The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions - all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012.
Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, is renowned for his accuracy in predicting fut ure world and economic events, which will send a chill down your spine considering what he told Fox News this week.
Celente says that by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.
"We're going to see the end of the retail Christmas....we're going to see a fundamental shift take place....putting food on the table is going to be more important that putting gifts under the Christmas tree," said Celente, adding that the situation would be "worse than the great depression".
"America's going to go through a transition the likes of which no one is prepared for," said Celente, noting that people's refusal to acknowledge that America was even in a recession highlights how big a problem denial is in being ready for the true scale of the crisis.
Celente, who successfully predicted the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, the subprime mortgage collapse and the massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar, told UPI in November last year that the following year would be known as "The Panic of 2008," adding that "giants (would) tumble to their deaths," which is exactly what we have witnessed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and others. He also said that the dollar would eventually be devalued by as much as 90 per cent.
The consequence of what we have seen unfold this year would lead to a lowering in living standards, Celente predicted a year ago, which is also being borne out by plummeting retail sales figures.
The prospect of revolution was a concept echoed by a British Ministry of Defence report last year, which predicted that within 30 years, the growing gap between the super rich and the middle class, along with an urban underclass threatening social order would mean, "The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest," and that, "The middle classes could become a revolutionary class."
In a separate recent interview, Celente went further on the subject of revolution in America.
"There will be a revolution in this country," he said. "It's not going to come yet, but it's going to come down the line and we're going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen."
"The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That's going to be the big one because people can't afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You're going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop."
"It's going to be very bleak. Very sad. And there is going to be a lot of homeless, the likes of which we have never seen before. Tent cities are already sprouting up around the country and we're going to see many more."
"We're going to start seeing huge areas of vacant real estate and squatters living in them as well. It's going to be a picture the likes of which Americans are not going to be used to. It's going to come as a shock and with it, there's going to be a lot of crime. And the crime is going to be a lot worse than it was before because in the last 1929 Depression, people's minds weren't wrecked on all these modern drugs – over-the-counter drugs, or crystal meth or whatever it might be. So, you have a huge underclass of very desperate people with their minds chemically blown beyond anybody's comprehension."
By Paul Mladjenovic
It has been an incredible year loaded with surprises but I think that the next few years will surprise even more. Whenever I feel certain about something coming, I ‘m glad to put it in print. In 2004, I had successfully forecast many economic events such as the housing bubble popping and the credit crisis among other events. Current economic conditions and political outcomes have laid the groundwork for more events that we should be prepared for. All of these events combine to create a “Financial Vortex” that will hit us in the coming years.
First of all, be aware of what current conditions will help lay the groundwork for this financial vortex. They are:
America’s debt load. The U.S. government has now $12 trillion in debt. Consumers and businesses are drowning in debt. America’s gross domestic product (GDP) is about $13 trillion yet its total debt is over $44 trillion.
Derivatives. Derivatives are complicated, arcane and risky securities that now total about $500 trillion. That makes this market ten times greater than the dollar value of the world economy which is just under $50 trillion.
Unfunded Liabilities. The current future tally of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is nearly $99 trillion.
Growth of government. The expansion of the government’s involvement in the economy is (and will be) massive. Taxes, regulations, controls, spending, etc. at all levels of government (both domestic and international) will be problematic by an order of magnitude that the private sector will not be able to tolerate.
Think about it for a moment. The past few months have shown us what a few trillion in bad debt and derivatives can do to the market. The Dow is down several thousand points in the past few months and is down nearly 40% since hitting its all-time high in October 2007 of 14,164.53. What will happen to the stock market when many multi-trillions of debt, derivatives and unfunded liabilities start hitting us like a powerful vortex in the coming years? The economy is extraordinarily weak right now and it would not take much to see millions of hard-working folks get devastated. It is time to prepare. America needs to know what is coming. Some of these events are now unavoidable so being fore-warned and getting prepared is crucial.
Here are my forecasts for what I believe is coming during the next few years:
1. You will see an inflationary depression that will be evident by 2010.
Maybe I’ll be off a few months either way but an inflationary depression is almost guaranteed. Why? The latest batch of elected officials see government intervention as either a moral good or a necessary evil. The most likely policy initiatives that we will see in the coming months will be government controls, increased taxes and extraordinary “money” creation (inflating the money supply). In fact we have (and will) see trillions of new dollars will flood the economy in the coming months. This will probably cause the stock market and some economic indicators to rise and give the illusion of economic health during early 2009. This will cause many commentators to proclaim that we are coming out of the current recession. People will think that government intervention worked. Typically, government intervention only alleviates some of the symptoms in the short-term while postponing the problem(s) toward the long-term. Right now many commentators are calling the current economic environment “deflationary” but it is massive de-leveraging by huge financial entities that are selling off everything from stocks to commodities to accrue cash and stave off bankruptcy. As trillions of dollars flood into the economy, that condition will change. If they report the statistics properly, then we will see a contracting economy (measured by GDP) coupled with rising prices. A good example of this is Venezuela where that economy is struggling while their inflation rate is currently over 36% (as of October 2008). The government, in an attempt to revive consumption and job creation will increase the money supply by an order of magnitude never seen before in this country. Seeing the inflation rate soar to 20% and beyond during 2010 (or 2011) is a solid bet.
2. Unemployment in the private sector will soar into double-digits by 2010.
As the recession morphs into a depression and as the government grows partly as a “solution” to economic difficulties, the increased burdens of government (taxes, controls, spending, etc.) will grow to burdensome levels for both consumers and businesses. Government spending on unemployment benefits and “make work” projects will soar to address the large job losses in the private sector. Right now you should re-assess your job, your company and your industry to see if you are at risk.
3. More state and municipal governments will be federal bailout candidates.
I forecast this condition many months ago in my national seminars but recently this became headline news so it’s not such a great forecast new.. California and New York State are already seeking taxpayer money from the Federal government. However, we will see much more of this. During 1995-2008, many state and local governments over-extended themselves. Because they thought that good times (and housing booms) would last indefinitely, they took on more spending and more borrowing. Many of these jurisdictions will be forced into either spending cuts, higher taxes or both. Some will be forced into bankruptcy. Because of these events, there will be some areas that will experience social unrest due to difficult financial conditions.
