If Britain starts fuel rationing, could US be next?

gas rationing coupon

Gas rationing almost came to the US during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Could we see it in the future? And would that be so bad?

This week, a group of British MPs released a plan to start rationing fuel within the next ten years. Could the US follow suit?

The plan calls for the government to issue an equal number of Tradable Energy Quotas to all British adults for free and to auction credits off to businesses and government agencies. The goal of TEQs would be to encourage conservation and to deal with any future energy shortages in a way that’s more fair than letting high prices determine who buys energy and who doesn’t.

In the face of runaway climate change and imminent peak oil, Britain is thinking ahead.

Scary, but less than the alternative

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, which put out the plan, explains how the system would work: “When you buy energy, such as petrol for your car or electricity for your household, units corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment. TEQs transactions are automatic, using credit-card or (more usually) direct-debit technology.”

Food rationing poster

Rationing by plan is fairer than rationing by price or by first-come-first-served.

When fuel costs rise, high prices serve as an unofficial form of rationing, as lower-income people start to cut back. But price rationing is inherently unfair, as it favors the rich, who can still consume energy wastefully even if prices are higher.

As Jeremy Leggett, author of  The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era and member of the UK business community’s peak oil task force, explained:

What I like about TEQs is the fairness of it. When the energy crunch hits us, it will behoove government and industry to ensure equitable access to available energy, within a national budget. TEQs is a route to synergisitic efforts of the kind we will need if we are to mobilize the infrastructure of a zero-carbon future fast, under pressure. It would increase the chances of working our way through the grim times to renaissance-through-resilience.

With oil trading near $100 per barrel in London and Britain’s Fuel Poverty fund stretched to heat low-income households this winter, the TEQ proposal comes at a tough time for energy in the UK. While the report recommends implementing the fuel rationing system sometime in the next ten years, if fuel costs continue to rise then it’s likely that the government would have to consider some form of energy rationing sooner.

WWII gas ration poster

Getting the public involved can make them care more.

A way to get citizens involved

Britain has pledged to  reduce carbon emissions by 32% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 from 1990 levels. Though it is unlikely to meet its near-term pledges, the UK will need something like TEQs to have any chance of making real cuts to its greenhouse emissions.

And cutting emissions even more will require a society-wide effort that gets the public more deeply involved. TEQs could be just the thing to pull citizens in as climate fighters — either for or against.

Britain’s 2008 climate law already authorizes the government to release TEQs. But because of its far-reaching implications, the peak oil group thinks that a separate law would be needed to implement any energy-quota plan in the future. In the meantime, to build public support for such a controversial measure, the group has already begun to promote the scheme.

The report, compiled for the parliamentary group (which not an official committee of the House of Commons) by London-based consultancy the Lean Economy Connection and based on the theories company founder David Fleming who died in November last year, aims to make any energy-quota system both simple and flexible enough that it will be easy for people to comply.

In particular, because extra energy quota units would be freely traded on an open market, there would be no temptation to resort to a black market for ration coupons. This of course, would reward conservation and would reduce the impact of rising energy costs on the poor, who use less energy by definition.

In its analysis, the parliamentary group demonstrates a thoughtful analysis of consumer behavior:

Behavioral studies have consistently shown that intrinsic motivation (that is, desiring the actual consequences of undertaking a task) drives us more effectively than extrinsic motivation (being rewarded for doing something, or penalised for not doing it). For Daniel Pink’s entertaining presentations on this research see his TED talk or RSA animation. The important Common Cause report (Sept 2010) considered motivation with regard to environmental issues in particular, and reinforced this conclusion. But this understanding has largely failed to penetrate climate policy, which is generally based on classic ‘carrot and stick’ ideas about motivation.

When the British last used rationing from 1940 to 1954, the program had a profound affect on the public, and “is largely remembered not as a time of deprivation but of plucky courage, solidarity and fortitude in the face of a dangerous adversary,” according to TIME magazine.

Not born in the USA

Thanks to the bi-partisan efforts of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), Capitol Hill has had a Congressional Peak Oil Caucus since 2005. But despite the unfailing work of Bartlett in particular, who at age 85 still hasn’t given up trying to convince his colleagues to take energy depletion seriously, Bartlett told me he doesn’t expect Congress to propose any way to price carbon anytime soon.

