home » Discussing transitions

Discussing transitions

by Paula | 20 November 2008 | permalink | comments [1]
Tags: peak oil, transition towns
Email this article

There’s quite an interesting conversation going on this week between John Michael Greer and Rob Hopkins regarding the value of the Transition Towns movement.

I mostly disagree with Greer and rarely read his blog anymore but he makes a good point this time:

The value of the [Transition Towns] movement can’t be known for sure until we see how Transition Towns weather the end of the industrial age. Since that process promises to unfold over decades or even centuries, any conclusions based on today’s experiences are tentative at best, and it also needs to be remembered that a monoculture of paradigms is just as deadening as any other kind.

I’m happy to see someone in the peak oil scene offering some kind of critique about the direction of prevailing post-peak strategies. But I think Greer misses the larger point, as does the whole of the visible peak oil movement: any plans made now for any desirable future will almost certainly be crushed out of the starting gate by financial issues. There is no “transition” if transitioners can’t cough up the cash to continue paying everyone who will continue demanding money until law enforcement is so decimated it can no longer enforce property law — and that, to be sure, is going to take quite some time.

This blind spot among post-peak planners has been stuck in my craw since the earliest days of my peak oil awareness. Everyone’s looking to the future, after everything falls apart. But between now and then is an economic depression like no one’s ever seen — and that means no money. The implications of no money on transition and relocalization efforts are enormous. No money equals no location. All the property required for relocalization is subject to taxation, mortgages, and rents, and without money to pay these all the efforts that have gone into a town, farm, urban garden, or what-have-you are for naught.

Those on the forefront of post-peak planning carry on as if everyone’s property holdings will remain unscathed for the foreseeable future; I can only guess they have never had the experience of no money and therefore cannot imagine being evicted from their transition/relocalization projects. From my perspective, relearning low-energy lifestyles is the very least of anyone’s worries. The urgent problem is not 2021; it is 2009, 2010, 2011. The next 5-10 years are the prerequisite weed-out class for the 2021 upper-level seminar, and yet not only is no one discussing it, the subject is actively and sometimes vehemently suppressed whenever it crops up.

No relocalization effort can succeed if it doesn’t address the issue of how to hang on to its locations through hyperinflation and/or hyperdeflation. Where is the money going to come from to pay the rent or mortgage? Even if land and buildings are owned outright, where is the money going to come from to pay the tax man? Many think no money is an unmitigated good — will it still be an unmitigated good when law enforcement shows up with firearms and a very different opinion?

It is worth considering that getting evicted from one’s property is not an effective relocalization strategy. I desperately wish someone would consider it.

Relocalization and transitioning to a low-energy society are going to require a high level of business acumen to, first of all, generate enough money in the coming years to fend off confiscation of farms, lawns, urban gardens and the like; and second, to operate simultaneously in the collapsing economy as well as whatever economy is emerging at the local level. This is a very, very tall order and certainly not one that can be achieved by ignoring it. I have pretty much zero confidence that any of the current crop of post-oil “visionings” will survive to actualization.

comments

1. Yes, future taxes on future peak-oil transition towns are absolutely a concern. Our society has built a bloated social infrastructure which will not want to change or go away. Even with no growth, police, fire, schools, military and social programs all will demand cost of living increases – typically through taxes of one kind or another. The US is a debtor nation with a compounding interest time bomb so the temptation to inflate it all away is very real. Unless drastic austerity measures are taken (not likely) the demand for tax revenue for government will continue to go up at a very high rate. Ultimately, a growing share of productivity will be demanded from those who still perform useful work. However, one’s pay is not always related to one’s true productivity and there is only so much you can ask of someone before they conclude working just isn’t worth it. The phrase “I can’t afford to work here anymore” will become more common in the years ahead.

   So far, an abundance of oil has allowed government employees, government beneficiaries and of course corporate individuals who charge more than they are worth to amass huge amounts of money from those who produce real goods. Oil has allowed productive individuals (such as farmers & truckers) to provide remarkable amounts of goods (turned into revenue) to support a very unequal system. However, as oil gets more expensive, this will not be possible.

   One dystopic scenario is to keep the corporate, medical, legal and government pretty much as they are. To do so, they will probably attempt to maintain the structure by resorting to virtual slave labor for processes where labor can be substituted for oil.

   Rickshaws, roadway chain gangs (rather than heavy equipment) and workers in the fields (rather than horses and tractors) are all things that could enable people to feed the government beast. Each person would be producing less – but more people would be doing it. So the employment rate could be driven down and overall taxes collected would increase. How much? Dunno. However, there is a problem with this system.

   When an individual concludes that the system is not worth it to participate in, change will happen. If the person is educated, they may simply run for public office (perhaps on an austerity ticket) or start a company which does things better. If the person isn’t so educated, criminal options (either organized or otherwise) are also possibilities.

   IMHO a likely scenario would be the secure city/town perforated and surrounded by insecure zones. Those playing by the rules are supported and taxed by entities that can muster security resources to protect them. Others may opt out, live in marginal lands (either inside or outside town), be untaxed and live a dangerous existence by raiding or extorting those who travel through their area. Some enterprising individuals may conclude kidnapping is a lucrative way of making money – such is happening in Mexico Roadway banditry and truck hijacking in the US may become common. In some cities, property taxes may not be paid at all as organized crime gangs will simultaneously extort yet protect revenue producing individuals when official government decides it’s not worth the effort to defeat the true power brokers.

   All of this is already happening – it will simply become more extreme.

   So, the real question is, how will individuals react to the “freedom from vs. freedom to” equation change due to dwindling oil supplies? In a sense, individuals are always paying someone to exist be it a tax man, landlord or corner warlord. How will these relations change? who will benefit and what’s the best strategy for living a comfortable life? That’s the 900 trillion dollar question!

   My hope is that government will be forced (through lack of revenue for foreign wars) to become smaller, simpler and more local rather than larger and more repressive. At the same time, I hope business processes can change to allow for more production with less oil but more people. Government with smaller security forces such as police could be possible since the most effective anti-crime measure that exists is a good job. Good jobs are vital otherwise large police forces are necessary for repressing labor and it’s back to the slavery model.

   So, how could more people, producing less each provide more tax revenue? Take one example. Suppose we turn a bunch of returning unemployed military people into modern organic farm workers. Each person, doing intensive agriculture, would use much less land than a 20th century farmer but get more productivity overall from the land. Land owning farmers would no longer be sole farmers, but managers. Those who managed their employees and resources well and fairly would be rewarded with productive land. Greedy farmer-managers who did not reward their employees as well would suffer more turnover as capable but exploited farm hands would tend to leave for greener pastures.

   Substitute the people for oil idea across other industries as well. Then get people to realize that government sprawl, income inequality and ignorance of history are not in most people’s best interest. If we do this, civilization may, just may, turn into something that most people would want to live in even if it doesn’t have lots of oil.

   Our culture needs to change more than our technology.

   — William McCracken · 19 September 2009, 15:56 · #

Name	Remember
E-mail
Website
Message	Textile Help