4. Commodities will be in the next leg of their long-term bull market starting in 2009.
Commodities such as oil, grains, precious metals, etc. had a great upleg in early 2008 and then had a brutal correction during the second half. Although much of it is attributed to deflation and “demand destruction”, these conditions are short-lived. Why? Two basic reasons; shortages (supply destruction) and rising inflation. Since government policy makers will make every effort to avert an economic contraction, they will flood the economy with inflation and renewed government spending. Economic policy decision-makers at the federal level think that “increased consumption” is the key to economic growth because they are influenced by the Keynesian school of economics. The world hasn’t figured out yet that John Maynard Keynes’ policies are flawed and dangerous. The bottom line is that conditions are ripe for commodities to resume their bull market and reach new highs during 2009-2010. As an offshoot of this, you will also see conflicts across the globe tied to natural resources as countries with growing populations need more food, water, etc.
5. We will see oil hit $200 as Peak oil becomes obvious to all during 2009-2012.
Don’t be fooled by the recent drop in oil from $147 in the summer of 2008 to $50 during November 2008. The recent data from the world energy market indicates that oil depletion (“supply destruction”) is far more severe than the recent headlines blaring the misleading condition of “demand destruction”. The most severe energy crisis in history is in my mind an unavoidable certainty during the next few years. America needs to go full-bore toward energy independence since we will have no choice. This energy crisis will be very difficult to get through and will cause tremendous social and economic difficulty.
6. International conflicts over natural resources will hit the headlines during 2009-12.
As governments across the globe seek to address the wants needs of their growing populations, there will be aggressive competition for the world’s limited resources. Natural resources will be seen as strategic as well as economic. National and economic security for America will be a vital concern.
Now you can see why I refer to it as a “Financial Vortex”. We pray for our country and we hope to get through this with a minimum of suffering but it behooves all of us to be ready. It is better to prepare for problems that may occur than to ignore reality and be set up for pain. Although the Financial Vortex conference will be held in New Jersey on December 6, 2008, let me share with you a few of the strategies that will be covered that day:
Buy gold and silver bullion. Yes…there have been physical shortages reported but that shouldn’t stop you from getting some for your portfolio. Precious metals retain their value during a period of economic uncertainty and rising inflation.
Keep a cash cushion. Have money set aside in a safe venue such as a treasury money market fund. This is not for long-term purposes since inflation will be a major issue; it is there for an emergency fund for day-to-day needs.
Shift your retirement portfolio into stocks and ETFs tied to “human need” such as food, water, energy, etc. These companies and sect ors will have a better time surviving the coming years than other sectors that are problematic such as real estate, financials and cyclicals (such as autos and other “big ticket” items). I believe that much of the conventional stock market will get slammed.
The Financial Vortex is coming. Millions will be blindsided but those that prepare will survive and even thrive. I am doing my conference primarily because I want people to be safe and do those things that will ensure greater financial security. It is also why experts such as David Morgan, Jay Taylor and Roger Wiegand will join me that day so that people can get specifics on what to expect and how to prosper. The bottom line is that it is better to be safe than sorry.
While some investors view precious metals as a short-term cyclical speculation, there are actually three important reasons for including precious metals in every investment portfolio. These are: strategic asset allocation, hedging and tactical asset allocation.
Strategic Asset Allocation
Strategic asset allocation is a method used to fully diversify investment portfolios by properly balancing asset classes of different correlations in order to maximize returns and minimize risk. While many investors believe their portfolios are diversified, they typically contain only four asset classes – Real estate, stocks, bonds and cash. Commodities, precious metals and collectibles rarely form part of most investors’ portfolios. With only four asset classes out of a total of seven, such portfolios are clearly not adequately diversified.
A recent study carried out by Ibbotson Associates, Portfolio Diversification with Gold, Silver and Platinum, noted that, since 1969, stock and bond correlations have increased and, contrary to popular belief, a mix of these will not result in a diversified portfolio. Today, most portfolios lack the negatively correlated asset classes – real estate, commodities and precious metals – necessary to achieve full diversification, and as a result are exposed to risk and volatility.
Ibbotson researchers constructed a composite index that held equal dollar amounts of gold, silver and platinum, and examined the correlations of that index to the other asset classes typically held in investment portfolios. The study, which examined the years 1972 to 2004, showed precious metals are the most negatively correlated asset to all other asset classes. As a result, it takes the least amount of precious metals in a portfolio to achieve maximum negative correlation and the appropriate level of diversification.
The overall performance of precious metals during the 32-year period was close to fixed income investments. Even through the long bear market of 1980 to 2002, precious metals outperformed both cash and inflation during the entire period.
From 1973 to 1984, a high inflation period, precious metals were the top-performing asset class, and the study concluded that precious metals provide an effective hedge against inflation. Precious metals were the only asset class with a negative average correlation to the other asset classes, the basis for diversification.
The Ibbotson study concluded that, by allocating from 10 to 25 percent of a portfolio to precious metals, returns would increase while risk decreased. These conclusions were not based on assumptions of a bull market in precious metals or a bear market in financial assets; they were simply based on a continuation of the returns and levels of inflation that have been prevalent recently.
Hedging
Hedging is a strategy used to offset investment risk; the perfect hedge eliminates the possibility of future losses. The old Wall Street saying, “Put 10% of your money in gold and hope it doesn’t work”, succinctly summarizes the hedging attributes of precious metals. And in today’s economic climate, there are plenty of risks to hedge against: currency exchange declines, loss of purchasing power and “Fat Tail” events.
Currency Exchange Risk
Currency crises have been occurring on a regular basis since 1971 when US President Nixon “closed the gold window”, and, globally, currencies were no longer backed by gold. When confidence in a currency wanes, people tend flee to the safe haven of precious metals. Perhaps most famously, the gold price exploded from 75 marks per ounce to 23 trillion marks per ounce in the 1920s Weimar Republic of Germany. Mexico experienced a currency crisis in 1995, and the peso declined by about 50% against gold in approximately three months. During Indonesia’s currency crisis of 1997, the rupee lost 82 % over a one-year period. In Russia’s 1998 currency crisis, the ruble declined by 60% in just one month. In Argentina’s 2002 currency crisis, the peso devalued to 22 % of its previous level.
A currency crisis is typically triggered by excessive growth in the money supply or unsustainable government debt. Is the world’s reserve currency, the US dollar, vulnerable? Total US money supply in 1971, when President Nixon ceased dollars-to-gold convertibility, was approximately $800 billion. Last year, the annual increase in M3 was more than $800 billion, bringing the total US money supply to $10.2 trillion. In other words, the US now has annual increases in the money supply equal to the entire money supply of 34 years ago. Adding in the current money printing for bail out after bail out money supply is out of control. If this continues, the result will be hyperinflation and, eventually, a currency collapse. Meanwhile, the rising price of gold is acting as a leading indicator for troubled times ahead, signaling a growing non-confidence vote in a government’s monetary policy.
Loss of Purchasing Power
An increasing money supply leads to the steady erosion of purchasing power. Based on published CPI figures, both the Australian and the US dollar have lost about 83% of their purchasing power since 1970.
To appreciate how precious metals preserve purchasing power against inflation, consider that in 1971 a compact car cost about $2,300; today, the price is $20,000. A starter home was $24,000; today, it is $350,000. The Dow Jones stood at 890, vs about 10,000 today. As for gold, it was $35 per ounce, compared to $750 as at October 2008.
If you convert these dollar prices to ounces of gold, you see that they have actually declined. For instance, the car that used to cost 66 ounces of gold in 1971 now costs only 30 ounces. The house that cost 703 ounces of gold now costs 466. In fact, you can buy almost twice as many cars or houses with your gold. Even investing in equities costs less today in gold terms. In 1971 the Dow Jones was 25 ounces of gold, while today it is 13.
Fat Tail Events
The third hedging benefit provided by precious metals is protection against a sudden, unexpected financial crisis – a fat tail event. Examples of fat tail events are war, terrorism, natural disasters, health pandemics and systemic financial risks such as a derivatives accident, bankruptcy of a major bank or a major corporation, defaults on bonds, derivatives contracts, insurance contracts and disruption of oil supply. When any of these occur, traditional financial assets often suffer while the price of precious metals tends to rise dramatically. While most investors regard insuring their homes an absolute necessity, their investment portfolios are often completely exposed and “uninsured” – lacking any precious metals allocation.
Tactical Asset Allocation
Although using strategic allocation or a hedging strategy is enough to justify a 7 to 15 percent allocation to bullion, tactical strategy justifies much higher allocations. Broadly speaking, tactical asset allocation means actively seeking out strategies that will enhance portfolio performance by shifting the asset mix in a portfolio in response to the changing patterns of return and risk. With rising oil prices and increasing inflation, precious metals are likely to outperform traditional financial assets in the years ahead. Here are some of the reasons why precious metals are a good tactical asset strategy today.
Precious Metals Bull Market
The bull market in precious metals began in 2002, and despite recent declines vs the US dollar it has reached new all time highs vs most currencies, including Australian dollars, euros, Swiss francs and British pounds. From a tactical point of view, portfolios should now be rebalanced so they are overweight precious metals in order to take advantage of the current market trends.
The main indicator confirming this trend is the Dow:Gold ratio, a factor that indicates when to be overweight precious metals and hard assets, and when to be overweight financial assets. In 1999 the Dow:Gold ratio peaked at over 40, before declining to its current level of about 13. When the ratio is rising, as it did from 1945 to 1960 and again from 1980 to 1999, it is prudent to be more heavily allocated to financial assets with lower allocations to precious metals and hard assets. When the ratio is declining, as it is today, the opposite investment strategy applies. In our current economic climate allocations to financial assets should be reduced, while allocations to precious metals and hard assets should be increased in order to maximize returns.
Some investors think the precious metals bull market is well advanced, and they have missed the boat. However, when we compare the current market to the bull market of the 1970s, it becomes apparent that we are still in the early stages of what could be a 20-year bull market.
Determining whether the trend will continue is as simple as looking at the key drivers for precious metals price increases. While commodity-based supply/demand fundamentals are certainly a factor, there are more: increasing concerns about the weakening US dollar, burgeoning US debt and rising oil prices. Since the US dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency, its decline will ultimately have a global effect.
US Economic Vulnerabilities
As the world’s reserve currency, the health of the US dollar impacts all economies, currencies and investments. The US economy is currently propped up by a mountain of debt. In 2008, the federal debt increased by over $1 trillion, to over $10.5 trillion. If you add the 5-10 trillion bailouts of banks and Insurance companies plus present value of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations is taken into account, it now stands at over $50 trillion.
The ballooning trade deficit has increased annually since 1975. Today it is approximately $1 trillion, meaning the US must borrow over $3 billion each day to fund its consumption of imported goods and commodities. The US now absorbs over 80% of the entire world’s savings in order to maintain its consumption. Since the US has outsourced much of its manufacturing and imports the majority of its oil, even a major decline in the value of the dollar will not reverse this growing trend. The US trade deficit has become systemic.
The US current account deficit is now approaching 7% of GDP. Economists believe that 5% is the critical number because, historically speaking, a current account deficit in excess of 5% has resulted in a currency crisis. During a currency crisis, demand for alternative currencies, including gold, silver and platinum, increase dramatically.
Total US debt as a ratio of GDP has surpassed the previous high set in 1933, when it stood at approximately 255% of GDP. Today, the number is well over 300% of GDP. The fact that foreigners hold a growing percentage of this makes matters worse; almost 50% of US government Treasury bills and bonds are held by foreign entities. If foreign investors, tired of funding US budget and trade deficits, lose confidence in the dollar, a massive exodus from both it and from US financial assets will ensue. The result would be a US financial disaster. Since the US dollar is widely viewed as the last stable currency, much of the money fleeing out of it will have nowhere to go but precious metals. A number of central banks have already announced they intend to diversify out of US dollars. Since aboveground global supplies of precious metals are currently valued at less than $2 trillion, and global financial assets exceed $70 trillion, the prices of gold, silver and platinum will increase dramatically if there is a shift in sentiment and demand explodes. Considering that precious metals are already rising against all currencies, this trend may have already started.
Gold/Oil Relationship
We are at a juncture where oil production is about to decline just as demand, particularly from China and India, is about to explode. Numerous studies suggest, and many experts agree, that the world is close to reaching peak oil production. The result of increasing demand coupled with dwindling supply will be an upward-spiraling oil price that drives precious metals price higher while negatively impacting financial assets and global economies.
Throughout history there has been a positive correlation between the prices of precious metals and oil. As the price of oil increases, so does that of gold. As gold rises, silver and platinum follow. Traditionally, oil trades at about 15 barrels per ounce of gold. Today, oil trades at about 8 barrels per ounce. Either gold is undervalued, or oil must decrease in price to about $50 per barrel, an unlikely event. At the normal 15-to-1 ratio, gold today should be priced at over $1200 per ounce.
Bullion vs. Mining Stocks
Hedging and tactical allocation to precious metals can only be achieved through investment in bullion itself, and not from mining company stocks. While stocks can be good trading opportunities during bull markets, they have a completely different risk/reward relationship than bullion. During the stock market crash of 1987, for example, mining stocks declined by a greater amount than equities in general, while the price of gold increased. Mining companies are exposed to many operational risks and can decline to zero; bullion cannot. During a currency crisis, bullion outperforms mining stocks because global investors as a whole will seek to hold bullion rather than invest in paper. While mining stocks are popular in North America, people in South-East Asia, South America, Europe and other parts of the world that have already experienced a currency crisis would rather have gold, silver and platinum bullion than anything else.
Bullion Investments
One of the most important things to consider when investing in bullion is whether you are investing in paper promises for bullion or the real thing. As we have seen in the current credit crisis counterparty risk is major concern. Owning bullion in your own right has no counterparty risk. Physical gold and silver are no one elses liability in your possession. A futures contract, option, certificate or fund cannot make this claim, someone owes you bllion that in a major melt down may never be repaid. Many precious metals investments are nothing more than promises to deliver bullion at some future date. Bullion investments must precisely track the price of bullion, and not be influenced by the equity markets. If the form of investment is dependent on a counter-party and the counter-party defaults, all the benefits of holding precious metals could be lost at precisely the time when they are needed the most.
In summary, a portfolio allocation of 10 to 25 percent in precious metals is justified simply from the strategic and hedging points of view. If you take into account current vulnerabilities in the global financial system and the implications of peak oil, a much higher allocation is appropriate. The Dow:Gold ratio is an accurate indicator of the trend toward precious metals, and clearly confirms the need to be overweight in that sector at this time.
By Richard Heinberg
The only way to way avert a food crisis resulting from oil and natural gas price hikes and supply disruptions while also reversing agriculture's contribution to climate change is to proactively and methodically remove fossil fuels from the food system.
The removal of fossil fuels from the food system is inevitable: maintenance of the current system is simply not an option over the long term. Only the amount of time available for the transition process, and the strategies for pursuing it, can be matters for controversy.
Given the degree to which the modern food system has become dependent on fossil fuels, many proposals for de-linking food and fuels are likely to appear radical. However, efforts toward this end must be judged not by the degree to which they preserve the status quo, but by their likely ability to solve the fundamental challenge that will face us: the need to feed a global population of 7 billion with a diminishing supply of fuels available to fertilize, plow, and irrigate fields and to harvest and transport crops.
If this transition is undertaken proactively and intelligently, there could be many side benefits - more careers in farming, more protection for the environment, less soil erosion, a revitalization of rural culture, and more healthful food for everyone.
Some of this transformation will inevitably be driven by market forces, led simply by the rising price of fossil fuels. However, without planning the transition may be wrenching and destructive, since market forces acting alone could bankrupt farmers while leaving consumers with few or no options.
The Transition
To remove fossil fuels from the food system too quickly, before alternative systems are in place, would be catastrophic. Thus the transition process must be a matter for careful consideration and planning.
In recent years there has been some debate on the problem of how many people a non-fossil fueled food system can support. The answer is still unclear. But we will certainly find out, because there is likely to be no alternative, given that substitute liquid fuels - including coal-to-liquids, biofuels, tar sands, and shale oil - are all problematic and cannot be relied upon to replace cheap crude oil and natural gas as these deplete.
There are reasons for hope: a recent report on African agriculture from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) suggests that "organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it."
Nevertheless, given that we do not know whether non-fossil fuel agriculture can in fact feed a population now approaching seven billion - and given that current fuels-based agriculture cannot be relied upon to do so for much longer, given the reality of fuel depletion - the prudent path forward would surely be to tie agricultural policy to population policy.
Indeed, coordination will be essential also between agriculture policies and education, economic, transport, energy policies. The food system transition will be comprehensive, and will require integration with all segments and aspects of society.
This document is intended to serve as the basis for the beginning of that planning process. Our aim is to develop a template that can be used to strategically plan the transition of food and farming across the world, region by region, and at all scales (from the farm to the community to the nation), beginning here in the UK.
Elements of Transition
The following are some key strategic elements of the food systems transition process that will need to be addressed at all levels of scale, from the household to the nation and beyond.
Re-Localization
In recent decades the food systems of Britain and most other nations have become globalized. Food is traded in enormous quantities - and not just luxury foods (such as coffee and chocolate), but staples including wheat, maize, meat, potatoes, and rice.
The globalization of the food system has had advantages: people in wealthy countries now have access to a wide variety of foods at all times, including fruits and vegetables that are out of season (apples in May or asparagus in January), and foods that cannot be grown locally at any time of year (e.g., avocadoes in Scotland). Long-distance transport enables food to be delivered from places of abundance to areas of scarcity. Whereas in previous centuries a regional crop failure might have led to famine, its effects now can be neutralized by food imports.
However, food globalization also creates systemic vulnerability. As fuel prices rise, costs of imported food go up. If fuel supplies were substantially cut off as the result of some transient event, the entire system could fail. A globalized system is also more susceptible to accidental contamination, as we have seen recently with the appearance of toxic melamine in foods from China. The best way to make our food system more resilient against such threats is clear: decentralize and re-localize it.
Re-localization will inevitably occur sooner or later as a result of declining oil production, since there are no alternative energy sources on the horizon that can be scaled up quickly to take the place of petroleum. But if the transition process is to unfold in a beneficial rather than a catastrophic way, it must be planned and coordinated. This will require deliberate effort aimed at building the infrastructure for regional food economies - ones that can support diversified farming and reduce the amount of fossil fuel in the British diet.
Re-localization means producing more basic food necessities locally. No one advocates doing away with food trade altogether: this would hurt both farmers and consumers. Rather, what is needed is a prioritization of production so that lower-value food items (which are typically staple calorie crops) are mostly sourced from close by, with most long-distance trade left to higher-value foods, and especially those that store well.
This decentralization of the food system will result in greater societal resilience in the face of fuel price volatility. Problems of food contamination, when they appear, will be minimized. Meanwhile, revitalization of local food production will help renew local economies. Consumers will enjoy better quality food that is fresher and more seasonal. And transport-related climate impacts will be reduced.
Each nation or region will need to devise its own strategy for re-localizing its food system, based on a thorough initial assessment of vulnerabilities and opportunities. The following are some general suggestions that are likely to be applicable in most instances:
The process will benefit enormously from policy support at both national and regional levels. This could include, for example, the provision of grants to towns and cities to build year-round indoor farmers' markets.
Food-safety regulations should be made appropriate to the scale of production and distribution, so that a small grower selling direct off the farm or at a farmers' market is not regulated as onerously as a multinational food manufacturer. While local food may have safety problems, these will inevitably occur on a smaller scale and will be easier to manage because local food is inherently more traceable and accountable. Governments can require that some minimum percentage of food purchases for schools, hospitals, military bases, and prisons are sourced within 100 miles of the institutions buying the food. Channelling even a small portion of institutional food purchasing to local growers would greatly expand opportunities for regional producers while improving the diet of people whom these institutions feed.
Cities and towns can rework their waste management systems so as to collect food scraps that can then be converted to compost, biogas, and livestock feed - which can in turn be made available to local growers.
But government can do only so much. Consumers must develop the habit of preferentially buying locally sourced foods whenever possible, and they can be encouraged in this by "Buy Local" educational literature distributed by retailers - who can also assist by clearly labeling and prominently displaying local products.
Growers themselves must rethink their business strategies. Instead of growing specialty crops for export, they must plan a transition to production of staple foods for local consumption. They must also actively seek local markets for their food. The Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) movement provides a business model that has proven successful in many communities. Small producers can also create informal co-ops to acquire machinery (such as small threshing machines for cereal and oilseed processing or micro hydro turbines for electricity).
The strategy of re-localizing food systems will be more challenging for some nations and regions than others. Given that the food footprint of London encompasses essentially all of England, the challenge for Britain is greater than is the case for many other nations. More urban gardens and even small animal operations (with chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits) within London and other cities should be encouraged, but even then it will be necessary to source most food from the countryside, delivering it to the city by rail. Thus re-localization should be seen as a process and a general direction of effort, not as an absolute goal.
Energy
As society turns away from fossil fuels, the energy balance of farming must once again become net positive. However, the transition process will be complex and problematic. Farms will still need sources of energy for their operations, and will need to provide much or all of that energy for themselves. Meanwhile, farmers could also take advantage of opportunities to export surplus energy to nearby communities as a way of increasing farm income.
Farms must be powered with renewable energy. However, many energy needs on farms - such as fuel for tractors and other machinery - are currently difficult to fill with anything other than liquid fuels, which currently come in the form of diesel or petrol made from crude oil. Farmers should first look for ways to reduce fuel needs through efficiency or replacement of machines with animal power or human labor. This is most likely to be economically feasible in dairy, meat, vegetable, fruit, and nut operations. Where fuel-fed machinery is still required, which is likely to continue being the case for grain production, ethanol or biodiesel made on-site could supplement or replace petroleum. Farmers could aim to apportion one-fifth of their cropland to production of biofuels for their own use.
Many other farm operations require electricity, and this can be generated on-site with wind turbines, solar panels, and micro-hydro turbines. Effort first must be devoted to making operations more energy-efficient. Because these technologies require initial investment and pay for themselves slowly over time, assistance from government and from financial institutions in the form of grants and low-interest loans could be instrumental in helping farmers overcome initial economic hurdles toward energy self-sufficiency.
Eventually farmers are capable of being not just self-sufficient in energy, but of producing surplus energy for surrounding communities. Much of this exported energy is likely to come in the form of biomass - agricultural and forestry waste that can be burned to produce electricity. While farmers can also grow crops for the production of biofuels, the ecological and thermodynamic limits of this energy technology require that the scale of production be deliberately restricted. Otherwise, society's demand for fuel could overwhelm farmers' ability to produce food - and food must remain their first priority. In exporting biomass from the farm, growers must always keep in mind the productive capacity of sustainable agricultural systems, and they must strictly monitor soil health and fertility.
The transition of farms to renewable energy will require planning. Farmers, ideally with the assistance of regional and national agencies, should plan to increase energy efficiency, to reduce fossil fuel inputs, and to grow renewable energy production according to a staged, integrated program designed for the unique needs and capabilities of each farm. As a general guideline, the plan should aim to reduce oil and natural gas inputs by at least half during the first decade
Soil Fertility
In industrial agriculture, soil fertility is maintained with inputs provided from off-site. Of these inputs, the most important are nitrogen and phosphorus. Nitrogen comes from ammonia-based fertilizers made from fossil fuels - principally, natural gas. Phosphorus comes from phosphate mines in several countries. While sufficient low-quality phosphate deposits exist to supply world needs for many decades, high-quality deposits that are currently being mined are quickly depleting, which means that phosphate prices will likely rise within the next few years. [Phosphate Primer]
Both nitrogen and phosphorus are essential to agriculture. And our current ways of supplying both are clearly unsustainable. Unless alternative ways of maintaining soil fertility are quickly found, a crisis looms.
The long-term solution will surely depend on a two-fold strategy: designing farm systems that build fertility through crop rotations, and recycling nutrients.
Crop rotation can help with maintaining nitrogen levels. Simply planting a cover crop after the fall harvest significantly reduces nitrogen leaching while cutting down on soil erosion. Meanwhile, introducing leguminous crops into the rotation cycle replaces nitrogen.
Cleverly designed polycultures can sustainably produce large amounts of food, as has been shown not only by small-scale "alternative" farmers in Britain and America, but also by large rice-and-fish farmers in China and giant-scale operations (up to 15,000 acres) in Argentina. There, farmers employ an eight-year rotation of perennial pasture and annual crops: after five years grazing cattle on pasture, farmers then grow three years of grain without applying fertilizer. The need for herbicides is also dramatically reduced: weeds that afflict pasture cannot survive the years of tillage, and weeds of row crops don't survive years of grazing.
Most industrial farmers have left behind the practice of cover cropping because commercial fertilizers have become the cheaper option. That cost equation is about to shift. It is therefore important that farmers begin planning for higher fertilizer prices now by gearing up their rotation cycles and building natural soil fertility ahead of the immediate need.
In industrial agriculture, the soil is treated as an inert substance that holds plants in place while chemical nutrients are applied externally. Without efforts to maintain natural fertility, over time organic matter disappears from the soil, along with beneficial soil micro-organisms. In the future, as chemical fertilizers become more expensive, farmers will need to devote much more attention to the practice of building healthy soil. But rebuilding nutrient-depleted soil takes, at minimum, several years of effort.
Traditional farmers increase organic matter in topsoil through the application of compost - which not only builds soil fertility, but also improves the soil's ability to hold water and thus withstand drought. There is also mounting evidence that food grown in properly composted soil is of higher nutritional quality. Currently, in typical modern cities, consumers, retailers, wholesalers and institutions discard enormous quantities of food. Some communities have already instituted municipal programs for composting of food and yard waste; such programs could be expanded and made mandatory, with compost being given free to local farmers. This would reduce the amount of garbage going to land fills, as well as farmers' needs for fertilizers and irrigation, while improving the nutritional quality of the British diet.
In addition, recent research with "terra preta" (also known as "bio char"), a charcoal-like material that can be produced from agricultural waste, suggests that its introduction to soils could reduce plants' need for nitrogen by 20 to 30 percent while sequestering carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere.
The potential of composting and the use of terra preta to mitigate the climate crisis is hardly trivial: a one-percent increase of soil organic matter in the top 33.5cm of the soil is equivalent to the capture and storage of 100 tonnes of atmospheric CO2. per square kilometre of farmland.
Ultimately, there is no solution to the phosphorus supply problem other than full-system nutrient recycling. This will entail a complete redesign of sewage systems to recapture nutrients so they can be returned to the soil - as Chinese farmers learned to do centuries ago. But if sewage systems (or simpler variants) are to become primary sources of phosphorus and other soil nutrients, they cannot continue to be channels for the disposal of toxic wastes. It is essential that separate waste streams be developed for the disposal of all pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, and industrial wastes. Thus the problem of soil fertility is one that farmers cannot solve on their own: it is a crisis of the food system as a whole, and must be addressed contextually and holistically.
Diet
The consumer is as important to the food system as the producer. During recent decades, consumer preferences have been shaped to fit the industrial food system through advertising and the development of mass-marketed, uniform, packaged food products that, while often nutritionally inferior, are cheap, attractive, in some cases even physically addictive. The advent and rapid proliferation of "fast food" restaurants has likewise fostered a diet that is profitable to giant industrial agribusiness, but disastrous to the health of consumers. However lamentable these trends may be from a public health standpoint, they are clearly unsustainable in view of the energy and climate crises facing modern agriculture.
Because processed and packaged foods and fresh foods imported out of season add to the energy intensity of the food system, rich and poor alike must be encouraged to eat food that is locally grown, that is in season, and that is less processed. Public education campaigns could help shift consumer preferences in this regard.
A shift toward a less meat-centered diet should also be encouraged, because a meat-based diet is substantially more energy intensive than one that is plant-based.
Government can help with a shift in diet preferences through its own food purchasing polices (see "Re-Localization," above). The process can be helped even further by a more careful official government definition of "food." It makes no sense for government efforts intended to improve the nutritional health of the people to support the consumption of products known to be unhealthful - such as soda and other junk food.
Farming Systems
During the past few decades farming has become more specialized. Today, a typical farm may produce only meat of a single kind (turkey, chicken, pork, or beef), or only dairy, or a single type of grain, vegetable, fruit, or nut.
This narrow specialization seemed to make economic sense in the era of cheap transport and cheap farm inputs. But because nature is diverse and integrated, the deliberate elimination of diversity on the farm has led to problems at every step. For example, animal feedlot operations (also known as concentrated animal feed operations, or CAFOs) produce enormous amounts of waste that end up in massive manure lagoons that pollute ground water and foul the air. Meanwhile, grain diets fed to the animals result in digestive problems requiring the large-scale administration of antibiotics that find their way into both the human food system and ground water, and that lead to antibiotic resistance among disease organisms that afflict humans.
Farm specialization also impacts the grain or vegetable grower: soils that annually produce these crops need a regular replenishment of nitrogen; but if the farmer keeps few animals, there may be no option other than to import fertilizers from off-site.
By switching to multi-enterprise diverse systems, farmers can often solve a range of problems at once. Feeding much less grain to livestock while giving them access to pasture that is in rotation with other crops maintains soil fertility while leading to better animal health and higher food quality. The farmer, the environment, and the consumer all benefit.
The post-hydrocarbon food transition may also compel a rethinking of the size of farm operations. The mechanization of farm operations and the centralization of food systems favored larger farms. However, as fuel for farm machinery becomes more costly, and as farming once again involves more labor, smaller-scale operations will once again be profitable. In addition, a smaller scale of operations will be needed as farms become more diverse, since farmers will have more system elements to monitor. Agriculture will thus become more knowledge-intensive, requiring a curious, holistic attitude on the part of farmers.
In urban areas, micro-farms and gardens - including vertical gardens and rooftop gardens that in some cases include small animals such as chickens and rabbits - could provide a substantial amount of food for growers and their families, along with occasional income from selling seasonal surpluses at garden markets.
Farm Work
With less fuel available to power agricultural machinery, the world will need many more farmers. But for farmers to succeed, some current agricultural policies that favor larger-scale production and production for export will need to change, while policies that support small-scale subsistence farms, gardens, and agricultural co-ops must be formulated and put in place - both by international institutions such as the World Bank, and also by national and regional governments.
Currently the UK has 541,0001 farmers, depending on how the term is defined. In the UK in 1900, nearly 40 percent of the population farmed; the current proportion is less than one percent. Today, the average farmer is nearing retirement age.
In nations and regions where food is grown without machinery, a larger percentage of the population must be involved in food production. For example, farmers make up more than half the populations of China, and India, Nepal, Ethiopia, and Indonesia.
While the proportion of farmers that would be needed in Britain if the country were to become self-sufficient in food grown without fossil fuels is unknown (that would depend upon technologies used and diets adopted), it would undoubtedly be much larger than the current percentage. It is reasonable to expect that several million new farmers would be required - a number that is both unimaginable and unmanageable over the short term. These new farmers would have to include a broad mix of people, reflecting the UK's increasing diversity. Already growing numbers of young adults are becoming organic or biodynamic farmers, and farmers' markets and CSAs are also springing up across the country. These tentative trends must be supported and encouraged. In addition to Government policies that support sustainable farming systems based on smaller farming units, this will require:
Education: Universities and community colleges must quickly develop programs in small-scale ecological farming methods - programs that also include training in other skills that farmers will need, such as in marketing and formulating business plans. Apprenticeships and other forms of direct knowledge transfer will also assist the transition.
Financial Support: Since few if any farms are financially successful the first year or even the second or third, loans and grants will be needed to help farmers get started.
A revitalization of farming communities and farming culture: Over the past decades UK rural towns have seen their best and brightest young people flee first to distant colleges and then to cities. Farming communities must be interesting, attractive places if we expect people to inhabit them and for children to want to stay there.
Seeds
Today's seed industry is centralized and reliant upon the very fuel-based transport system whose future viability is in question. Most commercial seeds are of hybrid varieties, so that farmers cannot save seed but must purchase new supplies each year.
Worldwide, a growing proportion of the commercial seeds that are available are genetically modified. GM seeds have primarily been developed by chemical companies to support the sale of their proprietary herbicides. The promise of more nutritious foods, or crops that can produce biofuels more efficiently, is years from realization. Given that the need for transition is immediate, efforts to build a post-fossil fuel food system cannot wait for new technologies that may or may not appear or succeed. In any case, the GM seed industry is based upon current systems of transport, and fuel-based inputs such as chemical fertilizers and herbicides, that are all inextricably tied to the wider fossil-fuel based provisioning systems of society. Thus GM crops would be unlikely to be of much help in the transition in any case.
What is needed instead is a coordinated effort to identify open-pollinated varieties of food crops that are adapted to local soils and microclimates, and a program to make such seeds available to farmers and gardeners in sufficient quantities. In addition, local colleges must begin offering courses on the techniques of seed saving.
Processing and Distribution Systems
The transition process will undoubtedly be fraught with challenges to food processing and distribution systems, which currently rely on large energy inputs and long-distance transport.
For example, the meat industry now depends upon centralized facilities for slaughtering livestock - which must be transported long distances to these facilities. Re-localizing food systems will entail creating incentives for the emergence of smaller, more localized slaughterhouses and butcher shops. One interim solution would be for a fleet of mobile abattoirs to go from farm to farm, processing animals humanely and inexpensively.
Many health regulations were originally designed to check abuses by the largest food producers, but such regulations may now inhibit the development of smaller-scale and more localized processing and distribution systems. For example, farmers should be able to smoke a ham and sell it to their neighbours without making a huge investment in nationally approved facilities. A small producer selling direct from the farm or at a farmers' market should not be subject to the same food safety regulations as a multinational food manufacturer: while local food may occasionally have safety problems, those problems will be less catastrophic and easier to manage than similar problems at industrial-scale facilities.
Food processors must look for ways to make their present operations more energy efficient, while government, consumers, and retailers find ways to reduce the need for food processing and also for food packaging. This gradual shift will require institutional support for families in storing, processing, cooking, and preserving food within the home.
Meanwhile, in view of inevitable problems with existing transport systems, national and regional food storage systems must be reconsidered. Reserves of grain, sufficient to provide for essential needs during an extended food crisis, should be kept and managed to avoid spoilage.
Packaging of food should be regulated to minimize the use of plastics, which will become more scarce and expensive as oil and gas deplete - and which are implicated as sources of toxins in any case.
Government should institute policies that prioritize the distribution of food within the nation by rail and water, rather than by road, as trucks are comparatively energy inefficient.
Supermarkets are currently the ultimate distribution sites for food in most instances. However, this model presupposes near-universal access to automobiles and petrol. A resilient food system will require smaller and more widely distributed access points in the forms of small shops and garden or farm markets. Government regulations and tax incentives can help accomplish that shift.
Wholesalers and distributors will have a changed role in a transitioning food system. They will still be needed to manage the supplies of various seasonally produced foods moving from producers to consumers. However, rather than favoring large producers and giant supermarket chains, they must alter their operations to serve smaller, more distributed farms and gardens, as well as smaller and more distributed retail shops.
Resilience Action Planning
The transition process will succeed by creating more resilience in food systems. Resilient systems are able to withstand higher magnitudes of disturbance before undergoing a dramatic shift to a new condition in which they are controlled by a different set of processes. One quality of resilience is redundancy - which is often at odds with economic efficiency. Efficiency implies both long supply chains and the reduction of inventories to a minimum. This "just-in-time" delivery of products reduces costs - but it increases the vulnerability of systems to disturbances such as fuel shortages. As more attention is paid to resilience and less to economic efficiency, redundancy and larger inventories are seen as benefits rather than liabilities. Other resilience values include diversity (as opposed to uniformity), and dispersion (rather than centralization) of control over systems.
Building resilience into our food systems as we move toward a post-fossil fuel economy will entail all of the Elements of Transition detailed above. It will also require planning at four levels: Government, Community, Business, and Individual or Family. At each level the planning process will necessarily be somewhat different. The purpose of this section is to delineate the main planning steps that will make sense at each of these levels. In some instances, steps within an action plan can or should be undertaken concurrently. In any case, what is offered here is merely a skeletal outline for a process that must be developed to fit unique needs of those it will serve.
Government
The following steps are applicable at any level of government - national, regional, or local. At the highest level of scale (the nation), each step will itself be the subject of planning and delegation. At the lowest level of scale (small villages), government may lack the capacity to undertake any of these steps and can do more than offer symbolic official support to volunteer citizen initiatives.
1. Assess the existing food system. Begin with a study of current systemic vulnerabilities and opportunities. How are farm inputs currently sourced? How much food is currently imported? What proportion of those food imports are staples, and what proportion are luxury foods? What are the environmental costs of current agricultural practices? How would the current food system be impacted by fuel shortages and high prices?
2. Review policies. How are current policies supporting these vulnerabilities and environmental impacts? How can they be changed or eliminated? Are there policies already in place that are likely to help with the transition? How can these latter policies be strengthened?
3. Bring together key stakeholders. Organizations of farmers, food processing and distributing companies, and retailers must all be included in the transition process. Many will wish simply to maintain the existing system; however, it must be made clear that this is not an option. Many companies involved in the food system will need to change their business model substantially.
4. Make a plan. The transition plan that is formulated must be comprehensive and detailed, and must contain robust but attainable targets with timelines and mechanisms for periodic review and revision. A scoping exercise must be undertaken to assess the impact of the plan on agricultural output and to quantify the changes in kinds of commodities produced and in their volumes and prices. Simon Fairlie's paper, "Can Britain Feed Itself?", is an initial attempt at such an exercise, and can be used as a model to be built upon and supplemented.
5. Educate and involve the public. The public must not only be informed about the government-led aspects of the transition process, but must be included in it to the extent that is practical. Citizens must be educated about food choices, gardening opportunities, and ways to access food from local producers. Their successes and challenges in adaptation will inform new iterations of the plan.
6. Shift policies and incentives. This is the key responsibility of government, as it either limits or enhances the ability of community groups, businesses, and families to engage in the transition process. Policy changes must reflect stakeholder input, but must nevertheless be designed primarily to further the Elements of Transition, rather than the short-term interests of any particular stakeholder group.
7. Monitor and adjust. An undertaking of this magnitude will inevitably have unforeseen and unintended impacts. Thus it is essential that progress be continually be reviewed with an eye to making adjustments to pace and strategy, while maintaining absolute adherence to the central task of methodically removing fossil fuels from the food system.
Community
The following are action steps for adoption by voluntary community groups, as opposed to governments (see above). The Transition Network provides an excellent model for this kind of community action. Such efforts seem to work best when the scale of community is such that meetings are manageable in size and meeting participants need not travel long distances. Thus in large cities, neighborhoods could apply Resilience Action Planning while sending delegates to occasional city-wide coordinating meetings. The overlap and mutual support between community organizations and local government efforts must be a matter for discussion and negotiation.
1. Assess the local food system. This assessment process should be undertaken in cooperation with government, so as not to duplicate tasks. Volunteer citizen groups are in position to provide perspectives that otherwise might elude government assessment efforts - such as opportunities for community gardens, or problems with access to food from local producers.
2. Identify and involve stakeholders. Local growers, shop owners, public kitchens, restaurants, schools, and other institutions that produce or serve food should all be contacted and invited to join a voluntary re-localization initiative and to offer input into the process.
3. Educate and involve the public. Community groups can stage public events to raise awareness about food transition issues. "Buy local" brochures and pamphlets, paid for and distributed by a consortium of local businesses (but organized by volunteer groups), can list local producers, farm markets, restaurants, and shops.
4. Develop a unique local strategic program. This can include farmers' markets, CSAs, school lunch programs, and public kitchens, networked with local producers, including community gardens. The program, based on input from stakeholders, should feature targets and timelines developed through a "backcasting" process, beginning with a collaborative exercise aimed at envisioning the local food system as it might look in 2025 after fossil fuels have ceased to play a role.
5. Coordinate with national programs. Local volunteer efforts can play a significant role in informing national government policies, and in implementing the national transition strategy. However, this will require the maintenance of open channels of communication, which in turn will be the responsibility of both government and the local groups.
6. Support individuals and families. Individuals are likely to change food habits and priorities only if they see others doing so as well, and if they feel that their efforts are supported and valued. Community groups can help by establishing new behavioral norms through public events and articles in local newspapers. Practical help can be offered via canning parties, garden planting and harvest parties, and gleaning programs. Local food and gardening experts can be made available to answer questions and concerns. Neighborhood food storage facilities can also be created to supplement household cupboards.
7. Monitor and adjust. All of these efforts must be continually adjusted to assure that all segments of the community are included in the transition process, and that the process is working as smoothly as possible for all.
Business
Relevant businesses include farms, shops, processors, wholesalers, and restaurants. However, the following steps could also be useful to organizations such as schools, colleges, and hospitals that dispense food as an ancillary part of their operations.
1. Assess vulnerabilities. Every business or organization that is part of the food system must take an honest look at the inevitable impacts of higher fuel prices, and fuel scarcity, on its operations. Examine scenarios based on a doubling or tripling of fuel costs to highlight specific vulnerabilities.
2. Make a plan. Develop a business model that works without - or with continually shrinking - fossil fuel inputs. Then "backcast" from that imagined future condition, specifying time-related targets.
3. Work with government and community groups. Given the fact that government will be developing regulations to reduce fuel use in the food system, and that community organizations will be offering support to local farmers and food shops that spearhead the transition, it makes good business sense to lead the parade rather than lagging at the rear.
4. Educate and involve suppliers and customers. No business is an island. The transition will flourish through strengthened relationships on all sides.
5. Monitor and adjust. For businesses, one obvious and essential criterion of success is profitability. The bottom line will help indicate which adaptive strategies are working, and which ones need work. However, negative financial feedback is no reason to abandon the essential goal of transition.
Individual and Family
1. Assess food vulnerabilities and opportunities. Whether at a family meeting or by oneself over a cup of tea, take a long honest look at your typical monthly food purchases and give careful thought to the implications. How much of your food comes from within 100 miles? How much is packaged and processed? How many meals are meat-centered? Where do you shop? How would you be impacted if food and fuel prices doubled or tripled?
2. Make a plan. Create an ideal food scenario for yourself, including diet, shopping habits, and gardening goals. Then "backcast" a series of time-related goals. Write these prominently on a calendar and attach it to the front of your refrigerator.
3. Garden. Even if you don't have access to a plot of land, you can still grow sprouts in a jar or a few food plants in a window box. Look for opportunities to contribute work to a community garden. Develop your skills by seeking out gardening mentors.
4. Develop relations with local producers. Even if you have a large garden you probably can't grow all the food you eat. Rather than shopping at a supermarket, begin to frequent your local farmers' market, or join a CSA.
5. Become involved in community efforts. Get to know your neighbors and compare gardening experiences with them. Together, form a "tool library" from which members can check out garden tools and gardening books. Organize or participate in planting, harvesting, food-swapping, gleaning, and canning parties.
6. Monitor and adjust. At the end of each month, revisit your plan and revise it if necessary.
Bullionmark's comments
Matt Simmons has been an investment banker for 40 years. He is the founder and chairman of the world's largest energy investment banking company, Simmons & Co. International. In 2005, he published “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy,” a book that has galvanized the peak oil debate.
I believe him to be the worlds foremost expert on peak oil. When he proclaimed peak oil production would occur in 2005 he was ridiculed. The following chart highlights how accurate he was.
Watching his presentation at the recent APRO conference is almost alarming. The financial crisis and the decline in oil prices has governments, investors and consumers in a false sense if security. If Matts position is accurate the next crisis will be of a magnitude far greater than any we have seen in history, it will impact everyone, will happen almost overnight and no amount of money printing will solve it. This is the 1000 pound gorilla in the room that no one has noticed. It is another compelling reason why we are headed for hyperinflation and gold & silver will be the go to assets.
Posts
