Words by Susan Krumdieck
In the movies, when there’s a mission to save the Earth, we know who the hero is and we trust that failure is not an option. But right now, we are losing the battle to prevent destructive global climate change, and we’re losing big. Our backs are against the wall.
We are not losing because we don’t have enough solar panels or wind turbines, or because we haven’t made enough biofuel. For the past 50 years, we have placed our hopes in green technologies as substitutes for fossil fuels, but sustainable energy alone is not a realistic way to achieve our mission — and now we are out of time. The reason we are losing is because the world is consuming 100 million barrels of oil every day. Fossil fuel is used for everything: providing our food, making our stuff, getting to work and having fun. There is no fuel that can compete on cost, performance and availability. If the oil supply stopped flowing tomorrow, every system would fail. But if it keeps flowing, climate stability will fail. This is what we call a “wicked problem”, one for which there is no solution. The rational options are to redesign, redevelop, regenerate, redo, rebuild, reorganize everything.
Considered objectively, we know there’s no way to win this battle for the Earth. The oil companies, for example, have annual returns of over US$6 trillion. The International Energy Agency recommends the elimination of all oil and gas subsidies, but what politician could conceivably take this key step? In the movies, the hero always thinks of an answer in the nick of time — something surprising but obvious, something that turns the enemy’s strength against them. So what are we going to do to turn the tide and achieve our ultimate objective: leaving four-fifths of hydrocarbon fuel reserves in place beyond this century?
I decided to take on this wicked problem by playing the Matrix Game with my PhD students. The first step of the game is to define the objective — easy. Only 250 gigatons of fossil carbon can be removed from geological deposits by the end of the century. That means a 10% annual reduction in oil production until the sustainable level of 10 million barrels per day is reached in about 2050.
The next step was to research the four most important parties and their positions, and then to hold several rounds of negotiations with teams of students representing each of the parties. The oil companies are the first key party. There are about 52 of them altogether, but we focused on the top 12. We asked, what would make them reduce oil production by 10% each year? Answer: if they could make just as much money and increase value for shareholders. One way to make more money selling less oil is to raise the price, but not necessarily by that much, because reducing the costly exploration and development of riskier, low-return plays would also increase profitability. The oil companies’ Achilles’ heel is that they’re corporations, so whatever makes more money, they must do.
Dr. Susan Krumdieck, you have just saved the world. All the world needs is a direction.. a possibility… and you have spelled it out!
The time is NOW!
Fantastic Susan. I found a commentary by Ron Mader with examples of hosting online conferences using real time Twitter:https://www.tourismindustryblog.co.nz/2012/05/would-you-engage-in-a-conference-online-rather-than-attending/
Are there any other useful links out there for best practice/experiences managing no-travel online conferences or case studies of how to host these (ie any software packages like Zoom that can pull in numerous attendees online???) – I couldnt find any that weren’t a sales pitch for software or about online abstract submission/registration…
would love to collate some actual online academic conference examples.
Anna,
I am not aware that the conference industry has yet developed a “product” for no-travel conferences. This is actually a current Transition Engineering R&D project.
In 2010, I had the idea of holding a national conference in NZ about what transition looks like. It was called “Signs of Change” and you can still visit the website to see how the no-travel conference was organised, and to get our research paper that describes the design and the results – i.e. 1000 times lower emissions than if all the participants from 7 sites in New Zealand had taken the national air carrier to Christchurch. When we were organising Signs of Change we could not even find an example of a no-fly conference, let alone the design for it, the technology or an organising company.
http://www.signsofchange.org.nz
This year 21-22 November (2019) there will be another no-fly conference in New Zealand. It is called “Transition Engineering Convergence”. We are working on the design right now if you want to be involved!
When we
This is fabulous in its simplicity and effectiveness. I wholeheartedly applaud you. Now what can we do to help.
Thanks so much Jill,
You ask a very good question. There is another article in the first issue of The Possible that explores the question, what if we knew what was going to happen, how could we change the future? (https://www.the-possible.com/changing-course-of-future-with-transition-engineering/)
The first dilemma that we run into in the story is: how do you even get in contact with the one person who, with one realistic decision, could change course and save the ship?
Somebody out there in this world would know how to get ahold of the right person at the UN to invite the CEO’s of the top 12 oil companies to a meeting to discuss what they would need to know in order to consider The BigDO (which is my shorthand for the project of planned oil production retreat).
I believe that a research institute should be set up right now to start the investigations, gather the data and work on engineering the production retreat for oil companies. It is going to take a lot of know-how. The oil companies could easily fund this engineering-business Oil Transition Institute so that they get the support they need to get it right. Somebody out there knows a person in a major oil company that we could talk to about setting up and getting the best minds and eager young people in to form the OTI.
I know that once this signal that oil production retreat is a reality gets out, there will be a huge demand for Transition Engineering. Somebody out there knows the president of a university or of an engineering professional organisation, and could set up a discussion about how the most effective way would be to teach Transition Engineering to all of the practicing professionals and how many university programmes are needed to support it.
What can people do to help?
First, join the Global Association for Transition Engineering as an Affiliate. The bigger the membership, the louder the voice. Second, talk to any engineer you know about joining the movement. Third, find out if somebody you know is a person who can get a meeting with one of the few people who can save the world, and we will help them to get started.
I have a better idea. I think. Drop me an email if you get the time.
Fantastic summary and entirely logical.