less lived by for the last sixty years? It seems unlikely. That the U.S. is today forced to go to the U.N. to broker this dispute straddles the border between surrealism and poetry.

The second most important point is the fact that Gorbachev was promised that in return for reformation of the U.S.S.R. NATO would not expand eastward. To say that this promise has not been honoured is one of the greater understatements of the new millennium. Which is saying something given how hard of a time hyperbole has had keeping up to reality in the last eight years.

Another factor more difficult to rank but of some importance is the fact that the economic collapse of Russia was publicly cheered by the very same clique that controls the reins of power in the U.S. today. This is a group to which Russian hardliners have no intention of paying the slightest attention. Beyond these contemporary facts is the history of the region. Georgia was a province of the Russian empire for about 200 years before the economic implosion of the FSU. To have it fall to a National Endowment for Democracy-sponsored “Rose Revolution” is for Russian nationalists historically akin to what Mexican nationalists felt and still feel about their loss of territory to the U.S.

Given all of these factors it was a foregone conclusion that Russia would not sit quietly by while the peacekeepers that it had placed on the ground — at Georgia’s request — were being shot at and in some cases killed. It was equally doubtless that Russia would view the sudden influx of tens of thousands of refugees and a military assault against the pro-Russian South Ossetia with extreme displeasure. One need only look as recently as Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s attack on Israeli soldiers to understand the lengths to which great powers will go to remind small powers of their place in the world. I.e., to suffer quietly and accept what they are allowed.

To date, at least there have been no surprises from the Russian side. They were always going to be able to crush the Georgians militarily and it was entirely predictable that they would do so if provoked to this degree. The Georgian President and military knew this better than anyone. Which begs the usual questions: Why? Why now? What’s next? The first is easily answered. The Georgian President is hoping to stoke nationalist sentiment, resentment of Russia, and to force the West’s hand. The answer to the second question is equally clear.

The Bush administration has been more strategically and tactically wedded to the idea that violence is a legitimate means of achieving political ends than any U.S. administration since the Vietnam war. They have also dedicated more of the country’s resources to this end than any administration since the Second World War. The Georgian President and his advisors obviously decided that this means of politics might well be a less valuable currency under the next U.S. administration.

The final question in this tried and true declension is not so easily answered but what would such articles be without at least an attempt to predict the unknowable? My guess is that the Georgian President has grossly overplayed his hand. The shooting of peacekeepers being the act most likely to blowback on his strategy. One would think that the creation of tens of thousands of refugees and what is being described as a “potential humanitarian catastrophe” would be the action more likely to impact negatively. What this completely rational but mistaken view fails to take into account is the fact that four million displaced Iranians and a full fledged humanitarian catastrophe has been let slide by every body with the power to lay blame. There is also the compounding fact that there is a desire bordering on lust by the West to put peacekeepers in Sudan and so the shooting of peacekeepers must necessarily be very gravely and publicly frowned upon. Even if they are Russians.

We are also surely going to see more than one iron being struck in these last few months before Bush and Cheney take their final wave to the Rose garden from the Presidential chopper. India for example has obviously concluded that a crack down in Kashmir no matter how violent will be given carte blanche by the U.S. Pakistan is rightfully beginning to feel more than a bit nervous of the squeeze play the India-U.S. alliance represents. The Pashtun’s being the most likely to suffer the heaviest blows in the next few months. (With apparently no relief no matter who is the next President.)

It is also very interesting at this time to contrast the U.S. reaction to this conflict with its reaction to Israel’s smashing of Lebanon. In this case there was an immediate call for ceasefire by the U.S. In the case of Lebanon the U.S. did all it could to block the call for a ceasefire. On American television today there is a relentless parade of images of destruction and talks of a “humanitarian catastrophe”. Whereas the level of destruction that was visited on Lebanon was treated as a “he said, she said” affair as if both sides suffered equally. When it was shown at all.

For the record, so far at least, the response by Russia hasn’t been 1/1000 as destructive to the infrastructure and people of Georgia as was Israel’s destruction of Lebanon. And there is precisely no chance that Russia will litter Georgia with a million or so cluster bombs a day or two before the ceasefire. What the U.S. has done to Iraq on the other hand is so far off the scale that there is quite simply no comparison. This is of course not to say that Russia should be allowed to destroy Georgia or excuse Russia’s part in these events. It is merely another example of why so much of the world views the U.S. position on such matters to be so unpersuasive.

One final note. The West-leaning President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili has recently seen fit to raise the military budget of the country from $30 million to $1,000 million and sought and is receiving military equipment and advice and training from the U.S. and Israel. When one compares the U.S. response to Cuba’s desire to be free of foreign domination, and Cuba’s military alliance to the U.S.S.R., Russia’s response to Georgia’s actions and alliances once again appears a model of restraint. A very sad indictment indeed of the way that this world of ours is run for us all by our “betters.”

1. The Oil Drum

Skrebowski also discovered that the cumulative total of this decline rate is impacting global oil extraction at a rate of 4.1 Mmb/d. (Million barrels/day) In other words we must find 4.1Mmb/d worth of new oil to extract every year just to keep production flat. To put this another way: 70% of our really producing fields have been declining by 4.1Mmb/d a year. The remaining 30% of our production, in combination with new production, have on the other hand been rising by 4.1 Mmb/d.

This is the precarious energy race that we have been running for some time. A race that turned into treadmill in 2005 when the all-time high global peak of 74.4 Mmb/d turned into a plateau. Since then we have essentially been stuck in the 73 to 74 Mmb/d range. This despite extraordinary technical feats and major expenditures.

All of which begs the following question: If Saudi Arabia and Russia are now too moving past peak what will this mean to global oil availability and the cost of importing oil?

The Numbers:
A) 70% of 74.4 Mmb/d = 52.08 Mmb/d.

B) 4.1 Mmb/d is 7.87% of 52.08 Mmb/d.

C) When Russia and Saudi Arabia roll over their peak the 70% number will move close to 90%. How much higher then will the 4.1Mmb/d number move?

D) Much of the increase in total extraction from 2000 to 2005 came from Russia and Saudi Arabia.

And what is the upshot of these numbers? Well for one thing it seems impossible to argue that once Saudi Arabia and Russia roll over their peak extraction rate that the 4.1 Mmb/d number will not increase substantially. Similarly, as they were responsible for most of this millennium’s increases, it seems equally impossible that once they are added to the list of post peak countries that total crude production will not begin to decline. The next logical question is then of course: By how much?

My thoughts are tending in the following direction: The numbers seem to support a global yearly decline rate in the 7% – 12% range. And what might this mean? In Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perle’s book, Transport Revolutions, they quote a U.S. National Commission on Energy study which projected that a 4% decline in global availability would translate into a 177% increase in oil. A Brookings Institute study they also quote projected a 15% decline would translate into a 550% price increase. Even these numbers, as staggering as they may seem, may be understated. Remember, we have seen a five fold increase in the price of oil during the Bush era, $24 to $120, and this without any declines in availability.

There is today speculation in every quarter about $200/barrel and higher. Quite a contrast with the fact that only two years ago those of us who talked about $100 oil were dismissed as the lunatic fringe. More importantly today we are seeing global food riots and the lockstep of food prices with oil prices. We are also already seeing many a poor country forced into radical demand destruction and the breakdown in basic human services as a result of $100+ oil.

In fact, in every important essential, everything the ‘peakers’ have been warning about is beginning to manifest itself in spades as crude oil extraction plateaus. Albeit it is happening more quickly than even this intellectual community projected. To some observers much of this acceleration can be directly traced to the effects of the American occupation of Iraq in combination with the massively reckless fiscal programs of the Bush administration. The resulting effects on the people and politics of the Middle East, and the American dollar, is having global repercussions. It is a sobering harbinger of change indeed to consider that the American dollar is today in decline even against the Thai baht.

Once we fall off the ‘out with the old and in with the new’ 4.1Mmb/d seesaw that is for now keeping us more or less at peak, the decline in oil’s availability will almost certainly be meaningfully steeper than the previous conventional wisdom which placed it at 2% – 3%. If the world cannot counterbalance the effects of this decline with a more peaceful Middle East, and a financially responsible U.S., it seems difficult to see the food riots of this spring as anything but the mildest of precursors for what lays ahead.

