Global warming activists have often advocated policies based on numerical goals or painted scary scenarios of the future. But there is a third way to advocate for long-term policies: propose solutions that contain a positive vision of a fossil fuel-free society.
The importance of this approach was underlined to me when I heard Betsy Rosenberg of the radio show Ecotalk interview Chip Heath, an author of the business-oriented book, Made to Stick. She asked Heath what he thought of the phrase "20% by 2020," that is, reducing carbon emissions by 20% by 2020. She thought it had a nice ring to it ... until Heath responded, well, no, nothing turns people off like a bunch of numbers. Instead, the author advised environmentalists to use "concrete images."
Therefore, instead of talking about numeric targets for carbon emissions reductions in order to avoid hell on earth, I'd like to try to paint a picture of how to create a society that might be better than the one we live in now. In that spirit, let me propose the following scenario:
Imagine that we build high-speed passenger train lines and heavy-duty freight train lines along the Interstate Highway System, thereby eliminating the need for cross-country trucking and much of our airplane and car use. Imagine that each city has both a subway system and a light-rail/trolley system extending out to the suburbs. All of these trains could be electrified, thus making much of our car use unnecessary and making fuels, either fossil or bio-based, less and less important.
Now picture the electricity-generating system that would be necessary to power a train-centered transportation system and replace coal, nuclear, and even some hydro-powered electrical plants. Let's say local governments put solar energy systems on every conceivable surface of every conceivable building and constructed medium-scale wind and solar energy farms, using federal money. Some localities could build large-scale solar power, such as in the Southwest, or build massive wind systems, such as in the Dakotas. In addition, the federal government could take over the operation of the national electrical grid and rebuild it to make those large-scale electrical sources available across the country. Perhaps geothermal and tidal power could also be practical with an efficient national grid.
With the generating systems installed free-of-charge by governments, the cost of electricity would be far below the cost from coal or nuke plants, and the "market" would declare that such businesses no longer made sense. We would easily meet our emissions targets, without recourse to the baroque world of carbon taxes, cap-and-trading, or automobile fuel efficiency standards.
To help make the transportation system train-centered, our sustainable society would be required to tackle probably the toughest task of all, moving away from a suburban-centered model of development. Sitting here in downtown Evanston, Illinois, where I walk to work in five minutes, do all my shopping within a ten or fifteen minute walk, and have access to schools, trains, and other services in a similar radius, it becomes clear that the cheapest transportation is no transportation. But that requires town and city centers in which stores, residences, offices, and train stops are all mixed together, in close proximity.
Our means of production, agriculture, and manufacturing still need to be made sustainable. Instead of miles of monocultural food commodities like corn or wheat in the Midwest, picture each major town or city surrounded by intensive, organic, permaculture small-scale farms, providing fresh, delicious, sustainable food for local residents (with gardens in the city). Instead of huge cranes unloading mountains of cargo containers from Chinese ships, picture these same towns and cities ringed with nonpolluting, world-class factories that provide most of the manufactured goods for each region and for the continent as a whole. And think of all the well-paid, long-term, high-skill jobs such sustainable production would require.
Even though the U.S. rose to great power because of great cities and great manufacturing, our corporations and governments have been busy killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. Besides the looming catastrophes of global warming, peak oil, and mass extinction, Americans have been complacent about their loss of productive potential (uh oh, there I go scaring people). In order to rebuild our transportation, energy, housing, and agricultural systems, we will have to manufacture them. Ideally, in the course of implementing a program of economic reconstruction, local governments will be mandated to purchase only domestic goods, made with domestic production machinery. Imagine scores of new firms thereby created; these could be employee-owned and operated, rooted in their communities and immune from outsourcing.
This brings us to perhaps the most difficult image, that of a competent government, steering the society in a better direction. Between 26 years of conservative ideology and Republican incompetence, we almost have to go back to the administration of FDR to find concrete, inspiring examples of that pilloried phrase, "government programs". FDR's administration not only created a regional structure to reorient a local economy and ecosystem, the Tennessee Valley Authority, it tried to replicate the model across the country. A sustainable regional, ecosystem-centered governmental structure would have to be a partnership of local, state, and federal governments, transparent in its operation and clearly accountable to its citizens.
Such a model could be extended world-wide: instead of globalization, we could have a "continentalization" and then an "ecosystemization" of the global economy. Poor regions of the world need a sustainable model of development, and some big bucks from their rich neighbors as well.
Where would the resources for such a transformation come from? Well, picture a vastly reduced Department of Defense whose downsized forces are used to protect the oceans' ecosystems and the remaining forests of the world. Envision the rage of the largest corporations and richest individuals as their taxes are restored to what they were before the Reagan administration. And then you will see that we have the resources, the skills, and the technology we need to avert the fearsome logic of numbers that has led to global warming, the depletion of resources, and the assault on life on this beautiful planet.
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Threaded
Billhook Posted 8:39 am
21 May 2007
Its debts are unprecedented, while the dollar's mainstay,
the global oil market's practice of pricing in dollars,
is under both political and direct technical threat.
In terms of assembling the resources for such a transformation
to a high tech sustainable culture,
including the presence of an appropriately skilled and habituated workforce,
and the abrogation of the despicable "Free Trade" rules,
under conditions of intensifying climate destabilization
and declining energy affordability,
such scenarios start to look like calming fantasies for the nervous,
not serious strategic assessment.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 9:34 am
21 May 2007
... Now picture the electricity-generating system that would be necessary to power a train-centered transportation system and replace coal, nuclear,
Since nuclear reactors make more energy than Saudi Arabia with lower carbon emissions than windpower, the vision here seems to be one of continuing to cash fossil fuel-tax-funded paycheques.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
How motoring gains nuclear cachet
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:37 am
21 May 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:40 am
21 May 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:10 pm
21 May 2007
But the rest of it, not so much. Past attempts by governments at social engineering and agrarian reform at that level have all been disasters. China's great famine and the Soviet Union's failed economy being two modern examples among several. Government has its place but it is too stupid and bumbling to create ecotopia.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:04 pm
21 May 2007
I sort of like the word "fantasy", at least at this moment late at night here in the Midwest, I think fantasy can be a powerful tool for envisioning a better society. When I have talked about government implementing society-wide programs in the past, it has been the argument for government, not the actual programs themselves, that seem to raise the ire of commentators. This is why I said that the toughest image to talk about is the government as a force for good.
I am certainly and most assuredly not talking about anything remotely similar to soviet or chinese planning; in fact, I feel that the society I am trying to put forward is the exact opposite of those structures, in that the idea is to distribute power as widely as possible. Part of this, and something missing from most discussions of a better world, is trying to figure out how an economy can be more democratic, as well as a polity (fancy political science term for a political system, sorry). So, workplace democracy, community and municipal banks and control over infrastructure, are areas that deserve exploration.
To a certain extent the problem comes down to this: there seems to be no better alternative, when acting collectively, to having as democratic of a government as possible. I look forward to keeping this conversation going for a very long time.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:04 pm
21 May 2007
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7044098684.html
Based on your affinity for high flyers, your superstar lust, and a fixation for glossy magazines, you Grist writers probably all run Vista Ultimate edition on PIVs...not withstanding that you seem to be part of the whole Seattle/Microsoft inner cult...espousing Greenery while pocketing it at the same time.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 3:19 pm
21 May 2007
Seriously, until people get it through their superstitious minds that developed countries cutting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by over 90% by 2050 (for a 50-50 chance at avoiding dangerous warming) is unrealistic, no serious discussion is possible on the subject.
I could quote you a bunch of numbers, but appearently "nothing turns people off like a bunch of numbers." Instead, I'll use concrete images. Imagine a WWII Concentration camp with the Nazi prisoners skin and bone starving, hollow eyes dully staring at you. But, this group spreads out as far as the eyes can see-there is an ocean of eyes staring at you, blaming you for their pain and misery.
Why? Because you could not imagine any solution but the unrealistic and weak mitigation strategy of cutting GHG emissions. You couldn't advocate any other solution, because you thought any price was worth paying to stop what has caused this horror. The problem is that the people who had to pay for the only "solution" you advocate refused, causing gridlock. Because of your stubborn, inflexible, and foolish refusal to consider a realistic solution, those people are doomed to their pain, misery, and despair.
The only solution for global warming is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted. Nature has to be improved using genetic engineering-perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean. Imagine opening the gates of that Concentration camp and letting those tortured people out to enjoy the bountiful fruits of a healthy climate. There is still time to get realistic.
Permalink
Rune Posted 4:59 pm
21 May 2007
So, now, we have the choice of pictures of our next generation eco-villages (too bad Ronnie took the solar panels off the White House, that would have been a nice retro tie-in) versus Doberman's portrait of the hell to follow if we play make believe one more time. Guess which picture the media is gonna show. Why, the one that sells and makes short term profits for the few remaining holders of substantial capital, of course.
I'm with Billhook on this. We have become a poor country by being careless and clueless. The sooner we admit it to ourselves and start living accordingly, the better chance we have of not falling into the ranks of the hopelessly poor and unable. Right now, we are not so poor that we can't live rich and fulfilling lives if we are smart about it. But what we have won't go far when the climate, and thus the economy, becomes increasingly wild and unpredictable, and our tech toys, gadgets, and bling start looking like worthless junk as we concern ourselves with basic things like access to water and land to feed ourselves, and well insulated shelter and functional machinery to keep ourselves warm and functionally, if not fashionably clothed.
