The Quiet Road

I predicted equal parts infuriating, confusing and enlightening. I was right about the first two.

I watched Questions and Answers last night. It’s a fairly conventional political panel show… five people – some or all of whom are politicians – answer questions posed by a studio audience, while a chairperson oversees the debate which develops. It’s a tried and tested formula, giving the public a limited opportunity to express opinion and provide feedback on policy to those who shape or influence it.

The chairperson in this case is John Bowman; an amiable enough man, but with enough forcefulness to take control of the debate when it threatened to drift. He also successfully cut off the politicians when they slipped into prepared party-political broadcasts. Overall he acquited himself well, though he wasn’t ever really challenged by a guest, nor had to deal with any serious arguments amongst the panel. So I’ll have to reserve judgment a while longer.

Incidentally, “well done!” to Ireland’s Public Service Broadcaster, RTÉ (Radio Telefí­s Éireann). I was very impressed when the BBC started to keep their news and current affairs programmes online to download for a full week after broadcast. While the RTÉ site is – in general – extremely limited compared with the BBC, it appears that they keep an archive of weekly broadcasts going back at least two months. Very groovy.

But what about the actual content of the show?

For me it was notable for two things. One, the fact that a government minister made an intelligent and perceptive remark during a debate on natural resources. Most government ministers go their entire time in office without making a single intelligent or perceptive remark on any subject.

The second thing it was notable for was the fact that (always assuming Questions and Answers is representative of mainstream political debate), it appears mainstream debate on drug policy is mired in ignorance and idiocy in Ireland. Even more so than in the UK. Which gives me the head-staggers.

Ignorance and idiocy

Between 1989 and 1992 three of my friends died as a result of drug misuse. In all three cases it was ignorance of what they were taking that was directly to blame. My views on drug policy spring directly from this. And I’m fortunate in that my gut feeling on this issue is backed up by reason and precedent. It’s always difficult when that’s not the case.

In the case of drug policy, however, the issue is so murky – obscured by decades of lies, emotion, bad policy, ignorance, idiocy and vested interests – as to make “reason” quite difficult to recognise. The arguments against a blanket prohibition of drugs can – as a great man once said – be proven on an etch-a-sketch. I have walked intelligent, rational people step-by-step through those arguments and been met sometimes with blank stares, though often with outright hostility. It’s too obvious. Too clear. It kicks the legs from under people. “If that rock-solid truth can be incontravertibly shown to be just an absurd belief, then what the hell’s next?”

The War on Some Drugs is demonstrably counter-productive. Treating society’s relationship with psychoactive substances via the criminal justice system creates vast amounts of preventable suffering, and wastes significant resources. Drugs, when they are misused, can be dangerous. This goes for aspirin as much as heroin. But dealing with any dangerous substance by placing its marketing and supply into the hands of violent criminals is clearly insane. People talk about “controlled substances”. It’s a phrase right out of Orwell. Do people understand, I wonder, when they use that phrase… when they say “controlled substances”… that they are talking about precisely those substances over which we have relinquished all control?

Yes, guns and illegal drugs are tightly bound together in modern Irish society. But that’s only because of that word “illegal” that sits before “drugs”. Guns and aspirin aren’t tightly bound together. Neither (by and large) are guns and alcohol. I wonder how long that would remain the case if we were to introduce alcohol prohibition though? How long before the armed gangsters started smuggling in Russian vodka… or making their own? So it’s vital to bear in mind, when linking “cannabis and ecstasy” to gun crime (as most of the panel succeeded in doing on the show last night), that the actual link is forged by the law.

What lunatic honestly believes that gun-wielding criminals are the best people to handle the importation and distribution of highly addictive drugs? People with a vested interest in getting as many people using as much of their product as possible. Instead, why not take half the money we spend on drug prevention and invest it in safe, clean, medically supervised distribution of addictive drugs at cost price to the end user? In one stroke, addicts have to carry out far less crime (if any) to feed their habit. A huge benefit to society and another massive saving of resources. At the same time, they are getting medically pure drugs and therefore suffering far less illnesses as a result of their drug use. This places a lesser strain on the medical system, and gives the addict the strength to move towards a more healthy lifestyle. And finally, though no less significantly, the addict is purchasing their drugs from a professional trained to offer support, advice and encouragement to seek help in quitting.

Taking drug users out of the criminal justice system then frees up additional police resources to deal with any violent or acquisitive crime still resulting from problem addicts. I’m not suggesting that a burglar escape prison because they’re an addict. Merely that they be sent to prison for their crime. Not their illness.

Because let’s not avoid this point. One day history students will look back at our time and be horrified at the barbarity with which we treated drug addicts. They’ll wonder, idly, why cigarette smokers and alcoholics were spared prison time. The explanation that’ll make most sense to future historians will be that vested interests… the tobacco companies and big drinks businesses… had enough influence to ensure their users avoided the punishment heaped upon users of other substances.

But the fact remains; a heroin addict is sick. In the same way an alcoholic is sick. For some reason though, we think that persecution and incarceration is the best way of dealing with one; while we accept that support and counselling is almost certainly the best way to deal with the other. I can’t imagine the alcoholic who would benefit from a spell in prison as punishment for possessing a can of beer. I can only imagine that person would have a bigger drink problem upon emerging from prison, and will also have probably lost whatever form of income they had prior to their prison time. In other words, by locking them up we damage them. And we damage society.

On last night’s show however, there was apparently universal belief, among panel and audience, that a zero-tolerance prohibitionist approach to drug possession (accompanied by mandatory minimum prison sentences) is the best way to deal with “the reality of Ireland’s gun culture”.

I find it bizarre that so many people can fail to see that the approach used for the last few decades – prohibition – has clearly created the current situation, and will continue to make it worse so long as we keep at it. Albert Einstein once said that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. How long before Ireland realises its attitude towards drug policy is insane?

Google have a pretty good news service (that link will take you to the Irish page, but there are versions localised for over thirty countries, with more coming on stream all the time). It basically runs a search on a whole bunch of news sites, figures out what’s being talked about most, and then presents a selection of headlines and links to those stories all on one page.

It’s your one-stop-shop for up-to-date news(tm) Or something.

Of course, with such a huge audience, one can only hope that the Google search algorithms work properly and aren’t infected with the political biases of their programmers. Or the people who pay the programmers.

Google China, for instance, is prepared to only present links to stories and news sources approved by the Chinese government. The main argument in favour of this strategy (as I understand it) is that in situations where control is not yours; it’s better to provide access to some information, rather than none at all. Well, firstly, I’m not at all sure that’s true as a point of principle. Secondly and most importantly; in situations where the information is being filtered by a vested interest (i.e. in practice) it’s a load of horsehit.

There is one clear truth of the matter. The Google Corporation is providing its Chinese users with a view of the world tailored to fit the wishes of a totalitarian government. That’s the end result of all the philosophical faux-debate. Google is – in essence – a powerful tool of propaganda being wielded by the Chinese government.

And it isn’t doing this because Google believes the Chinese people might benefit from “some information” (read: “information approved by The Inner Party”). Google doesn’t believe anything. Google is a massive multinational corporation with a legal duty to maximise the return on investment of its shareholders. Google is acting as a tool of Chinese propaganda because it cannot afford to lose access to the Chinese market.

It’s doing it for the money. The thirty billion pieces of silver.

Oh, and all the others are doing it too. This isn’t a Google-only thing. I’m just using them as the example because I have a problem with a corporation whose motto is “Don’t Do Evil”.

Like it’s got any choice in the matter.

Anyways, quite aside from my healthy suspicion of any large news-filtering service; every now and then I glimpse what can only be – if not the political bias – then at least the sense of humour of the programmers, showing through the cracks in the code. How else do you explain this…

I wonder does Thomas Pynchon open the newspaper at the breakfast table some mornings and think “I can’t compete with this. I’m off down the pub.” Where he’s joined by Kurt Vonnegut and the ghosts of Richard Heller and Hunter S. Thompson, and they all shake their heads in stunned horror at a world imitating their art.

“Hey guys, could I trouble you for a minute? It’s just… I can’t believe you’re all here… this is amazing. The thing is… I have this idea for a novel, and who better to get some notes from, right?”

The four look aghast. A wannabe Irish writer with a thing for Joyce wants to run a story idea by them. Richard whispers to Hunter, “I told you this was hell.”

“Well… it starts like this… the USA is run by a right-wing nutter who counts The Lord His God among his political advisors. This guy actually hears the voices, right? One morning there’s an incredibly cinematic attack on America (got an eye on possible movie rights) and he just snaps. Goes completely off the deep end. Wrath of God, End Times. That kind of stuff. He wasn’t psychologically prepared to deal with the responsibilities he faced and retreated from them. He became instead “a tool of God”. Accepting orders from On High.

Within days of the attack he’s pointing the finger of blame. Three almost entirely unrelated nations are labelled The Axis of Evil. And a fourth is quickly invaded.

Meanwhile in Iran, they’re getting a little worried. One of the more progressive nations in the region they had – for over a decade now – been moving slowly away from complete domination by the religious establishment towards something slightly more secular. It was by no means an overnight change, but it was a slow evolution towards a balance. Exactly the kind of process that might stand a chance of succeeding.

Suddenly though, they find themselves branded “evil” by the most powerful man on the planet. Commander in Chief of a military machine so fearsome that the only way to fight it is to allow it to reduce your nation to rubble and then plant booby-traps in the rubble. And to make matters worse, that military machine has begun the process of occupying Afghanistan. The country on Iran’s eastern border.

Of course this is a dream come true to the religious establishment in Iran. For years they’ve been trading on threats of The Great Satan. America was getting ready to pounce. Just you wait. Any minute now. You’ll see.

But America had eight years of Clinton. And while he lobbed cruise missiles once in a while, and periodically bombed places, he never really gave the impression of being about to pounce. Well, I never thought so anyways.

Now though. Not only did the Great Satan pounce, but he pounced on their next door neighbour. All the while making threats to reduce Iran to rubble as well. The clerics had a field-day. And one, frankly, that it’s hard to begrudge them. Nobody likes it when someone says “I told you so”, but you have to acknowledge their right to do so. If they did indeed tell you so.

Then the bloody great satan pounced again. This time on the country that borders Iran to the west. One of the other two countries that the fundamentalist president had called “evil”. The people of Iran started to freak out and demanded that their government protect them. The world’s most fearsome military was busy laying waste to the countries on both sides of them. It’s leader had all but singled out Iran as next in line. People are dying there for crying-out-loud!

We’ve got electricity and hot water and enough good food to eat. Our kids are going to a good school and our eldest is starting university in September. Most importantly though; bombs aren’t falling on our house or exploding in the supermarket next to the school. When it comes to quality of life, that last one is something we really rate highly in Iran.

So here’s the thing. We’re going to vote out the reformist chap who we voted in last time. That guy was always talking about “dialogue with the west”, and you only have to look at what’s happening in the countries next door to realise that brute force is the only language these people understand. I mean, just look at what they do with their P.O.W’s!

In the reformer’s place we’re going to vote for the hardliner who promises to protect us. Yeah, I have a big problem with his views on women’s rights… and I’m even pretty dubious about his whole “hate the jews” thing. But thanks to the fact that bombs are falling next door, our elections have become somewhat single-issue. Can you blame us? We’re going to vote for the bloke who says he has a plan to prevent the bombs from falling here.

And so they did.”

“And then”, sighs the ghost of Hunter S. Thompson, “Iran develops nukes as the obvious method of deterring an attack. After all, it’s worked for everyone else whose done it… big fighter aircraft deals for the boys. But that part of the world is just too goddamn volatile. It’s a tinderbox full of powderkegs. And it doesn’t make sense to put nukes in the hands of them that’s got the Lord Their God as political advisors. So Iran ends up nuking Israel. Or the other way round. Who knows how it starts… maybe political fallout from some inflammatory speech… or maybe some maintenance grunt smoking weed on the job falling asleep on the big red button… after fighting a war on it for best part of a century, turns out pot decided to hit back.

Anyways Iran and Israel nuke each other and then things get a little out of hand. Russia, the US and finally China, India and Pakistan. Hell even the Brits and the French find someone to launch at… no sense missing the party.”

I nod. “And the whole world goes up in smoke”. It’s a weak joke to end on. And I know it. But the weariness in Hunter’s voice has already taken the wind from my sails.

“My dear boy”, says Mr. Vonnegut softly, “it’s too implausible to make good satire and too damn depressing to make good fantasy. Go peddle it to the people who publish Tom Clancy. Maybe you’ll get a look-in there.”

About eight years ago I wrote a letter to the UK Minister for Energy (not a top level position by the way… the Minister for Energy reports to the Minister for Trade and Industry; as perfect a symbol of the wrongheadedness surrounding energy issues as you could wish for). In my letter I asked whether he had heard about the theory of “peak oil” and whether the government intended to factor it into policy.

I received a vaguely snotty reply from a chap in the minister’s office (with whom I had a brief, though intense, correspondence) informing me that the minister had indeed heard of peak oil. However people had been predicting the end of oil for generations and always been confounded by new and larger discoveries. There was no reason to expect this to change any time soon. If there were, then oil’s market value wouldn’t be less than 10 dollars a barrel.

A later response from that same ministerial flunky pointed out that The Limits to Growth had predicted the end of oil by the year 2000 and that certainly wasn’t going to happen. Why on earth, therefore, should UK government policy be dictated by people touting exactly the same ideas dressed up in new jargon (‘peak oil’) for a new millennium?

My next letter to the minister contained the phrase “blithering idiot”. It didn’t receive a response.

I’m already mentally composing my first letter to the Irish Minister for Energy. Hell, I don’t even know who that is… and none of my fancy political web links can help me now (dear god, I’ve got to build up a whole new set of politics bookmarks!).

But this time around – less than a decade on – I’m not a lone voice howling from the lunatic fringe. Now I can call upon the New York Times to back me up. Robert Semple Jr. (associate editor of the Times Editorial Board) has just published a long editorial which includes the following paragraph:

The Age of Oil — 100-plus years of astonishing economic growth made possible by cheap, abundant oil — could be ending without our really being aware of it. Oil is a finite commodity. At some point even the vast reservoirs of Saudi Arabia will run dry. But before that happens there will come a day when oil production “peaks,” when demand overtakes supply (and never looks back), resulting in large and possibly catastrophic price increases that could make today’s $60-a-barrel oil look like chump change. Unless, of course, we begin to develop substitutes for oil. Or begin to live more abstemiously. Or both. The concept of peak oil has not been widely written about. But people are talking about it now. It deserves a careful look — largely because it is almost certainly correct.

Robert Semple Jr. “The End of Oil” (New York Times, March 1, 2006)

(The original article is behind the Times PayWall. I grabbed that chunk from a recent Energy Bulletin.)

Yes indeed. That bastion of lunatic fringery, The New York Times, says that peak oil “is almost certainly correct”. This follows hard on the heels of the US Department of Energy coming to exactly the same conclusion (that link is a PDF file by the way).

Ironically, of the two, the conversion of The Times is probably the more significant. The DoE is too ham-strung by political ideology to actually effect change in the system, no matter what those working there may believe or how many reports they produce calling for a “Crash Program” to mitigate the potentially catastrophic effects of peak oil. But The New York Times still has a modicum of influence. If they were to champion an editorial line which made a call “to live more abstemiously”, would it make a difference? Could they force the public, even the administration, to take a closer look at what the experts in the DoE are actually saying?

Rather worryingly though, it’s possible that what the US Department of Energy is actually saying is that it’s waaaay too late to deal effectively with this problem and “heading for the hills” looks like the sensible option. The Hirsch Report (linked to above) was produced by the DoE in February 2005. It comes to the following conclusions…

Without mitigation, the peaking of world oil production will almost certainly cause major economic upheaval. However, given enough lead-time, the problems are soluble with existing technologies. New technologies are certain to help but on a longer time scale. Appropriately executed risk management could dramatically minimize the damages that might otherwise occur.

The Peaking of World Oil production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (p.66)

Which doesn’t sound too bad. However they also point out…

Our scenarios analysis shows:

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the economic costs to the world can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship.

There will be no quick fixes. Even crash programs will require more than a decade to yield substantial relief.

Ibid. (p.65)

This makes for uneasy reading when combined with the recent conclusion of Kenneth Deffeyes (Professor of Petroleum Geology at Princeton) who claims that:

In the January 2004 Current Events on this web site, I predicted that world oil production would peak on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. In hindsight, that prediction was in error by three weeks. An update using the 2005 data shows that we passed the peak on December 16, 2005.

Kenneth Deffeyes (February 11, 2006)

I’m not making any claims for Professor Deffeyes’ data. But I’m suspicious of anyone who remains entirely unperturbed by it. Unless you can demonstrate a reason to believe someone other than Princeton’s Professor of Petroleum Geology on the matter of how much oil is left in the ground (i.e. someone better qualified, or with access to better data, or more dedicated to the subject, etc.) then you have to at least admit the possibility that the guy might be right.

And if he is right, then according to the US Department of Energy, we’re probably twenty years late in starting our preparations for an imminent “significant liquid fuel deficit”. A situation with far more serious implications (I believe) than most people are willing to consider.