“The Europeans are leading in many ways,” Bartlett said in a phone conversation. “But we’re still in denial.”

And while both the Department of Energy and the military’s Joint Forces Command have put out reports on the dangers of America’s addiction to oil, we are unlikely to see anything out of Washington with the subtle reasoning and forward thinking showed in recent years by the UK parliament.

Robert Hirsch, who wrote that Department of Energy report on peak oil in 2005, even included a plan for gas rationing in his 2010 book, The Impending World Energy Mess.

But these voices are not on the ascendant in America today.

On this side of the pond, where down-home ignorance has become a sign of authenticity, where Sarah Palin shapes the English language and where Tea Partiers proudly wield misspelled signs with nonsensical messages like “Government: Hands Off My Medicare,” unfortunately what we can expect to see on energy is just more no-nothing sloganeering along the lines of “drill baby drill” and more efforts by the GOP-led House to cut spending on clean energy and efficiency while leaving fossil fuel subsidies alone.

Even though the rest of the world may be tired of waiting for Washington to get on board to cut our use of fossil fuels or our greenhouse emissions, it will be impossible for the world to reach any reasonable energy or climate targets without the United States also making cuts.

And America can choose to make those cuts on its own, either to slow climate change, prepare for peak oil or both. Or, other nations can pressure the US to make cuts through trade sanctions.

Aside from the failed cap-and-trade, a couple of serious plans for the US to voluntarily cut fossil fuel use have already been proposed by climate and peak oil activists.

But without either a huge public campaign funded by billionaires like that imagined by Ralph Nader in “Only the Super-rich Can Save Us!” or some type of catastrophic event like an oil shock, it is unlikely that the US will soon pass any national policy to put a price on carbon.

That leaves the involuntary option.

Kicking and screaming

In the most likely scenario, the international community, led by Europe and Japan, would agree on an emissions-cutting plan more robust and binding than the Kyoto Protocol, one that would inevitably include some form of carbon tax or energy-quota system like the British TEQs. Then, the participating nations would form a new trading bloc that would punish outliers with import tariffs. As the parliamentary peak oil group explains:

Ideally there would be a TEQs scheme in each nation, which would mean that embodied emissions would always be accounted for within a robust national budget. However, given that TEQs will almost certainly be implemented by some nations before others, import tariffs will be necessary to ensure that domestic producers are not disadvantaged. This was once regarded as politically unthinkable, but as the President of the European Commission shows in this article, that is no longer the case.

Recently, James Hansen called for China to take the lead on a global carbon-pricing system that would force the United States to either join in or face trade restrictions. With the vitriol they like to throw at climate change activists, right-wing blogs have denounced Hansen, with one article accusing him of “treason.”

But given the stupidity of public discourse on the issue of climate in America today on the one hand and the power of Big Oil and Big Coal on Capital Hill on the other (with the House GOP “kissing fossil fuel ass” as David Roberts aptly puts it in Grist) the US may not be capable anymore of taking intelligent action to control our own energy use and greenhouse emissions, voluntarily and while there’s still time to make a difference.

In that case, it’s likely that the rest of the industrialized countries will move ahead without us. And if they do, the British TEQ plan is sure to be on the table.

— Erik Curren

You might also enjoy


  1. says

    Fascinating article, Erik. I am convinced that energy rationing is now inevitable in Britain, and will definitely happen before 2020. I think it will receive massive popular support once it becomes clear that it will prevent gross fuel inequality and poverty and stop a ferocious bidding war on what little fossil fuel energy is available. Rationing has a well-respected history in Britain, which has a renowned civil service easily capable of administering it. You may be interested in my latest comments that I have just put on my blog:

    “Yesterday was a very significant day in the history of Britain, of our island race, because yesterday a report was issued by the All Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas – TEQs: A Policy Framework for Peak Oil and Climate Change – which contains an idea whose time has come, an idea which will take us safely into the future if we only welcome that idea and embrace it now. That idea is: energy rationing. To prevent the threat of runaway climate change, Britain has already made a statutory commitment to reduce its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. That can only be achieved by drastically reducing the amount of energy consumed from fossil fuels every year until 2050. But well before then the amount of fossil fuels available to consume will drastically fall anyway, primarily because of the arrival of peak oil. So the need for fossil fuel energy consumption to decline will be accelerated by the increasing lack of availability of fossil fuels to consume. And the only way to manage such a decline in a controlled way is through the equitable method of rationing – yes, rationing! And that is something Britain knows all about. Within the living memory of my parent’s generation, rationing has an iconic status as part of the reason why Britain not only survived the dark days of the Second World War but forged the shared sense of “let us go forward together” that enabled Britain to go on to ultimate victory. Rationing was readily accepted by the British people as a natural expression of the deeply ingrained sense of ‘fair play’ embedded in the nation’s self-identity, and enabled the British people to accept the high degree of centralised control by an all-powerful state that was essential to the war effort; if the state was willing to administer the burden of rationing in an openly fair and just manner, for the benefit of all, then the state was deserving of popular support in return. And the system of Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) outlined in the report is the fair and equitable system of energy rationing that is so clearly necessary to manage the energy crunch about to hit Britain very soon.

    That this system of energy rationing has already been so carefully worked out, and could so easily be implemented and managed using the wonders of our modern computer technology, is enormously reassuring, because energy rationing is clearly inevitable, and I am optimistic that the British people, with its history of accepting rationing, would demand it soon enough when the need for it becomes blindingly obvious to all. I grew up hearing from my parents the stories of how they managed with rationing, not only during the war but during the post-war austerity that followed. I would marvel, or wince, at how they managed with such small amounts of food each week, and they would talk about how hard it was to ‘mend and make do’, but there was also an unmistakable pride in their voices as they related their stories, pride in the fact that they managed, that rationing worked, that community spirit was enhanced by rationing rather than eroded by it, and that one could still enjoy life even under the strictures of rationing. That kind of pride is what will come back, I’m sure, as Britain faces a new kind of Blitz from the armada of climate change and peak oil events arriving on our shores”.

    Also, the UK Green Party has just issued a fascinating report on how lessons can be learnt from Britain’s war time past to help deal with climate change and energy insecurity. The report is available from:

    • says

      Dear Andy,

      Your comments about the British people remind me of why I’m such an Anglophile. Indeed, the British showed their pluck under Churchill and I’m sure they’ll show it again. Mend and make do indeed. I just hope we can get some of that pluck this side of the pond!


  2. Tony Weddle says


    I think it’s important to point out that The All Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil is not a parliamentary committee, as you claimed at the start of your article. As far as I’m aware, it has no official place in the structure of parliament, whatsoever. It is merely a group of parliamentarians who have similar concerns over the peak oil issue. It looks like they are able to make use of some House of Commons facilities but they can’t be described as a committee of parliament and have no direct influence on any policy or government decisions. At the moment, although the adoption of TEQs would be a great move, I doubt whether there is any chance of TEQs becoming official government policy, now or in the future.


    • says


      You are absolutely right to say that the All Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil is just an informal grouping with no direct, official input into Government policy-making, but I think it does exert considerable influence as a pressure-group, and has helped to ensure that a true parliamentary committee, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (which does have an official place in the structure of parliament), look carefully at TEQs. The Committee concluded that:

      “Personal carbon trading could be essential in helping to reduce our national carbon footprint. Further work is needed before personal carbon trading can be a viable policy option and this must be started urgently, and in earnest. In the meantime there is no barrier to the Government developing and deploying the policies that will not only prepare the ground for personal carbon trading, but which will ensure its effectiveness and acceptance once implemented.

      …Although we commend the Government for its intention to maintain engagement in academic work on the topic, we urge it to undertake a stronger role, leading and shaping debate and coordinating research. We acknowledge the many difficulties that will have to be overcome in the development and implementation of a personal carbon trading scheme, not least work to bring about acceptance of such a concept and considerable further research on many aspects of personal carbon trading. However, we believe that, through designing and implementing a sensitive and moderate scheme, these obstacles could be overcome.”