No, it's not part of the mainstream vision, and it won't be seen on TV any time soon, no matter how you try to dress it up and sell it. But not only might it save the dear behinds of those of us willing and able to ease on into a lifestyle that we can sustain when all hell breaks loose or, more likely, the movie sets everyone is treating like real towns and cities simply fall into useless disrepair, but it might get us off the treadmills leading to nowhere and give us more time to develop the talents, friendships, and communities we truly enjoy, as well. Along the way, we might even find a lifestyle that really can meet the CO-2 reduction targets we need to reach if our children and grandchildren are going to have any sort of future we can look them in the eyes and prepare them for.
Picture that.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:32 am
22 May 2007
It looks like you and BillHook are pretty much in line with this quote from Bill:
"such scenarios start to look like calming fantasies for the nervous,
not serious strategic assessment."
First of all, my post was long enough as it was, so I didn't sprinkle it with all of the necessary qualifiers. Of course I know that "business-as-usual" will lead to catastrophe. In fact, global warming is only one of several global long-term crises going on now; if the oceans and forests and grasslands are exploited to collapse, global warming will only be the further warming of deserts. But let me get to what looks like the nub of the problem:
With all of these problems swirling around, any solution will potentially look like a distraction from the real job, whatever someone with perfect foresight might understand that to be. Since we don't have perfect foresight, I think that we are ethically required to try and fashion as practical an alternatve as possible.
Now I'm not sure what the commenters views on this are, but at one extreme are the die-off/survivalist types, who think that we need to head for the hills; a little bit over, actually a lot over, are the people who think we should prepare for collapse by constructing small, sustainable communities. The problem with these is that if there is total collapse, nobody is going to survive hordes of million-plus starving people roaming the countryside, destroying everything in their path. There, a dystopian image!
Which brings us back to the first sentence of my post, which is that there are no lack of scary scenarios of the future. What I see is a lack of realistic, practical ways of rebuilding the society so that it is sustainable. Maybe my scenario is wrong. Fine. Let's have a discussion and come up with some "concrete images" of better ones.
Rune, I have nothing against numbers. I'm not saying don't use numbers, in fact, in order for my vision to work, there's going to have to be some heavy duty throwing around of numbers. But just saying cut emmissions by so-and-so percent by such-and-such a date has the problem, I feel, that it sidesteps the important social debate we need to have, which is how we get to those numbers.
Permalink
Rune Posted 5:35 am
22 May 2007
So what happened. Well, yes, there was some chaos, some violence, and some tragic an needless death. Mostly, people got angry and confused and took to the streets shouting or banging pots and pans demanding that someone come fix the mess. But there was no one to fix the mess who was willing and able to do so. Eventually, this sunk in and people started to improvise and adjust, some better than others. In Cuba, the central government held together and massive education and land management programs were undertaken, leading to huge gains in self sufficiency. I Argentina, many people formed worker collectives and took over the old factories where they were not being well paid, if at all, and put their hearts into running things as if their lives depended on it, which they did. In Russia, gangs got stronger, but so did the freer economy, but a totalitarian government that does not seem to trust or care for the people is becoming increasingly evident, meaning they will probably go through another round of depression followed by collapse in the decades ahead. And in the Gulf States, well, it's still ugly down there. The looting seems to have shifted from poor people trying to catch a break to rich people trying to make a killing and/or drive the poor out. Many of the poor, of course, are out, having found new jobs, new housing, new TVs, and the same old problems of the same old rickety economy in other states--which will likely experience their own version of the cycle of collapse and recalibration that the world is going through, even as some countries have the sense of an industrial upswing for the time being.
We can learn from these experiences and prepare for our own encounters with the consequences of setting ourselves up for a tight squeeze from multiple environmental, economic, and political pressures, all of which are connected. We can, but we won't so long as the vast majority of us tune out the news that multiple crises are converging on our consumer crazy culture, which we like to think of as the best of all possible worlds (when we are not complaining about it driving us crazy, wearing us out, and scaring us half to death). And, given the dire nature of that news and how overwhelming it sounds and how helpless it makes us feel, of course most of us will tune it out, especially if we are offered a pretty picture of our new eco-villages on the hill that "they" are busy designing and working out the magic technology that will save us when we show up to buy it, which, other than playing video games and downloading music and videos, is pretty much all we know how to do with any time that is spent working for a large entity we will probably be leaving for another in the foreseeable future.
And so, I think it is important for those of us who are already able to take in much of this absurd picture of our world to start seeing ourselves differently in that picture. If we can really think globally and act locally by searching ourselves for the little bits of community building, sustenance providing, emergency preparing, adventure seeking, and wisdom sharing we enjoy, while recognizing that we can't solve every problem ourselves but with the collective efforts of our friends and neighbors, perhaps we can, a couple of important shifts can occur. First, we can get some clues about how to thrive without killing the planet or ourselves. Second, we can get some sense of hope and security that will allow us to look a little closer at those big picture horrors headed our way and do a little organizing and motivating within our communities to reduce the likelihood of those dangers and to minimize their impact to us should they go down as we fear they might.
