The oil lamp – shining God's light on peak oil

Another warning from OFGEM  about energy security warning that the lights might go out has hit the news over the last 24 hours.  What we wrote in the first paragraph of our book does not seem so far fetched now.

“The modern world is not perfect, but if you were born in a developed country sometime in the last sixty years, it is likely that you have experienced a rising standard of living, with increasing comfort and convenience. Yet we only need to look back a few generations to see how much has changed, and how much we take for granted. We flick a switch, assuming that electricity will be there to light up the bulb. We expect to be able to travel long distances quickly, in comfort and at reasonable cost. We think nothing of sitting down to a meal whose ingredients have been transported across the globe to our table. These things and many more besides have become basic expectations for most in the developed world – and as Christians living within a modern, developed country we share them. While we may bow our heads and give thanks for God’s provision at the start of a meal, in most other ways we take the conveniences of modern life for granted.”

Why this is happening is because almost all the coal and nuclear plants will be closed by 2016.  How likely is it?  Difficult to say, the press is saying that the government will pay intensive energy users (industry) to shut-down and National grid would be given powers to bring mothballed plant on-line.

How can you help?  Move into an energy conservation mode.  For example LED’s are expensive but cost effective and the light is now just like an incandescent bulb.  Consider not only saving energy  but “producing” your own using PV’s, wind (in the country) or hydro (if you are really lucky and have access to water).  Finally as a warning to American readers of this blog.  Don’t get complacent about your own energy supplies from shale.  We did with the North sea.  In energy terms its here one minute and gone the next.  The days of cheap energy are over, this will affect Christians and churches as much as anyone else.  Further details can be found in our book.

Further details can be found about OFGEM’s concerns here.

Neil

I was going to lead this week with something completely different, but I have just heard the US supreme court has rejected the idea that human genes can be patented.  Apparently they could not see how something that was a “product of nature” could be protected in this way.  This has implications across biology.  Up until now both US and EU patent law allow patenting of genes in plants (and presumably other organisms) if the the gene was sufficiently “isolated” from the organism.  There was an extraordinary case of Monsanto taking a Canadian farmer to court after they noticed he was using “roundup” resistant canola.  [It fell into his field by mistake and he noticed it survived roundup so he collected the seed and used it the next year. Astonishingly Monsanto came round and tested the canola in the area to use if anyone was using GM canola without paying and took him to court.  They won and this helped confirm that genes could be patented].  What’s the difference in law between a plant gene and a human gene?

As we posted on our Facebook page a week or so ago there is a concern that large agro companies will patent more plants and genomes.  There is a move to sequence many plant genomes on crops much used in the developing world and publish the sequences so that they cannot be patented.  This does not just relate to GM.  Genome sequencing is so easy now products of conventional plant breeding can be sequenced to look for useful traits, speeding up the conventional plant breeding process.  With food supplies under pressure as never before we do want farmers anywhere paying for a limited numbers of varieties under the control of the likes of Monsanto. In addition many bacteria could have useful genes to make limited (see our book) quantities of bio-derived materials.

As a biologist this ruling seems logical and just.  It does preclude companies making money from the innovations around the gene(s), just they cannot own the genes.  Its time for another look at the law concerning plant genes.

Neil

Governments don’t get the need for de-carbonisation.  This week a policy to make all power generation zero carbon by 2030 was defeated in the UK.  Instead there is a danger we will be locked into higher prices due to natural gas price increases. Of the four conventional energy sources we examined in our book, gas appears to have the best reserves, although these reserves, particularly unconventional ones, may be exaggerated.  However, even large gas reserves will not delay a crisis if oil peaks soon, since the gas price is linked to that of oil for the reasons given above.  It therefore seems likely that gas prices are going to keep rising, this is particularly true in Western Europe where there could be actual shortages of supply due to depletion of indigenous reserves.  This is a disaster if we stick with our current course for everyone but particularly the poorest in our societies.

Neil

Food banks have been in the news this week in the UK.  This may surprise our US readers but they are relatively new here.  A combination of high energy prices (feeding through to higher food prices), the global economic crash and no rise in median incomes for around 10 years has meant that people are struggling to make ends meet.  What is surprising is how many working families are using food banks.

Following on from an article earlier in the week in the Guardian on the fact that food banks are booming there are a number of letters bemoaning their existence in today’s print edition.  This includes one from a Quaker congregation saying they will not be donating food.  Again it may surprise US readers but we like our social security system here.  Its under strain and attack but is still relatively intact.  It has its faults but is a reasonably efficient way of distributing money to those in need (which is not say it does not require reform and simplification).  What concerns people here is a return to the pre-war mix of charities and local government schemes which didn’t work (my parents teeth being one good example of pre NHS dentistry).  I have other concerns as well.  Giving people food rather than money means they are more limited in their food intake and are not taking responsibility for their diet.  In addition this oil based processed food which apart from not being great for our health is not sustainable in the long term.

The biggest food bank in the UK is run by Christians so this makes it a difficult issue for many of us here who are Christians with doubts.  Whilst I understand the concerns of the Quakers I have to say if I see a need I should meet it.  I’m a reluctant giver though on this one.  With still high and increasing oil prices this problem is only going to get worse and I think food banks are here to stay.  It would be nice to see some gardening projects as part of the food bank approach though…

Neil