mandarine

When you google 'Airbus Boeing Peak Oil', the top result is this article that I wrote in the summer of 2006. Being a Cassandra proved right gives one all sorts of uneasy feelings, but I will carry on in that direction and offer a revised version of my prophecy, adorned with new details.

In a nutshell: people are talking a lot about the difficulties for airlines with $150-a-barrel oil. But we also have to understand that it is going to be much worse for aircraft manufacturers. They probably know it; but they cannot believe what they know, and they cannot say it either. This is not just another crisis for air transportation and aerospace construction: this is the last crisis until the end of the fossil fuel era.

Hard times for airlines

First an important premise: there are no serious alternatives to jet fuel for airliners. And even if there were, they could never be cheap in a world of expensive energy. The problem is not that oil is scarce: the production has never been this high — that's why we call it Peak Oil. The problem is that energy supply is not meeting global demand: until demand abates, any type of energy will end up costing the same, be it classical kerosene, gas-to-liquid synthetic jet fuel, or biodiesel. Regardless of the environmental footprint. Just know that if it was technologically feasible, filling an A380 tank with biofuel would use up 150 hectares of yearly yield,considering an optimistic figure of 2000 litres per hectare for Jatropha biodiesel. You'd need 150×2x365×150 = 16 million hectares — the arable land in France — to power the currently ordered A380 fleet.

Meanwhile the fuel efficiency improvements do not come anywhere close to compensating the price surge. Boeing claim that their new 787 will burn 20% less fuel than current jets of the same category (namely the 767 or A330). 20% is how much oil prices rose between the beginning of April and mid-May 2008: 30 years of technological improvement in aircraft and engine design will offset six weeks of price increase, and no technological Deus ex Machina will change that deal.

The obvious consequence is that cheap flights are gone for good. We are currently witnessing a fast concentration of the market, because the fierce competition prevents airlines from transferring the whole fuel bill to their passengers. As the weaker players exit the arena, ticket prices will rise until the few remaining airlines can break even financially. We will see a trend of de-democratization of air travel, and people will gradually change their travel habits, starting with the poorer and newer travelers.

There is a second key element that will drive air traffic down: as planemakers' market forecasts point out, air traffic growth is consistently correlated to world GDP growth. No need to be a psychic to imagine that GDP growth will seriously suffer from expensive energy. When people's purchasing power shrinks because of the energy bill, they will think twice before flying. Note that a major economic downturn could very well stop the rise in oil prices or even reduce them for a while. But it will not help air traffic - unemployed people do not fly all that much.

Meanwhile, environmental awareness is growing worldwide: the global warming theme is increasingly popular with the sort of middle class travelers who used to fill economy seats for exotic vacations. There will be less scuba-diving in the Maldives; less horseback-trekking in Mongolia; less leopard-spotting in Tanzania. Flying is losing political correctness points by the day. This is even beginning to reach the corporate world, although sometimes only for mere greenwashing concerns: more firms are asking their employees to fly less, to favor teleconferencing or to merge meetings. Business travel, the spine of airline profitability, is probably weaker than most hope.

I also see a final, more tricky contributor to airline misfortunes: many airlines have based their financial model upon the resell value of their aircraft. Planes are a huge investment, with a long lifetime — a bit like homes. Maybe you see what I am hinting at. Just as the housing crisis brought many people to bankruptcy, many airlines will lose their financial footing when the industry's obvious overcapacity and gloomy outlook pulls the market value of second-hand aircraft down. All this will contribute to reduce air traffic over the next decades, to the levels of the 1990s, then the 1980s, then the 1970s …

Harder still for aircraft manufacturers

The average natural decay of a fleet because of ageing is around 6% a year. When yearly traffic is constant from one year to the next, 6 planes for every 100 go into retirement, and are replaced by newer planes. This means that if airlines cut the world's capacity by a mere 6% each year, old retiring planes will not need to be replaced, and no new aircraft will be sold at all. A 6% capacity reduction is equivalent to just changing the Tuesday flight of the daily San Francisco to Tokyo service from a 747-400 to a 777-300ER. A reduction the economic press or the general public would hardly notice can make Airbus and Boeing assembly lines grind to a halt. US carriers will reduce capacity by 10% to 15% this third quarter of 2008 alone.

All told, the industry will cut capacity by 9% in 2008, according to James Higgins, analyst for Soleil-Solebury Research. (quote from CNNmoney.com)

In short: airlines make money in proportion to air traffic; aircraft manufacturers make money in proportion to air traffic growth. In a world with negative air traffic growth, the former float, the latter drown. Therefore, although we will probably not see the end of air traffic any time soon, this extremely nasty leverage effect will make aircraft manufacturers suffer considerably.

One might argue that in a world of expensive oil, airlines should scrap all old, gas-guzzling planes and buy new, soberer ones instead. That would be easy if they were making a lot of profit or could promise a bright future. But when the industry is consistently in the red zone, and getting redder, bankers do not follow. Few airlines have sufficient cash to sign billion-dollar contracts without external investment. Therefore airlines will be like people in poor countries: they will be running old vehicles which use up tons of gas because they cannot afford the newer models which make twice the miles per gallon.

Admittedly, a handful of airlines will be in a position to buy the new planes. When all the world's money ends up in oil exporters' hands, they have to buy things from us to avoid drowning under the heap of green bills. Aircraft are a great choice, as they are both hard-currency-intensive and fossil-fuel intensive, which oil producers have a lot of, as per design. Consequently, aircraft sales may in fact undergo an increase because of high oil prices. This I call the "Aboulafia effect". I conjecture that such an increase is inherently short-lived. Middle-East carriers will probably become prominent players, and gradually snatch the bulk of the market from the traditional airlines. But air traffic will shrink nonetheless, and all they will need to do is buy back the recent planes from their victims, scrap the old ones, and make the most of a declining market — something they are becoming good at.

As if matters could be any worse, there will finally be a mean backlash effect: thanks to cheap liquidity seeking asylum, the years 2003-2007 were absolutely euphoric in terms of aircraft orders. Manufacturers had to invest massively in infrastructures and people in order to ramp up production and honor those orders. But these planes will not materialize into deliveries before a couple of years. There is plenty of time for many airlines to go bankrupt or otherwise hit financial turbulence. This will mean massive delivery deferrals, then cancellations, so that assembly lines cannot even hold onto their current backlog. Who knows, we may witness the very curious artefact of a negative net yearly order-book. In the real world, that's called jumping off a cliff with a lot of momentum.

The combined value of the orders for Airbus and Boeing planes exceeds $500 billion at list prices, so large-scale cancellations and deferrals could easily amount to tens of billions of dollars and affect suppliers of engines and other parts in addition to the jet makers. (from the Wall Street Journal)

What next?

When that happens, it will be catastrophic for all the people, organisations, or communities, which now contribute to the aircraft manufacturing adventure. This could send Seattle or Toulouse the way British textile, or French foundries went not so long ago. And do not get influenced by prejudice. Aerospace does not have an intrinsically higher value than those industries we have come to regard as lowly. Today's ghost slums were full of very busy and extremely proud people at the peak of their flourishing trade.

I do not know what the smartest move for aircraft manufacturers is, and I am glad I am not in Tom Enders' or Scott Carson's shoes. Publicly acknowledging that the air travel industry is on the brink of inevitable decline would discourage investors and hasten the fall. And yet, the earlier they can start downshifting, the smoother the forced landing. They should be cancelling the B787 (a little too late for that one) or A350 developments, and simply offer to fit new generation engines on good old 767s and A330s. That would already be at least half the fuel economy, for a much smaller cost, while not forcing new capacity on the market place. Or silently work on a totally new kind of bird, absolutely optimized for fuel efficiency, even if it changes the rules of the game: a Mach 0.62, 20,000ft, turboprop, middle-range, high-capacity, DC-4-comfort machine that would be the soberest flying camel to get people where trains can't go for the next half century.