Then, it's just a matter of acting on those new visions of how we see ourselves and what we value in the world as we are coming to know it. For most people, that won't mean a radical shift, but an incremental transition to become increasingly aware and self sufficient within our communities by doing more of what we love, instead of what our boss demands, to take care of ourselves. And the more of that we do, the less vulnerable we are to big shifts in the environment or the economy, and the better able we are to calmly assess the big clouds gathering up ahead and prepare ourselves to live through them--together.
Rather than heading for the hills and beyond to do this, I think it makes sense to do this wherever we are or would like to be. There just aren't enough hills for everyone who is so inclined to go into hiding and remain hidden through an uprising, pillaging, and die off scenario, we'd end up wiping out what little wilderness there is if we tried, and, let's face, it, most of us would rather help prevent a violent die off.
So, rather than getting out of Dodge, I advocate getting into wherever you feel you belong and weaving yourself into the fabric of that society to make it stronger and more beautiful each day. Get those around your to guide their little threads into fantastic patterns that work with yours to make something new and better suited to wherever you live. Don't expect this to be a blanket solution for your region, let alone the world, but have some confidence that when all the people who are checked out and partying on the beach while the storms move in suddenly notice that they are threadbare and desperate, you will have provided a good example that they can follow instead of running around in chaos and making things all the more dangerous for lack of any idea of how to take control of their lives under new conditions, let alone create and enjoy a new form of beauty and strength.
So, in a nutshell, if you are going to create pretty pictures of the future, be sure to put everyone in the picture as key to creating the scene. Don't leave out the numbers and hard facts, but be sure everyone has some sense of place and purpose before you start pushing those too hard, yet don't fail to refer to those real world problems and challenges when explaining why some change is in order. If you want some ideas for your own pictures, look to those that were created in similar conditions elsewhere or in the past, look for what you find beautiful and inspiring and ask what new and unique elements would you like to add. And most of all, don't expect to just sit on your ass and have some dazzling new picture of any worth appear before you as if on a television screen. Zoning out in front of the TV leaves you unhealthy, unprepared, semi-delusional, and very uncreative. This is a do-it-yourself art project to create your very own heirloom, not another meaningless trip to the mall to buy mass produced junk that will be in the trash or recycle bin next season.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:17 am
22 May 2007
I think that you did a good job of running down some of the more important examples of collapse (maybe include Iraq?), and you might want to check this amusing article out about why Russian was in better shape after a collapse than the U.S. might be. Cuba is a very interesting example, as they may be the best example of a fossil-fuel-free society on a large scale.
It sounds to me like you are advocating something close to what Paul Hawken writes about in his new book, "Blessed Unrest", which I haven't read but I've heard him a few times and read his articles on the subject. Basically, there may be millions of small environmental and social justice groups around the world, and they are not tied into some huge "movement" with a full agenda such as I am proposing.
Actually, what I did not do in the posting to which you allude, which may have been a mistake, is bring up the issue of how to get from here to there (sometimes it's hard to know when to stop). Basically, as crazy as this may sound, I think we need a global political movement, sort of a noosphere in Teilhard de Chardin's terms, that is, a consciousness of the planet as a whole, as opposed to one that is familial, or tribal, or national. Whether this would be a full-scale political party, I don't know. Perhaps i gave the impression that everyone is supposed to sit around and wait for wise men such as myself to present them with The Plan, and then they could go back to their TV. Fortunately or not, any Plan, such as the one I proposed, would require massive shifts in power from those who have a lot of it to the planet and the rest of us who don't. So it would most definitely not be a spectator sport, but very participatory.
Of course, this is opposite to the "blessed unrest" idea, and amid accusations from some that some people are trying to coopt the movement to accusations from others that the movement is too atomized to avert our global catastrophes, I hope that we can figure out some middle path.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:32 am
22 May 2007
thanks for your responses - all too rare among authors on Grist !
Had I not felt that my post was already long, I'd have gone on to discuss the importance of matching forward planning to foreseeable resources and stresses, and to make the point that we are far from automatically screwed.
This is the issue of practicality - which in aiming too high, with hangover aspirations to a high tech sustainable society, is liable to be overlooked.
(My own practical effort is focussed on developing a college of farming & forestry on land I took on last year).
I too have been wondering about the necessity of a global political "assembly of humane aspiration."
I guess there are at least millions of us who touch this idea now and again.
Here in Britain we have the tradition of the Commoner,
being one who farms the Commons with others, without any individual ownership but with clear rights and duties.
(Forget Hardin - a bozo who wandered off his area of expertize entirely, and then went and wrote "A Slander of the Commoners" - which we'll no doubt discuss sometime).