The simplest path to both of these results is exceedingly obvious: American withdrawal from Iraq. This would stop both the literal and financial bleeding that is causing so many problems for us all. That this path will not be taken by the administration most ethically obligated to it is if anything even more obvious.

Given that this larger goal is for now relegated to an undetermined future date, no matter who is President, in the shorter term, at the very least, it would be nice to see governments worldwide begin to include food and energy in their inflation indices. Knowing where you are is after all a prerequisite to figuring out how to get where you want to go. A more realistic accounting of inflation is beginning to be made in some analytic quarters in the U.S. The data supports a measurement in the 10% to 12% range.

These inflation numbers mean the erosion of almost half of the buying power of Americans in a handful of years. Given how moribund is North America’s labour movement, and how dead set against inflation are the business and investment communities, there is virtually no chance that we will see the kind of wage hikes necessary to keeping many times many more Americans from joining the ranks of the working poor.

In other words the effects of American political recklessness, economic profligacy, and the plateau of oil extraction are now truly global. I.e. They are finally starting to powerfully affect more Americans.

Which, come to think of it, is perhaps the one silver lining to this all. What I mean by this is simple and implies no schadenfreude. All I mean to say is that now that this is so maybe we will finally start to see a swing in the pendulum of American policy back towards reality and away from the dangerously blind ideology that has led us all into such dangerous waters.

Two things to start. The first being, that by every measure we humans can agree on, moving as quickly as possible to get off of fossil fuels will leave ourselves and future generations the richest of all possible lives.

The second is that I am not an environmentalist or even a socialist per se.

Now don’t get me wrong I completely accept that the weight of scientific evidence proves that anthropogenic factors are a major contributor to climate change and I too think Tommy Douglas was the greatest Canadian.

I also accept the consensus among marine biologists that states that if we don’t change our fishing practices we are going to collapse fish stocks so thoroughly that all commercial fisheries will be wiped out by 2048! And I do see how this problem is being generated by the economic distortions known as net present value, future discounting and the maximization of shareholder profit and so is a social issue.

So yes, in the sense that I believe the scientists’ information, I’m an environmentalist and a socialist. Or at least I am when these movements are in alignment with the best available information. This point notwithstanding, the subjects that I write about mostly these days aren’t so much about what’s coming out of the tailpipe in terms of emissions as they are about what’s going into the industrial engine in terms of fossil fuels.

And the message that I am involved in massaging for the purpose of increasing its general consumption is about the increasingly strong consensus that is taking place in the field of resource geology and petroleum and mining engineering about the future of coal, oil, gas and even uranium.

In two words, ENERGY is my bailiwick and EMISSIONS are our bane.

And speaking about the future of energy how many of you here feel you have a strong understanding of the term peak oil or peak gas? Please raise your hands (Less than half did)

One last question how many of you believe that oil and gas are finite? Please raise your hands if you think oil is finite. (All but one did)

Exactly!

Which is why I prefer the term fossil fuel finitude over peak oil. Everyone gets that this stuff is finite. And once you dispose of that fact the whole rest of the sound and fury surrounding the peak oil and gas and coal and uranium debate is about nothing more than timing and urgency.

Not that timing and urgency are unimportant by any means. They are after all near and dear to my heart very precisely because I know how little understood are the necessary lead times for the ramp up to sustainable systems and how pressing is the urgency that we do everything possible in this direction now!

Fossil fuel finitude has been, shall we say, misunderestimated. Unsurprisingly, given his pappy, it is also one of the few things that GW Bush has not been guilty of doing.

My favorite line concerning the reams of “Is peak oil just a theory?” literature was actually told to me by a climate scientist — U of T’s very own Dr. Danny Harvey and a lead author of the IPCC’s AR4 — who said: “Peak Oil is just a theory in the same sense that Round Earth is just a theory.”

On the other extreme from those like me who are studying fossil fuel finitude and peak energy are the environmentalists who think the whole peak oil debate is pointless.

In fact, one of the best environmental minds in Ontario, now a Toronto city councillor, Gord Perks, said just that this summer to myself and Greg Greene the director of two documentaries on peak oil and gas, The End of Suburbia and Escape from Suburbia.

