Main Edition
US
FR
August 21, 2020 - 7:00am
Like everyone else, the Covid experience caused me to reflect carefully on the fragility of supply chains and on the vast and fragile web of trading connections which we all rely upon. Like everyone else, too, the experience of this enforced “time out” from the world — a time, at the pandemic’s peak, when all work fell away and the sound of a jet passing overhead would cause you to look up at the sky in wonder — came as an unexpected release from the accelerating hustle and pressure of 21st century life.
So I was pleased to read in my local paper this week that, soon, a vision of a slower, more considered future will sail into my home port in the shape of De Gallant, a 1916 fishing lugger repurposed as a cargo ship. Part of the nascent revival of sailing ships as cargo haulers, the Gallant is transporting olive oil, barrels of olives and sacks of rice and salt from small producers in Portugal and France to ports around England, touching UK shores in Ramsgate first before heading on to Penzance, Bristol, London, Newhaven and Great Yarmouth.
There is a growing awareness, due to the increasing threat of climate change, of the value of wind power for carbon-neutral transport, and sailing ships like De Gallant are just one romantic part of the wider ethical movement towards sail cargo. Consider the numbers: while sea cargo makes up less than 3% of total carbon emissions, it’s still responsible for a staggering 700 million tons of fossil fuels burnt every year. For a country like the UK, where 90% of all goods consumed are brought here by sea, the opportunity to rebalance our patterns of trade and consumption in a more sustainable way seems an open goal.
The 21st century revival of sail is just one aspect of a growing low-tech subculture, which in the words of the pioneering Low Tech Institute aims to “bring nonindustrial subsistence technology to (over)developed societies” by testing “ancient and contemporary nonindustrial technologies appropriate for use in modern, small-scale, self-sustaining infrastructure.” While much of this is making virtue of necessity — after all, we may soon have no alternative — a new appreciation of the low-tech may also be a moral virtue in itself.
Who doesn’t feel alienated by the increasing acceleration of life, the “liquid modernity” of endless, constant change, which rarely seems to solve the problems it claims to fix but instead brings new problems in its wake? I’m reminded here of the visionary essay on scything by England’s greatest living writer, Paul Kingsnorth. Comparing the scythe, the “ancient piece of technology; tried and tested, improved and honed, literally and metaphorically, over centuries,” with its unsatisfactory replacement the brushcutter, noisy, thirsty for oil and inefficient, “more cumbersome, more dangerous, no faster, and far less pleasant to use than the tool it replaced,” Kingsnorth lands on an essential truth:
For better or worse, Covid provided a brief glimpse of a different world, an earlier world and perhaps our future one. The machine stopped: and in the silence it left behind we could hear, as if for the first time, streets without cars, birdsong in the trees and the wind rustling through the leaves and furrowing the waves on the sea. When De Gallant comes to shore next month it won’t just be carrying wine and olives in its hold but also a vision of a simpler, slower way of life.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis article is basically all about nostalgia for a past that did not exist.
If you had grown up with rationing and seasonal foods, you would not wish to return to it.
If you wish to see the future of “Green” look to California, where last weekend they had power cuts, because they could not produce enough electricity for the demand. The reason not much wind, not much sun, and not much fossil fuel backup plants.
Britain is going the same way, we are reducing fossil fuel backup for when the wind and the sun fail. What will happen when we are forced to have electric cars and the demand for electricity increases ?
Do not believe that battery storage is the answer, at present there is no battery storage system available that is able to cope with the demand for electricity on the scale required.
If you wish to live in a society where the electricity goes off whilst you are cooking, using the washing machine, the internet, or walking home when the street lights go off, etc. then by all means go green. If you value the benefits of modern society then do not believe the hype.
You’ve certainly identified the big problem with wind and solar power: inconsistent delivery. However, I don’t think that the picture is quite as black as you paint it. Certainly, conventional batteries are unlikely to provide the answer, but there are a number of alternatives such as water pumping, gas liquification and gravity-based storage that show promise.
To my mind though, the main problem is that we are so profligate with our electricity usage. Examples are illuminated advertising hoardings, poorly insulated homes and offices, buildings that require constant aircon, our obsession with powering just about everything….I could go on. Even much-lauded Tesla cars strike me as being over-large, over-complicated and therefore rather wasteful.
A strategy of producing energy from cleaner sources, new storage systems and, importantly, a reduction in enegy usage has a better chance of success.