As a social structure the organized use of the Commons precedes private property by umpteen millenia, if not aeons.
Given that we millions have a compassionate regard for the planet and its dependents
as our common value,
I would tentatively suggest that such an assemby could at best be titled
"Commoners' Alliance"
But then I've long considered myself a Global Commoner.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:34 am
22 May 2007
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:45 am
22 May 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:11 am
22 May 2007
I think your commons metaphor is a very apt one, and it just so happens that there's another poston how we need a new metaphor for global warming , onaccounta the canary one is exhausted...I'm heartened to hear that my replies are not overdone, I quite enjoy replying
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:16 am
22 May 2007
Permalink
Rune Posted 11:51 am
22 May 2007
The problem with going on living as we are today aside with some one-trick pony adjustments, aside from the fact that it is not practical due to the dynamic swirl of problems we are facing, is that people don't actually like the way we are living today. The savvy salesperson types will see this as an opportunity, not a problem.
Most people are very cynical about the ability of their government to truly serve them across the board the way people did in the few decades following World War II. They sense the global economy with a free flow of capital among fewer and fewer big pockets is no longer lifting all boats, and they are quite right about that. They know they are busier and more stressed than ever, which means they have less time and less of a mindset to enjoy themselves, their families, their friends, and their learning and leisure pastimes. Reducing or removing some of those unpleasant images from the new pictures we want to entice people with is half the battle in coming up with something new that catches the eye and stimulates the mind and heart. And it seems like a no brainer that pictures of alternatives by which people can spend more of their time doing things they care about and enjoy while being better able to provide for their own needs, directly or in cooperation with those in their area, will have some real appeal.
I don't see that we are anywhere near having sound new programs to champion, however. That limits the efficacy of investing too much time in large advocacy groups. Also, while it would be nice to see some of the bloated and disingenuous miracle programs, like converting crops into biofuels, scaled down and replaced with something with more immediate practical potential, like energy conservation within buildings, there is something to be said for simply backing way off of the whole big government, big business, big bucks model and getting into the eco-equivalent of our garages to bang out the next generation of livable technology. For one thing, it takes a whole lot of steam out of the mostly illusory quest for the next, big killer application that will save us all from the world we have created by relying on the next, big killer application. For another, it helps us get back to our own senses of self and imagination to create futures that really do satisfy us and our neighbors instead of just being sold yet another bill of goods.
Now, that said, there is certainly value in getting together with the best and brightest from around the world now and then, and big conferences as well as the database that Paul Hawken has been cooking up are great for that. But, again, I don't think we are anywhere close to having one, big pretty picture of how to move forward, and we will probably miss the mark if we set out to create one. Better to be thinking of a bunch of random mosaics that might set us onto a whole new era in the art of living than striving for one big mural that more or less conforms to what we have been doing up to now, I believe. The more we can each work out our own techniques and talents, the better we will be able to capture honest perspectives of the challenges our future holds, without being shocked or afraid, and reflect back our own ways of interpreting and even redefining those visions of sunrises yet to dawn.
No one knows what that will really look like. Most of the pictures we are being presented from on high are actually cartoonish at best, sketchy and absurd at worst, if you stand back and compare them to the world around us. We need to be spending more time in our studios and less in the same old galleries if we want to find a new vision of the future that actually reflects who we are and want to become.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:50 pm
22 May 2007
One of the images I wanted to put forward was the U.S. circa 1920. This was just before the car started to really warp the U.S. "civilization", if you want to call it that. At that time, you could basically take a street car from NYC to Wisconsin, with a side trip to St. Louis. The furthest out most people (except the rich) lived was a short streetcar ride into a vibrant downtown. I don't want to paint a rose-colored view, there were enormous problems trying to unionize and with racism and sexism, but it was around this time that the automobile took us on a very long, unfortunate ride.
I would like to simply advocate a society which is car-free, but a wise man once told me that it is better to advocate alternatives, or choices, that would allow people to choose to do without a car. A society without the automobile would be very, very different than the one we have now. I don't own a car because I live in a town were my whole family can walk around town, or take trains into chicago. On top of everything else, the elimination of the automobile would solve a good chunk of the global warming in one shot.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that to achieve these things, including even local, permaculture-type agriculture, but certainly putting train lines everywhere and rezoning so that real downtowns form, you need government. It can be decentralized, made more democratic and transparent, but we can do it, the technology is there, it's not fancy high tech gizmos, it's a path we should have stayed on for the last one hundred years.
