Logistics

If the logistics chain completely breaks society, as we know it will cease to function. A lot of what the future holds for us will be determined by how well we are prepared to meet it. There will be a devastating shock to mankind. That is unavoidable now, but many examples do exist of how resilient humanity can be. When faced with disaster humanity can be co-operative and inventive.

We are specialized though, and without adequate planning the toll would be very high. The provided basic supply channels remain open. The unfolding ebola crisis in Africa is demonstrating the problem. 

You have a situation where disease causes fear, death or restriction of workers and a lack of clients. 

• The fear aspect means that trading countries have closed down their ports. Trade stops flowing flights are stopped. That means the help can't arrive, restricting transportation to essential services results.
• Workers may be ill, or areas quarantined. Lack of workers means that food is not being harvested, factories are idle and mine operations are suspended. Investment falls, companies withdraw their workers.
• Clients are not willing to expose themselves to risk. Or there simply is a lack of clients due to business faltering. Those exposed to debt in these situations are finished.
• The financial repercussions affect areas with any, even remote, possibility of infection.
• Inflation is an obvious result. With fewer farmers travelling, the cost of farm produce doubled in a matter of weeks.
• Social chaos in urban dense areas.

It is a complete disruption of the supply chain. The result is a food crisis.

The ultimate answer for replacement parts lies in 3D printing. Over the next decade there will be few things that cannot be replicated with 3D printing provided you have the raw materials and the know-how.

"Why does logistics have to be central to the argument?" 

Logistics currently depends on fossil fuels. That is unsustainable, it has to go electric.
The battery systems required to power a B-double truck loaded with 22 pallets would be huge. Linehaul (stages between remote points) freight networks could be substituted with electric freight trains, but the network load would be too heavy.

No current electrical grid sustains logistics trains, they are all diesel.
We can't transition in time to a system that can consistently meet the demands of logistics and heat events without Fluoride Thorium reactors.

Peak food is tied to peak oil. Most our food is created using tractors, combines, trucking and shipping. Water is a huge problem, but that does not seem to be the subject at hand. To replace our carbon dependence we need to solve the logistics issue.
In tonnage, trucks carried 68.2% of all freight - 9.8 billion tons in 2004. How do we transition from that? Logistics is the problem to solve, or in my view, society will collapse through inflationary pressures.

So electrification of freight transportation is the problem. I can't receive my pallets of freight at a train station, without a complete overhaul of infrastructure. That needs to be done, but it is being completely ignored by everyone discussing a green future. The irony here is that moving freight by electric trains is 10 times more efficient than by truck, so it is a place for real gains.

As an example, take the 8th largest economy in the world. The notion of using electric freight trains would require massive expenditures in California, as the rail network there is pretty small (at least compared to what we in Australia are used to). An electrified train system is required but renewables vary a lot in output depending on the environment (cloudy days, small swell, windy etc). You can't have that sort of variation when you need to move a freight train with 40 trailers loaded with say 2 tonnes each.

Some sobering statistics from wikipedia.

Retail stores, hospitals, gas stations, garbage disposal, construction sites, banks, and even a clean water supply depends entirely upon trucks to distribute vital cargo. Even before a product reaches store shelves, the raw materials and other stages of production materials that go into manufacturing any given product are moved by trucks.By 2011, trucking moved $603.9 billion in freight – more than 80 percent of all freight transportation revenueAgricultural products totaling $118,832,000, or 82.7 percent, were shipped by truck in 2007 (excluding animal feed, cereal grains, and forage products).[37][38] About half of that agricultural freight was shipped by for-hire trucks and half by private trucks.[37] More than 92 percent of prepared foods, including dairy products and prepared fruit, vegetable, and nut products, were moved by truck in 2007.[37][38]
Within the health care industry, trucking moved $501,445,000 worth, or 65 percent of the total value, of pharmaceutical products in 2007.[37]
Lumber and other wood products totaling $168,913,000 were shipped by truck in 2007, accounting for 91.9 percent of this class of product.[37]
Over 80 percent of all communities in the US rely exclusively on trucks to deliver all of their fuel, clothing, medicine, and other consumer goods.

Get ready for inflation to bite hard, and not just with food. This will lead to deflation of asset prices, and an escalation of US debt.

Because western society is living on the edge as it is. Why is the US so obsessed with growth, to the point of going to war over it? Because if they don't grow, their unfunded liabilities, and the replacement of the US dollar as the world currency, will result in a depression that will make the 30s look like a Mardi Gras.

The people in power are fully aware that we are reliant, for over 1/2 our oil supplies, from Middle East suppliers. The oil supplies are dwindling and the political environment becoming more unstable. Most people would be unaware that countries are only required to hold 90 days worth of fuel. In a crisis that fuel is rationed according to a preset hierarchy. Logistics is not even on the list. For anybody who doesn't understand the scope of the problem please see this post. 

Anything that would create an additional burden on GDP, without radically changing the way we consume, will be unacceptable. That is why the best they can do will be to attempt to change things over time. However, time is not on our side. 

