The Long Emergency

"Luxury is more ruthless than war." --- Roman poet Juvenal

Global Climate Chaos, Global Oil Peak, US War
to Swamp Everything Else

"U.S. China, India  are on track to build 850 new coal power plants (327,000 MWs)  by 2012 that will emit an additional 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or over 5 times the carbon dioxide emissions cuts of the 140 countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol, who currently plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 483 million tons by 2012."     
----- March/April 2005 Energy Biz Magazine--

Unlike other environmental problems,  Clobal Climate Chaos (GCC) is cumulative and non-reversible within a century or two.  

Initiatives for '06  in 24 states w Initiative process?  --the niche between futile (now)  federal action and not broad-enough or soon-enough local action.
1) new vehicle sliding scale sales and annual vehicle license taxes re energy efficiency or alt fuel use; 
2) charging 25 cents for electricity above baseline amount during the solar 'window';   
3) increased minimum wage (passed in NV and FL in '04);
4) no voting method that doesn't allow for hand recount.

"Let's leave pessimism for better times."     "False hope is worse than no hope." 

I especially appreciated the remarks of Kevin Danaher of Global Exchange at Marin CA Earth Day.  And I realize that people learn in increments,  but isn't it strange that a speaker and a child of another speaker at Marin Earth Day were wearing the Nike symbol--or an indication  that voluntary individual and local action will not begin to address the overwhelming problems we face.

Roland James,  Santa Rosa Ca  707.235-1012  (below Kunstler, see critique of Community Choice)

This is long, but easier to read/understand than some other articles/books.

The Long Emergency:  
What's going to happen as we start running out of cheap gas
to guzzle?

By James Howard Kunstler
The Rolling Stone
March 24, 2005

A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section. Apparently, the price of oil is not considered significant news, even when it goes up five bucks a barrel in the span of ten days. That same day, the stock market shot up more than a hundred points because, CNN said, government data showed no signs of inflation. Note to clueless nation: Call planet Earth.

Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychology, famously remarked that "people cannot stand too much reality." What you're about to read may challenge your assumptions about the kind of world we live in, and especially the kind of world into which events are propelling us. We are in for a rough ride through uncharted territory.

It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency.

Most immediately we face the end of the cheap-fossil-fuel era. It is no exaggeration to state that reliable supplies of cheap oil and natural gas underlie everything we identify as the necessities of modern life -- not to mention all of its comforts and luxuries: central heating, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, electric lights, inexpensive clothing, recorded music, movies, hip-replacement surgery, national defense -- you name it.

The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion.

The term "global oil-production peak" means that a turning point will come when the world produces the most oil it will ever produce in a given year and, after that, yearly production will inexorably decline. It is usually represented graphically in a bell curve. The peak is the top of the curve, the halfway point of the world's all-time total endowment, meaning half the world's oil will be left. That seems like a lot of oil, and it is, but there's a big catch: It's the half that is much more difficult to extract, far more costly to get, of much poorer quality and located mostly in places where the people hate us. A substantial amount of it will never be extracted.

The United States passed its own oil peak -- about 11 million barrels a day -- in 1970, and since then production has dropped steadily. In 2004 it ran just above 5 million barrels a day (we get a tad more from natural-gas condensates). Yet we consume roughly 20 million barrels a day now. That means we have to import about two-thirds of our oil, and the ratio will continue to worsen.

The U.S. peak in 1970 brought on a portentous change in geoeconomic power. Within a few years, foreign producers, chiefly OPEC, were setting the price of oil, and this in turn led to the oil crises of the 1970s. In response, frantic development of non-OPEC oil, especially the North Sea fields of England and Norway, essentially saved the West's ass for about two decades. Since 1999, these fields have entered depletion. Meanwhile, worldwide discovery of new oil has steadily declined to insignificant levels in 2003 and 2004.

Some "cornucopians" claim that the Earth has something like a creamy nougat center of "abiotic" oil that will naturally replenish the great oil fields of the world. The facts speak differently. There has been no replacement whatsoever of oil already extracted from the fields of America or any other place.

Now we are faced with the global oil-production peak. The best estimates of when this will actually happen have been somewhere between now and 2010. In 2004, however, after demand from burgeoning China and India shot up, and revelations that Shell Oil wildly misstated its reserves, and Saudi Arabia proved incapable of goosing up its production despite promises to do so, the most knowledgeable experts revised their predictions and now concur that 2005 is apt to be the year of all-time global peak production.

It will change everything about how we live.

To aggravate matters, American natural-gas production is also declining, at five percent a year, despite frenetic new drilling, and with the potential of much steeper declines ahead. Because of the oil crises of the 1970s, the nuclear-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the acid-rain problem, the U.S. chose to make gas its first choice for electric-power generation. The result was that just about every power plant built after 1980 has to run on gas. Half the homes in America are heated with gas. To further complicate matters, gas isn't easy to import. Here in North America, it is distributed through a vast pipeline network. Gas imported from overseas would have to be compressed at minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit in pressurized tanker ships and unloaded (re-gasified) at special terminals, of which few exist in America. Moreover, the first attempts to site new terminals have met furious opposition because they are such ripe targets for terrorism.

Some other things about the global energy predicament are poorly understood by the public and even our leaders. This is going to be a permanent energy crisis, and these energy problems will synergize with the disruptions of climate change, epidemic disease and population overshoot to produce higher orders of trouble.

We will have to accommodate ourselves to fundamentally changed conditions.

No combination of alternative fuels will allow us to run American life the way we have been used to running it, or even a substantial fraction of it. The wonders of steady technological progress achieved through the reign of cheap oil have lulled us into a kind of Jiminy Cricket syndrome, leading many Americans to believe that anything we wish for hard enough will come true. These days, even people who ought to know better are wishing ardently for a seamless transition from fossil fuels to their putative replacements.

The widely touted "hydrogen economy" is a particularly cruel hoax. We are not going to replace the U.S. automobile and truck fleet with vehicles run on fuel cells. For one thing, the current generation of fuel cells is largely designed to run on hydrogen obtained from natural gas. The other way to get hydrogen in the quantities wished for would be electrolysis of water using power from hundreds of nuclear plants. Apart from the dim prospect of our building that many nuclear plants soon enough, there are also numerous severe problems with hydrogen's nature as an element that present forbidding obstacles to its use as a replacement for oil and gas, especially in storage and transport.

Wishful notions about rescuing our way of life with "renewables" are also unrealistic. Solar-electric systems and wind turbines face not only the enormous problem of scale but the fact that the components require substantial amounts of energy to manufacture and the probability that they can't be manufactured at all without the underlying support platform of a fossil-fuel economy. We will surely use solar and wind technology to generate some electricity for a period ahead but probably at a very local and small scale.

Virtually all "biomass" schemes for using plants to create liquid fuels cannot be scaled up to even a fraction of the level at which things are currently run. What's more, these schemes are predicated on using oil and gas "inputs" (fertilizers, weed-killers) to grow the biomass crops that would be converted into ethanol or bio-diesel fuels. This is a net energy loser -- you might as well just burn the inputs and not bother with the biomass products. Proposals to distill trash and waste into oil by means of thermal depolymerization depend on the huge waste stream produced by a cheap oil and gas economy in the first place.

Coal is far less versatile than oil and gas, extant in less abundant supplies than many people assume and fraught with huge ecological drawbacks -- as a contributor to greenhouse "global warming" gases and many health and toxicity issues ranging from widespread mercury poisoning to acid rain. You can make synthetic oil from coal, but the only time this was tried on a large scale was by the Nazis under wartime conditions, using impressive amounts of slave labor.

If we wish to keep the lights on in America after 2020, we may indeed have to resort to nuclear power, with all its practical problems and eco-conundrums. Under optimal conditions, it could take ten years to get a new generation of nuclear power plants into operation, and the price may be beyond our means. Uranium is also a resource in finite supply. We are no closer to the more difficult project of atomic fusion, by the way, than we were in the 1970s.

The upshot of all this is that we are entering a historical period of potentially great instability, turbulence and hardship. Obviously, geopolitical maneuvering around the world's richest energy regions has already led to war and promises more international military conflict. Since the Middle East contains two-thirds of the world's remaining oil supplies, the U.S. has attempted desperately to stabilize the region by, in effect, opening a big police station in Iraq. The intent was not just to secure Iraq's oil but to modify and influence the behavior of neighboring states around the Persian Gulf, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. The results have been far from entirely positive, and our future prospects in that part of the world are not something we can feel altogether confident about.

And then there is the issue of China, which, in 2004, became the world's second-greatest consumer of oil, surpassing Japan. China's surging industrial growth has made it increasingly dependent on the imports we are counting on. If China wanted to, it could easily walk into some of these places -- the Middle East, former Soviet republics in central Asia -- and extend its hegemony by force. Is America prepared to contest for this oil in an Asian land war with the Chinese army? I doubt it. Nor can the U.S. military occupy regions of the Eastern Hemisphere indefinitely, or hope to secure either the terrain or the oil infrastructure of one distant, unfriendly country after another. A likely scenario is that the U.S. could exhaust and bankrupt itself trying to do this, and be forced to withdraw back into our own hemisphere, having lost access to most of the world's remaining oil in the process.

We know that our national leaders are hardly uninformed about this predicament. President George W. Bush has been briefed on the dangers of the oil-peak situation as long ago as before the 2000 election and repeatedly since then. In March, the Department of Energy released a report that officially acknowledges for the first time that peak oil is for real and states plainly that "the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary."

Most of all, the Long Emergency will require us to make other arrangements for the way we live in the United States. America is in a special predicament due to a set of unfortunate choices we made as a society in the twentieth century. Perhaps the worst was to let our towns and cities rot away and to replace them with suburbia, which had the additional side effect of trashing a lot of the best farmland in America. Suburbia will come to be regarded as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. It has a tragic destiny. The psychology of previous investment suggests that we will defend our drive-in utopia long after it has become a terrible liability.

Before long, the suburbs will fail us in practical terms. We made the ongoing development of housing subdivisions, highway strips, fried-food shacks and shopping malls the basis of our economy, and when we have to stop making more of those things, the bottom will fall out.

The circumstances of the Long Emergency will require us to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it, from the kind of communities we physically inhabit to the way we grow our food to the way we work and trade the products of our work. Our lives will become profoundly and intensely local. Daily life will be far less about mobility and much more about staying where you are. Anything organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away. The turbulence of the Long Emergency will produce a lot of economic losers, and many of these will be members of an angry and aggrieved former middle class.

Food production is going to be an enormous problem in the Long Emergency. As industrial agriculture fails due to a scarcity of oil- and gas-based inputs, we will certainly have to grow more of our food closer to where we live, and do it on a smaller scale. The American economy of the mid-twenty-first century may actually center on agriculture, not information, not high tech, not "services" like real estate sales or hawking cheeseburgers to tourists. Farming. This is no doubt a startling, radical idea, and it raises extremely difficult questions about the reallocation of land and the nature of work. The relentless subdividing of land in the late twentieth century has destroyed the contiguity and integrity of the rural landscape in most places. The process of readjustment is apt to be disorderly and improvisational. Food production will necessarily be much more labor-intensive than it has been for decades. We can anticipate the re-formation of a native-born American farm-laboring class. It will be composed largely of the aforementioned economic losers who had to relinquish their grip on the American dream. These masses of disentitled people may enter into quasi-feudal social relations with those who own land in exchange for food and physical security. But their sense of grievance will remain fresh, and if mistreated they may simply seize that land.

The way that commerce is currently organized in America will not survive far into the Long Emergency. Wal-Mart's "warehouse on wheels" won't be such a bargain in a non-cheap-oil economy. The national chain stores' 12,000-mile manufacturing supply lines could easily be interrupted by military contests over oil and by internal conflict in the nations that have been supplying us with ultra-cheap manufactured goods, because they, too, will be struggling with similar issues of energy famine and all the disorders that go with it.

As these things occur, America will have to make other arrangements for the manufacture, distribution and sale of ordinary goods. They will probably be made on a "cottage industry" basis rather than the factory system we once had, since the scale of available energy will be much lower -- and we are not going to replay the twentieth century. Tens of thousands of the common products we enjoy today, from paints to pharmaceuticals, are made out of oil. They will become increasingly scarce or unavailable. The selling of things will have to be reorganized at the local scale. It will have to be based on moving merchandise shorter distances. It is almost certain to result in higher costs for the things we buy and far fewer choices.

The automobile will be a diminished presence in our lives, to say the least. With gasoline in short supply, not to mention tax revenue, our roads will surely suffer. The interstate highway system is more delicate than the public realizes. If the "level of service" (as traffic engineers call it) is not maintained to the highest degree, problems multiply and escalate quickly. The system does not tolerate partial failure. The interstates are either in excellent condition, or they quickly fall apart.

America today has a railroad system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of. Neither of the two major presidential candidates in 2004 mentioned railroads, but if we don't refurbish our rail system, then there may be no long-range travel or transport of goods at all a few decades from now. The commercial aviation industry, already on its knees financially, is likely to vanish. The sheer cost of maintaining gigantic airports may not justify the operation of a much-reduced air-travel fleet. Railroads are far more energy efficient than cars, trucks or airplanes, and they can be run on anything from wood to electricity. The rail-bed infrastructure is also far more economical to maintain than our highway network.

The successful regions in the twenty-first century will be the ones surrounded by viable farming hinterlands that can reconstitute locally sustainable economies on an armature of civic cohesion. Small towns and smaller cities have better prospects than the big cities, which will probably have to contract substantially. The process will be painful and tumultuous. In many American cities, such as Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis, that process is already well advanced. Others have further to fall. New York and Chicago face extraordinary difficulties, being oversupplied with gigantic buildings out of scale with the reality of declining energy supplies. Their former agricultural hinterlands have long been paved over. They will be encysted in a surrounding fabric of necrotic suburbia that will only amplify and reinforce the cities' problems. Still, our cities occupy important sites. Some kind of urban entities will exist where they are in the future, but probably not the colossi of twentieth-century industrialism.

Some regions of the country will do better than others in the Long Emergency. The Southwest will suffer in proportion to the degree that it prospered during the cheap-oil blowout of the late twentieth century. I predict that Sunbelt states like Arizona and Nevada will become significantly depopulated, since the region will be short of water as well as gasoline and natural gas. Imagine Phoenix without cheap air conditioning.

I'm not optiM.c about the Southeast, either, for different reasons. I think it will be subject to substantial levels of violence as the grievances of the formerly middle class boil over and collide with the delusions of Pentecostal Christian extremism. The latent encoded behavior of Southern culture includes an outsized notion of individualism and the belief that firearms ought to be used in the defense of it. This is a poor recipe for civic cohesion.

The Mountain States and Great Plains will face an array of problems, from poor farming potential to water shortages to population loss. The Pacific Northwest, New England and the Upper Midwest have somewhat better prospects. I regard them as less likely to fall into lawlessness, anarchy or despotism and more likely to salvage the bits and pieces of our best social traditions and keep them in operation at some level.

These are daunting and even dreadful prospects. The Long Emergency is going to be a tremendous trauma for the human race. We will not believe that this is happening to us, that 200 years of modernity can be brought to its knees by a world-wide power shortage. The survivors will have to cultivate a religion of hope -- that is, a deep and comprehensive belief that humanity is worth carrying on. If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom. Years from now, when we hear singing at all, we will hear ourselves, and we will sing with our whole hearts.

Adapted from The Long Emergency, 2005, by James Howard Kunstler, and reprinted with permission of the publisher, Grove/Atlantic, Inc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** In the 1990s, unfortunately, even environmentalists, renewable advocates, low-income advocates, and consumer advocates bought into electricity deregulation. Since food isn't price-regulated, why regulate electricity?   But grid electricity is the "oxygen" of modern industrial society and has no alternatives in a modern society, while there are thousands of food alternatives;  also grid electricity can't be stored, is very capital intensive (almost anyone can drop seeds in the ground) , can have huge environmental impacts, and is very complex requiring coordination and planning, which are illegal and collusive in a competitive deregulated system. Now in CA, Electricity Community Choice is being pushed with arguments that I heard from the power marketers during the deregulation frenzy when the right wing joined with environmentalists  to  supposedly help "bring both lower prices and cleaner power from renewable sources."          

Of course,  prices became higher and electricity for solar and wind are still below 1% of total electric generation.    

A Green Mountain flyer:  "Thanks to electric utility deregulation, you don't have to sign petitions, march in rallies or call your legislators to help make our planet cleaner and healthier.  It is easy.  Just change your electric service provider (ESP)."   Green Mountain was one of the better ESPs compared to Dynegy, Reliant, Enron, ... -- but still  charged a 19% premium for its "greenest" package.     And is Community Choice really that helpful for the earth and for the environment if for every kwhr of clean power there is a kwhr of baseload 24/7 coal or nuclear power which make up most of the grid's interchange market and which go to the grid's customers who make choice based only on a price,  not including externalities?

There is a  lot of "flat-earth" economics:

"Consider the 6 days of Genesis as a figure of speech for what has in fact been 4 billion years;  on this scale, a day equals something like 660 million years.  All day Monday, creation was busy getting the earth going.  Life began Tuesday noon and the beautiful, organic wholeness of it developed over the next 4 days.  At 4 p.m. Saturday, the big reptiles came on.  Five hours later, when the redwoods appeared, there were no more big reptiles.  At 1/3 of a second before midnight on the last day,  Christ arrived.  At 1/40th of a second before midnight, the Industrial Revolution began.  We are surrounded by people who think that what we've been doing for that 1/40th of a second can go on indefinitely.  They are considered normal, but they are stark raving mad."   -----David Brower.  
 

As carbon builds up in the atmosphere and oil extraction peaks globally sometime within the next few years,  the U.S. is doing little to transition to a world that will have to use much less energy.  (Oil has energy profit ratio or EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of 10 to 100;  all the suggested alternatives have ratios  or EROEIs of less than 2.)  Europe and Japan have built more extensive train infrastructures that will enable them to much better positioned in the future.   Unfortunately,  some Marin bioregionalists and environmentalists have said that they don't support the SMART train because it won't benefit Marin that much. 

***Denial is a River in California and the U.S.......no oil drilling in ANWR or off the Ca coast, but Ecuador and other foreign places are OK?    That is the impression that the rest of the world has.    Generally, even in liberal northern Ca, the answers usually given are voluntarism, NIMBYISM, and market solutions, which Gelbspan  (www.heatisonline.org) , the most significant writer on global climate change, says aren't going to solve these problems.  

"State of Denial" --- 2004 prize of Reuters and UN Environment Program for environmental writing
by Tom Knudson, Sacramento Bee     

"California's environmental legacy of conserving resources at home is on a collision course with its habit of consuming them in record quantities from abroad. And often the losers are impoverished citizens and communities - and spectacular ecosystems - in remote parts of the globe, where money speaks louder than the land."  {Actually,  states like AZ with a large air conditioning load consume even more.}...      http://www.iucn.org/reuters/2004/articles/state-of-denial.htm  for Knudson's whole series.

Most climate activists [in the U.S.] have retreated into approaches that are dismally inadequate to the magnitude of the challenge: an issue of civilization itself.   
 ----- Ross Gelbspan

In "The Steward: A Biblical* Symbol Come of Age,"*  Douglas John Hall writes of the  "programmed indifference to the larger and longer destiny of the earth." --  Especially in the U.S., we (the 'corporate' we or we as a body of people) are too rich and comfortable to be concerned enough about the 3 billion people who live on less than $2/ day to do something about it,  or about a significant effort to deal with Global Climate Change. 
  
In California, the ordinary tract home has become "The Million Dollar Baby."
  
We are indifferent even though one day these issues will overwhelm us or our progeny,  too.  (Report from California University last summer warned that wine industry and dairy farms of Northern Ca are threatened in 30-40 years.)  Or we don't distinguish the merely important from the over-whelming:  pulling weeds re 40,000 children dying/day worldwide or 150,000 dying each month as malaria is back -- probably an effect of global climate change-- but it's  just Africa. 
   
The Titanic as metaphor:  The first class can't look down at the 2nd and 3rd classes and say "only your part of the ship is sinking."
   
George Carlin: "Environmentalists don't give a s__! about the global environment; they just want a clean place to live."
   
Kurt Vonnegut, that incognito prophet of American letters details this social phenomenon better than anyone I know of in his novel, Galapagos. Writing from the perspective of an imaginary society one million years from now, he notes that there is another defect which the Law of Natural Selection has yet to remedy. When people of today have full bellies they are exactly like their ancestors of a million years ago;  very slow to acknowledge any awful troubles they may be in. Then is when they forget to keep a sharp lookout...This was particularly tragic flaw a million years ago, since the people who were best informed about the state of the planet...and rich and powerful enough to slow down all the waste and destruction, were by definition well fed.  So everything was always just fine as far as they were concerned.

"Religion can provide some useful insights, if only to debunk a few of the notions that are being foisted upon us in the name of religion.  The Christian right preaches an extremely selective version of its own creed, long on Leviticus and short on Luke, with scant regard for the Prophets and no end of veneration for the profits.  Its message goes largely unchallenged, partly through general ignorance of biblical tradition and partly because liberal believers and nonbelievers alike wish to maintain a respectable distance from the rhetoric of fundamentalism.  This amounts to a regrettable abandonment of tactics.  One of  Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' was 'Make the enemy live up to their  own book of rules' -- a tough act to pull off in one doesn't even know the rule book."  
                        ------ Garret Keizer    March/April 2005  Mother Jones

Skull Valley Utah - High Level Nuclear waste to be Dumped on Poor Indian Tribe
By Jesse Schultz

Most people know about Yucca Mountain Nevada which has been picked as a permanent storage facility for High Level Nuclear Waste.  It will be sometime before Yucca Mountain is ready, if ever.

In order to facilitate the continuation and expansion of a nuclear industry based on the current unsafe model, a "limited liability" consortium of commercial nuclear facilities companies going under the name of PFS (Private Fuel Storage) began casting about looking for groups of indigenous peoples who were poor and desperate enough to agree to an above ground "temporary" facility on their land.  They found the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute.

These are people who are routinely ignored until they are needed to dump on (literally).  According to Margene Bullcreek, a Skull Valley Goshute at the meeting who is an experienced activist working with Shundahai, the tribe has been trying to recall the executive board for years, but the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) refuses to allow a recall and continues to recognize the
current executive board. PFS has been meeting in secret with this board with only the final decisions being publicized.

According to Margene, most of the tribe is against this because although they stand to gain financially, they stand to lose their ancestral land.

SHOCKER
Then the real shocker.  According to Margene, the Skull Valley band of the Goshute is comprised of only 128 individuals of which only about 70 are adults. PFS, with the help of the BIA is using this small group of desperate and disempowered indigenous people to push through their agenda of a dangerous above ground High Level Nuclear Waste facility.  And what an agenda, with licensing likely this year, the facility will begin accepting High Level Nuclear Waste in 2007, that is 33 months from now.

This means that within 36 months High Level Nuclear waste will be on all the nations Highways, from the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Turnpikes to the California freeways, not to mention all those places Woody Guthrie talked about.  All converging on a site just 45 miles from Salt Lake City.

Actions are ongoing. CONTACT   The Shundahai Network
PO Box 1115 Salt Lake City, UT 84110               Phone:(801) 533-0128          Fax:(801)533-0129
www.shundahai.org