We need energy to heat our homes and provide electricity for our appliances.

Most commonly in our world, coal, oil, natural gas, and radioactive [nuclear] materials, especially the heavy metal, Uranium, supply our energy.

Radioactive elements that produce nuclear energy do it a certain way – and the same way each time. The basics are easy to understand:

These materials, such as Uranium, change into other materials during which a huge amount of energy is released. Remember Albert Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc2. Well, it is kind of like magic – that c2 is a very large number; e is the energy you get at the end; m is the very tiny amount of mass or “stuff” that changes from stuff you can see into unseen but powerful energy.

But before we go on we need to make sure we know what we are talking about. What is energy? Several kinds come to mind. We have mentioned three already: nuclear, electricity and heat. There is also “mechanical motion”; think about working out at the gym. Notice another thing at the gym – one’s muscles get warm; so heat is produced as well as mechanical motion.

Another thing about energy: once it is released, it never goes away. It can never be destroyed. This is a perfect rule with which everyone agrees. It is actually called a “law” – the first law of thermodynamics.

What happens to the energy, after we use it, such as when I have finished moving my fingers typing this sentence?

It is lost as waste heat out “there” somewhere. It is dispersed and spreads out in all directions and can not be reused. This is called entropy and is the second law of thermodynamics.

Now what does that have to do with nuclear power and global warming?

Once you release all that energy from Uranium, as in a nuclear reactor, it is here forever, except for some fraction that radiates out into outer space as “long-wave radiation.” The rest goes into the air, waterways, glaciers, dirt and rocks as waste heat, also called thermal [heat] pollution, increasing the temperature, thereby bringing about global warming.

Is nuclear the only the only source of energy that releases waste heat?

No. Coal, oil and natural gas [hydrocarbons, so-called “fossil fuels”] also release waste heat when burned.

Why is this fact not included in the title of this article?

Because many people already know that use of hydrocarbons causes global warming. Also, many believe that nuclear power does not cause global warming and that it may actually solve the global warming problem. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it produces heat and, therefore, thermal pollution.

What about greenhouse gases that are discussed on TV and the internet, such as carbon dioxide? What about other greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane?

This is best approached by admitting that this is an area of great conflict. Well-connected scientists almost universally claim that global warming is occurring, that it is from human activity, that activity that causes the emission of “greenhouse gases” [especially carbon dioxide or CO2]. These are gases that make up a small part of the air we breathe, but they are able to hold in heat.

Millions of people agree with this. Other millions disagree. Leaders [or misleaders] of both factions present plausible evidence of wrongdoing by and conflict of interest on the other side. Both are correct about this and we should not be surprised that this is the case. Though startling claims are made about the need to save the planet, it is really about money and power, meaning here a different kind of power, that of authority and control. Imagine the wealth and personal power to be derived from selling and controlling the flow of energy to billions of people.

Hydrocarbons produce CO2. Businessmen and their agents who back hydrocarbons stand to lose a great deal of money and power if CO2 elimination is made a top priority. The other side has its own investors who stand to profit by promoting nuclear power in competition with coal, oil, and natural gas energy sources, and also by selling CO2 reduction technologies. There are also military and political reasons for nuclear promotion. [Incidentally, this side also erroneously claims that nuclear power does not result in CO2 pollution.]

In fact, it appears that greenhouse gases have a small but definite effect and work together with the direct heat pollution discussed here to make the problem of global warming worse.

Neither side is interested in promoting the facts as presented in this report, because they both stand to lose. They both cause thermal pollution [global warming].

Fortunately solar and wind power do not cause thermal pollution because they use the Sun’s heat, which we will get whether we use it for our energy needs or not. These technologies have matured and their costs have come crashing down and will continue to do so. The best solution for the long-term supply of electrical energy is to institute these renewable sources at the municipal level and as a cooperative effort. This gives everyone energy independence.

Of course, municipally owned, cooperatively run energy sources will be vigorously opposed by hydrocarbon and nuclear barons and those who will want to privatize, for their own profit, renewable energy sources. They will want to centralize renewable energy, and dole it out to large areas through grids under centralized control.

We, the public, must assert and struggle for what is best for us and our Planet. If we do not switch to non-heat adding solar and solar-derived energy sources, we will burn to a crisp.

– Morton S. Skorodin, MD, is a retired physician living in Oklahoma, USA, working on anti-war, anti-nuclear and global warming issues.

There is a close relationship between peak oil and population. Since the 1950s there have been many estimates of the rise and fall of global oil production, but it was perhaps inevitable that the shift has been from optimistic to realistic. After all, it is better for one’s reputation to make errors on the side of caution than to look like foolish by announcing a catastrophe that does not occur. With increasing studies, however, and with increasing proximity to the critical events, realism at last takes over.