Or maybe steer away from this dwindling trade altogether and find a new frontier. How about giant wind turbines? If those do not sell, nothing will anyway, so that may be worth a try.

Notes

Many thanks to Richard Heinberg and Julian Darley of the Post Carbon Institute for accepting publication at Global Public Media.

Requests for reproduction or translation should be sent to the Post Carbon Institute.

Economist and Nobel Prize recipient Joseph Stiglitz recently published a book entitled The Three Trillion Dollar War. He claims that the global cost of the war (not just counting troops wartime bonuses or weapons, but a host of indirect costs) is above three trillion dollars for the US and the same for the rest of the world.

There are roughly 30 million people living in Iraq.

Instead of using the money to destroy a country and make cripples, terrorists, or fundamentalists, maybe it would have been smarter (and just as machiavellian) to share the six trillion dollars among Iraqis and give a million to each family, in exchange of all the oil, a democratic tame government, and exclusive commercial rights for US firms, so that the money finds its way back to where it came from.

Nobody wants to blow themselves up when they get to choose between being a martyr and a millionaire.

Barter vs. gift

We often think that when currency did not exist, most societies relied on barter for economic exchange. This is the main argument in favor of the use of money, which essentially allows to delay both halves of barter by materializing debt. In a barter economy, you can only trade what you have, whereas with currency, you can trade what you will (probably) have later.

When the seller (or the lender) realizes later that you cannot in fact honor the debt, then you get a financial crisis, in which everybody starts to question the value of everybody else’s debt (i.e. money loses its value), therefore nobody wants to sell or lend (i.e. accept someone’s debt as payment), therefore many people stop working (nothing to sell), therefore economy grinds to a halt.

But this is not true. Barter may have been the rule for merchant trade (i.e. rare and foreign stuff like beads, salt, silk, spice, etc.), but for daily economic exchange, barter was the exception and gift was the rule.

Somehow, we have been brainwashed into believing that any exchange should be reciprocal. But we must not look very far to find perfect examples of a gift behaviour which is as old as life itself: one expects no quid pro quo when one raises a child or takes care of a family. Obviously we do not ask a newborn baby to give something or do something special in return for nursing or shelter. We do not ask a newborn baby to sign a debt certificate. It is true that some parents have great expectations (you’ll be a famous lawyer, my son), but most parents only want the best for their kids, regardless of what the kids will do to them in the future.

Savings and credit

Savings (and then credit) is what you have when you have worked more than what it takes to fulfill your short-term needs (or wants). You can either stash this surplus as hard goods, like a squirrel hides nuts, but most people hoard it as money (or investment). Money (or invested capital) is someone else’s debt. When an insane economy forces goods onto impoverished people in exchange for debt, and then realises that the debt cannot be honored, then people’s savings are hit. Your surplus has melted just like hazelnuts can rot. It seems fair enough, but the crisis goes far beyond simply telling the rich that their surplus has vanished (bummer). And the poor are also hit, first when they get squeezed (e.g. evicted) so that creditors can get crumbs back, then when the economy slows down and they lose their jobs.

What if I had just given my surplus away?

Now imagine we have our brains intact and can live in an economy when we never expect anything in return. If I have surplus, I will give it away, for whatever I feel deserves it best. I will probably think twice before giving my surplus to the rich and old, and instead, it will feel natural to give it to the young (and generally poor), especially if someone had done the same for me when I was young and poor myself.

I do not expect anything in return, I do not think of the surplus as mine and to be returned one day; therefore, there cannot be a financial crisis. But society does get the full benefit of this ‘investment’ in any case, and I will get my interest directly through social recognition (there were rich people before money existed), and obviously indirectly via the healthy society I contributed to.

Note that the people who get gifts from me, even repeatedly, should not consider that they owe me anything nor feel uncomfortable in any way as a consequence of my largesse. In today’s world, only children can do that well.

