Are Woodlot Skills Relevant Today

             Forty years ago Mary and I were living in Botswana. I became amazed at the familiarity local inhabitants had with trees. Not only did everyone, young and old know the name of each tree, they would also recognize any piece of wood as to species at a glance. By contrast, how many of the trees dominant in our community do we recognize? How many of these trees do children growing up in Manitoba’s southeast today recognize?

This thought came back to me last week as a group of us met to discuss how best to manage the woodlots surrounding our community. What struck me was how little we all know about that topic.

Consider one example. Coppicing is a traditional method of woodland management which takes advantage of the fact that many trees make new growth from the stump or roots if cut down. Some of those at the meeting knew about this method, some did not. What struck me was that no one at the meeting knew how that method can best be applied in the aspen forests that dominate this area.

Really this is not surprising. We all retain the knowledge that is relevant to our effective functioning in the world we inhabit. So the Batswana, who were dependent on wood for their cooking, were familiar with the tree species because this was relevant to their way of life. In my early growing up years, my father practiced woodlot management. He was dependent on that woodlot for firewood. But when I was about 10 years old, that skill became irrelevant, as we switched to oil heat in our home. I did not learn those skills from him. Today familiarity with computers and automobiles is seen as more relevant than knowledge associated with the life of yesteryear.

Many years ago, when our children were in elementary school, I found myself on the parent teacher council. We were concerned, then, that our children have sufficient access to computers, because we thought the acquisition of computer skills needed to be an essential component of relevant education.

Today the Hanover School Division has decided its educational focus should be “Education for a Sustainable Future”. The question then becomes: what is the knowledge and what are the skills that will be needed ten, twenty, fifty years from now? Who knows?

The world as we know it will carry on for a while, so honing the skills associated with our current way of life is necessary. But there also no doubt that we are facing an era that will be different. Probably the most significant change we are facing is hugely more expensive fossil fuel energy. It is hard to anticipate how that will affect our lifestyle, but it will affect how we heat our homes, how we get our food, and how much we travel. Can we anticipate what knowledge and skills will be relevant when those changes come into effect? To some extent we can. The South Eastman Transition Initiative consists of people who are committed to developing futuristic skills and knowledge now so we will be more prepared when we need them.

Eric Rempel

Reflections on Vulnerability

Just how vulnerable the human race is to the unpredictable forces of nature was reinforced recently by events in Japan. The devastation caused by an unprecedented earthquake and tsunami was immense. To make matters worse, the Fukushima Dai-ich nuclear power plant was severely damaged.

It is a bitter irony indeed that the only country in the world to have experienced the atomic bomb during wartime is now experiencing the potential of another nuclear holocaust during peacetime. How could this wartime devastation have been traded for an enthusiastic embrace of nuclear reactors to create electricity?

During the move to adopt nuclear reactors, there were voices raised citing the dangers of building nuclear power plants in an earthquake-prone region. But notions of sovereignty and independence trumped such concerns and eventually 55 nuclear power plants dotted the Japanese countryside.

How, we ask, is it possible for a society to live so near the edge without being concerned? Part of the answer, I believe, lies in the fact that only the dangers of “normal” earthquakes and tsunamis had been taken into account when building nuclear power plants. The Japanese had not prepared for the fact that nature has the capacity to outdo itself.

Sometimes we refer to such events as a “perfect storm” where two or three phenomena, sometimes feeding on each other, merge to create unexpected forces of destruction. For example: A 9.0 earthquake - creating a 15-meter tsunami - in turn disabling a nuclear power plant.

Right, we say. That is Japan; we are different! Are we really? It doesn’t take a lot of insight to recognize that we too are vulnerable to a toxic mix of natural and man-made disasters. For example, we are dependent for our basic necessities upon a massive network that spans the globe. Highways, rail lines, airways, waterways, power grids and pipelines deliver our comfortable lifestyles pretty much on time, every time.

Yes there have been occasional glitches in the past that we take into account. There might be an occasional shortage of oil but we are assured that will, as in the past, only be temporary. There will be a major ice-storm knocking down power lines but power will be restored in short order. Aging pipelines spring an occasional leak, but they can easily be fixed.

But have we taken into account the possibility of some kind of a “perfect storm”? What happens, for example, when a massive ice storm, downing power lines, is followed immediately by a three-day blizzard with minus 30-degree temperatures? Would we suffer in the Southeast? Quite likely, and not only a little.

This is just one “perfect storm” possibility. You can think of many more. And when one or the other does strike, it will be asked of us, “How could they have lived so comfortably so near the edge – unaware of their vulnerability? Could they not have done something ahead of time to reduce the suffering when the perfect storm hit?”

Jack Heppner

Woodlots are Important

What’s the value of the poplar forest on our doorstep?  Well, that all depends.

Conventional wisdom says it has a negative value. The bush needs to be removed! Only then can we use the land for something of value: grow annual crops, spread hog manure, or build houses.

But it has not always been that way. Both the aboriginal inhabitants and the early settlers had a preference for the transition areas; the space between the forests and the prairie where they had access to both the trees and rich soils for food production.

But that changed with the arrival of more convenient, cheap energy: oil and natural gas. Given our culture’s focus on human efficiency, heating our homes with oil and natural gas now makes sense. And as our dependency on that gas and oil grows, our need for energy derived from wood diminishes. The forest on our doorstep has lost much of its value.

So this is now “normal”. We heat our homes with oil and gas pumped or trucked from Alberta 1200 km from here. Our “normal” fuel is a fossil fuel of a finite quantity. The price of this fossil fuel is determined by the cost of extracting it, with no thought for replacing it. At one time oil was available by simply scooping it up. That oil is long gone. Then we learned to drill for oil so we could pump it up from underground. That oil supply too is dwindling rapidly. Now we are extracting oil from tar sands, which is even more challenging, but possible. This is the current “normal.”

But even as we increase our dependence on this dwindling, distant energy supply, we have a renewable energy supply on our doorstep – and consider it a liability.

Not only that. The current tragedy in Japan makes it obvious that large scale interdependency has created significant efficiencies, but the interdependence also creates incredible vulnerabilities when that interdependency is disrupted. Our dependency on an energy source 1200 km away brings with it a vulnerability we trivialize at our peril.

At South Eastman Transition Initiative we try to look at things non-conventionally. Depending on a distant non-renewable resource while we waste a local renewable resource is simply not sustainable on the long run. It is foolish. It does not make sense. On the long run we will run out of energy. We need to find other ways of doing things. Utilizing the woodlots in our neighbourhood is one such way.  

How much do we know about the potential benefit of a woodlot in southeastern Manitoba? For most of us, not much. Our emphasis has been on efficiently clearing the bush, not managing the woodlot. This emphasis needs to change, and it will – either now, as a result of vision, forethought and conservation, or later as our oil and natural gas reserves dwindle.

  

Eric Rempel

Oil and Turm-oil

Much of the world is holding its breath because of turmoil in the Middle East. 

 Some are worried about where this will leave Israel and others about where the United States will find military bases in the region. But most of us are anxious about what the present turmoil might do to world oil prices and how that will affect our lives. For the most part oil markets have not yet panicked, but even so prices of crude have climbed into three-digit territory. But where to from here?

Even before the present political turm-oil began in the Middle East, the situation was tenuous. Many analysts are of the opinion that world oil production peaked somewhere around 2005 and that it is now in steady decline. This, they say, has set off a predictable pattern. Oil prices rise to the point where a global recession sets in, then decline follows, reflecting lower demands. Lower oil prices stimulate the economy, which is then followed by rising oil prices. The cycle repeats itself. Over and over. It is called the “Bumpy Plateau.”

So as we began climbing out of our world recession last year, China alone added a million barrels of oil a day to its demand. Two million extra barrels were demanded globally. That does not take into account the four million barrels of oil lost every year as oil wells dry up. So that means we need six million new barrels of oil in one year. Where will it come from?

Traditionally, the calming answer has come from Saudi Arabia, which officially declares that it can easily increase production to cover global shortfalls. While claiming it can pump at least 12 million barrels a day – 4 million more than now – it is becoming increasingly clear that such a claim is not based on fact. Cables from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, recently released by Wikileaks, confirm what many have thought for a long time: Saudi Arabia has little more to give besides rhetoric.

Even a few weeks ago many analysts were betting that political unrest in the Middle East would not touch the major oil producing countries in the region. Now they are not so sure. So instead of limping along on that “Bumpy Plateau,” there is a real possibility of major oil shortages just around the corner. And this, of course, would mean higher prices. Some are predicting $200 a barrel. Some double that.

Whatever the case, it appears certain that there will be no safe havens left in the near future where life can continue on as usual based on relatively cheap and abundant oil supplies.

Most people will not consider a paradigm shift toward lower energy consumption until it hits them hard in their pocket books. Well, that is likely to happen sooner than we had anticipated. While that will create tremendous hardships in the short run, we can be optimistic that in the long run it will leave us and our planet in better shape.

Jack Heppner