Sunday, January 29, 2017

Trump's wall and the imaginary lines we draw

There was quick reaction to President Donald Trump's announcement last week that he plans to follow through on his campaign pledge to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. Conservative and liberal commentators alike were channeling their inner Robert Frost, referencing his poem "Mending Walls" that starts "Something there is that doesn't love a wall" and contains the well-known proverb, "Good fences make good neighbors."

It is worth remembering that this border is an imaginary line we draw ourselves. It's true that the Rio Grande separates Texas and Mexico. But much of the rest of the border is dirt. The only way to see the border is to draw a line.

Animals don't really respect borders the way we'd like them to. The jaguars, gray wolves and ocelots which depend on ranges that cross the U.S.-Mexican border don't see it. Humans can detect the human signs of a border. But they tend to think about how to get across it rather than how to stay on one side. Even East Berliners in the days of the famously lethal Berlin Wall found ways to get across to West Berlin. They went up, around, under and through it again and again.

I am reminded of my days in South Texas when the federal government decided enough was enough and erected a floating border of sorts around Florida to stop rising seaborne drug trafficking. As a result much of that drug trafficking merely shifted westward, some of it to the Texas coast.

The French imagined that the Maginot Line, built to halt a German invasion, did not have to extend to the English Channel. When the Second World War broke out, the Germans felt no obligation to march directly into French machine guns and artillery along the fortified line. Instead, they invaded Belgium and then turned south toward France. Who could have guessed it? (Actually, a lot of people did.)

Humans are making a mockery of the current border barrier daily by simply walking or driving through regular border crossings. It's hard to see how that will change with a wall. The wall will have to allow for current bridges and land crossings. And, it will have to allow rivers on the American side to flow into the Rio Grande or out of and into Mexico where it touches the Colorado River basin.

As for the current barrier, people can just climb over it or through it where there are holes made by wire cutters.

Yes, yes, I know. This new wall will be concrete, and it will be 55 feet tall. My source for the material and height specifications is Donald Trump. I'm sure in Trumpian language the wall will be fabulous and the best wall ever built by the smartest engineers. It will be "beautiful," he says.

We have no actual plans or specifications for such a wall from the Trump administration yet. But, a fanciful attempt by a Mexican architectural firm imagined a pink wall (so it would be beautiful) stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. The architects estimated it would take 16 years to complete in part because the mountainous terrain along some of the border will be difficult to access and build on. Perhaps adding to the difficulty for this design will be the shopping malls and detention centers built right into the wall.

Still, unless the wall is attended to by guards all along its length, people will just find ways over it or possibly under it. Ladders are pretty handy. Of course, wire cutters may also be needed. Where there is water, boats are a good choice and can be navigated up the tributaries of the Rio Grande well beyond the wall. Those crossing the border have a lot of experience with all of these.

It's hard to imagine that at one time the United States had a formal agreement with Mexico called the Bracero Program to import Mexican laborers to overcome a labor shortage, primarily for seasonal agricultural work during World War II. The program lasted until 1965 when new immigration legislation ended it. The need for Mexican seasonal labor, however, didn't end which is why much of the movement of 500,000 Mexican workers in and out of the United States each year continued as that movement went from being legally sanctioned and administered to being illegal.

Given all the goods and people crossing the Mexican border every day, the hoopla over the proposed wall must actually be about something other than keeping goods and people on the Mexican side out. It's more about the lines we construct in our minds between us and others.

Denizens of the U.S. coastal regions are used to the cacophony of voices and subcultures that populate their daily lives. There is no convenient line that can be drawn to separate cultures from one another in those places. In so-called flyover country, where Trump was hugely popular, recent immigrants are more sparse. It is easier to draw a line between "us" and "them." By this I do not mean that people living in the Plains states or the Midwest are not charitable. One can find plenty of stories about kindness to newcomers from foreign lands.

But the newcomers do not simply melt into a polyglot culture in those places. They are aliens and remain so for a very long time after arrival.