If you think hard enough, there is no more nor less ‘justice’ in this system than the current one. But it is more robust, and certainly more humane. Probably, a gift economy does not work when you do not know the people. Instead of seeing it as an obstacle against my utopia, I see it as a good reason to get to know my neighbours and make tons of friends on the web. Who knows, maybe I will have to give something to you one day.

Epilogue

We have a saying in France, which goes like this: “Les bons comptes font les bons amis”, which means “Good accounts make good friends”. My personal belief is that “Les bons comptes font les bons comptables, c’est tout”: “Good accounts make good accountants, period”.

An announcement

#2 will celebrate its zeroeth birthday sometime around end October.

This is an opportunity to recycle an old post that probably not everybody has read. If you have, you are welcome to read it again.

Introduction

A couple of years ago, I heard a heated argument between my brother-in-law and his cousin. The young mother of three had hinted something about my in-law still being single at age 35+ and having no active plans to found a ‘real family’. The accused righteously retorted that the cultural model of the normal family with kids is slowly drowning our planet in overpopulation, and that his choice was the reasonable one. He was this close to saying something like ‘as far as sustainable development is concerned, having kids amounts to owning a SUV’.

[more]

Warning: I could not resist a little doom and gloom.

When we are burning fossil fuels, we only see the environmental impact. There is supposed to be a Kyoto quota, and when we consume more, we feel some sort of hypothetical environmental guilt regarding global warming. The concept of future generations is very abstract, and very uncertain, and it does not make for easy arbitrations in everyday’s life.

Digression on market, non-renewables and future generations

As a side-note, just note that market price is fixed just with today’s supply-demand balance. Future generations cannot stake claims on today’s market, while today’s sales will deprive them of their share. Imagine a group of ten friends camping together in the wilderness, with so much tea for breakfast. Four early-risers sit down for breakfast at sunrise, and drink as much tea as they wish. Four others wake up later, find that there is only tea left for three. Two of them agree to drink just half a mug each in exchange of cookies from the other two. The two late-risers get nothing. Had we placed all ten together with the global tea and cookie problem, the share would have been quite different.

For non-renewables, day-to-day supply-demand market rules are a total nonsense.

An unfair negotiation

But let’s not consider future generations. Let’s just focus on today’s market. What does the price of fuel reflect? It reflects the market and the law of supply and demand of today. The more people want fuel now, the higher the price will get.

I want fuel. Fuel price rises. I can afford it. I pay my fuel. Why should I feel guilty of burning it? Because a sky-high price is just a way of saying that somebody else forsook their expected share of today’s fuel supply. It would be OK if it were my retired neighbor in the same affluent neighborhood who said: “OK, you need to drive to work, I will stay at home instead of going fishing, so you can have my share of today’s gas”. But it is not like this. The negotiation power on a market is money, not importance. Therefore, the final share will not reflect an arbitration in terms of what’s more important to humans considered equals (e.g. trading comfort uses for vital ones), and the rich will always get more of the share, however futile their intentions.

Economic theory says that the rich will pay more, therefore get poorer, while the poor save money by not buying the stuff, therefore things even-out in the end. This is only true if the rich do not get richer with what they get to do with the stuff. And if the poor do not starve before that. Because in the meantime, rising gas prices are also pushing food prices upwards.

In a world of scarce resources in which the power scales are already all the way to our side, something has to break somewhere if we want more for us. Whenever I drive my car for a week-end excursion, whenever I turn heating on, whenever I eat a juicy steak, I can only do this because someone else forsook their share of today’s driving to work, their share of today’s stove, their share of today’s food.

My macabre illustration

Imagine yourself and a small child fighting over a blanket while camping out in a blizzard. The colder it gets, the harder you have to pull to keep warm and cosy. You have more strength, therefore you get more of the blanket, although you do not need it as much as the kid does. At some point, the child is too weak and lets go of the blanket altogether. This is called price elasticity in an unfair market.

