It’s funny how words’ meanings can change over time. I was browsing idly through our bookshelves the other day, when I came across an interesting little volume called ‘The Survivalists’. Nothing to do with Jerry Ahern‘s interminable macho saga, Patrick Rivers’ 1975 book is a serious review of the ‘alternative’ environmental movement in the mid 1970s. From the blurb on the back cover:

“It has become fashionable to write and talk about the environment crisis: about the Earth’s fast dwindling resources of food, raw materials and energy; about Doomsday. But it is all talk: life goes on as before.”

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

“Beneath the veneer of the Establishment there exists an Alternative of people ‘living the revolution now’…. Some are escaping to rural self-sufficiency, others to communes; some join non-violent revolutionary groups; the technically-minded begin experimenting in alternative technologies; some set off to fight world poverty; others do all this and more”

The people Rivers describes would nowadays be called ‘greens’ or ‘environmentalists’. Today, ‘survivalist’ conjures up a particular set of images: rugged individualists, preparing for TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) by stockpiling supplies and weapons in a remote hideout, sometimes with some form of extreme political agenda. For an amusing glance at the survivalist ‘sub-culture’, watch Louis Theroux’s Weird Weekend episode ‘Head For The Hills‘. But there’s a wide spectrum of preparedness, and a whole range of survival scenarios to prepare for, from Hurricane Katrina to getting stranded in the snow on the way home from work. There is a growing awareness that disasters don’t just happen to other people, and a realisation that our ‘civilisation’ is much more fragile and precarious than we used to think.

“A dedicated ‘conserver’ does not generate much garbage in the modern sense. Consider the following ultra-frugal conserver practices:
Kitchen scraps: Use every available scrap for animal feed or for compost.
Paper and cardboard: saved for re-use as stationary or for fire kindling, insulation.
Bottles, jars, plastic jugs, and plastic bags: washed and saved for re-use.
Candle stubs and soap scraps: save to periodically combine and re-use.
Steel and aluminum cans should all be carefully washed and sorted, for re-use as containers or raw material for various metal projects.
After being boiled for soup, most bones can be ground to make bone meal, or burned to make lime.
Scrap metal of all descriptions should be sorted and stored.
Wood ashes and fat scraps should be saved for soap making.
Twine, string and thread of all kinds can be saved for re-use.
Clothes worn beyond the point of usefulness should be saved for bandage material, quilts, rags, and insulation.
Electronics beyond economical repair should be cannibalized for their metal hardware and individual components.”

An excerpt from the manifesto of some low-impact hippy permaculture commune in West Wales? It ticks all the ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’ boxes. It’s actually a recent piece of advice on post-collapse garbage disposal at Survivalblog.com, a preparedness web site that claims over 55,000 visits a week worldwide. If you can see past the ‘gun nut’ discussions, this is an wonderful resource for anyone thinking about ‘off-grid’ living, growing their own food, or just planning for a winter power-cut.

A common factor in survivalist philosophy is that our present-day consumerist lifestyle is unsustainable. Where Rivers’ survivalists and today’s greens seek to modify our behaviour so as to avert, or at least moderate, catastrophe, the typical Survivalblog subscriber is planning to maintain as much of his lifestyle as possible WTSHTF. The conclusion to the above advice reads like this:

Of course, most of these extreme measures should be reserved for post-TEOTWAWKI. The value of your time must be considered! Taking these measures now would probably alienate your spouse. Your family and neighbors would also soon notice your growing heap of stored “recyclables” which they would surely label garbage. It might not be to long until the fire marshal was called to condemn your stockpile as a fire hazard. Unless, of course you could convince them that all you were doing was “reducing your carbon footprint”.

Business as usual.

The second series of Jericho is scheduled to premiere on CBS on February 12th. The post-apocalyptic drama follows the progress of a small Kansas town as it struggles to come to terms with the destruction of 22 major US cities. Series 1 ended on a cliff-hanger with the people of Jericho defending themselves against an invasion by superior forces from the neighbouring town of New Bern. Series 2 picks up the story, as the battle is brought to a halt by the intervention of troops from the Allied States of America, a regional grouping of former western US states rising out of the chaos, one of several coalitions all claiming to be the legitimate government.
www.cbs.com/primetime/jericho/video.php

Just after Jericho began, I wondered whether it could be seen as an allegory of America’s geopolitical imagination; for the town, read the USA, hemmed in by terrorism and uncertainty; for the rest of the world, read, well, the rest of the world. Or look at it another way: is the post-attack world of resource shortages a parable for an imminent Peak Oil world?
“Jericho Deconstructed”
Things have moved on quite a bit in 18 months, in Jericho and in reality. It’s much harder to pull off a convincing portrayal of a united America. The wider world into which the folk of Jericho are being integrated, an America of competing factions and regional warlords, is a disturbing one. But is it so fanciful to see in it echoes of the America of George Bush’s final year? Perhaps we don’t need nuclear terrorism and millions of deaths to bring about the disintegration of the ‘United’ States.

Today, California and 15 other states have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Washington’s refusal to allow California’s request to implement stricter controls on motor vehicle emissions. Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is allowed to enact stricter air pollution laws than the federal government as long as the state is given a waiver from the EPA. Waivers have been routinely granted in roughly 50 cases during the last three decades, allowing the state to lead the way in catalytic converters, unleaded gasoline and other areas. Strangely, this refusal came on the same day that President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which features much less stringent emissions standards.
LA Times: “California sues government for rejecting bid to curb emissions”

The argument about whether this was a political decision or a scientific one continues to rage, and may well lead to a permanently weaker central government in Washington. Meanwhile, the Lakota Nation is voting with its feet, having declared its independence and renounced the 33 treaties that they claim have never been honoured by the United States. Will they be the first of many?
“Lakota withdraw from treaties, declare independence from U.S.”

Question 1

In 2003 the United States used the United Nations to legitimise its invasion of Iraq on the grounds of Iraq’s threat to global security.

(a) Discuss the proposition that the United States’ response to climate change poses as significant a threat to global security as Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”.

(b) Assess the practicality and effectiveness of the international community using the United Nations to enforce the United States’ acceptance of hard emissions targets.

Do not write on more than one side of the paper at once.

Washington has reported a fall in greenhouse gas emissions for 2006, the first year-on-year drop since 2001. The 1.5% reduction still leaves US emissions 15.1% above the key 1990 baseline. The Energy Information Administration attributed the fall to favourable weather conditions, higher energy prices and a greater use of non-fossil fuels and natural gas in generating electricity. Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said the previous one-year drop in 2001 was the result of an economic recession. Perhaps there’s another on the way.

In addition to reporting the total tonnage of gases emitted, the Bush administration compared the tons emitted to economic growth. Using this measure of “greenhouse gas intensity,” it reported a reduction of nearly 28% since 1990. Good to see Washington has finally invested in some creative statistics classes.

David Sandalow, an assistant secretary of State specializing in the environment during the Clinton administration, noted that some European nations with economies similar to that of the United States had achieved greater emissions reductions. Blimey, if European economies are similar to that of the US, we really are in trouble.

Los Angeles Times

Photo: ‘Kivalina Sunrise’ by Vision Aerie

An island in a moonlit sea. A thin sliver of sand 6 miles long, under pressure from rising seas and erosion. A place with no future, named in an IPCC report as an example of the costs of relocating coastal communities. An indigenous community of 400 who desperately want to leave but who can’t afford to even if they had somewhere to go. Where is this? Somewhere in the Pacific? The Carterets, perhaps, or Tuvalu.

Wrong. This is America. Kivalina Island, Alaska, 85 miles north of the Arctic Circle, is disappearing and has perhaps 15 years left to live. One option is a stronger sea wall, made of rock rather than sandbags. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates it would cost $33 million to protect the southern tip of the island. At the other end of the scale, relocating to a new purpose-built settlement on higher ground inland would cost at least $155 million, or about $387,000 a person. Some have suggested just giving the inhabitants the money and letting them loose, but this idea hasn’t generated much enthusiasm.

No-one seems to be prepared to take responsibility. The locals see a big storm as their only salvation. “If Kivalina floods or something really bad happens, then they’ll move us,” says the pastor. “That’s the only time we’ll get money.”

Welcome to the United States.

Los Angeles Times

….. were hit by a Category 3 Hurricane?

In New York City, over eight million people live on land that has 578 miles of waterfront. By 2030, the population is expected to reach nine million. At the same time, global climate change has put New York City at an increased risk for a severe coastal storm. In recent years, storms have become more intense, occur more frequently, and continue farther north than they have historically. The city would face many challenges during and after such a storm; one of the most difficult is the possibility that hundreds of thousands of people could lose their homes.

The New York City Office of Emergency Management is sponsoring an open competition to generate solutions for post-disaster provisional housing. “What if New York City…” is a call for innovation and an opportunity for designers and policy-makers to collaborate on one of the biggest challenges facing densely settled urban areas after a disaster: how do we keep people safely and comfortably housed while reconstruction proceeds?

A jury of experts in the fields of architecture, design, urbanism, and government will choose ten entrants who will be awarded $10,000 each and technical support to develop their proposals into workable solutions. These solutions will provide support for New York’s most vulnerable communities and be a precedent for dense urban areas all over the world.
This design competition will rely on a fictional but realistic New York City neighbourhood devastated by a hypothetical Category 3 hurricane. How will residents resume their lives? How can they be provided safe, comfortable living space? How can this housing be quickly deployed and adapted to different site conditions? How can it be reused in subsequent emergencies, environmentally sustainable, and cost effective?

‘What If New York City ….’ Home Page

Such a shame that coastal cities in developing countries around the world, desperate to prepare themselves for the same risks as NYC, don’t have the same level of resources to run a competition like this. I suppose that once the winning solution has been implemented, the Americans will be happy to share …. at a price.

Like two unpopular schoolkids huddling together for mutual support in the corner of the playground, U.S. President George Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard have pledged to take joint action on climate change. Australia’s and the U.S.’s refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol led to widespread criticism at home and abroad. While pushing their new-found enthusiasm for environmental issues, Bush and Howard continue to promote the idea of “aspirational targets” rather than firm emissions quotas

While at this stage of his presidency Bush has little to lose, cuddling up to the most unpopular man in the world might be seen as a high risk strategy for Howard. In particular, their emphasis on nuclear power as the solution to climate change will not be well-received in many quarters. Said Bush: “If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us, if you take the issue seriously like I do and John does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power”.

On Wednesday, Howard announced an agreement with the U.S. to admit Australia into the Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP). This will give Australia access to the ‘Generation Four’ nuclear research program, condemned by Steve Shallhord, chief executive of Greenpeace Australia, as too far in the future ” to even be considered as part of the climate change mix, even if that was a legitimate response to climate change” . GNEP proposes that countries operating a nuclear enrichment program should lease nuclear fuel to other countries, who will send back their nuclear waste. Australia has denied that it is about to start enriching its own uranium, and continues to maintain it will never import nuclear waste for processing. The waters are muddied further by an imminent deal which will see Australia selling uranium to Russia, who insists that it will be used exclusively for its civilian nuclear power program.

We live in interesting times. I suppose we should be glad that the world’s largest polluter (per capita, sorry China) and its Pacific Rim running dog are taking a belated interest in our planet. As Mr Bush told reporters: ‘I know some say, ‘Well, since he’s against Kyoto, he doesn’t care about the climate change”. That’s urban legend that is preposterous.’

Wise words indeed.

Washington Post
ABC News