We begin with two basic facts. The first is that the world’s present annual consumption of oil is nearly 30 billion barrels. The second is that the world’s present population is nearly 7 billion. From there we can add some reasonable estimates of both oil decline and population decline.

The peak of world oil production is about 2010, and the most likely rate of decline after the peak is 6 percent. [5, 7, 11] That means production will fall to half of the peak level in 11 years, i.e. in 2021.

Population size is directly correlated with oil supply. Oil has been the main source of energy within industrial society. It is only with abundant oil that a large global population has been possible, and it was oil that allowed population to grow so quickly. [1]

If oil production drops to half of its peak amount in 11 years, therefore, world population must also drop by half, i.e. to 3.5 billion. A drop from 7 billion to 3.5 means that, as with oil production, the annual population decline rate will be 6%.

But how will it be possible to reduce the population from 7 billion to 3.5 billion in 11 years? Would such a reduction be possible with a program of voluntary cessation of all childbirth, but with no other drastic global change in human behavior? Would a no-child policy be workable? Unfortunately, such a program would be quite unlikely to succeed. In the first place, in order to have any significant effect the program would have to be both global and immediate. In addition, most of the world is hardly amenable to the suggestion of a one-child policy, such as that of China, so it is not likely that it would tolerate a no-child policy.

In any case, cutting the birth rate without increasing the death rate would not have a great enough effect on the final numbers. Since most of the people now living would still be alive in 2021, the population would not be reduced sufficiently. There is, in fact, no feasible political means of reducing population by 6 percent annually.

The only solution will be famine, and that solution will not be one that is chosen by humans. It will be chosen by Nature, as she does for so many other species. The process will be set in place by the ubiquitous and systemic decline in resources, and the consequent decline in industrial production. Without fossil fuels, agricultural yields will decline to about 30 percent. [7, 8, 9] The famine has already started, to judge from the decline in world food supplies. [3, 4] Roughly similar declines will occur in everything from mining, electricity, and manufacturing, to transportation and communication. [2, 6]

Planning for such a scenario should have been started long ago. Even at this late date, however, what is needed is to accept the facts and to ease the way for those relatively few who will constitute the future of humanity. At least on a small scale, such a program will succeed.

REFERENCES:

1. Catton, William R., Jr. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1982.

2. Duncan, Richard C. The Olduvai Theory: Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization. The Social Contract, Winter 2005-2006. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf

3. Earth Policy Institute. Earth Policy Indicators. 15 June 2006. Grain Harvest: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C54/

4. -----. Earth Policy Indicators. 22 June 2005. Fish Harvest. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C55/

5. Foucher, Sam. Analysis of Decline Rates. The Oil Drum. 25 February 2009. http://iseof.org/pdf/theoildrum_4820.pdf

6. Gever, John, et al. Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1991.

7. Höök, Mikael, Robert Hirsch, and Kjell Aleklett. Giant Oil Field Decline Rates and Their Influence on World Oil Production. Energy Policy. June 2009. http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/GOF_decline_Article.pdf

8. Pimentel, David. Energy Flows in Agricultural and Natural Ecosystems. CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies). 1984. ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/s07/c10841.pdf

9. -----, and Carl W. Hall, eds. Food and Energy Resources. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1984.

10. -----, and Marcia H. Pimentel. Food, Energy, and Society. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2007.

11. Poston, Steven W. Decline Curves. Hamilton Group. http://www.hamiltongroup.org/documents/Decline%20Curves%20-%20Dr%20Stephen%20Poston.pdf

Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American Indians, published by Chicago Review Press. His email address is odonatus@live.com.

WASHINGTON -- A sobering new report warns that oceans face a "fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation" not seen in millions of years as greenhouse gases and climate change already have affected temperature, acidity, sea and oxygen levels, the food chain and possibly major currents that could alter global weather.

The report, in Science magazine, doesn't break a lot of new ground, but it brings together dozens of studies that collectively paint a dismal picture of deteriorating ocean health.

"This is further evidence we are well on our way to the next great extinction event," said Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia and a co-author of the report.

John Bruno, an associate professor of marine sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the report's other co-author, isn't quite as alarmist, but he's equally concerned.

"We are becoming increasingly certain that the world's marine ecosystems are reaching tipping points," Bruno said, adding, "We really have no power or model to foresee" the effect.

The oceans, which cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface, have played a dominant role in regulating the planet's climate. However, even as the understanding of what's happening to terrestrial ecosystems as a result of climate change has grown, studies of marine ecosystems have lagged, the report says. The oceans are acting as a heat sink for rising temperatures and have absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities.

Among other things, the report notes:

* The average temperature of the upper level of the oceans has increased more than 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and global ocean surface temperatures in January were the second-warmest ever recorded for that month.

