HOW MUCH THE WORLD HAS CHANGED and how much more will it change?
Older folk go on from time to time about the "good old days". I am not sure that such have ever existed but it is interesting to reflect on how the world was when one was young. My first four years were spent on our small farm in the Mid-North of South Australia. This dry-farming country just north of the Clare Valley (now famous for its wines) and about 100 miles north of the state capitol, Adelaide. The Depression was about over and the Second World War about to begin.
Apart from a few well-off, long established farmers, I suspect we were somewhat poor. Grain prices were down and cash flow was ever a problem. I think we ran about 20 cows that my father hand milked. Each evening, he separated the cream, using a hand operated separator. I loved to wathch his steady rhythm as a steady flow of rich cream appeared in the collector. From this, my mother churned butter to be sold at the Clare market for cash. We had no electric power so used kerosene lamps at night. A party-line telephone and a battery-powered radio kept is in touch with the world. My father had been widowed in 1933 and married my mother the following year. Tragically, their first child died, drowning in a close-by creek during harvest at just 18 months age. Even so, I am sure they recalled "good old days".
Once war broke out, manpower shortages forced my father to close up the farm. We moved into Clare and he rejoined the Army. We now had electric power but had no telephone. Wartime meant shortages and strict rationing of almost every thing. There were national programs to recover scrap of almost every sort. The unemployment endemic prior to the war came to an end through military service or work in factories devoted to producing war material. Shortages and rationing continued into the early 1950s.
Despite the wartime conditions, I had an almost idyllic childhood. Prior to teenage years, this was spent in the county or the natural settings of Adelaides. In those days, there was little or no pollution of streams and we could swim, fish, and frolic in the river, dammed up in the city area to form a lake, and riding our bikes or hiking.
Relative to life in the US, Australia was somewhat 'backward'. Having marched into war for the sake of King and 'Empire', we were mightily glad for the role US forces played in the defense of Australia. The population of Australia was about one quarter of the current level of 26 million. The national government established the 'Snowy River Scheme'', requiring American engineering expertise from the TVA and large numbers of migrants from Europe. The economy began to improve though few of us had any such notion as "the economy".
This was the beginning of boom times in both countries, particularly the US. Amongst the many explanations for this is a relatively clear and simple account offered by Jeff Rubin in his recent book, 'Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller'. He posits that the post war boom was enabled by cheap and plentiful oil. This continued up to the OPEC embargo of the early 1970s. He shows that cheap oil relates to the boom-bust business cycle. When demand is less, cheap oil acts to stimulate the economy. More oil is used to drive the improving economy so it then rises in price. In turn, this slows business and brings on the next recession.
It was simpler when the developed nations were the main consumers and the large oil companies owned the major oil fields. Now the large fields have been taken over by oil producing nations and economies like China and India are developing a middle class bent on owning motorcars just like the rest of us. A third factor is that oil producing countries are increasingly reserving oil for their domestic consumption. Finally, oil is getting harder to find, extract, and bring to market. BP's woes with deep sea drilling underscore this problem. Deep sea supplies were expected to make up 12% of new supplies. Safe retrieval of deep sea oil will now mean more expensive crude.
So much for the "good old days"; what of my next 20 years (and yours)?
Transport uses 70% of fossil fuels consumed. We private car owners consume 50% of that. Experience has shown that, as fuel cost rise, we travel less, the bottom limit being set by our need to commute and drive other essential miles. We also plan our miles more carefully. More fuel can be allocated to business transport, like trucking and rail transport. As these industries confront rising fuel costs, more goods are transported the cheapest way, by train and by water (yes, traffic on the Erie Canal increased 300% when fuel was over $4 per gallon!). The goods transported by the more expensive modes will rise in price, especially food and most especially food provided by the large agricultural companies.
We will show great innovation about how to use less gas and oil. How long will be our period of adjustment to a lower standard of living (as defined by the use of motor transport)? If you look to Europe and $7 per gallon gasoline, there will be a lot of Chrysler/Fiat 500s, three door super-mini hatchbacks, and scooters.
What I fret about, as I consider possible futures, is the rising cost of energy and how this will slow economic recovery. Almost everything we dig out of the ground, even coal and the oil from Alberta's oil sands, is done by machines using oil. When oil was triple digit dollars, mining companies began to close down mines. Since the economy runs on energy, where will the required energy come from?
According to some pundits, it will take 20 years to bring alternate energy sources to significant levels and the same period to replace sufficient gas guzzler cars with really economic or electric vehicles. As for the latter, imagine the extra load charging up all those electric cars will put on the grid...a grid that threatens to collapse with too many air-conditioners are on in the summer. A more taxing question is from what energy source will the necessary power be generated.
I hope that human ingenuity will come into force. A recent article,
tells how the Empire State Building management is spending $13 million to replace 6,514 windows with remade, energy efficient windows. The power saving will be 38% making possible recovery of the outlay in just over three years! Using cars less, using more efficient cars, and conserving energy looks like the way to go, nobody disagrees.
The problem is with price; while energy is relatively cheap, most of us do little to conserve. It might be hard to extricate ourselves from a looming nightmare dilemma if we all wait until price forces us to conserve. But what is new?
