Life Without Oil: by Steve Hallett and John Wright, Amherst New York, Prometheus Books, 2011.

I awoke one morning recently realizing how this “old” book mirrors The Archives of Varok, my 1970’s attempt (updated this decade) to explain why we “Must Shift To a New Energy Future.”

My dad saw it coming in the 1960’s--this need to pull back on our runaway economy and population bomb--when he could not find, anywhere in the world, matched rosewood to build a xylophone.

In Life Without Oil, the authors (writing before 2011) tell us that “The party’s over.
Technology will not save us, that “…globalization accelerates our destruction and deepens our vulnerability…” so we had better make “…communities and nations…more resilient to the coming collapse and more able to recover thereafter.” They make a detailed, well-documented case with extensive reference notes and Index.

The authors’ suggestions are just as valid now as they were eight years ago: sustainability must replace the current “…ethos of growth, where people share and conserve, rather than compete and consume.” I.e. don’t send food; support local production and “sustainable ecology.” Manage the commons. “Allow immigration” to solve problems of declining populations.

Europe is a good example of how population growth can reach a “rate near zero.” This world does not need to be another Easter Island, where ten communities competed for resources until the land was stripped bare.

We need to “…forego short-term economic needs” and invest in alternative energy technologies, “replace fossil fuels” while protecting the land and maintaining the wilderness, productive farmland, clean air and water.

Industry must be required to pay “…the economic price and the ecological price for the materials they use and the goods they produce and distribute…” . How? With careful planning. Remove subsidies “from polluting industries.” Increase their taxes when they pollute, trade emission permits and enforce regulations in the financial industry, especially where the natural environment can be protected.

The authors recognize that all situations can differ, but it makes sense that the pros and cons of various regulations can be balanced--just as we balance the right of way at a four-way stop on our highways. We all honor the rules: the car on the right goes first if two cars get to the intersection at the same time. Otherwise we simply take turns--first one there goes first.