How much energy do we need?

SUBHEAD: A reduction of 75% in energy use could stay within the carrying capacity of the planet.

By Kris De Decker on 8 January 2018 in Low Tech Magazine -
(http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/how-much-energy-do-we-need.html)


Image above: John Marshall is 50 years old and live on the beach in San Jose, California. He was once a cell phone engineer. From original article.

Because energy fuels both human development and environmental damage, policies that encourage energy demand reduction can run counter to policies for alleviating poverty, and the other way around. Achieving both objectives can only happen if energy use is spread more equally across societies.

However, while it’s widely acknowledged that part of the global population is living in ‘energy poverty’, there’s little attention given to the opposite condition, namely ‘energy excess’ or ‘energy decadence’. Researchers have calculated minimum levels of energy use needed to live a decent life, but what about maximum levels?

 Energy Use Per Capita

Humanity needs to reduce its energy use radically if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, the exhaustion of non-renewable resources, and the destruction of the natural environment upon which our survival depends. [1]

Targets for reductions in carbon emissions and energy use are usually framed in terms of national and international percentage reductions, but the energy use per head of the human population varies enormously between and within countries, no matter how it is calculated. [2]

If we divide total primary energy use per country by population, we see that the average North American uses more than twice the energy of the average European (6,881 kgoe versus 3,207 kgoe, meaning kilograms of oil equivalent).

Within Europe, the average Norwegian (5,818 kgoe) uses almost three times more energy than the average Greek (2,182 kgoe).

The latter uses three to five times more energy than the average Angolan (545 kgoe), Cambodian (417 kgoe) or Nicaraguan (609 kgoe), who uses two to three times the energy of the average Bangladeshi (222 kgoe). [3]
 
These figures include not only the energy used directly in households, but also energy used in transportation, manufacturing, power production and other sectors. Such a calculation makes more sense than looking at household energy consumption alone, because people consume much more energy outside their homes, for example through the products that they buy. [4]


Image above: Chart of per capita energy consumption in the equivalent of kilograms of oil. For North America the average consumption per person is over 2,000 gallons of petroleum oil. From original article.

Such a 'production-based' calculation is not perfect, because countries with high energy use per capita often import a lot of manufactured goods from countries with lower energy use per capita. The energy used in the production of these goods is attributed to the exporting countries – meaning that the energy use per capita in the most ‘developed’ countries is an underestimation.

Finding out about the distribution of energy use within countries requires data with higher spatial resolution. For example, an analysis of variations in household energy consumption (electricity + gas) and energy use in private transportation in the UK shows that the average energy use per capita can differ fivefold depending on the area. [2]

Taking into account both differences between and within countries, as well as the outsourcing of manufacturing (a ‘consumption-based’ calculation), the highest energy users worldwide can contribute 1,000 times as much carbon emissions as the lowest energy users. [5]

Inequality not only concerns the quantity of energy, but also its quality. People in industrialized countries have access to a reliable, clean and (seemingly) endless supply of electricity and gas.

On the other hand, two in every five people worldwide (3 billion people) rely on wood, charcoal or animal waste to cook their food, and 1.5 billion of them don’t have electric lighting. [6]

These fuels cause indoor air pollution, and can be time- and labour-intensive to obtain. If modern fuels are available in these countries, they’re often expensive and/or less reliable.

Beyond Energy Poverty: Energy Decadence

It’s now widely acknowledged that these 3 billion people in the developing world are living in ‘energy poverty’. [7][8]

In 2011, the United Nations and the World Bank launched the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative, which aims to “ensure universal access to modern energy services” by 2030. Energy poverty has also gained attention in developed countries, where it is mainly focused on inadequate space heating.

A 2015 study found that up to 54 million Europeans are not able to adequately heat their homes in winter. [9]

The European Commission launched the Energy Poverty Observatory in 2017, which will conduct research and provide guidelines to national governments for setting up measures to address fuel poverty. [8]

Bringing the rest of the world up to the living standards and energy use of rich countries is not compatible with the environmental problems we face.

However, while it’s recognized that part of the global population is using not enough energy, there is not the same discussion of people who are using too much energy. [2] [10] [11]

Nevertheless, solving the tension between demand reduction and energy poverty can only happen if those who use ‘too much’ reduce their energy use. Bringing the rest of the world up to the living standards and energy use of rich countries – the implicit aim of ‘human development’ – would solve the problem of inequality, but it’s not compatible with the environmental problems we face.


Image above: Most families living in rural off-grid areas of Africa use dim kerosene lamps to light their homes at night. Even a modest solar PV panel can provide enough light for socialization and doing school homework. From original article.

Based on the figures given above, if every human on Earth would use as much energy as the average Western European or North American, total world energy use and carbon emissions would be at least two to four times higher than they are today. This is an underestimation, because to achieve the same living standards developing countries first need to build an infrastructure – roads, electricity grids, et cetera – to make this possible, which also requires a lot of energy. [12]

Consequently, whilst much work has been done around fuel poverty, there is a parallel debate to be had about ‘energy decadence’ or ‘energy excess’. [2]

The quest for ‘energy sufficiency’ – a level of energy use that is both fair and sustainable – should involve not only ‘floors’ (enough for a necessary purpose) but also ‘ceilings’ (too much for safety and welfare, in the short or long term). [13]

Otherwise, we would be mortgaging the health of future generations to realize development gains in the present. [14]

Calculating Energy Floors and Ceilings

How do we define energy decadence? How much is ‘too much’ energy use? To a large extent, we can build upon decades of research into energy poverty, which has measured the components of a minimum acceptable standard of living. [14]

For example, the Millenium Project of the UN Development Program establishes a minimum level of 500 kgoe per person per year – an amount of energy that is almost four times below the world average. [15]

Some researchers have addressed energy decadence in a similar way, calculating a maximum acceptable standard of living. For example, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology proposed the 2,000 watt society, which implies a worldwide energy use per capita of per 1,500 kgoe per year, while the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence proposal limits energy use to 1,255 kgoe per person per year. [10][13][16]

These levels of energy use per capita correspond to a reduction of 20-35% below the world average today.

Because energy poverty research only investigates ‘floors’ and not ‘ceilings’ of energy use, minimum energy levels are calculated from the bottom-up. Researchers investigate how much energy is required to live a decent life, based on a set of goods and services that are considered essential.

