I'm going to begin with a little rant, so please excuse this slight digression - its relevance should become obvious later.

Y'know, I'm truly vexated by the all-pervasive "either/or" mindset that is rooted in Malthusian scarcity theory. Far better is permaculture's "both/and" principle of abundance, achievable if we work with the natural cycles rather than against them.

Ahhh, that's better. Now, back to the main subject.

It's easy to understand how people find it hard to see how peak oil can be relevant in the planetary emergency being precipitated by climate change. However, given that the key to responding to climate change is getting people to change their behaviours, to adopt lower carbon ways of living, then peak oil can be seen as a crucial tool in accelerating that action.

In that sense, both climate activists and enlightened peak oil activists (as opposed to those who advocate coal-to-liquids and indiscriminate drilling) are each trying to achieve similar ends. Building on this, transition thinking weaves the two schools of thought together, focusing on resilience and the potential for positive change at the community level.

It's reasonable to hope that climate action groups will quickly establish some local thought leadership on peak oil and resilience because the fast approaching problems with food and fuel supplies are likely to have impacts that may, horribly, put climate concerns on the back burner. When you add in the credit collapse, inflation, food prices and recession, it's likely that local government, national government and global bodies will be desperate to work closely with community groups that understand how these issues are connected and who bring clear thinking to the imperative of relocalisation. Those groups need to be getting literate on these subjects right now.

Just in case anyone is wondering, Transition isn't a silver bullet transformation of our world into a sustainable state. It operates at the community level in ways that seem to be working. Also needed in parallel is work at the global, national and personal levels. And at each of those levels, the work needs to be able to weave together the interconnectedness of fossil fuels, climate change and human behaviour.

To look at how climate action groups may find peak oil a complementary impetus rather than a distraction, I find it useful to look at why people change behaviours in this context. My observations (and as you'll have guess by now, I'm not a qualified behavioural psychologist) indicate that people change behaviour one account of one, or a combination, of the following:

1. altruism - anthropocentric (towards fellow humans)
2. altruism - Gaian (towards our fellow planetary dwellers - bugs, zebras, dandelions, plankton, bacteria, whales, air, water)
3. self interest
4. they have no choice

Currently, climate change works very much at levels 1. - "every flight I take will bring forward the date that a family of Bangladeshi will be driven from their homes because of inundation"; and/or 2. - "we're reaching tipping points that will hasten the extinction of vast swathes of biodiversity that the planet uses to regulate its temperature"

Conversely, an appreciation of peak oil motivates people urgently at level 3. - "I need to establish access to food supplies that aren't fossil fuel dependent because the UK supermarket system has only 4.5 days worth of food in it".

Additionally, for both the climate change and peak oil groups, level 4. is relevant as well, but with differing timescales:

• for climate change groups, the "we'll have no choice" moment can be quite a long way away if you subscribe to IPCC predictions on sea level rises not becoming dramatic until we get into 2100's (incidentally, I personally disagree with this position and am more inclined to follow Hansen's views)
• for peak oil groups, the "we'll have no choice" moment is already here if you're a poor country, and is heading our way in the rich countries very soon (probably in just a couple of years).

Opinions of which group will act more quickly depends on whether you believe humans to be fundamentally motivated by self-interest or by altruism.

However, why do we need to have an either/or situation? Surely a both/and is more appropriate.

If you weave together peak oil and climate change, you get a water-tight case for action right now, particularly at the community level, based on altruism, on self-interest and on the realisation that we'll be forced to do it soon anyway.

As one of the transitioners put it, "we have to navigate our way through the challenges peak oil will bring us while avoiding cooking the planet". We can only do that if we become literate in climate change AND peak oil, understand how they are different facets of the same circumstances, and devise mitigation strategies that take both into account.

I really wonder whether this is a manifestation of a deep psychological issue - can we internally hold and acknowledge two contradictory aspects of our personality, ie altruism and selfishness. And can we also allow this to be manifested in a group setting.

I love the deep and authentic altruism brought to the table by the climate activists and I fully identify with the heartfelt self-interest that motivates many peak oil activists. These two motivations, either within a group, or within a single person, create a pretty unstoppable force. And that's what we need now.

Further articles on the climate change / peak oil synthesis are here:

• a Heinberg article that's quite long
• Rob's covered it well in his book Transition Handbook
• a shorter article from the wonderful Grist site