Last year I had a thoughtful read of Richard Heinberg’s book “Blackout – Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis.”  It’s a good and necessary read for those of us who seek perspective on the coming combined conundrum of peak fossil fuels and climate change.  There was something about his final chapter that has been haunting me.

On the face of it, the argument presented in that chapter is logical and persuasive.  He lays out three scenarios of policy and action that the world might follow in the next 30 years and projects and predicts the outcomes into the future.  Scenario One is coined “The Maximum Burn Rate” which he describes as a projection of   present consumption and depletion trends with no mitigating policies being implemented.  The outcome of Scenario One is predictably devastating, ending in the collapse of civilization which he terms “Blackout.”  Scenario Two is “The ‘Clean’ Solution,” governments make massive investments in technology to store carbon, introduce cap-and-trade, etc. so they can keep our current technological structure alive longer.  Although slightly more viable Heinberg lays out the arguments to show that by 2040 this course too ends in Blackout.  Scenario Three, the “Post Carbon Transition” a challenging restructuring of our energy use and economy, is the only option that leads to any kind of sustainable future for our society and, therefore, is the only logical path.

Of the three scenarios, Scenario Two is clearly a characterization of what the clean coal and other lobbies are proposing currently for the way forward.  Heinberg’s thesis is to show that this thinking is flawed and that only a much more radical set of policies rapidly applied will allow us to escape disaster.  Scenario One is provided as a business-as-usual reference case.  Heinberg implicitly assumes that no one would actually propose Scenario One as a way forward.

Yet that is what has been haunting me these months, even more so since the US mid-term elections.  It seems to me that the trajectory we are on is Scenario One.  We talk the Scenario Two talk, some of us propose or wish for Scenario Three solutions, but the Scenario Oners are clearly carrying the day.  As I pondered this it occurred to me that the name “Oners” might be a useful characterization of those that so vigorously pursue and defend this dangerous course.  But that name sounded somewhat familiar.  And then it occurred to me.  Not “Oners” but “Once-lers” were the entrepreneurial family that extirpated the Truffula Trees in the Dr. Seuss environmental classic book “The Lorax” from 1971.

For those of you that haven’t had the pleasure, a quick précis of the book is as follows. (You can also watch the video here.)  The story opens in a polluted and barren land where a brave boy ventures to find the mysterious hermit called the Once-ler in order to hear the story of the Lorax.  The Once-ler, once bribed, narrates the tale that began long before with his arrival to this land which then was occupied by a rich forest of Truffula Trees brimming with wildlife.  Said trees had much economic value because they could be cut down and turned in Thneeds (a seemingly useless item that people thronged to buy).  A creature called the Lorax emerges from a stump to be the advocate for the trees and all the forest animals as the Once-ler recruits his extended family to establish an ever-expanding Thneed manufacturing complex.  The Lorax pleads with the Once-ler as the trees disappear and the air and water become polluted.  The Once-ler has some sympathy for the resulting loss of forest creatures but he is driven by the imperative that “business is business! And business must grow.”  At the climax of the story the Once-ler loses all patience with the Lorax and angrily lashes out at him yelling that he (the Once-ler) has his rights and he will keep on “biggering” his business, implying that the Lorax had no right to complain or interfere.   Just at that moment however, the very last Truffula Tree is felled and the Once-ler’s source of raw material is forever lost.  You will have to read the book to find out how it ends.  Suffice to say it is not a happy ending, but it does leave the reader with hope.

The startling thing about this childrens’ story is how accurately it presents both the flawed economic model that demands relentless limitless growth based on finite resources, and the way the Once-ler is so captured by the growth paradigm that he overrides his love of the forest and the creatures that dwell there.  He is not cast as an evil character but rather a deeply tragic one.  You never see the Once-ler’s face in this illustrated tale.  He is no one and perhaps everyone.

And so it seems that after 40 years we are living the Dr. Seuss story line in many respects.  The Once-lers are in charge and they have every intention of continuing to do what they do.  And just as in the book, some within the Once-ler community are angry and lashing out at those who point out environmental problems.  I just hope that doesn’t mean we are getting to the end of our story.

Gord Miller
commissioner@eco.on.ca