On the other hand, maximum energy levels – above which energy use is considered to be excessive and unsustainable – are calculated from the top down. Researchers determine a ‘safe’ level of global energy use based on some indicator of the carrying capacity of the planet – such as a level of carbon emissions that is thought to keep global warming within certain limits – and divide it by the world population.

Between the upper boundary set by the carrying capacity of the planet, and a lower boundary set by decent levels of wellbeing for all lies a band of sustainable energy use, situated somewhere between energy poverty and energy decadence. [14]

These boundaries not only imply that the rich lower their energy use, but also that the poor don’t increase their energy use too much. However, there is no guarantee that the maximum levels are in fact higher than the minimum levels.

Between the upper boundary set by the carrying capacity of the planet, and a lower boundary set by decent levels of wellbeing for all lies a band of sustainable energy use.

When a minimum level of energy use is calculated from the bottom-up, it remains to be seen if this level can be maintained without destroying the environment. On the other hand, if a maximum level of energy use per capita is calculated from the top down, it remains to be seen if this ‘safe’ level of energy use is sufficient to live a decent life. If the ‘floor’ is higher than the ‘ceiling’, the conclusion would be that sustainable wellbeing for all is simply impossible.

To make matters worse, defining minimum and maximum levels is fraught with difficulty. On the one hand, when calculating from the top down, there’s no agreement about the carrying capacity of the planet, whether it concerns a safe concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, the remaining fossil fuel reserves, the measurements of ecological damage, or the impact of renewable energy, advances in energy efficiency, and population growth.

On the other hand, for those taking a bottom-up approach, defining what constitutes a ‘decent’ life is just as debatable.

Needs and Wants

The minimum and maximum levels of energy use mentioned above are meant to be universal: every world citizen is entitled to the same amount of energy. However, although distributing energy use equally across the global population may sound fair, in fact the opposite is true.

The amount of energy that people ‘need’ is not only up to them. It also depends on the climate (people living in cold climates will require more energy for heating than those living in warm climates), the culture (the use of air conditioning in the US versus the siesta in Southern Europe), and the infrastructure (cities that lack public transport and cycling facilities force people into cars).

Differences in energy efficiency can also have a significant impact on the “need” for energy. For example, a traditional three-stone cooking fire is less energy efficient than a modern gas cooking stove, meaning that the use of the latter requires less energy to cook a similar meal.

It’s not only the appliances that determine how much energy is needed, but also the infrastructure: if electricity production and transmission have relatively poor efficiency, people need more primary energy, even if they use the same amount of electricity at home.


Image above: It does not take a great deal of money or technical skill to transform the most isolated places with independent of grid electricity. From original article.

To account for all these differences, most researchers approach the diagnosis of energy poverty by focusing on ‘energy services’, not on a particular level of energy use. [17]

People do not demand energy or fuel perse – what they need are the services that energy provides.

For example, when it comes to lighting, people do not need a particular amount of energy but an adequate level of light depending on what they are doing.

An example of this service-based approach is NGO Practical Action’s Total Energy Access (TEA) indicator, which was launched in 2010. [17][18]

The TEA measures households in developing countries against prescribed minimum services standards for lighting, cooking and water heating, space heating, space and food cooling, and information and communication services.

For example, the minimum level for lighting in households is 300 lumens, and Practical Action provides similar standards for other energy services, not only in households but also in work environments and community buildings.

Needs are universal, objective, non-substitutable, cross-generational, and satiable. Wants are subjective, evolving over time, individual, substitutable and insatiable.

Some energy poverty indicators go one step further still. They don’t specify energy services, but basic human needs or capabilities (depending on the theory). In these modes, basic needs or capabilities are considered to be universal, but the means to achieve them are considered geographically and culturally specific. [10] [17]

The focus of these needs-based indicators is on measuring the conditions of human well-being, rather than on specifying the requirements for achieving these outcomes. [19]

 Examples of human basic needs are clean water and nutrition, shelter, thermal comfort, a non-threatening environment, significant relationships, education and healthcare.

Basic needs are considered to be universal, objective, non-substitutable (for example, insufficient food intake cannot be solved by increasing dwelling space, or the other way around), cross-generational (the basic needs of future generations of humans will be the same as those of present generations), and satiable (the contribution of water, calories, or dwelling space to basic needs can be satiated).

This means that thresholds can be conceived where serious harm is avoided. ‘Needs’ can be distinguished from ‘wants’, which are subjective, evolving over time, individual, substitutable and insatiable.

Focusing on basic needs in this way makes it possible to distinguish between ‘necessities’ and ‘luxuries’, and to argue that human needs, present and future, trump present and future ‘wants’. [14][17]

Change over Time: Increasing Dependency on Energy

Focusing on energy services or basic needs can help to specify maximum levels of energy use. Instead of defining minimum energy service levels (such as 300 lumens of light per household), we could define maximum energy services levels (say 2,000 lumens of light per household).

These energy service levels could then be combined to calculate maximum energy use levels per capita or household. However, these would be valid only in specific geographical and cultural contexts, such as countries, cities, or neighborhoods – and not universally applicable. Likewise, we could define basic needs and then calculate the energy that is required to meet them in a specific context.

However, the focus on energy services or basic needs also reveals a fundamental problem. If the goods and services necessary for a decent life free from poverty are seen not as universally applicable, but as relative to the prevailing standards and customs of a particular society, it becomes clear that such standards evolve over time as technology and customary ways of life change. [11]

Change over time, especially since the twentieth century, reveals an escalation in conventions and standards that result in increasing energy consumption. The ‘need satisfiers’ have become more and more energy-intensive, which has made meeting basic needs as problematic as fulfilling ‘wants’.

Energy poverty research in industrial countries shows that the minimum energy level required to meet basic needs is constantly on the rise. [11][20][21]

What is sufficient today is not necessarily sufficient tomorrow. For example, several consumer goods which did not exist in the 1980s, such as mobile phones, personal computers, and internet access, were seen as absolute necessities by 40-41% of the UK public in 2012. [20]

These days in the industrial world, even the energy poor are living above the carrying capacity of the planet.

