The difficulty of factoring in climate change

The second part of overshoot, environmental degradation, greatest impact will come from climate change. That is not to say that standard environmental degradation; destruction of farmland, atmospheric pollution, etc, will not be a major problem but compared to climate change these are simple, predictable and linear events, climate change is unpredictable, complex and non-linear. Heres an example of a climates systematic complexity, XKCD cassini. Notice that he said that the level of complexity exhibited by that single valley of Chad is found everywhere.

The practical side of this is simple; I can’t use the regional/local effects of climate change as an assumption, with any accuracy, because the effects are completely unknown, and unknowable, to me at this scale. In the various models I’ve seen, the only consistency I’ve seen is that the south of australia gets wetter while the north gets drier, only one model showed the changing rain patterns (more sporadic and evaporates faster). Some things can be guessed, such as more extreme weather events, more variability and such, but specifics can’t be guessed easily on anything below a continental scale.

This means I haven’t used climate change as an explicit assumption, only a an implicit. So, I assume at the end of the peak oil transition that our climate will share similarities with its current state, being only more extreme and with shifted bioregions. I highly doubt this is what we will face, but it’s the best guess I have. Without more accurate and exact climate models the best way to deal with possible major unforseen changes is through willingness and preparation to adapt.  

Guest Post: The basics of Transition and post-peak and Transition in a naval context and for Australia

This is a guest post by my Twin.

In talking about any strategies and tactics for any military branch (but naval in particular) in the context of the post peak future, two important considerations must be factored in. The goal(s) of that military branch and at what stage beyond post peak one is looking at (These are more important for naval considerations because ships are purpose built and take a large amount of capital to build and maintain). The two stages I will be considering are Transition and the ‘New Dawn’. The Transition will be the time of decay and destruction where the world is getting larger and the available resources are getting, on average, smaller across the world. The ‘New Dawn’ will be the period after the decay stops and (hopefully) reverses to some extent, for the naval context I will also add that it also has the aspect that little to no ‘legacy tech’ is in use by the major conventional powers and the majority of Warships in active use are built post-peak. Goals are needed as they define how important, and therefore how many resources can be diverted, for this military aspect. They also define what is needed from that specific military branch in terms of operational capacity and For a Navy where ships have inbuilt capacity an long lifetimes (commonly decades) this is very important.

What are Australia maritime goals? The most obvious one is to defend the country from invasion and due to the criticality of this task, it is likely to be the first priority. However, there are other considerations, this Stratfor piece is an excellent discussion on this topic http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/australias-strategy?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=official&utm_campaign=link.

In summation our biggest maritime problem is that, we need to trade through sea-lanes in order to be as prosperous as we have been and that we are relatively secure from invasion. However, we are not strong enough to protect and keep the sea-lanes open, especially against the world’s supreme naval power (first Britain and now the US). This means that our main strategy has been to create ‘dependency’ on us from the naval hegemony so that they will protect the trade lanes we depend on. In a post peak world, this strategy would be unreliable on the long term due to several factors such as the decentralization of Transition as well as the loss of technology gradients making the creation of a global empire much more difficult. The alternative strategy would be to keep the sea lanes open ourselves through a mix of direct naval action (mostly close to our shores) and friendly relations with those who control the other important sea lanes.

The differences in Transition and the ‘New Dawn’ are great in terms of tactics, strategic outlook, and preparation. The Transition phase is likely to be long (several decades to centuries) especially in naval terms; it will also involve shorter trade routes (modern long-range shipping will have severe problems) as well as the rapid changing of trade routes during the initial stages. The ‘New Dawn’ on the other hand will have longer trade routes and be defined by whatever technologies are viable and around. This leads to different responses to the two phases, Transition due to the shorter trade routes would favor more direct action along the lines of anti-piracy operations and naval dominance in the local region sufficient to stop the local island nations from blocking said routes. The ‘New Dawn’ on the other hand would rely more on diplomatic efforts to secure the longer trade routes in a similar way as today. Other aspects such as technology and available capital would also differentiate the two phases in radical ways. This aspect of different levels of access to capital is perhaps the greatest challenge in the Transition phase as during the transition little capital would be available to create new warships and maintain the existing ones, making adaption difficult. This however is solvable by preparation and planning taken before the peak hits during the time left. The ‘New Dawn’ is difficult if not impossible to prepare for due to the devastation that will take place during the peak as well as the unknowns about what technologies and resources will be available during that time.

