Coming Down the Mountain: the Fall of Peak Oil

In Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack's film, A Crude Awakening: the Oil Crash, the producer and director team presents the harsh reality of the looming peak oil crisis. The film explores the economic fallout and political conflict that may result from this ominous event. Through extensive research and interviews with some of the world's leading energy analysts, a dark vision of the future takes shape. Suggesting a different path, the film alludes to a humbler and more sustainable way of life. “The world has exceeded sustainable, peak supply” of oil according to Matt Simmons, an energy advisor to the Bush administration (1). An argument exists that modern technology and ingenuity offer hope in finding new oil fields. However, the high-tech equipment used today projects miniscule changes in the earth's crusts and thermal sensors allow humans to peer deep below the surface of the planet. Such cutting-edge technology failed to produce any significant sources of oil in almost 40 years, when the North Sea produced the last “great discovery” in 1969 (1). Oil geologist Colin Cambell, who consults to Exxon, Fina, Mobil, and Shell, says, “to imagine that there is anywhere missed as big as the North Sea, is just implausible” (1). He goes on to say that at least 58 countries world-wide now produce less oil than in the past and that the “world has now been sufficiently explored” for the oil industry to know “that all of the promising areas have been identified” (1). When U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, the ensuing energy crisis shattered the economy. To imagine a similar event on a global level brings shivers to the spine, contemplating even the best-case scenario. Oil fuels the global economy much like it fuels our cars. Without it, America and the rest of the world face impossible challenges and many unforeseen obstacles. Our only hope relies on immediate action and a focus on a real, renewable resource, our creativity. Perhaps an alternative energy source can replace our depleting reserves of oil. Hydrogen receives a lot of attention as the future of energy, but the infrastructure required for such a shift is years away, perhaps to late. Biomass and its related fuels present another option, yet these energy sources often demand more petroleum input than the net energy they produce. The possibility of nuclear power alarms many due to its safety risks. Additionally, it would take upwards of “10,000 of the largest, possible plants” to power the world (1). The intermittent nature of wind power precludes this technology from making a big difference in the global energy picture. Our best option, aside from drastic changes in every aspect of our lives, comes from the sun. Each day on earth offers 20,000 times as much energy from sunlight than we currently use in fossil fuels (1). The challenge of solar power lies in the costs of producing the panels, but its improving technology and rising demand lowers these costs everyday. The dilemma of peak oil requires an open mind in addition to extensive volumes of research and development for alternative energy. The subject of peak oil also arouses an interesting question: “What can the earth support without the energy we depend on from petroleum?”. The answer is as debatable as the alternatives mentioned to replace the huge amount of cheap energy oil offers today. What we really need to ask ourselves is, “Do we want to find out?”. Bibliography 1. A Crude Awakening: the Oil Crash. Prod./ Dir. Basil Gelpke, Ray McCormack. DVD. Lava Productions. 2006.