The wall--whether it is ever built or not--signifies a desire to reduce the number of newcomers and to preserve a way of life that is threatened economically and culturally by the globalism embraced by the country's bi-coastal elites. Stop the invasion of newcomers and you will stop the forces bearing down on a threatened way of life in flyover country; so goes the visceral logic.

It's doubtful that such a wall can do either. But a promise to build one signifies sympathy for a certain fearful and nostalgic outlook and an opposition to a globalism that has devastated the economies of small towns and rural communities--by shipping manufacturing jobs overseas and by favoring the consolidation of agricultural in a way that is driving more and more people off the land.

Sometimes when we put up barriers to others, it can actually be to draw them nearer in steps. Lovers love the chase. Businesspeople stake out negotiating positions, but do so only as part of a game to come to an agreement. Lines are drawn to be crossed. That's how new friends and new opportunities enter our lives.

Sometimes we put up barriers to protect ourselves from others who might harm us physically or who might merely reject us or shame us publicly for sport. Sometimes, we put up barriers to those who are culturally alien, too, not because we necessarily dislike them, but oftentimes because we are not certain of the stability of our own cultural lives.

The maelstrom of change which is now sweeping over American culture (and much of the world) can overwhelm those without secure anchorage. We are beyond the relative stability that prevailed prior to the 2008 financial crisis and into an in-between period of rapidly changing technological, social, economic and environmental forces, all of which demand new arrangements.

The globalism that promised to put to rest old divisions has instead reawakened them. A retreat behind a wall won't reconcile those divisions. But neither will a rapid advance toward a socially untenable and ecologically disastrous globalism based on a neoliberal economic ideology that has led to financial stagnation and decline among so many low- and middle-income families.

Economics thought that it could replace politics. Politics has come back to reassert itself and challenge what could not be publicly challenged before. The repressed always returns, often in ways which surprise and distress us.

We now have no choice. We are obliged to cross lines into uncharted territory to discover a new politics and a new economics. There will be many barriers and detours, and it won't be an easy journey.

Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He has been a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and is author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now, The Oil Drum,, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Which species are we sure we can survive without?

As a new administration takes over in Washington, both houses of Congress and the presidency will be in the hands of one party. As it turns out, that party, the Republicans, want to curtail the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Many Republicans complain that the act hinders ranching, logging, oil and gas exploration and water projects.

The key question they are not asking is this: Which species are we sure we can survive without? More on that later.

The act has in practice been used "for control of the land," says one congressman, and not for the rehabilitation of species. His statement stems from a misunderstanding about what it takes to revive an endangered species, namely habitat. That means the land, air, water and other species (plant and/or animal) which any particular species depends on in order to survive.

First, it's important to understand how humans and, in fact, all organisms obtain the resources they need. There are basically two strategies, takeover and drawdown. Takeover simply refers to taking over the habitat of other species to extract resources.

Humans routinely take over land with diverse plant and animal species and use it to grow crops of our choosing, tearing out trees and boulders and turning over the soil to kill the remaining plant life. We keep away nutrient-leeching weeds by pulling them out, plowing them under or killing them with chemicals. We also kill and repel insects that can eat part of what we grow.

Drawdown refers to the drawdown of finite resources such as fossil fuels, metal ores and other mineral deposits such as phosphates for fertilizer. Usable deposits of these are not regenerated by the Earth on any timescale that matters to humans.

Ranchers who take over rangeland for grazing livestock don't like it when wolves protected by the ESA decide to assert their desire to "take over" livestock and eat them. Ranchers are in peril if they try to kill protected wolves even to defend their investment. The conflict isn't over whether the livestock will die. It's about who gets to kill and eat the livestock and when.

We humans, it turns out, are in competition with other predators for food. What the opponents of the ESA are complaining about is that we are fighting these competing predators with both arms tied behind our backs. Why be concerned about what other competing species need? The priority should be what we humans need, right?

Now we arrive at the crux of the matter. Are we humans merely in a war of all against all in the biosphere? Don't all species compete with one another for advantage in the struggle for survival?

The answer to this question is yes and no. Species both compete and cooperate to survive. Dogs have evolved to cooperate with humans. Cooperation has been kind to the household dog population which now numbers close to 78 million in the United States alone.

Compare the ancient relative of the dog, the wolf. As a competitor, the wolf is definitely losing the competition with dogs (and humans). Only about 5,600 remain in the lower 48 states. A far less developed Alaska may have up to 11,000 wolves. But both numbers are minuscule compared to dog populations. Seeking to outcompete other species isn't always the most successful survival strategy (though I wouldn't count the adaptive strategies of dogs and wolves as consciously chosen.)

We have another very recent example of a species the population of which dropped precipitously as a result of unintended consequences of human action. The widespread adoption of the herbicide glyphosate is thought to be responsible for wiping out much of the milkweed in North America, the only plant that monarch butterfly larvae feed on. East of the Rocky Mountains, monarch populations have declined up to 90 percent. We humans didn't know that this would be one of the results of the widespread use of glyphosate. We found out the hard way.

Which brings us to the question of which species we are sure we can survive without. The answer so far is the ones that have already gone extinct while we humans have been around on the planet. We are now in what many scientists consider the Sixth Great Extinction. The main culprit is human activity and our sheer numbers.

As we are learning each day more and more, human survival relies on complex interdependencies with other microorganisms in our own bodies. We are also dependent on the microbiota of the soil that impart the fertility necessary to grow crops. In both areas we are learning just how much we do NOT know about these microorganisms and their interactions with us and with the soil.

If you consider that the broader world with which we interact has millions of species of which we are not aware, it becomes apparent that the Sixth Great Extinction is a rather clumsy and thoughtless way to play Russian roulette with human existence. We could easily cause an organism essential to our survival to go extinct without even realizing it.

The surprising decline of phytoplankton in the oceans comes to mind. The cause is likely rising ocean temperatures due to climate change. Phytoplankton are microscopic plants that form the base of the ocean food chain and produce two-thirds of the world's oxygen. Recent research suggests a rise of 6 degrees C in ocean temperatures "could stop oxygen production by phytoplankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis." How many other species might pose this kind of outsized danger to our existence if they were to decline, disappear or cease to function in a normal way?

You will now have an answer when a congressman, businessperson or fellow citizen asks, "Why be concerned about what other competing species need? The priority should be what we humans need, right?" Perhaps. But if one of those needs is to prevent our own extinction by keeping other organisms alive, then we'll have to define "need" differently than we do now.

I am under no illusion that the ESA in its current form is somehow the critical firewall to forestalling rapid biodiversity loss. There are too many human activities outside U.S. control and outside the jurisdiction of the act inside the United States that are responsible for the vast biodiversity loss we are experiencing. As a result I have what I believe is a not unreasonable fear that our experiment in species management called the Sixth Great Extinction could lead to the extinction of the one species we think we are saving by killing off so many others.

Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He has been a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and is author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now, The Oil Drum,, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Neoliberals know the price of everything and the value of nothing

My father likes to say that some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The same could be said of the neoliberals of the world, who--in case you missed my previous piece--are now transcendent in most policy circles across the world.

To review, the neoliberal agenda is one of deregulation, unfettered trade, fiscal austerity (with the attendant reduction in social programs), privatization and tax reduction. Fundamental to the neoliberal ideology is that government regulation and planning of economic activity are inherently flawed and cannot bring about the desired ends of efficiency, prosperity and social harmony.

Instead, price is the great and sufficient transmitter of information across the economy and across society at large. Price is the best barometer for all decisions. Hence, the emphasis on privatizing almost everything in society including education and health care.

Neoliberals believe that voting with your money is at least, if not more important, than voting in elections in a free society. The freer the market, the more choices consumers will have, and the more competitive the market, the better the quality will be.

There are several problems, of course, with the price mechanism. First, it only takes into account costs which are directly borne by the provider of a product or service. So-called externalities such as pollution and climate change are not tallied in the price. In order for those costs to be included, say, by the imposition of a carbon tax, the government would have to intervene, something not consistent with neoliberal ideas.

Second, such a monomaniacal focus on price alone pre-empts a broader view of social goals, reducing them merely to price signals. But not every social good can be reduced to a price signal in a nominally "free" market.

Here we have a case of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The neoliberal who ignores climate change sacrifices a habitable climate for his or her children and grandchildren in favor of cheap prices for goods and services now. This is the supposed "economic rationality" which the neoliberal espouses because he or she does not seem to know the VALUE of a habitable climate. What the neoliberals would like you to believe is that a neoliberal world is inevitable--which translates into a suicide-by-climate-change pact among peoples.

The theorists, policymakers, propagandists and business leaders also tell us that "globalization"--another vague, but central tenet--is inevitable, that it is a product of technological change, that it is akin to a natural law which we cannot violate without consequences.

In fact, it is nothing more than a conscious set of policies set out in worldwide trade agreements administered in part by the World Trade Organization--policies that favor the wealthy over everyone else and which break down national barriers (read: eliminate protections against the destruction of local industries and agriculture) that hinder the free flow of capital and goods (and, of course, the search for profits). As it turns out, French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his book of essays Sociology is a Martial Art, "the global market is a political creation."

It is no accident that neoliberals advocate neither for the globalization of a minimum wage nor for the globalization of free education nor for the globalization of universal health care. Why is that? Well, these areas of social uplift are considered merely to be cost centers which reduce competitiveness. But if these were available to everyone, then no country or industry would be at a disadvantage. So, it becomes obvious that the neoliberal agenda is to UNDERMINE all these social goods in order to lower costs (that is, lower wages, benefits, and taxes) and to increase profits by pitting one country against another in a race to the bottom of the social ladder.

Moreover, creating anxiety and uncertainty among employees, even ones at the highest level, is actually the point. Such anxiety and uncertainty hinders them from taking risks in participating fully in society as political actors.

The same logic would apply to environmental, health and safety regulations designed to protect workers, consumers and the population at large. If you want your country to be competitive, it is best to keep such regulations to a minimum.

Bourdieu points out that neoliberal policymakers are obsessed with the "confidence of the markets." Why, he asks, are they not equally concerned about the "confidence of the people"? Recent developments such as the decision by British voters to exit the European Union and the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in the United States suggest that the confidence of the people in the neoliberal globalist experiment is becoming shaky.

Bourdieu adds that instead of a universal minimum wage, we get what economist Frédéric Lordon calls the "minimum guaranteed shareholder income."

Any demand that education, health care, pensions and other benefits for workers be maintained, let alone expanded, is now styled as old-fashioned and backward-looking. These benefits must be "reformed" (read: destroyed). In fact, basic protections for the middle and lower classes are some of the most important human achievements ever, Bourdieu explains. Rolling them back isn't progress, it is anti-progress.

The neoliberal agenda styles itself as a revolution--the Reagan revolution, the Thatcher revolution--and anyone who opposes it is labeled parochial, retrograde and opposed to the march of progress. What these supposed "revolutions" really turn out to be are the latest versions of a very old system of wildcat crony capitalism supported by a combination of corporate and state power in which the corporations tell the state how to govern.

The neoliberal agenda undermines the hard-won gains of average people whose autonomy and independence--far from being undermined by social insurance programs--are predicated on a degree of financial security and access to health care and education which allow meaningful participation in democratic life. This participation would be what philosopher Isaiah Berlin refers to as "positive freedom," that is, the ability to take action based on our resources and previously developed capabilities.

The neoliberal agenda also threatens to undo any progress we've made so far in addressing the myriad existential environmental challenges that threaten to undo civilization as we know it.

We would not presume to understand the Sun by examining merely one wavelength of light coming from it. We would not presume to understand the forest by examining one tree. Nor would we presume to know all of humanity and human society by examining one individual. But somehow neoliberals believe that we can understand and govern society by focusing on price alone.

What gets sacrificed in such a system is social stability and harmony and a habitable biosphere inside which we can all live and prosper. This is what is now at stake when we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He has been a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and is author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now, The Oil Drum,, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at

Sunday, January 08, 2017

To confront power, one must first name it: Neoliberalism and the sustainability crisis

Recently, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ordered references to human-caused climate change be deleted from the state Deparment of Natural Resources website. Scientific findings concerning the natural world have become an embarrassment for the neoliberal world view. The answer in this case seems to be to delete them.

