What happened?

 I’d like to blame it on the pandemic, and for the most part I will, but I look back to my last blog entry (2019!), and it’s clear that something stopped me in my tracks a few months before the Pandemic took shape. But at this point, I don’t pretend to remember exactly what happened. I only know that I’m glad to be back.

There are lots of things on my mind these days, and without digressing too much, I just want to go over some of the things I expect to write about in the next weeks ahead.

It snowed in Montreal today. I rode my newly refurbished winter bike home from work with great enthusiasm, and look forward to the three and a half months ahead of winter cycling. This is the foundational theme of kyotomotors, in the sense that it is the only real way in which I know I can actively not contribute to the problem of spewing GHG into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Is my carbon footprint where it should be? Probably not. Some impacts are beyond individual control. We do what we can… but interestingly enough, my last post before my hiatus was on this very subject, and you might like to check that out here. It seems just as relevant today as it was when I wrote it three years ago.

Apart from the theme of biking, which I know is not for everyone, I am inevitably going to want to talk about recent news related to energy and money, and the future. Is there a reason why the headlines don’t read “ENERGY CRISIS LOOMING”? Well, the answer is probably “yes,” but it’s not because there’s not an energy crisis looming. Instead, we get breaking, er, “news” about the promising breakthrough in fusion technology. So, I’m planning on rambling on a bit about propaganda in the weeks ahead… Wait for it!

As an artist, I have also been watching the financialization of the “industry” of art over the years: a high-stakes, hijinks/ hijacking of an otherwise introspective, solemn often solitary endeavour; but when you’re a civilisation high on fossil fuels, everybody is jumping on the bandwagon of creativity, not to mention the museums, collectors/investors and mega-galleries. Nero ain’t got nothin’ on this! But that’s an aside, really. Like everything nowadays, the art world is simply wrapped up in the maelstrom that is the perpetual growth paradigm, which is to say, as we consume the planet at breakneck speed, many our would-be “best achievements” become distorted and grotesque, as does our celebration of them.

So, any enthusiastic discussion of art in this forum will be dampened, as a deliberate antidote to the hype. One rule of thumb I go by, is that, if it requires hype from the get-go, it probably hasn’t go legs to stand on. Block-buster Museum shows and “immersive” exhibitions that re-frame historic works for the world of attention deficit disorder consumers, will not get a hall pass in these corridors. But I do wish to wax enthusiastically about art here, don’t get me wrong. I’ve touched on the idea of “the work of art in the age of the combustion engine” in the past. There is much more terrain to explore in this thematic realm, and I will do my best to try and broach topics not typically talked about in the art world.

Ah, promises, promises…

Kyotomotors!  Where, and how did it all start? And who really cares? I thought rather naively, back then, that we would collectively tackle the challenges of global warming much better than we have. I now think we have created a dark age ahead that is unavoidable. I would like to think the themes of biking through to the future; deconstructing the lies we tell ourselves about that future; and that of genuine artistic endeavours, will lead to helpful discussions about how to deal with the post-modern stress disorder that most of us suffer from in one form or another. I certainly think embracing these themes will provide plenty of material for discussion in the months ahead. I hope this time I have the energy for the long haul!

 

Year-round Cycling

With a rather sudden, fairly thick blanket of snow on the ground in the second week of November, it may seem like an unlikely time to discuss the wherefore and the how-to of bicycling, but in fact winter biking may be the best place to start. After all, if fighting the status quo that facilitates copious carbon emissions is at the crux of the climate debate, then challenging well worn habits and assumptions is certainly one very good way to proceed. If my experience of bicycling year-round for several years is any indication, by and large, people have a whole host of assumptions about biking in the winter that are downright inaccurate. I suspect the reactions I hear, more often than not, have more to do with fearing that a car-oriented norm is under attack by anything half as crazy as riding on two wheels in the worst elements that mother nature has to throw at us.

Full disclosure: I actually do happen to consider that the crazy ones are those of us who hop into four-thousand-pound box of steel and plastic on wheels each and every day to move their own bodies around. To my mind, these people are at least eligible for some sound ribbing, if not an outright diagnosis of clinical insanity, or perhaps a healthy dose of shaming, but let me not digress…. Suffice it to say that for me, moving under my own steam seems so obviously normal.

Before going any further, I should also say that cars have their place, and that cycling (let alone winter biking) is not for everyone. But I will add that it really is far and away very appropriate for a huge number of us who currently do not take up the practice. My favourite definition of a motorist is “a future cyclist, who just doesn’t know it yet”.

It’s a common trope to suggest that a “war-like effort” is required to reduce CO2 emissions in a meaningful way so as to combat climate change collectively. While I wonder if most people who make this assertion understand the implications of that suggestion, I would like to suggest that recruiting an army of volunteer cyclists from the pool of everyday citizenry is one of the easiest ways to improve the quality of life of the urban environment. And while many objections are made about the construction cost of retrofitting infrastructure to accommodate bicycle traffic, in the big picture, making room for bikes is far more inherently cost effective; it’s far less onerous than building bridges, rapid transit rails, metro tunnels, electrification networks (all things that, yes we should be doing as well) … After all, the lowly bicycle is a hundred and forty year old, proven technology, relying on little maintenance when compared to almost any other mode of transport.

  

So while the commonly accepted industry-driven mantra is to wait for self-driving electric cars to come along and “improve” our lives, it’s by no means clear that this agenda actually has anything to do with fighting climate change with anything other than lip-service.

With that in mind, I challenge any and all able-bodied urban citizen to consider bicycling as their primary transport option. In some cities this call to arms would be drowned out by the sound of engines humming and tires rolling; in others, it may almost seem like preaching to the choir. Either way, there’s no harm in repeating the message. The sooner our numbers can double, and double again the better. Every bike is one less combustion engine.

If like me, you’re faced with snow in the streets, maybe now is the time to leap into the adventure of winter biking. If so, do so with the best equipment and accessories you can afford – ice can be very unforgiving!

Kyotomotors Revisited

You may never have thought to ask “what is a kyoto-motor?” since it clearly isn’t really a “thing”, but that is exactly the question I aim to answer with this blog over time. If a “kyoto-motor” is not an invention in the technological sense, I like to think it represents a contribution to the re-invention of how we think about energy. I hope to demonstrate that a “kyoto-motor” is any method, tool or practice that puts this way of thinking to use.

The original impetus for kyotomotors was satire: what started as a parody of the automotive industry’s use of marketing to maintain the trance of those caught up in the lauded “love affair with the car”, has since evolved (okay, devolved) into this marginal commentary on the problematic nature of the collective dependence on fossil fuels. What I have come to understand is multi-layered: that the dependence is utterly total and totally encompassing, cannot be overstated; whether we like it or not (and it’s best not to like it too much – or at all, if possible), fossil fuels have made everyday life what it is today, including the obvious advantages and advances, but also a great many of the challenges of the times – including the issue of the age known as climate change. So, while it’s easy to appreciate fossil fuel’s place, role and value is extremely important to put it in the context of its negative impacts – of which there are many.

With this in mind, it’s sure that many of us level-headed, well-meaning people would expect action and change from governments and business alike, and are motivated to effect, and otherwise inspire such change. The most common manifestation of this has been through the United Nations, the scientific community, and from a full spectrum of activists ranging from anarchistic to corporate “green”. For more than 20 years, this tail has tried to wag the dog of global industrial civilisation with a sadly minimal degree of success, when measured against annual global emissions and consumption of fossil fuels, which continues to rise: Looking ahead to 2020, we as a planetary species, are set to burn through another 35 billion (that’s like million with a “b”) barrels of oil – not to mention coal, and natural gas and the many other industrial sources of GHGs such as livestock.

So, while the political pressure coming from this line of attack is important and necessary, it is not wholly effective when left alone to fight this colossal battle against the inertia of the global industrial project. As another line of attack, I’d like to suggest that a “kyotomotors culture” could play a significant role in eroding the foundations of that project, and could allow for a sea-change that will make it culturally acceptable to not burn fossil fuels at every turn. This is the approach that is sadly missing in a world where activists vote for the ruling party, and hop onto inter-continental flights several times a year, and otherwise consume above their weight. As an alternative, a kyotomotors approach is one that leads by example – assuming that, no matter how modest, example is the stuff of leadership, and is potentially more effective than what has passed for action until now.

In the upcoming posts, I will explore the most appropriate technologies that have the greatest potential for reducing one’s carbon footprint, starting with the most obvious of the “kyoto-motors” – my personal favourite, the bicycle.

More or Less cynical?

Having a look at the recent election numbers from another point of view, I thought I’d try a “glass half full” interpretation of our current situation. With 33% of the popular vote going to the Liberals, and another 31% going against the Conservative camp, we have almost a two thirds majority of support for at least, er, lip-service. Donning my less-cynical hat, I suppose I’ll agree that it's a step in the right direction...

The devil-in-the-details would be the expectations behind the numbers. What hopes are pinned to the Liberal plan, if not having our collective cake and eating it too? And what fantasies are projected via GND but promises of a grandiose and sweeping technological shift toward perfect balance in short order? As fantasies these narratives may keep us going psychologically, but at the end of the day, if you eat your cake, you no longer have it to behold. If we don’t vote for a GND, there’s no knowing what even a mere attempt at that kind of shift will look like.

If only someone could answer what the actual future is likely to have in store for us…

Clearly a “Green New Deal” or equivalent, is not on the books since that’s not in the Liberal’s platform. Clearly also, an approach to maintain national unity will trump all sorts of other ideals, leading to compromises that will leave regions in various states of disgruntlement, and environmentalists especially, fuming on the back-burner. If the minority government lasts four years, my call is that Canadians will continue to lead the world in carbon emissions per-capita – if not surpassed by the Americans south of the border who will also be too busy with unity politics to care very much about their emissions. Besides, they’ll be deep into the last hurrah of fracking for oil and gas – itself a huge source of carbon emissions. Will the American people turn their backs on both Trump and the Dems to vote Green? My guess is not a chance.

So, there are my predictions based on our recent (predictable) election results, and projecting similar (if not worse) results in the 2020 US elections. Will the green activist camp continue growing over that time? Let’s hope so. But the next big push may not come until after another four years of status quo, when the campaigning ramps up again.

The only other course of action remains the one area where each of us has the most control over our share of CO₂ emissions, and that’s our own lifestyles. Changes on this front may not affect the lion’s share of emissions, but it may be all that actually gets done…

Green Inaction

There you have it, people: Canada has voted, and after the urgency of climate change seemed to have captured the imagination of a nation, we have settled instead for the party of lip service. Lumping together the one third of voters apparently happy with the Liberals with another third supporting the Conservatives, brings us a total of 67.5% of the population who voted for the status quo or worse. But what do you expect from Canadians? We are, after all, the world leaders in per-capita carbon emissions. Surely with that status come a whole host of bad habits, and bad habits are usually the hardest to give up.

Our collective stance on the Climate Change issue can be summed up by the photo-op that the prime minister went after when Greta Thunberg was in Montreal. Some more shrewd observers pointed out that it amounted to the leadership of the nation protesting against itself. Indeed, the whole problem of the success of the movement is that it is not a counter-culture. Much to the contrary, the movement is such a mainstream, even corporate phenomenon, that it is perfectly natural for the leader of the country with the worst per capita emissions on record, to rub shoulders with the poster child for the “revolution”.

Thunberg may deliver a good speech, with biting criticism, but if that discourse is co-opted by leaders she would otherwise be attacking, the whole ritual of protest becomes something of a charade. It then becomes merely a mechanism by which politicians leverage power. It’s an effective device for a populace that wants to hear promises that can never be kept. The election results confirm this; or worse still: maybe people really just don’t care as much as they pretend to with their forays into “climate activism”.

For the record, I think the most effective, meaningful action would come first in the form of imposed limits on extravagance – definition of which to be discussed, but not all that hard to imagine: the wealthiest can stand to sacrifice the most without feeling anything like the pinch that already has a hold on the struggling masses around the world. Instead, what we’ll be treated to is more likely to be forms of austerity affecting the lower-middle and working classes, or worse: hand-waving, scapegoating, foot-dragging and more lip-service.

Luckily – outside of the official, political sphere, there is, and always has been a directly effective way to reduce carbon emissions, and that is on an entirely personal level, to not burn fossil fuels; to avoid doing so as much as possible, and to think twice about alternatives whenever you do… It may not seem like the answer that will save the world because it’s not, and it won’t – at least not on a dime. But this is how new habits are formed. Habits of thought are especially useful if they translate into habits of action – or if you will, habits of inaction. After all, if the carbon we release into the atmosphere is a by-product of economic activity (consumerism) we might simply need to dial some of that back. Maybe it’s a question of not booking that next flight, or of not upgrading that flat-screen TV, or simply not turning the key in that ignition. Ask yourself what else could be done instead? That’s when new habits may just emerge.

If there is a real sea-change afoot, it’s going to be a question of will, and of good will: a cultural transformation that sheds outdated habits of thought and embraces new measures of success. A combination of leading by example, making do, and doing what you can.

It’s like Miles Davis said to John Coltrane:

"Try taking the fucking horn out of your mouth."

Did Somebody Say "De-growth"?

Surprisingly, though somewhat under the radar, the issue of something called “de-growth” came up during Canada’s recent English language debate, where a citizen asked about it in the context of ecological strain due to climate change – suggesting, I think, quite rightly, that it was an appropriate response to the problem. Unsurprisingly, even Elisabeth May’s response was all about economic “transition” intended to steer well clear of anything like economic contraction, and unlike the sound of “de-growth” hers is a palatable proposition. In other words, she’s careful to say what people want to hear.

If sacrifice is the taboo for the individual consumer in the age of abundance, “de-growth” is its equivalent in the economic and financial spheres of contemporary life. Any politician knows that to conjure either one in today’s culture of perpetual progress, is tantamount to career suicide. It’s as though growth is equated with all things good, and its opposite is therefore evil. It’s taken as a given. Non-negotiable.

The only problem is that perpetual growth on a finite planet is a physical impossibility, and this inconvenient truth is at the heart of our ineffectual responses to climate change, from Al Gore to the Paris Agreement, and (dare I say) to Greta Thunberg.

Anyone familiar with the basics of the Climate Change movement/debate, has heard about emissions targets, usually expressed in terms of percentages below annual output of a given year (1990 or 2005 are common). Our current aim is for what is referred to as the “Paris targets”, but they cannot be defined succinctly, because they will be decided upon differently by each participating country – which is fair, but it’s also a great way to ensure many players will drag their feet.

Summit after summit (we’re up to “COP25” now) we have moved the goalposts in this game of climate action, dragged our feet in ratifying, and have simply failed to meet targets. Before Paris we spoke of Copenhagen, and Cancun; before that of Rio, and originally of Kyoto – we are a quarter of a century into Climate action, and by and large the mechanisms for implementation and enforcement have been largely toothless, given that overall emissions globally have gone up year after year.

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-world-way-off-track-on-paris-accord-goals/a-41173220

The underlying reason for that is not too difficult to explain, and it speaks to the allergy to sacrifice I’ve alluding to in recent posts. But I think it’s helpful to look at the roots of the matter from a slightly different angle, which speaks to our economic model for prosperity, and our allergy to “de-growth”, or contraction.

In our current system of creating wealth through industrial production, energy has always been the key ingredient: coal, oil, and gas leading the way. Returns on investment have always been underpinned by these historically negligible costs that bear enormous returns in terms of the ability to do work. The net effect is that growth is by definition coupled to CO2 emissions. If we start talking about cutting emissions, we are by definition speaking of cutting energy use, and therefore of bringing the notion of “de-growth” into the conversation. But in true “have our cake and eat it too” form, we have tried to insist that growth remains on the table. So long as it does, the question of climate change will remain a predicament, from which there is no real escape, and not a problem that can be solved via practicable measures.

Now of course, the extent to which some renewable sources of electricity can alter this equation is definitely part of the more sane approaches to the challenges of the near future. But having unreal expectations of growth sustained by “renewables” is not helpful. Folding de-growth into the recipe offers a whole new area in which gains can be made.

I don’t know if people can get their heads around what de-growth actually means. I’m not even sure I know what that would look like globally in twenty to fifty years. It certainly should not simply be a matter of have-nots of the world going with even less access to the amenities of modern life – although that certainly is the risk, given our track record of concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. By opting for a de-growth path, we would be entering into uncharted territory, but then again, by wading into the deep waters of climate change, we are already doing that. We may now have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Either way, one of the best things to do now, is to embrace a low carbon lifestyle and be prepared for new ways of thinking about energy. It’s a theme I aim to explore further here at Kyotomotors.

Why on Earth Sacrifice?

As alluded to previously, the tendency of ours to accept lip-service on climate change (or its more robust cousin, the collective fantasy of a utopic green state) has roots in our collective allergy to sacrifice. Sacrifice is what previous generations did. Grandparents who survived the Great Depression, did so at great cost to themselves. Immigrants worked like hell so their kids and grand-kids could have it good. During WWII, sacrifice was the order of the day in so many respects – a great many made the “ultimate sacrifice”. But since then, sacrifice has been shunned from the dominant narrative of progress that we have enjoyed in the West.

You could argue this was done in good faith, and with good reason, to the extent that we didn’t know any better. The sheer abundance achieved by post-war industrial production is astounding to be sure. [So much more so it would have been, had humans worked a little harder at spreading the wealth about more equitably – but that’s another discussion.] However, as loud as the warning bells are today, they only echo early warnings that go back almost fifty years, when the alternative economic scene was pointing out that there are necessarily limits to industrial growth on a finite planet. The main limit coming into play these days is that of the biosphere’s ability to absorb the waste we spew into the air as though it were an open sewer. And while the health of our oceans is failing – signalling an unacceptable level of saturation, it is the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere that is proving to be the primary limiting factor moving forward.

Forty years ago environmentalism enjoyed its first heyday, but instead of pushing for a transition to a nascent alternative energy economy (while we still had lots of time and plenty of fossil fuels to build the necessary infrastructure), we doubled down on the oil and gas project – despite (or because of) new supply issues that emerged after the United States’ continental supply of conventional crude peaked in the early seventies. The results? Reaganomics opened up the Alaskan wilderness to oil production, the Thatcherites approved North Sea operations, and we in the West were able to pretend there were no limits for another two decades. Gradually this cheap oil culture spawned the infamous SUVs of the nineties and early 2000s. “Global Warming” was only just gaining traction in the collective consciousness.

More recently, “peak oil” (for a time, at least) came into common parlance as well. In the early 2000s it became apparent to anyone paying attention (including the Pentagon, btw) that the cheap and easy conventional oil supply was starting to wane world wide. Prices climbed and even spiked, and although few people in the political sphere broached the subject of peak oil (never mind the MSM), the economics of peak oil allowed for new, more expensive oil production to come on line. This is why Canada’s tar sands can now pretend to make economic sense, and similarly, south of the border, it’s the reason that the US has been able to double-down once again and frack their way forward: shale oil production in the last seven years has literally doubled their otherwise dwindling output, even breaking new records in annual output. Some critics try to claim this disproves the “peak oil” forecast, but in fact it only confirms it: “peak oil theory” was only ever about conventional oil – besides, new forecasts for fracked oil are not immune to the simple premise that ultimately, finite supplies of any oil will always peak and deplete – but that too is another story.

From a Climate change perspective, the additional supply of some 8 million barrels of fracked oil per day is a disaster – especially when you consider the fracking process releases copious amounts of methane directly into the atmosphere. Similarly, the tar sands operations contribute enormously to Canadians’ world leading GHG per-capita emissions. So, while “running out” of conventional oil might have seemed to promise a reduction in pollution, it turns out that we have plenty of the even dirtier stuff to tear through before supply becomes an issue. So now it becomes a matter of will. Can we choose to not burn it? To leave it in the ground…

Maybe that’s too much sacrifice for most?

On the other hand, if the huge numbers of protesters we’ve seen in the streets across the country (and around the world) represent a truly determined population of environmentally motivated activists, then perhaps we can start talking about sacrifice.

I contend that the results of this next federal election here in Canada will be a good indicator as to just how sincere, and how deep the current environmental movement actually is. Only if a majority of Canadians turn their back on the two front-runners, can we start to take ourselves seriously as a country that wants to make an ecological difference and lead by example. Any other choice means we are asking to have our cake and eat it too.

Green New Deals

If you’re a Canadian, and you’ve been satisfied with the Liberal and Conservative governments’ records on Climate Change since the Kyoto Protocol marked the beginning of the present era in 1997, you’d probably be happy to vote for one or the other party again, because it’s pretty much guaranteed you’ll get more of the same: toothless policy, broken promises, mere lip-service and outright lies. If you’re not satisfied with more of the same-old, same-old, you’re maybe looking for someone else to vote for – if you’re not completely fed up with the whole system by now, and have dropped out of the simulacrum-democracy we maintain…

But I will presume that you are one of the millions who appear to be answering the latest rallying cries we are hearing from the likes of Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the international stage, or, here at home, party leaders such as Elizabeth May or Jagmeet Singh – to name but a few. There does seem to be a growing consensus that a) the need for action is urgent, and a burgeoning belief that b) real changes are afoot. As someone who is on the record for having come to this first conclusion more than twelve years ago, I feel the need to express some skepticism about the second assertion – despite my own hopes and wishes. Twelve years ago, as I mentioned last week, there was a similar groundswell of protest against inaction regarding the very same crisis.

Here are some of my observations of that bandwagon of yore, and the trends that emerged since:

•           People who insist that government regulate the problem away, saying that corporations and big industry have to be brought into line, often use this as an excuse to wait, and in the meantime take very action themselves
•           People who do make and have made changes and sacrifices, see what little effect their example has on the greater community, and become discouraged, and/or cynical – sometimes ceasing to practice what they preach.
•           Corporations use economic bribery to persuade people and governments to back down on their insistence for change.
•           Activists and scientists have become very good at analysing the problems, criss-crossing the globe to conferences and summits, making declarations and recommendations, targets etc.; Having become experts at studying and recommending, this sub-class of bureaucrats cease to be activists.
•           Politicians master lip-service, pass toothless laws and fail to meet targets – as mentioned at the outset.
•           Gains made with moderate, well-intentioned attempts to increase alt-energy output have barely kept pace with global increases in energy consumption, putting no dent into fossil fuel numbers. In fact, overall emissions keep going up.
•           Humans burn 90 million barrels of oil a day, about a quarter of which is consumed by 5% of the (affluent) population – which includes Canada

How do we ensure we don’t fall into the same patterns moving forward?

One favourite response is what has been presented as the “Green New Deal” which, in its American form, is both sweeping and progressive, and is verging on utopic: it promises to achieve a zero-carbon economy within ten years, and in doing so, provide social justice all around. Who can say no to that? (yes, some people will say no to that, but no, were not going to go there just now).

“…to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;  (B) to create millions of good, high-wage  jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; (C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century; (D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment; and (E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’); (2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’)…”

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf

Again, I have been arguing for urgent, even drastic, sweeping measures for these past twelve years, and so, I do agree that a Green New Deal of policies is very attractive, but I have to object to the fantasies that are used to sell the program. Doesn’t a simple ten years that will usher in an ideal world not sound a little too good to be true?

Apart from wondering how a “GND” might avoid the pitfalls listed above, there are some serious questions to be asked regarding the plans’ feasibility, in energy terms. Or, as is cogently observed by Andrew Nikiforuk https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-08-28/the-green-new-deal-battles-business-as-usual-both-will-doom-us/ , the GND proponents (just like the delusional business-as-usual camp) may well be “energy-illiterate”. He makes the argument that any plan that aims to run the current, accepted “happy-motoring” techno-society on strictly green energy is dreaming wildly. I would add that it’s because we have a simple “have the cake and eat it too” mentality when it comes to our energy-intensive, consumptive lifestyle. We want to believe that all our current habits and privileges can continue unchanged on the renewable energy plan. Politics being what it is, that’s the only way we tend to sell it.

The fight against Climate change has always been faced with a conundrum: It is an abundance issue, and as we all do enjoy abundance – even if it is shared in a pathetically unequal manner – our problem at hand (CO₂) is in a sense, just another aspect of exactly what we cherish and strive for. Therefore, the fight has always required some measure of sacrifice, yet sacrifice hasn’t been part of our vocabulary in the climate discussion. Probably due to the traumas of the early 20 Century, we have become allergic to the notion of sacrifice, but until we embrace it, we may only ever get lip-service on climate change …and rising temperatures.

From Gore to Greta

A lot can happen in the world of climate change activism in the span of 12 years. I remember 2007 as the year when Al Gore was making the rounds and public awareness of the issues was seemingly at a peak. Soon after, Bush the Second, the Texan in the White house, was replaced by that beacon of hope, Barack Obama, and progressive politics were afoot – except that a bunch of shit had just hit the fan. Climate change took a back seat in the years that followed the housing crisis and the financial meltdown of 2008. To be fair, during those years, at least we were treated to progressive lip-service on the matter: Climate summits were held in various cosmopolitan centres every few years, where toothless laws and soft targets were the order of the day. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the fracking industry slowly gathered steam in attempt to mitigate the annoying effects of Peak Oil, which nobody really wanted to talk about out in the open. Later, on the political front, the Democrats succeeded in losing spectacularly – and, even if we can’t agree on why Donald Trump came out on top, we all know that there's a big ol' climate change denier the one in the White House at the moment. And so, yeah, a lot can happen in twelve years; a whole lot of inaction on climate change has taken place in that time. And carbon emissions have kept going up every year.

Now, the poster child of the cause is a teenager from Sweden. At first glance, Greta Thunberg is no Al Gore, and that’s why you might see her as a breath of fresh air. Gore, after all, was not exactly an exemplary environmentalist who would lead by example. His jet-setting motorcade kind of set him apart on that count. Thunberg is a little more “practice what you preach” in her approach, which is sorely lacking in the privileged circles of most environmentalist leaders. However, if you scratch the surface of this media-darling's public image, as some critics have, she has perhaps already been co-opted by the ultra-rich elite who (like Gore) often have a “do as I say, not as I do” approach to the cause.  It remains to be seen if she can set herself apart from the hypocrites who have otherwise taken over climate activism. If she does, will the media do its best to drop her? Ultimately, since we are still operating in the context of democracy, the most important question is whether there is a truly new wave of young protesters ready to rise up and demand real change? Or will her message be massaged free of meaning by a cynical media who still write the propaganda-du-jour for the establishment?

Clearly, for now at least, the masses are mobilising, and large numbers of protesters are convening once again – and for good reason: so much more really ought to be done to soften the blow of climate change in the immediate future, not to mention the next hundred years. But what isn’t clear is with what expectations does Greta lead the charge? And with what expectations to the masses convene?

It’s an important question, because anger, if blind, can be easily duped. Which is why next week I’ll be discussing “Green New Deals”.

Promises, Promises… and (dis-)Ability?

[or Money and Energy]

As noted in my previous post, Science has long defined energy as “the ability to do useful work”. Defining money, on the other hand is not necessarily as easily agreed upon, so what follows in this overdue entry at Kyotomotors, risks being over-simplified, if not contentious. But simplicity is actually my objective here. I aim to paint the backdrop of contemporary political and economic theatre with a very broad brush. To do so, I have settled on the definition of money as “the promise to do work.”

With these two definitions, it’s the notion of work that allows us to understand the link between money and energy. What follows, I believe, is a better understanding as to why the headlines these days have so much to do with debt, default, and financial crises. The explanation has everything to do with energy, which, in a global industrial civilisation, translates as having to do with petroleum and other fossil fuels. And this, in turn, explains why I have chosen this topic to begin with. It just so happens that the health of our economy is an energy issue, which means that the Kyotomotors alternatives for daily transport represent one of the more sane responses not just to the spectre of global warming, but also to the difficulties associated with widespread economic contraction, which is here to stay, if you hadn’t noticed…

Again, simplicity is my stated goal, so I’m not going to go into protracted detail about theories surrounding money as debt and industrial capitalism’s capacity to diversify and nurture specialization, which in turn begets ever more complex systems that are woven into the entire system. There’s a lot of interesting material on these subjects, and I encourage my readers to explore them [try Gail Tverberg here & here for starters]. For the purposes of this discussion, I want to simply step back and confirm the observation that the law of diminishing returns, which states that after a tipping point of sorts, for every new layer of complexity, the costs of  maintaining complexity outweigh the benefits. This is the basic dynamic in what William Catton observed in Overshoot [or, try a more legible version] – the period in which business as usual overinvests in everything unsustainable because there’s no negative feedback to shut down the system.

Only one other technical matter need be touched on here, and that’s the question of peak oil.  I have gone on at length about the phenomenon, and how easily misunderstood and misrepresented the facts are. But I am by no means the authority on the subject. Instead, I urge you to read the Hirsch Report – drafted for the benefit of the Pentagon. And for some perspective on the matter, try Rob Hopkins, David Hughes, Richard Heinberg as well as Colin Campbell -- all worth reading if you want to get into it. In short, peak oil is the point at which the world can no longer count on ever increasing supplies of petroleum. The peak of conventional crude is said to have already taken place in 2005-2006. We are now in the period of making up the shortfall with much more difficult (expensive) oil. Tar sands, deep-water and fracked oil are the poster-children of this phase. These sources are more expensive because they require enormous amounts of energy to get a diminished energy return at the end of the day.

The most important aspect of all this, for the purposes of my thesis here, is that as a society, we are faced with a diminishing ability to do work, when measured in simple units of energy. And it’s our inability to make good on promises that affect the economic, and financial realms.

I know this is where the cacophony of protest comes in. But before you throw up your arms and shout something about technology and efficiency, just have a look at two basic truths that have become features of industrial society from the get-go: The first is White’s Law, which states that the complexity of a system is directly proportional to the amount of energy that flows through that system. The second is Jevons Paradox, which states that increases in the efficiency of the use of an energy source results in net increase in the use of that energy.

While you chew on that, please allow me to proceed, if I may…

Another key element in the current energy situation right now is price volatility. Unpredictability is the order of the day, which is largely due to the complexity, and the uneven nature of the resource, by which I mean high-cost sources are trying to compete with still low-cost sources in places like Saudi Arabia. So while the fracking and tar-sands operations have been impressive in terms of sheer volume, the intense costs of doing business puts much of the capital on ice whenever the price of a barrel of oil takes a nose-dive…

So, if the supply of energy is slowly shifting from expansion to contraction, what does that mean for the money side of the equation? What I am suggesting – and I’m by no means the first one to make this connection – the financial crises and general economic downturn has everything to do with a diminished ability to do work. After all, every promise to do work (returning to my initial definition) has to be backed with the eventual ability to do work. To make matters worse, our ability to make promises has not diminished in step with the energy supply, which is why we hear so much about un-payable debt these days.

All money is borrowed into existence, and necessarily backed by industrial society’s ability to do work. Growing debt can be theoretically tolerated in the face of an expanding energy supply, since increases in energy can fulfill the promises made. Indeed, the history of industrial development is a testament to the interdependence of capital and energy, when viewed as two aspects of the work that goes into our collective accomplishments (and failures). But if on the one hand, the supply of petroleum (and other fossil fuels) is ruled by the earth’s very nature, and is non-renewable, on the other hand, debt (money) is a social construct and can theoretically be created out of thin air, with no apparent limit whatsoever.

Just as nearly every kid is likely to dream up the invention of a perpetual motion machine as a solution to energy woes, most kids respond to the problem of running out of money by suggesting a simple trip to the bank, or better still, to the printing press. Sadly, that has been the solution that the grown-ups at the helm of industrial finance have been resorting to for a number of years now. With the absence of a real-life perpetual motion machine, however, this child’s play is as dangerous as playing in traffic. That’s because debts eventually have to be settled, and if there is no ability to make good on a promise, well then things just get messy.

Things get particularly messy when the creation of debt goes into overdrive as a solution to the contraction of the economy, that rears it head at every turn. But the existence of more cash does nothing to expand the amount of petroleum at our disposal, despite all the theorising to the contrary. For example, Stephen Harper’s dream (and lie) is that the Athabasca tar-sands represents a promising ability to make up the shortfall in energy.  But it has proved to be anything but a resilient industry, and is choking on a crisis of capital formation. He has had his kick at the can, and the experiment is a failure.

But I pity his successor, who will inherit a minefield of a political/economic landscape. And since all would-be successors are allergic to the notion of contraction as the new normal, most purported solutions will be certain to make economic matters worse still.

Only once the contraction of energy supply is acknowledged, and the truly new economic landscape before us is perceived for what it is, can we advance with both an energy policy and the fiscal wherewithal to deal with the reality of the 21^st century.

The Dream of Free Energy

As a follow-up to last month’s satirical entry here at Kyotomotors on the fantasy for free energy, I thought I’d offer some further reflection as to why I suspect we tend to believe that free energy is a realistic objective, despite what science tells us. Somewhat paradoxically I’d like to add to that train of thought, an explanation as to why I actually consider that there is good reason to believe perpetual motion will be at our disposal in the future.

But let’s start at the beginning.

Like the protagonist in my satire from last month, when I was young, I convinced myself at one point that I had invented perpetual motion. I was hopeful that it could save my parents a whole lot of money, if we could only convert our Plymouth Fury according to my specifications. What happened next I don’t recall exactly, but needless to say, my invention never quite made it off the drawing board, even though, to the twelve-year old mind, it involved the seemingly air-tight logic of cause and effect where the forward motion of the car would capture wind power, and in turn, power the forward motion of the car!

It wasn’t until high-school physics class that I learned about entropy, and why the invention would never work. The truth of the matter is summed up in the second law of thermodynamics, which essentially states that (in this case kinetic) energy eventually dissipates across the board, and that my invention, no matter how well-intentioned, or well-engineered, would inevitably come to a stand-still.

It turns out that I, and the countless other young would-be inventors were not the first to dream of free-energy machines, but rather, we were participating in a fantasy that goes back at least four hundred years, when inventors were thinking of how best to grind their corn.

Work, work, work…

I’ve always found it curious that Science, in all its abstract and theoretical magnificence, defines energy as “the ability to do work”. It’s a definition so rooted in the real world of material things and human needs that it seems almost out of place next to theories of space time continuums and multiplicities of dimensions. To be sure, science’s cousin, technology has ensured that the former’s discoveries have been doing useful work for a long time now. I suppose ever since humans have made things to do work for them, we’ve extrapolated with the Faustian dream of not having to do any work ourselves whatsoever. From a purely lazy point of view, it seems reasonable to dream of free energy.

Similarly, from a business standpoint, where labour is expensive, and energy costs are on the rise, the incentive is there to come up with the holy grail of thermodynamics: perpetual motion.

In actual fact, we have had to settle for the next best thing, which is to say, we’ve come pretty close. I’d even go so far as to say we’ve been experiencing the illusion of free energy for at least a couple of generations now. I’m not talking about high-tech megaprojects like nuclear energy, which never lived up to the promise of being too cheap to meter, nor the perpetually-beyond-reach technology of nuclear fusion, (with its legacy price tag already spent, it can never be free). No, I am talking about an invention that came along quite some time ago, and has transformed the present civilisation so astoundingly by delivering amplified energy to the masses with the turn of a key.

Okay, so I’m simplifying here, but as you’ve probably guessed I’m talking about that regular object of extensive scrutiny here at Kyotomotors: the combustion engine. And of course I’m not just talking about the personal car, here: more broadly, I’m talking petroleum. Considering the present high price of gasoline (which despite the recent plunge, is still pretty high in historical context), most readers would probably protest at this statement. But take a step back and consider the bigger picture: have a look at the Twentieth Century, and you’ll see the story of cheap and abundant and accessible energy for pretty much all of the West, and even much of the developing world where industry has made its inroads on the path toward globalisation of the modern economy.

Think of the few short decades from the time of the first long distance automobile trip in 1888, to the business model and assembly line production by Henry Ford in 1913, to the ramping-up of production in the post war era. Sure there were a few kinks, and quite a lot of room for improvement, but the basic technology, (and more importantly the nature of the energy source) was rapidly perfected, and profoundly unprecedented.

Unlike subsequent attempts, such as nuclear fusion, and even nuclear fission, not to mention the suite of green technologies from hydrogen fuel cells to PV solar, the combustion engine was never anything like “rocket science”. From the start, there was an immediate return on investments, and a widespread suite of supporting technologies emerged: Mechanics and gas stations, highways and drive-thrus all cropped up in lock-step with the production of crude oil.

Never before was the ability to do work so amplified, and so accessible – as in, available to just about any working participant in the modern economy.

The phenomenon can be measured in terms of Energy Returned on Energy Invested; it can be described metaphorically in terms of harnessing “horse-power”(an industry standard) , or as some commentators have chosen to do, in terms of having “energy slaves” at your disposal. No matter how you slice it, gasoline’s “bang for the buck” is beyond considerable; it’s mind blowing.

It’s as close as we’ll ever come to having free energy.

But I should qualify this last statement, for it is only true if your idea of free energy is trapped by an especially Cartesian way of thinking about perpetual motion machines and the like. If free energy has to serve the modern industrial paradigm, then, well then yes, this is as good as it gets. If on the other hand you have different expectations about how and why humans might want to harness energy, then the possibilities open up enormously. But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself.

First, you might ask, what does it matter if the combustion engine is an almost-half-decent, but not-quite-really, perpetual motion machine? It has served quite well, you say? Or maybe you’re of the mind that it’ll just have to do.

Well of course regular readers of this blog will know where I stand on that, which could be summed up by saying the combustion engine has already done quite enough, thank you very much.

What’s more, the joke is on us. It turns out that petroleum is cheap and ever-abundant no more. And with enormous and profound investments in all things petroleum, our dependence has slowly transformed into a great albatross around our neck. In other words, after being hooked on almost free energy, we are now stuck with much more expensive energy, and the spectre of global economic contraction. In the meantime, we have developed such a culture of entitlement combined with a collective faith in technology that our expectations speak more of our wishes and our emotions, than they do of any great understanding about how energy is concentrated to do work on an industrial scale. Of course we hope that something will come along to sustain and maintain what we’ve come to take as normal.

A lengthy discussion as to why this hope is likely to be met with  disappointment belongs to another series of posts, which I am happy to mention exists already in the ongoing blog of John Michael Greer, The Archdruid Report [why not start here!].

For here and now, at the risk of over simplifying, I’ll just sum it up by suggesting that technology in the advanced stages of the petro-modern industrial civilisation that we know, is subject to a heavy dose of the law of diminishing returns; that even industrial society is subject to ecological cycles and therefore limits, and that while we may have limitless imagination, Nature is by no means obliged to provide us with the means to realise every fantasy we come up with.

Fortunately for those of us who are willing to look outside the industrial model for the future of human existence, there is reason to believe in perpetual motion. If you are willing to accept continued production should adopt a human-scale, that economic activity should operate within the limits of Nature, and that, in the big picture you’re willing to accept a few billion years as approaching infinity, well, then you can confidently assert that the much sought-after perpetual motion machine already exists in the form of the solar system we happen to live in.

Each and every day we can count on the rising sun, the tides, prevailing winds and the changing seasons. We know how these cycles can work in our favour. We know what these cycles will always demand of us. These cycles of nature are the closest thing to constant we can possibly know. Once our attempts at perpetual motion and incessant motoring slowly fades into the history of the future, we can possibly put the fantasy of triumph over Nature where it belongs, roll up our sleeves and get to working with the only perpetual motion machine we could ever know.

Between the here and now, and that point in the distant future, there is a lot of ground to cover. I suspect it will be a bumpy ride…

“Lad Scientist” Makes Perpetual Breakthrough

Exxon Mobil, General Motors, Fed to launch Free Energy Plan using 12-year-old’s invention

Last updated 10:28 pm, January 19, 2015 

Rugby, N.D.

In a town famous for being the geographical center of North America, the people of Rugby North Dakota are now faced with being the center of attention. Everywhere you look, camera crews and network trucks are setting up camp, and the excitement on Main Street is palpable. What's all the fuss about? The hoopla is centered around a local middle school science fair. This is where seventh grade student Danny Yurkin, a student at McKinley Junior High has come up with an invention that is rocking the foundations of modern science. From this day forward, Rugby N.D. will most certainly go down in history as the place of the greatest scientific breakthrough since Einstein shattered the atom.

His invention? A perpetual motion machine designed to run an automobile “for as long as the tires have treads”.

In addition to the hoards of reporters, scientists from Harvard, Berkeley and Canada have already descended upon this small town to get a glimpse of the invention, which has been kept behind closed doors for the time being, while school officials and the student’s parents entered into talks with big-wigs from Exxon, GM, the Fed and a select few from the scientific community. The latter were brought in to observe the findings of the young inventor, first discovered by his science teacher Colm Campbell who was overseeing the annual science fair assignment last November.

"At first I was skeptical – I mean, I think all kids dream of perpetual motion cars – I know I did, when I was young – and, well I ain't no millionaire!” said Mr. Campbell. But he said it was only a matter of time before he’d come to see just how revolutionary young Mr.Yurkin's project actually was. “I couldn't believe my eyes! To see such a work of genius, of pure logic and incredible vision for the benefit of mankind – all from a kid,” adding “It’s really humbling.”

Now, it’s not just his teachers in the sleepy town of Rugby, but scientists from around the world who have so much to learn.

From the halls of the Hub Motel where a press conference was assembled early on the morning of January 13th, scientist and physicist Joel Tainter said “To think that a young student could come along and school us so completely. It truly is astounding!” But if there was a tone of excited anticipation, there was also an undercurrent of disgruntlement brewing the longer the crowd waited. Some scientists were growing impatient outside the locked doors of the conference room.

“This is the holy grail for us. It’s profoundly unjust to deprive the scientific community of what is clearly the greatest breakthrough any of us are going to see in our lifetime” said Devin Marcellus who has been developing cold fusion technology for the past 45 years.

“I’m very keen to see it,” said Noah Kawasaki, physicist from Alberta, “I have been dreaming of perpetual motion since I was 10. To think that I will actually live to see it come true is enough to bring tears to my eyes. Every minute that goes by without perpetual motion now seems excruciating!”

When the doors to the conference finally opened, a crush of reporters, video crews and camera men surged into the hall. All focus was on a stunned Danny Yurkin. Everyone in the room had one question on their minds: just how did this boy come up with the answers that have stumped modern science for centuries? The boy had this to stay: “I wasn't so much into science. I just like cars and stuff. Plus my dad lost his job. I thought it would be cool not to have to pay for gas anymore.”

Sources from the boy’s family confirmed his father’s loss of employment as a horizontal drilling rig operator. His grandmother claims it was then the boy started to dream about a future America where energy was free, and independent from oil.

When pressed on the matter, it was NASA’s Todd Murphy official scientist for the Free Energy Plan who fielded the question: “One look at his ingenious design and you’ll wonder why no one has ever come up with this before- it’s deceivingly simple”. Adding that for proprietary reasons, the invention would not be unveiled that day. 

When asked whether it was a conflict of interest to have Exonn-Mobil heading the partnership, the spokesperson from Exxon Hubert M. Roy spoke of the importance of the corporation’s role in solving the problem of peak oil and climate change, and make them issues of the past.

It appears that even before the news of Danny Yurkin’s invention broke, both Exxon and GM had entered negotiations with the boy’s teachers and parents, prompting some to worry that the invention will never see the light of day. But with the fracking industry in a quagmire, there’s reason to believe otherwise. ­­­­­­­­­­­Mr. Roy reassured the public at the press conference, saying that in collaboration with GM and the Federal Reserve, ExxonMobil would lead America to prosperity and independence thanks to the boy genius from Rugby. “After all, something has to fill the void left by the slumping production numbers in shale oil and the soaring number of job losses in the Bakken region”.

Disorder Erupts

The press conference was cut short by security when a gang of protesters disrupted proceedings shouting “it’s too good to be true” and handing out a leaflet from a group calling themselves “The Green Wizards Of America”. Spokesperson Johnny McGrier proclaimed that the environment is still in as much jeopardy as ever and that perpetual motion is against the laws of physics.

In the midst of the disruption, Yurkin, scientists and industry leaders were seen laughing with reporters as they were whisked away by security forces. Corporal Lt. Charles Keaton of the ND State Police force said it had become clear that tensions were only going to mount. No one was arrested.

A spokesperson for Gov. Jack Dalrymple's office expressed disappointment with the trouble-makers, saying "There's always got to be someone who wants to spoil the party".

Liberal politicians denied any association with the rabble saying that they “distance themselves completely from any and all wizards”, adding that they were totally for the scientific breakthrough, echoing sentiments expressed earlier by President Obama.

That morning, the president chimed in from the Oval Office: “I somehow knew all along that through the wishful thinking of our youth and our legacy of technological know-how, America would prevail. It appears now that we truly will rise above the competition and lead the way onward and upward, with perpetual motion.”

  

Exxon Mobile issued a final statement later explaining that a further presentation of the perpetual motion machine and the Free Energy Plan for America would be unveiled in Detroit once a working model of the boy’s invention was assembled by the engineers at GM.

A spokesperson from NASA confirmed that they have entered the partnership and are planning to look into the invention’s applications for space travel, particularly in the area of physics known as escape velocity.

Accidents of Design

It is easy to jump to any number of rash conclusions regarding road safety after the recent string of accidents here in Montreal that has now seen three fatalities and at least two serious injuries. In the wake of such preventable deaths and unnecessary suffering, emotions invariably run high. Among the knee-jerk reactions thrown about recently, I’ve heard the call to ban trucks, as well as a call to ban cyclists; others have chosen to curse cars all to hell or find some other way to throw the blame about. None of this is particularly helpful. The fact remains that none of these modes of transport is about to disappear any time soon. Unfortunately neither is this sort of tragic occurrence: based on statistical averages, there will be about 400 pedestrian and cyclist deaths caused by automotive transport in Canada this year. Clearly, some sort of concerted shift in both design and behaviour is needed in order to improve safety. It’s pretty clear that some shifts are inevitable, and without proactive efforts to orchestrate a culture of safety, things could easily get worse before they get better.

The Kyotomotors approach to road safety naturally embraces active transport as a major piece of the puzzle, where one’s legs do the work. After all, doing the opposite by discouraging cycling would only make it more dangerous for the few who remain determined to ride the streets. What’s more, this path would lead us further away from the objective of reduced carbon emissions.

Car sharing and public transit add further layers of safety by way of reducing traffic volume, and giving more space to the active transport users. The presence of the latter, once it reaches a certain critical mass should (ideally) have an overall calming effect on the motorised vehicles that remain in the mix. But of course there is always a potential downside to all idealised scenarios, and this is no exception. If ever we are to achieve and sustain a significant and meaningful shift to broad-based active transport, as we must if only to combat climate change, then we have to prepare ourselves for a host of emergent traffic safety challenges.

This, my friends, is what loosely defines the theme of the present blog post and at least one or two to follow, and I would like to start by stepping back, and expressing my condolences to the loved-ones of the victims in the recent accidents alluded to at the outset here. And, by extension, I would like to express my sympathies to all of my readers who have been touched by the loss of someone close, due to poor road safety.

Fatal road accidents are most tragic because they are almost always random, and certainly preventable. 

While we can’t necessarily know for sure what happens in the final seconds leading up to such a fatality, we can make some interesting generalisations as to why we’ve created such a dangerous set of circumstances. So even if we can’t say if a given death was a freak instance of bad luck, the result of fool-hearty behaviour or that of criminal negligence, we can look at what underlies such unfortunate events. I am thinking specifically of the fact that for many decades we have invested extensively in a system of infrastructure and habitual behaviour that increases the likelihood of such tragedies: the very built environment makes it difficult and dangerous for active transport to share the road with commercial traffic and an inordinate number of personalised motor-vehicles.

So, looking past the specifics of any given scenario, we can generalise about why places like underpasses are so dangerous, and look at the underlying reasons as to how we got to where we are with urban design. There are many types of features, like underpasses, that were simply never conceived of for cyclists. Whole generations of planners appear to have engineered so much of the (aging) contemporary city (suburbs included) with the sole purpose of driving in mind. I suppose it’s because pretty much everyone was doing it: why ride a bike in the burgeoning age of the automobile? In other words – to be fair – why design for something that simply wasn’t on the radar?

This of course is really just the tip of the iceberg. Look a little closer, and we come face to face with the legacy of the so called “love affair” with the car. This is just a poetic and propagandistic way of explaining the place that the automotive fleet has come to occupy in our lives. The sheer space we have allocated to it is simultaneously geographical and physical; economic and political; and finally psychological and emotional – all of which speaks volumes to the underlying assumptions about freedom and progress that we associate with all things automotive.

The love affair with the automobile is so profound that we forgive its shortcomings, which are many. One of which of course is the staggering number of traffic fatalities over the past century involving pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and passengers alike. Further drawbacks involve victims of pollution, and climate change, as well as expropriation of arable land and the physical disintegration of neighbourhoods/ communities… And yet, the love affair persists, thanks in no small part to the marketing efforts of an industry that insists on trying to convince us that the emotional bond is real.

Historically, with the love affair firmly in place, we ploughed ahead and invested heavily in the car-centric way of life – a collective decision you might want to file under “it seemed like a good idea at the time”. And of course, with the physicality of this built environment (capital investment), came a re-shaping of the collective psychological landscape (emotional investment), which brings us back to the love affair, now amplified. The result is a positive feedback scenario that leads us to believe that more of the same is always good. This explains in part why so called economic development it invariably implies more sprawl, more driving, more consumption and more destruction of natural ecosystems. So, the build-up of urban environments during the heyday of  the car clearly was achieved to the detriment of bicycle and pedestrian safety, but it becomes clear that this is only a small part of the bigger problem related to this heavy investment in one particular living arrangement. The most tragic aspect of this unbridled commitment is that a suite of unforeseen limitations guarantees that the car-centric economic arrangement is simply unsustainable.

Now, you will hear me argue from time to time that modern industrial society is a type of ecosystem – not just because it’s a truth that gets ignored by most people most of the time, but because it serves up the crucial reminder that even our celebrated technological civilization is subject to the limits of Nature – another truth that is consistently ignored. It just happens to be the only ecosystem that managed to leverage the energy of fossil fuels, which is what sets it apart from both ecosystems and civilisations of the past. Whether this is “natural” or not would be a semantic debate I am unwilling to pursue here, but that this ecosystem has become destructive on an industrial scale is pretty clear to those of us who are paying attention. It is also worth noting that, like all ecosystems, the modern industrial type has limits, and is subject to negative feedback loops.

The list of limits is long, and includes the loss of arable land, and the supply of food and water required to sustain a given population. Many limits will likely play out on a timescale that will motivate only a few to change: if recent behaviour with respect to GHG is any indication, society does not turn on a dime. So Climate change – itself a potential limit on sprawl, only stands a chance of effecting a change in behaviour through the dreaded cataclysmic weather event. Another crucial limit on sprawl and to the economy as a whole, of course has to do with the very energy supply, especially petroleum. Lastly (though there are surely many others) another limit we face – less directly, yet I would argue ultimately also a limit of Nature – is the ability of a given municipality, province or state to go into debt to service new infrastructure.

Fortunately (or not), the petroleum factor represents the one limit that looms on the horizon that will inevitably have a much more immediate effect on the future of sprawl, and of cities, and how we choose to move about the landscape. Regular readers have heard me go on about peak oil before, so I’ll not go into the details again, but the intractable fact remains that cheap and abundant liquid fuel is an increasingly dwindling resource. Consequently, many people will simply be priced out of the market of suburban living and car ownership across the board, no matter what ideological views they hold dear to their hearts.

On the upside, the effects of this fundamental economic shift start rippling through the economy, the negative feedback effect takes place in at least two ways. On the one hand our behaviour will necessarily change, and on the other, more gradually, the design of our built environment will be adjusted accordingly.  Clearly, on both fronts these changes are underway already. Despite what the car companies would have you believe, the trend is as plain as the nose on Stephen Harper’s face, and no amount of hand waving, jingle singing or factory rebates is going to change that. We may not be able to turn on a dime in this instance either, but there is much we can do to make the transition to broad-based active transport less dangerous and more reliable. Over time, citizens will quietly – at their own pace – move  toward the Kyotomotors recipe of living in the more dense urban centres, adopting active transport habits to the best of their abilities, and will otherwise be faced with exploring the public- transit and shared-vehicle alternatives to individual car ownership.

As this trend inevitably gains traction we will all be faced with new challenges of co-existence, since the proportional use of the streets is destined to shift dramatically over time. The particulars of such a trend will likely be complex, and I hope to elaborate on this at a later date. In the meantime, just recognising the general scope of the trend is the first step. With respect to addressing safety issues for increasingly shared streets, we really must acknowledge that the number of cyclists on the road is only bound to increase dramatically in the long run. Designing public space accordingly will be one of the wisest moves a community could work for these days.

As far as the ongoing struggle to address carbon emissions goes, this is a hopeful projection. However, if in fact we can collectively achieve a meaningful level of broad-based active transport that I would characterise as desirable, we would inevitably have a whole new challenge of bicycle safety on our hands: On the one hand we will be faced with the legacy of the love affair with the car, and the culture of entitlement to the road that that entails (still very much a danger to be reckoned with); on the other hand we will also be faced with a particular mentality that characterises much of “bike culture” where the rule of and respect for law is fuzzy at best. On top of this dynamic is the emotional relationship between motorists and active transport users. Setting aside the fact that the two overlap considerably, there is still a potential polarisation that does occur, pitting one group against the other. Animosity and road rage in public space is clearly not going to contribute to the solutions that we’re looking for moving forward. As with all conflict, both sides have to assume some responsibility for its resolution. How best to mitigate the emergent and amplified dangers of our future public spaces will have to wait for the next Kyotomotors blog post…. Soon, I hope.