* Though the increase in acidity is slight, it represents a "major departure" from the geochemical conditions that have existed in the oceans for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

* Nutrient-poor "ocean deserts" in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans grew by 15 percent, or roughly 2.5 million square miles, from 1998 to 2006.

* Oxygen concentrations have been dropping off the Northwest U.S. coast and the coast of southern Africa, where dead zones are appearing regularly. There is paleontological evidence that declining oxygen levels in the oceans played a major role in at least four or five mass extinctions.

* Since the early 1980s, the production of phytoplankton, a crucial creature at the lower end of the food chain, has declined 6 percent, with 70 percent of the decline found in the northern parts of the oceans. Scientists also have found that phytoplankton are becoming smaller.

Volcanic activity and large meteorite strikes in the past have "resulted in hostile conditions that have increased extinction rates and driven ecosystem collapse," the report says. "There is now overwhelming evidence human activities are driving rapid changes on a scale similar to these past events.

"Many of these changes are already occurring within the world's oceans with serious consequences likely over the coming years."

One of the consequences could be a disruption of major ocean currents, particularly those flowing north and south, circulating warm water from the equator to polar regions and cold water from the poles back to the equator. Higher temperatures in polar regions and a decrease in the salinity of surface water because of melting ice sheets could interrupt such circulation, the report says.

The change in currents could further affect such climate phenomena as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Scientists just now are starting to understand how these phenomena affect global weather patterns.

"Although our comprehension of how this variability will change over the coming decades remains uncertain, the steady increase in heat content in the ocean and atmosphere are likely to have profound influences on the strength, direction and behavior of the world's major current systems," the report says.

Kelp forests such as those off the Northwest U.S. coast, along with corals, sea grasses, mangroves and salt marsh grasses, are threatened by the changes the oceans are undergoing, the report says. All of them provide habitat for thousands of species.

The polar bear isn't the only polar mammal that faces an escalating risk of extinction, the report says; penguin and seal populations also are declining.

"It's a lot worse than the public thinks," said Nate Mantua, an associate research professor at the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group.

Mantua, who's read the report, said it was clear what was causing the oceans' problems: greenhouse gases. "It is not a mystery," he said.

There's growing concern about low-oxygen or no-oxygen zones appearing more and more regularly off the Northwest coast, Mantua said. Scientists are studying the California Current along the West Coast to determine whether it could be affected, he added.

Fred Pearce keeps on saying that population growth is no longer a problem. He said it again as part of his World Population Day message.

In Fred's view, it's very simple. Fertility rates have come down sharply over the past half century. Problem solved.

Sorry, Fred, saying that population growth is no longer a problem doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it. Neither does wishful thinking.

While admitting that world population may increase by another 2 billion or so by midcentury, he dismisses this increment as a "time-lag" problem.

Earth to Fred: 2 billion more people is a lot of people to a world that is already struggling to feed 6.8 billion people. It's a lot of people to a biosphere that is threatened with what leading biologists refer to as the Sixth Mass Extinction. And it's a lot of people to a planet that is already threatened with the effects of climate change. And while "population momentum" (i.e., large numbers of people entering their reproductive years) may account for some of the projected increase in human numbers, much of it is being driven by the fact that fertility rates in many developing countries around the world are still well above the "replacement rate."

Yes, Fred, we must do something about consumption. Unless we in the developed world do more to curb our consumption of fossil fuels and scarce minerals, the world is headed for an ecological and humanitarian disaster. We need to lower our per capita consumption of fossil fuels and other scarce resources. A lot. But I don't see the G8 or the G20 putting their heads together right now in an effort to lower consumer spending. Really, I don't. Neither do I see anything happening with respect to climate change.

And that's why it's especially important to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. and other developed nations. Sorry, Fred, it doesn't matter that America's fertility rate is right around the "replacement rate" or that Europe's is well below it. A baby born here or elsewhere in the developed world will still consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources and contribute disproportionately to the world's environmental problems.

It's also important to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the developing world. The reasons, however, are different. It really doesn't matter whether global fertility rates have dropped sharply; they remain unsustainably high in many of the least developed areas of the world. Yes, Fred, fertility rates have come down sharply in Iran and Bangladesh, but women in Afghanistan and Somalia and other desperately poor countries are still having four, five, or six children on average. Some poor countries, like Uganda and Niger, are on track to triple their populations over the next 40 years. Africa's population will likely double by mid-century.

Looking ahead, Fred, will these countries be able to feed themselves? Will they have enough safe drinking water? Will their lands be deforested or their rivers polluted? Will their maternal mortality rates and infant mortality rates remain unacceptably high? Will they be caught in a demographic poverty trap? Will they become failed states? If you have good answers to these questions, please let me know. Because if you don't, then we need to ensure that women in these developing countries are given the information and the access to contraceptives that they need to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancies.