What Mr. Perks said verbatim was, “Peak oil’s a crock!” And yes he did say it with a smile and with an intention to rile. Still why he said it is for the very same reasons a lot of environmentalists say it. Which basically comes down to two reasons.

1) To them if we burn what we have we’re cooked anyway, so what does peak oil matter? and

2) They think to themselves, even if only privately, “We’re running out of COG? Good can’t happen soon enough!”

COG is by the way how I refer to the trinity of fossil fuels Coal, Oil and Gas as they are the cog to our industrial wheel. Whether it be a holy or unholy trinity I leave to you.

And even after five years of banging my head against the wall of indifference on an issue that I have chosen to specialize in still I say. “I hear you and you are not wrong.”

But! Yes the proverbial but.

The thing is Energy Matters! For one thing people want it. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard say, “Ya, ya, the greenies. All they care about is the planet; they don’t care about the people!” This is of course not a socialists’ problem but people, especially them pesky engineering types, nonetheless wonder where is the guts and nuts and bolts of the NDP’s energy plans?

People want the services that fossil fuel energy today provides and I got to say on this one I side with the people. Because if you don’t care deeply about energy and fully attend to all it does negative and positive then you are not truly caring about the people in an effective and responsible way. Point finale, full stop!

It truly is that profoundly and fundamentally simple in this global warming and fossil fuel finitude parmetered world of ours.

And yes if we were to stop using all COG tomorrow the planet would be happier, and the plants and the animals would be happier, and more abundant, and prolific, which has a certain amount of attraction to it sans doute. But at the same time if we stopped using COG tomorrow a whole lot of people would die prematurely as well.

How many? Well I’m no expert in this area but I can tell you since the start of the oil part of COG in 1856 we have gone from 1.2 billion to 6.7 billion.

Beyond that straightforward fact, I am, as I say, no expert. And in any case, we don’t have time to today to go into this aspect of the energy, sustainability, and carrying capacity debate. Suffice to say, if you don’t make energy a centerpiece of whatever sustainability and social justice programs you’d like to see implemented, then you are economically and, therefore, politically and culturally dead from the get go.

Now there is no doubt that this fact has begun to penetrate deeply into the environmental community. The NDP’s energy platform this past provincial election here in Ontario (thank you Peter Tabuns), the work of Pembina, WWF, Sierra, Greenpeace, Environmental Defence, ICF International and Science for Peace among others, including our government staff researchers and scientists who were part of the national round table on economy and the environment, are very clear proof of this.

And speaking of proof, I could have talked to you today about geoscience, linearization curves, creaming curves, pool size distribution, tectonic plate theory, and what the fractal law of self similarity tells us about the possible range of extraction rates that we can expect as we make our way to “Ultimate Resource Recoverability.”

I could have talked about the various forecasts that are being made for the end in the growth of supply of hydrocarbons and even uranium and sought to prove to you that the consensus among resource geologists is now for all intents and purposes as strong and meaningful to the future of humanity as the consensus that exists among climatologists.

I could have prattled on about why ASPO’s and EWG’S and IFE’s analysis is more reliable than the EIA and the IEA and even the EIEIO. I could have explained why production is a better indicator of the future of reserves than reserves are of future production .

I could have talked to you about the findings of Dr. Stuart Staniford and the data gnomes at the Oil Drum and throughout the U.S. and what Mathew Simmons study of over 200 technical papers from the Society of Petroleum Engineers and his book Twilight in the Desert says about global oil production.

But these are not the facts that should matter to you. These are merely the means necessary to vanquish the deniers. You all know that we have to get off oil and gas and coal and uranium, and you all know that 95% of all transportation is today wholly dependent on oil.

The facts you need to know are that the U.S. General Accounting Office’s most recent finding is that if the U.S. pushes hard in the direction of biofuels it might get up to 4% of current liquid fuel consumption by 2015. In numerical terms this translates to less than 1 MMb/d. In other words, no matter what you think of biofuels, they are no silver bullet for Business As Usual.

To my mind in any case, Fidel Castro got it right in an essay published on the internet a few months ago when he called the biofuel revolution the ‘Internationalization of Genocide’. This summer, for example, saw corn riots among Mexican peasants because they now have to economically compete with the biofuel market for their corn flour tortillas.

Another fact you need to know as we battle to get off the sauce and save our transportation system is that the hydrogen transportation economy is an impossibility from the basic standpoint of the fundamental laws of physics. Not to mention the fact that virtually all hydrogen today in North America is made by burning natural gas. The techno “solution” being proposed for this problem? Nuclear fired electricity.

How ruinous would a hydrogen economy diversion be? Let me count out for you just one of the ways.

If you start with a 100 barrels of natural gas energy and convert it into electricity for the electrolysis needed to create hydrogen; and then you store that hydrogen in a fuel cell; and then you step on what is still very much your gas pedal powered car; you will have lost more than 50% of the energy you started with to unavoidable physical laws. Much better to heat or cook with this non-renewable fuel. Or at the very least use it for a source point heat purpose.

To instead now start entirely new industries that will act as competitors for corn and natural gas and electricity at a time when natural gas is ready to go off a cliff here in North America in terms of production and when there are people that are going hungry would be the height of car addicted folly. It is true I know that we have paid every other possible obeisance to our metal gods but are we now really going to feed the car and our war machines our heat and food? Really? Sigh!

By the way, many an environmentalist and others got caught out by these developments thinking them great green ideas and lending them their greenwashing support. And the reason that this happened is because they did not pay attention to the energy analysis. Energy has been and will as long as we remain corporeal always remain the nub of the matter.

The other nub of the matter is that the problem of energy as it relates to the environment, transportation, sustainable systems and social justice is for the most part not a technical problem but a social one.

Oh sure there’s an essentially infinite number of things that will need to be done from an engineering p.o.v as we make our way off the sauce that even GW Jr. knows we are addicted to (addiction being something that he actually knows something about) but that’s really just a chat about job opportunities.

The real problem is not this, the real problem is the social problem we face. That problem being that too many people believe and are afraid that the real third way — sustainability and social justice — demands of them that they lose their creature comforts.

The solution to this is very simple. All we need do is to reassure them, over and over and over again, that we love comfort just as much as they do. Which is after all nothing less than the god’s honest truth. Ashes and sackcloth is not what we are practicing or preaching.

After this is done what we then need do is to utilize the minds in the fields of energy, geology, economics and environmentalism who can illuminate for the public that it is in fact their governments and their industries that are involved via a conspiracy of dunces to fail away those very comforts that we are trying to save for them.

Socialists have never, in fact, had a problem with comfort. Their problem, and a legitimate one it is, is that the way our systems are going about creating that comfort is ensuring that many/most other people end up really depressingly poor and uncomfortable. The good news is that today this is also viewed as a problem by just about everybody. And yes some do less about it than others it’s true, but this fact notwithstanding everybody but everybody today at least pays this problem lip service and that wasn’t always true.

That it is so completely true today is a political advance and a significant evolution in human thinking methinks or at least mehopes.

The bad news is if we do not change business as usual a whole lot more of us are going to end up in the depressingly uncomfortable category.

People very much need to understand that this is one of the very real implications of the fact that we have essentially come to the end of the growth in fossil fuel availability. People in Canada and the U.S. also need to know that this is especially true here in N.A.! The tarsands notwithstanding!

A great many of our citizens are being put in grave jeopardy of becoming part of the depressingly poor ‘others-class’ and since it’s true anyway we may as well sell this fact as a political and environmental and conservational tool. Sure a lot will not pay attention until they actually get whacked but we must do this work now if we expect to be listened to then.

When our middle class does finally get hit it will help a great deal with the enlistment of new supporters, though this will not come as much comfort to as many as it should.

As for the political competition and how to maneuver the other parties that try and out-compete us on these issues, truer words were never spoken than these by Senor Juan G. Carbonel: “A moral threat may serve to change your rulers rhetoric, but an economic one will change their behavior.”

This economic threat will more importantly also serve to clinch the argument for conservation, relocalized economies, a reinvigoration of our appreciation for our neighbors, walkable communities and a slower pace of life, not to mention the successful selling of the virtue of a simpler lifestyle.

It will even extend to include the fact that the potential of ‘Distributed and micro generation of energy in the information age’, the age of the great neurally wired collective mind that the internet has made possible, very certainly represents the greatest opportunity for real power to the people in every sense of that phrase that the world has ever seen.

And I say again to you that what stands in our way is not primarily a technical challenge. Once we get started down the implementation road in a major way it will be readily apparent to everyone just about immediately how much work/employment opportunity is ahead of us. What stands in our way is what has always stood in our way. The problem of capital and its infinitely mutable talent for concentration and inexpert and uncreative destruction.

Before all else what lies before us is the challenge of putting into place the mechanisms that prioritize best-in-class data and peer-reviewed information far above dollar concerns and even higher above money interests. The fact of one dollar-one vote must go the way of all slave and chattel concepts and become as odious.

To my mind events have redefined left and right.

With freedom of information as the new left and monetization as the new right.

Or as my more poetic friend senor Carbonel puts it: “Today information is the new left; money, on the other hand, is very much still the old right. Thi9s is what scientists are are battling over.”

And as it is very much a zero sum battle between these two combatants for diminishing resources. For the world’s greatest minds, there is no real room for compromise. Since we are going to have to enlist everybody if we are truly serious about winning this fight, this means that we are going to need to be far more flexible and inclusive than we have ever been before.

For the last 150 years, we in North America have been uniquely advantaged in terms of fundamental resources. This worm has now very much turned.

The simplest solution to the problem of Greenhouse Gases and global warming is, after all, to keep hydrocarbons sequestered right where they currently are. Admittedly effecting such an outcome is a mite more complicated but starting by dedicating their use to the primary purpose of the building of sustainable systems is an idea whose time has come.

For once you think even a little bit about the shape and scope of the energy/emissions problem we face it is not all that difficult to come to the realization that the deep conservation of fossil fuels, and their almost complete dedication to nothing but the creation of sustainable systems, ties very neatly and directly into what we need to do to save the planet from our mismanagement. If only because conservation is from the most selfish of perspectives what is best for ourselves and the creature comforts with which we are so sensibly enamored.

This is so because peak energy in fact totally and utterly slam dunks the argument for conservation. Again, if only because it is such a potent economic threat to the established order.

And don’t think for one second that the military industrial complex and the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA haven’t picked up on this fact and are not planning to use it to advantage their world view. Believe you me that just ain’t the case. For example just this past September at the 6th ASPO conference, James R. Schlesinger said: “Conceptually the battle is over. The Peakists have won — everyone is a Peakist now.” Schlesinger for those of you who may not know is a former U.S. Secretary of Defence, former head of the CIA, and was the very first Secretary of Energy in the U.S.A. In other words this is one of the most connected and influential militarists in the whole damned white world.

And while its true that environmentalists and social workers can ignore fossil fuel depletion and, unlike engineers and militarists, go back to their work with a clean conscience, they cannot do so and win! And really people it is now officially past time for the forces of life to win.

Which means that it is also past time that the environmental and social movements reach out and fully embrace their natural allies in the peak energy movement. Today, all but everybody, thanks to the environmental pioneers, understands just how right these folk always were about the living systems crash we are enacting.

And “thanks” to the disastrous failure of Pax Americana as practiced by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair, and Brown all but all of the techs and geeks and engineers get the peril that genuine socialists have long been detailing. We all get the peril. It is time you all got the potential that lies begging.

Because for all the rightness of the environmental arguments and for all the virtue of the socialist positions the fact is that emissions and military spending are still rising and they are doing so at an increasing rate.

And while fossil fuels and uranium may be limited, and will fix both of these problems eventually, even if we do nothing, this will not be sufficient to the task of saving us and our sister and brother species from ourselves.

It really is time to end the car culture. Given what our climate scientists and resource geologists know today Nascar and Indy car and Formula 1 and motocross and funny cars and drag racing and demolition derbies and monster trucks must go the way of the dodo before we do. It is time to end the obscenity of $1.2 trillion yearly spent on creating things that go boom. Over half of that being spent by the U.S.

Canada FYI is actually 12th in the world in military spending and 7th in the OECD in absolute terms. And that’s before our PM Harper and the bipartisan consensus among the Conservatives and the Liberals finishes muscularizing our military.

For Christ and our sake — if we as a people won’t abide by the moral threat implicit in renouncing our Christian and secular moral values — will we not then at least listen to the arguments of the moneylenders and the security professionals who have proved that militarism drains the treasury and not the swamp?

Dead ahead is one of the greatest revolutions human society has ever seen and by hook or by crook it will take place even if we make no choices. The geology of this still blue planet alone makes this inevitable. If best information dominates the policy process as we move forward to meet the enormous challenges facing us then we can use this unavoidably radical transformation to gain more social justice and a higher quality of life.

If instead we fail again and let consumption manage us and not us it, I’m guaranteeing here and now that energy fascism is the jackboot that we will all be ground under.

Most of the rest of the world gets this already. They do not hate us for our freedoms they hate us for the insane recklessness and abuse of freedom that our everyday fossil fuel lifestyle screams at them.

And who can blame them?

Meanwhile the crooked man from the crooked house spins his crooked tales from coast to coast his piggy banking blather as unctuous an oink as ever heard on the animal farm.

Self-servingly justifying all via his intellectually and morally stunted Ayn Rand theftology.

Endlessly invited for fawning interviews to pump the sales of his fairy tale fictions, as adored as ever by the sycophantic chattering classes. The ink stained wretches who serve so well those in the financial class that made off with the loot under the cover provided by the Greenspan Fed.

And why would a man in his 80’s, a man lionized by those he served so well, idolized by the scriveners and courtiers they long ago bought, be on a book tour designed to help him deny his part in shaping our present? Why would a man so completely beyond the reach of the law or even public opprobrium, a man soon to be beyond even the laws of nature herself, care?

Tough question.

And in any case does he not see that by trying to deny that his 17 years as the head of the Fed had any part in where we are today at best robs his life work of any meaning? Does he not see that even if we were to believe such a patently self-serving absurdity then at best it says that his office was primarily ceremonial and that the real decisions and power lay elsewhere? (Now if he were to come out with that…..)

Does he not see that even if this were true, that even then he is still guilty by association?

Guilty of being the principal puppet in a show meant to distract the public from what was really going on while their pockets were being picked?

Does he not see any of this? Again a tough question and one probably even the man himself does not know the answer to so crooked has his path led him to become.

What can be known however is that this man obviously feels sufficiently driven by how badly things are going to spend a good chunk of his remaining time on the planet trying to deny his part in the biggest smash and grab since the kleptocrats took Russia in 1991.

Perhaps as good an indication as any of the ferocity of the economic storm clouds we in North America have now entered.

How soon this will all start impacting on North America’s real debt and deficit, our energy deficit is impossible to predict. We cannot know how soon the multiplying economic evils of the Reagan & Bush war and debt creation machine will impact on the U.S. 12 million barrels of oil a day deficit. Or how substantially the housing meltdown in combination with the Iraq war, a tax cut led $10 trillion debt, and a $800 million current account deficit will impact on America’s plans to globalize their way out of the looming natural gas production crash. Given the very substantial impacts this is and will continue to have on liquidity, it seems safe to say “Quite a lot.”

Today, Greenspan tells us what every one on the street long ago knew about Iraq. “It was all about oil.” If he hopes by such “truth telling” to prove he is one of the people he is more than a dollar short and a day late. What the man in the street does not know is that with these words Greenspan is involved in a much deeper truth telling than even he knows.

For as appropriate as it is to link these words to the crime perpetrated against the Iraqi people they are even more true when applied to the entirety of the 20th Century. And as bad as the economic mismanagement of America has been, and as painful as the resolution of these problems will be, this pales in comparison to the level of economic privation that will be experienced by Americans once their energy mismanagement chickens start coming home to roost. And for those of you new to these truths do yourself a favour and greatly steepen your learning curve by substituting the word energy every time you hear the word oil, gas, coal or uranium.

At present the picture that can tell us how soon America’s energy consumption will be forced downward by its financial and geopolitical problems is at best murky. For now all we can be certain of is that the fossil fuel scarcity deniers like Daniel Yergin at CERA who have been claiming for years that its price will be plummeting “any day now” will finally be relegated to the appropriate historical dustbin.