The Future of our Food System Depends on Us

The responsibility of shaping the food system in the United States falls on the American consumer. It became clear in recent years that the U.S. Government shows more interest in supporting big business, rather than the well-being of the American public. The effects of GMO foods and monoculture agriculture are not only dangerous to our health, but also to our environment and communities. American consumers must educate themselves on the origin of their food and the methods used to grow it since the government fails to mandate the labeling of genetically modified foods. The decisions made at the grocery store today will affect the food choices of tomorrow. The U.S. food system has become increasingly unsafe and unstable since the beginning of the 20th century. The use of nitrogen-based pesticides and fertilizers, developed from left-over WWII bombs, has degraded the environment and disrupted ecosystems by introducing chemicals such as DDT. The industrialization of agriculture has resulted in monoculture farming that is highly susceptible to infestation, as well as invasion by noxious weeds. A vicious and dangerous cycle has resulted since the typical response to these problems has been to use more chemicals. Monoculture farming has actually decreased the produce choices at the local market by focusing on specific crop strains. Of all the varietals grown at the start of the 20th century, an astounding 97% are now extinct or not being farmed! More recently, the introduction of genetically modified foods, or GMOs, has increased the dangers lurking in the aisles of grocery stores. Despite laboratory tests showing direct links between GMO foods and cancer, the U.S. government has allowed, and even encouraged, the distribution of these dangerous substances. In 2001, a widespread outbreak of illness and allergic reaction was blamed on a strain of genetically modified corn known as Star Link. These GMO crops are increasingly being found on farms where they are not wanted. As the pollen and seeds from these GMO crops spreads, so does the possibility for cross-breeding and contamination of both conventional and organic farms. Since some of these GMO strains contain a genetically altered “terminator gene”, which destroys the reproduction capabilities of the plant, the possibility of breeding with other crops is a scary one, at best. So why would the U.S. government allow such dangerous and unpredictable farming methods? The answer, as it usually does, comes down to money. As the idea of GMO foods grew larger, so to did the dollar signs in the eyes of the first Bush administration. The possibility of marketing these patent-owned crops to the rest of the world provided a financial opportunity never before seen in the world of agriculture. In fact, even as lead scientists from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned the government about the dangers of GMOs, the Bush Administration pushed the issue. But wouldn't this possible revenue go to the companies that owned the patents on the GMO crops, and not the U.S. government? To answer this question, the eerie connection between the U.S. government and the largest producer of GMO seeds, Monsanto, must be scrutinized. Monsanto has been a major player in the industrialization of agriculture, and hence, the destruction of our environment and the small, American farm. The big money and political influence of this corporation has driven the average farmer to the brink of extinction and shaped government policy on the use of GMOs. As genetically modified crops showed up on non-GMO farms from the air-borne spread of seeds and pollen, Monsanto threatened those farmers with lawsuits, saying that the farmers were illegally growing crops that Monsanto owned. In fact, Monsanto now owns over 11,000 patents on seeds and other agriculture products. Even more alarming however, is the direct connection between Monsanto and the U.S. government. When the FDA warned the government about the possible dangers of genetically modified foods in the early 90's, the Bush administration faced resistance in pushing their agenda. To combat this “threat”, the administration hired a new Deputy Commissioner of Policy for the Food and Drug Administration. Ironically, the new hire, Michael Taylor, was a Senior Counsel Member of the law firm that represented Monsanto at the time. Taylor was instrumental in developing the litigation for the lawsuits against American farmers. However, the connections between Monsanto and branches of the U.S. government do not stop there. Linda Fisher flip-flopped back and forth between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Monsanto three times over a period of twenty years in high-profile roles such as Executive Vice President (Monsanto) and Deputy Administrator (EPA). The current Vice President, Dick Cheney, acted as President of a subsidiary company of Monsanto known as Searle. Even our nation's highest court could not escape the grasp of Monsanto when Clarence Thomas, a Monsanto Lawyer for Regulatory Affairs, was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice! The control Monsanto exerts over the U.S. government can be summed up in the following quote: “Agricultural biotech will find a supporter occupying the White House next year regardless of which candidate wins the election in November.” (Monsanto in-house newsletter, October 6, 2000) Given this egregious disregard for public well-being and obvious connection to Monsanto, the U.S. government cannot be counted on to safeguard the nation's food supply. Therefore, this responsibility falls on the shoulders of the American consumer and the best way to vote is often with our dollar. Positive change is happening as seen in the tremendous growth of organic foods. Sales in this sector have gone from 1 billion dollars in 1990 to an astounding 13 billion in 2003. America has seen a 79% increase in local farmer's markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) from 1994 to 2002. Lacking federal support, 10 states including South Dakota and Nebraska have passed their own legislation banning large, corporate farms. Many local groups and non-profit organizations have taken it upon themselves to educate the public on these important food issues. By learning about the dangers of GMOs, supporting local farms, and buying organic foods we can begin to take back what is rightfully ours. After all, this is our food...and our future! Bibliography The Future of Food. Dir. Deborah Koons Garcia. 2004. DVD. Lily Films, 2004.