REMAKING SETTLEMENTS: THE
POTENTIAL COST REDUCTIONS
ENABLED BY THE SIMPLER WAY.
Ted Trainer
16.2.2016
This is an attempt to estimate the very low
dollar, footprint and energy costs The Simpler Way might achieve. It uses data on typical Australian
consumption rates, food production yields, suburban geographies, etc. to
estimate possible reductions in dollar, resource and ecological costs that
might be achieved if suburbs and towns were radically transformed according to
Simpler Way principles.
This is a first attempt and the intention is
to work towards more confident estimates over time. However it seems that
dollar, energy and footprint costs could be cut to around 10% of the present
Australian averages, while improving the quality of life. However this assumes firstly that
the limits to growth require such enormous reductions in current rich-world
Òliving standardsÓ and secondly it assumes change to radically different
economic, political and cultural systems.
The context.
The Limits to Growth analysis shows that we
must develop ways of life whereby we can live well on far lower per
capita resource consumption rates than we have now, in a zero-growth
economy. (TSW: The Limit to
Growth.) The Simpler Way argument is that we can do this, but only if we
achieve enormous change away from the structures, systems and values of
consumer-capitalist society. (TSW: The Simpler Way Perspective.)
The conclusion the present analysis
generally indicates is that we could live well on something like ÔÕ10% of
present Australian per capita dollar, energy and footprint cost, while
greatly improving the quality of life and eliminating most global problems.
However this would require huge change in the geography of settlements, in economic
and social systems, and in attitudes and values. In my firm view the quite frugal and
self-sufficient lifestyles and systems discussed below are highly attractive, and
I would opt for them whether or not they were necessary. However they would be far less affluent
than those which most people would be willing to accept today. They might be more austere than resource
limits will force us to accept in future, so the following discussion might
best be seen as exploring how resource-cheaply we could live well if we had to.
It is important not to think in terms of
simply reducing consumption or making existing systems more efficient. The Simpler Way is about new means to
new goals in new systems, and therefore about a quite different conception of
the good life, of the good society and of ÒdevelopmentÓ. For instance conventional thinking about
Third World development is locked into the conviction that development has to
involve increasing investment of capital, to be able to sell more, to be able
to buy more and to spend on developing more capacity to sell, buy and invest.
Thus there is thought to be only one dimension underlying development,
essentially to do with increasing business turnover or GDP, incomes and Òliving
standardsÓ. However the concept of Appropriate
development scraps this whole way of thinking and simply focuses on
enabling people to use the resources around them to produce for themselves the
basic things most likely to solve their problems and raise their quality of
life, mostly in cooperative ways, and as far as possible independently of the
national monetary economy. Above
all it rejects affluence as a desirable or achievable development goal.
This different approach immediately
liberates communities to achieve miracles, especially in avoiding the
astronomical levels of waste, work, unemployment, insecurity, debt, interest
payments, worry, exploitation and overheads (advertising, packaging, consultants,
bank fees, insurance, rentÉ) that the consumer-capitalist way inflicts. In the conventional economy
corporations constantly strive to increase the amount you must purchase from
them, to add on services, to make you dependent on them, to then raise prices,
to commercialise things that we once did for ourselves, to create needs you
didnÕt realize you had. The alternative way eliminates all that and much more.
It hardly needs to be said that the changes
assumed in the following settlement restructuring could not be made in the
present economy. They would only be
possible in the radically different new economy of The Simpler Way. (See TSW: The
New Economy.)
Estimates of areas, yields, and dollar and energy costs.
Each of
the major consumption categories, such as food, buildings, leisure, is examined
to work out what the land area and dollar and energy costs would be if an outer
Sydney suburb (East Hills) was converted to The Simpler Way. The proposals
would be much more easily implemented in rural areas. Several of the figures
are first estimates and are quite uncertain. The intention is to improve them as time
goes by.
FOOD
Most and
possibly almost all food could come from within settlements, that is from home gardens,
community gardens, neighbourhood commons, and very small farms, even in the
dense suburbs of large cities, at a very low dollar cost and at almost no
energy cost. However it is likely that some grain, dairy, oils, fruit and nuts
would need to be brought in, ideally in bulk from nearby farms.
A
Summary of principles.
á
Home
gardens, extensive planting of perennials and annuals over most of the block.
á
Community
gardens.
á
Community
co-ops, e.g., looking after poultry, fish, orchardsÉ
á
Commons;
planting of public space and retrieved road space, converted to gardens,
orchards, woodlots, fish ponds, processing and storage sheds, cool rooms,
Òedible landscapesÓ and Òfood forestsÓ providing free fruit, nuts, mulch,
timber, honey, poultry, reeds, herbs, fish. Nutrient recycling, perennial
vegetables, bush tucker. Commons developed
and maintained by voluntary working bees and committees.
á
Farms;
from very small to tiny, in backyards, vacant blocks, on commons, producing for
local use, some in the form of co-operatives, including small animal
production, and some field crops such as soybeans and grains. Many households able to sell or barter
small quantities, reducing the need to earn money to purchase food.
á
Towns
might own farms as close as possible, producing their bulk grain, dairy, soy,
sugar beet, fruits and nuts for supply of these more area-expensive items.
These farms would also be sites for holidays.
á
Considerable
use of Permaculture design principles, such as Òedible landscapesÓ, recycling,
multiple functions, trees and perennials, almost all niches crammed with
productive plants, minimal use of non-renewable resources, and design to have many
functions automatically carried out.
á
Systems
which reverse Òsoil miningÓ and improve soils and ecosystems.
á
Long
term research and trials to find the varieties that thrive in local conditions,
most pest resistant, tasty, nutritious, storable, drought tolerant. Finding
varieties that ripen over a period to enable continuous supply (as distinct from
commercial varieties whereby a whole field can be harvested at one point in
time.)
á
Seed
saving, grafting, reproduction of the best varieties for the area.
á
Much
reduced consumption of meat, to come mostly from small animals, especially
poultry, fish, rabbits. No big animal production, except some pigs, sheep and
goats, (and horses for ploughing and transport use.)
á
Small
animals, especially poultry, fed by kitchen and garden scraps and free ranging
on commons, orchards, woodlots etc.
á
Planting
on flat rooftops, especially in the commercial areas, and use of vertical
spaces for vines and espaliers.
á
All
ÒwastesÓ including human, animal, food scraps garden and farm, returned to
local soils via compost heaps, animal feed and garbage gas units. Therefore no need for artificial and
imported fertilizers (or pesticides.)
The suburb should be thought of as constantly recycling a more or less
stable quantity of nutrients through kitchens, toilets and animal pens back to
soils producing the food taken to the kitchens.
á
Much
reduced demand for dairy products, mainly via replacement by soy products. (The
protein content of soy yield per ha for dairy substitute products is actually
around four times as high as for dairy per ha. The Aust. Yearbook 2012 states a
ratio of c. 17/1 for soy protein yield to beef protein per ha.)
á
Seed
saving, grafting, nursery propagation.
á
Low
energy storage, e.g., fruit drying, bottling, cool rooms.
á
No
packaging, ÒmarketingÓ, transport energy costs, corporation profits or bank
interest payments adding to the cost of produce.
á
Mostly
hand tools and labour-intensive gardening, with little or no use of machinery,
except on the mini farms where equipment can be shared.
á
Complex,
multi-function, integrated landscapes, forest gardens, with built-in redundancy
and resilience, as distinct from unstable monocultures dependent on imported
inputs.
á
Advantage
can be taken of overlaps, e.g., bees pollinate crops as well as produce honey,
complex landscapes provide habitat for pest eating birds, dams provide water,
fish, reeds and leisure facilities, forests provide fuel wood, mulch, honey,
fruit, timber, understory food crop habitat, water retention, windbreaks,
leisure resources.
á
Few
dog and cat pets but many small animals in the neighbourhood, including sheep
and goats, and some horses/donkeys for cartage, ploughing and leisure.
á
Multi-cropping;
the small scale enables new seeds to be planted immediately an area becomes
vacant, keeping the whole area in continual use.
á
Use
of imperfect produce that cannot be marketed, and recycling ÒwastesÓ to
animals.
á
Home
and community gardening as a major source of leisure activity and exercise,
creating diverse thriving, enjoyable landscapes.
á
Almost
no food should be imported into the country. Only short transport distance for
a few items.
á
Only
use of fresh foods in season locally, eliminating use of energy on freight and
refrigeration of produce from long distances away.
á
There
would be many desirable spin-off implications outside the food system, e.g.,
for health, community, leisure and education. Gardening increases fitness and
for many it would be a major leisure activity. It makes landscapes beautiful
and inspiring, especially when much of the effort is going into public spaces.
In addition the field days, shows, talks and research activities would provide
sources of learning, entertainment and community bonding.
Area and yield figures.
This
section attempts to establish estimates of the amount of land needed to provide
for one person. The provisional conclusions cannot be regarded as precise or
confident, but they are encouraging regarding the cope for local
self-sufficiency because they are mostly drawn from conventional agricultural
yields and these can be greatly exceeded by alternative processes (below.) Future
work will attempt to arrive at more confident figures.
Vegetables. Australian consumption is 112
kg/pp/y. This (along with fruit)
should be greatly increased, via reduction in meat consumption. If 75% of the
111 kg/pp/y of meat consumption was shifted to vegetables, increasing vegetable
consumption to194 kg/pp/y, and vegetable production was 15 t/ha/y, then vegetable
growing area would have to be (much higher output seems possible; below), only
130 m2 per person. (The suburb East Hills has around 82 ha that
could be used for food production, i.e., 270 m2 per person.)
Grain. Australian consumption is reported as 135
kg/pp/y. From my domestic situation
this seems much too high; one 800 g loaf of bread per person per week would be
only 42 kg/y. Add biscuits, cake, flour, breakfast cereal and a plausible
assumption here might be 90 kg/pp/y.
Australian
grain farms average only around 3 t/ha/y, from less than ideal land. However
Pitzer (2009, p. 13) says backyard grain production can be 13+ t/ha/y. Assuming village grain land would
eventually be of high quality due mostly to nutrient recycling, an average
yield of 10 t/ha/y might be reasonable (but might be optimistic.). Per capita land area would therefore be
90 m2.
Dairy. Australian consumption of milk in dairy
products is 118 kg/pp/y. It will be
assumed that 50% of this demand could be shifted to soy milk, adding that area
to vegetable land area required. Milk yield is c. 9 t/ha/y, indicating the need
for 59 m2 per person. To produce 59 kg/y of soy might require c. 16
m2, assuming soy yield of 3 t/ha, and soy milk 10 l/kg of soy beans.
Therefore for dairy produce (i.e., not including soy) 75 m2/pp will
be assumed.
Fruit. Australian consumption is 62
kg/pp/y. At commercial yields of 10 – 20 t/ha/y this indicates a need for
40 m2 per person, but many fruit trees can be mixed with timber and
other plants within dense home gardens, forest gardens, on the commons and
parks. In addition use of dwarf varieties, pots, and espaliers along walls and
fences would reduce the area needed.
Meat. Australian meat consumption is
111kg/pp/y, (incl. 47 kg of chicken, but not including fish.) Beef is an especially inefficient
use of land, averaging about 0.4 kg/y per ha, and requires a large amount of
water. It will be assumed that present meat consumption is reduced by 75% (and vegetable
consumption is increased accordingly, noted above.) Most meat would be poultry plus other small
animals, e.g., rabbits, pigeons, guinea pigs. Fish consumption is assumed below
to be doubled to 30 kg/pp/y, (all via tanks, ponds, lakes and dams within settlements.)
Thus
meat consumption would be 28 kg/pp/y, one-quarter of the present figure, made
up by 13 kg/pp/y poultry (plus rabbits, possibly pigs etc.) and an increase of 15
kg/person/y of fish (making that 30 kg/pp/y). (This assumes large reduction in
poultry consumption, from the present 42 kg/pp/y so there is scope for a
greater use of poultry if necessary.)
Edible/dressed
chicken weight might be 1.4 kg per bird. If eaten at 15 weeks of age the number
of birds being fed to maintain this rate of harvest per household (2.7 people
in East Hills) might be 5. (Obviously not all households would need to keep
poultry etc. as there would be production from co-ops and small farms.) Poultry
meat production would be integrated with egg production as birds beyond egg
producing age would be eaten; see below.
These
poultry meat figures are uncertain and might be unrealistically low. Note that
eggs are being regarded as additional to meat consumption. Some sheep and pigs, also providing wool
and leather, might be included instead of some of the poultry, but this item
has not been accounted separately here. Most sheep and pigs might be located on
farms close by, owned by the town. Pigs are good consumers of scraps, effective
at preparing ground for cultivation, and they take little area. They would best be cared for by co-ops
or local mini farmers.
Areas for
poultry and fish are difficult to estimate due to significant overlaps in uses,
and nutrient recycling. For
instance much/most poultry food would come from kitchen scraps and free ranging
through orchards and forests, while ducks, geese and fish would feed from fields,
forests and ponds. (See below.)
The area
for fish production would be very low, partly because much would come from
recreational ponds on commons and from very small tanks (two or three cubic
metres) in backyards and fish farms. Carp can yield 13 tonnes/ha from natural
ponds, without added feed, 30 times the meat yield per ha.
The
major source of animal food would be recycled nutrients from households,
especially via the large volume of kitchen scraps, and the feed for ducks and
fish growing naturally in ponds to which grey and black water from households
is recycled (e.g. down wetland chains, which can completely purify water.) Thus
the area assumed for animal feed would mostly be for supplementary inputs. (See
below).
Eggs. Australian consumption is 180 per person
p.a., which at 50 g per egg is 9 kg/y.
Household consumption would average only 8.4 per week, so these might be
produced by a long term average of less than 2 chickens per household, or 0.4
per person. (ABC, 2014.)
Almost
no area would be needed specially for poultry apart from sheds, because birds
would be fed food scraps, would free range on much of the dairy, orchard,
forest, nut and oil (e.g., olive grove) area, and they would be rotated around
vegetable patches to clean up, fertilise and cultivate. Some food supplements
are accounted under the Òanimal feedÓ category below.
The
probably surprising (and possibly mistaken) implication of these figures for
meat, fish, poultry and eggs is that it would seem to be possible for a
settlement to meet its (considerably reduced) meat demand from within its
borders. This would free vast rangeland areas for reforestation, and the
establishment of eco-villages.
Animal feed.
Poultry feed per dressed weight can be very low, down to a ratio of 1.5/1,
(and it is even lower for fish than poultry.) A ratio of 2 for poultry will be assumed
here. A chicken eats c. 0.5 kg per
day so the 0.4 birds per person would need 70 kg/y. If it is assumed that free ranging provides
50% of the food needed and kitchen etc. scraps provide 25%, then feed to be
provided for poultry meat production would be very low, in the region of 18 kg/pp/y.