The factory has admittedly greatly increased the creature comfort of mankind. Innumerable articles now in general use were luxuries enjoyed only by the gentry and quite above the aspirations of common folk before the factory system was established. The factory has enabled the masses to live under conditions, and to consume “goods, wares and utensils,” which otherwise they could not have afforded. Rich and poor both have been enabled to purchase more goods and more kinds of goods and to consume and destroy them more freely than was previously possible.

It is, of course, difficult to determine how much of the credit for all this is really due to the factory itself and how much to the fact that scientists and inventors directed their efforts to the development of factory machinery and factory methods to the neglect of improvements in domestic production. We have always to bear in mind that the well-being we credit to the factory is based upon comparison between the low prices and high consumption made possible by the factory after it has had the advantage of all the inventions and the increases in scientific knowledge of the past century and a half, and the high prices and low consumption which prevailed under a relatively primitive system of individual production.

in This Ugly Civilization, Ralph Borsodi, 1930

And he’s been proven right in at least one respect: personal computers completely wiped out mainframe computing. I am ready to wager that there are tons of other examples where we believe a centralized model is more efficient when in fact it is not.

I could have named it the ‘gnôthi seautòn’ meme, or the Socrates meme, let’s just call it the ‘why’ meme. The rule is the following: pick any number of big life choices you have made or are about to make, and recursively ask ‘why’ until it makes no more sense. I believe that we should do this for almost every choice in life, so that we make sure we are aware of our true motivations.

- I want out of the treadmill of wage-slavery and leave the insane train of industrial production and gdp growth to reinvent a homesteader’s peaceful life.

why?

- Because I think the world is going nuts and that the insane race for quantity instead of quality is already banging against the limits of our small planet.

why?

- Because I think that science and technology can now give us comfort with very little work, but the human mind cannot easily adapt to the new paradigm of plenty. But instead of all rethinking how we want our lives to be, we are prevented from enjoying this by a work ethics which equates ‘more’ with ‘better’, and we have invented the economic structures that concentrate plenty into the hands of few, so that plenty is artificially out of reach from the majority, therefore giving more credit to the work ethics of penury. Always running for more leads to exponential growth. Continued exponential growth in a finite world is not possible, so this race will stop sooner or later anyway. However, I think I should step aside and leave the race before it crashes.

why?

- The obvious answer is that I hope I can make a Noah’s ark for my family and me, but this is at best improbable. If it crashes, we’ll all be in the same boat. But if it does not, I still believe that the ‘race’ is making everybody miserable, even the ones who are not denied a share of the plenty. By stepping out, I can pause and think and invent a life of quality instead of quantity. Ever since I started to work part-time, I have seen how much more quality I could put into my life while relinquishing only a tenth and now a fifth of my income. In fact, I think the best life is the one where the amount of one’s monetary work is not set by conventions but by exactly how much monetary income I strictly need, and also how much good it does the world if I work one extra hour.

why?

- We have all been trained as mercenaries, and now hardly anyone questions the validity of one’s job, whatever the job. But as I have said, it is quite certain that the world does not need more stuff, so I have to be really careful about what good it does the world if I work more at what I do. For instance, if I work for the armament industry, the tobacco industry, the chemical industry, the aircraft industry, the automobile industry, the bioengineering industry, there are serious doubts as to whether more of my work actually makes the world a better place, given the circumstances. Now if I can find a job which is useful to the world, how much of it should be paid and how much of it should be volunteer? If it is paid, it participates in the ‘race’ of money flow, GDP growth, wealth concentration, etc. If it is volunteer work, it profits the world, period. I want to live the best life without having to walk over other people’s bodies, so I have to make the volunteer/commercial work ratio as high as I can afford.

why?