      Such a strong backing from an official parliamentary committee does put pressure on the government to keep TEQs alive as a valid policy option, and indeed, as Erik pointed out in his article, it would relatively easy for the government to switch quickly to TEQs as the Climate Change Act of 2008 does grant powers allowing the Government to introduce TEQs at a later date without further primary legislation. From my limited knowledge of the British parliamentary system, the civil servants at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are probably already hard at work creating all the groundwork necessary for the implementation of TEQS, but government ministers will stay quiet until it becomes absolutely necessary to act and then they will pull TEQs, or some form of energy rationing, like a rabbit out of the hat, just in time! I note with interest that over the last year the government has quietly been holding meetings with business leaders and energy experts about the imminence of peak oil and the over-dependence of Britain upon imported oil and gas, and its imminent phasing out of ageing nuclear power stations; the British government may not be saying so publicly, but it is, I’m pretty sure, increasingly concerned behind the scenes about peak oil.


  3. Friendly neighbour says

    The article is mostly right but only under a narrow scope.

    My problem is that it’s a bit naive. The problem really isn’t the U.S. congress but mainly the emerging economies and especially Chindia which will drive oil production and greenhouse gasses.

    The OECD is actually in decline since several years back(before the 2008 depression).

    At the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, China was the main brake on any deal.
    This doens’t mean we should avoid to criticize the U.S. or the West but to narrow in on these areas is an unfortunate defect of the Left which has been a staple of it’s thought(it’s all the West’s fault) since many decades back.

    Much of the future depends more on China and India as well as many African, ME and Central Asian nations more than it does on the U.S. and even more so than on Europe.

    I hope you can draw a broader and more nuanced scope with your next article.

    • says

      Friendly neighbor,

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You’re right, the focus in the piece was the US.

      At the same time we are keenly aware of the role of the two emerging powers, especially China. We published a piece by NASA climatologist James Hansen, “China can slow global warming if US won’t,” on just this issue. Sure, China builds a new coal plant everyday, so they’re a major offender, and of course they’ve become the world’s largest current GHG polluter (though it’ll be a long time before they catch up with the US as the world’s largest cumulative polluter). But Beijing is also doing much more to promote clean energy than Washington is. So China could go either way — they could save the Earth or destroy it.

      What concerns us whenever someone says it’s all about China and India now, is that this is just what free-market foes of climate action say in the US. They argue that the US shouldn’t do anything until the Chinese agree to do something. And that’s become their excuse to do nothing. But the Chinese say the same thing, so it’s become a game of chicken with the world’s future at stake. Here in America we need to be very careful about not feeding that fire. It’s not China’s fault and we shouldn’t wait until they agree to act. The US needs to act whatever China decides to do. And we believe that if the US sets a good example, China is likely to follow, as Beijing has said. And until we put them to the test, we’ll never know. What we do know is that if the US does nothing, China probably will do very little as well.

      Aside from America’s huge role in cumulative emissions, we still think it’s important to focus on the US in the future for two reasons: 1) Washington has neutered any major world agreement on climate so far, especially Kyoto. Copenhagen was the same. Whatever China’s role there, it was Obama’s failing to take leadership that surely affected the Chinese. As newcomers to the industrial table, they always say that the West has the major responsibility to clean up the mess we made over the last 150 years, and that they’ll wait for us to take serious action on climate. So, again for the foreseeable future, we think that Washington can either kill any meaningful intl agreement or just keep China from agreeing by our bad example. 2) The US is still the world’s richest nation with a huge ability to make a difference in climate for good or bad, again I think, for at least another 50 years (if the world has that long!) And don’t forget that the US military is bigger than the next 10 nations’ militaries put together, including China. The US won’t just fade away quietly as the new Asian Tigers assert their power in the Asian Century. There’s sure to be a very interesting dynamic going on for decades to come, and the US will certainly play a major role.


  4. Adrian says

    Speaking from the UK I think you have an optimistic assessment of our approach to energy issues. I hope we do see rationing like this rather than by price but I’m not optimistic about this government so far. They seem to cave in to pressure from motorists, etc… pretty easily. Just at the moment there is talk of a fuel duty stabiliser to try and soften increases to oil prices. And of course we need to have already started lowering our emissions. This government claims to be the greenest ever but I’ve seen little evidence of this, we’ve yet to see any attempts to curb aviation for example.

    I hope I am wrong. I think the phrase “the grass is always greener springs to mind”. Some US states and doing good things and some councils in the UK are too, the change is coming slowly from the bottom up.

    • says

      I confess to being a bit of an Anglophile, so I hope I’m not guilty of overplaying how green the UK government seems compared to Washington, where even a liberal president can get little done against the power of Big Coal and Big Oil. Certainly, states like California and New Jersey are putting real support behind clean energy. And I’m also glad we can share ideas, such as the TEQ plan. This may be blue sky thinking and unlikely to become policy anytime soon, but that’s often how progress is made — if you reach for the stars, you can shoot for the moon.

  5. ChuckT says

    Erik –

    Not for nothing but including attacks on the U.S. right side of the political spectrum does little to further dialogue with those on the right who are not only aware of Peak Oil but open to exploration of a variety of approaches (Gov’t and Private sector). I happen to be one of those who tend to vote Republican, am tired of “spend baby spend” as the left AND right “big gov’t” approach to everything, and thus have respect for the Tea Party who are getting active to say ENOUGH! Contrary to your character assassination paragraph:
    “On this side of the pond, where down-home ignorance has become a sign of authenticity, where Sarah Palin shapes the English language and where Tea Partiers proudly wield misspelled signs with nonsensical messages like…” not everyone on the right (witness the aforementioned Roscoe Bartlett) or who agrees with the Tea Party concerns about a skyrocketing 14+ TRILLION dollar debt – is incapable of also seeing the concern around Peak Everything, the environment, and the need to scale back. Paragraphs like yours do little to help the dialogue and display your own lack of ability to recognize nuance in people’s positions. I am SO sick and tired of this “smarter than thou” attitude from the left.

    That said – I DO think our Gov’t is either incapable of recognizing the problem, or more likely, simply overwhelmed at the prospect and are taking the same approach to Peak Oil that most people take when faced with what seems like an insurmountable problem – ignore it and hope it goes away until forced to grapple with it. Between the looming fiscal crisis this President and the left appear to want to ignore by continuing to spend spend spend (high speed rail – gimme a break) and right want to ignore by keeping tax breaks for the wealthy and ignoring crony capitalism; and both sides wanting to pretend Peak Oil isn’t happening and we’ll miraculously spend our way to some technological nirvana of energy plenty . . . I am more and more becoming a DOOMER. For I see little hope of either side having rational discussion and displaying a willingness to compromise to create some way out of this mess for the U.S.

    Very sad. I pray for my children and their children. The future is looking pretty bleak.

    • says

      Dear ChuckT,

      You’re right, I’m not a Palin or Tea Party admirer. I think both of them are an unhelpful influence on American politics, and I feel a responsibility to call out what I see as their bullying and anti-knowledge approach.

      But that doesn’t mean I dismiss conservatives in general. Indeed, I used to vote Republican myself. I even campaigned for Reagan against Carter, if you can believe that. These days, I know intelligent GOPers who are ashamed that Palin has become the face of their party. If there were more Republicans like Rep Bartlett, I’d consider going back, because I do agree with much of their platform, particularly fiscal responsibility and freedom for individual initiative.

      I also have many problems with the Dems; they seem as beholden to money in politics as anyone else. Goldman Sachs seems to have bought their party. I’m more with Nader or Ron Paul these days.

      That said, I’m happy you’ve come to our site and I hope we can talk more about what we agree on: that both parties ignore peak oil to our nation’s peril, that most politicians take an unrealistic stance on energy, and that communities do need to start planning for themselves. I’m even starting to soften on Glenn Beck. No, I will never give him a free pass on climate change. But if we can put that contentious issue aside, I’m glad Beck understands peak oil, I agree with him on gold and I’m glad that solar power companies are advertising on his show.

      As to doom vs politics, I respect where you’re coming from. If it weren’t for people like Nader, Ron Paul, or Bartlett, I probably would’ve washed my hands of it long ago. But I guess I feel like we need to do both — prepare ourselves and our communities while still trying to work with govt.


      • ChuckT says

        Thanks Erik for your response. I AM shocked to hear that you campaigned for Regan over Carter. I guess I fall prey to my own complaint – and tend to assume all voicing these concerns are from the left politically.

        Personally – I am not a member of any Tea Party org, but I WAS at Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally with my family and met several. NOT the racist nazis the left would like to portray them as and I can totally identify with their frustration and anger at both the Republican and Democrat parties over big gov’t that ignores the voice of a large, conservative, and increasingly vocal portion of the population.

        I personally find many Republican’s JUST as bad as the “tax & spend” Democrats. They deficit spend too – just on differing priorities. It’s time for ALL deficit spending to cease, for the U.S. to clean up its fiscal house, and make the necessary hard cuts across the board. I am less enthused about increasing taxes, but if that’s what it takes to reduce the unsustainable deficits and at least start to reduce the actual debt – then so be it. My fear there is that increased taxes are a drag our fragile economy can’t take right now. But the spending and over promising on social programs and on military MUST be cut!!!

        I happen to agree with you that on environmental issues (though I am still neutral on climate change) and certainly peak oil, they need to be enlightened. Hopefully that can happen. I get frustrated because too often in U.S. politics the attitude that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” takes over – and because the right has abandoned the environmental issues and ignores peak oil – the left has “captured” those issues and many on the right just ignore it because that’s a “left issue”. I am not convinced that any Gov’t program focused on alternative energy will push solar, wind, etc over the top. But I DO think that subsidies and tax breaks on oil need to end to level the playing field. Then – if those alternatives can gain market share on a level playing field great. All in all though – I don’t think they’ll replace oil and coal, and we’ll all be facing a MUCH reduced energy economy going forward. Time to buck up – and relearn how to survive and thrive the OLD way – circa early 1800’s. Sadly – I think we WILL experience a massive die off to get there though.

        Signed –
        eyore 😉

  6. allenwrench says

    Good article!

    Industry is trying to scale back on crude in the petrochem department, but it can only do so much in the crude based world we have created.

    Take a DVD cases. It has a decorative holes cut in the case. Saves 20% of the plastic over the old cases. Water bottles? They also cut 20% of the plastic with thinner shaped bottles and smaller caps.

    But even if we did find out how to burn water for energy, petrochemicals use make up roughly 9% of every barrel of crude consumed.

    If we stopped burning crude this instant – we would still suck the wells dry, albeit not as quickly, just from petrochemical use.

    I have to laugh at the knuckleheads on TV that say ‘lets get off crude.’ What do they think they will pave the roads with? And roof our houses and buildings? The tires on our electric cars…the Chinese clothes on our backs..the keyboards we are all typing on…all crude based.

    Some work has been done with making plastics from corn, but it can’t touch the variety of plastic and rubber products that crude produces.


    So even if we all stop driving we will just be postponing the inevitable .

    From this list we can see that we are still massively depend on crude for our non sustainable lifestyle.
    There is no replacement for crude…crude is in the details of our life.

    Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
    Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
    Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
    Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
    Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
    Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
    Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
    CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
    Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
    Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
    Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
    Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
    Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
    Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape
    Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
    Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
    Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
    Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
    Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
    Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
    Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
    Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
    Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
    Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
    Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
    Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
    Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
    Combs CD’s Paint Brushes Detergents
    Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
    Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
    Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
    Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
    Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
    Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
    Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
    Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline

    …you still have some valuable time left to prepare for what awaits you down the road.

    We are in the ‘Indian Summer’ of a carbon based world. Don’t wait until the winter sets in to start work on your preparedness efforts.

    …Semper Paratus

    • says

      allenwrench — thanks for your nice compliment and your own great comment. I love these lists of all the stuff we get from oil. Jim Baldauf, president of ASPO-USA, has an idea to run an ad campaign. Instead of “Save the Whales” it would be “Save the Oil.” It would highlight all the stuff in your list that we need so desperately and then say that “burning oil in your gas tank is like burning $100 bills in your fireplace.”

      And Congressman Roscoe Bartlett says that just as we shouldn’t leave our grandkids burdened with the federal debt, so we also shouldn’t use up all the oil. We should leave some for future generations too. I know, not very likely, but still, a nice sentiment.

      We believe in preparation too and we hope to run more articles on both community and family preparation in the future. Meanwhile, let’s not waste time. This is a precious opportunity to get ready for a different world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *