Cliven Bundy; an indigenous perspective on the armed militia response

Attack the System

Lingit Latseen

I am personally ambivalent regarding Mr. Bundy’s specific claims to grazing lands and cattle grazing in Nevada. I feel certain there are environmental issues with cattle grazing practices in an arid region. As an Alaska Native and American Indian (descended from two distinct tribes) I would also be very sympathetic to any current indigenous claims to the land in question; but I am not aware of any.

I have seen two different reactions to the situation through social media from fellow Natives. The first has been unabashed support for anyone fighting the Feds. We have our own history of armed standoffs with government forces. Consequently, our organizations have been the target of intense repression by COINTELPRO and law enforcement. Additionally, a number of incidents, from entrapment of indigenous trappers to raids on hemp farms in sovereign territory have put the native population at odds with the Feds; nevermind…

View original post 658 more words

BBC Editorial Misinformation & Propaganda

The ONLY reason I am posting this is because this opinion piece from the BBC is classic propaganda and lies, designed to lull western readers into a fuzzy acceptance of their own leaders’ crimes and provocations toward war. If this type of MSM crap is where you are getting your news (or like Reuters, NPR, MSNBC, Fox, etc.), you are being badly misinformed.

The last paragraph is the worst. It is nothing more than a recycling of the old Communist Domino Theory, which I’m sure you all remember, was the public psychic massaging (and messaging) used to gain public support (or at least blunt resistance) to wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, etc.

When the BBC prints this type of shit, it makes me want to puke in disgust:
“There is always a question mark over punitive measures. Are they a help or a hindrance? As a broad principle, Western nations publicly preach the benefits of engagement over isolation and regard the cold-shoulder as an extreme measure.”

REALLY??? SERIOUSLY??? Yeah, the U.S. was forced to sanction Iraq for 10 years, admittedly killing 500,000 Iraqi children. (But the price was worth it.) Yeah, the U.S. has been forced to sanction Iran for 35 years, killing their children also, because the Iranians had the gall to overthrow the dictator installed there by the U.S. (by, strangely and familiarly enough, overthrowing the Iranian’s own democratically elected president).

See a pattern here?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27126837

Out of the frying pan and into the fire…

Last Friday, it was reported that “representatives” from nine western states met in the Land of Deseret to discuss “wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-federal-lands-states.html.csp

Anytime Scott Bedke is involved in an agenda, you can be assured that he is angling to shift control of public resources to himself and his cronies. You all know that I am no fan of the federal government, and it is pretty clear that the reasons for the existence of so many federal reserves in the West were not altruistic. At the same time the federal government was locking up vast swathes of forest, plains and canyon lands, it was exterminating the Indians who lived there. The land and water control policies were intended, from the outset, to ensure that the eastern financial powers maintained control over the vast resources of the West.

That said, the side benefit of federal control over these lands has been that the general public has had enormous opportunities to enjoy these lands as a “commons”, and it has further slowed the degradation of those same lands by sociopathic extractive industry and the bible-thumping welfare-babies in cowboy hats.

Mark my words: If the morons in the Idaho Statehouse get their grubby hands on these lands, we will all be excluded from the same land, as they run their land maggots and slow elk like a lawnmower through the mountains and prairies of this land, as they gouge out and blast away our beautiful peaks and breathtaking canyons, as they pour greater and greater amounts of mercury and sulfur dioxide into our air and our clear rivers and streams, and as they annihilate our fish, our birds, our ungulates, our frogs, until there is no birdsong to be heard, and no trees to whisper in the wind. Just mooing and the stench of cowshit.

4035

We’ll Be ‘Dead Or In Prison Before We Allow’ Keystone Pipeline

Calling Saturn: Can we get a loan from you?

Most people do not know that this past October, the Federal Reserve dumped a batch of risky derivatives contracts held by Bank of America upon the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), meaning that the U.S. taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for repayment of losses for depositors. The amount of derivatives held by Bank of America? $75 TRILLION. TRILLION, not billion. Written out, it looks like this: $75,000,000,000,000.00.
To give you some perspective of how huge that number is, consider this:
As of December 8, 2011 the gross (U.S. national) debt was $15.05 trillion, of which $10.39 trillion was held by the public and $4.66 trillion was intragovernmental holdings. The annual gross domestic product (GDP) to the end of June 2011 was $15.003 trillion (July 29, 2011 estimate), with total public debt outstanding at a ratio of 100% of GDP, and debt held by the public at 69% of GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt (Internal cites omitted.)
As of 2010, the World’s Gross Domestic Product in U.S. dollars was $63,123,887,517,709. This data comes from the World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/region/WLD
In other words, the derivative bets placed by BOA, and the risks of their default now transferred to the U.S. public, is 5 x our national GDP. So we would need every dollar produced in the United State by every single person for 5 years to pay off those derivatives alone. As for the world, those derivative bets exceed our gross domestic product by 18%, so every dollar earned by every person in the WORLD for a period of 1 year and 2 ½ months would be needed to pay off BOA’s bets, if they all went bad.
“The Fed’s approval to move derivatives from Bank of America’s holding company to the depository unit directly puts the U.S. taxpayers on the hook. The FDIC cannot handle any large banking failure with its depleted Deposit Insurance Fund and would have to immediately tap its line of credit with the U.S. Treasury.” http://problembanklist.com/fdic-to-cover-losses-on-trillion-bank-of-america-derivative-bets-0419/
Except there is no line of credit in this solar system that can cover such a loss.

Is the American Empire Ending?

Hello readers (all 1.5 of you).  Sorry for the hiatus, but I still need to pay the bills, and I was ensconced in a large and laborious project over the past week or so.  Now I’m busy trying to catch up on all the other things I put aside, as well.  But I did get a chance to read a bit today.  This piece by Noam Chomsky is stellar.  I love the way this guys understands our society in such a global way.  Here, for your reading pleasure, Noam Chomsky:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11806/america_in_decline/

Tim DeChristopher, your travails are a gift to us all.

You will not find a more eloquent, courageous and principled moral statement anywhere.  This statement is on a moral par with Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham jail, and he goes to prison for all of us.  Coming on the heels of my post regarding Peak Oil, I am compelled to post this statement, made by Tim DeChristopher to his sentencing federal judge.  It is the measure of moral action that each of us should be prepared to undertake, and to accept, as the cost of taking right action.  Here, in his own words:  http://www.peacefuluprising.org/tims-official-statement-at-his-sentencing-hearing-20110726#comment-36345

What is a dollar?

Ya gotta love Ron Paul.  Well, maybe not love him, but I at least admire his tenacity and perseverance.  And also his point:

On Tuesday, Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig testified before the House Financial Services domestic monetary affairs committee, which Paul chairs.  (I’m drawing this information from here:  http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2011/07/27/the-meaning-of-a-dollar/)  Paul, as was the case when Bernanke testified two weeks ago, is really wanting someone at the Fed to explain to him why the U.S. Dollar is “money.”  (See the testimony of Bernanke in response to Paul’s questioning here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y)

Dictionary.com defines money thusly:

mon·ey

http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf [muhn-ee]  Show IPAnoun, plural mon·eys, mon·ies, adjective

–noun

1.  any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money,  and demand deposits.
3.  gold, silver, or other metal in pieces of convenient formstamped by public authority and issued as a medium of exchange and measure of value.
Apparently, Hoenig had studied the dictionary definition of “money” prior to his testimony, which would have been wise, since he no doubt knew that Paul would question him, and had a template of the questioning from the Bernanke testimony.  Hoenig’s own response to Paul’s question, “What is a dollar and who says it’s money?”:  “Money is a medium of exchange, a means of payment and a store of value and the dollar fits that description.” Good job, Hoenig.  You can read a dictionary. That’s good to know.
But really, who doesn’t know what Paul is driving at?  Certainly the Fed Chair and Hoenig pretend not to.  But I cannot believe that the people put in charge of our central banking and monetary system don’t know precisely what Representative Paul is asking.  Surely we’ve recruited brighter people than that.  Right?
The truth is that they do not want to answer the question, because anyone watching C-Span is going to understand that the Fed’s policies are reprehensible, insane, and devastating to Americans.
Through QE I and QE II, the Fed has engaged in a policy of printing trillions of greenbacks, which they and the Treasury promptly handed over to the largest banks.  Their rationale was that by pouring this money into the economy (called increasing “liquidity”), the banks would be able to lend money at cheap rates of interest to individuals and entrepreneurs, who through their renewed vigorous activities, would stimulate the economy.  Except there were two problems with that.  The first is that consumers entered the financial meltdown in 2008 in hock up to their necks, and they weren’t inclined to go further in debt.  Especially while their homes and businesses were being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosed upon.  The second is that the banks simply did not lend the money.  Hiding behind the hideous excesses they themselves created, the banks pronounced that they would only lend to sterling creditors, and have basically shut down lending entirely.  So all that cash that was handed to them wasn’t “trickled down” to the citizenry.  But it also didn’t just sit static in their accounts, waiting for willing and sterling lenders to show up.
Where did it go?  Into commodities.  Oil, food, basic and precious metals.  (Yes, gold and silver…)  The increasing conversation about “emerging markets” refers, to a large extent, to just that.  That money is going to buy land, ranches, farms, cattle, mining interests, factories producing real and useful products, on and on and on … in those emerging markets, what used to be referred to as the “Third World.”  It is not being invested here.  Let me put this more bluntly.  Our government printed money, which they then handed to the richest 1% of our society, who then took this free “money” and are busy putting it to good use … elsewhere.
Now, from the perspective of the indigenous peoples of those emerging markets, they see a flood of foreign capital into their countries.  Yes, it is creating jobs for them.  Lots of them.  But the investors are not themselves indigenous.  It is, to borrow an American refrain, “foreign money.”  And the benefits are not distributed equitably, just as it wasn’t here.  Yes, a bunch of poor and middle class of those countries are seeing increasing wages and increasing job opportunities, but the profits are being siphoned off into offshore accounts in the Caymans and Seychelles.  Or used to buy up even more land and capital assets, more mines, more cattle.  And because available land is becoming scarcer, it is becoming more expensive.  I spoke with a lady today who had just returned from Peru.  She informed me that in the past few years, her property there had tripled in value.  Because of that, she was able, upon her return to the United States, to pay cash for a new house.
That’s a great deal for the 1%.  But let’s remember where the money came from.  One common refrain in these days is that the money was “created out of thin air.”  But that is not quite true.  The “money” was indeed printed, and that money printed did not come from production.  It was, truly and simply, printed.  Dollars.  And that, my friends, results in inexorable inflation.  When production remains static, but the money supply increases, each dollar printed is worth less.  Each dollar buys less production.  Prices rise on everything.  Wheat, gasoline and tractors all cost more.  Which means that bread costs more, plain and simple.  Thus, inflation caused by the Fed’s easy “money” policies really constitutes a tax on each and every American.  But unlike those in the emerging markets, our wages are not increasing.  In fact, they’re decreasing as measured against inflation, and they have been decreasing like this for forty years.
See, it did not use to be like this.  Prior to 1933, our dollar was pegged to gold.  FDR ended that, and then in 1971, Nixon severed the dollar from the silver standard.  Those metals operated as money (not “money”) reserves because they were produced in known quantities, held in known quantities, and so long as the dollar was understood to be worth 1/35th of an ounce of gold, you knew what that piece of paper in your hand was worth.  If an ounce of gold did not come into the treasury, then 35 greenbacks could not flow out of it.  But now the dollar means whatever the Fed and the markets decide it means.  In concrete terms, it means … nothing.
Note that Hoenig defined the dollar as a “store of value,” and not a “measure” of value.  A measure of value would imply that the “money” would maintain its worth relative to something else of value.  A “store” of value just refers to something that may or may not maintain its value relative to other things of value.  Like gold.  Or bread.
During Bernanke’s testimony, Paul asked him why, if gold is not money, the Fed holds reserves of gold.  Bernanke struggled mightily with that one, and eventually answered, “Tradition.”  Paul jumped on him, and asked him why they did not keep diamonds, instead.  Bernanke could not, or would not, distinguish between gold and diamonds.  But the distinction is easy.  One ounce of gold, of a known level of purity (.999 fine), is worth the same as one ounce of .999 fine gold anywhere else in the world.  Diamonds, however, vary in worth radically.  Two diamonds of exactly one carat each will not be worth the same amount, due to variations in cut, clarity, brightness, color, etc.  For that reason, diamonds cannot be used as money!
So Representative Paul’s question is this:  If the Fed can vary the value of a dollar by simply printing more, why is that money?  It bears no relation to production, it bears no relation to stable and known supplies of any precious metal, it simply is worth whatever the Fed and the markets decide it should be worth.  And what the hell kind of “medium of exchange” is that?
A friend asked tonight what she should do with some cash she has on hand.  Should she put it in her 401k?  Hell no.  I advised her to buy food.  That is the one thing I am rock-solid certain that will not decline in value anytime soon, no matter what the Fed’s policies are.  Unlike the dollar, it won’t devalue while she’s holding it.  Unlike the dollar, she can eat it.  Unlike the dollar, it is worth something real.

Peak Oil

This is a topic that has come up tangentially in a few comment boards and blogs I’ve looked at over the past week. It also came up in a discussion I had a couple weeks ago. The amazing thing about “Peak Oil” is that it so easy to see and understand in every day conversation, if someone bothers to think about it. Unlike economics and politics, which seem so complex and subjective, obscure, and prone to, literally, violent positions. But oil is just oil. It comes out of the ground, and we use some every day, and way off into the future sometime, everyone understands there won’t be anymore. But few people think about it beyond that.

Try this, though: The next time you’re having a political discussion with someone, throw “Peak Oil” into the conversation. Just throw it in there and see what happens. You’ll know when to do it. It will be at that moment when you just want to say, “Yeah, but it doesn’t really matter because…” There, that is your spot. Throw it in there: “Peak Oil.” It stops everything. Which is interesting, because the topic is really about imagining stopping everything.

It is one thing to imagine something like that, and quite another to experience it. The disconnect comes because people don’t want to imagine it. It is uncomfortable. In fact, that is one of the things that disappointed me about the article that motivated this post  (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/07/201172081613634207.html); I wanted more juicy imaginings about particular difficulties that could be foreseen. There is little of that there, but hints of it. So, let’s imagine it now.

Let’s start with setting up our premises.

PREMISES:
1. Supply: Oil reserves are declining, and the extraction of oil is becoming more difficult and more costly. There is a wealth of data that supports this premise, and I can dig that up if you want me to.

2. Demand: Oil demand is generally seen as increasing, although this is not necessarily so. As was stated in the Al Jazeera article, “Meanwhile, world demand for crude oil grew at nearly two per cent each year between 1994 and 2006. In 2007, global demand peaked at 85.6 million bpd, but decreased in 2008 and 2009 by a total of 1.8 per cent, reportedly due to rising fuel costs.” Demand, at some level, will be determined by the costs to supply the oil, and the ability of consumers to afford it. I actually see demand continuing to fall, even as prices rise, or rather, because the prices are rising.

3. Scarcity & Price: It is axiomatic that as these supply and demand factors continue along their inevitable trajectories, the price of oil will rise. The question people often ask is, “How much?” In fact, there is no ceiling. Because they’re not making anymore, and because we will continue to use oil so long as the return exceeds the cost, it is conceivable that one gallon of gasoline in the future could be virtually priceless. You might scoff at that, but let me ask you this: How much would you pay for one gallon of gasoline if you knew it was necessary to save your life and the lives of your children and partner? Would you trade all of your material possessions for a chance at life? If that point seems a little extreme, it is only because we haven’t finished imagining.

4. Applications: So what do we use our oil for? Well, it turns out, nearly everything, in some measure.

Consumer Products: The computer you are reading this on is constructed in large part using synthetic materials produced as various long-chain polymers, which are of course developed most easily from oil. Anything plastic has a high likelihood of having originated as oil. Nylon, polyethylene, polyester. So, to lay out a sketchy, wholly incomplete list of things made with oil: ropes, fertilizers, plastic baggies, cars, computers, dishes, Vaseline, clothes, upholstery, carpet, signs, windows, remote control devices, vinyl fencing, telephones, certain perfumes and cosmetics, and maybe just one or two toys.

Power & Communications: What about the electronic signals that result in a readable media? Both the electricity, and the communications that permit you to read something I wrote from anywhere in the world, are highly dependent on oil. So your cell phone and even landline communications are implicated here, as well. Even beyond the ungodly cost of putting communications satellites into orbit, all of those cell towers, switching stations and equipment runs on … electricity. The United States produces 71.4% of its electricity from fossil fuels, which of course includes coal and natural gas, two commodities that are similarly finite. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_pro_by_sou_fos_fue-electricity-production-source-fossil-fuel Electricity production depends not only on the fuels used to wind the magnetos, but also the infrastructure itself, the equipment needed to extract the energy from the oil and to transform it into alternating current. And so even if we miraculously develop an abundant alternative energy source, we cannot use it without an enormous investment in infrastructure.

Transportation: Cars. For that matter, consider a Dodge Ram 2500, with a 6.7L Cummins diesel, 4×4 of course. Lots of us have those up in this country, and they’re damned useful. But it runs on oil. Even the cars that are being developed to run on electricity, still depend upon oil, as discussed above. And what happens when gas hits … what? $10 per gallon? Never happen? Before the international releases of strategic oil reserves last month drove down prices, Germans were paying over $8.50 per gallon. In April, some gas stations in the U.S. were charging over $5/gal. But gasoline will become even more dear than that. Try $50 per gallon. When? It may be a few years, perhaps not until 2020, unless we have another Black Swan event crop up. (Those damn Black Swans seem to be multiplying lately.) But other experts are not so sure, and some project that acceleration to occur by 2014 or 2015. And once that price accelerates, it will not be coming back down.

By the end of this decade, be prepared to pay $100 per gallon of gas, if you can get it all. So, what are you doing with that Dodge Ram now? Well, you’re not selling it. No one else wants it either, or they have their own already. A bicycle will be worth more than that truck, not just in real terms, but in monetary terms, as well.

But the question of how you are going to get around is a personal one. Transportation is a huge issue beyond our personal movements. It’s not like we didn’t get around the world before we started using oil to power motors. But we did it with sails, and hooves, and feet. But beyond moving people, we are moving food, tools, materials, energy itself, anything of a tangible nature that needs to be moved from one place to another. And as we know, the cost to transport is always marked into the cost of the product at its destination. So if you want to move grain from Ukraine (which isn’t happening right now due to drought) to Australia, you haul it from the granaries by train to the port, where you load it onto a tanker, which then transports it to its destination. But what is the cost of that transportation if oil is priced at $500/barrel, as opposed to $100/barrel. The cost is prohibitive, and there are no local markets that cannot beat any price the Ukrainians want to offer … even free. But what if there is no local market?

Production:  Transportation doesn’t even scratch the surface.  Well, yes it does.  But there’s more.  That grain produced in Ukraine was grown using petroleum-based fertilizers.  It was planted, tended and harvested using mechanized equipment that runs on oil.  The tractors, trains, trucks and ships themselves were produced by industrial processes that depend on oil.  The mining, transportation and refining of the metals used to produce vehicles and equipment depends on oil.  The fish you see in the supermarkets were either caught by vessels powered by oil, or were farmed using processes that depend on oil.  The beef, pork and chicken you buy at the supermarket and grill in your backyard wouldn’t be there without feeding that livestock with grains and other materials that had to be also grown and transported.  Even water for drinking is cleaned and transported using oil.  Our human waste is cleaned using electricity, meaning that by extrapolation, in the United States, 71.4% of that too relies upon fossil fuels.  Timber is harvested using oil.  Nails and screws and saws and drills and drywall and shingles and siding and stoves and refrigerators and nearly everything involved in constructing a home, commercial building or factory is subsidized by the profligate use of this compact, stable, transportable, and heretofore cheap source of energy.  And get this:  Even the development of alternative energy sources depends on oil.  As an example, ethanol from corn is subject to the same energy constraints as that grain out of Ukraine.  Energy development requires the investment of energy, and right now, the only real game in town is oil.  Your job depends on oil.

5.  Wages:  It is no secret that for the past 40+ years, real wages have declined as measured against inflation (the cost of goods and services).  You have to be careful about what data you review.  For instance, the United States Department of Labor will tell you that real wages have actually increased slightly, but they factor in the cost of benefits such as healthcare, and attribute that as an increase in income for the worker.  In doing so, they throw out the fact that those healthcare costs have themselves increased exponentially.  The bottom line is that while oil climbs in price, our ability to pay for it does not increase.  Moreover, as oil prices increase, the ability of employers to continue to employ people in a productive capacity is reduced.  In other words, as external costs of production (materials, shipping, taxes, regulation, etc.) increase, employers are forced to reduce capital costs in other areas if they wish to continue selling their product.  The easiest place to do that is wages.  They either lay people off and increase the productivity of each individual worker, or they reduce, or at least do not increase, wages.  Also, because governments are subject to the same market forces, and they find their own ability to maintain their operations at current levels reduced, the reaction is rarely to cut back on their own operations.  Instead, they either shift costs to the citizens, reduce services provided, or tax.  (This is a whole other conversation.)  No matter how they go about it, the direct impact is felt by the individual citizens or their employers, further depressing real wages and job creation.

6.  Costs & Returns:  Everything we purchase, make, sell, trade or gift involves a cost-benefit analysis at some level.  Take, for an example, a fishing trip.  If I want to go salmon fishing for the weekend, I need to pay up front for a number of things:  fuel to drive to the river; food (which I would need to have anyway, but which inevitably involves unusual luxury items); state costs (licenses, tags, etc.); and equipment and materials devoted to that endeavor (poles, fishing line, hooks, roe, weights, etc.).  If I am fantastically successful, I will bring home six Chinooks, at a cost of perhaps $5/lb.  More likely, I’ll bring home one or two, with my cost per pound at $15-$20.  Maybe I’ll bring home nothing, which is usually the case for me, which means I risked $300 and realized no tangible return whatsoever.  Now, if I want to eat salmon, that is a different calculation entirely.  I would never run into Fred Meyers and plunk down $300 on a wheel for a chance of getting 0-6 whole salmon.  What’s the difference?  In the former situation, I was buying not the fish, but the time, the experience, the connections with my buddies.  In the latter, I am buying a product.  In fact, I would rarely pay $15/lb. for fish when I can eat just fine on farm-raised tilapia at $2.59/lb., but if I really want to eat salmon, I have lowered my risks, stabilized my costs and defined my returns by heading to the grocery store.  But what if gas prices rise to $10/gallon?  The salmon at the store now costs $40/lb., and a trip to the river becomes prohibitively expensive.  And so I’m definitely staying home and eating tilapia … or burgers.

The point of this example is to demonstrate that people are willing to risk capital so long as the potential returns can be justified.  But as prices rise, the investment rises, even while the potential realized benefit remains the same or declines.  At a certain point, the investment is not sufficiently incentivized to justify it, and the consumer turns away.  It becomes a losing proposition to eat salmon, and so I just don’t.  This is not welcome news to the commercial fishermen, the grocery store, the shipping industry, or the local bait shop.

7.  Location:  Where you are factors substantially into how you will be affected by a critical shortage of what Charles Hughes Smith (www.oftwominds.com) calls the FEW resources — Food, Energy and Water.  As shipping costs increase, the transport of products cannot be sustained.  First, the products become expensive, then prohibitively expensive, and finally there is no rationale for shipping product from point A to point B at all.  If the product cannot be produced locally and shipped economically, it won’t be available at any price.

What this means to me will be different for you.  Here, where I live, we have hydroelectric power and geothermal springs, energy sources that do not depend on petroleum at all.  We also have water, stored in our mountains throughout the winter, and poured into our aquifers, lakes and rivers during the Spring melt.  Sometimes we have more, and sometimes less.  There is substantial forage for livestock and cropland than can be irrigated by gravity-flow diversions.  We are truly blessed here.  Now contrast that with Phoenix, a city of 1.5 million souls.  There is no imaginable way to sustain that population in terms of water alone if its transport is not economically accomplished through cheap oil.  And the same things can be said of nearly every major urban area in the world.  Some places, such as Mexico City or New York, numbering in the several of millions, are wholly dependent on lengthy supply lines for their FEW resources, the very resources necessary to survive.

In simple terms, the longer you have to transport something, the scarcer and more expensive it will be, and with the collapse of affordable oil, that means that many places will no longer have access to sufficient resources at all.

8.  Ramifications:  If supplies are dwindling and becoming more expensive to produce, and demand remains at or near the current levels, then the scarcity and price equation cannot be avoided.  And if everything we make, and most things we do, depend on that particular energy source, then it follows that those products and services will also increase in cost.

As the cost-benefit factor plays into the scarcity-price equation, it becomes increasingly clear that I can afford less and less, and I therefore must make prioritized choices as to where I will apply the capital available to me.  It is up to me to ensure that I maximize my own personal returns on the sparse capital available to me.  I have to do that to survive.  I am not alone, and because of that, my own decisions are echoed and amplified by the millions other people engaging in their own analyses and decision-making.  My personal choice, because it is rational, is repeated, magnified, and applied globallyby millions of others.  And the results are stark.

Eventually, it makes no sense to fish commercially for salmon.  No one is buying it, and it costs a hell of a lot to produce.  So that goes away.  Meanwhile, receipts from fishing licenses and tags fall precipitously, until the Department of Fish and Game is wondering why the hell they are maintaining and operating these expensive fish hatcheries.  Plus, the hydroelectric power that made the hatcheries necessary in the first place have become critical to the supply of non-petroleum based energy.  Fish mitigation efforts are costly, and increase the costs of the hydroelectric energy, as well.  By now, people are more concerned about getting food into their homes, and less about maintaining a fishery they no longer have the ability to enjoy.  And ocean-run Chinook go extinct.  The commercial fishery collapses.  Shipping is reduced as product is no longer shipped in from Seattle.  The stores’ shelves no longer feature salmon.

We can apply this calculus to everything.

When you actually do take the time to consider the implications of peak oil on our present civilization, you can see that the civilization, globally, has been grounded, built and expanded upon this cheap energy source.  Our world cannot be sustained otherwise.  If oil had never entered the equation, or if we had exercised the wisdom to recognize its finiteness, we would not have the population that we do, nor the cities, the infrastructure, nor widely available food, energy and water.  We have built our civilization on this energy source that is going away soon, and when it does, our civilization cannot be sustained as it is.

People will die.  A lot of them.  Billions.  There is no way to cast that fact other than as the greatest tragedy in human history, caused by our instinctual need to exploit any resource until it no longer sustains, and then moving on to the next one.  But there is no “next one” in the wings right now.

My children, and likely I, will live to see the end of personal oil-driven vehicles, of golf courses and subdivisions, of abundant food and energy and water.  We will live to witness the extermination of billions of people through starvation, thirst, disease and war.  We will have the opportunity to start over, and to ensure that our people going forward act in sustainable ways.  As a civilization, it is likely, albeit not guaranteed, that we will retain much of the knowledge we carry into this calamity.  And learn a lot more.  The Earth will appreciate a break from our relentless exploitation.  And we can all learn to live more simply, closer together, and more harmoniously.  We’ll see, I guess.

The Crap People Write

I’m sorry, but if you have a contract to write for a major media source, you are going to open yourself up for criticism if what you produce is complete pap, crap, pulp, and MSM bullshit. So, here is an article I came across on AlterNet, along with the associated commentary, much of which is mine. (This is why I don’t have time to write this blog.) By way of explanation, AlterNet is a progressive media site, tightly tied with the Democratic party. Their leanings are unduly ideological, and I therefore do not frequent the site much. But I get their e-mails, and when a headline piques my interest, I may just jump in, as I did here. Please read the comments, as the article itself is lame.

Here it is: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/638168/what_to_do_if_social_security_checks_are_stopped?page=entire

%d bloggers like this: