The World We Face (and what to do about it)
   For millennia mankind has increased its productivity and quality of life by harnessing energy. In ancient times this was quite literally through the harnessing of draft animals. An ancient proverb references both the consequences and benefits of this practice: “Where no oxen are the manger is clean, but much increase comes through the strength of the ox.” Those with wealth and power harnessed other human beings as slaves. Sadly, such was the practice in the USA early in our history.
   Some ingenious people were able to harness water power for the grinding of grain. This might be considered the first “kitchen” appliance, in that it replaced an activity commonly performed by women preparing food.
   Others – most notably the Dutch – harnessed wind power for the pumping of water.
   Water and wind power have their weaknesses. Water power is simply not available everywhere. Wind power although more widely available than water power, is intermittent, and varies greatly in its strength. Both of these are limited in their power outputs at any given location. If all the available water power in the rivers of the United States were harnessed, the total would still be a small fraction of our energy needs.

Energy on demand
   The industrial revolution in England began with the development of steam power. Now whatever amount of power was needed could be produced wherever it was needed. The only requirement is that combustible fuel be delivered to the site (Let’s forever ignore the exception of nuclear power in this discussion).
   The need for fuel soon outstripped the ability of natural forests to reproduce trees, and thermal processes (to include the smelting of iron) turned to coal, and eventually oil.
   As we fast-forward to our current period, we can see that there are additional issues. Land is devastated by pollution and mining operations, and we have delivery problems. We are forced into bad treaties and wars to insure the resources to meet our voracious energy apatite. Even without the political problems, our current practices are doomed. Oil wells are drying up, and other sources must ultimately follow. The world is increasingly controlled by those who control sources of fuel.

Consider the options
   There are often questions with no good answers, and problems with no desirable solutions. In such cases, inaction is a choice, and often one of the worst. A willingness to face reality can steer around the default of inaction, and an intelligent analysis can reveal other options. A willingness to compromise can then make the best option available.
   The reality is that the future will be different from the past. We won’t have abundant cheap energy, we will use less of it, and we will pay more for it.
   The next worst thing to inaction is to make reluctant incremental adjustments as the pressure increases. Legislation and economics are required to drive people into getting more efficient appliances and higher gas-mileage cars. These are good products by the way, and they do significantly contribute to the available energy, but each adjustment required is a reluctant imposition that ultimately fails to solve the real and looming problem.

Change is not an option
   Again, the reality check: If/since we cannot close this gap with our current lifestyles, we will either change our lifestyles or suffer shortages. Take your pick between: You won’t be able to drive your car, electricity will only be on for a few hours a day, you won’t be able to heat or cool your house, you won’t be able to cook, two or more of the above.
   Any of these would constitute a change in our lifestyle – albeit an involuntary one. Although energy costs have already began to increase alarmingly. An availability crisis may still be ten or more years in the future – unless a broken treaty, a war, a change in global politics, or a major natural disaster happens. In such cases, major shortages could happen at any time.
   It would be far wiser to design a change that is immune to catastrophic loss and uncontrollable costs, and to embrace it voluntarily.
A positive direction
   The key word for future energy sources is “renewable.” When the last drop or chunk of fossil fuel has been consumed, any source of energy we have will be that which is replenished in real time through nature. Such sources are considered “renewable.” For the most part, they consist of wind, water, and solar. Biomass, the burning of wood etc. is technically a category of solar.
   With the exception of biomass, such sources cause no pollution directly. Indirectly however, energy usage and pollution are involved in the manufacture of equipment required to harvest wind and water.
   Although the burning of wood creates CO2, growing wood for fuel pulls this CO2 out of the atmosphere, stores the carbon as energy, and releases the oxygen for us to breathe.
   My father planted a one hundred fifty-foot row of eucalyptus trees so he would have wood to heat his home. The fall before the summer he died he harvested the last tree he would ever need; it was about two feet thick at the base. The rest of the trees continue to bind many tons of CO2 that they have extracted from the atmosphere. The practice of growing wood for fuel is clearly an avenue by which greenhouse gasses can be reduced.
   Another key word is “conservation.” You can have enough of something by either getting more, or by needing less. Renewable energy sources will never provide enough to meet the needs of our current patterns of usage. Therefore we are ultimately going to be making major changes in our lifestyles whether we choose to face this reality or not. Any intelligent individual who is willing to face reality is going embrace conservation and renewable energy, rather than suffer shortages.
   A third key concept is “sustainability.” Sustainability happens when through conservation and the use of renewable energy you have enough to meet your needs.
   The big challenge for us in America is that there is such a disparity between opportunities for renewable energy and the amount of energy we need. Available opportunities for conservation in our current culture are simply not enough to close this gap. This is why a significant redesign of our living practices is imperative.
   A fourth and final key word is “local.” This concept is essential to the success of the other efforts. To the degree that your place of work and the sources of the fundamental essentials of life (food, shelter, water, and energy) are locally available, you cease to be helpless with regard to your own provision.

Target principles
   When designing something, it is a good practice to define the most desired outcome before the actual design begins. Never begin by limiting your thinking with a check list of what can’t be done, or that’s all you’ll succeed in designing.

The local advantage
   Approximately two thirds of all the petroleum used in the USA is consumed in transportation. We reduce this sector of energy dependency directly to the degree that transportation needs can be minimized.
   Look around you: Consider the area covered by streets, gas stations, driveways, garages (household and commercial) auto parts stores, etc. This all represents environment that has been obliterated by the transportation infrastructure alone.
How much of your paycheck goes to car payments, insurance, gasoline, oil, repairs, and maintenance? Such expenses are not voluntary; they are unavoidable if you own a car.
   There is a trend in recent years of people moving back from the suburbs into apartments near their work. This is a good thing, and millions of people no longer need cars. It is far cheaper to rent a car for an occasional week or weekend than to own one forever. Another important factor is the amount of time you spend each day just getting to and from work.
A still better direction would be to find or create work where you chose to live. In this case however, the availability of public transportation could become a critical factor.
   In the transmission of electrical power, the volume of the wires increases with the square of the distance. This means that if you lived one half the distance from the power plant, only one fourth of the copper would be needed to deliver your power.
   Taking this to an extreme, any power developed at the household level from renewable sources would have a tremendous advantage both environmentally and economically (don’t write “can’t be done” next to this one).

The neighborhood community
   A small set of local services would enhance the practicality of living locally. A food store, restaurant/coffee shop, recreational facilities, a community building, a rental agency – anything but a gas station – would provide local employment and bring the essentials of life within walking distance.
   Although I am a strong advocate of private ownership, essentials such as food staples and utility distribution systems should be owned and controlled exclusively by the local community, with every resident homeowner in it having a voice and a single vote. Prepared foods and all other businesses would remain private. This would prevent individuals companies, and external levels of government from holding the community hostage for their personal gain. A light industrial preserve and a village woodlot (“forest”) adjacent to the neighborhood would provide everything but food, and bring true local sustainability within reach.
   Allocate some space for a sustainable energy power plant. We’ll need to work on this one, but the objective would be to meet all energy needs as reliably and conveniently as they are now.