Someday we will be able to declare victory. Someday every woman will have access to family-planning services and reproductive health care. Someday world population will be in decline. Someday world population levels will pose no danger to the health of the planet. But that day has not arrived. Not yet. In the meantime, your breezy dismissal of the "population problem" does an enormous disservice to the planet and every living creature that calls it home.

Robert Walker is executive vice president of the Population Institute.

Also Read

Population Isn’t The Problem
By Fred Pearce

Preface

The Transition Model has advanced a pathway towards ‘local sustainability’ distinct from previous sustainability models in a clear and important way: it is a grassroots, non-governmental model and also a networking movement. Still in its infancy, and with little academic attention so far having specifically focused on it; there is a clear gap in understanding of the Transition Model’s role in relation to (local) sustainability, which this research has sought to bridge. ...

Transition Towns in Context

... While local sustainability has become a politically important discursive goal, in practice neither top-down governmental nor grassroots community models have gained widespread uptake or success: the former have failed to connect with or involve a grassroots public; the latter generally have few resources and limited capacity.

It is in this context that the Transition Model is interesting. A non-governmental community-led model: Transition advances an action-based approach, comparable to community sustainability models. Yet, with a fast growing network of Initiatives, Transition is much closer to the top-down governmental models. Transition combines the advantages of an organic support base, with the capacity and resources of a networking organisation.

The ‘Transition’ concept, co-founded by Rob Hopkins, who has a background in permaculture, builds upon a core thesis: that the modern industrial capitalist economic and social system, based upon cheap oil and resources, is unsustainable, making a major restructuring of economy and society imperative, and inevitable. Transition contends that citizens and communities need to act proactively and positively at the local scale, in a process of ‘Transition’ and ‘powerdown’ to build localised and resilient communities in terms of food, energy, work and waste (Hopkins, 2008). The goal is a societal paradigm in which de-carbonised local communities are resilient in their capacity to “hold together and maintain their ability to function in the face of change and shock from outside.” (Hopkins, 2008:8). Transition is modelled to be a self-organising community-led model, for people to ‘act now and act collectively’.

... Since the establishment of the Transition Network, the movement has mushroomed, with over two hundred participating Initiatives; now including Initiatives around the world (http://www.transitionnetwork.org/initiatives). Looking within the field of environmentalism, I found no precedence for a model of local sustainability that involved the networking of spatially dispersed, local self-organising groups within the framework of a single model. How the Transition Model has achieved this was a question that needed addressing. ...

Conceptual and Theoretical Review

Transition: the Concept:

... What I see as ‘push factors’ contend that materialistic and capitalist economic and social structures are unsustainable, with the following principle issues outlined: climate change; peak oil - see the World Energy Outlook (2008); environmental degradation; and discourses on the finite planet thesis.

Outlining these ‘push factors’, Heinberg’s (2004) Powerdown argues that: “we have already overshot Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for humans – to such an extent that some form of societal collapse is now inevitable.” (Heinberg, 2004:10).

... On the ‘pull factor’ side, Transition theory celebrates the perceived benefits of a paradigm of re-localised and resilient communities. Arguments to this extent include Holmgren’s Permaculture (2002), calling for permaculture ecology principles to be applied to human settlement and agriculture. Similarly the Blueprint for Survival (1972) and Jackson’s more recent Prosperity without Growth (2009) outline re-localisation paradigms.

Social Movements and Networking:

Social movement theory helps explain how the Transition Model has built up grassroots support, bringing in new community-based Initiatives at an exponential rate across space and time.

... Pepper (1984) speaks of the period in the late-1970’s to early-1980’s when a series of ‘drop-out’ communities formed, seeking to re-establish close and fundamental ties with nature and ‘mother-earth’. Transition is in many respects ideologically and theoretically comparable to such models; however it differs in that it has spawned a network, becoming a ‘viral social movement’.

... Through this research, I have come to understand that the internet is crucial for networking. On this issue, the work of Gary Alexander (2000, 2004) was useful. He sees online tools facilitating a ‘sustainable collaborative economy’; where the internet is shifting the economy towards collaboration and community, based on trust and with respect for the environment, rather than competition and individualism. Central to this in his view, are “grassroots and civil society initiatives linking together.” (Alexander, 2004:2), which through the internet are “beginning to form a network of networks, a co-operative of co-operatives.” (Alexander, 2004:14). ...

Discussing Transition:

... Transition: Radical Theory and Mainstream Practice:

Looking specifically at the theory and ideology of the Transition Model, it lies at heart within the environmental field of political ecology or ‘ecologism’. The Transition Model proposes a radically reformist shift away from industrial society, which it sees as heading towards a ‘crunch’; where resource depletion, climate change and environmental degradation threaten some form of societal collapse. Critiquing materialistic and capitalistic modernity, Transition seeks a new paradigm involving re-localisation and ‘powerdown’.

Transition’s radical agenda has been crucial in attracting people to the movement; especially those with past environmental activity, many of whom believe that radical change is essential. Around half the people I interviewed held strong ‘ecologist’ positions, critical of the status quo; Transition forums similarly reflecting this position. Eleven of my interviewees foresaw drastic scenarios resulting from climate change, peak oil, power and food shortages. The majority of interviewees believed it inevitable that societies and economies would need to re-localize. Crucial to this point, Transition was seen by all as a viable and workable model and pathway to sustainability.

While Transition theory proclaims a radical message, in practice Initiatives are developing ideas and projects that can be characterised as ‘mainstream’ environmental work, including: community gardens, pushing funding for renewable energy projects, encouraging recycling and raising awareness. Such projects hardly indicate the radical aspects of Transition theory.

Yet these kinds of projects, and the mainstream ‘image’ Transition has gained in the process of raising awareness and participation, attracts people with environmental and community concerns who do not want involvement with radical environmental groups. Importantly ‘respectable’ strategies and projects do not alienate communities either. The belief that the Transition Model was, and needed to be, respectable and mainstream emerged equally as often as radical views in interviews. Mark in High Wycombe said their Initiative was not an “irrational, woolly, thinking kind of initiative to perhaps go and hug a tree; no, this is cold, rational… this is science, this is the voice of business speaking.” Similarly, Richard in New Forest argued: “This is sensible, and it is not full of people who you’d want to cross the street to avoid.”

Bringing together a grassroots base of support around the principles of Transition, into what I call a ‘Transition Coalition’ is crucial to the model. The Transition Model has to date successfully merged radical and mainstream views and practice, creating a ‘brand’ and image that attracts a wide base. This is a key primary element that allows Transition, a community-led and action-based model, to extend itself beyond any one place or core issue, while retaining grassroots support. In contrast, other grassroots community models, whether groups radically isolating themselves from mainstream society or communities seeking to ban plastic bags, struggle to gain participation beyond their issue base and their place of operation; while most governmental initiatives fail to connect to a grassroots base.

Having people with radical reformist agendas working alongside moderate environmentalists and people without past environmental organisation participation of course raises questions over how Transition is able to structurally incorporate this diversity, which I address later. However, the successful bringing together of a wide ‘Transition Coalition’ has been key to the ability of the Transition network to expand. Evidently Transition is doing something other sustainability models do not. ...

Transition: Democratic Success?

My research shows that the democratic and ‘umbrella’ organisational structure of the Transition Model is crucial to its success in bringing new Initiatives and people within a single organisational framework. Transition’s structure performs core functions, including:

Incorporating and supporting self-organising Initiatives
Establishing an identifiable ‘brand’, defining general principles and goals.
Providing a networking framework. (I address this last function separately).

... As a national ‘brand’ the model has been building momentum, capacity and visibility, which individual Initiatives can latch onto. For example, in Berkhamsted I was told that the Transition group was considered by the Council to be bigger and more influential than it perhaps was. Additionally, Transition’s brand is perceived to come without negative ‘baggage’ or stereotypes associated with many environmental organisations.

The Transition Model aims to have covered much of the groundwork in practical areas of sustainability, so that for Initiatives ‘the wheel is not continually re-invented’. To this extent a key function of the model is to provide resources, information, knowledge, training and support. Included in this is: material and information for recently established Initiatives; the twelve steps of Transition; and ideas, experience and information shared on Transition websites and forums. For example talks, films, discussion topics, and project ideas are shared, especially for awareness raising.

... Above these core functions is the principle of self-organisation. Beyond their approval by the trustees of the Transition Movement, Initiatives structure and organise their activities independently. The theory and practice is simple: any ideas, strategies or projects a group has, they can just get on with it. Responsibility is passed down, with the principles of Transition adapted to local conditions. This self-organising and fundamentally democratic structure is crucial to bringing in new Initiatives, people, ideas and projects.

... Indeed, most Initiatives follow locally adapted strategies, few follow the twelve steps of Transition closely, and almost none have considered an EDAP to date. Further, many Initiatives rarely used online materials or resources. A minority were applying these materials closely. Transition more than anything was seen to provide the vision, values and principles that Initiatives could independently work with.

... This democratic pattern stretches again to the level of individuals involved in Transition. Whether someone is interested in the funding of renewables or the psychology of change, they can establish or join a sub-group with like-minded people and seek to foster projects. Ben Brangwyn argues this is crucial, as it allow Transition to be a holistic model in which people concentrate where they are interested and skilled, leaving other areas to other people; whilst all coming under the Transition umbrella. ...