On top of everything else, real towns and neighborhoods would lead to more of the community, and more time for family and friends that you are talking about. McKibben has a blurb on one of James Howard Kunstler's books about going to or home from "nowhere", in which he says that Kunstler is talking about the loss of community that the suburbs engendered. I'm not sure if McKibben has followed that line in his most recent book, and I don't want to blame all of our ills on the suburbs, but a reurbanized America (and world) would be a much happier place, to put it as simply as possible.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:22 pm
22 May 2007
"With the generating systems installed free-of-charge by governments, the cost of electricity would be far below the cost from coal or nuke plants, and the "market" would declare that such businesses no longer made sense."
Yeah... right. If the the cost of electricty is lowered -- especially via government subsidy -- the average human being will have absolutely no incentive to conserve. You will have to have a government in place that will micromanage every aspect of energy conservation by regulating what can be made, what can be sold, how far someone can travel, how often someone can travel, et cetera. Hey... reduce the effective cost per mile travel and I'd be happy to ride the rails for an extended vacation to a remote wilderness area. Careful what you wish for.
Hmmm... the money for this will come from reduced military spending. The money spent now is borrowed from future generation. The Peace Dividend is gone, zilch, burned like there is no tomorrow by the Republican Administration and its troop of flying monkeys.
If you do manage to reduce Federal and State spending on things like pre-emptive war, you think the 25% of the population that still supports that quagmire will let you invest it in government-owned power plants? They don't even want to pay for schools, libraries, safe food, safe air travel, and an assortment of other valuable services generally not provided by private companies.
Keep working on that vision, however. I always look forward to reading about the next utopian dream. Perhaps someday, somewhere, some bit of such a vision will actually catch on and the public will run with it.
Did I mention I'm feeling cynical at the moment?
NOW... if you can figure out how to do this without depending on socialized electricity and substanially reduced spending on military adventurism, you might have something!!! How about incorporating personal and decentralized power generation? Solar, wind, biomass for the masses and by the masses!!! Cut out the middlemen!!! Ownership society!!! The Feds should help us put solar power on every single home and business... without a grid. We won't even need a military killing people to secure our fossil fuel base.
Forward!
Permalink
Rune Posted 2:50 pm
22 May 2007
Kuntsler makes some good points but his is so damn arrogant and full of himself that he immediately attacks and rejects any new information that conflicts with any old opinion he expressed, even if he expressed it mostly for sarcastic or hyperbolic purposes. Watch for that.
If we were car free, were would teens make out and have sex in the dark instead of hanging out well lit homes and public establishments? Or could this be the secret weapon against population growth that no one is talking about? LOL.
At a minimum, our last few decades of military killings have not been about need, they were and are about greed.
Moderate sized grids make for more efficient use of batteries and load balancing than having everyone build and store their own energy to handle their greatest peak energy needs.
One trick to getting people to use public transportation is to have excellent, comfortable, useful stations where people can read, visit, or work while waiting for the next ride. Noisy, dirty, wind and weather exposed benches with a dorky little roof over it that doesn't even protect one from most of the day's sun, let along blowing rain or snow, make even expensive car or cab rides seem all the more reasonable.
The car craze took off after bicyclists (primarily the League of American Wheelmen) successfully lobbied for paved streets. If we are to get rid of cars, we need to give some thought to how smooth and safe bike routes will be funded and maintained.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:06 pm
22 May 2007
I apologize for my somewhat cynical remarks.
I should have focused on the positive aspects of your vision and encouraged you to further develop them. I feel particularly guilty because on my way home from work yesterday I was actually thinking about how useful it might be if there was a website devoted to people presenting their visions of a better world -- including human civilization and nature -- so that others might offer constructive criticism. It would be very important that those contributing to the site be prepared to defend their ideas and that those "attacking" the proposed ideas offer alternatives.
Perhaps we might find there is a consensus out there, that deep down we all want the same thing.
The idea has been floating about in my head ever since I read a Grist denizen's post describing what I would consider a utopian fantasy. I wish I could find it, so I could applaud the author's efforts... something about living in cities and biking out to the communal farms... not the vison presented by the Wacky Captain, but an earlier vision posted by a rational human being. Anyway, I ripped into it with my usual dark sarcasm and have felt awful about it ever since. That person, and now you, tried to present a target for us to aim for. And we should discuss and refine those ideas. What are the advantages, disadvantages? Do want to live in that world? Will others want to live in that world? What is standing in the way of getting there?
At the moment, environmentalist are motivated by and employing fear... running away from the tsunami. Those who present a vision are motivated by and trying to employ desire... encouraging us to pursue a better world.
Thank you.
P.S., My cynical attitude, sarcasm, sense of despair, and occasional optimism is deeply rooted in my psyche and will not go away soon. Might as well ask a scorpion to promise it will not sting you while you help it cross a river. It is my way of communicating. Please don't take it personally. So... I'll just apologize for my future remarks right now. Sorry.
Forward!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:41 am
23 May 2007
Well, I guess my personality tends toward making nice and trying to be optimistic, although I definitely have my pessimistic side. Apologies accepted. But you have a great idea, having a web site devoted to positive images. I don't know if we could get something going at Grist, I also have a website I share with some other people, calld GlobalMakeover.com (also economicreconstruction.com, it depends on my mood).