(Free ranging can provide up to 100%; a small US compost firm has chickens
foraging on the heaps, producing eggs without any need for grain inputs.) Kitchen
scraps etc. needed could be 28 kg per person p.a., or 0.5 kg per week, so there
would be plenty left for fish and other animals.
These
figures are very low compared with the present nutrient waste streams. About
50% of Australian household garbage collected is biodegradable, most of it from
the kitchen. A large amount of food
is wasted. In addition to crops not
sent to market because of appearance or damage at supermarkets, huge amounts
are thrown out from kitchens. The Transpacific Industries Group, (2015), estimates
the amount at 414 kg/pp/y, which is only slightly less than the weight of food
eaten! Wise (2014) says Australian
households throw out $616 worth of food pa. Even more impressive, the amount or
nutrient rich material moving from toilets and grey water outlets to gardens would
equal the weight of food entering the kitchen.
Fish in
ponds, lakes and dams would feed themselves. Duckweeds, worms and grubs, can be
grown specially for animal feed, along with Azolla to skim off as a nitrogen
source for gardens. However some of the suburban nutrient flow, e.g., in grey
and black waters, would go through biological filtering and harvesting pond
systems to produce edible plants and fish feed.
The
uncertain indication from these figures is that the area needed to produce
about 18 kg/pp/y, in addition to the above ÒautomaticÓ sources would be only
around 18 m2/pp/y.
Nuts. The recommended consumption is
42 g/pp/d, or 15.3 kg/pp/year.
Almond kernel yield is around 1.3 t/ha and hazelnuts, macadamias and
walnuts can be c. 2 t/ha, indicating 76 m2/pp might be needed. Some of the trees would be within
gardens and commons but most nut production but might best be located on the
farm areas used outside the suburb.
Cooking oils.
Average Australian cooking oil plus spread consumption is, 27
kg/pp/y. Sunflower oil yield is c.
10 t/ha/y, and olive oil 2.3 t/ha/y.
The former figure indicates the need for 27 m2 per person,
but 50 m2/y will be assumed here.
Sugar/honey. Australian per capita sugar
consumption is high, c. 42 kg/pp/year. Ideally this would be reduced considerably
as processed/packaged foods were replaced.
There would be considerable capacity to reduce cane sugar importation
from NE Australia by production of sugar beet and corn fructose on farmland as
near as possible to suburbs. Sugar can be derived from sugar beet at 7.5 t/ha/y
(in California), indicating that 56 m2 would be needed to provide 42
kg/pp.
However
it is plausible that honey might meet the need without demand for normal food
producing land. Firstly settlements
would be densely planted sources of nectar. Areas and yields are difficult to
estimate as claims vary considerably. There might be 8 hives per ha. Commercial
producers in NSW average 77 kg/hive/y (100 in WA) but this is for richest
forest etc. areas, so yields from towns and surrounding forests will be assumed
at 60 kg (?) honey per hive p.a. This would provide 480 kg/ha/year from within
towns, or 68 tonnes p.a. for the East Hills suburb, i.e., around 23 kg/person
p.a. (for the 3000 people within the suburb.) Thus if per capita sugar consumption was
halved no importation would be needed, but there should be little resource cost
for importation of say 10 kg/pp/y from beekeepers working nearby forests. Thus
no land area for sweeteners will be assumed here.
Beverages. This category is difficult to
deal with. Australian has high consumption of beer, wine and spirits, soft
drinks, tea, coffee and fruit juices. Most of this is undesirable, having high
cost in health effects. Ideally there would be consumption of only small
quantities of locally brewed alcoholic beverages (especially fruit wines and cider),
larger quantities of unsweetened fruit and vegetable juices, and as far as
possible tea and coffee substitutes. Area and dollar estimates will not be
attempted here.
Sweets,
confectionary, chocolate. This is another area that is difficult to deal with. These are all
undesirable items and there might be little interest in them in a rich local
food culture.
Interim area conclusions.
Table1 summaries the above area figures. (m2
per person.)
Vegetables 130
Grain
90
Dairy 75 for milk + soy milk products
Fruit 40
Meat
? Évery low, due to waste recycling to animals.
Animal feed 18
Nuts 76
Oils, spreads
50
Total:
479 m2
About
half this (initially estimated) area would probably have to be located outside
the town; again the area available for food production in the (low density)
suburb of East Hills was estimated at 270 m2/pp.
Rough comparisons
with the present conventional system are of interest.
á Australian cropland (i.e., not
including pasture, grain lands, sugar fields, fish, poultry) is c. 24 million
ha, or c. 10,000+ m2 per person.
á US. Agricultural land area is around
5,000 m2 per person.
Even
assuming most Australian production is exported, and addition of area for
imported items, the area per capita required to provide for one person via conventional
agriculture would be many times the 479 m2 derived above.
Reasons why the
figure derived is probably much too high.
The
yield figures used above have been mostly from national statistics on
commercial agribusiness production, which is very inefficient in several ways. (See
appendix 1.) Following are
important facts and reasons making it clear that home and local food production
could achieve far better yield and area figures.
Much higher yields are possible than in
conventional agriculture.
Urban agriculture in Havana Cuba is reported
to produce 21 t/y of vegetables per ha. (Koont, 2009.) The figures from about 5
cases found on the Web are, average yield 27.7 tonnes per ha, and average value
of $125, 600/ha/y. (c. 2007 prices.) Dioron (2015) provides detailed itemised
information adding to 17.6 tonnes per ha and $167,000 ha/y. As this is for
Maine with only a 6 months growing season much better yields should be possible
in Australia. Aliades (2011) reports that his (not fully functioning) 64 m2
home garden yielded 202 kg of food in its second year, equivalent to 12.8
tonnes /ha/y, on only 2 hours ÒworkÓ per week. This does not include the
produce given away, such as an estimated $1000 worth of berry plants.
Compare these yield figures with the Australian
wheat production average of around 3 t/ha. Watson (2015) reminds us that the
ÒVictory GardensÓ planted by ordinary people in England during World War 2
achieved on average 10 times the typical agricultural yield. The surprisingly
high dollar values might be partly due to production of high value crops for
the restaurant trade.
Diggers Seeds, (Blazey, 1999) claims
that their trials using intensive home gardening, multi-cropping and heirloom
seed varieties show that ÒÉit only takes 60 m2 of space to grow the
242 kg of fruit and vegetables we consume each year.Ó This includes 10 m2
for vegetables, 8 m2 for potatoes and 42 m2 for fruit,
for each person. The figure corresponds to c. 40 t/ha/y, and suggests that the
weight of food one person consumes could be provided from c. 90 m2,
which is 18% of the above 498 m2 area conclusion (i.e., if the food was
all in the form of fruit and vegetables.)
Wise (2014, p 11) says that the average lawn area on a suburban block
could produce 800 – 1,100 kg of food p.a., enough fruit and vegetables
for a family.
Joe Dervaes (2014) operates a remarkable
Òurban agricultureÓ in Pasadena where he claims to produce 2,727 kg of food
p.a. from his 0.04 ha house block.
This corresponds to a barely credible 68 t/ha. His output would be even
higher if the family was not also keeping chickens, ducks and goats on the
block.
á
The mini-farms would be run by people who delight in their craft, as distinct from agribusiness
managers and workers, therefore conscientiousness and innovation etc. would be
high. There is little incentive in
agribusiness to recycle diligently and look for overlaps. Small mixed farms
enable synergies and multiple functions to be identified, e.g., bee hives in
the garden improve yields while providing honey. Orchards provide honey, shade, mulch,
fire breaks, wind breaks and grazing area, as well as fruit.
á
The figures used above probably do not assume maximum use of multi-cropping. Fields can be left unplanted for
periods, and orchard lands usually produce only one crop each year. Home
gardening and mini-farm production enable seeds to be planted in patches just
harvested and cleared, down to the level of individual plants such as cucumber
vines. The new plants might already be well established in pots. Thus it is
misleading to add area needed for each separate crop because the one area might
produce many crops in a year.
á
Roof areas have not been taken into account. These can be used for shallow vegetable
plantings in containers, and as space for vines to trellis over. Nor has use of
walls for espalier fruit growing in restricted spaces been included.
á
No production has been included from greenhouses, which can greatly increase yields,
provide summer crops in winter, and include space for fish tanks, and warm
roosting space for chickens (which contribute CO2 for plant growth.)
á
Some of the above Australian consumption figures would include the large
quantities going into pet food. (In the early 2000s Australian expenditure on pet food and
care was $1,500 million p.a. and
83% of veterinary income was for pet care.)
á
Present consumption rates include very large amounts of food waste, such as damaged or imperfect fruit
the farmer would discard or the supermarket would dump. All of this waste could be eliminated
through home and local production because imperfect fruit can still be used or
fed to animals and all household ÒwastesÓ would become animal food. As noted above
the amount of food wasted in Australia is huge, estimated at around 164 kg/pp/y
by one source and 414kg/pp/y by the Transpacific Industries Group (2015), and
valued at $5.3 billion. (Morgan, 2007. The ABC Aug., 2014 reported $8 billion
p.a.) The figure corresponds to around 30% of food weight required (!) so just
eliminating this one factor would in effect reduce the required production area
by 30%.
á
There would be many more overlapping functions than have been mentioned. Complex, integrated local systems make
it possible for different domains to augment each other. For instance ducks
eliminate the need to purchase snail poisons, and their pest removal effort
reduces the amount of duck feed that needs to be provided. Azolla growing on
ponds fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere and can be skimmed off for fertilizer
(via composting.) Agribusiness locates the duck production a long way from the
fish production so cannot take advantage of such effects; outputs from one
domain become wastes, not inputs to another, and energy has to be used to deal
with both problems. Fruit and nut trees can be planted in parks, provide shade
and wind rows, and woodlots and forest gardens provide many other services.
á
Settlements and surrounding woodlands would be planted to provide many
foods in the form of ÒweedsÓ and bush tucker, growing beside roads and in parks while
contributing to the suburban landscape.
á
Changing consumption habits could shift demand to the more easily grown
plants and prolific ÒweedsÓ and away from exotic and resource-expensive items. Simple basic vegetable, fruit and poultry
sources can provide all meals. Our village
agriculture committee would research interesting but ecologically friendly and
very low cost recipes using local inputs.
á
The figures do not include use of aquaponics, which would dramatically reduce
area needed, due to very high yield rates for fish and vegetables. Many small
greenhouses and open ponds in backyards and on neighbourhood commons could be
producing fish and recycling nutrient rich water to trays containing vegetables
all year round. In one set up an 18 square metre fish pond produces 150 kg of
fish p.a., plus 1,300 kg of tomatoes from trays the water is circulated through. This is 1/555 of one ha for the fish,
corresponding to 82 tonnes of fish per ha per year. (www.synaptoman.Wordpress.) A thorough analysis would take in fish food inputs, and the area
taken for the tomato growing.
Application of these
principles could considerably reduce the total land are needed from the above
interim figure of 479 m2 per person. Consider this crude cross check. If we
assume the c. 20 t/ha food yield achieved in Havana gardens and a per capita
food consumption of 500 kg/y, the per capita area needed would be 250 m2
(and much less if we add multi-cropping, feeding small animals on wastes, and
aquaponics.) Again the area available in East Hills was estimated to be 270 m2/pp.
It is commonly
assumed that home gardening and small scale farming is far less efficient in
terms of labour time compared with agribusiness. (It is undoubtedly far superior to
conventional agriculture on all other dimensions; see Appendix 1.)
Unfortunately there are few figures on time spent gardening per kg or dollar of
produce but the common assumption might not be valid. The National Gardeners
Association survey (2009) reports that the average US home gardening time input
is 5 person-hours a week, but information on output is not given. The time
figure given by Aliades above indicates that he produced 128 kg of food per
hour of ÒworkÓ, which might loosely correspond to a weekly income of 128 kg x
$3 x 40 = $15,360 (!) Hopefully
reliable data will enable a more confident conclusion before long.
Probable per capita dollar budget.
If we
assume extensive home gardening plus chickens, free food from commons, bartering
or gifting of surpluses, then only a small amount of food should need to be
bought. This would probably include
dairy, soy and grain products, cooking oil, and some fruit and nuts. Much of
this should be low cost as it could be produced by town businesses and co-ops
using bulk supply from local farms and orchards, and would not involve the many
normal middleman costs and overheads added by global supermarketing. My very
rough guess at this stage would be $2-3/pp/day for the purchased items. The
2013 average Australian household (i.e., excluding dining out) weekly food
expenditure was $100/person, or $14.5/day (Langley, 2013.) Note that in terms
of sustainability it is not so important to achieve very low household dollar
outlays on food, so long as the purchasing is from local sources with their low
resource costs.
Probable per
capita operating energy budget.
For
home gardens and commons there would be almost no running/operational energy cost, apart from 12
volt irrigation pump electricity. Estimation is uncertain but if 20 minutes
watering a day by a 72 W pump is assumed, the annual household total would be
8.7 kWh, or 3.6 kWh/pp/y = 13 MJ/pp/y.
To this
should be added the dollar and energy costs associated with importation of food
from nearby small farms, and possibly from more distant grain farms. These have
not been analysed but the assumption has been that they add 50% to the output
and dollar and energy costs within the settlement.
Embodied energy
costs; Equipment inventory and replacement.
Stock
of tools and equipment. All
items used in gardening at Pigface point are listed below.
Mattock,
pick, shovels, spade, rakes, forks, (Wooden handles produced within the town),
watering can, buckets, hoses, pots, trays, solar fruit dryer (home made), 12 v
pumps, wheelbarrows, ,
animal pens, greenhouse, tanks (small,.)
The InventoryÉ
document () gives rough estimates
of their dollar and embodied energy costs of each of these items. The following
figures summarise the results.
a) Total for tools
excluding pumps, greenhouse and tanks. $915
Assuming
10 people using the set
$91/pp
Assuming 30 year lifetime (?) $3/pp/y
Tools equivalent to 58 kg steel
=
2,320 MJ
232 MJ/pp
8
MJ/pp/y
b)
12 v pumps, $350 and 330 MJ each(?)
At Pig face Point 7
provide for 7 people, but probably could
provide for 20(?). Lifetime assumed, 10 years.
$2,450
$120/pp
$12/pp/y
2,310
MJ
220
MJ/pp
22
MJ/pp/y
c)
Animal pens.
Fencing for poultry pens; rabbit, sheep,
(pigs?)
Wire netting, fencing wire, tie
wire, star posts, gates (home made)
Assume = 2 pens 10m x 5m per household,
incl. community pens,
so $40 for 10(?) kg of wire plus $50 for
star posts =
$90
$33/pp
Assuming
20 year life
$2/pp/y
800 MJ
300 MJ/pp
15 MJ/pp/y
d) Animal sheds, feed sheds, small: 3
at Pigface Point made from earth.
(Sheds can be made entirely from mud brick,
with dome roofs thinly surfaced with cement.) Assume 40 year life (probably far
longer.)
Floors, concrete in some sheds.
Corrugated iron roofs: 10 sheets
(200x90cm=18 m2)/shed
= 70 kg/shed = 210 kg = 8,000 MJ
Timber frames
Total; $600
$222/pp
$5/pp/y
2,600 MJ
100 MJ/pp
7 MJ/pp/y
e) Greenhouse. 5m x 3m (Earth walls, Alsenite roof c.
$100.) $300(?)
$111/pp
$2/pp/y
1,000 MJ(?)
300
MJ/pp
7 MJ/pp/y
f) Small water tanks and fish ponds. Home
made, thin cement plaster over chicken wire plus rods. Assume five at 2 m
diameter x 1 m deep.
5 x $130 = $650
$244/pp
$6/pp/y
5 x 130 MJ = 650
MJ
244 MJ/pp
6 MJ
pp/y
Totals for food
producing equipment and structures within settlements.
$5,005
$821/pp
$28 pp/y
9,780 MJ
2,296 MJ/pp
65 MJ/pp/y
Assume in
addition 25% of food produced on local farms, i.e., not
within the settlement, so multiply above
figures by 1.5. (The farms will
use a small amount of machinery, notably
small shared tractors.)
$6,260/pp
$1,026/pp
$34/pp/y
12,225 MJ
3,304
MJ/pp
81 MJ/pp/y
Food production
conclusions.
The
above figures and derivations are not at all confident, but they show that most
food could be produced within restructured outer Sydney suburbs, and that enormous
savings in dollar and energy costs could be made by localizing food production.
The annual per capita costs combining running/operating and embodied costs appear
to be approximately,
Home plus local farm production 1.5 x 13
MJ/pp/y = 20
MJ/pp/y and $1,000
Embodied energy cost of equipment =
81
MJ/pp/y and $28
Total
=
100 MJ/pp/y and $1,028
The
comparison with conventional agribusiness is stark. In 2007 the US food supply
system was taking around 16% of national, energy, i.e., around 15 EJ/y, or 47
GJ/pp/y. (Canning, et al., 2010.) In
2007 US food production was taking 16 times as much energy as was contained in the
food produced, and the amount has been claimed by Garza (2013) to be as great
as all energy going into gasoline for cars. The energy needed to produce a kg
of wheat in New Zealand has been estimated at 2 kWh, i.e., 7.2 MJ (! Derived
from Safa, undated.) These uncertain figures indicate that the energy required
to produce food for a person via the US agribusiness system would be over 400
times as great as the above figure for local production. (This does not include
the energy costs of all the overheads, the packaging, advertising, waste
treatment, transportÉ see Appendix 1.)
BUILDINGS:
Houses, sheds, small business premises,
community centres and facilitiesÉ
Over
time retrofitting of houses with insulation and solar passive design (e.g., automatic
solar heat storage and cooling) should greatly reduce space heating and cooling
energy demand.
All new
buildings would be made of earth, local stone, wood, straw bale, at very low
dollar and resource cost, and built to last hundreds of years. Home-made and community built structures
can avoid most monetary labour costs. (Pay your building adviser by working on
his projects.) Floors can be made
from rammed earth surfaced, e.g., with turpentine and beeswax. Some roofing would be earth (sod) over timber supports, or unsupported
domes and vaults from mud bricks surfaced by a thin layer of cement. Most
roofing would eventually be ceramic tiles made from local clay and wood-fueled
kilns. Research would go into the production of durable sealers and paints from
local plant and animal sources. For instance earth walls can be sealed with a
whitewash made from lime and milk.
Earthen colours, (white, grey, brown, yellow, ochre, oxide, dull red)
would be commonly used, although in general there would be much less painted
surface and more natural wood, earth and stone.
People would have much more time for
home-making and therefore for cooking on (well designed high tech) wood stoves,
with hot water jackets and tanks. A
more vegetable based diet would reduce the amount of cooking needed. Rugs
mostly made from wool would replace most carpets, eliminating the need for
vacuum cleaning. (Rugs can be taken
out and shaken and floors swept and mopped.) Matting, seating and screens, as well as
baskets and hats, can be woven from local reeds, rushes and willows.
Small, earth built houses can be
extremely dollar, materials and energy low cost, as well as very attractive, and idiosyncratic, unlike the
boring sameness of conventional housing.
My Dream House.
Following is an indication of the kind of
house I would be delighted to live in, although most people would probably see
it as quite unacceptably small and frugal. A small family might need a house
about two times as big in floor area. Keep in mind the question, what kind of
housing could a world of 10 billion afford?
I do not live IN my house all the time; I
live in my patch, in and out of the house, garden, workshop, animal pens,
forest, wetland, all day long. Thus
I donÕt have much need for space inside the house. I have a workshop, storage
areas and craft areas in surrounding sheds.
It would be a quite small house. This minimises the need for space
heating and lighting, and housework É and big houses are morally ugly, and
wasteful, taking up resources others need.
The floor area would be only 8x3 m2 for the single main room,
plus a 3 m2 toilet+ shower room, with a 5x4 m2 sleeping
loft in the attic above the main room ceiling. (Thus the house area will be
accounted as 30 m2.) Made from mud brick or rammed earth,
including floor (surface hardened.)
Low ceilings, 2.10 - 2.20 m.)
Wood burning stove for cooking and heating, with a hot water
jacket. Corrugated iron roof, to be
replaced by hand-made clay tiles someday.
No fridge, but cold water and evaporative cooling. No carpets;
rugs. Most space for workshop,
crafts, storage and clothes washing would be in simple sheds close by. A ladder or tiny stair way would lead to
the sleeping area in the triangular attic, which would also provide some storage
space. There would be a tiny
veranda to catch morning sun in winter. Water tanks. (I make tanks from cement
plastered over chicken wire against a form, for about 1.5 - 4 c/litre
(excluding labour cost) whereas plastic tanks cost about 25 c/litre. Not included in this accounting are a PV
panel plus batteryÉ$500?
Walls: 27 cm thick, 13 cubic metres of earth
= 240 barrow loads, i.e., 10 a day over 24 days. Forms borrowed. The pit the
earth is dug from becomes either a cement-sealed underground water tank or a
fish pond.
Dollar cost estimated 2014 Évery
approximately $5,500 (not including ÒlabourÓ and some other items, such as
toilet, sink, stove. These items will be considered below under appliances etc.
The 2015 cost to build a smaller than average ÒnormalÓ house (maybe three times
as big) might be $150,000, but in the region of $400,000 when bank interest and
tax on income are added. The all up cost to build a house in Sydney would
therefore be about 73 times the cost of my ideal house. (This assumes that my ideal house
involves no loan or interest, and an income below the tax threshold.) The
average house being built in Australia was recently assessed as the biggest in
the world, with an area of 220 square metres, 7+ times the size of the above
house.
Use of recycled materials would lower the above costs
considerably. Labour cost? In effect, around zero dollars. The house would be home-made using hand
tools as an enjoyable creative activity, partly assisted by local friends and
experienced builders. These debts could be paid without money, by contributing
labour to their ventures. Some
dollar costs, e.g., for materials, could be paid by labour given to builders
who buy materials in bulk. Build at
a leisurely pace; move in when the roof is on and fit out slowly.
The average cost of a house plus land
in Sydney is expected to exceed $1 million by 2016. Ideally governments would buy
up bankrupt farms at a very low purchase price and enable establishment of new
rural villages made up mostly of ultra-cheap dwellings.
.
This
breakdown is for an almost ÒTiny HouseÓ, (an increasingly popular theme) which
would suit many singles and young couples.
However the house type we should focus on would be the bigger but still quite
small house suitable for a small family, which might be three to four times the
size of the above tiny example.
Premises
for most local firms, shops and community facilities such as libraries and
community centres, could be much the same; mostly tiny, simple, built from mud
or straw bale or rammed earth etc. plus locally grown and milled timber. Buildings would be at most three stories
in height, eliminating the need for lifts.
In general finishes would be rough/rustic, not slick, e.g., barked
saplings, mud walls, unpainted wood, with few metal or plastic surfaces.
These requirements
do not have to imply drab or impoverished appearances. Simple earth-built structures
can be beautiful, decorated in a wild variety of styles. The resulting
landscapes can be unique and interesting leisure resources, enabling enjoyable
ramblings. Compare the boring
sameness throughout a typical McMansions estate. Our community buildings could
be inspiring, our home-made cathedrals, tributes to the power of our
imagination and co-operative power, built by our own hands from our forests, clay
pits and eager labour. Such projects are much too precious to be given to a
contractor.
Remember that we are talking about a
stable economic situation, in which construction only takes the form of
maintenance and replacement, not increasing the housing, office or factory
stock. In other words most of the present construction industry would not exist
and most of the building that was needed could be carried out slowly by hand
tools, because this is more enjoyable.
For many people, slowly designing and building their own home, helped by
friends and with the advice of local experts, would be one of lifeÕs most
satisfying adventures. No one would
want a house and not be able to have one.
At present maybe 100,000 Australians are waiting to get a house, and
large numbers will never own one because the only kind the market provides are
absurdly big, expensive and ecologically unsatisfactory (no eaves, not solar
passive, badly insulated, using aluminium and plastic and brickÉand in my view
often shoddily built.)
Items not included in the above
accounting: Gutters, plumbing (steel plus poly
pipes, taps), sink, toilet bowl and cistern, cabinet wood, furniture, electric
lights wires and switches, insulation for roof only (earth walls), bolts etc.,
12 volt pump, drum for high tank for shower etc. pressure, paint.
The above costs have been for
construction. Running costs are dealt with below under energy in general.
Probable dollar cost.
Earth houses can last hundreds of
years. If we assume a 100 year
lifetime the per capita dollar cost for a house three times the size assumed above
for 2.7 people would be $16,500/2.7 = $6,111/pp = $61/pp/y.
Many home buyers are paying more than
one-third of their income for housing repayments, or rent. The Aust. Bureau of
Stats. Reports the average weekly household expenditure for housing is $223,
i.e., $11,600/y. (ABS 6350.) This
probably includes council rates but if they are assumed to be c. $1000/y, per
capita housing costs excluding rates would be ($11,600/2.7 = $4,296/y or in the
order of 70 times the above figure for a house (that is three tines the size of
the one described in the box.).
Note that when a normal house is built
the owner pays out up to three times as much as it cost to build. This is because for each dollar he
borrows from the bank he will have to pay back about two dollars, and to have a
dollar to pay out about $1.30 must be earned to cover income tax. When low
income earners make their own humble home they could avoid these costs.
Compare the 2015 cost of renting a one
bedroom apartment in (non-central) Sydney, $20,000/y according to Numbeo
(2015.) This is 700 times the
annual cost of the above house (and the apartment wonÕt last 100 years.) The purchase cost for this apartment
averages $7,950 per square metre, perhaps ($7,950)/($5,500/30m2) =
442 times the cost of the above small house.
Probable energy cost.
Foundations: Little cement needed; broken pavement
slabs set in
trenches.
0.75
GJ (?)
Wood: (Attic flooring, 20 m2
x 2.5 cm thick = 0.5m3)
+
(roof frames 80 m x 50 mm x 65 mm hardwood =0.3 m3) = 0.8
M3.
Assume 1 m3 hardwood= 0.7 tonne, and embodied energy
cost
of producing timber =10 GJ/tonne. (Softwood would be 7 GJ/tonne.)
So 0.8 m3 =
6
GJ.
Walls: Rammed earth. Assuming only
human energy inputs.
Floor: Rammed and surfaced earth.
0.25
GJ(?)
Roof
tin: 40 m2 (including wall thickness plus eaves)
= 160 kg x 38 MJ/kg 6.0
GJ
Glass:
18 m2 x 200 MJ/m2 3.6 GJ
Tank; 8000 litre or 6 m3 concrete + reinforcing rods
and chicken wire 2.1
GJ
Total: 15.6
GJ
Items
not included above; assume these bring
the energy cost to
20
GJ
Assuming 2.7 people per house and a 100 year house life 74
MJ/pp/y
The embodied energy cost of the
materials in a normal/conventional house today (not including energy to
construct) has been estimated at 1000 GJ, which is about 3.7 GJ per person per
year assuming a 100 year life. (Houses being built today are not likely to last
that long.) This is 50 times the figure for the above alternative house. So if
a house three times as big as the above alternative, i.e., 150 m2
floor area, is assumed, the ratio might be 17/1.
Community buildings. This is difficult to estimate but a
rough assumption might be that the East Hills suburb of 941 households would
require buildings equivalent to 25 houses for things like the community
workshops, library, craft rooms, sheds, school, premises for firms, co-ops and
aged care. Many of these need not be as elaborate as dwellings. Embodied energy
might therefore be c. (25 x 80 MJ)/3000pp = only 0.7 MJ/pp/y. Estimates for
some running costs are included below, e.g., for lighting and cooking.
Totals for dwellings plus community buildings:
Dwellings {$5,500 x 3}/2.7 = $1,650 = $611/pp = $61/pp/y and 74 MJ/pp/y
Community for 3000 people, = 25 houses =$413,000 = $137/pp =
$1.37/pp/y
and
0.17 MJ/pp/y
Totals:
$750/pp, $63/pp/y, 74 MJ/pp/y
HOUSEHOLD
EQUIPMENT.
Furniture would be simple, cheap,
robust and durable, made from local materials, mostly wood. It would be
repairable, and most would be home-made by ordinary people. Some would come
from local craft businesses in which people could enjoy making good solid
furniture. These pieces might be relatively expensive, but they would last for
generations, and cost would not matter since we could in general cover our
monetary needs with two days work a week.
Various other items, notably toys,
baskets, garden and storage sheds, wheelbarrows, animal houses, carts, and
boats would also be mostly made from wood, either via backyard or small firm
production. There would be little
use of plastics and aluminium although in the longer term use of cellulose
based plastics might be common.
Matting, seating and screens, baskets and hats, can be woven from local
reeds, rushes and willows. There
would be much use of hand tools because craft production is enjoyable, but
light machinery would also be used.
Following
is the basic Pigface Point inventory, used here for estimating lifetime
replacement costs.
Cutlery, pots, pans, containers, tin, glass,
utensils
Assume = 7 kg steel per household, = 2.6
kg/pp =
100 MJ/pp
Lifetime 10 years = 0.26 kg/pp/y steel
=
10 MJ/pp/y
If equivalent to one 0.25 kg steel
utensil/container p.a., estimated cost
= $10/pp/y
Glassware, bottles, crockery.
Glassware, bottles, vases É 15 kg/household
= 5.5 kg/pp =
c. 160 MJ/pp
Lifetime 8 years = 0.7 kg/pp/y
glass/ceramics =
20
MJ/pp/y
$10/pp/y
Stove, (small) fridge, open wood fire for
space heating
Assume 150 kg/household = 56 kg/pp = 2,200
MJ/pp
Lifetime 15 years = 4 kg/pp/y.
150 MJ/pp/y
Assume
$1,500 for the three items =
$37/pp/y
Furniture
Assume home and small local firm craft
production, from local wood,
and 60+ year life, so very low embodied
energy p.a.. 2 tables, 4 light
chairs, 2 armchairs, sofa, 3 bed
basesÉ$2,500(?) =
$15/pp/y
Bathroom.
Shower (no bath), basin, taps, toilet bowl,
cistern
Assume 20 kg steel plus 20 kg ceramics.
(Plumbing not included here
but is in house construction accounting.) =
1,400 MJ, =
518 MJ/pp
Lifetime = 50 years. Weight 0.2 kg/pp/y, so
annual replacement cost
$3 pp/y
10 MJ/pp/y
Fabrics
Cloth, wool, linen
Assume intensive repairing, so for fibres
going into clothing, bedding,
towels, curtains etc. No estimate for stock
of fabrics but assume 5 kg new
material per household/y(?) = 2 kg/pp/y. At
30 MJ/kg =
60 MJ/pp/y
$20/pp/y (?)
Footwear
Slippers, sandals mostly home made.
Boots, shoes, gum boots, sandals É Assume
work shoes last 3 years,
and equivalent of 3 pairs of shoes/sandals
per person, so =
$50/pp/y
50 MJ/pp/y(?)
Radio
-- mantelpiece and pocket.
Assume 3 pocket and 1 mantelpiece set per
household. Average lifetime
3 years (? Pocket radios easily damaged but
mantelpiece sets can last
decades.) Assume
$150 per set, and 3 year lifetime =
$20/pp/y
TV, phone and computers.
Difficult to assess, due to very high energy
cost of production of electronic
devices. (de Deker 2015, 2015b.) These
figures are not included in
subtotals below but if 1 small TV, 2
computers per household is assumed,
total = $2500(?) = $926/pp
If assume lifetime 4 years = $231/pp/y
Items not included.
Larger electric devices such as floor
polisher, clothes drier, dish washer, vacuum cleaner, (which are not possessed
at Pigface Point) plus household sundries including cleaning materials, brooms,
matches, combs, scissorsÉ
Household equipment cost summary:
Initial
restructuring costs:
Because the restructuring would
be of the pre-existing
neighbourhood containing
established and equipped households
no initial set up costs will be
assumed.
Annual equipment
maintenance costs:
(Sum excluding TV and computers, and
some other items.)
Dollar cost
$165/pp/y
Embodied
energy (various items not included)
300 MJ/pp/y
The
Australian average household expenditure on Òfurnishings and equipmentÓ is
$1,136/pp/y. (ABS.2015.)
PLUMBING AND IRRIGATION.
Following is the list of items needed for
all plumbing at Pigface Point, which is
not connected to city mains so has to
maintain a relatively complicated supply
system for drinking water, garden water,
sewage treatment and water
recycling. The following list assumes
continued use of plumbing in existing households but addition of garden
irrigation and water recycling equipment. All could be produced in regional factories
and foundries but metals would have to come from national sources. Steel pipes
and fittings can last 50 – 70 years or more, but 40 years will be
assumed. However most new plumbing,
especially for garden, fish tanks, and water recycling, would probably be poly
pipe, for which a 15 year lifetime has been assumed.
Pipes and fittings.
The tally is basically for household
gardening and it will be assumed here that 25% of food
by weight has to come from farms outside the
town (see the above food discussion.)
Pigface quantities pro-rated for the perhaps
20 people
its water systems could serve.
Poly pipe; a) 40-50 mm
100 metres = 5 m/pp, @
$1.50/m =
$7.50/pp
At 230 g/m = 1.5 kg, and 70 MJ/kg =
105 MJ/pp Assume 15 year lifetime =
$0.5/pp/y
7MJ/pp/y
b) 12 – 25 mm, 470 metres @ half
above costs =
$18/pp
At 115 g/m = 2.8
kg and 70 MJ/kg =
196 MJ/pp
Assume 15 year lifetime = $1.70/pp/y
20 MJ/pp/y
Steel pipe, taps and pipe fittings, plus estimate for brass and
copper, brass items (very approximate
estimate), plus plumbing
tools, including pipe threading dies, pipe
vice, thread seal, water
filtersÉ = 15 kg/pp =
750 MJ. If an average small
fitting
costing $1.50 weighs 0.120 kg, i.e., $12/kg,
15 kg costs =
$180/pp
Assume 40 year lifetime =
$45/pp/y
19
MJ/pp/y
Pumps:12 volt 6 amp plus intake filters
At Pigface Point about 7 pumps (12 volt) provide for about 7
people (for moving drinking
water, garden water, recycled
water etc.), but the system could
serve c. 20. Note that about half
these pumps are for irrigation
pumps have been accounted under food
production above.
Assume $350 per pump = $126/pp so for half the pumps
$63/pp
Assume 10 year pump lifetime
$6/pp/y
If 300 MJ for a pump (materials +
construction É no direct
evidence but a coffee maker is
184 MJ) = 2100 MJ =
105 MJ/pp/y, so for half 52
MJ/pp/y
Cement.
Difficult to estimate; assume
maintenance takes 10 bags
per household, (plus reinforcing
wire and sand @ 3 MJ/kg)
for mostly small tanks and ponds
around the household plus
its share of neighbourhood
commons ponds etc.) = 600 MJ = 222 MJ/pp
10 bags of cement, plus sand and
wire @ = $8/bag = $80 =
$30/pp
Assume annual maintenance need is
one 20 kg bag of
Cement per household p.a. (In an established
alternative
neighbourhood there should be
little need for cement due to
the long life of concrete
structures.)
0.2 MJ/pp/y
$3/pp/y
Plumbing cost summary.
Initial Restructuring costs:
Total for pipes and fittings, pumps, cement
from above; 366
MJ/pp
$362/pp
Annual equipment maintenance
costs: (Sum of above items.) 250
MJ/pp/y
Excluding irrigation pumps
dealt with under food 200
MJ/pp/y
$62/pp/y
TOOLS.
(Excluding food producing tools, dealt with
above under food production.)
I would
want to work mostly with hand tools, including for house building, furniture
and clothes making and food
production but some use of power tools makes sense. (The light machinery in my
workshop runs on 12 volt solar electricity.) Local firms and farms would need
some small engines, motors and machinery such as saw benches. Regional factories would make simple
robust, repairable, durable, mostly smallÉ stoves, fridges, radios, heaters, pumps,
tanks, furniture (although much of this would be home made) cutlery, crockery,
pots, pans, brooms (I would vote for no vacuum cleaner production, and for little
or no wall to wall carpet), garden tools, and bulk materials such as cloth,
timber and roof tiles.
The
national steel works would supply mostly small strip, rod, tube and angle,
galvanized iron, fencing wires and chicken wire netting, plus inputs to
hardware stores and tool factories (nails, boltsÉ). In other words there would be very
little production of heavy steel beams, pipes, plate, or castings, because
there would be little heavy industry or construction. There would be little need for
aluminium, copper, lead, zinc or special steels.
Larger
tools, such as lathes and drill presses would be available for anyone to use in
regional factories, community workshops and small firms.
Thus the
scale of manufacture and building would be enormously reduced, and therefore
the need for heavy machinery would be much reduced. We would need to produce very few if any
skyscrapers, big bridges, tunnels, silos, roads, freeways, aircraft and
airports, trucks, cars, ships, poets, cranes, mines, fork lifts and bulldozers. Remember there would be little need to
transport things into highly self-sufficient towns and regions, and little need
to travel far for work or leisure; see below. We would have some buses, a good
national and regional heavy and light rail system, and many bikes (and use of
horses for short distance cartage), but very few cars, and fewer aircraft and
ships. Because economies would not
be growing, construction would only be for maintenance and replacement buildings,
windmills, roads etc.
Following
is an almost complete list of workshop and garden tools used at
Pigface
Point. The workshop tool quantities
would be sufficient for perhaps
three
households or 10 people. Most of these items would need to be
produced
in regional factories, and perhaps a few in national factories. (The quantities,
embodied energy and dollar costs
for each item are estimated in: Local Economy Inventory: Dollar and Energy
Cost Assumptions.)
Hammers,
carpentry, heavy, sledge, tack
Axe
Bow saw,
blades
Carpentry
hand saw s
Cross
cut saw
Coping
saw
Hack saw,
blades
Pliers,
needle nose, normal, pincers
Crow bar
Post
hole augre
Screw
drivers,
Hand
drills, small medium, heavy
Woodworking
chisels
Cold
Chisels
Spanners
Wrenches,
small shifter, medium, heavy.
Punches,
-- centre, nail, leather
Pipe
vice.
Scissors
Scalpels
Knives
Scrapers
Tin
snips
Pallette/putty
knives
Taps and
dies, 3/16Ó, ¼Ó, 5/16Ó, 3/8Ó, ½Ó
Pipe
dies, ½Ó,3/4Ó, 1Ó
Pipe
vice
Clamps,
10?
Wrecking
bar, big, small
Files;
saw, wood and steel, rasps.
Planes.
Saw
setter
Glass
paper
Tin
snips
Glues
Glass
cutter
Soldering
kit
Gas
bottle, burner
Acid
Solder
Brazing, welding gear (in village
workshop)
Grease/oil
Polyester
+fiberglass
Nails,
screws, nuts and bolts (to ½Ó)
Steel
wire ropes
Block
and tackle, three set of double pulleys
Chain
Shackles,
thimbles, turnbuckles
Drill
bits
Needles
Car
jacks, block and tackles
Electric
bench grinder 12 v
(Home made.)
Electric
bench drill, 12 v. (Home made.)
12 volt
c. one-quarter h.p. motors.
At Pigface point four of these power a
lathe, drill, grinder, washing
machine, small bench saw, fire wood saw. (A
single motor can drive
several devices.) Assume $200 (new; small
units can be from car fans,
for $10) and 200 MJ each. Assume four are
sufficient for 15 people
and lifetime 20 years.
Totals.
Dollar and energy costs for each of the
above items are estimated in the Tool InventoryÉ The following summary
figures are from that document:
Motors Four c 240
W at $200 and 200 MJ each
$800
800 MJ
Assuming 15 people $53/pp
53 MJ/pp
Assuming 10 year life $5/pp/y
5 MJ/pp/y
Hand tools $2470
= 118 kg steel = 4,720 MJ
Assuming
15 people $165/pp
315 MJ/pp
Assuming 40 year lifetime $4/pp/y
8 MJ/pp/y
Total
household tools + motors
$3,270
5,520 MJ
$218/pp
$9/pp/y
13 MJ/pp/y
Tools at community level workshop.
Small metal working lathe.
$1500 = 50
kg steel
Wood turning lathe. (Home made .) $100 10 kg Ò
Heavier drill press. $200 20 kg Ò
Chainsaw $700 7 kg Ò
Brazing, welding gear $500 5 kg Ò
. Community workshop total
$3,000
92
kg steel =
3,680 MJ
Assuming
50 people use workshop tools
= $60/pp
73 MJ/pp
Assuming10 year lifetime = $6/pp/y
7 MJ/pp/y
Total home plus community workshop tools
$4,770
$278/pp
$15/pp/y
8,090 MJ
86 MJ/pp
15 MJ/pp/y
MATERIALS
Most buildings would be made from
earth, straw bales, stone, bamboo and wood. There would be little use of
energy-intensive metals and plastics.
The reduced quantities of glass, steel, cement (little use of aluminium)
might be produced regionally by solar and wind generated electricity in those
periods when there is surplus supply.
There would be intensive research into local plant sources for
chemicals, adhesives, medicines, paints, lubricants, fibres and fabrics. Most of the dangerous and pollution generating
synthetic chemicals in use today would not be necessary. Design would focus on minimising
problematic materials. For instance most furniture can be made without metal
fasteners, by use of dowelled and pegged wooden joints.
Timber would be a major material,
replacing most metals and plastics. It could all be produced by neighbourhood
mini-saw mills within and close by settlements, (e.g., old car engines running
on methane or ethanol.) Timber needs would be low in a
stable economy, called on only to maintain stocks of housing and
furniture. Some combined heating
and cooking would be by high-tech woods fires, in well insulated solar-passive
houses.
Some materials would be produced in bulk
in big regional or national factories, such as fabrics, metals, irrigation pipe
and chemicals, and distributed to many small factories, hardware stores and
workshops. Demand for paper would
be greatly reduced and might be met from local forests and recycling. Little high quality paper would be
needed given the general concern to have standards that are as low as possible
but sufficient. Eventually roofing iron would have been slowly replaced by
ceramic tiles made from local clay and wood-fired kilns.
Cement would be a problem, given that
it is such a valuable material enabling permanent structures, especially water
tanks, yet it is energy-intensive.
However the quantities needed would be small in view of the stable
infrastructure stock that only needed maintaining, not expanding. When a stable
settlementÕs infrastructure of water tanks and methane digesters had been
established there would be little further need to use cement. Little or no cement would be used in the
construction of high-rise buildings, big dams, bridges, airports, sewers, shipping
terminals, roads or freeways. Water can be stored in many small earthen dams
along water courses, with grassed spillways. These dams would also enable pumped
storage for electricity generation.
Leather might also set difficulties, in
view of the quantity of this valuable material that might be required in
relation to the much-reduced use of large animals for meat consumption.
Where meat from medium sized animals
such as pigs is eaten hides would be tanned for local use.
Fibres for clothing and bedding are
considered below under clothing.
Dollar and energy costs.
Quantities used have not been estimated
but they should be very low. They would be mostly for the relatively small
amount of maintenance needed in a stable settlement, and for arts, crafts and hobbies.
An interim assumption might be10 kg/person/y, or 200 MJ/person/y.
CLOTHING
Almost all the clothes worn could be
simple, tough, cheap and durable, old and much repaired. Few if any of us would
need to work in a suit or tie, let alone new clothes. One of my hobbies is darning and
repairing the old clothes I wear.
(My best jumper lasted 35 years, until a bushfire found it hanging on
the clothes line.) We might have a
few "nice" things for special occasions, but these need not be
expensive. I have one pair of "good" shoes, never wear a tie, haven't
worn a suit for about four decades, and wear the same old pair of mud and paint
stained trousers for weeks. Those
who were more interested than I am in ÒniceÓ clothes could of course make or
buy them as they wish but hopefully we would have the sense to scrap any notion
of fashion. Some people could
specialise in dress making and tailoring as a small business.
Old and worn out clothing items would
be recycled, sold via second hand shops or given away. Clothes making and
repairing would be much-enjoyed hobbies. A few small local firms might mass
produce some basic clothing items using wool and cotton fibres from more
distant farms, and some basic footwear. Factories would supply local hardware
shops and clothing makers with rolls of cloth, mostly of the basic kinds needed
to make tough every-day work clothes.
Our overall energy budgets would hopefully also allow production of less
essential materials for use by those interested in dressmaking etc., along with
the many materials hobbyists would wish to use. Some footwear can be made at home via
hobby production, especially slippers, sandals and winter Ugh boots. There would be a great deal of that
miraculous art form, knitting, using wool spun from the local sheep.
It is
possible that much of the bulk material needed could be produced locally. Firstly
it is important to keep in mind that most clothes would be few in number, tough
and much repaired. If my 35 year
old jumper is any guide, per capita wool need would be a small fraction of 1
kg/person/y, which might take 150 m2 of land (Éassuming 25 sheep/ha
and 3.2 kg clean wool/sheep/year, on typically poor soil.). Sheep would graze on commons, orchards
and in forest gardens. Cotton would require far less area. Given 2 t/ha/y
production and assuming 2 kg use per person per year (?), only 10 m2
per person would be needed. Other fibres including flax, hemp and sisal would
add a little to this area, and some of this would be imported from more distant
farms.
Research
is needed into the yields of many possible products from integrated,
multi-functional uses of land. For
instance what yields might be derived from a food forest providing fruit,
vegetables, timber, fuel wood, honey, animal grazing, poultry, sheep/wool,
nuts, water retention, medicines, windbreaks, coolness, mulch, fibres and
leisure? What savings could be made in the production of water, fertilizer,
pesticides and in the need for labour?
How would the total yield/ha compare with production of these outputs
from separate, distant areas under conventional agriculture?
Based on
my clothing and footwear use an uncertain annual expenditure estimate might be
$100/pp/y, mainly for sandshoes (to work in.) The Australian average spending on these
two items is $982 (sic!) (ABS, 2015.)
MANUFACTURED GOODS.
Most manufactured items would be
produced in households, neighbourhood workshops and small local firms, and they
would be produced in craft ways, not via industrial factories. Crockery
provides a good example. It should all be produced by hand within suburbs or
towns, from local clay, fired by wood grown there, and made by people who love
making pottery. How many new plates does a household need each year to replace
those broken? Again when a stable population and economy are assumed relatively
small volumes of replacement production would suffice.
Because people will not need to go out to work for money more than two
days a week there would be much time for interesting home and neighbourhood
craft productive activity. Being able to see local use of goods one has
produced adds to the sense of making a worthwhile and appreciated contribution.
Small regional factories (e.g., within
5 – 10 km) would produce bicycles, cutlery, pots and pans, roof tiles,
containers (although baskets would by made at the neighbourhood level from
rushes, willows and vines), nails, bolts, buckles, hacksaw blades, plate glass,
preserving jars, ladders, barrows, needles, tools, brushes, paint (from
vegetable and fish oils, milk, lime, earthen colours), beverages (juices, fruit
wines, beers and ciders), string and rope from yuccas and sisal, etc. and basic
appliances such as stoves, radios and fridges. There would be intensive
recycling, and items would be made to last and to be repaired. Only small quantities of items such as
electronic devices would need to be imported from the national economy.
Attention would go into developing
excellent designs for all things, especially models that would last a long time,
be easily repaired and save resources. Research would go into studying the
effectiveness of designs in use and improvements would be cumulative. At
present much design is shoddy, deliberately flimsy and unrepairable. There is too much innovation, for
instance of gimmicky trashy novelty products. Things are often designed to look
attractive but not be functional.
New products often fail to benefit from experience with older models.
Distant
imports?
The above discussion of materials,
building, tools, manufacturing, furniture and clothing indicates that some but
few items and materials would need to be produced at large and more centralized
locations and moved into the regions close to towns. These would include metals, (mostly
steel but a little aluminium, copper and zinc for galvanizing, bulk cloth,
maybe grains, and some chemical inputs.
The very few items imported long distances or internationally might
include high-tech equipment for health, research, electronics, communications,
IT, some manufactured products, but very little of these would be needed in
everyday life around a suburb or town.
The few sophisticated, specialized and
possibly big/centralized factories, e.g., to produce lathes and drill presses,
cloth, cement and steel, would be distributed throughout the nation to enable all
towns to contribute to national needs and earn the income they would need to
import basic necessities from other regions. International trade would be kept
as low as possible and confined to items that could only be produced within the
nation at great difficulty or cost. Even in a non-predatory global economy
trade is problematic because it involves high energy costs and loss of national
independence, self-sufficiency and resilience.
Some/many manufactured items might cost
much more than at present, given that they would be produced mostly in craft
ways, and that at present imports from the Third World are dollar cheap. This
would not be important as not much money would be needed to live well in The
Simpler Way, and dollar costs would not be overriding considerations.
Many productive enterprises would be
community owned cooperatives. A town or suburb that found it needed more eggs
or preserves or overalls might simply set up a non-profit operation to meet
this need. As is explained below things like this will be routine within the
new Economy B being built below the normal market economy, geared to meeting
needs with no concern whatsoever as to whether or not the activity could
compete successfully within the market economy. The town is simply organizing
its available productive capacity to produce things it needs.
WATER
Because the new agriculture would rely
heavily on permanent crops, especially trees, and relatively little meat would
be consumed, and all domestic water would be recycled to gardens, the water
demand associated with annual crops would be greatly reduced. Water would be
scrupulously harvested locally, from rooftops, catchments and creeks, there
would be intensive mulching, and all household water use would be recycled to
food production. There would therefore be little need for big dams, mains,
large pumping stations, and the bureaucracies to run them. Windmills and small electric pumps would
do most of the pumping of fresh and waste water.
Because all ÒsewageÓ would be dealt
with at the neighbourhood level, recycling all water and nutrients back to
local soils, there would be no need for large systems of mains and pumping
stations to deal with sewage. Composting toilets would cut water use and garbage
gas units would produce methane for use while both returned nutrients to
gardens. Settlements would be
landscaped to retain rainfall via earthen bunds, swales and ponds, eliminating
the need for concrete sewer and storm water drains and pipes. Storm runoff would be channeled above
ground to ponds and soak-in areas, where trees were planted. Few if any underground pipes, mains or
concrete works would be needed.
Above ground systems are easily monitored and repaired, unlike
underground systems. ÒKeylineÓ
swales running just below contour lines would carry water away from gullies to
storage and soak-in areas. The change to more vegetable and less meat consumption would help
as it can take 2,000
times as much water to produce a kilo of meat as it does to produce a kilo of
vegetables. (Diggers Seeds, undated, p. 32.) Where
possible redesign of settlements would catch water on the higher ground, feed
it by gravity to houses, then take nutrient-rich waste water further down to
orchards, pasture, ponds and farms, reducing the need for pumping energy. Runoff that could not be stored
would operate water wheels along gullies, performing functions that can be
carried out occasionally, such as mixing clay, shredding paper for paper
making, and sawing firewood.
The East
Hills average annual rainfall is 780 mm, meaning roofs catch 0.78 x 941 x 160 m2/y
= 117,000 m3/y, or 39 m3 person/y or 107
litres/person/day. This is far more than is needed for frugal within-house,
plus garden use. Diggers Seeds
estimates that their house roof collects three+ times as much water as the 34 m3
per person p.a. the vegetable and fruit garden needs. They estimate toilet, bathroom and
washing ÒwasteÓ water from the typical Australian household is 54 m3
per person p.a. My per capita within-house use is c. 35-40 l/d, or 13+ m3/y,
and much of this (toilet flush) is garden water pumped from a swamp, not drinking
water.
So
theoretically little water would need to be transported into the suburb. (Even during the 2007 drought only 1 – 4% of SydneyÕs
rainfall was collected and used.) The main problem would be storage rather than quantity available. Storage would theoretically only need to
be sufficient to hold the amount used by the time the next fall occurred to
refill storages. If top-up occurred
four times a year, storage would need to be 117,000/4 = 29,200 m3,
or 31 m3 per house. If
half of this was stored in community ponds, household cement tanks would need
to hold only c. 15 m3, i.e., one tank 3 m high and 3 m in
diameter. However from my household
experience considerably larger storage would be desirable for security through
the quite variable climate patterns in this locality. Annual climate
variability can change Australian biomass growth by a factor of 3. Evaporation
would need to be taken into account as it would make a significant difference
to retrievable pond storage.
An estimate of operational energy costs
for pumping based on my homestead might be (2 hours x75W)/d for house plus
garden water for three, so .05 kWh/pp/d, or under 0.2 MJ/pp/d.
There would be significant costs
involved in restructuring local water systems, such as for cement, reinforcing
rods, pipes and small pumps, especially for the construction of household and
community tanks and ponds. However
most of this could be done gradually by working bees, without machinery if
necessary.
TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL.
In the new economy of The Simpler Way there
would be little need for transport to get people to work, because much less
work in offices and factories would be done, and most work places would be
localised and accessible by bicycle or on foot. The few large factories would
be close to towns and railway stations.
A few cars, trucks and bulldozers would
be needed. The vehicles in most use would be bicycles, with some but relatively
little use of buses and trains.
Horses could be used for some transport, especially carting goods the
mostly short distances required, for instance from local farms. They consume no oil, refuel themselves, reproduce
themselves and do not need spare parts or expensive roads, and mostly repair
themselves although they do need the occasional vet. Most roads and freeways would be dug up
and the space used for gardens. The
concrete chunks can be recycled as building stone and bitumen lumps can stack
as animal pen fences. Railway and
bus production would be one of the few activities to take place in large
centralised heavier industrial centres.
Very few ships, large trucks or
aircraft would be produced because there would be little need for the transport
of goods or people over long distances. There would be little international
travel, partly because the fuel for that will in future be extremely scarce,
and secondly because there would be relatively little need for it. There would
be far less of that huge energy-intensive indulgent luxury that is travel for
leisure purposes. (Eight million
trips out of Australia every year.) If and when petroleum becomes very scarce
people will be jolted into understanding the unsustainability of the present
levels of travel, transport, trade and tourism. We might ration international
travel primarily for educational and cultural exchange purposes, so that you
might get one overseas trip in a lifetime. However we could bring back wind
ships, so you might study for your degree while on a leisurely trip around the
world.
The main reason why we would not travel
much for holidays is because there would be many interesting things to do
around the town or neighbourhood, or not far away. Our living places will be enriched as
places for spending entertainment, leisure and holiday time. (See Leisure below.)
If I was
living within a cluster of say five dwellings and in bicycling distance of tiny
town centre (e.g., community workshop, general store, library, five
businesses?) around a light railway stop within an hour of a regional town, I
would probably go to the town by train once a month and rarely hire a community
light vehicle. I would not travel
away for holidays. (I donÕt do that now, despite not having a local community
as a leisure resource.) The Australian average expenditure on holidays is
$1000/pp/y. (ABS, 2015.)
Energy costs.
As most
of the small amount of travel would be by walking, cycling and use of
horse/donkey and cart, one 20 km round trip per week by rail or bus to a larger
town will be assumed. Train or bus
efficiency is about twice the 11 km/l of a car, about a litre or 44 MJ/pp/week
would be needed, or 2,290 MJ/pp/y.
The few
goods that needed to be transported into town, assuming 10 kg per household per
week moving 20 km, would probably have a negligible energy cost, perhaps c. 2 MJ/pp/week
or 0.3 MJ/pp/d. (?) However in addition materials inputs to local production
such as steel and cement would need to be imported to local firms.
The total
is about 2.4 GJ/pp/y, and the dollar cost of travel and transport might be
$400/pp/y. The present Australian average per capita household transport energy
consumption is costing $4,014/pp/y. In addition there is transport of goods to
local shops. Household petroleum use
is 457 PJ, or 20 GJ/pp/y, around 10 times the above estimate for all transport
in an alternative settlement.
These
figures are uncertain but they do suggest that settlement restructuring could
cut per capita travel and transport energy use to the region of under 5% of
their present values. Transport energy demand is the category which
renewable energy sources will have their greatest difficulty meeting.
ÒWORKÓ
Because in
a Simpler Way society people would be content to consume only what is
sufficient, and because many goods and services could be acquired without money
from commons and via swapping and gifting arrangements people would need to go
to work for money only one or two days a week. They would enjoy working with friends,
in control of their contribution to meeting local needs, or running their own little
shop or farm, knowing they were helping to maintain a happy community. (This assumes considerable collective
control over the economy to make sure there is no growth, no significant
inequality, no unemployment, no poverty, that all have a worthwhile and
respected livelihood, and above all that top priority is given to meeting individual
and social needs. (For the detail
see TSW: The New Economy.) These conditions are not possible in competitive,
winner-take-all consumer-capitalist society.
On the
other five days a week people would be producing important things, for themselves
in their gardens and hobbies (e.g., knitting, pottery), in craft groups, and
for the community via the working bees, committees, volunteering at schools and
hospitals, organizing concerts, leisure activities and festivals. Thus much of their work time would also
be enjoyable leisure time, and the work/leisure distinction would largely
disappear.
PETS.
A
present large volumes of resources and energy are devoured by pets. They
consume a lot of food that humans can eat and take up many of the resources
going into veterinary science and services. In our new neighbourhoods there
will be many useful animals that can be pets, but there will be fewer cats and
dogs.
However
cats and dogs do add greatly to leisure etc. resources and some could be among
the luxuries our wealth enables.
They would not be fed on imported, tinned etc. food. One way to cut the pets per capita ratio
is to have community pets, e.g., a dog cared for and enjoyed by a group of
households.
CHILDREN
Éare
expensive! There are two ways to cut down on this huge outlay of dollars and
resources. The first is to have
less of them. A stable world
population requires an average of about 2 per family, but in the long run we
need to reduce world population significantly.
The
second strategy is as for pets above; share them! Seriously. In competitive, individualistic winner
take all consumer-capitalist society many people live in isolated circumstances
and do not have much access to others or to social activity and support. There is little community so a family is
the main source of support, but the only way to enjoy the benefits of family
experience is take on the huge task of setting up your own. Many people do not want to take on the
full load but would like to be a part-time granny or aunt or parent. In a stable supportive and cooperative
community we would work out various ways in which people could be informally
involved in the lives of the children of other people, sharing the work and the
ups and downs. This would be much
better for children, and for parents who would have others to help out. In addition there are the community
bonding benefits; remember that it takes a village to raise a child.
HEALTH AND
MEDICINE.
The far
more healthy circumstances in Simpler Way settlements would dramatically reduce
the incidence of mental and physical illness, and so the resources that would
have to be put into health. There
would be far less need for personnel, time, training, equipment and buildings,
saving a lot of energy and environmental impacts and freeing productive
capacity for other purposes.
To begin
with, most people would be much healthier than they are now due to the more
labour-intensive lifestyles and the high quality food. Even more important would be the
psychological factors, the elimination of insecurity, unemployment, poverty,
loneliness and stress, long work and travel times and the worry about housing
loan interest rates. (For a
detailed account of the Simpler Way alternative society see TSW: The Simpler
Way Alternative Society.) Everyone would experience a supportive and
cooperative community, a stress free and relaxed pace, interesting projects,
having a sense of purpose and being valued for making a worthwhile
contribution. Caring communities
would sense when someone was having difficulties and would seek to assist and
head off crises. This is what
happens in Ladakh, and some Eco-villages have Òvillage eldersÓ with whom one
can discuss problems. How high
would be the incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, crime, depression, domestic
violence, car accidents, eating disorders and random violence? There would be little or none of the
mindless drunken pub violence by young people who lack worthwhile interests and
purposes. There would be few of
these problems on indigenous settlements if people there had purposes,
productive activities and hobbies, and self-respect deriving from participating
in the running of a thriving, supportive and admirable community.
Health
and medical services would be mostly localised, but there would be a few
centralised and specialised teaching hospitals. Drugs and medical equipment might be
among the items still mostly produced far away and transported into
regions. Much of the increased R
and D effort (below) would go into medical research. Satisfactory health
provision by professionals would be organised primarily as a public service,
paid for generously by taxation, and geared primarily to prevention, rather
than cure.
One of
the many town committees would oversee health, keeping an eye on practices,
providing dietary and fitness advice, educating, and thinking about
preventative measures and what maximises good physical and mental health. Central on the agenda would be social
health; concern with indices of solidarity, crime, conflict, morale,
conscientiousness, readiness to help and turn up for working bees and concerts.
(Can you leave your bike unlocked in the street?)
So, for
a number of reasons overall health costs would surely be a tiny fraction of
todayÕs figure.
MEDIA AND
COMMUNICATIONS.
These
too should be largely localised, i.e., providing important local information
and facilitating discussion of local issues, while also relaying national and
international news and information from a few more centralised sources. The
suburb, town and region should be our cognitive centre of gravity, not the
distant national or international arena, let alone the trivia provided by the
global corporate media networks. A local community cannot run well unless there
is a great deal of discussion, sharing of ideas, sorting out of the best
options and awareness of how arrangements are working out. When difficult decisions have to be made
all this contributes to the gradual movement towards consensus on whatÕs best
for the town. Much of this
communication, clarification and learning will take place informally but good
local media, especially locally made radio programs, will be important in
facilitating the awareness that is crucial for collective decision making and
in reinforcing social cohesion.
Media would also be powerful educational instruments, constantly
presenting informative material on ideas, technical ways and innovations.
Much
program material would come from citizens, as distinct from being prepared by a
few professionals. Many talks and
interviews would come from local gardeners, craftspeople, experts and scholars.
We would elect the voluntary boards of directors, and be able to observe and
feedback on their deliberations. There would be no advertisements, but there
would be elaborate ways of conveying information on new ideas, products, events
etc. Much of the ÒworkÓ would be voluntary. Polished presentations would not be
important because as with most things the concern would be what is sufficient,
good enough, not what is the best, most slick and polished.
The
significance of TV and IT would decline markedly. People would find much more worthwhile
and interesting things to do with the time they now spend watching TV. (The Australian per capita average is three
hours a day.) Radio would be the
main medium. It is relatively cheap
to produce and can be listened to while doing other things. Yet TV could have
an important educational function and elaborate programs on other countries and
cultures would help to satisfy some of the present desire for travel.
Use of
papers and magazines could be cut dramatically, replaced by electronic sources.
Many people could be engaged in providing entertainment, arts, documentaries,
reports, etc., whereas at present global corporations send a relatively few
programs worldwide, employing a relatively few super-stars and creative
people. Global media send the same
news and information material out to everyone, so canÕt deal with the issues
that are only of interest to your suburb or town.
All
important media would be publicly owned and run, mostly via local cooperatives,
as distinct from being privately owned.
Media provide possibly the most important public services; everything
depends on how well informed, thoughtful and caring publics are, and on how
well issues are analysed and understood.
It is therefore crucial that media should be seen as our agencies for
providing these vital public services, and be regulated carefully by us, be
fully visible and accountable, and ultimately under the oversight of town committees
and meetings. It is not acceptable
that they be owned by a distant corporation and operated to maximize itsprofits
and political influence.
What
about the IT realm? DoesnÕt a
sophisticated modern society have to be heavily dependent on computers, complex
communications systems, satellites, highly trained scientists and wizard
technologists? The Simpler Way
would make whatever use of this realm was appropriate, and it would be of
importance for many functions, but it would not have anything like the
centrality it has today. It would
have an important role in research, medicine, data storage, access to
information, education, etc. but the need for it in business, accounting,
media, leisure and everyday life would be greatly reduced. Most systems would not be large and
complex. No IT would be needed for most household and local production and
small firms and farms probably would not even need a computer. Relatively little leisure time would be
spent in front of one. There would
be IT available in neighbourhood workshops. IT is very energy expensive, takes
a lot of talent that could be doing other things, and a high proportion of it
produces trivial rubbish. If the
worst came to the worst and the satellites could not be kept up there or the
computer factories could not be maintained, we could get by well without
computers. Just reflect on how good
life could have been with 1960s technologies, assuming a rational and caring
economy. Most of the above listed
productive activities such as food and furniture production could take place
quite well without any IT. We were
able to make beautiful dinners, houses, clothes, furniture, festivals, public
buildings, communities and concerts in the 1960s without it, indeed were able
to do those things well in the 1760s!
Thus there
would be far less demand for computers and similar complicated devices. These would still be made in high tech
factories, located in a few places in the world and would be among the
relatively few things that would need to be traded internationally.
CAPITAL,
BANKING.
Nowhere
are the implications of a zero growth and de-developed economy more profound than
for the finance industry, because there would hardly be one. In a stable or
zero-growth economy the only reason for investment would be to maintain a
stable productive capacity as old premises and equipment needed replacing, or
converting to different purposes. This could include developing new and better
bakeries to replace old ones, and it could involve increasing the number of
bakeries while reducing the number of dairies, but the aggregate volume of
capital invested would not change over time. This could not possibly be done well by
a free market. It can only be the result of rational community decision making
and control.
So,
there goes almost the whole of the finance industry, presently taking up a huge
amount of personnel, premises, equipment, paper etc. that could be saved and/or
allocated to better uses. (For the detail see TSW: The Economic System: 3. Money.)
The role
of banks would be limited to providing a safe deposit site for savings, and
making available small amounts of capital for development limited to renewing
or revising infrastructures. The
bank should be a core public institution within the town, owned by the town and
run by elected boards with open public meetings on all important issues,
including formation of policy and making particular loan proposals. (The Spanish Mondragon bank provides the
classic example.) Town banks would
decide what socially desirable purposes the townÕs capital would be lent for,
referring the important cases to town meetings. By contrast the present financial system
allows The townÕs money to be lent only to those purposes which distant private
banks expect to maximise their global profits, meaning that communities are
starved of the investment they need.
In
addition we could largely eliminate the vast flow of wealth to the rich in the
form of interest on loans. Kennedy
(1995) estimates that perhaps one-third of every dollar we spend goes to pay
interest to those who have lent capital.
In a sane
and just zero growth economy loans would be repaid without any interest. It
would not be regarded as acceptable that people who are rich can receive money
just by lending money at interest, when most people cannot do that and have to
work for their incomes, producing things the rich consume without having to
work. Many have insisted that money
should not be a commodity, something that can be hired for a fee, i.e.,
something that is lent to be repaid with interest. Thus it would be clearly understood that
when the community bank offers a loan to build a house the money is only a way
of recording the fact that the community is allowing the use some of its
forests, mud, labour and skills to build the house, (and some of its
accumulated capacity to purchase inputs into the town, built up by town
exports). The understanding would
be that the borrower will repay this value and no more from his contributions
and earnings in future. Obviously
the bank must be a community-owned and run institution because when it grants
loans it is determining what will be done, built, developed in the community
using the communityÕs resources. At
present that power is in the hands of distant, predatory banks with no interest
in developing whatÕs best for your community.
The
finance industry presently imposes an enormous cost drain on society. Interest
for instance feeds into, and compounds, the cost of everything we buy. It was noted above that decades ago Kennedy
estimated that on average interest makes up 40% of every price we pay; it would
probably be a higher figure now. (Kennedy, 1995.) In The Simpler Way most of
the goods and services we receive would not involve money, and those that did
would not involve an interest payment.
Our very small earth-built houses would involve almost no loans or
thirty year worries about being able to repay them. Bank charges and fees would only need to
meet the cost of providing the services; they would not be opportunities for
banks to load up fees and charges to the maximum. (On average Australians pay $1000 p.a.
each in bank profits alone.) Some bank personnel would be employees but many
could be voluntary. Members of the
board, and of the town business incubator, would be elected volunteers.
Similar
considerations would apply to insurance.
This too should be a community controlled public service, organised to
provide security at minimal cost and not to make profits. Insurance payments would be much lower because
property would be less expensive. (Houses built of earth have low fire risk.) Far less paid work, especially in
dangerous situations like steel works, mining, agribusiness and multi-story
building construction, would need to be insured. The main source of insurance would be,
as in any tribe, community solidarity.
If the wind blows your roof off everyone will be around immediately to
help fix it.
Thus
most of the present huge expenditure associated with finance could easily be
eliminated.
RETIREMENT AND
OLD AGE.
Older,
experienced people would be highly valued contributors to production and more
importantly to social functioning, given their wisdom and their knowledge of
local people, conditions and history.
There would be no compulsory retirement age, and few would retire in the
normal sense. People could slowly
phase down their level of activity as they wished. Most would want to remain active
contributors, rather than cease ÒworkingÓ.
This would ensure that the community continued to benefit from that
great deal of productive time, expertise and experience that is now wasted,
especially the wisdom of the elders who know the town and its history and can
provide good advice.
Much of
the care of older people would be carried out by the community via the
committees, working bees, rosters and the informal involvement of people. With
five days a week to spare many people would drop in frequently to chat and help
out. Old people would be able to
remain in their homes much longer, there would be little need for retirement
ÒhomesÓ and specialised staff.
There would be small local hospitals and nursing facilities close to
where people had lived, set within the busiest parts of settlements so people
could drop in and so that residents could see and be involved in activities
around them. Much of the ordinary
work and care would be provided ÒfreeÓ via the community working bees. We might pay some of our town taxes by
signing up for extra rosters.
The
experience of old, infirm, mentally and physically disadvantaged, and mentally
ill people would be far better than it is now. They would be cared for by familiar
people right in the middle of their communities, able to observe and be
involved in the everyday activities going on around them. There are many valued
contributions they can make, such as feeding the chickens. Visitors would be
wandering in to hospitals and nursing homes from the town, especially at
morning and afternoon tea time.
Compare the way present society isolates these people in expensive
institutions with nothing to do or to be involved in or contribute to. ÒInmatesÓ are often intensely bored,
lonely and convinced they are worthless burdens. Then expensive professional staff have
to be paid for to deal with the consequences. As with ÒhealthÓ the corporations
have pounced on abundant opportunities for lucrative business. In a good community many functions are
carried out automatically and without monetary cost, but in consumer-capitalist
society these are no longer provided by ordinary people and are commodified and
commercialized, generating sales and siphoning the savings of aged people into
pockets of shareholders in health-provider corporations.
Old
people would have watertight guarantees of lifetime security, unlike today
where oneÕs fate depends on the skill (and honesty) of oneÕs retirement fund
manager in a predatory financial world that can collapse and eliminate oneÕs
retirement savings overnight.
Communities would have most of the responsibility for looking after all
their members, including young, ill, handicapped, mentally unwell, old and
infirm. (This was the arrangement
in Medieval Europe, before the advent of individualism and market
society.) This is not to say that
the remnant state would have no responsibilities in this area but state
resources for such functions will be limited, and states canÕt do the job as well
as we can. More importantly, as has
been explained, in a zero-growth economy provision for old age cannot come from
interest on superannuation investments.
A
problem to be worked out would be provision for people who have not lived in
the town for long and have not yet accumulated much respect, appreciation and
Òspiritual creditÓ. However
settlements would be more stable than at present, with less mobility in and
out, reducing the problem somewhat.
Some arrangements for national accounting and transfers of resources
between settlements and ÒsuperannuationÓ arrangements making savings
transferrable would be needed.
LAW.
There
would be very little need for legal work compared with present society which is
riddled with struggles and disputes generated by competition for markets,
development approvals, property, rights, and wealth. The climate would be cooperative, not
adversarial. Wealth and property
would not be so important to people.
The stability of the economy would mean that many legal problems that
presently derive from competition for development opportunities would not
arise. Above all it would be a far less complex society, requiring far less
bureaucracy, economic transactions, formal arrangements, disputes, accidents
and bungles. (A good society has little bureaucracy, law or charity.)
Most
important is the fact that because all would be provided for, i.e. all would
have a livelihood and a productive role, and because there would be no
unemployment, exclusion, poverty or disadvantage, then most of the forces
generating crime in the present callous winner-take-all society would have been
eliminated. For large numbers of
people today it is extremely difficult or impossible to get a livelihood, a job
or a small business. It is no
wonder therefore that many end up stealing cars or mugging people, or selling
shonky products, or that many give up hope and take to alcohol or drugs. Large numbers are ÒexcludedÓ. A civilized society would have as a top
priority making sure everyone was provided for, which includes having a livelihood,
a worthwhile, enjoyable contribution to make.
Each
town would establish systems of mediation and Òvillage eldersÓ, so that if
conflicts began to emerge experienced people could informally help to sort them
out (without any fees!) If you have
a problem you might go to some of them to chat it over. These are the practices
in many Eco-villages and tribal societies.
The
savings The Simpler Way would produce in the legal domain would be
astronomical. How many
police, courts, prisons, judges, barristers or parole officers would we need if
all people had a role, a worthwhile and respected contribution to make in
caring communities? How much
collateral damage and self destruction would be avoided? Would we need as much as 5% of the legal
industry we have today?
EDUCATION
In The
Simpler Way education has very different goals and procedures compared with
consumer society. (See TSW: Education;
A Radically Critical View. and TSW: Education in the Alternative Society.)
Education would not be about competing for the credentials that might guarantee
jobs and privileges in consumer society.
It would be about enabling an enjoyable, meaningful life as a citizen
contributing to a good community. The main implication for the present
discussion is that there would be a greatly reduced dollar cost, deriving from
the fact that most education would take place in the community as children
worked with adults performing the important every-day tasks needed to keep the
community functioning well.
Although much attention would be given to the educational progress of
each individual child, involving (a small number of) professional ÓteachersÓ,
there might not need to be any schools.
The whole community would continually be teachers, (and learners) and the
town would be the ÒclassroomÓ. There would probably be important roles for some
professional educators, but ordinary citizens would do most of the educating.
Education
has little to do with training, which is what mostly takes place in schools and
universities today. The training of
trades and professional people is important and might take place in much the
same way that it does today, but far fewer such people would be needed. With much simpler systems many trade
level tasks would be carried out by ordinary handymen (I do all my own
plumbing, machinery maintenance, metal work, fencing, painting, carpentry and
building, plant propagation, electrical installation and maintenance, etc.) In
an economy with mostly simple technologies and nowhere near as much production
or heavy industry nor as many sophisticated global systems, there would be far
less need for highly sophisticated technocrats (let alone lawyers, financial
consultants, accountants, security analysts, marketing experts, IT experts, CEOsÉ)
Our
educational institutions could then focus on Education (as distinct from mere
training), but this can be organized effectively without expensive plant or
systems of professional experts; think Wikipedia plus discussion groups,
visits, field days, well-read citizens and access to local gurus and art and craft
wizards, overseen by the townÕs culture, leisure and wisdom committee. (Again see the detailed discussion in
TSW: Education in the Alternative Society.)
WELFARE
Because
there would be little or no crime, stress, depression, unemployment or poverty,
the incidence of social breakdown and therefore the need for ÒwelfareÓ services
would be greatly reduced. In
healthy communities most of the needs of those people who do run into
difficulties are met or headed off spontaneously by ordinary citizens, as
distinct from by expensive professionals and institutions.
GOVERNMENT.
A major
element in The Simpler Way is the devolvement of most governing to the level of
the neighbourhood, suburb, town and region, and mostly to informal processes
that do not involve bureaucracy or paid professionals. Dollar costs would be a minute
fraction of present levels.
LEISURE.
Leisure
is a major dollar and resource cost item in consumer society, and a major source
of savings in The Simpler Way. It
has been partly dealt with above, in terms of having leisure-rich communities
and a lot of time to pursue leisure interests within them. At present leisure time is mostly spent
in the passive consumption of momentary experience provided by corporations or
professionals, especially via TV and IT, in travel or consuming goods and
services. The quality of most of
this material is ÒspirituallyÓ negligible if not negative, evident in the
mindless TV soap operas, game shows and crime dramas, and especially the
violence and destruction in computer ÒgamesÓ. Much leisure time and expenditure at
present goes into purchasing; shopping is a form of entertainment, including the
purchase of expensive luxuries, clothes, tickets to rock concerts and
gladiatorial sporting events.
Simpler
Way settlements and lifestyles are very rich in resource-cheap leisure activities. Any town or suburb includes many very
talented musicians, singers, storytellers, actors, comedians and playwrights,
presently unable to do their thing because the globalised entertainment
industry only needs a few super-stars.
These people will thrive, having several days a week to practise their
art and being appreciated for their (largely unpaid) contributions to the many
local gatherings, concerts and festivals. The corporate entertainment industry
has taken all the entertaining business (just as the supermarkets have killed
off most of the little community-reinforcing shops), and can provide access to
the worldÕs best performers at the flick of a switch. This debauches; people come to be
dissatisfied with anything but the very best, and expect immediate
inconvenience-free access. Long ago
you would undertake a difficult pilgrimage to experience great art, and then
really appreciate it.
Much
more leisure time will be spent in creative and social activities, as distinct
from the increasingly private involvement in computerised leisure pursuits
today. In addition much leisure
time will be spent in productive activities, such as gardening, making things
and arts and crafts. In other words leisure will often involve negative dollar
costs. And much leisure time will be spent reading, thinking and learning, discussing
community issues, and doing formal courses. We will have the time to work on the
issues that are important in our personal and community development.
The
community would be a spontaneous leisure resource. A walk around the town would involve one
in conversation, observations of activities in familiar firms, farms and
mini-factories, and the enjoyment of a beautifully gardened landscape. Contributing to working bees would be enjoyable. Then there would be the festivals,
celebrations, concerts, visits, dances and field days. The local media (mostly
radio) would further enhance leisure resources.
In these
new enriched physical and cultural landscapes there would be far less interest
in the purchase of leisure or entertainment services. People would be busy with interesting
tasks and projects, especially gardening, arts and crafts, and would be
involved in many community activities.
We would
have leisure and cultural committees organizing a rich variety of interesting
activities. They would surprise us
with novel adventures and mystery tours. They would work out low-cost options,
such as hiring a gypsy carriage and a horse to go on a plodding tour following
a map of a scenic route, stopping at quaint old inns, craft centres, galleries
and wildlife-rich camping spots. Thus it is likely that there would be far less desire than there is now
to purchase leisure and entertainment.
These
many sources of local leisure interest would make it possible to drastically
reduce travel for holidays, and especially to more or less eliminate the astronomical
sums of energy and resources going into overseas travel and the tourism
industry. This will strike most
people today as unacceptable and unrealistic but remember that tourism is an
extreme luxury that can be indulged in by only about one-fifth of the worldÕs
people while they rip through far more than their fair share of world
petroleum. Although I have no access to a leisure rich locality my leisure,
sport, recreation and holiday expenditure is virtually zero; I do not leave
home for holidays and I regard all the ÒworkÓ I do every day around the
homestead as enjoyable ÒleisureÓ activity.
Thus for
many people the dollar, energy and resource costs of leisure could be reduced
to negligible amounts. Most would spend little on travel. Hobby, art and craft materials would
involve negligible expenditure. An
overall tally would be difficult to estimate because as has been noted much
leisure activity should also be accounted under ÒworkÓ or productive activity. Australian per capita expenditure on recreation,
sport and holidays is around $3,900/pp/y. (sic!) (ABS. 6530. 2015.)
SPORT.
It is
likely that in the restructured settlements much less time and expenditure
would be given to sport and associated activities such as the media attention it
gets. This would mainly be because
in the enriched environments people would be involved in many other interests,
especially those providing physical activity such as gardening. There would be no need for a fitness
industry, with its mirror-lined and polished floor gymnasiums, equipment,
advisers, programs, magazines, gurus...or the medical expenditure to deal with sports
injuries. The necessarily cooperative ethos in a highly self-sufficient
self-governing community would reduce interest in competing, so to some extent ÒsportÓ
would probably be replaced by games, activities such as bushwalking, dancing
and adventures organized by the leisure committee. The vast industry around energy-squandering,
spectator-passive elite/gladiatorial sport would probably disappear; the globe
trotting super stars, sports journalism, sports medicine, sports psychology,
huge stadiums with their implications for parking, travel, hot dogs, rubbish...
Australian
expenditure on sport is around $8.2 billion/y, or $356/pp/y. (CSIRO Futures,
2013.) (It has been estimated that
each Olympic gold medal won costs Australians $50 million in tax dollars
alone.)
WORKING BEE LABOUR AVAILABLE.
In the
suburb of East Hills there are probably 2,500 adults plus children old enough
to contribute to voluntary working bees.
If 80% of them turned up to a one hour working bee each week, then 2,000
person-hours per week could be going into community production, maintenance,
services, development and
activities. This is equal to having
50 people working full time, or one for each three hectares. At present Council labour going into
maintenance within the suburb would be a tiny fraction of this amount.
If many people
moved to part-time paid work, and if informal Òdrop-in and help-outÓ activity
was included, the total work time for community operation, maintenance and
development could be many times this total. In a well-established alternative
economy, as on many Eco-villages today, the per capita time that could be
comfortably given to community maintenance and production could be several days
a week.
Some of
this time would be spent on committees, such as for agriculture, youth affairs,
care of aged and disabled, leisure activities, infrastructure maintenance and
working bee coordination. Within
some of these domains there would be specialist sub-committees, such as for
fruit and nuts, water supply and recycling, food preserving, recipe
development, bee keeping, fish production, poultry, forestry and especially for
research into many topics such as the best local plant varieties to grow.
These
working bee and committee functions would be crucial not just for achieving
technical goals such as ensuring good food supply, but for the maintenance of
high levels of solidarity, mutuality, social consciousness and responsibility,
and morale, pride and empowerment.
They are central within the procedures which require and reinforce the
sense that we are taking control of our fate and running our town to provide
well for all, and we are proud of our town and how we run it to look after
everyone well. These understandings
and attitudes would be strongly reinforced by our realisation that our welfare
depends primarily on how well we do these things. If we do not all think about the welfare
of the town and turn up to working bees then things will not work so well and
our own welfare as individuals will suffer.
QUALITY OF LIFE, COMMUNITY.
East
Hills is a typical dormitory suburb, with almost no discernible community. Few people living there today would have
any association or interaction with any others in the suburb. There is a hotel,
only about six shops, a garage, and a dentist, but there is no shopping centre
enabling informal contact and familiarity. Team sports are played on the main
park area but this is on an edge of the suburb and much of its activity seems
to be hired use by distant clubs.
There is a Scout hall but there seem to be no sporting or other clubs or
associations based within the suburb.
The streets are almost completely deserted almost all the time, apart
from the people walking to and from the railway station. Many roads serve only as driveways
between houses and through roads.
The
suburb provides a classic example of the damage ÒdevelopmentÓ does to millions
of villages around the world. The
extension of the railway some decades ago involved bulldozing the whole of the
main street, obliterating the town centre including perhaps fifteen shops. The few remaining businesses illustrate
the typical pathetic wreckage left by Òthe death of the high streetÓ, the
struggling two dollar junk shop, the boarded up shops, the garage frequently
unable to afford petrol to sell, the hair dresser, the mall with only two shops
open. Apart from the garage, the
small take away shop, and the dentist, none of the businesses provide basic
services such as vegetables, groceries, butcher or hardware. In Britain the typical
high street now contains many betting shops, op-shops, beauty salons, small
fast food outlets, boarded up bankrupt premises Éand so many coffee shops that
they employ more people than there are in the British army!
Community
is a much neglected and little understood phenomenon. It is an extremely important factor in
the quality of life, and the viability of a society. It cannot be given, purchased, or
imposed. It cannot be artificially created, either by external planners or
officials, or by enthusiastic social workers out to stimulate community. ThereÕs no point trying to whip it up by
publicity campaigns or street parties.
It can only emerge as a consequence of the economic, geographical and
social conditions and forces people experience, conditions which throw
people together and generate interaction, familiarity, sharing, cooperation,
helping, trust, pride, giving and receiving, social debts, gratitude,
reciprocity, mutual concern, feelings of security and connection, and thinking
about the welfare of the locality. The revised suburb described above would
subject people to experiences, forces, obligations, conditions, delights etc.
which would automatically produce these ÒspiritualÓ effects. These would be the most important
elements in the high quality of life the new suburb would extend to all.
ENERGY
Far less
energy would be required compared with the present society. This would firstly be because there would
be far less producing and consuming going on, and because much of what remained
would be carried out without heavy industry, ships, aircraft, trucks, storage,
marketing, machinery, and especially with nowhere near as much transport. We would be living in solar passive mud
brick houses, recycling, getting to work on a bike, with close access to local
sport, cultural and leisure facilities and therefore not traveling much for
leisure. Most of our economy would be localised, eliminating most travel to
work and most transportation of goods.
The reasons why the agricultural sector would use little energy have
been explained above.
Heating
and cooling is the biggest item in the present Australian household energy
budget, taking about 38%, or around 7.7 GJ/pp/y. In new dwellings good solar
passive design of buildings made from earth should eliminate almost all demand
for heating and cooling in the region of Sydney latitudes, apart from special
needs such as in hospitals and aged care facilities. Existing dwellings should
be insulated well and people should be much more prepared to rug up for cold
weather and to put up with hot weather. Shaded cool green areas such as ferneries
fitted with simple sprinklers can be resorted to on extremely hot days. The
much reduced ÒworkÓ week would enable activities to be postponed during very
hot and cold spells.
My (poorly
insulated) house uses no energy for cooling and space is heated by about 250 kg
of firewood per person per winter, i.e., c. 4.5 GJ/y. (Note that this is
ÒprimaryÓ energy, so it corresponds to about 1.25 GJ of ÒfinalÓ energy compared
with that Australian 7.7 GJ/pp above.) Open fires are very inefficient so the
heat going into the house would be a small fraction of 4.5 GJ/y. If it was 0.5
GJ/y then an electric heat pump might need to consume only 200 MJ/pp/y.
Space
heating fires can also be used for cooking and to heat water for showers and
washing up. Electric powered heat pumps can deliver about four times the energy
in the form of heat that they consume, so would have a valuable role, including
reducing smoke from use of wood for heating. Heat can be stored in water tanks
so could be accumulated during sunny periods.
Much of
our energy would be produced locally, from windmills, watermills, garbage gas
digesters, solar panels, and biomass sources of fuel and ethanol for
vehicles. These sources would be
augmented by some larger scale regional wind farms, PV and solar thermal fields,
etc., via (much reduced) grids.
Horses and donkeys, mainly used for the small amount of ploughing and
local carrying, in a society where the pace was much more relaxed, and would
also provide some recreational functions.
Cooking might make considerable use of wood and of biogas fuel from
methane digesters taking wastes on their way to the gardens.
Stirling
heat engines driven by solar reflectors or wood fuel could power some machinery
(e.g., saw mills), and generate electricity. Most of the wood cutting, pumping,
electric welding and freezer boosting would be carried out when the sun or the wind
was high. The many small local dams, and possibly compressed hydrogen, might
enable most of the (much reduced) electricity storage required.
Extensive
forests would surround and permeate our settlements, providing some energy
including space heating, wood-fired electricity and small quantities of ethanol
or methanol for transport. Candles and lanterns using bees wax and vegetable
oils would meet some lighting needs. (Candles can provide good reading light
when backed by parabolic reflectors made from pieces of broken mirror. Gas
light candles can be fuelled by methane digesters.)
A
significant proportion of the small quantity of energy needed would come from
porridge. That is human energy
would power many functions now performed by machinery, notably food production,
construction, travel and transport (bicycles), manufacture (craft), and various
infrastructure works (working bees with shovels rather than bulldozers.) There
would be Ònegative costsÓ in terms of enjoyment, social interaction, and
especially physical exercise.
It is
difficult at this stage to estimate the amount of electricity that would need
to be imported to the town from the national grid. Space heating, cooling and refrigeration
are the main problems. Pigface Point uses about 8.3 W, or 0.2 kWh/pp or 0.7
MJ/pp of electricity a day, for all purposes including lights, computer,
workshop machinery, water pumps (and could also run a small TV for another 0.05
kWh/d.). Many of these functions,
for instance lighting could serve several people in the house at the one time, so
the per capita household average could be well below the 0.2 kWh/d that will be
assumed. Total power consumption at
Pigface Point therefore approximately corresponds to 71 kWh/pp or 255 MJ/pp/y.
The present
Australian household electricity consumption, 217 PJ/y, is 9.4 GJ/pp/y
or 2,610 kWh/y, i.e., more than 10 times as much as the Pigface Point figure,
but it would include some cooking, refrigeration, heating and cooling, and many
appliances I do not use such as iron, TV, vacuum cleaner, floor polisher, or normal
washing machine (mine is powered by a 72 W car fan motor), space heating, and electronic
gadgets (apart from laptop and radio.) Total energy (non transport) consumption
at Pigface Point is 2,000 MJ/pp/y. Note that the four PV panels (c. 320 W in
all) produce around 320 kWh/pp/y, i.e., 1,145 MJ/y, which is about 4.5 times as
much electricity as the 71 kW/y needed.
Refrigeration
is problematic, because it is quite energy intensive. The easy access to fresh
local produce will greatly reduce the need for food preservation, especially by
cooling and refrigeration. Some use would be made of evaporative cooling cabinets
(ÒKoolgardie safesÓ) and community refrigerators located close by within house
clusters. An uncertain estimate based on a 12 volt fridge is 3 amp x15 hrs/d
for 5 people, i.e., 39 kWh/pp/y or 140 MJ/pp/y.
In the
town, sawmilling, water pumping and boosting of community freezers would be
carried out when the sun or wind was high.
Local solar panels and windmills might be able to provide most/all
electricity needed, if local pumped storage and maybe hydrogen storage could
deal with intermittency. Hydrogen storage is very inefficient but avoids
battery problems, especially their need for scarce materials. Electric heat
pumps would be used extensively.
However some use of renewable energy coming in to the town via the old
grid is likely.
Cooking
is not a major problem as it only uses 4% of present household energy. A significant amount of cooking might be
done by wood stoves fitted with water jackets and contributing to space
heating. A small quantity of
methane for quick kettle boiling could come from community digesters taking
biomass and wastes. Communal wood-fuelled earth ovens would be used for the
bi-weekly community bake-up, especially making bread. There are cooking stoves that use solar
heated oil but materials costs etc. have not been explored here. Reduced meat consumption and increased
use of fresh fruit, vegetables and salads would reduce cooking energy and
refrigeration demand. Open-fire and
slow combustion space heating stoves can also be used for some cooking. However the main option would probably
be ÒinductionÓ cook tops, powered by the 240v local AC grid, into which local
renewables could feed, augmented when necessary from the remnant more distant
grid. PV panels might be located on rooftops, using that space, while feeding
into the 240V AC grid.
Hydrogen
produced from surplus wind and solar energy seems to be a very inefficient and
costly storage option for very large scale energy supply in energy-intensive
societies. However for the
settlements we are considering it might be effective enough, again in view of
the very low need for liquid or gaseous fuel for transport or need for energy
storage, its relatively simple technology and the scarcity of wood fuel. Fuel
cells seem undesirable in view of their need for problematic catalysts but
hydrogen can be burnt in internal combustion vehicle engines, and in rapid
response gas turbines for electricity generation.
Embodied
energy for energy producing plant is an important issue but will not be
estimated at this point in time. It might not be substantial, given a possibly
30 year plant life for the above equipment, and the assumption that embodied
energy costs might be equivalent to around 5 – 10% of the energy
renewables produce in their lifetime.
TOWARS DOLLAR AND ENERGY BUDGETS FOR A SIMPLER WAY SETTLEMENT.
The
following tables summarise the above dollar and energy cost estimates.
Dollar
costs.
Production costs Equipment costs Present Australian
Average.*
Food. (Purchased items.)
$1,026/pp/y
$4,264
Cooking.
$1,320
pp/y $,4628
Water
heating.
$100
pp/y
Fridge $420
pp/y
Space
heating. $133
pp/y
House
construction $63/pp/y
Household
equipment. $165/pp/y
Transport
$1,160
Pumbing
and irrigation (Excl. food prod.)
$62/pp/y
Workshop
tools $15/pp/y
Materials
Clothing
and footwear $730
Leisure $3,432**
Energy $1,926
Total: (For the limited number of items assessed),
$2,918/pp/y
Current Australian average expenditure on
household goods and services:
$26,780/pp/y.
*
ABS: 2009, Cat.6520.
** Includes sport, recreation, and holidays.
ABS. 6530. 2015.
Energy costs. (MJ/pp/y)
Production/operating
costs Equipment
costs Present
Australian
Average.
Food
production. 20
60
Cooking.
1,320
Water
heating.
100
Fridge 420
Space
heating. 133
House
construction 74
Household
equipment. 300
Transport
2,400
Pumbing
and irrigation 366
Workshop
tools 15
Materials
200
Clothing
100
Leisure
Total:
5,538 MJ/pp/y = 1,538 kWh/pp/y.
;.
Almost
half this sum is for transport. The
remainder, 2,846 MJ/pp/y, is about 14% of the present average household
non-transport energy consumption of approximately 20,000 MJ/pp/y, which does
not include any embodied energy costs. (Dept. Env., Water, Heritage and Arts,
2008, Department of Industry and
Science, 2015, p. 15.)
Note
that in addition there would be very large energy savings beyond the household
and the settlement due to the localization of production underlying the above
settlement figures, the huge reduction in consumption of goods produced
nationally and internationally, and thus the phasing down of industries and the
complete phasing out of many. It is likely that present national energy demand
could be cut to well under 10% of present levels.
DISCUSSION OF IMPLICATIONS
This
exploration of restructuring and reducing possibilities indicates that the Simpler
Way could enable a reduction in the order of 95% in energy and dollar terms.
Consider:
á
The reduced need for effort to fix the damage caused by all the
unnecessary producing and consuming going on in rampant consumer society,
including the physical deterioration of vast infrastructures but more
importantly including the ecological and social breakdown.
á
The overhead costs presently loaded on everything purchased, for
example in the form of advertising, insurance, outrageous CEO salaries,
consultancies, bank fees, products not made to last, lawyers feesÉ and
especially interest on borrowed capital.
á
The bureaucracy, systems, professionals, offices, consultancies,
computers, suits, we would not need if local networks informally and
voluntarily organized provision of many local goods and services, including much food, aged care,
nursing, maintenance of energy and water etc. infrastructure, entertainment, and
R and D.
Again
remember that the alternative ways discussed would have their greatest
reduction effects not at the household level but on the national and
international energy and dollar budgets, for instance by eliminating global
food transportation.
It is
important to keep in mind that foregoing estimating has been mainly to do with
individual household consumption and not taken into account the synergies that occur
at the system level. For instance
when a cluster of households share tools, assistance, surpluses, land and work then
individual household rates of purchasing or food expenditure or work time can
be dramatically reduced. A similar
area is to do with the enormous reductions there would be in national
infrastructure and energy use etc. which do not show up in household accounts. For
instance associated with a householdÕs food budget but easily overlooked would
be the vast reduction in national food transport, packaging, transport,
warehouses, freezing, marketing, ÒwasteÓ removal etc. This would generate many
other hidden savings, such as in national infrastructure costs (e.g., roads,
and hospitals to deal with the road accidents involving food trucks), and thus
taxation on households.
Also,
consider the greatly increased ÒspiritualÓ productive capacity that The Simpler
Way releases, the enthusiasm, time, energy, conscientiousness, thinking and
innovation that comes from happy, secure, cooperative citizens proud of their
communities and in control of their situation, eager to join working bees and
to run their own community. The
members of an Eco-village are pro-active, always on the look out for things
that need fixing or improving and ways they can contribute to the welfare of
their community. They are empowered
and energized by the knowledge that their fate and their capacity to create an
admirable town are in their hands. Again
compare with the apathy and TV-watching stupification that goes with stressed,
competitive individuals isolated in their private houses and having little or
nothing to do with their community and no sense of empowerment. Much development, administration,
fixing, giving, innovating and cohesion-building would take place with no dollar
or resource costs. Committees,
working bees and spontaneous discussion and action would attend to local tasks
without any need for formal organization or dollar or energy costs.
But is
this too austere a vision? It should be stated again that the assumption
underlying this exploration is that the limits to growth require extreme
reductions in consumption. However
it might not be necessary to reduce consumption and costs by the amounts
indicated above. The level of ÒausterityÓ described here would not be
acceptable to most people today but it us important to emphasise that it does
not involve hardship or deprivation. It represents the way I and many Eco-villagers
choose to live and find fulfilling. If we raised children in communities of the
kind described they would grow up finding these new ways and activities to be
sources of interest and enjoyment.
A major task for us in the transition period is to show that these ways
are more rewarding than those the consumer-capitalist rat race can offer.
Consider Third World ÒdevelopmentÓ.
Among
the most important and most easily overlooked implications are those for
thinking about Third World ÒdevelopmentÓ.
Under the dominant approach today development is determined by whatever
will maximize the profits of those with capital to invest; need is irrelevant
and ignored. Your country will get
investment in factories or plantations only if some corporation thinks that
will make more money than investing in anything else anywhere else in the
world. One consequence I that
investment never flows into developing what is most needed. It goes
mostly into producing things to export to consumers in rich countries, or to
sell to elites in the poor country.
Conventional
economics cannot envisage any alternative to this Òtrickle down somedayÓ
approach, which inevitably results in development mostly for the benefit of the
rich, i.e., those who own corporations and those who shop in rich world
supermarkets. Meanwhile about 5
billion people live in poverty although they have around them most of the
resources they need to produce for themselves thriving communities with high
quality of life. The conventional economist insists that the only way to raise
their Òliving standardsÓ is to produce more to sell into the global market
economy so they can earn more incomeÉto purchase goods from that economy, and
accumulate the capital needed for developing the power stations, freeways,
ports, houses etc. to enable the kind of industries and rlifestyles the rich
world has.
The Simper
Way shows that this entire world view is not just totally mistaken, it masks
the plunder that conventional development involves. Conventional theory is an ideology
endorsing practices that enrich the rich by transferring to them the resources
of the poor, asserting that this is the only way to satisfactory development. But the above analysis shows that highly
satisfactory Simpler Way communities could be developed quickly, by ordinary
people and with very little need for capital. The amount of resources that would need
to be imported to build the necessary infrastructures is quite small and could
easily be afforded if national governments prioritized that.
But
Simpler Way alternative development is no good for global corporations and
banks or local elites; they prosper most when people have no alternative but to
work in corporations for wages which they then have to spend purchasing
necessities from corporations. No
good to them if people grow their own carrots rather than buy them from
supermarkets. Conventional
capitalist development maximizes the amount of business for people with capital
to invest. Simpler Way communal self-sufficient development is a mortal threat
to that. Hence it gets no attention
from the development industry.
Consider
what will happen to the global atmosphere as 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians
frantically build more coal-fired power stations because everyone knows that
this is the only way to generate the economic growth that is essential for
raising their Òliving standardsÓÉwhen that is totally avoidable.
-------------
Appendix 1:
ALTERNATIVE VS
CONVENTIONAL FOOD PRODUCTION.
Normal
agribusiness provision of food is one of the most faulty and unsustainable systems
in consumer-capitalist society.
Consider the following comparisons with the approach assumed above.
á Agribusiness involves huge
quantities of energy use, in machinery, fertilizers, refrigeration, international
transport, warehouses, packaging, ÒmarketingÓ, pesticides, supermarket
floodlighting and air conditioning, driving to and from the supermarket, bureaucracies,
and dealing with wastes. Much food is transported half way around the world,
(Éto where local fruit trees are being pulled out.)
á Agribusiness creates vast amounts of
ÒwastesÓ, which are rich and valuable nutrients but they cannot be recycled
(the feedlots are a long way from the fields, the consumers are on another
continent) and thus need to be dealt with via energy-intensive systems, and end
up damaging ecosystems.
á Artificial fertilizers are applied, damaging
soils and ecosystems. Acidification and nitrogen flows are major global
problems, and soil carbon levels are depleted by ploughing. Because nutrients are not returned to
the soils agriculture is well described as Òsoil mining.Ó
á There is large scale abuse of
animals, e.g., in battery egg production, intensive pig raising, live animal
exporting.
á Many chemical additives are needed,
e.g., to keep disease levels down in crammed battery hen sheds and piggeries,
to preserve foods for long shelf life, to colour and augment taste.
á Profit is maximized by growing only
the few highest yield varieties, resulting in the massive loss of plant
biodiversity, especially those that thrive without large energy and chemical
inputs.
á Nutritional quality is of no concern
to agribusiness. Values that
maximize profit include appearance, toughness to survive long transportation
and packaging, big water-bloated but tasteless strawberries, and absence of
blemishes meaning that specked fruit canÕt be marketed. The result is dramatic
reduction in quality, evident in tasteless supermarket fruit of dubious
nutritional value, most notoriously the plastic tomato.
á Conventional food supply involves
huge numbers of expensive people in suits with degrees, sitting at computer
screens, with expertise in finance, personal relations, logistics, engineering,
and bio-chemistry. Home gardening
and small local farming avoids just about all of that, and enables ordinary
people to be excellent food producers.
á Agribusiness involves borrowed
capital and thus interest payments at all levels. Costs at one level include
interest payments at the previous level, compounding to perhaps 40% of the
price paid by purchasers being made up of interest.
á Agribusiness destroys rural
life. Big corporations undercut
local costs and farmers and rural towns are eliminated, especially in the Third
World.
á Home gardening, community gardening,
Òedible landscapingÓ of commons and local small farming provide all
participants with satisfying and enjoyable activity. Most people engaged in agribusiness
merely work for wages in specialised jobs that are often boring, insecure and
low paid.
ABC,
(2014). Gardening Program, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ABS, Household
Expenditure Survey. 6530.
CSIRO
Futures, (2013),The Future of Australian Sport. Canberra.
Aliades,
A., (2011), ÒLessons from an urban backyard food forest experimentÓ,
permaculture.org/2011/04/13/lessons-from-an-urban-backyard-food-forest-experimnt
Blazey,
C., (1999), The Australian Vegetable Garden, Diggers Seeds, Dromana,
Victoria.
Canning, P., A. Charles, S. Huang, K. R. Polenske, and A. Waters,
(2010), Energy Use in the
U.S. Food System, US Dept. Of Agriculture.
Dept. of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts, (2008), Energy Use in
the Australian Residential Sector, 1986 – 2020.
Department of Industry and Science, (2015), 2015 Australian Energy Update, Canberra, August.
Dervaes,
Joe, (2014), Homegrown Revolution, 15 min video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IbODJiEM5A&list=TLmHbT8-YpHqo
Diggers
Seeds, (See, Blazey, 1999.)
Dioron,
R., (2015), ÒWhatÕs a home garden worth?Ó, Kitchen Gardeners International. kgi.org.
Garza,
E., (2013), The Energy Cost of Food, Resilience.
Kennedy, M., (1995), Interest and Inflation Free Money: Creating
an Exchange Medium That Works for Everybody and Protects the Earth, MI: Seva International.
Koont.
S., (2009),ÒThe urban food gardens of HavanaÓ, Monthly Review, 60.8 Jan,
44-63.
Langley,
S., (2013), ÒSnapshot of Australian food prices and consumer and household expenditure on foodÓ, Australian Food
Network,
Morgan,
E, (2007), Fruit and vegetable Consumption and Waste in Australia,
VicHealth, Deakin University, Melbourne.
National
Gardening Association, (2009), The Impact of Home and Community Gardening in
the US, South Burlington, VT.
Numbeo,
(2015) ÒCost of living in SydneyÓ, http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=Australia&city=Sydney
TSW:
Education; A Radically Critical View. (thesimplerway.info/EDUCATION.Radview.htm
Watson, K.,
(2015), ÒHome growing produces ten times the food of arable farms,Ó Our World, UN University. 29th March.
Wise, P.,
(2014), The Potential Value and Impacts of Residential and Community
Gardening, Canberra, Australia Institute.