- Because I feel my life has already profited too much from walking over other people’s bodies (especially people in the so-called ‘South’), although I am convinced that the new ‘paradigm of plenty’ (even in the absence of cheap oil) makes slavery of others an optional contributor to one’s comfort. I am not sure that I can ever repay the debt I have, especially if we count in terms of inheritance of the colonial times, but I can at least relieve the pressure our economies put on the world at large and on the poor in particular. Therefore, if I am to earn the least money, I should make my own stuff, grow my own food, and try to rely more on the local economy than on the globalized economy. Hence the homestead. In addition, I wish that my experience can serve as an example to other people and show that other life patterns are possible outside the commercial race.

why?

- Because I think that as soon as one is locked as a nameless mercenary in the economic treadmill, having to beg every penny of one’s needs from the globalized economy, freedom discreetly leaves the scenery. How free am I when all my livelihood relies on the economic welfare of my boss’s shareholders? How free am I when less work means less food for my family? Imagine if all the people in the world were homesteaders who could make their own food, clothing and shelter, would they not represent the kind of ideal free citizenship which was the foundation of the US of A? In addition, if people return to the land, they’ll tie new bonds with the Earth, and instead of being abusers of Nature, they’d all be stewards of the Earth. I owe that much to my son.

why?

- Because messing up the Earth unknowingly is one thing, but carrying on when we know we are is another thing altogether. How is my son to understand if I did not try my best to make his world livable. And by being around nurturing the land he lives on, I believe I give his life the best quality.

why ?

- Because I am certain that he cares more for a mouthful of homegrown strawberries, a walk in the forest, a game of ball in the garden, or wrestling on the lawn than he cares for a large bedroom, a brand-new TV set and a comprehensive collection of Disney DVDs. When kids can count on their parents being around (though not always on their back), they develop the kind of security that makes balanced grown-ups. When people are not afraid they might be abandoned, or loved less, they do not see the world as a battlefield against their neighbours, but as an adventureland with their friends.

why?

- Because I am certain that human aspirations, once the means of survival are provided for, are often the unconscious ripples of unsoothed childhood wants. Nobody is ever rich enough to compensate for an archaic fear of poverty; nobody is ever powerful enough to exorcise a history of humiliation; nobody is ever famous enough to erase a childhood of apparent lovelessness. When one seeks power, wealth, or fame, the goal is always just over the horizon. When one seeks love, happiness, health, one can take them by the hand from birth to death, and walk the walk of the good life. I picture the good life as a hike in the wild, with each step requiring a slight effort but rewarded with new sights, sounds and smells, each step bringing me a little further along whatever path I choose. A walk which is so beautiful in itself that I would have no regrets if I had to stop anywhere.

why?

- Because we have but one life, and we never know when it will end. I am not going to sacrifice now for tomorrow because there could be no tomorrow. But I will not sacrifice tomorrow for now either, because there might be a hell of a lot tomorrows ahead.

why ?

- Because I might live long for one thing, and also because although I fully embrace a purely materialistic viewpoint, I cannot completely discard the possibility that something in people is immortal, whatever it is

why?

- Because I find believing gives a special light to the world.

why?

- Because it sort of answers the final why.

why?

- Why not?

Through the very excellent soil and health library website, I have discovered a fascinating author, tackling the contradictions of our industrial model 80 years ago, and forty years before Ivan Illich.

This author is Ralph Borsodi, and his social and economic insight is very sharp ; extremely sharp when you think that he had come to his conclusions in the 1920s.

I will be telling more about the author as I carry on reading his works, and there will be several quotes finding their way into my blog, for there are views I could not express better.

[…] the idea that mankind’s comfort is dependent upon an unending increase in production is a fallacy.

It is more nearly true to say that happiness is dependent not on producing as much as possible but on producing as little as possible. Comfort and understanding are dependent upon producing only so much as is compatible with the enjoyment of the superior life. Producing more than this involves a waste of mankind’s most precious possessions. It involves a waste of the only two things which man should really conserve–the two things which he should use with real intelligence and only for what really conduces to his comfort. When he destroys these two things, he has destroyed what is for all practical purposes irreplaceable. These two things are the natural resources of the earth and the time which he has to spend in the enjoyment of them.

in This Ugly Civilization, Ralph Borsodi, 1930

Day after day, I am more deeply disturbed by the contradictions between our speech and our actions on the environment front. Every time I hear or see someone complaining about the state of the environment, it seems there is always a third-party that can conveniently be blamed for the situation. Let us pick a few examples:

• the price of gasoline: Chinese growth.
• deforestation: Brazilian peasants.
• water pollution: farmers and agribusiness.
• nuclear plants: the nuclear lobby.
• overfishing: those stupid fishermen.
• biodiversity: sprawling third-world mega-cities
• lack of investment in renewables: the government
• financial insanity: those greedy stock-exchange traders
• ad lib.

No need to use a microscope to see that in each instance, we are a link in the chain that leads to the disorder decried. We drive cars, we eat beef or fish, we prefer to buy the cheaper good, we use electricity and we would not want its price doubled overnight, we want our savings to generate an income, etc.

Just like a throng pushing towards the exit can trample or suffocate dozens of people without anyone actually pushing that hard, each time we are a part of one of these chains, our weight adds up to the weight of all the other actors, putting an enormous stress on the end-links until the Earth gives in. The Brazilian lumberjack felling a 200-ft tall tree is no more guilty than his boss, his boss’s stakeholder, or me.

This is not about buying hybrid cars or compact fluorescent light bulbs. It is not about buying organic or fair trade once in a while. ‘Buying’ is the problem; not the solution.

Climatologists, energy experts, agronomists, social workers: they are not talking about a 20% change in fifty years, but about an 80% change in five years. It is about stopping before doing anything and ask myself: if seven billion people behaved like I am about to do, how would the world end up?

Somehow, it is a moral obligation to change radically right now, so that whatever catastrophes happen, I will have tried my best. And if catastrophes don’t happen, then I will jokingly congratulate myself on saving the world. But there is no carrying on pretending. Fortunately, there are tons of things I can do.

Self-catering is the cultural norm

You have a kitchen. You buy your food, but you cook your meals. And you know you would not relinquish your kitchen and always eat out or call a caterer or buy instant food because:

• you could not afford it (*)
• you’d lose the pleasure of cooking
• you’d lose on quality
• you would not really know what went in the meals you eat

Why cook and not grow?

Maybe agricultural practices of olden times were inefficient enough that any job at the factory paid more food that one could grow otherwise. I doubt that. I would rather say that the social conditions drove people out of the land and into factories regardless of the economic interest for them. In any case, new techniques and practices (mulching, crop rotations, polyculture, cover crops) have considerably reduced the labour needed to grow food on the garden scale since the time when our society bifurcated from distributed micro-agriculture to the ugly industrial model which is currently ruining our lives, the planet, and our kids’ future.

I say that, just like we can show that the average speed of a car is not much higher than that of a bicycle if we count the time one works to pay for the car, we can show that the time one works to pay for food is not much shorter than the time it would take to grow said food (**).

Obviously, I have taken the real-estate factor out of the computation. Not everybody can afford 300 square meters of vegetable garden + 500 square meters of cereals and another acre of grassland for one ewe. This is another matter and relates to a future post on why we pack people into cities in the era of the internet.

My project for 2008

I wager that personal agriculture can make a new dent in the over-centralized, over-specialized, industrial model, just like personal computers wiped out mainframe systems when nobody expected them. In 2008, I will try to prove something: I will spend one hour per day in my garden (maybe two because I am a beginner; maybe three because one must not forget the pleasure factor) and I will try to feed my family.

I will blog about my endeavour. In French. Soon.

Meanwhile, enjoy this song (by French artist Ridan) which expresses my current state of mind better than I could.

Je préfère être pauvre avec mon âme que vivre riche avec la leur ; si le blé me file du bonheur, je me ferai peut-être agriculteur

I had rather be poor with my own soul than be wealthy with theirs; if [growing] wheat makes me happy, maybe I’ll turn farmer

Footnotes

(*)