Other technologies that are now considered to be minimal requirements have gone through a similar evolution. For example, central heating and daily hot showers are only a few decades old, but these technologies are now considered to be an essential need by a majority of people in industrialised countries. [22]

In fact, these days in the industrial world, even the energy poor are living above the carrying capacity of the planet.

For example, if the entire UK population were to live according to the minimum energy budget that has been determined in workshops with members of the public, then (consumption-based) emissions per capita would only decrease from 11.8 to 7.3 tonnes per person, while the UN Development Program’s target to limit the increase in average world temperature is less than two tonnes of carbon per person per year. [14]

In short, the ‘floor’ is three times higher than the ‘ceiling’.

Challenging Needs and Wants

“By equating what is ‘required’ with what is ‘normal’”, write UK energy poverty researchers, “we actively support escalating expectations of need, which runs counter to objectives like those of reducing energy demand… To achieve demand reduction entails challenging embedded norms rather than following them.” [11]

In other words, we can only solve energy poverty and energy decadence if we manage to decouple human need satisfaction from energy intensive ‘need satisfiers’. [21]

One way to do that is by increasing energy efficiency.

In a 1985 paper called Basic needs and much more with one kilowatt per capita, researchers argue that the amount of energy needed to avoid energy poverty will decline thanks to continuing improvements in energy efficiency – from 750 kgoe per capita per year in 1985 to only 570 kgoe in 2030. [23]

In reality, this is not what is happening, because efficiency gains are continually matched by more energy-intensive ways of life. However, if this trend could be halted or even reversed, advances in energy efficiency would allow us to live increasingly low energy lives.

For example, to produce the 300 lumens that Practical Action considers the minimum level for lighting, a LED-light requires six times less electricity than an incandescent light bulb.

More importantly, basic needs can be met with different means, and the relative necessity of some energy services could and should be questioned. This approach can be labeled ‘sufficiency’.

Energy services could be reduced (smaller TVs or lighter and slower cars, or less TV watching and car driving) or replaced by less energy-intensive ones (using a bicycle instead of a car, buying more fresh instead of frozen food, playing boardgames instead of watching television).

Substitution can also involve community services. In principle, public service delivery could bring economies of scale and thus reduce the energy involved in providing many household services: public transport, public bathing houses, community kitchens, laundrettes, libraries, internet cafés, public telephone boxes, and home delivery services are just some examples. [24] [25]
 
Combining sufficiency with efficiency measures, German researchers calculated that the typical electricity use of a two-person household could be lowered by 75%, without reverting to drastic lifestyle changes such as washing clothes by hand or generating power with excercise machines. [25]

Although this only concerns a part of total energy demand, reducing electricity use in the household also leads to reductions in energy use for manufacturing and transportation.

If we assume that similar reductions are possible in other domains, then the German households considered here could do with roughly 800 kgoe per capita per year, four times below the average energy use per head in Europe.

This suggests that a modern life is compatible with much lower energy demand, at least when we assume that a reduction of 75% in energy use would be enough to stay within the carrying capacity of the planet.

This article was originally written for The DEMAND Centre.

---

References:

[1] Encouraging renewable energy sources alone cannot reduce carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, energy demand rises faster than the share of renewable energy, meaning that solar and wind power plants are not replacing fossil fuels, but accommodating part of a growing demand for energy. Secondly, renewable energy systems are highly dependent on fossil fuels for their manufacture, especially when we count on an infrastructure that aims to match supply to demand at all times. Energy efficiency is not getting us anywhere either, because advances in more efficient technology often result in new or more energy-intensive products and services, and because energy efficiency makes unsustainable practices non-negotiable.

[2] Chatterton, Tim, et al. "Energy justice? A spatial analysis of variations in household direct energy consumption in the UK." eceee, 2015. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/28337/1/Chatterton%20Barnes%20Yeboah%20Anable%202015%20Energy%20Justice%20-%20ECEEE%20Conference%20Paper.pdf

[3] Energy use (kilogram of oil equivalent per capita), 1960-2014. World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE?locations=BD-GR-NL&year_low_desc=true

[4] Consumption of energy, Eurostat, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Consumption_of_energy

[5] Piketty, Thomas. "Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris." Trends in the Global Inequality of Carbon Emissions (1998-2013) and Prospects for An Equitable Adaptation Fund. Paris: Paris School of Economics (2015). http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/chancelpiketty2015.pdf

[6] Poor people’s energy outlook 2010, Practical Action. https://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/poor-peoples-energy-outlook/poor-peoples-energy-outlook-2010. For later versions, see: https://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/poor-peoples-energy-outlook.

[7] Sustainable Energy For All, United Nations & World Bank. http://www.se4all.org/

[8] Thomson, Harriet, Stefan Bouzarovski, and Carolyn Snell. "Rethinking the measurement of energy poverty in Europe: A critical analysis of indicators and data." Indoor and Built Environment (2017): 1420326X17699260. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1420326X17699260

[9] Team, Authoring, and Claire Baffert. "Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures." Policy 2 (2015). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/energy-poverty-may-affect-nearly-11-eu-population

[10] Steinberger, Julia K., and J. Timmons Roberts. "From constraint to sufficiency: The decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005." Ecological Economics 70.2 (2010): 425-433. http://julias.promessage.com/Projects/Articles/EE_SteinbergerRoberts_2010_DecouplingEnergyCarbonHumanNeeds_v2.pdf

[11] Walker, Gordon, Neil Simcock, and Rosie Day. "Necessary energy uses and a minimum standard of living in the United Kingdom: energy justice or escalating expectations?." Energy Research & Social Science 18 (2016): 129-138. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616300184

[12] Lamb, William F., and Narasimha D. Rao. "Human development in a climate-constrained world: what the past says about the future." Global Environmental Change 33 (2015): 14-22. http://decentlivingenergy.org/publications/Lamb-Rao-HDinClimConstrainedWorld.pdf

[13] Darby, Sarah. "Enough is as good as a feast–sufficiency as policy." Proceedings, European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. La Colle sur Loup, 2007. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8e68/c68ace130104ef6fc0f736339ff34b253509.pdf

[14] Gough, Ian. "Heat, Greed and Human Need." Books (2017). http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/heat-greed-and-human-need

[15] Energy for a sustainable future, Report and Recommendations, The Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC), 28 April 2010, New York. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/AGECCsummaryreport[1].pdf

[16] Bretschger, Lucas, Roger Ramer, and Florentine Schwark. 2000 Watt Society?." https://www.mtec.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/cer-eth/resource-econ-dam/documents/people/lbretschger/Brochure_2kW.pdf

[17] Day, Rosie, Gordon Walker, and Neil Simcock. "Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty using a capabilities framework." Energy Policy 93 (2016): 255-264. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301227

[18] Total Energy Access, Practical Action. https://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/total-energy-access

[19] Rao, Narasimha D., and Jihoon Min. "Decent living standards: material prerequisites for human wellbeing." Social Indicators Research (2017): 1-20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-017-1650-0

[20] Mack, Joanna, et al. "Attitudes to necessities in the PSE 2012 survey: are minimum standards becoming less generous?." PSE-UK Working Paper Analysis Series 4 (2013). http://poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/PSE%20wp%20analysis%20No.%204%20-%20Attitudes%20to%20necessities%20in%20the%202012%20survey%20(Mack,%20Lansley,%20Nandy,%20Patazis)%20Oct_2013.pdf

[21] Mattioli, Giulio. "Transport needs in a climate-constrained world. A novel framework to reconcile social and environmental sustainability in transport." Energy Research & Social Science 18 (2016): 118-128. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616300536

[22] Hand, Martin, Elizabeth Shove, and Dale Southerton. "Explaining showering: A discussion of the material, conventional, and temporal dimensions of practice." Sociological Research Online 10.2 (2005). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/hand.html

[23] Goldemberg, Jose, et al. "Basic needs and much more with one kilowatt per capita." Ambio (1985): 190-200. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4313148?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 [24] Thomas, Stefan, et al. Energy sufficiency policy: an evolution of energy efficiency policy or radically new approaches?. Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, 2015. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/5922/file/5922_Thomas.pdf

[25] Brischke, Lars-Arvid, et al. Energy sufficiency in private households enabled by adequate appliances. Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, 2015. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/5932/file/5932_Brischke.pdf

.

Settling into a Collapse rant

SUBHEAD: Where will your 55" plasma TV or that Pink SUV ride-on truck be 60 years from now?

By Juan Wilson on 15 November 2017 for Islansd Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2017/11/settling-into-collapse.html)


Image above: A two seat toy ride-on pink SUV operated by car battery with remote control for dad to drive the kids around the back yard in style. Available at Walmarts. From (https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/12V-MP3-Kids-Ride-on-Truck-Car-R-c-Remote-Control-LED-Lights-AUX-and-Music-Pink/PRD3EE3T56UFEYB).

Every time is see a Hotwheels trike, or worse, a pink monster truck "ride-on toy" operated by a car battery, I wince. I realize sooner than later it will be carted off as junk when some crucial plastic piece cracks and breaks. What's true about these toys is also true about most of what we consume today. It's unfixable.

To give you an idea of how old I am I've got an anecdote about reusing what is now a disposable item. My dad was a doctor and began his medical practice in a rented Levitt house on Long Island in 1949. During "office hours" my sister and I would play outside. The rest of the time it was our home. The kitchen would no longer be the "lab", the living room was no longer the "waiting room".

My sister and I slept on cots next to the examining table in the "exam room"/bedroom and my parents slept on a coach-bed in the "consulting room"/bedroom. In the kitchen "lab" was a centrifuge, microscope and sterilizer. Yes, my parents sterilized my dad's hypodermic needles and surgical steel medical tools.

There were not many "disposables" back in 1949 like there are today in medicine.

Back then, things like a surgical tool or a Zippo lighter was built to last a lifetime... and did, unless you lost it. Zippo's had replaceable flints and could use a variety of flammable liquids. The chrome finished steel Zippo, unlike floating plastic disposable Bic lighters, do not end up in the gullets of sea birds on Midway Island.

Headline in National Geographic magazine:

Plastic Garbage Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific
"Yet another floating mass of microscopic plastic has been discovered in the ocean, and it is mind-blowingly vast." (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/ocean-plastic-patch-south-pacific-spd/)

Too much plastic... and it's all made out of fossil fuel. I'm no saint. I've been an addicted American consumer for most of my life. But I am working on withdrawal. Last week I spent over an hour fixing the broken handle of a plastic laundry basket.

Buying things that are meant to be disposable is in general a bad idea. Of course there are exceptions we all make for things like toilet paper, paper towels, tampons, pampers, bandages and packaging.

However, even these items we need to be more aware of and try to reduce our use of. Incidentally, one reason the Farmer's Almanac had a hole through it was so it could be hung in the outhouse and after being thoroughly read, used as toilet paper.

An example of a complete waste of resources (and energy and a source of pollution as well as contributing to global warming) is bottled water. Unless you're in a place with no potable water you should not be using plastic bottled water.

Here on Kauai, every time there is a severe weather warning the supermarket aisles are crowed with pallets stacked with cases of plastic bottled water... and they sell out. I guess it is a response to hurricane Iniki a quarter-century ago, but why not just fill a clean 5-gallon plastic bucket with a snap on lid and a $3 plastic spigot.  I'm mystified.

I hope by now your getting used to the idea of "collapse" and are settling in for the long haul. The alternative is lot of thrashing around and a good deal of bitter dissatisfaction with broken dreams.

That "long haul" will entail reductions to many of the things you have become used to like 24x7x365 refrigeration, phone service, access to the internet, and passable roadways. Think of life as an extended camping trip you can't come back home from.

Things to leave in the garbage bin oh history on the way out include a Full Time Job capable of covering the cost of a college loan, car costs, the "rent", and weekly groceries.

We again will become a nation of farmers, gardeners, street vendors, buskers, hunters, craftpersons and handy(wo)men.

Self employment centered around where you live will replace the employer controlled "rat race" commuter. And that's a good thing.

It will be an exciting and adventurous time for many. Things, of necessity, be a more tribal and family oriented with local rivalries and family feuds. Who needs an HBO in depth drama series like the "Sopranos", Game of Thrones" or "The Deuce" when you will be living it 24x7?

Lightening our footprint is of the highest priority.

• Disposable consumer product use should be reduced or avoided where possible.
• We need to to keep what we have in running order and stop replacing everything that breaks down - without even an attempt at repair it. 
• Road trips "for the hell of it" and RV driving vacations are eco-suicide.
• Traveling by air should be by necessity... not on a lark. 

My prescription to myself is to get comfy with the past and how people got through the night without a 55" plasma TV. there is plenty to do... Take up the piano, a hobby or learn something in depth. Read, play chess, compose poetry. Plenty.

My grandmother knitted, hooked and crocheted without electricity in the evening for relaxation. I still have a crocheted rug in my bedroom she made over 60 years ago. It will outlive me and probably outlive my children.

There is little point trying to resurrect the "American Dream". That old model of conquest of the indigenous world; the stripping of natural resources and the burning of everything flammable won't continue for long. Nature will see to that - with us or without us.

Where will that 55" plasma TV or ride-on Pink SUV truck be 60 years from now? Five years from now?

See also: Bic lighter - The worst product ever marketed 8/1/17
.

Kicking and Streaming

SUBHEAD: Our alternative universe is an illusion on a fossil fuel diet. Time to detox.

By Juan Wilson on 2 July 2017 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2017/07/kicking-and-sreaming.html)


Image above: Our current alternative universe "social media" is an illusion projected at us from corporations. From (https://www.fastforwardunlimited.com/importance-of-social-media/).

Comfy?
We are too comfortable to face the truth at this point. We stare into the tiny colorful screens we carry all the time and see a Candy Cane illusion. That way we don't have to witness the destruction of the living world around us.

For many people the only escape is into Cognitive Dissonance: The state of having inconsistent thoughts and beliefs, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

There are no other ways to understand the self delusion that seems to engulf America this Fourth of July holiday. The family sits at he Denny's on the highway each staring into their own personal media universe alive on a glistening colorful screen.

On one hand there are those with no understanding of the resource constraints we face and no idea of the implications of our overuse of them want to claw their way back to the America of the 50's when we felt high on the hog and the envy of the world.

On the other hand are those who understand the problems but have techno-utopian dreams of running America's 24/7/365 levels of 21st century consumption on zephyr breezes and sunny afternoon skies.

Kicking and Screaming
It is true that we will be making a rapid transition towards 100% renewable energy. The problem is it won't be supporting the way we live now. We face an existential dilemma. 

A) We humans can continue living as we do at a high level of consumption of the Earth for a short while and then face extinction.

or

B) We humans can adjust now to a greatly reduced level of consumption of the Earth's resources for a long time into the future.  

There are no alternatives, such as coming up with desktop fusion energy or another reachable inhabitable planet. Those are unreachable goals. Sticking with reality is important.

What reality is  whispering in our ears is that its already too late to bring anything close the 21st century another generation... It would require destroying the Earth. I think the Earth would rather do without us.

It is time to abandon the hopes and dreams it fostered in us and grasp the necessity for facing the storm approaching. In sailing terms that means battening the hatches, reducing sails and checking equipment and supplies.

As more people  are realizing now, we'll be lucky to maintain a mid to late 19th century level of technology and population (that was less than 1.5 billion people). But that might be sustainable for a long time into the future.

Remember that included the electric light bulb, photography, phonographs, motion pictures, as well as continental telegram and local telephone service. We'll just have to run those technologies not on coal but wind and solar power.

Get with the Program
If you are not preparing now for the end of Walmart, Amazon, Costco, Home Depot, Whole Foods and civilian commercial airline service you are betting on the wrong horse.

I'm not saying you should not use the above mentioned services, but that you should being using them to get off your dependency on them.

Use them to to acquire the tools and equipment you need to get off The Grid and provide local food for those you love. Build a raised bed garden, and get solar panels with some storage batteries.

It also means getting expertise in a variety of skills needed to keep your shelter intact and personally make the area around you flourish with life. Build your own oasis. You will need it soon

It's not that "Winter is coming!" It's that "Eaarth is coming!"

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Planet Kaauai 2/26/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Oases of the future 6/28/15
Ea O Ka Aina: The New Game 11/10/13
Ea O Ka Aina: A case for autonomy 6/4/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Food, Water, Energy, Shelter 1/31/13 
Ea O Ka Aina: The Titanic or Noah's Ark 3/4/12
Ea O Ka Aina: The Hero's Way 1/13/12
Ea O Ka Aina: All Aboard! 12/9/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Here's the deal 7/5/09
Ea O Ka Aina: The American Century 12/31/08
 
.

This lifestyle out is of stock

SUBHEAD: Dear Imperial America, the lifestyle you ordered is unavailable and permanently out of stock.

By Charles Hugh Smith on 15 February 2017 for Of Two Minds -
(http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb17/elites-empire2-17.html)


Image above: Mashup of lifestyle announcment on side of building. From original article.

Dear Imperial America: Sorry, the lifestyle you ordered is unavailable and permanently out of stock.

Our extraordinary misallocation of national treasure and political power has set a banquet of consequences that few are willing to face, much less address head-on. If we had to sum up this vast misallocation, we might start by characterizing it as the result of a multitude of elites playing Empire with money borrowed from future generations.

We can start the list of extraordinary misallocations of national treasure with the Neocon's endless wars of choice. Ten years ago, estimates of the total cost of the Iraq misadventure were $3 trillion: Cost of Iraq War: $3 Trillion; Cost of Solar Plants to Power all 105 million U.S Households: $500 Billion (April 10, 2008)

(Yes, I know solar energy is not "the solution" due to intermittency, lack of storage, fossil fuels are needed to build and maintain the solar infrastructure, etc.--but the point is: would we be better off if we'd invested 20% of the money squandered on the Iraq misadventure on alternative energy, even with all its limitations?)

But this does not exhaust the list of extraordinary misallocations of treasure. Universities have found the funds to build grand edifices on campus (never mind the trillion dollars in student loan debt that funded the delusions of grandeur) while much of the rest of our educational infrastructure crumbles as deferred maintenance takes its inevitable toll.

Public transit systems such as the San Francisco Bay Area's BART always find the funds to pay for hefty raises and gold-plated benefits for employees and managers, meanwhile the system's core has crumbled due to--you guessed it--hundreds of millions of dollars in long-deferred maintenance.

While employee wages, benefits and pensions dominate local government outlays, maintenance is funded by selling bonds, which cost twice as much over the long run due to interest and other costs.

Where cities and counties once funded school maintenance and filling potholes out of tax receipts, now many locales demand taxpayers approve tens of millions of dollars in new bonds to pay for these basic infrastructure maintenance projects.

It has reached the point that even maintaining city parks requires borrowing millions.

Political elites have found that promising the impossible--lower taxes and increased benefits/entitlements--keeps them in power, and as long as the credit spigot of new government borrowing is wide open, there are no limits on how many more trillions of dollars in future interest payments can be promised to win re-election today.

The fact that this sets a toxic banquet of consequences for future taxpayers and beneficiaries--no worries, some future politico will have to sit down at that banquet.

Political and financial elites have lined their own pockets and insured the continuity of their own power by deferring boring, unsexy, you-get-no-votes-for-this maintenance. Want to be "popular" and win re-election?

Ram through sexy new projects such as "affordable" housing (i.e. costly housing subsidized by taxpayers), extensions in mass transit lines, fancy new stadiums and student-services buildings--and pay for it all with borrowed money and by slashing boring, unsexy maintenance work.

The drama of the Oroville Dam is tied directly to the deferral of rountine maintenance: What You Need To Know About The Oroville Dam Crisis (interview with a civil engineering expert and Chris Martenson)

While we must ask cui bono (to whose benefit?) of scare-mongering estimates of deferred maintenance (one person's "required infrastructure" could be another person's pork-barrel project awarded as payback for political contributions), many of us can see a crumbling empire of deferred maintenance with our own eyes.

I can personally attest to city streets that were potholed 20 years ago that finally got repaved--but only after taxpayers agreed to pay double by borrowing millions for routine street maintenance that was previously paid out of tax revenues.

I see spalling concrete (concrete falling off due to rusting rebar) at major international airports, university buildings that are flooded due to poor drainage that should have been addressed decades ago, water mains that burst, sewer lines that are decades past their replacement date--the list is truly endless.

Dear Imperial America: the lifestyle you ordered is permanently out of stock. The banquet of consequences has already been served, and will only become more distasteful the longer we put off facing our skyrocketing debt, runaway elites and delusions of grandeur head-on.

.

Fossil fuel industry unchallenged

SUBHEAD: Tim DeChristopher "We've never seen the government stand up to the fossil fuel industry.

By Dahr Jamail on 24 October 2016 for Truth Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38097-we-ve-never-seen-the-government-stand-up-to-the-fossil-fuel-industry-tim-dechristopher-on-our-climate-future)


Image above: Photograph of Tim DeChristopher. Taken by Dahr Jamail. From original article.

In 2008, Tim DeChristopher found himself bidding for parcels of public land around Arches and Canyonlands National Parks of Utah at an illegitimate Bureau of Land Management oil and gas lease auction.

A climate activist acting as a bidder at the auction, DeChristopher ended up successfully winning 22,500 acres of land by bidding a total of $1.8 million, which he never intended to pay one nickel of, hence effectively killing the auction.

Taken into custody by federal agents, DeChristopher ended up serving 21 months in prison for his action, despite the US Department of the Interior cancelling many of the leases just after the auction.

His actions thrust him into the national and international media spotlight. DeChristopher co-founded the group Peaceful Uprising, a climate justice group that describes its task as "working to build an uncompromising movement to defend a livable future," and remains committed to nonviolence while functioning effectively within the most violent society and government on the planet.

The urgency of his work, and that of Peaceful Uprising, could not be more justified.

Earth's atmosphere recently passed the 400 parts per million threshold of CO2. According to NASA, 11 of the last 12 months have been the hottest months, respectively, in the 136 years of record keeping. This year is, once again, on track to be another hottest year ever for the planet, beating last year, which was itself the hottest year yet recorded. In fact, 15 of the 16 hottest years ever recorded, globally, have happened since 2000.

This past February, in the dead of winter, a Norwegian Coast Guard icebreaker ship found no ice to break, despite the fact that it was barely 800 miles from the North Pole. This is devastating, but not surprising: This year, the Arctic summer sea ice tied its second lowest extent on record.

Satellite data now shows a very rapid acceleration in global sea level rise, a rate increase not seen since the end of the last Ice Age -- and it continues to accelerate.

Early this February, atmospheric CO2 reached a level not seen on the planet for more than 2.5 million years.

These levels of CO2, which we are now living with permanently, are bringing Earth to a realm not experienced since the Pliocene epoch, which was the period 2.6 to 5.3 million years ago that saw atmospheric CO2 levels between 350 and 405 parts per million and average global temperatures that ranged between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius warmer than the climate of the 1880s.

At that time, there were even lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere than we have today, and global sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are right now.

In short, we are living in a new world, and the planet is rapidly adjusting to the level of heating we have imposed upon it.

Through this lens, it's clear that the actions of DeChristopher and other activists involved with Peaceful Uprising are both urgent and crucial, given that the US government is completely beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

Earlier this month, in what Reuters described as "the biggest coordinated move on US energy infrastructure ever undertaken by environmental protesters," activists across four states shut down five tar sands pipelines flowing into the US from Canada, bringing to a full stop the daily ration of 2.8 million gallons of tar sands crude oil.

The government responded in predictably draconian fashion by arresting the activists, supporting personnel and independent filmmakers. They are facing the most serious charges ever leveled at US climate activists: One of the filmmakers is facing up to 45 years in prison if convicted.

Yet, increasing numbers of people are taking up the struggle and joining DeChristopher -- as well as many Indigenous activists like those at Standing Rock -- as the planet burns.  The fact that the government continues to overtly side with the fossil fuel industry is only adding fuel to the activists' proverbial fire.

DeChristopher has used his public presence as a platform to spread the message of urgency of the climate crisis along with the need for courageous, directly confrontational civil disobedience. His work is aimed at creating a just and healthy world by halting fossil fuel projects, and continuing to bring attention to the crisis that is upon us.

Truthout recently spoke with DeChristopher about the imperativeness of "moral agency," the difference between the environmental and climate justice movements, and the importance of spiritual resiliency in the face of the prospect of a collapsing civilization.

INTERVIEW BY DAHR JAMAIL

Truthout: Talk about the importance of what you've referred to as "moral agency." We are living in a time when the government is clearly on the side of corporate power, and talking more specifically about climate disruption, government is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. For people who are concerned about the planet, and worried about how far along we already are regarding climate disruption, acting from a place of moral agency is going to put them in a position, eventually, where they are squarely confronting the government (local, state, federal). From your experience, and your understanding of the system, why is it more important than ever for people to act from that place of moral agency?

Tim DeChristopher: Folks in positions of power in the government are not adequately addressing the climate crisis. Those of us outside that structure, if we're to address it with integrity and moral agency, we have to confront those in power.

Even [from] those in government [who are] closer to taking action, all we're hearing from them is mild rhetoric and small steps we needed to have taken about 20 years ago.

So they are certainly not up to speed to where we need to be right now, so the task of acting with the sense of urgency necessary is up to ordinary citizens. By and large, the government is still beholden to those corporations beholden to the status quo, which is not something that will provide us with a livable future.

Truthout:"The law is a tool of those in power," you said during an interview on Bill Moyers' program. Talk more about that, from the perspective of the dovetailing of government and the fossil fuel industry.

Tim DeChristopher: Look at what is happening in North Dakota today and over the last few months. This is what it looks like for a government to be acting like a private security force for the fossil fuel industry. Using military force to prevent the Indigenous folks in Standing Rock, and their allies, from standing in the way of a pipeline project.

And when folks do take a stand to shut down all five tar sands pipelines, they are met with a draconian response from the government that is acting on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

So folks taking one of the boldest steps so far by actively shutting down the pipelines -- they are met with the harshest criminal charges that any climate activist in the US has ever faced for taking a nonviolent direct action.

They are facing up to 80 years in prison, and that is something we've not seen before in this movement. That puts us in a new era of our government acting on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, while activists are acting on behalf of future generations.

Truthout: Given that we are living in a world whose resources are now going to continue to be increasingly restricted and constricted and shrunken by climate disruption, do you think western civilization, as it exists today, will continue? If not, what might it look like in, say, 25 years?

Tim DeChristopher: In terms of this globalist, capitalist, Western-dominated world, I don't see that lasting. It's obvious that this system is mortal. That in and of itself is an idea people like to deny: that this system has always been mortal, but that we're now at a point where we're reaching the final stand of that civilization and that collapse is now pretty imminent.

There is still a huge degree of uncertainty around what that collapse looks like, and it's clear you can't keep living in a world that continues to increase material consumption year after year.

So, we have to be on a fundamentally different path, and there are positive steps in controlling that process of collapse and steering us towards a collapse that still holds onto our humanity and shared values.

We have communities working towards social justice and towards a common good, as opposed to individual greed. Neither of those is inevitable now and activism is so critical on direct climate issues, but also towards the social justice issues that will determine if we turn against each other through fear and greed, or with cooperation, love and mutual support.

Truthout: You're not a fan of the idea that we should work towards the greening of corporate power. You are not hoping to pressure a company like Walmart to become more eco-conscious; rather, you have spoken about having a Walmart that is "subservient to human interests." What would that look like?

Tim DeChristopher: This week's action of the five that shut down the tar sands pipelines is a great example of that. They are not under the illusion that they'll get a company, whose fundamental business model is to destroy our planet, to be on our side.

They [activists] are immediately hurting the bottom lines of those companies that put their product, directly and indirectly, through those pipelines. The activists are putting the government on a line where they have to choose between those companies and the common good of the people.

The immediate aftermath of those actions is the government choosing to stay on the side of industry. But we have seen times when that can't really hold and the government has to back down. And a big part of that is public attention and pressure on the issue. This is why how we support other activists when they are taking bold action is critical.

It remains to be seen if the government continues to follow through all the way and locks the activists up for decades, as they are threatening, or whether the public outcry over that is so great that the government cannot jail them for the decades they are threatening to and still hold onto their power.

This is why those who support the front-line activists and the media telling their story are critical, not only to protect those activists but in terms of the broader goal of shifting the balance of power in our society.

Truthout: What would an appropriate response from the federal government towards the climate crisis look like? 

Tim DeChristopher: Many of the plans that have been on the table since before President Obama even took office have addressed this. There were organizations, as well as individuals providing lists, like an economic policy that included a carbon tax, changes in our agricultural system to shift subsidies away from industrial agriculture to food that is actually healthy for people and the planet, to steps that revolutionize our transportation system and invest in public transportation in both urban and rural areas to get us away from our car culture.

All those plans have been on the table for quite some time.

But the only stances the government takes are consistently consumer- and demand-oriented. We've never seen the government stand up to the fossil fuel industry.

Not just the government, but the executive office of the presidency itself has control over fossil fuel leases on public lands, so Obama could keep those fossil fuels in the ground, and that's just a bare minimum to address the climate crisis to meet the Paris agreements.

But unfortunately, we've seen the opposite during the Obama presidency ... the opening of the Powder River Basin to new coal development, an amount of coal that alone vastly outweighs the consumer measures he's taken. He's also opened huge new areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast to new drilling.

Truthout: What is the difference between the climate justice movement, and the environmental movement? 

Tim DeChristopher: Largely it's a matter of opinion. But the environmental movement has been fading out over the last 15 to 20 years and is now pretty marginal.

The environmental movement, what's left of it today, addresses largely localized issues -- issues of land protection and toxic pollution, for example -- whereas the climate justice movement is taking a larger, more holistic view of global problems, and while it addresses those on local levels along with the human impact of these issues, it looks at the bigger picture of how all of these things are connected.

A lot of the tools we use to fight climate justice battles, like the Endangered Species Act, are still used to defend areas and stop fossil fuel projects, but they [are] ultimately too narrow in scope to address the climate crisis.

Truthout: What are the strengths of the climate justice movement?

Tim DeChristopher: It is [a] holistic view, and this extends beyond environmental issues to where those are connected to all of the social justice issues.

The climate justice movement has helped build working relationships with organizations and movements that are addressing immigrant and labor and LGBT rights, and [it is] not only building allies and relationships, but addressing how all of these issues are fundamentally interconnected.

We are helping our allies with each of their battles while viewing it through the lens of climate change. There's been a tremendous amount of progress on that, but there is a lot of baggage to overcome through the roots of the environmental movement, which was a mostly white, upper middle class movement.

Truthout: Weaknesses?

Tim DeChristopher: There is a lot of progress to be made. The biggest weakness is the tendency towards self-righteousness. We've moved beyond where the environmental movement used to be, and now see how interconnected all the various movements are.

But there is a tendency to shame and call out those who are one step behind us and congratulate ourselves, and there's not much room for growth and progress when this happens.

Truthout: What does a strong, vibrant, heavily populated, powerful, and most importantly, effective climate justice movement look like?

Tim DeChristopher: It is constantly developing and changing, like the crisis itself. We're learning more and more about the threats and the ways in which our opponents are trying to maintain the status quo, yet we need to be constantly innovating and challenging our old assumptions and constantly exploring new territory.

This recent tar sands shutdown is new territory for our movement, and [for] the activists who entered into this bold unknown territory of higher risk and more confrontation by targeting this essential infrastructure.

All these new steps forward need to be supported and encouraged, even the ones that don't work out.
We need to see more of these actions that take us into new territories, and an increase and expansion of these types of actions.

But there is also a need for an increase and expansion of a lot of the other actions in the movement. We've seen some real steps towards electoral involvement, like via the Bernie Sanders movement. This needs to be expanded as well.

And things like building community solar needs to be ramped up, for example.  It's not that everybody needs to be doing just one of these, but all of these at the same time, as a movement, and we need to be putting more resources into all of these efforts.

Truthout: Are you seeing a movement of climate activists that is approaching critical mass?

Tim DeChristopher: I don't know. Where would that critical mass be? I wonder. It's hard to judge exactly where that tipping point is. We could be close to it, and a few more people in the movement could get us there, but we're in unprecedented territory now. It's hard to say where that tipping point is going to be. We just know need more people acting more boldly and taking more initiative and being more creative.

Truthout: Are you optimistic about climate activism in the US?

Tim DeChristopher: I wouldn't say that I'm optimistic. We've gotten a lot deeper in our movement in the past few years alone. Not only in terms of a deeper understanding of justice and an intersectional analysis, but a deeper spiritual understanding within the movement as well.

A lot more people are recognizing the need to be spiritually grounded when we do this work.

More and more folks understand that it is now too late to stop the climate crisis, and we are headed towards some sort of collapse. We need to be able to handle that in a way we never have before. We need a spiritual resiliency and a different foundation for meaning than we've had before.

We've found more people willing to have that conversation and explore that territory. That holds a lot of promise -- not that things are going to be okay and we're going to overcome our social evils and have a green utopia forever, but that we are going to be able to continue the struggle.

We still have all the way to go. The struggle will always be with us, all the interconnected struggles against our social ills, and we're not going to solve racism and patriarchy and classism, but we can learn and grow and make positive steps forward, while knowing that we will always have more steps to take.


.

Oahu in energy self delusion

SUBHEAD: But one underground nuclear reactor at Schofield Barracks could power the entire island.

By Juan Wilson on 23 October 2016 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2016/10/oahu-in-energy-self-delusion.html)


Image above: Lego nuclear power plant workers photo illustration from 2008 article advocating mini-nuclear reactors be built over the next five years (by 2015). As if! From (https://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/09/mini-nuclear-power-plants-for-your-neighborhood-in-five-years/).

We follow Henry Curtis' blog Ililani Media. A recent article asked whether a nuclear power generation plant on Oahu would be a good idea. See (http://www.ililani.media/2016/10/would-nuclear-power-be-good-for-oahu.html). The article opens with.

A comment received for a recently blog post dealt with nuclear power.

“One small modular, nuclear reactor (same as reactors in Navy ships at Pearl Harbor) in an underground facility on Schofield Barracks could power the entire island without the need for inter-island cables.”

While the comment is easy for many to dismiss, it raises questions about the AES coal plant in Campbell Industrial Park that are worth exploring.

Legislative bills have been introduced at the State Legislature to get pass the Constitutional nuclear power hurdle, but they not have come close to passing.

Article XI, Section 8 of the Hawai`i State Constitution states, “No nuclear fission power plant would be constructed or radioactive material disposed of in the state without the prior approval by two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature.”

The article demonstrates many of the problems associated with such an endeavor but does not breach the subject of learning to live without the dependence we have on fossil fuels or exploring a life on Oahu using less energy.

I commented on the article with this:

Nuclear power is literally a dead end. Fukushima is the poster child for the end of that technology. Japan will continue the intensification of radioactive poisoning of the Pacific Ocean for millennia.

Hawaii is and will be further damaged as a result.

There is no sustainable way to keep Oahu in the power it is accustomed to. Discretionary use of fossil fuels use for consumers is closing out over the next few decades as more important industrial use will have  higher priority

There are no substitutes for fossil fuels. Even large scale wind farms are unlikely to be much of an alternative (see http://nawindpower.com/siemens-turbine-fails-at-sempras-auwahi-wind-complex and http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/6350/Broken-promises-The-rusting-wind-turbines-of-Hawaii.aspx).

Solar power is the real alternative, but it will provide only a fraction of what we use today. Storage and distribution are big limitations - but life can go on.

Here on Kauai my wife and I cut of ties to KIUC (including them taking the meter and cutting their cable) and are heading into our second winter with nothing but solar and battery storage. Over several years installed over time seven small systems to take on specific (and partially overlapping) functions. Our largest system just barely takes care of our refrigerator and freezer.

We have only modest retirement incomes so it consequently took us almost 8 years for us to afford the system. About forty batteries and 40 panels are involved. Most of the batteries are deep cycle marine batteries from Walmart. We think we will be ale to replace them over time as long as they are available.

If we live long enough the panels will fail likely from either water corrosion or flying debris. As our power capability diminished over time we hope that we'll be accustomed to lower energy consumption end eventually live on rural Kauai like the Hawaiians did in the past.

Oahu is unsustainable. It's population will likely have to partially re-emigrate back to the Mainland and be distributed partially to Hawaii's outer islands. A rough estimate would be about doubling of population in Kauai, Maui and Hawaii counties.

It will be tight but with concentrated effort to provide food and water we may get through the upcoming bottleneck of economic failure and climate catastrophe with some kind future to look forward to. 

It is critical no to move quickly and embrace a lower level of power consumption. It won't be comfy and it won't be suburban but it can be livable.

Having visited Oahu recently for a few weeks I must conclude that people there, for the most part, are living in an shiny bubble of media reinforcement that denies reality. And that's how they like it. Nuff said.




.