But what is the neoliberal world view and why is it important to understand? Paraphrasing theologian Walter Wink British writer George Monbiot explains that in order to confront power, one must first name it. The power Monbiot has in mind is the power of those enacting the neoliberal agenda. He explained in a talk last year that this ideology is embraced by leaders of both the political right and left throughout much of the world.

More disturbing is that few people are aware of this fact, and fewer still can define what neoliberalism is. It's important to understand that this ideology animates much of the governing class on the planet. It's important because this ideology almost completely opposes doing anything serious about climate change or any of the other environmental and social ills which afflict us.

First, neoliberalism should not be confused with modern-day liberalism which is generally associated with tolerant social policies and governmental intervention in and regulation of the economy. To the contrary, neoliberalism harkens back to 19th century classical liberalism. Neoliberals champion a return to laissez-faire economics by means of the privatization of public services and property, fiscal austerity, deregulation and, of course, free trade.

Neoliberalism was first enunciated in the late 1930s as a response to fascism and communism. Only later did neoliberal ideas find their full expression in the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the government of Britain's Margaret Thatcher. For obvious reasons neoliberal ideas have been championed and lavishly supported by wealthy corporate interests.

These ideas were also highly influential in the presidency of Bill Clinton and the government of Tony Blair. Thus, both left and right have adopted many of the tenets of neoliberalism. Both Clinton and Blair mixed the redistributive policies of the left with the economic ideas of neoliberalism. Certainly not every politician left and right embraces the neoliberal ideology; but it is now largely an article faith on both the left and the right that markets are the preferred solution to any problem.

One modern example is that addressing problems with public schools requires competition from publicly funded private schools often called charter schools. Other examples include privatizing public lands and minerals, public recreation facilities, and public services such as water, public parking and even prisons. Of course, not all on the left have embraced these policies. But the left has largely accepted corporate dominance of government policy which has led to a less than robust attempt to roll back such measures or to regulate industry.

Of course, the marketplace alone cannot address climate change, soil depletion, fisheries decline, deforestation, toxic waste disposal, and pollution in general. And so, in order for the neoliberal program to succeed it must prevent ideas about limits in nature from taking root. In general it must pretend that the problems mentioned above either do not exist or are a subject to ready technical fixes.

Scott Walker may be an egregious example on the right. But politicians on the left should not be let off lightly. The insistence, for instance, that the deployment of renewable energy will solve the climate change problem is disingenuous at best. It should be obvious to those who understand climate science that only drastic reductions in overall energy use and major changes in our infrastructure and in our daily routines can hope to bring down greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes. And again, the marketplace alone isn't going to do these things for us.

This message is inconvenient for both right and left in that it suggests that we must dispense with the growth economy and structure our economic lives based on other principles, say, sustainability above all and solidarity through shared sacrifice. These principles have the possibility to be inspiring, but they simply do not fit into the neoliberal vision of perpetual growth and concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

The first step, the very first step, however, is to know that much of the world's political elite subscribes to the neoliberal vision whether in its most austere trappings or in a softer form that retains some of the social safety net.

The irony is that though neoliberalism began as a response to fascism and communism--to the authoritarian concentration of political and corporate power in the state--neoliberalism has now morphed into an ideology that accepts corporate control of government policy, policy that is increasingly authoritarian in its economic and security (surveillance) apparatuses.

It is important to understand that neoliberalism as originally conceived and now practiced is hostile to social democracy. Most people recognize that many European states are social democracies and that Canada and Australia also qualify. But fewer acknowledge that the United States is also a social democracy as evidenced by its old-age pension and health care programs known as Social Security and Medicare, respectively. In addition, there is Medicaid, a health insurance program for the poor, and subsidized health care for many others under the Affordable Care Act.

Unemployment benefits and the Earned Income Tax Credit are yet other elements of America's social democracy as are subsidized housing for low-income households and subsidized home mortgages for special groups such as veterans. Americans often hate to think of their country as a social democracy. But they must now come to understand that it is if they wish to oppose the neoliberal agenda which aims to end the programs mentioned above and many others.

Monbiot is on to something when he says we must name the power we are up against. If you care about sustainability, if you care about social stability, if you care about the poor, the power you are up against is the neoliberal ideology as expressed on both the right and the left. If you don't understand that, then you will end up shadow boxing against a shadowy and ill-defined opponent.

P.S. I encourage you to watch the entire talk by Monbiot which is perhaps the clearest explanation I've seen of the neoliberal agenda.

Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He has been a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and is author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now, The Oil Drum,, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at

Sunday, January 01, 2017

The 100 percent renewable energy future: The good news and the bad news

Authors Richard Heinberg and David Fridley in their recent book Our Renewable Future make the case for a society that runs on 100 percent renewable energy. But they don't pull any punches, giving us both the good news and the bad news.

Okay, here's the good news: A 100 percent renewable energy society is well within our technical capability, and we've taken some important steps already. Now, here's the bad news: The 100 percent renewable energy society is inevitable whether we plan for it or not.

I know the bad news perhaps sounds like good news, but it's not. The bad news may make it seem as if all we have to do is sit back while solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass and other forms of renewable energy are deployed at an ever faster pace. But, what the bad news really implies is that if this deployment process isn't coupled with strenuous efforts to decrease our fossil-fuel energy use dramatically, we may find ourselves in a dystopian energy-starved world with a chaotic climate, a world that little resembles the one we live in now.

Here's the problem as the authors explain it toward the end of the book: "Sound national and international climate policies are crucial: without them, it will be impossible to organize a transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy that is orderly enough to maintain industrial civilization, while speedy enough to avert catastrophic ecosystem collapse."

In other words, we'll get to a renewable energy economy eventually as fossil fuels become ever more expensive to take out of the ground. But the default endpoint is not one that results from a planned transition which would try to save the best of industrial civilization while jettisoning the worst.

Rather, the default endpoint is merely the wreckage of an industrial civilization that didn't prepare properly. Such a society would be forced to make due with the energy budget available from renewables like all past civilizations. That's a lot less than we in industrialized countries use, and, more important, far less than we could have if we make sensible and serious plans and implement them starting now.

Heinberg and Fridley don't dwell on this conclusion, but it is at the heart of their message. Most of the book is spent explaining why the transition to renewable energy is possible and how it can take place.

This is a largely hopeful message which explains that there is a lot for each of us to do as citizens in influencing and pushing for the right policies and as community members in preparing ourselves, our families and our neighbors for a lower energy future. The authors make very clear that the amount of renewable energy we can hope to generate in the coming decades simply cannot be expected to match what we are getting today from fossil fuels. That means we have to change many aspects of our society and our daily lives.

Fortunately, as they explain, we know how to reduce our energy footprint dramatically if we have the will and the perseverance. The steps for doing this will sound familiar to many: weatherizing and insulating existing buildings; building new ones for very high energy efficiency; focusing on public transportation, bicycling and walking as modes of daily transport; creating a food system that uses far less energy (which means primarily organic) and builds rather than depletes the soil (which can become a place to store large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere); moving toward local and regional manufacturing (relocalization as it is commonly called) to reduce the need for freight transportation; moving away from the consumer economy which prioritizes consumption and planned obsolescence toward what the authors call the "conserver economy" which prioritizes durability, repair and recycling; and scheduling our electricity use to accommodate the daily cycles that renewables are likely to exhibit.

These are tall orders and lack much of the flash offered by the techno-optimists who assure us that renewable energy will make the future look like the present, only better--and, all we have to do is sit back and watch it happen.

Our Renewable Future is without a doubt the most sensible book I've read on the prospects and promise of renewable energy, and I wholeheartedly endorse its conclusions. A future of 100 percent renewable energy is possible. But only if we act now and persist.

That means there is a lot of work ahead for all of us. The rewards, however, are a stable climate and durable communities that offer many (but not all) of the advantages of our current fossil-fueled civilization. And this future is one that can be ushered in by a transition far more humane and far less traumatic than the one our business-as-usual trajectory could hope to offer.

Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He has been a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and is author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now, The Oil Drum,, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at