Transition: People and Place

... Initiatives that are thriving are those with motivated, energetic and skilled individuals in the core team, driving strategy and projects. Indeed, in several cases, where members of the core group had left, the Initiatives struggled to continue. Further, personal networks were crucial to people becoming involved with Transition and for new Initiatives being formed. People I interviewed had been members of environmental organisations from the Green Party through to Climate Camp, as well as coming from academic, community, social justice and peace group backgrounds. Networks and contacts within these organisations play a central role in bringing new people into the ‘Transition Coalition’.

... However, in the longer-term place does matter, with certain communities appearing to be better suited to Transition. Communities with past social activity provide a good base, such as Ottery St. Mary, famous for the protests of ‘Swampy’ against road-building: “Ottery is a funny little place in that its got a good community but it has also got a history of green social enterprise... it acted as a sort of base for an anti-road protest.” (Clive, Ottery). Similarly, pioneering Initiatives such as Totnes, Stroud, Lewes and Glastonbury are all communities with histories of ‘alternative’ action. It further seems likely that in smaller market towns and to an extent in the city neighbourhoods: community size and cohesion offers the greatest potential for Initiative’s to embed locally. This is crucial for longer-term grassroots community participation, momentum and energy.

Transition: A Networking Social Movement:

A bottom-up, grassroots movement with collective goals and principles: Transition can be characterised as a social movement. I have conceptualised Transition as a discourse coalition, enabled by a democratic and self-organising structure. Crucial to Transition being good at building a ‘Transition Coalition’ is the movement’s ability to tap into a latent demand, and in many cases a sense of urgency for reformist action. The idea is that “something needs to change, something needs to happen” (Gill, Bruton). Transition’s promotion of a paradigm of localised sustainability taps into a groundswell of opinion, mobilising a grassroots base much as a social movement.

It “was the frustration that at that point nothing was happening at the governmental level that was addressing issues of climate change or peak oil” (Mark, Bath).

“We’re here really because there was a need to… a small group of us really wanted to do something else following on from the inspiration of... Rob Hopkins. ” (Steve, Llandeilo).

“You know for me it is the bigger picture, I see this as part of a grassroots movement; eventually to grow big enough so that politicians sit up and take notice. ” (Willi, Marlow).

“We… bill ourselves as a cultural organisation. We are wanting to change perceptions, educate people ” (Mark, High Wycombe).

Indeed, Ben Brangwyn sees Transition as “creating an environment where currently unelectable policies become electable. ” ...

However, while Transition is attracting people with environmental and community concerns to join and establish Initiatives, this does not mean that whole communities are participating. My research shows that participation of communities is in every case a minority, usually five to ten percent of a population on mailing lists. Whether this is a weakness in the Transition Model is unclear; especially as gaining majority participation for any ‘cause’ within communities is rare.

... Personal contacts, including links through third party organisations facilitate networking. Yet it is the internet that is crucial in growing the Transition Network. The internet allows people to network cheaply; sharing information, expertise and best practice as well as building the capacity of Transition as an organisation. From Initiatives networking to understand the funding options for installing solar panels, to city initiatives sharing their experiences of raising awareness, the Internet provides an indispensible tool. My research showed that the internet is arguably being underutilized, with some Initiatives not using the internet to network.

Transition: Localism and Community:

The ideology and theory of localism lies at the heart of the Transition model, with my research showing it was, and is, a key condition to a majority of people’s initial and continued participation. There is a clear ideological support for decentralized, strong, empowered and resilient communities. ...

Transition: Utopia for Local Sustainability?

... Being a self-organising model at the local scale, whilst having the coherence of an umbrella ‘brand’ and organisational structure: the Transition Model is primarily a discourse coalition, rather than a prescriptive model. The diversity of people and places involved in Transition could not otherwise be held together within one model. The Transition Model’s primary role is that of facilitator, acting as a central focal point that unifies the multiple individual Initiatives, people and projects who otherwise have no connection. ...

A PDF of the complete dissertation is online (54 pages,633 KB).

Author Jonathan Balls writes:
My dissertation was written as part of my final year undergraduate course. I therefore don't really have a long biography to attach to the work, except that I have just graduated this year in Geography from the University of Cambridge and that I will hopefully be moving on to further phd work around sustainability in the next year.

In the meeting I had with the economists of CIEM (World Economy Research Center) on Tuesday, July 13, I talked to them about an excellent documentary film by the French director Yann Arthus-Bertrand which includes statements by the most farsighted and well informed international personalities about another terrible danger threatening the human species that is cropping up right before our eyes: the destruction of the environment.

The documentary clearly and categorically asserts as follows:

“In the great adventure of life on Earth, each species has a role to play; each species has its place. None of them is either useless or harmful; they all balance one another. And it is right there when you, Homo sapiens, the intelligent human, come into history. You are the beneficiary of the fabulous legacy of 4 billion years provided by the Earth. You are only 200 000 years old, but you have already changed the face of the world.”

“The invention of agriculture changed our history. This happened less than 10 000 years ago”.

“Agriculture was our first great revolution. It produced the first surpluses and gave rise to cities and civilizations. The memories of the thousands of years spent looking for food faded away. Having turned grains into the yeast of life, we multiplied their varieties and learned to adapt them to our soils and climates. We are like any other species on Earth. Our main daily concern is feeding ourselves. When soils are less than generous and water becomes scarce we are capable of making incredible efforts to get enough from the earth in order to continue living.”

“Half of mankind tills the land; more than three fourths do it with their bare hands.”

“Pure energy. The energy that comes from the sun has been captured by millions of plants for more than 100 million years. It is coal; it is gas, but, most of all, it is oil.”

“During the last 60 years, the Earth population has almost tripled. More than 2 billion people have moved into the cities.”

“New York, the world’s first megalopolis, is the symbol of the exploitation of the energy that the Earth provides human ingenuity with: The labor of millions of immigrants, the energy that comes from coal, the indispensable power of oil. The United States was the first to ride on the phenomenal, revolutionary power of ‘black gold’. In the countryside, machines replaced men. One liter of oil generates as much energy as 100 pairs of hands in 24 hours.”

“They produce enough grain to feed 2 billion people. But much of that grain is not used to feed persons. Here, as well as in other industrialized nations, grains are transformed into animal feed or biofuels.”

“Fertilizers below and plastics above as far as the eyes can see. The greenhouses of Almería, in Spain, are Europe’s vegetable garden. Day after day, a city of vegetables, all of them the same size, awaits the hundreds of trucks that will take them to the supermarkets of the continent. The more developed a country is, the more meat its inhabitants consume. How could the world demand be satisfied without resorting to concentration camp-like cattle farms? Things move faster every time. It is like the life cycle of cattle; quite likely they never catch sight of a prairie.”

“In these food plots, crowded with millions of livestock units, not even a blade of grass grows. A whole fleet of trucks coming from every part of the country bring in tones of grain, soybean food and granules of proteins that will be turned into tones of meat. As a result, 100 liters of water are required to produce 1 kilogram of potatoes; 4000 liters are required to produce I kilogram of rice and 13 000 liters are required to produce 1 kilogram of beef, not to mention the amount of oil burned during production and transportation.”

“We know that the end of cheap oil is imminent, but we refuse to believe it.”

“Los Angeles. In this city that spans more than 100 kilometers, the amount of cars is almost the same as the amount of inhabitants.”

“Daytime is nothing but a faint image of the nights that turn the city into a star-spangled sky.”

“Everywhere there are machines digging, extracting and grabbing the pieces of stars buried deep into the Earth since its creation: The minerals.”

“…Eighty per cent of that mineral wealth is consumed by 20 per cent of the world population. Before this century comes to an end, excessive mining would have used up almost all reserves in the planet.”

“Since 1950, the volume of international trade has twenty folded; 90 per cent of trade is travels by sea; 500 million containers are transported every year; they are sent to the biggest consumption centers…”

“Since 1950, fishing has five folded –from 18 to 100 million metric tones per year. Thousands of factory-vessels are leaving the oceans empty. Three fourths of the fishing areas are depleted, terminated or face the risk of becoming so.”

“Five hundred million human beings live in the desserts of the world –this is more than the total population of Europe.”

“Israel turned the dessert into arable land.

While these farms now have a drip irrigation system, water consumption continues to grow as much as exports.”

“The once powerful Jordan river is now only a stream. Its waters have flown inside fruits and vegetables crates to supermarkets all over the world.”

“India is facing the risk of becoming the country that would suffer the most in the coming century out of lack of water. Mass irrigation has nurtured its growing population and during the last 50 years 21 million new wells have been dug.”

“Las Vegas was built in the dessert. Millions of persons live there. Thousands arrive in every month. Its inhabitants are among the world’s biggest water consumers.”

“Palm Springs is another dessert city with tropical vegetation and luxurious golf courts. For how long will this mirage continue to thrive? The Earth can not withstand it.”

“The Colorado River, which supplies water to these cities, is one of those rivers that no longer make it to the sea.”

“The lack of water could affect 2 billion people before 2025.”

“All living matter is interconnected: water, air, earth, trees.”

“Primitive forests provide a habitat to three fourths of the biodiversity of the planet –that is, three fourths of the whole life on Earth.”

“…in only 40 years, the Amazon, the world’s biggest rainforest, has shrunk by 20 per cent to make room for cattle farms or soybean fields; 95 per cent of this soybean is used to feed livestock and poultry in Europe and Asia. Thus, a forest has been turned into meat.”

“More than 2 billion people, almost one third of the world’s population, still depend on charcoal. In Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, charcoal is one of the population’s main consumer goods.”

“Up in the mountains of Haiti, only 2 per cent of forests remain…”

“Every week, the cities of the world increase their population by more than one million persons. One out of six human beings lives now in a precarious, unhealthy and overpopulated environment, deprived from daily needs such as water, sewage or electricity. Hunger is expanding again. It is affecting almost 1 billion people. All over the planet, the poor are struggling to survive, while we continue digging for the resources we can no longer live without.”

“Our actions cause the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Without even realizing it, we have affected, molecule by molecule, the climate balance on Earth.”

“The ice cover of the Arctic is melting away as a result of global warming. After 40 years it is now 40 per cent thinner. This area shrinks year after year during summer time. It could disappear by the summer of the year 2030. Some say it could disappear by the year 2015.”

“By 2050, one fourth of the terrestrial species could be facing the risk of extinction.”

“…Since Greenland is warming up very quickly, the fresh water of a whole continent is flowing into the ocean.”

“The ice of Greenland accounts for 20 per cent of all the fresh water of the planet. If it melts away the sea level will increase by almost 7 meters. Our planet’s atmosphere is an indivisible whole. It is an asset we all share.”

“Lakes are becoming part of Greenland’s landscape. The ice cover is melting at a pace not even the most pessimistic scientists could have predicted 10 years ago. More and more these rivers, nurtured by the glaciers, are merging and emerging to the surface. It was thought that, deep into the ice, water would freeze. Quite on the contrary, water flows under the ice, pushing the ice cover into the sea, where it breaks up and become an iceberg.”

“Only in the 20th century, the expansion of warmed up water caused a 20 cm sea level increase. Everything becomes unstable. Coral reefs are extremely sensitive to the slightest change in water temperature. Thirty per cent of them have disappeared. They are an essential link in the chain of species.”

“If the sea level continues to rise quicker and quicker, what will big cities like Tokyo –the most densely populated of the world- do?”

“…in Siberia as well as in many other parts of the world it is so cold that the soil is permanently frozen. This phenomenon is known as permafrost. Beneath that surface lies a climatic time bomb: methane, a greenhouse effect gas that is twenty times more powerful than carbon dioxide. If the permafrost melts, the release of methane could cause the greenhouse effect to go out of control, the consequences of which no one could predict.”

“Twenty per cent of the world’s population consumes 80 per cent of the world’s resources.”

“The world invests twelve times more in military expenses than in the assistance to developing countries.”

“Five thousand persons die everyday after drinking contaminated water; 1 billion persons do not have access to potable water.”

“Around 1 billion are afflicted by hunger.”

“More than 50 per cent of the grain that is marketed in the world is used for animal feed or biofuels.”

“Species are dying one thousand times faster than the natural pace.”

“Three fourths of the fishing areas are depleted, diminished or are dangerously decreasing.”

“The average temperature during the last 15 years has been the highest ever recorded.”

“The ice cover is now 40 per cent thinner that it was 40 years ago.”

During the final minutes of the documentary, director Yann Arthus-Bertrand uses a milder language to praise some positive actions by countries he was forced to mention –and I don’t mean to offend or hurt anyone.

His final words went as follows:

“It is time for us to be all together. What matters now is not what is gone, but what still prevails. There are still half of the world’s forests, thousands of rivers, lakes and glaciers and thousands of successful species. Today we know that solutions are right here. We all have the power to change. Then, what are we waiting for?

It is up to us to write what comes next, together.”

The topic that has absorbed most of my efforts –the imminent risk of a war that would be the last in the prehistory of our species-, to which I have devoted 9 Reflections since June 1st, is a problem that becomes more and more serious by the day.

Obviously, 99.9 per cent of persons entertain the hope that elemental common sense would prevail.

Unfortunately, based on all the elements from the reality I perceive, I don’t see there is the slightest chance that this could be so.

Therefore, I think it would be far more practical for our peoples to be prepared to cope with that reality. That would be our only hope.

The Iranians have done precisely that, just as we did in October 1962, when we would rather disappear than put down our banners.

Out of mere chance -and not because of the merits of the intelligence or the individual history of anyone of us- things are evolving today just as they were then.

News coming from Iran everyday are not even one millimeter away from their announced position to uphold their just rights to peace and development, but they include a new element: they have already managed to produce 20 kilograms of 20 per cent enriched uranium –an amount enough to produce a nuclear artifact-, which is making all those who long ago decided to attack them to go even crazier. I discussed this with our ambassadors on Friday 16.

Not even Obama could change that decision –nor has he given so far any indication he would be determined to do that.

Fidel Castro Ruz
July 18, 2010
4:28 p.m.