I think the problem with despair is a whole other blog post, and is understandable considering the situation, but anyway, to return to your previous post:
I was wondering if someone would catch me on very cheap electricity, because, yes, then you would have a lot of waste. I'm not an expert on pricing and taxing schemes, but it seems to me that you could have a reverse subsidy, which I guess is called a tax, to make electricity low enough in price that it would kill off coal or nuclear, but high enough so as to discourage waste...Also, you are right that the more decentralized the energy system, the better, I'm not sure how practical wind systems are inside cities, although apparently work continues in this area...I also didn't put numbers on how much could be saved from the military and taxes on the rich (sorry, Rune), but I think people should at least discuss hundreds of billions a year for this sort of reconstruction program, as opposed to the single digit billion projects I hear...as far as the 25% that still support Bush, you're never going to convince everybody, but of course, I didn't discuss any kind of strategy of building a movement either...
Rune --
I believe another blogger here commented that he didn't understand the sniping between bus advocates and train advocates, so in that spirit, and considering the state of public transit, I will gladly go with both buses and trains, although if you want to see arguments against buses and for light rail, go to the light rail now website. At some point I was convinced that, in the long-term, trains work out better, but that is a small point. Of course, whether it's buses or trains, they would have to be comfortable, including nice stations, and they would have to come at most 10 minutes apart, if I read the research correctly. I'm glad that there is discussion of public transit here, because the big enviros ignore it, even though even Red areas like Salt Lake City are embracing it.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:34 am
23 May 2007
I'm looking for a web site that will show the climate for my zipcode ( 98030 ) for the next 3 years.
Since the IPCC has perfected climate modelling to the accuracy of 0.0001C, I would like to see exactly what the climate on Kent East Hill will be in June 2009 (I'm planning a picnic).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Jon Warnow Posted 3:37 pm
24 May 2007
However, with all due respect to Mr. Rynn, let me go on to explain break down the reasons behind our very deliberate choice of a numerical message:
1)We are playing a legislative game.
Given the gravity of the problem, the short time scale we have to fix it, and the resources necessary to make the systemic changes we so desperately need, our only option is to pass national policies to move us towards the vision of the clean energy future that Mr. Rynn describes. Right now, there are a half a dozen climate-change bills being discussed in Congress. The greatest danger is that our leaders pass weak legislation--say, cutting greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2050. We'll then end up with a placated citizenry and a self-satisfied Congress that hasn't developed a plan based on targets informed by the best science. Given this danger, we thought that the most strategic thing to do would be to align our message with the long-term goals of the most ambitious legislation that's out there--bills that call for cutting carbon 80% by 2050. When the hundreds of pictures from Step It Up actions started pouring into Congressional offices, our leaders knew exactly what we were demanding them to do.
2)Numbers keep it short.
As activists, it would be wonderful to be able to tell our vision of a clean-energy future to our politicians and the media--it's a narrative that needs to be heard. But here is the sad reality: in today's rapid-fire political and media culture, we simply don't have time. Mr. Rynn's laudable vision comes in at nearly 1000 words--what we needed was a message that could be painted on a banner or encapsulated in a sound-bite on the evening news.
3)Numbers keep it specific.
You might be thinking "surely we can come up with a slogan that is short enough and not so boring and wonky." As an intellectual exercise, let's try: how about "Clean Energy For America's Future" It's positive and appealing, they can be painted on a banner or described succinctly on the nightly news. But it is extremely susceptible to co-option and vastly differing interpretations. If we picked such a message we'd get congresspeople saying "I couldn't agree more--that's why I support massive investment in 'clean coal' technologies over the next 10 years." Being wonky means you're being specific, which makes you far more resistant to this kind of message mangling and sabotage that we see from politicians and corporations alike.
4)Numbers convey scope.
The citizens who engaged in the Step It Up campaign were not climate scientists--but they knew that global warming was a huge problem that demanded huge solutions. "Cut Carbon 80% by 2050" conveys a simple, very important, very compelling idea: we need to fundamentally transform the way energy is produced and consumed in our society. Embedded in the supposedly boring numbers is the scope of change, a paradigm shift that people intuitively know we need to tackle this problem. Sure, 2050 is far away, but it's obvious to anyone (including those who crafted carbon-cutting legislation) that to get to 80% reductions we'll need to begin this transformation immediately and have interim caps and targets along the way.
5)Numbers make it credible.
One of our greatest assets in the movement against global warming is that the basic science is unequivocal, and attempts to refute it look more pathetic and desperate with every passing day. 80% reductions by 2050 was not a goal picked out of thin air--they are the targets that the latest and best science tell us that we need. With credible truth in increasingly short supply in our politically-charged culture, invoking peer-reviewed, scientific research makes our demands far more difficult to discredit.