Logistics has to be supported. It must not fail, that means it cannot be reliant on fossil fuels. Any disruption to the fossil fuel supply chain would decimate society. The failure to society would come from spiking prices and staple food shortages. As mentioned elsewhere only 25% of Australia's oil production is processed in Australia. There are only 4 refineries left, realistically they will be gone in a decade. Apart from 90 days storage we would be totally reliant on importing the refined product. An outbreak of hostilities whereby shipping lanes were disrupted would lockup Australian commerce.

Electrifying logistics

The type of structural reforms required to replace our reliance on logistics would be a complete remodeling of our society. I am not justifying a continuing of the status quo, I am just trying to be realistic. There is no way to support the cities we currently have without logistics, something's going to give.

Looking at the trucking industry again. We would need to replace or update thousands of vehicles. Who is going to pay? The driver? The ones in Australia are barely making ends meet. The problem is actually larger than that. We need to move freight onto an electric freight network with primary line-haul performed by trains. While converting a track system from diesel to electric would be feasible, the problem is that;

1. We do not have the power source, 
2. and the current track system (particularly in the US) is not extensive enough.

We cannot expect to changeover our infrastructure by charging the logistics companies more to move our freight. Otherwise they will simply pass on the cost of the carbon fee, serious inflation will result and there will be no infrastructure changes. There has to be scope to finance the governments ability to provide a rail system. This is a community need, not something that should be left to corporations. 

Therefore, we need an electrical grid capable of moving freight. While wind and solar are green solutions they are variable sources. The load required to manage interstate freight would be very large. A source must be able to constantly perform under load, without polluting. Biogas is another option. It is certainly one that should be implemented, however, the system would require an incredible volume for it to support freight. It has to be assisted with geothermal or Thorium reactors.

An electrical train system would enable freight to move to train hubs. Extra carriages are provided onto the existing city passenger trains on off-peak times. The train stations could then function as post offices/shipping depots.

The reality is that train stations need to become much more. People need the ability to travel by train and arrive at a mall. Driving a car to the mall is inefficient. The problem of how to get the goods from the mall to your house is a symptom of the inefficiencies that we have built. Instead of sprawling suburbs, apartments should be attached to malls and the mall attached to the train station. People could leave their home shop and travel to work with minimal impact on the environment. We are not conserving energy, rather we are wasting it on a colossal scale. This solution would maximize the existing infrastructure.

Remote communities

It would seem reasonable that society will realize the error of its ways, too late to stop the carnage. Under the pressure of voters the infrastructure on major shipping lanes will be reinforced whereas remote areas will crumble. That will mean that people will migrate to the cities. That will put more pressure on prices.

The first option for a remote community should be shipping by river or by sea. It is cost effective, and major shipping lanes have ports.

It is difficult to imagine sustaining logistics from remote communities with pressures from peak oil, failing infrastructure and violence. Mules, camels and donkeys are heat resilient and could provide transport to the shipping lanes. The travels for the human companions would be dangerous. Inland communities would be more difficult to sustain, but the land would be available. 

Four wheel drives

To have a four wheel drive is essential, however, it is going to be expensive to run. Though, it doesn't have to be used all the time. If there is an accident and you need to transport someone to a hospital, or you need some heavy equipment an off-road vehicle is essential. A diesel Land Cruiser can do 450,000km per engine.

Motorcycles

Motor bikes in general, are a much more efficient mode of transport and are therefore much more appropriate for day to day business. However, a trail bike doesn't have much of a payload. But there are means by which trailers can be attached.

One called Moto-mule

Another called Trail-tail

Dirigibles

The natural alternative to animal power would be dirigibles (air ships). Why not, they are planning them for the Arctic. Unfortunately, it is to exploit (aka ruin) it.

It would give the ability to move small payloads to places that are otherwise cutoff. The problems being that we have squandered Helium, Methane is explosive and doesn't have the lifting power and that seems to leave Hydrogen (remember the Hindenburg). Autonomous hydrogen dirigibles using solar power, GPS and satellite communications are one option. You would need a series of parking stations to shelter from bad weather. You would also need some very good navigation software. To provide the hydrogen, solar cells could be used with electrolysis. It would be a slow process, but what's the rush? Storing hydrogen though, would be a dangerous business. 

Of course, the use of hydrogen in airships is currently banned. I wouldn't want an hydrogen airship crashing near my house. As time goes on though the population will become more disparate.

Wind

Let's go back to basics. For thousands of years international logistics was run through sailing ships. It is a much more cost effective way of moving freight. The danger will be the increasing strength of storms, and the heat. There may also be less opportunity for getting food along the way (ie. fishing). But given the potential benefits these are issues that can be dealt with.

Conclusion

If enough people join together some of the pending disaster can be managed. By that I mean that a form of civilization can be retained. But, I must say, humanity is not very good at mitigating pending disasters. As a species we seem to be more reactionary. Which, given the circumstances is unfortunate, because the choices we face will need years to implement.

Therefore we can expect increased carbon taxes in order to modernize the logistics infrastructure, that will result in an unsustainable burden on the poor.