There are really a limited number of options here, I think. One, we continue to dam all our rivers until nothing is left in its natural state, much to feed bloated U.S. economic imperatives. Or, we refocus our vision and our energy onto our own industrial development, and the greater job potentials there-, hopefully eschewing the over-development and the, as I say, bloated population levels model of gargantuan U.S. capitalism. (With the additional problems that arise as a result of their NEED to control the flow of the globes resources to themselve, regardless of whatever other interests and values.)

But mostly, I think we have to face up to the fact, that if we seriously want to retain as much natural values in our environment and lives as possible, we are going to have to turn away from that economic model, which unchecked, greed and fear driven capitalism presents to us. It has been useful to get us to here, no doubt, but now has arrived at that parasitic level of development, where it is a threat to its host, and hence itself and us. We have to evolve another paradigm, more useful to the maintenance, and thereby the ongoing "usefulness" of the natural systems which make life for ourselves and the other species possible at all.

Which doesn't preclude the development of other energy models than simply hydro generation, of which wind and sun may figure to some level in the mix, as well as other possibilities not yet discovered. (Cold fusion anyone?:-)

But I think it is increasingly clear, that pursuing the "privatized/ corporate" solution myth, such as is reflected in the subject line of this article of Lisa's, before which the "free", as in out "of control" market would have us genuflect unquestioningly at the alter of-, with its built in encouragement of excessive population growth as an additional "byproduct", read "consumers" and "cheap labour", is the source of the "problem" NOT the solution.

In its place, I suggerst, we need another paradigm; a democratically "controlled" and directed economic system, built around democratically managed and directed economic plant and facilities, in which there are the "multitude" of community interests reflected, and not merely those of the ruling elites, who can afford to live far from the problems they create for the rest of us. Or so they tend to think.

I gotta say something. The main thing just now is that I had not thought about the down side of "Green power". Seemed like the best idea so far. But I do appreciate "unspoiled" rivers whenever I get to see them. Sheesh! May be we have already done too much. If we could imagine it made sense I'd propose a "Go slow" approach to the immediate future in major construction and alterations of things like rivers. Just because we are capable of doing it does not make it the correct way. But that is just me thinking wishfully. Gotta think some more on this one

Good article -- except for the mis-use of the term "micro", instead of the more accurate "small-hydro". Of course, terminology is often mis-used, but I think people will find it confusing when "micro" usually refers to something under 600 kW in size (suitable for off grid locations), whereas BC's IPP "small-hydro" proponents are building or proposing much larger schemes, as outlined in the article. As for "Clean" or "Green" power in BC --> it's a poltical marketing tool... the BC Liberal's would have us believe that "clean coal" (a technology that's realisticially 10 years away) should TODAY count as part of BC Hydro's meaningless 50% "BC Clean" quota.

Also should be noted that Ledcor was/is a donor to the political party known as the "BC Liberals".

A very good article, here. I wonder how much all this kafuffle is about that old bugaboo, ownership of the means of production.

If our world is to transit from nation states to corporate ones, which seems like a done deal, then all the functions of government must be created in analog within corporate bodies. They acquired the means to tax by first removing currencies from the gold standard, then later issuing credit cards which pay them a percentage of all money spent in commercial transactions. Now they have to find a way to control those public works which are determined to be essential services. Hospitals, hydro, court and police services, prisons and so on.

If people take control while there is still some control to have, chances increase that we will retain some democratic influence over the institutions that will or do govern our society.

Every farmer with a windy field should invest in windmills for profit, feeding directly into the grid. Every homeowner with a south facing roof could install solar panels ditto. Temperature differences can be exploited. Methane too. If cold fusion does in fact ever surface again (I hope so too, Coyote)an appliance like a water heater could be part of any house or business, producing heat and hydrogen both. These are the real green micro power tools. They're expensive now, or incomplete. And that will change if, and only if people actually do them. Design the systems and deploy them.

The term ‘micro-hydro’ conjures visions of millions of folks all fitted with catheters, fixed with micro-turbines connected to lithium battery packs, which can be carried about during the course of daily routine, to operate laptop computers and cell phones. At the end of the day the excess power from the millions of battery packs can be downloaded to the grid (I’ll let your imagination extrapolate further). All silliness aside, since the world’s supply of hydrocarbon energy is on the downward slope (stories of declining supply, from the big petroleum corporations, are hitting the media with increasing frequency), the pressure to look at non-carbon based energy sources is just starting in earnest. And the most readily accessible sources will be the first to suffer humanities thirst for cheap energy. Steep gradient rivers, like the Ashlu, – a kayakers’ and rafters’ paradise – which is close to the grid and population centers, are easy targets. However, as convincing as the arguments for ‘green’ energy sound, the total global output from such sources, no matter how efficient, will not sustain North America’s present demands for energy never mind the energy demands of a global population of 6 billion. The planet has experienced the peak in energy supplies and those supplies have allowed the globes population to expand beyond its carrying capacity. There is nowhere to go from here but down. The economic/political paradigm shift the Coyote howls about will happen but it will have more to do with learning to survive in a world with far fewer people and far fewer sources of energy, including oil and gas, than it will with looking for a new political structure. Political structure will evolve and change as a result of circumstance, not through choice.

"The planet has experienced the peak in energy supplies and those supplies have allowed the globes population to expand beyond its carrying capacity." wrote KWD from his hiding place in the grass, where he ever awaits in ambush. Further, "There is nowhere to go from here but down. The economic/political paradigm shift the Coyote howls about will happen but it will have more to do with learning to survive in a world with far fewer people and far fewer sources of energy, including oil and gas, than it will with looking for a new political structure. Political structure will evolve and change as a result of circumstance, not through choice."

With which I don't actually entirely disagree, brother-in-law mine. Though, even while I concede the "possibility" that we as a species, due to our shortcomings in foresight, may indeed be earmarked for "extinction", I am more inclined than thee, to cling to wan hopes.

Certainly, unless other forms of energy, outside of carbon based, are out there waiting to be discovered somewhere, I do agree that energy supplies are, at least, approaching peak, of which even the true believers are making increasing and confirming noises. Though the plans of these IPPs would seem to indicate there is still a desire to "wring out" more. (Yet talk goes on of such as "harnessing the power generation potential of the oceanic tides", after we've dammed all the rivers, for example-, as a measure of the desparation of the "endless growth" paradigm, that is lustful capitalism's ongoing sexual/economic fantasy.)

And despite our frequent differences concerning the value of political and economic structural changes within, over the head of and around the current corporate/capitalism model, built around a new class/ power relationships model, I actually agree it is unlikely to occur without the, at least, near complete/ catastrophic collapse of "the system" or its supporting natural systems. It is unlikely "logic" alone will convince people that the current political, social and economic model has not only "outlived" its usefulness, but is extremely harmful to the future of the planet and the species homo erectus. (I know, I know.) Such a case has never existed in history yet, of which I am aware. There must first be the clear and evident collapse of what was, and the rubbing of the collective human nose into the "experience". (We both know Pavlov's experiments were essentially true of not only dogs, but humans as well.)

Indeed, I have arrived at a place where I do not expect to see what I suggest is going to happen, let alone the beginning of its solution. Barring what is always "possible", of course, the sudden and precipitous failure of a key system, or systems, natural and/or human.

Nonetheless which, though we actually much agree-, in many regards at least, should not, nor does not prevent me from howling at the distant moon. If of no other purpose than to connect me with my fellow "howlers", that we can enjoy together our lust of singing in chorus. :-) At which point I am reminded of Doris Day singing, "What will be, will be." :-)

But then I was wrong once before, as well as must have thee-, probably more than once. :-) And it's that hope, which I may have, that ye do not, being of little faith. Even we atheists...

Site C here we come...one big one instead of a thousand small fry The power has to come from somewhere... unless of course you want to switch your lights of that is... one thing you have to remember these days is that BC is a net importer of Power... yes we sell it to the californians on the high but we buy more at the lows from the good people with coal fire plants...

You cannot get energy for free (cold fusion breaks some fundamental laws of thermodynamics) with energy there is always a balance to be struck, If you keep your head in the cloud dreaming of a better future with consiquence free power and not stike the compromises nessesary (i.e. like stop using so much energy, tax the hell out of it so people don't use so much, try to develope the least intrusive means of creating electricity (and i don't think this is micro hydro)) The point i'm trying to make is fight for something that is a possibility not just a dream. PS If I had my way, all the money we have been pouring into hydrogen fuel cells etc. would be directed to solar energy research. The power is there we just can't catch it yet. But until we get there the power has to come from somewhere.

Yeah let's all live with brownouts so that a few yuppie kayakers can have their unfettered fun. I'm all for backing the yuppie kayakers for the week or two they spend kayaking on these rivers in return for them spending the other 50 weeks running on a large gerbil wheel hooked up to a generator to make up for the power shortages their precious little hobby and self-centred attitudes will cost the rest of the province.

I understand your reservations, and your dreams. The sun provides all power in abundance, of course, but it's all spread out. To catch it you have to pave large areas with collectors, however efficient you make them. Practically, a rooftop is all anyone will really get to catch the sun, so what you have to run should need those amounts of power to work.

As to cold fusion, so did electricity violate some fundamental beliefs about the laws of physics, until Tesla started demonstrating it to anyone who wandered by. I point out that the original c/f plant ran for months and was tested by many different physicists before it was run out of town for being so damn annoying. They were unable to either make it fit the second law or make it stop working.

I will continue to hope as long as Pons and Fleischman's work continues. Laws only remain laws until we discover where we were wrong, then we make new ones. It's always best to pursue all the areas people want to research, you can't predict which will succeed, except to say it's usually not what you thought it was going to be.

"But until we get there the power has to come from somewhere." reminded Bailey.

Actually, I was being some facetious about cold fusion. And I agree, that what you say above here is true as well, in much but still circumscribed regard. For between there and supporting the notion that we can or should desire to dam all the natural, free flowing water systems, or climb every hill to top them with even windmills or sun power cells is not something I would certainly want to see, or the consequences of.(Though every building could certainly be topped with sun power cells.)

I think the essential argument is, that if our natural systems as well as we are going to survive, even thrive and , possibly, even advance off the planet one day, there is a "balance" that is going to have to be struck, which "elite controlled" capitalism, and its essential "fear and greed" motivating elements is, to all intents and purposes, anathema to, I think.

Not unlike a backyard garden, there is a finite "carry capacity" to the planet, of we humans and all other plant and animal speciies, and tolerance of our "economic activity", of which the emerging signs of serious global warning are the most ominous signs to date. In the face of which, the right wing loonies and the economic system they project and apologize for, continue, despite all the Kyotos and other such accord, to manipulate and fly in the face of.

And to continue to say, as do some of these "system apologist" nutters, who flit like flies on a carcass around here even, in the face of all the evidence of over-population pressures that exist on the planet, and the signs of failure in critical oceanic systems upon which fish and other sea life depend, and a diminishing forest base and air quality, as well as the warming phenomena, that all is well as long as we are okay, is little more than a statement of blind faith. (Though let the niggers in Africa starve and die of disease. There ARE too many of them. Which I have had more than one of them say to me.) This is not a product of prudent or compassionate science which cares about the human/natural condition, but a blind faith, reactionary ideology. It is the product of that particularly narcisstic, "I'm alright, Jack." view of things, which naturally flows out of the narrowly individualistic and self-serving character of the economic base of the current system.

Like I say, there is urgent need for a new paradigm, not just to be able to kayak down natural river systems, though I think that is important too, for what it says in many regards, contrary to the contempt that raises in one or two lout mentalities here, but for that "balance" in population levels and economic activity which we need to strike, including in power generation. (And I am not a kayaker per se.) Without which, I think the dire predictions of such as KWD, are entirely likely to kick in, indeed of which there are already signs-, contrary to the interests of the "fruit of my loins", which I yet feel an ongoing need to try and protect. :-)

Damming ever more rivers to solve the problem of brownouts, is like building more highways to deal with traffic congestion. The more of them you build, and the wider, the more people and cars will come-, hence the ever greater need for more power and highways, ad infinitum into extinction.

Besides, I'm one of those throwback, pioneering frontier types, with a fondness for elbow room and uncluttered vistas. So, kiss my ass, Mike. :-)

Dear toC/B said, "It's always best to pursue all the areas people want to research, you can't predict which will succeed, except to say it's usually not what you thought it was going to be."

Damn fine, and an interesting little piece-, but especially your comments on cold fusion-, and laws and science as well. Though I do accept the existance of certain laws of nature, the ever over-riding one seems to be, that everything in nature, including said laws and our understanding of them, is subject to change-, about which there is doubtless a law as well, akin to a kind of Murphy's Law. :-)

Though our right wing nutters seem to operate on the premise that, what is will ever be, immutable and God's Law, so we can be complete pigs and dolts.

I also enjoy the elbow room, and eating wild salmon, and naturaly brewed cows milk, and only having to wait 30 seconds for seats on amusement park rides, and ...

I also enjoy the elbow room, and eating wild salmon, and naturaly brewed cows milk, and only having to wait 30 seconds for seats on amusement park rides, and ...

"I also enjoy the elbow room..." agrees Chicken Slinger.

I don't know but, we seem to be a dying breed. :-) If one accepts the brownshirt nutters at face value, and as representative of "the mass". Though for many of them, I think it is just a "hardcase" image they are locked into. :-)

Mike Geoghegan, 8/31/2004 1:06:35 AM, writes: "Yeah let's all live with brownouts so that a few yuppie kayakers can have their unfettered fun. I'm all for backing the yuppie kayakers for the week or two they spend kayaking on these rivers in return for them spending the other 50 weeks running on a large gerbil wheel hooked up to a generator to make up for the power shortages their precious little hobby and self-centred attitudes will cost the rest of the province." It is indeed sad when artificial economic imperatives and greedy imperatives, which can lead only to catastrophic environmental degradation whose long term unforeseen consequences could be far worse than brown outs, become the polarization between those who appreciate the true value of nature and those who simply name call due to their own total lack of vision and blind desire to have a stereo always at their bloated fingertips. Mike Geoghegan's clearly antagonistic and ridiculously unintelligent tirade speaks volumes as to why such environment-destroying projects can even be conceived of, because the vacuum of intelligence that operates most electric powered devices could care less, and will be long dead and buried before their greed manifests itself in a dead eco system that can longer generate anything, never mind power. What a shame.

I suspect that if Mike Geoghegan had his way this planet would not live much past his lifetime as he would use up all its resources for himself if he could, he is in my opinion a very self centered selfish to hell with everyone else kinda beer swilling red neck. Very happy you got your pee pee slapped for your comments as I don't have to listen to you anymore! :)

Coyote, sometimes you fill me with a kind of joyful despair, not at your ideas, but your visions. I agree with your analyses of the nature of our fellow humans, and I share, (with trepidation) your Malthusian predictions of the mid-term future of humankind on planet Earth.

But I hate it. The thought of the adjustment required if the Geoghegan attitudes continue to rule our actions makes me yearn for new paradigms as well. But what? Could we repave all the roads with solar panels? Would we? Will we supply Asia and Africa with the next generation Good Life, so they can afford health care and refrigerators?

I just read on another thread of this Mag that large scale harvesting of krill has begun. It seems obvious to me that this must lead quickly to the utter collapse of all ocean food chains, since they all either eat krill or eat krill eaters. Madness. Suicidal madness. To feed to farm animals, and make lipstick.

So that new paradigm you mention becomes the last and only hope. The "fear and greed" world view is quick to defend itself agressively and destructively. So what can stand against it? It must be inclusive, it must be creative, it probably will have to be technical unless our numbers shrink drastically, and there's the rub. It's like a race between the idiots of the ideologies, and the converging new technologies, and it's too soon to tell who will win.

I feel like this should have a point of some kind, or at least a suggestion, but I'm at a loss tonight for either. We need some specific suggestions, a direction to go with a definite destination at the end.

Anybody got one?

"Ledcor Power, an independent power producer, is proposing to build a micro-hydro power generating station on the Ashlu. Micro-hydro, an approach also called “run-of-the-river”, involves diverting sections of river through several kilometers of pipeline into turbines before dumping the water back into the watercourse downstream." Can anyone tell me how this mini-version of conventional hydro generation became "green"? How about this alternative - http://fornits.com/curiosity/hemp/biomassa.htm "Very few people know what "biomass conversion" or "pyrolysis" mean--not only in terms of their dictionary definitions, but in terms of what they mean as alternative sources of energy, to the limited, expensive and dirty petro-chemical, nuclear, or coal sources."

B. C.'s energy policies have been driven by the needs of our avaricious neighbour to the south. Remember NAWAPA? Remember the Columbia River Treaty? One way or another the Yanks will take what they want--this latest ploy to 'green up' the pilage makes me sick. And it's not the first time B. C. Hydro has used the conservation stick--a few years ago we were all being 'energy smart'--that created surpluses that were then sent south. I say not another kilowatt to the U. S.

"So what can stand against it? It must be inclusive, it must be creative, it probably will have to be technical unless our numbers shrink drastically, and there's the rub. It's like a race between the idiots of the ideologies, and the converging new technologies, and it's too soon to tell who will win." wrote Bailey.

It's likely this thread is going to drop off into the abyss soon, but I think it has been a useful one for many of us. I know that I have gotten much out of it, from a number of you. (I agree with you Paul H. And thanks for the link Rick.)

And it certainly is a toughie, Bailey, as to where it and we all go from here. For everything you say, in the above piece I've quoted, is true, I think. To which I can only reply, that I know of only one way to live really; I just keep putting my left foot in front of my right, and I keep plodding on, trying to keep ahead of the Grim Reaper. My ever present "hope" being, in the face of the often grim prospects, that eventually it all comes to make sense, and generally it does, and I get a handle on a direction to go and what to do.

Which brings us to here, my friend, and the task and the criteria you pose so well above.

Now, my brother-in-law, KWD thinks, in my read of him, essentially, that all hope is lost until there is a critical change in human thinking, and that is unlikely until there is a critical system collapse that compels it. Which I don't think even then guarantees it. Even if he is right in large measure, and I suspect he is, or might well be, I think the effort to turn things around begins heading into the wreck, preferably, rather than in a crumpled heap in the mud filled ditch, where the issue of life or death may have already been decided. Mayhaps, we can at least bring it all to rest in a place and manner better suited to maximum survival possibilities. :-) At least, that's my preferred course. I have difficulty simply sitting and debating, waiting for that inevitable "crunch".

In short, brother(s)/sister(s), we can only keep doing what we are doing, try to evolve a sense of the direction we have to move in, keep putting one foot in front of the other, try and build workable alliances across the partisan political/ ideological lines, without creating wishy-washy, totally compromised results, keeping the lines of "frank" communication open, and hope/ work towards creating a force of ideas and people capable of effecting/influencing the course of events. I don't know any other way.

Though I would prefer not to concentrate on it, except maybe to be aware in some dark recess, just to keep me real, dogging our heels, there really is no guarantee of a successful outcome either. That's life, right?

But there is also the "possibility" that out there somewhere, we do succeed at "geling" it all up; make sense out of it, and put together a winning ideology and course of action. Which doesn't get done, waiting for it to happen of its own, however.

A good day. I'm out to the wetlands today, to observe and play.

There is a path out of this post-Fordist era of mass production based on abundant cheap energy, however it will be littered with many conflicts. Those that pray for a ‘paradigm shift’ in our thinking or those that think an as yet unforeseen technological development will make humanities’ trip along that path less painful are ignoring the reality of history and present day events: a resurgence in missile defense, trade sanctions, increased social austerity plans (cut-backs in health, education and welfare), multi-trillion dollar national debts, Korean nuclear missile development, unlawful combatants, depletion of marine, aquatic and terrestrial food resources, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. However, barring self-annihilation through military conflict, we are not doomed, humanity, as in the past, will survive. Today's civilization is not the first to crumble under its own weight: the fall of the Roman and Mayan empires come to mind. The only energy resource that is continuous and uninterrupted is solar, and in the end it will be solar energy and Malthusian mathematics that determines how many folks this planet will support. The variation in the number of folks roaming this planet in the future will be tempered by advancements in things like wind, tidal and other 'green' sources as well as more efficient use of an assortment of non-renewables. But this does not mean we should stop looking for enlightenment and ways to survive in a world without oil. And contrary to the smell of the droppings left by the Coyote, I am “keeping the lines of 'frank' communication open”, although I believe clinging to Marxist economic and political dogma serves no purpose. In the future money will be irrelevant. We should not be looking to wealthy, powerful elites (left or right) for guidance. They are caught in an inescapable trap of their own creation: the corporate mandate, that according to the laws of physics, is guaranteed to self-destruct. The corporate mandate – growth at all costs – is a ‘race to the bottom’, a race that is increasing the rate of non-renewable energy use, and at the end of the race there are only losers. Technology is proving itself to be a double-edged sword. Given our current dependence (and the amount of praise we heap)upon computer technology, Marshall McLuhan was right when he suggested that technological innovation becomes invisible as it reshapes society.

This is quite interesting, but I do have a question for KWD and others who advocate a human population that fits into the supply of solar panels or windmills that may be available. While your scenarios will no doubt entice some to think the brave new world is only a tweek in birth rates and technology away from our now sagging situation, I would really appreciate an explanation as to how we reduce those human population levels to what you suggest are sustainable? And while Coyote does seem to leave as many droppings as anyone in this forum, I kind of like the odor they produce, especially the stink he seems to raise among those who are challenged to look beyond their own pile of stuff. Sorry, but this idea that we can adjust the birthrate to meet our technological abilities is very wishful. As a species, there are light years between our galloping ability in technology and our ability as cultures, community, society or however you define people to adjust to the good and bad that comes from technology. In fact, we don't even know what's good or what's bad much of the time. On the optimistic side, I'd suggest The Tyee is a symbol of the positives of technology as it allows for those lines of frank communcation to be open like they have never been before.

"Today's civilization is not the first to crumble under its own weight: the fall of the Roman and Mayan empires come to mind." says KWD.

With which I certainly agree, and add the fall of the feudal/monarchist system in Europe, at least such that only eunuched figureheads remain, mainly in Mother England. Period.

But you see KWD, as part of our "frank" exchange, it is that absolutely certain "predetermined" element contained in your ideological, "above it all" view, which is actually reminiscent of what was wrong with many of the interpretations of Marxism and Leninism, that is also not only more than a little pretentious, but ranks up there with all such, basically "faith based" determinisms. Your choice of scriptures are simply different. Nowhere is it written in either celestial or scientific stone, or yet proven, that the outcome of future history is either going to occur "precisely" as it has in the past, though the weight of the evidence is certainly suggestive of that, or that we can be certain that either you or we have such a pure and correct analysis, that "Resistance Is Futile". I don't think that is the case. Or certainly it is a dangerous presumption. You are at least as flawed as I, and likely more so. (Certainly my "droppings" smell better.:-)

So, I think we have to say that, the scenario you create for us is certainly a very real possibility, and I would not want to reject it out of hand. But I do reject that "absolute" predeterminist element to it, as not only "unscientific", based on the likelihood of our NOT being in possession of, or thorougly knowledgeable or understanding ALL the evidence-, but also having itself, the ring of a kind of, The End of The World Is At Hand religiosity to it. I think that is a misread and misinterpretation of the historical evidence. There are many more variables in real life, as in nature generally, in my experience, than our theories will typically allow, certainly for us to throw up our hands and say here, "All is lost.", we must await the inevitable end to begin entirely anew.

Now, that MAY come to be. It is not "predetermined" however, in "exactly" the way you would have us believe, I think.

And, IF my analysis and view of things is, in all humility, and with apology, :-) MORE correct than yours, then there is some "wiggle" room still, to "begin" to "try" and influence current events leading to the history you would have us believe is "absolutely inevitable", in a direction at least "more" favourable to human outcomes-, and that of the great "natural systems" on which our lives, and that of all other species, depends. And this is the preferable analysis and course, I suggest, from this place in time, because if nothing else, it holds out the "possibility" of the course correction, or the movement of people and events, that MAY mitigate the inevitable end, or better prepare us for it and the aftermath. Or, if it is truly not "predetermined" precisely as you have framed it, may open up a new direction and possibilities IN THE NICK OF TIME. (Though the hour is getting late, I concede.)

Alan, I think you know the answer to your own question. Humans are not immune to that which controls the distribution and abundance of non-human life forms. Conflict, disease, starvation and birth control are factors that most certainly apply and will bring our numbers to a level that fits the carrying capacity. Nay Sayers will point to 2000 years of history and claim we have survived and expanded in spite of these factors, and they are correct, but this is different. We are running out of the stuff that has allowed us to build and rebuild the infrastructure we presently enjoy. You can be sure there will be a time-lag effect as technology tries to keep up, but as misleading as that techno time lag might be, the global population density that has occurred in response to cheap, easy-access hydrocarbon energy will move toward fewer, not more, people. A simple expression of the ‘time-lag’ involved in population dynamics can be found in the graphic analysis of predator/prey relationships, where the predator populations, over time, drop after they have decimated their prey. Admittedly our situation is not that simple, but it will happen nonetheless. As a bit of an aside, when it does happen, it is not those populations that have the higher densities that suffer the least…

allan, forgive it please, but I can answer your question. It's happened before, many times, in many species and populations. It goes like this.

Scenario 1. The food runs outdue to the large number of people and the miscalculations of a research assistant at Monsanto. The young females are sequestered and the young males become agressive, band together, steal all the food and weapons they can find, search out the young females, and kill everybody else. There follows a variable period of instability characterized by force of arms, feudalism and slavery. The longest one I can think of was called the "Dark Ages" and lasted around a thousand years.

Scenario 2. I cough at you. You go home and cough there. Eight months later, the biggest problem the civil authorities have is burying the dead. For example, I offer the fact that before Columbus, the population of North America is estimated to be about 60 million. By 1600, about 6 million. The road system, the trade system, civil government were so badly affected that the immigrant wave that arrived didn't think there had even been any until archeologists told them so several hundred years later.

Scenario 3. A group calling itself "God likes me better than you, nyah nyahh nyahhh!" acquires a tactical nuclear arsenal and a warehouse full of chemical and biological weapons nobody knew about, and issues the following communique'---"BOOM!"

Scenario 4. And it came to pass that after the seven fat years had passed, the seven lean years caught us all completely unprepared, and we discover that greenhouses are not defensible against mobs of starving people, and so it goes.

Any combination of the above will do. The "fear and greed" people seem hell bent on taking the quickest route. The techno-hope community is poorly funded and not respected or valued by the fear and greed communities, so progress there is slow. So now I ask a question of you. Is there any way, any hope at all of avoiding this process? Please be as specific as possible.

Coyote, you surprise me. You admit the reality of limiting factors and then pretend they don’t apply to humans. Why is it so hard to accept that the laws of physics are real, that we are animals after all, that a smaller population is not necessarily a ‘bad’ thing and despite claims to the contrary, we haven’t discovered the secrets of the universe? Although my point of view may sound like all is lost, that is not what I have said ;-) We will survive but in the future our numbers will be much reduced, and our economic and political ideologies may look a little Amish.

Ah, to hope, to dream. Truly are these the glue upon which humans piece together a future that satisfies their survival as a species. The scenarios above are evidence of that, even the very catastrophic ones. So to that, I offer 2 more alternate scenarios. Alt 1: Humans realize the wisdom (or blindly follow the folly, your choice) of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement and peacefully leave the planet to heal and die according to the rules and nature of the universe. This, I believe, is not a terribly likely scenario, but as I have postulated, these are alternative. Alt 2: Economic degradation leads to even further decreases in food production while populations continue to increase, and the pandemic events become commonplace wiping out a vast majority of humans. Those who remain adopt a more sustainable approach (hmm, have we talked about this even at higher populations yet - we should), and create new societies based not on using energy, but on utilizing their own human energy, and the planet does the same as in Alt 1: I suppose it is possible that we can skip to a responsible use of energy model directly by skipping over the catastrophic sections, and if you want to believe in humans as somewhat enlightened and promising beings, it could happen. But I have seen, and know of, too many people who believe that luxury has no cost but a monetary one, and anything they can afford they, therefore, deserve. This is the prevalent nature of those now living in the western world, and this is the amazingly steep mountainside that we must climb up to get to the wise old guru called rationalism. KWD, Coyote and the rest make intelligent and compelling arguments that represent all the good and bad that we can expect as a result of a truly powerful yet myopic species and the infantile actions of said species. Yet, I cling to the belief that Gaia will, eventually, puke us off her scarred body when she gets sufficiently pissed-off with us, and I hope she does it soon, for her own good!

Bad weather changed my plans.

"You admit the reality of limiting factors and then pretend they don’t apply to humans. Why is it so hard to accept that the laws of physics are real..." insists KWD.

First, I don't recall anywhere having said that we/humans don't face limiting factors. Though we can certainly debate what those might be and not. Nor have I denied the fundamental laws of physics-, even if I suggest the risks and inappropriateness of a mechanistic application of them to human social phenomenon.

And while there are already forces at work in the world, in Africa and elsewhere, already dealing with population issues; indeed on the U.S. border with Mexico, and ourselves as well, and there is a strong element of inevitablitiy to it, being that nature will "shrug" off yet much larger numbers of the human population and compel their movement around the globe, as is already underway, and as it does to others in the animal kingdom, I think humans are uniquely placed to learn early and respond in a way that other critters are not. (Which does not automatically follow that we will.) Nor do I take a Luddite posture that writes off the value of technology having a possible role in us eventually getting to a satisfactory outcome. Technology is like the gun. It is neutral in itself. It is the wielder of it that determines its use and effects. And it serves the weak person equally as well as it serves the strong. About which there is always "a choice". It is the same with "technology" generally. (Having been a bulldozer operator, I know it can be either part of the solution or part of the problem.)

What primarily stands in the way of arriving at a "rational" solution to the problem of our relationship with nature, right here and now, lingering still from the ancient past, are our conditioned responses that arise out of our prevailing social mores, and fundamentally the values built into our economic base. The heirarchical and exploitive attitudes formed there, requiring a steady and expanding stream of consumers and cheap labour, feeds into already existing population pressures, in pursuit of short term profit expansion. Additionally, dovetailing in with that, arising out of the ancient historical base of those heirarchical values as well, and playing on the ignorance of "the mass", are the great religious belief systemd,in all its manifestations, Catholic, Muslim, extreme Protestantism etc , with their male based and controlled priesthoods defending the likewise ancient male interest in keeping the female open for breeding and available to his genes at all times. Though it is already breaking down in many parts of the world, as a result of growing female awareness and resistance, that is the basis of the hostility to family planning technologies and strategies, for example.

My point being, that while there appears to be, indeed is a certain inevitability to the direction of the human population expansion/problem, on its present course at least, it is less physics than the above socio-economic elements that are driving it. (Granted, themselves not entirely divorced from physics.) And, at least in the realm of theory, social and economic phenomenon are subject to the influences of human intervention, last time I checked. It's a question of whose interests are in control of the choices.

Already, like I say, there are examples on this continent, even India and China, of resistance to the influences of the priesthood, both religious and economic. Indeed, were it not for immigration, our own population levels would be declining. Likewise, if my memory serves, and some of you can maybe check this for us, Japan's population growth may already be at zero, and China's, if not, is approaching zero and/or grappling seriously with it-, to the hypocritical contempt of the west. Even in India and places like Bangledesh, there are movements, particularly amongst women, to educate and spread family planning information and technologies.

So there are two main enemies here; first amongst those "elite" economic ones, with an interest in ever-expanding resource exploitation, cheap labour and expanding consumer markets, ad infinitum-, and male based religious priesthoods, which likewise feed on ignorance about science ,and proclaim a Hell of eternal damnation for all who interfere with God's dictum, that we multiply and fill the earth, until we all have our heads unavoidably up each others butts.

So, like I say, rather than prognosticating doom based on some mechanistic and inappropriate application of the Laws of Physics, which are out there and ever immutable, presumably, like they were a preordained Law of God, it would be better if we focussed on those social and economic elements we can actually do something about.

Catch a whiff of the bouquet that wafts off that dropping, you Luddite Doomsayers.:-) <

KWD. I agree we humans are not immune to the whims of nature or the follies of fate any more than others except, perhaps, our ability through technology , medicine or whatever to delay or slow down the inevitable cause of our demise. But then some animals can run faster and others can go days without water and few of them carry guns like humans do, so I guess we don't really stand any better chance than the walrus. Your vision may be a bit optimistic in that it relies on the gang that's left behind having landed on their feet, near the college library and just up the Road from Home hardware. We are living in a time-lag as we rant here, but I see it as technology-based and definitely impacting population dynamics sooner or later. The time lag has more to do with our abilities as human to stay atop of technology, not just of so-called advances, but more importantly the screw-ups in technology and in many cases the compounding impact of those screw-ups. Like DDT, dioxons or a whole drawer full of other toxics that are now a normal part of a ''healthy'' mother's breast milk. We could also take a little drive out onto the warming globe and no doubt find a few other new issues courtesy of our love for faster, cleaner and cheaper. But I digress. BAILEY and MYSTIC GNU have also jump aboard our evolution train with options we all might regret if we were among the chosen. Neither are likely to attract many volunteers however. First: BAILEY, your scenarios do have that ring of history and potential future about them, but none sound apt to immediately spark a run on solar panels or anything else more technically advanced than a big stick. Wait another one, two or three generations after one of those and any advancement since the internal combustion engine will revert to sci-fi status. I see more likelihood of MYSTIC GNU's second, if incomplete alternative playing itself out (sorry for the pessimism), and I think his theory of death by luxury is just what consumerism may deliver. But alas, this option too fails the tech test unless we buy the argument that humanity's first response to such catastrophy will be to tuck those Power-smart tips on solar energy into your jeans. I'm not going to bother stuffing away a bunch of candles, but I might recommend it to my offspring. BAILEY, a future, whether it's the one you called for or not, his heading straight at you at near light speed. I've learned that if you get really active sometimes you can budge it ever-so-slightly or at least think you did and that's usually enough to keep you trying.

Mystic Gnu, if Gaia does shrug all of us wayward humans off her earthly shoulders one day, I'm sure in the immortal,loopy words of George W. it will be referred to by the rest of the natural world as "a catastrophic success." To be serious though, despite all our bad qualities, I still think the human species seems worth going the distance for. I mean look at Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo, what they dreamed and imagined during times when there was very little to dream about or to substantiate their vision. The challenge is to invent ourselves out of a bleak landscape.

"Your vision may be a bit optimistic in that it relies on the gang that's left behind having landed on their feet, near the college library and just up the Road from Home hardware." said Allan, in an observation of my friend KWD I missed. Though I missed a couple others as well, I won't get into now.

Suffice it to say, that many interesting and accurate things have been said here. And I don't want to leave the impression that I think KWD is either a total wack job, or even that he is "necessarily" wrong. It may turn out that he is entirely right, for example, and I stumbled on the pebble of over-optimism. History hasn't played itself out on this issue, by a long shot, such that ANYONE can be entirely sure, I think. Though it's suddenly coming up fast.

It's mostly simply a matter, that if I am going to err, I will choose to do so, even in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence, on the side of hope and optimism here, over any kind of inevitable determinism that all is lost, so we might as well wait until after Judgement Day. Because even then, there is no guarantee it will be done right another time around-, especially if all the same "goonie" ideological types are out there, the same economic assumptions which rebuild the same old dynamic, and the same priesthood and social values that fix human behaviour into the same old mold. And that's as likely, nay more likely, as a new Enlightened Age that will lead us out of the coming New Dark Ages, in yet another mindless repeat of the cycle and outcomes.

Better, at least, to start resisting here, and if it comes to it, carry the struggle on in, "I told you so." fashion, into the Nightmare Time after The Fall.

My respect for KWD is undiminished, nonetheless. It is as high as it always has been. Mostly, I just think, and hope, he is wrong on the predeterminist issue.

I thought this article was about hydropower??????????????? get of the glue guys

"you guys need a life."

Speaking of needing a life. We've been waiting for you Brownshirts to show up and piss all over yourselves, trying to hit the bowl. You are sooo predictable, and sloppy-, intellectually as well. LOL.

Note the monosyllabic grunts,and drooling, or open mouth of , unable even to do that. Indeed, we do have too many. (Sounds of more laughing at you, and ridicule.)

Hmm, we all need a life. Meanwhile, back to hydropower. Something that has been missing from the extensive thread this article has spun (by the way, good article Lisa) is the fact that our water is protected from voracious US control under NAFTA etc. because "free-flowing water is not a good." The court case that could end it all will argue that once it's put through a 7 kilometre pipe it no longer meets this definition and then won't we wish we'd been paying closer attention.

Jane, it's not really size that counts because there are already some real big whoppers out there and the U.S. isn't yelling ''Eureka'' yet. Highland Valley Copper southwest of Logan Lake pumps water through a large diameter pipeline over 20 kms. from the Thompson River. It's not unique. Your logic, if accepted, would also open - to potential FT impact - water in any river or lake that is dammed up. There are thousands of reservoirs across the Interior that collect and store water from small creeks or springs. Vast regions, like the Bonaparte Plateau, are linked by chains of lakes that are controlled somewhat through small dams to control flooding along hundreds of kms of the Bonaparte River. Is that entire region, the size of the Fraser Valley, now open for pumping if some legal terrior takes more than a nip at it? Wouldn't that water resource be liable to end up as a primary compoment in a California rice plantation as well?

NAWAPA = Oceania (Orwell's 1984) I STILL don't see how damming a river for hydropower is "green"....the conspiracist in me is intrigued.

I think in this case 'green' means carbon dioxide neutral. Much like hydrogen is referred to as green, although it is mostly produced by passing electricity generated elsewhere through water.

Dear Mystic Gnu, Vick and Bailey, thanks for your feedback. Sorry to upset you with a little dose of reality. But if you want to go on musing about replacing roads with solar panels go right ahead. But in terms of micro hydro, electrical generation hardly gets any greener than that. But I guess to you folks yuppie kayakers are more important than making sure that our homes, hospitals and schools have enough electricity. So while you wander around in your self-absorbed la la land, don't be so harsh on those of us that live in the real world and are actually concerned about our fellow human beings. Believe me those of us living in the real world envy you, as ignorance is bliss. So I apologise for distrurbing you and now return you to your eco-fascist state of bliss. Mike

I apologize if you think this is personal, Mike. It's not. It's about sucking up the last crumbs. The idea that growth has no limits is long discredited. The main rivers are all controlled, though it cost us species that sustained whole cultures for millenia. What's left to resemble growth? Little rivers. Then what? Gutters?

The discussion has been about bumping up against the wall. Coming to the ends of power recources that are realistic. Very much about living in the real world, not at all about pretending that there will always be more little rivers to exploit, more techniques for increasing harvests, more anything at all.

Your contemptuous dismissal of "yuppie kayakers" is pretty telling by itself. When you need them, do you think they'll run in your gerbil wheel for you? You will need them you know, or something, and sooner rather than later.

Dear Bailey, I really appreciate you clarifying that this isn't personal. After all the cheap personal shots directed at me it was easy for me to get confused on that point. But then again I only have an IQ of 144 so I am easily confused by all you folks who are apparently so much smarter than anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. I mean I never would of thought of replacing all of our roads with solar panels, it takes a special kind of genius to think up those sorts of practical solutions. As for coming to the end of power resources, hardly. Site C dam is still on the drawing board and we haven't even begun to tap into other potential energy sources such as power co-generation from our forest industry, geothermal energy, methane recovery from land fill sites, wind turbines, tidal and ocean current generators, more efficient solar technologies, etc; and we haven't even started drilling for offshore oil yet! Run of the river micro-hydro is a very environmentally friendly way to generate additional electricity. The main opponents of it tend to be kayakers living on the North Shore. So to apply a bit of class analysis here, we have the idle rich and upper middle class attempting to prevent run of the river microhydro projects so they can have unfettered access to all of the rivers and streams they like to go kayaking in. So while the working poor huddle in the cold and dark dealing with brownouts and sky high electrcity costs, at least the important people who got their money the old fashioned way (they inherited it from Mommy and Daddy) get to hop in their shiny gas guzzling SUVs, drive up to their favourite creek and spend a couple of days a year paddling around. Its a picture that really kind of gets to you when you think about it, in fact its getting to me right now. Please excuse me while I go grab a bucket...

Mike, whoever gave you the IQ test cheated you very badly. There must be some rightwing radio program you could go on to complain. I will concede that you are gifted in that your ass and mouth appear to be interchangeable, but is this really a marketable commodity? Do you perhaps have any business connections to Ledcor whose logo I see all over town on almost every construction site? I thought so. Destroying more salmon spawning beds and tourism opportunities for about enough electrical power to energize your wife's vibtator is beyond imbecilic.

Great comments from all the rationale human beings above, reports of the upcoming demise of the human race may be greatly exxagerated, but let's all remember the dinosaurs. Racoons and skunks, and other species all die off from disease once their numbers become too great, although the rabid skunk problem in stanley park, has, to my amazement, somehow not spread to the bc liberal caucus; we can only hope for a mutated pathogen...

Kevin Potvin, in his magazine The Republic (of east vancouver) has of late being arguing for a revival of the cooperative movement in which barter can be subsituted for cash or credit, and in which sometimes employees can band together to buy out and share communally in the work and profits of the now worker owned corporation. This movement has the POTENTIAL, (I'm not saying it will) to revive communities and community spirit, the demise of these being at the root of many of our problems, including the survival of our species.

Mike Geoghegan, defender of the working poor against the idle rich? WHO KNEW? Keep that power house iq workin' mikey! Or you could just donate it to a gerbil, although it might impair the gerbil's intelligence.....

I'm a middle -aged suburban kayaker living and working in Surrey, and yes, I paddle the Ashlu from time to time...no SUV (the S certainly doesn't stand for sport, as we all know!). You wouldn't get much energy from me on a gerbil wheel anyway. It certainly tells you about the narrow minded goof, who actually believes in IQ tests. I guess that's all he has to his credentials. Better to have a life and get out and enjoy BC's wonders, than sit at home and bitch about those who do. Kayaking happens to be one of the cheaper and more minimalist outdoor sports out there. I wish I was a yuppie...then I'd be dressing smarter and be more pre-occupied dealing with a lying Mercedes mechanic. Hope that poor neanderthal gets his head out of the mud. The lack of Oxygen's getting to him (and his IQ).

Canada is slowly being 'sold' to the to the US of A. The 'futures market people' are what it is all about and who can 'buy' up our hydro power for personal and corporate gain with the producers (BC Hydro) getting the short end of the bargain. Washington State is about to restore two rivers on the Olympic Pennisula by removing dams and they are looking to Canada to cover the power loss. The two rivers are to be restocked with salmon for their sports and commercial fishery. With some Canadians more and more willing to sell, mortgage and give away our resources to the US of A for a quick buck now the future for our children is pretty bleak indeed. It is all about greed and money people. How come raw logs cross the border to Washington with no tax but finished lumber gets whacked with job killing taxes? The sooner WE add export taxes to gas, oil and hydro sales the better. How about keeping the money in Canada instead of letting the futures traders rip us off.

i think this is too long

Put that down and pay attention.

Bob: Stop that I'll have to change my alias: From now on I'll be "Frank" Yeah, there seem to be a lot of wankers out there with a lot of info at their fingertips. Soma them even seem to care a bit about environment and ecology But they do ramble on. I guess my take would be that if you make usable power available (electricity, Hydrocarbon,nuclear, you name it) most of the folks who write here will use it. And then chastize themselves. Or maybe not (i've been reading too many "Comments")

I recently visited Churchill Falls, Labrador, where what was once the largest waterfall in North America is now a trickle through an almost-empty gorge. The site is one of spectacular beauty, but the waterfall has been diverted to produce power (and it does produce a whole lot of power!). As a result, there's no tourist development, and there are are the inevitable signs saying don't eat the fish because of mercury. So...I can't really see the difference in "externalities" between large and small scale hydroelectric production. The arguments against little producers also apply to large producers. All of the rivers, large or small, now dammed or diverted could have been put to some alternate use. I suppose hydro electricity is just one of a shrinking list of options, all of which all involve tradeoffs, since nothing is free. I think the article illustrates the declining marginal return ("guns vs butter") of any choice and the importance of balance. We're willing to dam some of our rivers, but not all of them, because every remaining piece of nature becomes more precious through its scarcity. I don't know what can be done about that except to diversify our energy sources so that the tradeoffs of any particular method don't become too oppressive. I like wind power, and I think that would work for a lot of smaller communities. (For example, I've been to the French territory of St. Pierre, just off Newfoundland, where ALL of the electricity if produced by windmills...and compared it to, say, Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, where the wind blows constantly but all electricity is generated by oil brought in from ships from the south...shame on us.)

Hi folks! The simple problem here is that while some microhydro can be very clean, sustainable energy, which we're in urgent need of as a way to reduce our use of fossil fuels, some microhydro also be badly planned and badly sited. What is needed is a proper third-party green certification program, similar to that which is done for organic food and green buildings. best wishes, Guy Dauncey President, BC Sustainable Energy Association http://www.bcsea.org

Until Guy got involved it looked like a bunch of "the converted" in discussion. Guys group has raised some flags and turned some heads. Nice to see his comments. Talk to him.