Mr. Rynn says that "just saying cut emissions by so-and-so percent by such-and-such a date has the problem, I feel, that it sidesteps the important social debate we need to have, which is how we get to those numbers." I respectfully disagree--rather than sidestepping that debate, I believe the numbers force us to have it. With the numbers in place, we are now challenged to develop the compelling vision that will allow us to reach our boring numeric targets. By triggering this sort of collective visioning, we can truly engage in an ongoing conversation (and societal transformation) that is long-overdue.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:31 am
25 May 2007
Thanks for your comment, I think it was a clear, readable explanation of the motivations behind the 80% reduction by 2050 idea. I'd like to respond to your points:
1. You raise an important issue, how to push through something now, which brings me to my favorite Al Gore quote:
"The maximum that seems politically feasible still falls far short of the minimum that would be effective in solving the crisis".
I think it is important to have both those who are attentive to what can be done now, as well as those who point the way to the long-term, but currently politically infeasible goals. This has sometimes been called the reform/radical divide, but with a twist: an 80% reduction in carbon emmissions is quite radical, but my criticism is that, from what I have seen, the means proposed to get there are not up to the task. Which brings me to
Keeping it short. Jon Warnow is correct that my post was 1000 words, not good for a banner or 15-second soundbite. Chip Heath, who I quote in the post as advising using "concrete images", also advised to "keep it simple". When you are talking about changing a civilization, it's hard to keep it simple, so to combine keeping it short, with the next point,
Keeping it specific, let me try one: "Replace cars with trains" (or, little less in your face, "make cars unnecessary"). This is short and pretty simple. The problem, as I'm sure you could explain to me, is that the American public is totally unprepared for this; in fact, the environmental movement is unprepared. But I would argue that even many big oil companies and their research arms would admit that by 2050 gasoline will be much more expensive, and many argue that by then transportational fuels, even with biofuels, will make automobiles a luxury. Another short but snappy phrase is "replace coal with wind and solar". If governments at all levels simply built wind and solar energy systems, this would be reasonably fast, but would run into the conventional wisdom that the government should not intervene directly in the economy. So,
considering the scope of the problem, one of the criticisms of the global warming movement so far is that the solutions do not quite seem up to the problems. One of the advantages of "radical" proposals, such as replacing cars with trains, is that many problems can be solved at the same time: without cars, suburbia must be transformed into towns and cities, and with that comes more community, which Bill McKibben has waxed eloquently about. Wind and solar energy not only replaces coal, but makes electrified public transit sustainable. But again, to tell Americans -- or even Chinese -- that cars will no longer be practical is quite a leap. However, the mainstream media has yet to tackle the problem of fossil fuels being depleted, which makes it even more difficult to talk to the public about 2050, both from a climate point of view and an energy point of view, which brings us to
Numbers are necessary -- a good start is on your site, How can we cut carbon 80% by 2050? -- and I hope there will be a zesty debate on what types of transportation/energy/agriculture/manufacturing systems will be possible and should be built. I sincerely hope that you are right and that campaigns such as "80% by 2050" lead to this wider debate of how to get to 80% reductions.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 11:45 am
25 May 2007
Yeah, the slogan has a nice ring to it and is therefore easy to remember. So is "Dee-dle-Dum, Dee-dle-Dee", but to most people they are both too much meaningless abstractions.
What does "20% by 2020" mean in practical terms to a layperson? What must the average person do so that collectively we can reach that goal? What is a real, and realistic, action that Joe Sixpack can take to get there? Is there something practical and measurable individually that can be used?
'In order to lose 10 pounds by swimsuit season, I have to get my pulse up to 100 for one hour 3 days a week. If I get the stationary bike up to 25 mph for that long each time, that will get me there.'
'If I invest $15/per week for 20 years, I can retire early.'
'I need to reduce my Carbon output 20% by 2020.' ????!?!
Which one of these things does not belong?
This is not so much about vision as a forward-looking futuristic exercise, as it is about action as an individual, inward-looking pragmatic exercise--that is, if we want the full participation of the public.
How about this: "If I walk or bike to work 1 day a week, I will reduce my total weekly Carbon output by 10%, and if I replace the thermostat with a programmable one, and set it to turn on at 4:30 p.m each day, and off at 11 p.m., I'll cut another 4%. If I sign on to "Grist" I might get some other cool ideas. Maybe with the money I save I can buy a hybrid car or some sustainability equipment for the house, and improve its resale value."
By itself, "20% by 2020" is pretty meaningless, because it is just too abstract. Provide practical real-world activities for people to follow.
The vision exercise is still worthy, but most people are simply too busy with ordinary daily activities to care. "Aw, crap, the cat got out." Know what I mean?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink