Let's shout about the price of oil
Mike Brady | 10.06.2008 12:35 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Globalisation | World
Should we be complaining about increases in fuel prices or welcoming them as a help in addressing climate change and peak oil? This article suggests we should be shouting, not just for cuts in prices, but for responsible management of the world's resources. It is in our own self interest to do so.
This is an extra from a longer article about protests over increases in the price of fuel posted at:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/price-of-oil.html
People are protesting because price increases hurt them personally. And because we are selfish, the politicians act to try to appease the protestors, for their own survival. Governments will fall if they cannot manage the crisis - or at least convince us the other lot would have done no better.
The problem with these sudden increases is they have not been managed. They are a sudden blow to the wallet in the rich world and missed meals in the poor world. Our leaders do not see the price increases as good news for dealing with climate change and peak oil - the calls for increased oil production in the hope of bringing the price down is the opposite of what is needed to address those issues. But even this response is unmanaged. In the scramble to secure oil supplies, there is no targeting, no amelioration for those who end up being losers. As it is with oil and food, so it could be with many other aspects of our world if controlled transitions to new realities are not achieved.
Our leaders are ill-placed to achieve them, because they are driven by economic and political realities. Long-term planning may include some aspect of moving to a lower carbon economy and away from dependence on fossil fuels, but will more likely be focused on protecting the national interest and securing as much oil as possible, through coersion, blackmail and even force if necessary.
If something like Contraction and Convergence was in place things would be very different. The significant cut backs called for by the International Panel on Climate Change would not be aspirations, forgotten in the face of economic realities. They would be hard and fast limits, in the knowledge that failing to meet them would cause severe environmental disruption. The IPCC may keep saying it, but without an international agreement - ideally with some carrots and sticks to make it work - no targets will ever be hit.
We, the people, can take the lead by saying that we don't want out-of-control and unexpected price rises that can tip us over into insolvency and perhaps malnutrition, depending on where we live. We can take a look at the Contraction and Convergence proposal, alternatives to it and complementary policies. We can think about how we would like the world to be and build a consensus on how to get there, pretty darn quick. If we need to cut back on oil use, how about every person having the right to their per capita limit? If we use less, then we can sell our excess quota to someone else. If we want more, we pay those who are more efficient. If we live in a rural area, we can have a higher quota. And so on.
This would be no more complex than assigning tax codes and no harder to manage than swiping a bank card.
We learn to live within our income (including our credit limits in the calculation) so we can live within our energy limit. We can plan how to change our lifestyles as limits are cut. We can take to the streets not to protest just over the price of fuel, but over the lack of renewable energy, which could be exempt from quotas. If I want to buy my household energy from an offshore wind farm so I can save my quota for a flight to Brazil, but not enough wind farms have been built to meet the demand, then I will no longer be in a minority calling for them.
These sort of ideas can be brought in through the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, so my country will not be shooting itself in the foot by acting alone. Everyone will be taking similar action. Not identical, because countries are at different starting points, but there will be a global cooperative effort.
I think it is right to shout about fuel prices, particularly if they make it impossible to buy enough food to survive. But if we really want to protect our interests, the louder shout should be for our leaders to sign the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments so that, as quickly as possible, the various crises that threaten to spiral out of control come under effective management.
Transition will definitely happen. Let it be to a new cooperative reality, not a collapse.
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/price-of-oil.html
People are protesting because price increases hurt them personally. And because we are selfish, the politicians act to try to appease the protestors, for their own survival. Governments will fall if they cannot manage the crisis - or at least convince us the other lot would have done no better.
The problem with these sudden increases is they have not been managed. They are a sudden blow to the wallet in the rich world and missed meals in the poor world. Our leaders do not see the price increases as good news for dealing with climate change and peak oil - the calls for increased oil production in the hope of bringing the price down is the opposite of what is needed to address those issues. But even this response is unmanaged. In the scramble to secure oil supplies, there is no targeting, no amelioration for those who end up being losers. As it is with oil and food, so it could be with many other aspects of our world if controlled transitions to new realities are not achieved.
Our leaders are ill-placed to achieve them, because they are driven by economic and political realities. Long-term planning may include some aspect of moving to a lower carbon economy and away from dependence on fossil fuels, but will more likely be focused on protecting the national interest and securing as much oil as possible, through coersion, blackmail and even force if necessary.
If something like Contraction and Convergence was in place things would be very different. The significant cut backs called for by the International Panel on Climate Change would not be aspirations, forgotten in the face of economic realities. They would be hard and fast limits, in the knowledge that failing to meet them would cause severe environmental disruption. The IPCC may keep saying it, but without an international agreement - ideally with some carrots and sticks to make it work - no targets will ever be hit.
We, the people, can take the lead by saying that we don't want out-of-control and unexpected price rises that can tip us over into insolvency and perhaps malnutrition, depending on where we live. We can take a look at the Contraction and Convergence proposal, alternatives to it and complementary policies. We can think about how we would like the world to be and build a consensus on how to get there, pretty darn quick. If we need to cut back on oil use, how about every person having the right to their per capita limit? If we use less, then we can sell our excess quota to someone else. If we want more, we pay those who are more efficient. If we live in a rural area, we can have a higher quota. And so on.
This would be no more complex than assigning tax codes and no harder to manage than swiping a bank card.
We learn to live within our income (including our credit limits in the calculation) so we can live within our energy limit. We can plan how to change our lifestyles as limits are cut. We can take to the streets not to protest just over the price of fuel, but over the lack of renewable energy, which could be exempt from quotas. If I want to buy my household energy from an offshore wind farm so I can save my quota for a flight to Brazil, but not enough wind farms have been built to meet the demand, then I will no longer be in a minority calling for them.
These sort of ideas can be brought in through the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, so my country will not be shooting itself in the foot by acting alone. Everyone will be taking similar action. Not identical, because countries are at different starting points, but there will be a global cooperative effort.
I think it is right to shout about fuel prices, particularly if they make it impossible to buy enough food to survive. But if we really want to protect our interests, the louder shout should be for our leaders to sign the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments so that, as quickly as possible, the various crises that threaten to spiral out of control come under effective management.
Transition will definitely happen. Let it be to a new cooperative reality, not a collapse.
Mike Brady
e-mail:
mbrady@maravilha.co.uk
Homepage:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/
Comments
Display the following 3 comments