The Transition phase has several problems due to the unique nature of this phase. These aspects are many but two of the main ones are the transitory nature of Transition with the strategic makeup is one of constant flux ending in the arrival of the ‘New Dawn’ through a slow process. The other is the lack of capital, which would mean that navies would be largely limited in warships to what survives the immediate post peak with only small ships being viable to build in significant numbers, this would also make maintenance and logistical support of the navy difficult. This would mean that high tech and large warships would quickly lose capability, as they couldn’t be maintained as often as needed. This would also cause problems in armaments, as the main ship-to-ship weapon of the modern vessel is the missile, a high tech piece of equipment. This would mean that there would be fewer missiles available, their price would be greater and they would be less effective due to cost cutting, non-replacement and degradation of the ships high tech sensors (important for targeting and control of said missiles). Another major tactical challenge during this time is a unique aspect of modern warship design, their lack of armor. Modern warships commonly have little to no armor and rely on not being hit to survive, through destruction of the enemy before either they fire, or destruction of the missiles fired at them. This has resulted in a British warship (HMS Sheffield) during the Falkland’s island being sunk by an Exocet that did not even detonate, instead punching through the ship damaging it and setting it on fire. For related reasons warship speed is also commonly slower than previous ships. This coupled with the inability to quickly replace losses and reduced capabilities would likely make most navies avoid engagements were they could easily lose irreplaceable ships.

Available technology and its availability will determine aspects of both the Transition and ‘New Dawn’ phases. This could easily create a complex environment with major difference amongst different forces as well as create radically different tactics depending on these variables. An example would be missiles, there may be large accurate missiles capable of sinking even the most heavily armored battleship but only the major powers could have access to them. This would mean that armored warships would be extremely effective against pirates but ineffective against another state’s navy. Or missiles could only be viable from aircraft mounts and with limited payloads leading to airplanes having a major advantage but armored warships able to survive. What technologies will be available during the different stages of the post-peak world is a complex question that I am in no position to make any authoritative statements only general principles to consider

1. the age of the technology, new or old
2. the simplicity of said technology
3. how many separate production and design stages are needed
4. dependency on related technologies
5. and so on

Using this I would say that the predominate ship weapon is likely to become the cannon, likely turreted, as the technology is relatively simple when compared to missiles, it is much older and it depends less on related technologies. This does not mean that I think missiles will not be possible or even viable just that cannons will be preferable in many ways. This however means that I also think that armor will come back to warships as well as battleships due to their advantages in terms of cannons.

Other technologies to consider include large fleet carriers, torpedoes (both short and long range), helicopters, and subs. All have their advantages and disadvantages as well as varying levels of complexity and resource needs.

Next post I will look at generalized strategies for the transition stage.

Agriculture and Industry: Economic foundations

Agriculture, the conversion of sunlight to chemical energy and fibres for human use, and Industry, the manipulation of matter to create artefacts, form the foundation of any economy while also being dependent on one another. Agriculture, even in its most primitive form, cannot function without tools (try digging soil with your bare hands), which are products of industry. However, industry, especially handcraft industry, requires the energy provided by agriculture to both create artefacts and extract the raw materials necessary. Neither of these elements stands apart but rather meshes in an intertwining whole. This follows naturally from humanities evolution from only being tool-wielding hunter-gatherers to farmers who used tools with both agriculture and industry being formed together at the same time.

What are the practical aspects of this analysis? It basically allows us to start technological triage on the basic elements of our tech base in a system based holistic approach. We can define completely internal economic units  e.g. an organic agriculture with horses, charcoal from a logging industry (half agriculture, half industry) and a blacksmith with bog iron is a self-sufficient unit that can be expanded/changed in various ways and join other units. Expanding the smithy to a machine shop, using bicycles, adding recycling technology, electricity and/or basic renewables (other than charcoal and food) are some of the ways the alter this basic unit.

Lets imagine this system, how it functions and how changes and linkages could occur. We’ll use a small village surrounded by farmland and forests, no major settlements are nearby (towns and cities) only other villages connected by roads. For the baseline village the only power sources are food (human), fodder (animal) and wood (charcoal, heating or cooking). Local resources are what can be grown and accessed from iron deposits (bog iron or minable) that a small village could utilise. The baseline tech/skill structure to provide the economy is founded on farming, logging and blacksmithing, each feeds the other in some vital way to produce all of the resources the others need to function. The farmers and loggers require tools from the blacksmith, the blacksmith needs charcoal made from wood and the loggers and blacksmith need food from the farmers (yes, they would grow/hunt their own in this situation but only a supplementary amount). Horses and oxen provide transport both within the village, from the farms and to other villages. This basic structure could last indefinitely (if the iron is recycled) without outside imports, unless some disaster hits. However, it doesn’t fulfil all the needs of the villagers; cloth needs to be spun to make clothes, shelters needs to be erected and medicine created for times of sickness.  So these other tech units (fibre production, then spinning thread, making clothes and the tools necessary for the cloth industry) need to be added. In a peasant village these jobs wouldn’t be done by specialists, the wives would have spun cloth and made clothes, but as specialisation occurs new professions would have sprung up but the basic tech/skill structures are still there.

Now let’s change the basics. Instead of only having access to wood, food and fodder, these peasants use either windmills or waterwheels to provide motive power. For this you need a more advanced smithy and  also carpentry. Therefore, to add the complexity of waterwheels or windmills we have to expand the skills of an already existing component. The same occurs if bicycles are added, along with new materials. What happens if we upgrade the single blacksmith to a small machine shop and foundry? Suddenly the range of tools and machines that can be made (and the quantity) has expanded and if we add electricity more things become possible still (like radio). To accommodate this would require more specialisation in the machinists and more resources, e.g. if the machines run of an electric motor or a heat engine then the energy would have to be provide via either the windmills,  waterwheels, biofuels or wood. Every change affects all the relating techs and alters, even if only slightly, the dynamics of the system.   

Ultimately, which basic forms of agriculture and industry are implemented in a given area will depend on both the local environment of resources, weather/climate plus wildlife and the community of technology in adjacent areas. From these two elements will a human-technology ecosystem form.

Turning into a Global Backwater; A good Thing?

Australia and New Zealand are the most isolated developed countries in the world and we are both far removed (geographically) from most the major global centres of power, such as Europe, America, Russia and China. Of the new global powers forming in the wake of Americas decline, (a resurgent Russia, China, India, possibly Brazil) India is the closest but Indonesia, which is shaping up into a powerful regional player, is directly between us. So on a global level, while peak oil advances, shreds global transport, and communication lines forcing more regional forms, Australia and New Zealand will become greatly isolated and removed from the world stage. This could well be seen as a positive advantage.

Militarily there are obvious changes. There was an AISO report released recently from the cold war about a potential US-Russia war, accordingly we wouldn’t be hit in major way (the most we’d have to do is evacuate Adelaide for a few days and have 2000 deaths, light by nuclear war standards). I expect similar things would happen with any major ‘global’ or even a major regional war; we won’t be targeted for several reasons. The important parts of Australia (going by population levels) are all in the southern coast (focused on the east more than the west), facing away from everyone – this makes attacking more difficult. The land also forms an effective defence – similar to Russia (think Napoleon) – and thanks to Submarines the obvious solution of sea transport can be stopped, sea denial tactics are possible, with submarines, against even a superior navy, which massively limits the enemy’s logistic support. This works the other way as well, limiting our ability to project force against most other states.

Economically we have a major advantage in a deglobalising world. Most of our economy is based around our high levels of natural resources, notably agriculture and minerals. in a world where resources have to be used close to where they’re extracted this type of economy coupled with the world class education, research centres (a large amount of research is done here) and a still competitive (but currently in trouble and losing ground) manufacturing base that’s exploring new technologies , such as 3D printing, will be quite powerful. The main problem (and this applies to New Zealand) is that we rely heavily on our extraction exports for our wealth, not that we don’t also use the extractions (we’re self-sufficient in steel for example), and as global trade takes a hit we will see our wealth (measured in such things as GDP) drop quite drastically and also in the real terms of imported goods (everything from Indonesian sweetshop clothes to high precision German equipment). However, since we posses a large resource base and some local manufacturing (especially in base products e.g. steel, aluminium and local renewable energy companies), a large agricultural surplus and good education this is solvable.

First off, we would have to solve the energy problem, a full review of our energy situation will be another post (significant research needed), so I’ll cover the basics. Almost all of our electricity resources are local, whether its coal from the La Trobe valley (lignite) or Tasmania Hydropower (same for New Zealand) and renewables are increasing their share of the electricity production. This could have the interesting effect of having Tasmania become an Industrial (lots of hydropower) and/or chemical production (the necessary agriculture is there and cheap hydroelectricity for hydrogen and other chemicals) centre while the other states scramble to retrofit /rebuild for the new economic situation, New Zealand is also in a similar position. Our renewables are definitely up to the task but it will take time, luckily we can quickly gain access to the necessary resources.

An interesting area will be agriculture since we export a lot (e.g. 50% of our Milk) and while the sector is taking hits from globalisation, the potential remains. So what to do with all this spare capacity, two things; transition to a compact, organic and sustainable farming and food distribution system (I expect part of this will include more small farms) and generate much more bioenergy (the fusion of these two will be quite interesting) for, in order of importance, supplying rural areas with energy (urban areas have other ways), industry, individuals and finally exports (if energy exporting is still a possibility) or military. Currently there are quite a few projects here for farm made and used bioenergy (e.g. a piggery that makes then used biogas and waste heat), a useful adaptation because it directly makes our food system more resilient. Another area will be the replacement of petrochemicals with agrochemicals (e.g. bioplastic) that no longer have to compete against the now cheaper petrochemicals (yes there are limits and problems, but it can help).

Being a global backwater isn’t that bad for us economically, once adaptation has taken place.

Culture will be an interesting area for Australia. Our main cultural heritage is British (I include Irish and Scottish here), followed by a strong mainland European presence and now an increasing oriental influence from the increasing Asian immigration. But, while it has died out recently to globalisation, there has long been a strong Australian culture focused on the bush (think of Ned Kelly, A.B Banjo Paterson’s Poems or the Boxing Kangaroo) that could well see a revival. To illustrate I’ll use food, this comes in two ways ; Bush tucker or native Australian food, like kangaroo (a very good meat), being used more often instead of traditional ingredients and a unique cooking style that draws on all the cultures that have immigrated to Australia (known as fusion cooking).

As the rest of the world recedes, I expect a strong Australian culture will develop and become highly distinctive from the other major cultures of the world.

Therefore, while there are great challenges ahead, which will bring great pain, for Australia these are surmountable. We occupy a safe, resource rich country and have the ability to use these advantages. Becoming a global backwater is actually not that bad.