 accept without question as a given, is standing still, while the edge of a precipice advances toward it. Modern medical care requires transport of people to hospitals in emergency cases (gasoline to put into the fuel tanks of ambulances), and even air-ambulances (e.g. the "heli-pad" on top of the Royal London Hospital); moreover, it requires the movement of medical supplies: drugs, equipment for surgical procedures, hypodermics, blood, bottled oxygen, food, the disposal of medical-waste...the list goes on and on, and the doctors, nurses, administrative staff, porters, and even the Senior Managers and accountants - since most hospitals are now "cost centres" - all have to get to work!
If, as some think, the world is already at close to the half-way point of oil extraction and consumption, then this might be a good moment to ponder how to achieve a condition of healthfulness in the time that is at hand.
Provision of energy affects everything, and complex equipment in hospitals as elsewhere can only run if there if sufficient electricity to allow it to do so. Otherwise it may just sit monumentally outside in the carparks of such institutions, that are no longer replete with either the means to operate the latest medical breakthrough or indeed cars. Most items, even surgical gloves, are manufactured fundamentally from oil. Hence oil (petroleum) should be cherished as a unique chemical feedstock, and so breaking our dependence on it for fuel, is mandatory, even ignoring all other reasons for doing so. This is an exercise in conservation, not obviously of flora or fauna, but of a precious resource and hence ultimately of the human species.
Food - whether we are healthy or ill, all of us need to eat to live. The same goes for water provision. Modern means of food production and of water purification and the distribution of these commodities all require oil. Heat in winter, and increasingly air-conditioning in summer requires energy, and that is mostly provided from oil and gas.
Will the edge come quickly or slowly? This is an important question, but it is hard to answer. It depends - on lots of things. It will depend on the unfolding of world politics, and who has their hands on the oil reserves in 5, 10, 20 or more years, and whether an individual nation counts itself among their friends or not. In effect it will depend on a world barter system: of goods, of money, of political (including military) support for given regimes, all maneuvering for security of a self- supply of oil and gas.
It is interesting that Cuba, which is the single positive example known of a successful post peak-oil economy, in fact produces more doctors than are needed at home, and Cuban doctors are well known for their world aid work. It is striking that Cubans have a very similar life expectancy and infant mortality rate to the U.S., but use around only 12% (one eighth) of the energy, per capita. The example of Cuba should be taken as highly encouraging - that it is possible to achieve a great deal with a preventative, holistic approach to health overall, rather than just medicine.
Were it not for the overwhelming drive to secure as much money as possible - mostly through oil - as facilitated by the global status quo, we might act more quickly to discover just how much could be "secured" by thinking and acting on a more local level. But this will not happen significantly until there is almost no slack left in the system - when there is really no choice left for oil.
Stand up to U.S., voters tell Blair.
So reads the leader headline in yesterday's copy of "The Guardian", a major British newspaper renowned for its strong sense of social commitment.The paper has conducted an opinion poll (it doesn't say how big the sample was) of which 63% answered "Yes" to the question "Do you think Britain is too close to the United States?" Strong opposition indeed to Mr Blair's close working relationship with President Bush. Only 30% are in accord that the balance of national interest is about right in the "special relationship" that was portrayed by "Private Eye" magazine as Ronald Regan carrying Margaret Thatcher over some threshold of connubial bliss in a parody of the scene from "Gone with the Wind."
It is recent events in the Middle East - and fears for what may yet come to pass - that have almost certainly tipped the scales of favour away from the U.S. The Israel-Lebanon situation has yet to improve (praying to God that it will - that He will ultimately bring sanity to the world), and I note the names "Syria" and most dangerously "Iran" being referred to in the British media as effectively rogue states who are acting against the interests of a peace resolution. Iraq continues to provide an unstable backdrop, on the edges of both Syria and Iran, and it seems that an awful curve of conflict might be sketched across a map of this region, from the western Mediterranean shores to and on through Afghanistan, to the opposing cave of the oil-thirsty dragon in the east.
The inability to resolve the WTO issue over Russia's membership at the G8 summit, and the inadvertent broadcast of Mr Blair's conversation with George Bush there, all contribute to a rising distrust as to what this liaison may yet deliver in the political pipeline to the U.K. Even a majority of Labour supporters who traditionally are more supportive of Mr Blair's position on foreign policy, think that he has miscalculated the demands of the relationship: the opposition among the potential voters runs at 54% (Labour), 68% (Conservative, so that's not too surprising) and 83% (Liberal Democrats, which is even less surprising); however, the trend is one of dissent.
As the fire continues to heat, only 22% of the poll believe that Israel has reacted in proportion to the kidnapping of soldiers and other attacks from militant groups in southern Lebanon. Israel has made emphatic efforts to reassure the international community that its actions are reasonable, in light of the attacks on its own soil, including missile strikes on the north of the country.
At a recent press conference, Mr Blair defended his position and expressed sympathy for the Lebanese. He said, "What is occurring in Lebanon at the present time is a catastrophe. Anybody with any humanity wants what is happening to stop and stop now." Who could not wholeheartedly endorse his words? However, the rider is as he put it, "But if it is to stop, it must stop on both sides." There lies the bugbear.
There are also fears that the U.K. armed forces are working at virtually the limits of their resources, and there is a growing feeling from the survey that British troops are doing more harm than good through their presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Just 19% of those surveyed think that the military presence in Iraq is making progress.
As the news of further deaths, both military and civilian, is broadcast back to Blighty in a constant and near daily stream of desensitisation, there is little to compel any view that "liberation" is anywhere soon the horizon.
It's all Gas!
As I mentioned in my recent posting "Gas - Fraught Lines of Territory" increasingly poor relations between Moscow and Washington look set to keep the U.S. out of the rich new gas field in the Barents Sea. President Putin looks set to favour bids from Norwegian companies while rejecting those from such U.S. oil giants as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, in the aftermath of the U.S. failing to support Russia's attempt to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Arctic reserves of gas are estimated at 3,600 billion cubic metres, which exceeds the known existing Russian reserves of 3,169 billion cubic metres. Russia's antipathy toward the U.S. concerning the Barents Sea gas field deepened following some remarks from vice President Dick Cheney's to the effect that Moscow was playing power politics with its natural resources, and that oil and gas must not be turned into intimidation or blackmail. The putative WTO membership looks to be another pawn in the new power game.
The snub will come as a blow to those U.S. companies who are banking on getting access to Russia's huge gas reserves in a time of high energy prices. Presidents Bush and Putin were "barbed" in their comments about each other's democratic records during a G8 conference, and afterwards, Putin spoke highly of Norsk Hydro and Statoil, who are the Norwegian firms competing with U.S. companies for a slice of the Shtokman gas field. Apparently, President Putin was hoping to wrap-up the WTO membership issue in time for the G8 summit in St Petersberg, and its lack of resolution has come as a blow to his prestige.
This is not the only problem threatening over gas - we could end up with rather too much of it, according to Dr Ira Leifer, who is a marine scientist working at the University of California Santa Barbara. Leifer is the corresponding author of a study of "peak blowouts" of undersea formations called "methane hydrates" (see previous posting: "Methane Gas Hydrates - vast energy resource or ecological disaster awaiting") which if they melt could release large quantities of the potent greenhouse gas, methane into the atmosphere. Methane hydrate is distributed over the world in huge quantities and energy companies hope that they may one day come up with the technology to tap this resource, which according to the U.S. Department of Energy might contain 200,000 trillion cubic feet (5,700 cubic metres) of natural gas. To place this in context, the entire Arctic reserves of natural gas amount to just 3.6 trillion cubic metres or 0.06%! However,