Electricity is inherently wasteful, and it is problematic for various reasons. Obviously, it will not be abandoned for some time – but many in my parents’ generation did not have electricity until the 1930s. Ivan Illich has gathered also much feminist hsitory to show how electric domestic ‘labour saving’ machines have actually served to oppress women in the home more by devaluing home-keeping as a boring chore that needed none of the strength and skill needed in old fashioned, and highly valued, home keeping, and creating a vicious circle whereby as the hoovers and washing machines and dishwashers downgraded the status of home-keeping, so women who had to do this felt even more under-valued and were objectively devalued in the work place unless they did a ‘man’s job’, from which they were either excluded, or for which they were paid less, etc.
The article is about the fact that financially viable oil reserves are due to run out in 50 years time.
The whole point of turning green is to acknowledge that.
Although they were saying 20 years with great earnestness in the 1970s…….
Yes, it is a question that many of us asked then – was it wise to be so precise in predicting the future. As Popper said, the future is unpredictable because we don’t know now what we might know then. But that is the point against the techno-fix solution to the energy crisis, which is a fact. You cannot base a future high tech economy on a technique of energy production you have not yet invented, and are nowhere near inventing. Even if one could produce and use energy as profligately as we are now, how many of us want a robotic star trek world that divorces us from the natural environment and our own nature? EM Forster wrote a very prescient short novel over a hundred years ago: The Machine Stops.
You are almost certainly on the right track, but be careful of too precise predicting.
This comment assumes that the purpose of ‘going green’ is to find a different way of providing our society with the same level of profligate energy use. It isn’t. And that profligate energy use did not exist even a few decades back, when quality of life, taken in the round, was often measurably better.
If your vision of the future is ten billion people all guzzling petrol to keep their Twitter feeds and SUVs and massive TVs going perpetually, then fine. But the notion that we are ‘going backwards’ if we can’t have this is precisely the religious attitude towards ‘progress’ that the writer critiques.
We live in a tiny moment in time in which massive consumption of fossil fuels is creating a bubble of decadence that can’t last and doesn’t make us happy anyway. It also fuels the biggest mass extinction for 60 million years.
I’d be happy to use a scythe rather than a brushcutter to turn that around. Hell, I’d even walk home without street lights, as most of the world does and we did for 99.9% of history, apparently without falling down fatal potholes.
I grew up with rationing and seasonal foods. And I loved it. And 2.8 million people did not die of obesity every year. And there were less famines than there are now. We grew whatever we could in our front and back garden, and loved it. We kept chickens in the back yard and had fresh eggs every day. I loved playing with our chickens and our dog and cat also enjoyed playing with them. We did not have to worry about pesticides in the food, and it tasted of real food. When I walked home from school, the grass was taller than me along the road, and very few cars came by, and there were no angry petrol guzzling hedge cutters, lawn mowers, strimmers, leaf-blowers, etc. destroying the song of the birds and the wind. Nor did my Mum have to worry that some huge lorry spraying pewsticides would poison me. Most people worked within walking, or at the most cycling distance from home, and came home for cooked ‘Dinner’ at midday. No child had tinnitus that I knew, and now half the young people I knowI know have tinnitus due to the constant motor noises of our ‘environment’. We could play in the road, and our parents had no fear of traffic. We could walk or cycle down any counry road or lane on a sunny day for miles without the threat of immediate squashing by speeding cars and lorries. But why do we mention going back to the past just because a technology that might be useful was used in the past? As Newton and others said, I could not see so far if I were not standing on the shoulders of those who had gone before. The past is not a country to return to: it is a storehouse of knowledge to be referred to.
The first Census in 1801 revealed that the population of Great Britain was 10.5 million.
If we wanted to follow horse-drawn ploughs and then harvest our crops with scythes, I’m sure we could feed 10.5 million people.
Unfortunately, our population is now 68 million. With very intensive agriculture we produce half the food we need. By borrowing, we buy the other half.
Go back to the pre-industrial idyll by all means. Where do we put all the excess people?
” Where do we put all the excess people?”
No problem. They can all die of measles, the Plague, and cholera!
Seriously, I’m all for using tried and trusted technologies, and get the point that a lot of new stuff is ultimately pointless, as much as I am attracted to the romance of the past. However, we look at it through rose tinted spectacles.
Have you ever read how hazardous and unpleasant conditions were on the much romanticised Tea Clippers, and other sailing ships of yore? Sailing ships couldn’t hope to provide the volume of trade we all require, unless we want to go back to eating only home grown turnips and carrots.
And having used both a scythe and a brush cutter, I appreciate the point. What about a horse versus a tractor, or a combine harvester versus said scythe? Would we be allowed a threshing machine, or even horses, for that matter?
I love the idea of living in a 1940s Britain, flying a Spitfire, but the reality would have been horrible food, poor hygiene (by modern standards), and a swift fiery death.
My point was that we can’t eat only home grown produce.
I believe that France is the only state in the EU to be self-sufficient. That’s because their population is roughly equal to ours but their area is twice as great.
A green daydream. Can’t happen, won’t happen. And a clipper under full sail might have been one of the most beautiful forms of transport ever devised by man. But life before the mast was hard, brutal, dangerous and badly paid. Much like life as a pre-industrial agricultural worker.
I agree that going back to the past is a bad idea; but I don’t think that this is entirely a ‘green dream’.
Surely it’s worth taking ideas from the past and seeing whether, with the application of modern technology and knowledge, they can help us to reduce our energy consumption and environmental impact.
Certainly, a traditional sailing ship would be a significant challenge to operate, but modern sail-assited ships and rotorships might contribute to a cleaner future
The boat operates by taking paying crew as well as cargo. The last of the big windjammers did the same up to the 1950’s. Nothing wrong with that and it does inspire people. The only commercial sailing vessels now are where diesels are unaffordable (e.g. dhows in Zanzibar or Mozambique). There are some great examples around of sailing vessels being used for working holidays, and for training and rehabilitation. Building and maintaining them is a high level skill that can transfer to other industries. It’s a complex mix, it would be great to make it work.
As someone who uses a scythe regularly, and has tried gas-powered whipper-snippers, I will strongly agree that we use the gas version because of deep-seated ideologies rather than practicality or logic. There is a “if you can do it with a power version, why would you do it by hand?” attitude. My neighbours and friends here in Canada lament their bellies and poor physical conditioning, and the lack of time to get to the gym, as they use a snowblower to clear their driveway (after spending time driving to get gas for it, and figuring out why it won’t start). By the time they are done, I’ve had my workout and am back inside by the fire with a cup of tea.
I’m amazed by this, but not being a scyther (to my shame) I must ask: is the machine version really no quicker? And so what’s being said here is that people are using the machine version because 1) of our faith in technology and perhaps, more importantly 2) laziness?
A sad and searing indictment upon us.
I’ve just read that apparently Dave Tagge below is not in agreement with you – would love to see an exchange between the two of you…..
I don’t care how stupid this idea may be, I hope we get more sailing ships plying the oceans, as their fore-sisters did.
We have reimagined the wind mill to build wind turbines. Perhaps it is time to do the same with sail power to at least supplement marine propulsion.
I recall reading about solar ‘sails’ some years ago that are designed to use on large cargo vessels as supplements to existing power plants; not sure how that is developing.
Exactly, early `steam`ships were sail assisted. No reason not to try `sails` and i dont mean canvas. Computer controlled on the open ocean, would save a percentage on fuel.
Love a good eco-fantasy. There’s no critical details, let’s just do it! Right?
Right?
Actually it is technology in the form of the internet that might enable people to live slower, calmer lives as they work from home. Covid has certainly made some some people aware of this, although I’ve been doing it for over 20 years.
The internet in its social media mode is certainly not enabling people “to live slower, calmer lives”. Quite the contrary. And working from home may be fine for some but is crashing a big section of the economy. Not so good for the people who depend on this for their livelihood.
I didn’t say anything about social media, which I have nothing to do with. I am talking about working from home, which enables a life much slower and calmer than submitting oneself to the horrors of commuting and office politics etc.
Working in or near your home is historically normal, but always with a group of other people face to face, and typically whom you know well, trust, and get on with. The absence of real face to face relations whether at home or at work is one of the unhealthiest conditions we can create. Resarch over the past 30 years has emphasised ths over and over. And if you are working from home in a virtual office with the same incompetent and/or functionally sociopathic managers, then the stress does not go away. I have seen this stress multiplied at home because one has no immmediate peer support against this stress.
Deliveries would certainly be slower with no wind or rough seas…
Let’s hope you can cope with the disappointment, Aris, when there is no extra virgin olive oil because of storms in the Bay of Biscay.
I must say I find it ridiculous that so many today take an easy option of: let’s say- driving 500m or 4km to work instead of walking or riding. They then pay for gym memberships (that they don’t use), fast and easy meals and for doctors to fix their knees that are broken in some way because they don’t get the type of use they were diagnosed for. See kids everywhere on crutches, not because they crashed their bike; rather that they hadn’t left their rooms. Bodies are meant to work and without that work will disintegrate.
As for sailing boats: there have been huge improvements in sailing technology and perhaps there are situations where this could be utilised as an aid to other forms of propelling ships. However it will not be replacing diesel for the foreseeable future.
No future is foreseeable for very long – how long is foreseeable?
Paul Kingsnorth is essentially full of sh** in this analysis, and I have no idea why I’m supposed to credit this very weak appeal to authority.
If he wishes to use a scythe out of a sense of hobbyist romanticism and getting in a workout while he accomplishes a task, good for him. Others rightfully prefer a mechanized tool that requires less backbreaking work and accomplishes the job faster.
Apparently Chris Milburn above does not agree – any reply to his comment?
From what I make of his argument, he acknowledges that the mechanized option requires less physical exertion. He talks about having “had his workout” in contrast with others “lamenting [their] bellies”.
If he wants to do that himself as a way to get in a workout, fine. There are logically reasons why many people prefer the less strenuous option that isn’t such a physical workout.
I agree, and yes, it’s great that he’s getting a workout in (and perhaps other people using the mechanized option may prefer to get their workout another way anyway.) What I was most interested in was Chris’ intimations that the old version was just as efficient – in terms of time (rather than overall energy consumption, which is yet another issue). This appeals to my Romantic notions of an idyllic world, but not being a scyther I simply have no idea.
It depends on the skill of the person wielding the scythe, and the type of grass they are cutting, and the machine being compared to. I have seen very slight people exerting very little effort do a field much faster than someone with a petrol powered cutter. Of course, bring in a combine harvester or a tarctor, or whatever, and of course they will get it done. As long as we have enough petrol, let’s do that when we can do it without wrecking the structure of the soil or its micro-ecosystems, as it will save time. But we will almost certainly be back to a lower technology within generations. If the schyther is feeling tired after a short period, they are not doing it right, usually. On the other hand, if one uses strict energy accounting, the scythe wins hands down. As does a mechanical water mill over windpowered electricity generation, or wave powered electricity generation.There is and was no Idyllic world – Et in Arcadia Ego. No point in trying to conjure up ideal worlds – we have to survive in this one, and some of the techniques of the past will be useful starting points when the available energy runs down. Was the past Idyllic? No, but the environment was more beautiful and meaningful, and for indigenous people, also spiritually meaningful – almost all indigenous peoples I have studied had prayers and songs about, and to, the beauty of their ‘home’ which was the natural environment.
No need to be unpleasant.We are all in this together except for a few – the super rich.
Populations can decrease over generations geometrically. All that is required, for instance, is that for every two adults in one generation only one is produced for the next, and this will halve populations every generation. But this drastic a geometric reduction may not be necessary. Robust small communities can agree that not every one produces one replacement of themselves, especially if parenting is shared across extended ‘virtual’ familes, so that all the adults even if they have no childen can experience parenting if they want to, but perhaps not full time. The change to a low tech, or alternative tech, system was never envisioned to happen in a few generations, let alone one. Given the high improbability of a new ‘cheap’ supply of energy, this is the road we are probably on. It is almost certainly not a question of whether we go low tech or not, and reduce population sizes, especially in the First World, but how. No good saying we cannot do it. We will probably have to do it, so let us start thinking now. No good saying we must not return to the bad old past, because this is not a return to the past – it is an entirely new future and we will have to use all the knowledge we have now to make this as painless as possible. Schumacher began thinking and planning for this very seriously in the 1970s, and a few places are trying to continue it.
High tech wind and solar power are almost certainly dead ends, even if we reduce enrgy consumption drastically.
So many of us cannot bite the bullet and accept that our present way of life is not feasible for much longer.
Populations can decrease over generations geometrically. All that is required, for instance, is that for every two adults in one generation only one is produced for the next, and this will halve populations every generation. But this drastic a geometric reduction may not be necessary. Robust small communities can agree that not every one produces one replacement of themselves, especially if parenting is shared across extended ‘virtual’ familes, so that all the adults even if they have no childen can experience parenting if they want to, but perhaps not full time. The change to a low tech, or alternative tech, system was never envisioned to happen in a few generations, let alone one. Given the high improbability of a new ‘cheap’ supply of energy, this is the road we are probably on. It is almost certainly not a question of whether we go low tech or not, and reduce population sizes, especially in the First World, but how. No good saying we cannot do it. We will probably have to do it, so let us start thinking now. No good saying we must not return to the bad old past, because this is not a return to the past – it is an entirely new future and we will have to use all the knowledge we have now to make this as painless as possible. Schumacher began thinking and planning for this very seriously in the 1970s, and a few places are trying to continue it.
High tech wind and solar power are almost certainly dead ends, even if we reduce enrgy consumption drastically.
So many of us cannot bite the bullet and accept that our present way of life is not feasible for much longer.