5 Mar 2007
Notes from the Meeting of International Forum on Globalisation – Day One.
I was deeply honoured to be invited to a meeting of the IFG in London last weekend. For those who don’t know, the IFG is a North-South research and educational institution composed of leading activists, economists, scholars and researchers providing analyses and critiques on the cultural, social, political and environmental impacts of economic globalisation. It produces numerous publications; organises high-profile, large public events; hosts many issue-specific seminars and much more. Their last such gathering had been in San Francisco a few months ago, and the subject of this one, hosted in London, was “The Triple Crisis – climate chaos; peak oil (the end of cheap energy) and global resource depletion�.
It was attended by many of the leading people in the anti globalisation movement, as well as many of the leading voices in favour of localisation, Richard Heinberg, David Korten, Caroline Lucas, Jerry Mander, Vandana Shiva, David Pimental, Colin Hines being among those who have particularly inspired what I do over the years.
To describe attending an IFG meeting as a marathon is no understatement. Starting a 8.30am, the session of talks and discussion runs uninterrupted until 1, and then from 2pm to 6.30. Presentations are limited to 15 minutes, and most of those attending offered some kind of presentation. My report on the event doesn’t claim in any sense to be an accurate representation of what occurred, my note-taking was sporadic and occasionally illegible, and, naturally, were more thorough during parts in which I took a particular interest. I understand that the powerpoints, at least, will be put on the IFG website soon. Fatigue also meant that during some key parts I took no notes.
The first session was called ‘The Political Moment/Interconnected Crises’ and began with a presentation by Jeremy Leggett, who gave an excellent overview of recent developments in peak oil and climate change. Richard Heinberg then explained his concept of ‘Peak Everything’ and the Oil Depletion Protocol, arguing that stated coal reserves have been hugely overstated, as with uranium.
Simon Retallack set out in stark terms the reasons why a massive scale of response to climate change is the only valid response in order to keep the earth below a 2 degree increase in global temperature. While his prognosis was dire, he did note the rapid movement over the last year, and the reasons for optimism that things are beginning to move.
Maude Barlow, who gave a chilling talk about the impending problem of water depletion, as set out in her book ‘Blue Gold’. She argued that in order to feed projected increases in population, agriculture will need an 80% increased in water, when it is already struggling to find enough. Arguing that global legislation on water is essential, she quoted Martin Luther King, saying “while legislation may not change the heart, it will restrain the heartless�.
David Korten explained how we needed to add global economic collapse to peak oil and climate change, and argued for the need to create new cultural stories, an argument he elucidated in his recent book ‘The Great Turning’. Tony Clarke explored the geopolitics, seting out the global picture in terms of the wars that are underway and the preparations afoot for an expansion of them. He set out clearly how vulnerable the US is to oil depletion and the lengths it will go to secure supplies.
Vandana Shiva closed the session with an impassioned plea for localisation, and for an acknowledgement that farmers in the South need to be protected from the ravages of the global corporations. She said “Peak oil and water depletion are underground problems, climate change is an above ground problem, but the solutions to all three will come on the ground�. She described land struggles in the South as being the most important issue in deciding the fate of peak oil and climate change. She referred to a recent report in India which has argued that in order to increase food production India needs more roads. “How can you grow food on a road?� she asked. We have to beware, she argued, of solutions that mean that eradicating poverty means eradicating the poor, creating Special Economic Zones which clear the people off the land and lead to huge increases in climate emissions.
This was then followed by a discussion, and then by a session which featured reports from the various continents of the world, offering an insightful look at what is happening in the movement in various countries. After lunch, the next session was called “Prospects for Systemic Transformation�. Colin Hines began by arguing the case for localisation and for increased subsidiarity. He echoed Teddy Goldsmith’s argument that we need to do the absolute opposite of what we are doing now. He dismantled the myth that the only way to progress is to “bow the knee to the great God of international competition�. For each nation to protect its own economy, minimising trade is central. He argued the need for older people to invest their money in pension schemes which fund the work of younger activists.
David Fleming argued for resilience, taking a systems look at how we need to prepare for the shocks of peak oil and climate change, arguing the case for what he calls ‘Lean Thinking’ and how the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas fits within that. Megan Quinn argued that the solution to peak oil lies with a strengthened sense of community, and explored the work that the group The Community Solution is doing in the US. This led in to my talk, where I explored the concept of Transition Towns, and took the delegates on a trip through the Kinsale and then the Totnes experience of exploring localisation from the ground up.
The final session explored ‘Renewables and the Net Energy Factor’. It was introduced by Jack Santa Barbara, who pointed out that all alternatives to oil have a lower EROEI rate than oil. Oil itself has falled from 100:1 in 1930 to 20:1 now. David Pimental gave a talk I had been really looking forward to, where he demolished the myth of biofuels, in particular corn ethanol. He set out the EROEI for a variety of energy sources, wind 11:1, photovoltaics 2.5 – 4.3:1, hydro 23.7:1, crude oil 15:1, natural gas 17:1, coal 20:1, whereas biodiesel is between 1 – 3:1 and corn ethanol is between 0.58 and 1.5:1. Not very promising.
He argued that when all inputs are taken into account, it takes more energy to make corn ethanol than it yields. How, he asked, can some argue that it has a net energy? By leaving out the inconvenient data, farm machinery, processing, irrigation and so on. At present, he argued, the US produced 5 billion gallons, using 20% of its corn production, which is less than 1% of demand. If it used 100% of its corn to make ethanol, this would only yield 7% of demand. Does this, he asked, make the US oil independent?
His critique didn’t stop there. To produce 1 gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water. Corn uses more nitrogen, herbicides and pesticides than any other crop, creates more soil erosion than any other crop, and is only vaguely viable due to the level of subsidy it receives. At the moment the US Government gives a subsidy of $6bn dollars a year to ethanol, 90 times more than petroleum. Subsidies can always be used, he argued, to make the unviable viable and the viable unviable.
Lucia Ortiz spoke of Brazil’s experience with growing biofuels, which, in contradiction to the country’s environment minister arguing that ‘ethanol would be pouring out of the country’, or words to that effect, have found it quite disastrous. Biofuels may have a role, she concluded, but only in a local and decentralised context. Chris Sanders returned to EROEI, arguing that GDP is directly linked to EROEI, and urging delegates to become more familiar with how international markets work. “The guys with the guns think you’re nonsense�, he told the assembled gathering.
That evening was a dinner and award ceremony to honour Edward Goldsmith, the environmental activist who founded and edited the Ecologist for many years. It was a touching acknowledgement of his life and work.