What's in store for Australia?

We’re a pretty complacent bunch in Australia. Not surprising really — we had a bit of a scare in 1942 when Singapore fell to the Japanese, but we haven’t been invaded in modern history. During world war two, we had the Americans to help us. However, it looks like we can’t rely on American support in the Western Pacific for too much longer.

One of the sayings about getting old is that the age we perceive ourselves to be lags our actual age by about ten years. I think a similar adage applies to world events: Reality tends to outpace our awareness. Consider the collapse of the British Empire: in 1940, most people would have considered Britain a world power, by 1948 they were a very diminished people and had lost most of their colonial possessions. Of course, events such as Indian independence and the fall of Singapore didn’t just happen in 8 years — the seeds for this were sown earlier (though most people didn't notice).

It seems likely to me that we will see similar shifts in fortunes in the first half of this century as American power wanes. Both China and India are expected to have larger economics than the U.S. by 2050.

(This article is not an attempt at scaremongering — I think that an increase in power/wealth for other countries needs to happen and this means a commensurate decrease in power/wealth for Western countries. However, I would like Australia to maintain an independent parliamentary democracy while this happens -- I would rather live in a poor democracy than a wealthy tyranny)

Let’s think about what it will mean when we can’t rely on the U.S protecting Australia’s interests in the Western Pacific.

Australia is a country of 25 million. 2500 km to our North is Indonesia, with a population of 250 million (ten times bigger than Australia) and projected to be the world’s 4th largest economy in 2050 (with a projected GDP 4 times larger than Australia's). The Philippines and Vietnam are expected to be the 19th and 20th biggest economies (both economies larger than Australia). China and India will be number 1 and 2.

In other words, Australia will be a large, wealthy, (relatively) underpopulated country rich in natural resources in a region of heavily populated much larger (and much richer) countries. The world will be greatly resource-constrained by 2050 — our neighbours will need what we have. Note also, that though Australia's economy will be similarly-sized to the Philippines and Vietnam, a lot of Australia's GDP is tied up in unproductive activities such as home renovations and car modifications -- thus, the industrial output of Vietnam and the Philippines is likely to be substantially larger than Australia even if the GDP is similar.

What happened in the past in similar circumstances?

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain was the rising world power and wanted natural resources. They established the British East India company (the basis for British colonialism) which basically had license to do anything required to obtain resources. Such “trade” usually occurred at the point of the sword — it really was theft/conquest and nothing more.

For example, the Chinese Emperor banned opium in 1839, so Britain attacked China. In the end, the Chinese were forced to accept a treaty allowing the British to import opium into China. Another example: before British colonialism, India was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. When they became independent they were one of the poorest. Today, a tour of British museums and estates shows gold and jewels from the subcontinent -- the plunder of empire.

Which brings us to today. This year, the Australian government said it would restrict gas exports to maintain domestic supply. This is a policy that makes sense, in much the same way as the Chinese Emperor’s banning of opium. However, the Australian companies that this law affects have long term contracts with Chinese customers, and this law is definitely not in Chinese interests. Basically, it could cause Australian companies to renege on deals with Chinese companies.

If it was the 19th Century, and this was done to the British East India company, I would expect them to sail their warships into Sydney harbour and bombard the city, to teach the impetuous Australians a lesson in humility (pretty much exactly what Britain did to China in the First Opium War). The treaty we would be forced to sign would likely include the appointment of a British Governor who had authority over the Australian government. One does not break contracts with an Imperial power. [1]

Remove U.S. force projection from the Western Pacific, and there is little to stop China, India or Indonesia from doing the same to us.

Which brings us back to population. I am not a proponent of a “Big Australia”, and I think that Australia’s population probably already exceeds its long-term carrying capacity. Having said that, I think that Australia’s population could well hit 100 million this century whether we want it or not. There is simply too much opportunity here. If we try and prevent it, we will likely be invaded by larger, more powerful neighbours (once the U.S. can no longer protect us). It's worth underlining that we are ethnic/cultural outsiders in Asia, and that our ancestors (or people very similar to us) conquered pretty much every Asian country and stole their wealth (I guarantee that no one except Westerners has forgotten this).

Australians need to understand and accept that we are a very small fish in a very big ocean. Our delusions of Australian specialness and superiority will bring us a world of pain. We have a deep belief, based on centuries of cultural/military dominance, that we are superior. That dominance is ending, and with it needs to go our arrogance. The sooner we see our geopolitical neighbours as equals (and show then appropriate respect) the easier our future is likely to be.

How can Australia pull this off?

We need to increase our population and industrial/agricultural output without putting additional strain on the biosphere or economy (a tall order for a country already in overshoot). This means a significant cut in discretionary consumption to free those resources for the needed expansion (see other articles on this blog for suggestions here). I suggest a targeted program of skilled immigration, coupled with large programs to build agricultural, educational, scientific, and industrial capacity. We can't afford so much waste and unproductive capital.
Such cuts in discretionary consumption might seem an undesirable thing to do -- but it's worth remembering that in the past, wealthy societies that have failed this sort of test have been overrun by other societies.

I'm sure most Australians want to avoid that.


-------------------
[1] Over the years, I have heard many people say things like "China is not expansionist" or "Asian people are less assertive" and therefore Asian people are less likely to seek geopolitical power in the same way that Europeans did. I think this is very naive. For the case in point, see Japan in the early 20th century. They had been inward focused for centuries before their imperial expansion from 1905 to 1945. Asian history is just as bloody as European history. The main reason that Asian people might have seemed submissive or non-aggressive to us is that they were a conquered people. As they gain power, I think it logical to expect they will behave exactly like other people who gain power -- they will become more assertive and, at times, aggressive.

Consumption as status symbol

In our society, what we own expresses and defines who we are to others. This is common in most societies: although the status symbols may change (feathers or beads in some traditional societies, cars in ours), the presence of status signalling possessions is common. This is probably partly because humans don't have seniority symbols as part of their bodies (eg, silver-back gorillas). That kind of social hierarchy is just as ingrained in us though (we are primates, after all), and I believe that any attempt to ignore or deprecate humans' deep need for hierarchy will lead to societal dysfunction (as new hierarchies are established, generally based on dominance and/or aggression instead of leadership and experience [1]). Because of this, humans will always have need of status symbols -- this cannot be trivialised or ignored -- they are a vital part of what makes us human.

Despite this, there are plenty [2] of relatively affluent people who voluntarily choose to consume less (this is part of the project of this blog) and thus renounce those status symbols. This doesn't make sense -- if status symbols are so important, why are some people renouncing them?

The reason is that there is more than one kind of status symbol.

Not all status symbols involve consumption and material goods.

The British aristocracy [3]

In centuries gone by, the British aristocracy controlled the majority of the wealth in Britain: they owned the land, controlled the trade, owned the weapons and soldiers, dominated the intellectual life. As the British Empire declined, and the welfare state distributed wealth more widely, the traditional aristocracy were greatly impoverished, and lost the majority of their wealth. Many of them still retain their country houses, but they cannot really afford to maintain them. This is why many of them are now (at least partially) open to the public -- the aristocracy need that tourist income. Nowadays, they often wear relatively shabby clothing too. Nonetheless, they are clearly still aristocratic. Consider:

• They wear tweed, and other clothing symbols that, although shabby, are status symbols
• They are highly educated, and speak in a distinctive manner that displays they have been to the "right" schools
• They preserve their family heritage, and demonstrate their "blue blood" wherever possible (eg. coats of arms, customs, etc)
• They are often fluent/native standard in multiple high-status European languages (eg. French, German)

Thus, they cultivate status symbols that are not based on consumption. Despite this, do not think that you can just talk your way into the British aristocracy -- despite its (sometimes) poverty, this is a very elite club.

Values, knowledge and skills as status symbols

Given that people will always need status symbols, I'd like to encourage an open movement that considers values, knowledge and skills as status symbols and as being "higher status" than mere possessions. What would this look like? Here are a few ideas:

• Being skilled at a musical instrument would confer status. Here I imagine a Jane Austin society, where the ability to play (eg) piano and sing was highly regarded
• Being well-read and abreast of international politics and its historical context would be highly regarded
• Being a skilled cook would be highly regarded (this is more a working class status symbol than aristocratic, but is very important!)
• Piety could become a status symbol
• Being athletic would continue to be a status symbol

Problems I can see

I can't think of examples where people (en masse) have voluntarily reduced their material consumption while maintaining status. The British aristocracy were forced, by diminished circumstance, to cut their consumption (perhaps this happened during WW2? Frugality as patriotism?). Still, I think it is plausible that society could "learn to love" non-consumption-based status symbols, given the right leadership.

It will be difficult to reduce the status of the motor car. This is because of the power (size, speed) controlled by a car-driver as compared with someone not in a car. For many motoring enthusiasts a request that they replace their cars with a game of intellectual elitism will be a tough sell. I will think more about how this could be addressed.

(possible) Solution

The only way I can see this working is by appealing, as in WW2, to patriotism. If consumption can be cast as making Australia weaker (a very good case can be made here), then thrift and frugality can be shown to be patriotic. I think this needs to be the approach. Perhaps Martin Luther, the Renaissance thesis-nailer and initiator of the Protestant Reformation (not the American civil-rights leader) could be a good example of someone who made a strong case that material excess represents a weakening and distraction from what is truly important.

Consumption makes Australia weaker -- frugality is patriotic!


This article was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared at guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au



---------------------
[1] Refer to almost every political revolution ever
[2] As a proportion of the population they are few, but in absolute numbers there are many
[3] This subject necessarily dredges up ideas of class, elitism, etc. I want to put it on record that I'm not a believer in these things -- I believe in the egalitarian project, in theory. I just can't see it working in practise because of the deep-seated need for hierarchy that humans posses. I think it would be nice if people were less hierarchical, but we need to work with people as we are, rather than try to idealise ourselves into something we're not (an approach I don't think will be successful in reshaping our society).

How much do we use?

One of the things that is hard to communicate to people, in the context of reducing energy or water use, is just how much we use, and just how little we really need to use. Using less has many benefits -- mainly that we save money, and cause less destruction to the natural systems that support us.

I want to convince you that when people talk about reducing consumption, they're not talking about hardship or being a neo-Luddite. They're talking about being a little bit less wasteful and profligate.

Energy

A typical Australian household uses more than 25 kWh/day. This is an extraordinary amount of power, and is an average consumption of more than 1 kW continuous. To put it in perspective, it is equivalent to one-and-a-half draught horses working for you -- all the time, day and night, without rest. If people had to do this work, it would take five to eight energy slaves [1], working contstantly, to provide it.

The other thing to appreciate is that, for every 1 kWh of electricity you use in your home, 3 - 10 kWh of energy have been used in mining, processing, transporting, generating, distributing and transmitting that electricity to you. This is another reason to avoid electricity use where possible [2] and use lower grade sources of energy.

Cars

This is brought into sharper focus when we consider cars. 1 L of petrol contains about 10 kWh of energy. If you drive 8 - 12 km, you will probably use about 1 L of fuel, which is the equivalent of a draft horse working for about 12 hours. When a moderately fit adult can comfortably cycle that same distance in about 40 minutes, it becomes clear what a waste of energy cars are!

Water

The average Australian household uses more than 300 L of water per day. When you consider that a four-person household would drink about 20 L per day, that is a lot of water! Also reflect that Australia is the driest continent in the world. I think that this kind of water use will not be sustained, because the cost to provide the water will become too great.

Conclusion

When people talk about reducing consumption, they're not talking about hardship or being a neo-Luddite. They're talking about being a little bit less wasteful and profligate.


----------------------
Links:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Slave
[2] http://guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com/2014/10/principle-use-lowest-form-of-energy.html

This article was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared at guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

Power consumption at my house

Summary

We have a normal house, and have not invested greatly in energy efficiency, but we are very careful with our power use. We have spent about $2500 installing a solar hot water heater, and have bought some energy saving LED light bulbs, and are very aware when we use power. All of our appliances are at least reasonable when it comes to power use, and we have installed a small (2 kW) solar PV system (we paid $5000 for a good one, but similar systems are available for $2000). We are now in a situation where we are exporting (selling) about 3x the power we are importing (using), and I expect to have negative power bills (ie. the utility pays us). I have estimated our ROI for this investment to be about 17.5%. We do not have a generous tariff on our solar PV (we get 24 c/kWh when we sell, and are charged 35 c/kWh for what we buy). We buy 100% GreenPower. I think this makes the case that high electricity bills aren't a necessity, and that you have the power to do something about it.

Our power consumption

This is a short post which shows graphs of the power consumption at my house. There is nothing fancy about it -- I just take regular meter readings myself so that I can monitor the system's performance. These graphs should stay up-to-date as I add new data. I show these data so that you can see what is possible in a very normal Australian house. We don't have fancy passive-house design or lots of expensive modifications. We just don't use a lot of power because we're careful. Our house was built in 1955 and is unassuming. We do not use gas at all (well, we have a gas bottle on the BBQ which we use a handful of times each year).



We have a standard grid-tied solar PV system. This means that any power it produces, that we are not using then-and-there, is exported to the grid. The amount of power exported is measured. If we are using power (eg. electricity in the house) while the system is producing, then only the excess power is exported (ie. the difference between what's generated at the panels and what we consume). If our consumption exceeds what we're generating, then we're importing power.



The first graph shows daily consumption (get power from grid, red) and solar PV export (send power to grid, green). I don't take a meter reading every day, so where I don't take a reading the graph shows an average since the previous meter reading. Notice the sharp change at the beginning of September where the electric storage hot water system was switched off. This reduced our daily power consumption by about two thirds (from to 3 kWh/day). Note that I live in Australia -- winter is from June to August!




The second graph shows our cumulative consumption and solar PV export. Seasonal variation in exported solar PV production is very evident (green line, from May to August). The production decrease in winter looks worse than it actually is because this shows not the generated power, but the exported power (which has our instantaneous use subtracted from it, which is higher in winter). Also note that the angle of power consumption changes at the beginning of September, when the electric storage hot water system was switched off. Our 2 kW solar PV system is mounted flat on a tiled roof. I don't know the exact angle, but it would be less than about 30 degrees, which is sub-optimal for winter production (because of the angle of the sun in winter, they would produce more power if they were at a steeper angle -- 60 degrees in Adelaide). They do and are unshaded all day.













This article was written by Angus Wallace and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au

Principle: lighter, simpler, less work

This post is part of a series on the principles of energy reduction.


Simple systems, that do less, and cause fewer changes from their natural state, use less energy.

Consequences

This is another argument against motor cars. Cars are

• large and heavy: compare the weight of the car with the typical weight of their occupants and cargo,
• complicated: these days, cars are not really serviceable or fixable -- replacement parts are ordered from the manufacturer and the original is thrown away

Similarly, air-conditioning is so expensive because it is artificially maintaining a space at a temperature different from its environment, which requires a lot of work.

Another way of expressing this idea is that human-built systems should work with, instead of against, natural systems as much as possible.


This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

Principle: use the lowest form of energy possible

This post is part of a series on the principles of energy reduction.


Some kinds of energy are harder to get/make than others. High-grade energy, such as electricity and petrol, are very hard to produce and thus have great effects on the natural systems that support us. Thus, it's beneficial to use low-grade energy where possible, and avoid high-grade energy.

An approximate heirarchy is, from lowest (on the left) to highest (on the right) grade:

Heat << Fuel << Movement << Electricity

This means that it takes a lot of heat energy to make movement energy [1], and a lot of movement energy to make electricity (ie. a lot of energy is wasted at each stage. Generally speaking, a lot of heat energy has been use to make the electricity we have in our homes. If we then use that electricity to produce heat, we have wasted a lot of energy.

How to optimise this

We can use heat energy to heat. An excellent example of this is solar hot water which uses heat from the sun to directly heat water (a process that otherwise uses considerable amounts of fuel or electricity). Similarly, heat from the sun can be used to heat our houses (using either passive-solar [2] or active solar space heaters [3]) -- this saves a lot of fuel and/or energy. Solar heat can also be used directly for cooking via a solar oven [4].

A more subtle point is that if you have solar-heated hot water, and want a cup of tea, put solar hot water in the kettle and boil that.

------------------------

[1] For example, the internal combustion engine in our car uses fuel to create movement. It does this at about 25% efficiency [5]. This means that it takes for units of fuel energy to produce one unit of movement energy.

[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design

[3] www.dummies.com/how-to/.../how-to-build-a-solar-space-heater.html

[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_.28petrol.29_engines



This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

I want to go back to the 1950s

About a decade ago, I read an essay that made the thought-experiment: "what if we decided to live with a 1950s standard-of-living, but with modern medicine?" and concluded that this could be achieved with  two days' work per week. I can't find the essay now (will keep looking), but I think it's a great thought. Let's think a little about life in the 1950s (in Australia, anyway -- this was not the case in other countries):

• One income could house and sustain a family
• Cars were rarer
• People generally ate fresh, home-cooked food
• Community was very important
• Most people grew at least some of their own food
• Public transport and cycling was common
• Lives were simpler and less hectic
• Our per-capita footprint on the environment was much lower (we weren't destroying our ecological support-systems so quickly)
• Electricity consumption was much lower, fuel consumption was much lower
• Most food was organically grown
• Market gardens and small-holder farms surrounded cities and provided much of the food
• People ate less meat and fish
• People owned less stuff, and produced less waste
• Australia had a manufacturing base, because people were prepared to pay a living wage to people who made things

I could go on.

The point, though, is that in the 1950s the average Australian lived a simple life like that advocated by many environmentalists in response to the current crises that are plaguing our society.

I think that, in many respects, we have regressed from the 50s. Yes, we currently live a much more sophisticated (and more consumptive/wasteful) lifestyle than people did then but I suggest that this will not be sustained. I think that if we keep over-reaching in this way we will end up greatly impoverished and will not even be able to sustain a lifestyle of the 1890s let alone the 1950s. If, however, we can control our consumption now, a 1950s lifestyle could be sustainable.

Why is this so rarely discussed?

I think a big reason this is not mentioned is because of the social issues prevalent in the 1950s. Yes, the 50s were relatively sexist, classist, racist and bigoted. I am in no way advocating a return to those values. But, I think we can maintain modern egalitarian* values with 1950s levels of consumption in a sustainable way.
I think another reason is that we are so obsessed with the idea of Progress, and that we are somehow better than people back then.

My vision

My goal and vision is to live, essentially, with consumption levels of people in the 1950s. I am yet to renounce many modern luxuries (eg. I have a hand-me-down mobile phone, and an old computer with broadband -- and myriad others, of course -- this is an experiment and work-in-progress!). My family owns a car, but I want to act (as much as possible) as though the car is not there. As part of this, I want to embrace the 50s aesthetic. This is not novel (the retro/vintage movement is in, ahem, full swing), but forms a component.

My challenge

Lots of people like to talk about "traditional values" -- I challenge you to embrace the traditional values of thrift, low-consumption, lack-of-pretension and simple living.


The post "I want to go back to the 1950s" was written by Angus Wallace and first appeared at guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au

---------------------------------
* an interesting note is that Australian society was actually more egalitarian in the 1950s than today. Today the difference between the wealthy and the poor in Australia is much greater. Like in so many areas, we are better at talking about egalitarian values today -- in the 1950s, people just got on.