The following is a guest essay by Jan Lundberg, who, in search of depaving opportunities, lives in San Francisco
with no car. He founded Culturechange.org and organizes Petrocollapse
Conferences. He can be reached
.
The essay may find its way into his forthcoming book.
-----
As a petroleum industry analyst who gave up material security for a career as an activist against petroleum industry expansion, I've developed a unique understanding of the global peak in oil extraction. Questioning society's energy needs has always been my tendency. But I gained further understanding of our culture by giving up affluence and many conveniences. This was an attempt to get closer to nature and live by my wits with the support of activists and my growing community of friends far and wide.
In 2004 I hit the road (the rails, usually) to spread the word about the plastic plague, petrocollapse, and the positive future that culture change will present. It was fitting that the nonprofit organization I founded in 1988, Fossil Fuels Policy Action, eventually became known as Culture Change. I was delighted to learn last year that geologist M. King Hubbert, who discovered peak oil, identified the fact that we do not have an energy crisis but a culture crisis:
Our culture is built on growth and that phase of human history is almost over and we are not prepared for it. Our biggest problem is not the end of our resources. That will be gradual. Our biggest problem is a cultural problem. We don't know how to cope with it.
Hubbert and I served the opposite ends of the oil industry. My experience concerned the market, understanding supply and how to predict shortage or glut. A firm I once ran, Lundberg Survey, accurately predicted the Second Oil Shock in 1979 by anticipating a 9% shortfall of gasoline deliveries. That helped me gain awareness of how resources are virtually unavailable once the oil market goes crazy with skyrocketing prices that cause massive hoarding. My expectation is that our house-of-cards economy may not recover from what might be the Final Energy Crisis.
I don't debate peak oil itself, as I've tried to move on to addressing effects (petrocollapse) and solutions (mitigation response). As for when the oil crash will hit, it is possibly imminent considering geopolitical instability, extreme weather events, and the demand-driven "industry fundamentals" of supply strain and high utilization of capacity. With falling production from key mega-oilfields, our days as oil guzzlers are numbered. It's not going to change because of some big find.
Oil and its close cousin natural gas aren't the only forms of energy with a poor outlook during and after the brewing energy crash. The dirtier alternatives to petroleum, which I'll get to in a moment, will not substitute for conventional petroleum. Nor will renewable resources come on line suddenly to save the consumer economy. This flies in the face of seductive logic -- that there's so much sunlight we must be able to harness it, if only we're clever enough to improve technology and get the oiligarchy out of the way.
All forms of energy are not equal. Cheap oil was maximum extraction for very little energy input. Those days of cheap energy are gone forever.
Also, oil and gas give us more than liquid fuels and electric energy: synthetic petroleum materials (toxic and less toxic) are part of our daily lives and survival. The worst part of petroleum dependence is that it is how modern societies feed themselves -- entirely. It is no mere coincidence that population growth has mirrored petroleum consumption's huge rise.
We must conclude that alternative energies, overall, don't "make the grade," although they will have roles to play on a local basis if they're renewable and there's excess land not needed for food or ecological restoration.
In my travels I'm called upon to answer difficult questions on energy supply and how today's complacent U.S. population will cope with petroleum famine. While there are technical answers and a crying need for skills like permaculture and revived handcrafts of all kinds, the key to our survival post-peak oil will be cultural, not technological. I've benefited from going around the country to speak and learn about our petroleum reality and how our ecosystems and communities will have to quickly adapt. I'm known to ask, "Where's your ecovillage?"
I occasionally encounter members of audiences who believe all our problems are due to the internal combustion engine, and that we should be able to drive around forever -- regardless of the problem of pavement covering up farmland, regardless of the dangers and gross inefficiency of driving. Ivan Illich calculated the average speed of the U.S. motorist at only 5 mph, when all the time associated with the car and its upkeep is compared to miles driven.
Believers in biodiesel, and, less often, fans of ethanol, usually acknowledge that biofuels are not a feasible fix in large scale. It is forgotten that burning these fuels still gives off carbon dioxide to add to global warming.
Solar and wind are strong contenders for serious applications for energy production, but problems remain: imbedded petroleum energy in these systems, their transport by oil, and their petroleum-plastic composition are never addressed. And, although their energy production ratio has improved slightly, they are not comparable to cheap oil. As electric-power technologies, they don't solve the liquid fuels crisis we have barely started to experience.
Anyway, transmission of electric power easily loses energy after significant distance; this limits solar and wind to local applications. As mentioned earlier, the lack of materials from these non-petroleum sources of energy leave them unable to address the petroleum crisis that has begun.
Tar sands? The oil PR machine calls them oil sands now, but they are never going to deliver more than 5%, eventually, of today's 85 million barrels per day global oil consumption. And the massive amounts of dwindling natural gas and fresh water to mine and process tar sands make the process questionable.
There is no such thing as "clean coal." Mountaintop removal, whether in West Virginia or Venezuela, is unacceptable. The other aspects of coal mining and transportation should disqualify coal as a "solution" to dwindling petroleum, if people and clean water matter. Energy-intensive coal gasification and liquefaction will depend on sequestering tremendous amounts of carbon.
A better solution is to question the supposed need for this energy, and get down to the task of redesigning our lifestyles to share the Earth with all species and peoples. This viewpoint must help us reject the exaggerated temptation of nuclear power, which Al Gore reminds us is completely tied to nuclear weapons.
We don't need energy at any cost. We need to conform to ecological reality and start enjoying what it is to be fully, beautifully human instead of cogs in the machine of consumerism for corporate profit.
Comments
View as Threaded
SMLowry Posted 5:24 am
22 Sep 2006
I was so disheartened two/three weeks ago when the media reported the discovery of more oil, deep under the ocean. And the past few days gas prices have dropped significantly. Now this may be good for my budget, but in the larger scale of things it's not. People so don't want to face the coming reality of inadequate fuel supplies, knowing full well how devastating it will be given that we rely upon it for virtually everything we do, that they'll take every and any opportunity to think about it tomorrow. And people have such faith in technology. For instance, Jason Scorse in a Grist discussion on happiness and the GDP wrote in response to my post, "I am a technological optimist who believes that the Earth CAN SUPPORT 9 billion people with a very high standard of living in a sustainable way with better efficiency and technology".
My gut tells me this is not possible, and even if it were in theory, unless we do something to get there starting, well, yesterday, the speed at which climate change seems to be progressing may make our technological abilities totally inadequate. A downward dip in prices, temporary I'm sure, and the discovery of oil the drilling of which even experts say is a challenge for current technology simply will buy us some time. I suppose it's too much to ask that we use it wisely, because whether in five years or twenty years petrocollapse is coming. If we're smart we'll begin the process of transformation Jan suggests, at the local and regional levels. Where's your ecovillage, indeed.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:40 am
22 Sep 2006
Mr. Lundberg wrote,
<<
While there are technical answers and a crying need for skills like permaculture and revived handcrafts of all kinds, the key to our survival post-peak oil will be cultural, not technological.
>>
Even though I am not altogether sure just what he means by what -- e.g., I would certainly include a revived resort to certain handicrafts as a big cultural change -- , all the same I feel he is absolutely right.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:27 pm
22 Sep 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:37 am
23 Sep 2006
And that would naturally reduce this crazy overpopulation of humanity. Then maybe human life would be sustainable. Renewable energy and sustainable agriculture would provide quality of life for a reasonable human population.
And I think that this kind of social change would help bring about a shift away from a bankrupt value system that urges quantity of consumption and possesions as paramount to human fulfillment.
Replacing it with a culture dedicated to quality of life here on spaceship earth. Sustainable symbiosis instead of a rush to human caused armageddon. Heaven right here on earth instead of pie in the sky, the empty promises of religion designed to justify aquisitive,avaricious, militaristic empire.
The religious opposition to reproductive rights for women is not based on "sin", that is a sham. Invented to produce more parishoners so that one religious culture can take over the world from all its rivals.
Overpopulate your rivals with cheap labor and cannon fodder, that is what is at the root of most organized religion all the way down through history. What a brilliant plan. Endless pain and suffering and feudal tyranny all in the name of gaaawd. And now it's corporate feudalism.
Mother nature maybe about to institute human population control using the four horsemen. The weapons of human creation are vastly underpowered when compared to natural phenomenon. and in fact even war itself is more a tool of nature than human hegemony.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:52 am
23 Sep 2006
I had some problems with this, because it seems long on "here is the mess we find ourselves in" and short on "here is what we should do".
Mr. Lundberg seems to be saying we should change our way of life. Good. How?
And a general question for environmentalists, what are you willing to (or have already) sacrificed to reduce your impact on the environment?
This is not intended (and I hope it wouldn't degenerate into) a finger-pointing, I-am-holier-than-thou kind of discussion.
It seems to me that we want to ask people as a whole to "give up" things like SUVS and McMansions, but can we do so? What would we be willing to sacrifice?
There have been a number of discussions going on about eating habits (for instance), and sometimes about transportation.
Is there an ethical environmental way to live and what are it's dimensions?
patrick
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:48 am
25 Sep 2006
I find the attitude of the piece smarmy and self-congratulatory. Not that he does not point out some obvious truths, on the contrary, I don't disagree with much of the substance of what Mr. Lundberg has to say, more with the way in which he chooses to say it.
"Where's your eco-village?" Give me a break. To my mind, he is simply saying "I've made my changes, I'm prepared, what have you done?" He points out all the problems we face, talks about how our current technology simply will not measure up, and gives the impression that there is no way out of the mess. This is exactly the type of piece that will completely turn off a person who has enough compassion to care about the state of the planet, yet not the wealth of information that we share here on Grist about what is best to do about it.
We don't need energy at any cost. We need to conform to ecological reality and start enjoying what it is to be fully, beautifully human instead of cogs in the machine of consumerism for corporate profit.
Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with the substance of this message, but I truly dislike the way he puts it, and if we are trying to embrace and inspire people from all different walks of life, this is not the way to do it. I have so many friends, thougtful, intelligent people who care about the planet, yet who would simply roll their eyes at the "tree-hugging hippieness" of the above statement. I think of the way that Al Gore discusses our current plight and the possible solutions; as the unparalleled opportunity to be the generation who truly saves the planet and who breaks new ground for a whole new way of living. That message inspires me. The above message makes me feel either a) guilty, b) doomed, c) skeptical or d) annoyed.
As for Patrick's interesting question as to what are the parameters for living an ethical "environmental" life.... I think they would be quite varied. I don't see that we could apply any set of hard & fast rules (i.e. must not drive big car, must not hunt, must not eat meat, etc.) as there always seem to be exceptions to any rule (need big truck to do marine mammal rescue work, need to hunt whales to survive, primary food source in local area is meat from hunting). However, I would say that there is one (and perhaps only one) tenet of living an ethical environmental life, and that is being forever mindful of our choices and of how our choices impact the environment in which we live and that we share all other species.
Kaela
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:47 am
25 Sep 2006
I identify with the culture that Kaela calls "tree-hugging hippieness." From that culture has come organic farming/gardening and many other ecological contributions.
An important task for environmentalists is to re-discover what really went on in the 70s, instead of relying on media sterotypes. It would mean reclaiming one's heritage - most modern environnmental thinking had its origins in that period.
I think Kaela misinterpreted Jan's question, "Where's your eco-village?"
A paraphrase might be: "With the coming difficult times, it is important to be part of a community of mutual support. Become aware of how you obtain basic needs like food and water, because they may be problematic in the future."
It may make people uneasy to be confronted with an uncomfortable truth, but I don't think the answer is to sugar-coat it. (I am a great supporter of Al Gore, but I think he minimizes the vast amount of change that is coming.)
I have met Jan Lundberg and did not notice any of the characteristics that Kaela found in the essay. He's been working on various environmental issues (anti-car, plastics, peak oil, etc.) for I think 20 years or more. His writings vary in their optimism/pessimism. While I disagree with his grimmer visions, I always find him a rich source of ideas and inspiration.
He has been a voice crying in the wilderness, waiting for the rest of us to catch up with him.
Lundberg's articles at Energy Bulletin
Culture Change (his newsletter-website)
Permalink
lundberg Posted 5:36 pm
25 Sep 2006
Also, a report on Culture Change's website I wrote is "Where's your ecovillage as meltdown approaches?"
There were four sentences deleted from my essay. Understandable, when I had gone way over the limit for number of words. For context, I start with the last sentence of the fourth paragraph:
"My expectation is that our house-of-cards economy may not recover from what might be the Final Energy Crisis. So, Hubbert's and others' assumptions about resources slowly disappearing are flawed. Dr. Colin Campbell, the geologist who revived interest in peak oil in the 1990s, says peak oil means we are entering "the second half of the Age of Oil." Not so. The Stone Age did not end for lack of stones." A key point, but not one to make every reader here happy.
I admit that there's a problem when any reader of my message reacts that it "makes me feel either a) guilty, b) doomed, c) skeptical or d) annoyed." as was the case with Kaela. However, my biographical and factual piece stands as reality. Perhaps she needs to take responsibility for her feelings and not blame the messenger.
I restate this beginning of this post, because the Preview was obscuring it:
The phrase "Where's your ecovillage" was actually struck out in what I thought was my final draft, but Gristmill's deadline was a little sooner than I realized. But I believe Bart's interpretation is correct.
Also, a report on Culture Change's website I wrote is "Where's your ecovillage as meltdown approaches?"
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:52 am
26 Sep 2006
I appreciate your response and I apologize if I sounded overly strident in my review of your piece. It did (clearly) strike a nerve with me.
If I attempt to analyze my somewhat visceral reaction, I would have to say that what bothered me most was the message, or lack thereof. What main point is it that you were trying to convey in the piece? I must confess that I read many many words that seemed to boil down to "We're in deep trouble, technology won't save us, so go hug a tree."
As I said, I complete agree with the "we're in deep trouble" and "technology won't save us" assessments. (Well, I believe technology has perhaps a slightly better chance at impacting the problem than you may... but I do not equate to that "saving us.")
I appreciate Bart's translation of "where's your eco-village?"; I think, as Bart states it, the question makes sense. And perhaps he is correct and my interpretation of the piece is related to culture differences; granted, I was alive in the 70's, although I was a kid. A kid, however, born to hippie parents (the music in my house was Bob Dylan, Harry Chapin, Helen Reddy & Godspell), who's Mom was a vegetarian and a working member of a food co-op.
I do love nature. I actually do hug trees. I simply don't find "conform to ecological reality and start enjoying what it is to be fully, beautifully human" helpful advice in the struggle against climate change. It may go over well if you are essentially preaching to the choir but I don't believe that it is an effective strategy if you are trying to get as many people as possible on board with the concept that we will need to work and struggle and change our way of living in order to save the planet.
Kaela
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:31 am
26 Sep 2006
I was a young adult during the 70's. It has been over thirty years since the commune idea hit its stride. The ideas and thoughts expressed in this article are a rehash of those ideas, with new terms, like peak oil thrown in the mix. Back then, overpopulation was the big thing. Vast swaths of the planet were on the edge of collapse from famine. Overpopulation still is a big thing from an environmental destruction perspective, but not from an availability of food perspective. Unanticipated technological advances snuffed that crisis. Ironically, biofuels may bring it back.
Communes were a dime a dozen back in the late 60's and early 70's. One of my sisters and one of my brothers were participants in them. They aren't anymore. My young niece was conceived and eventually sexually abused in one. Life inside a commune, or eco-village, is a microcosm of life anywhere else. Life on the farm isn't better than life in the city. They are warm fuzzy ideas that don't work in reality. Permaculture is a fairly accurate description of agrarian villages of the Middle Ages. There were millions of people then, there are billions now.
I watched the oil shocks make small cars popular, kick-start solar research, and start the energy efficiency debate on corn ethanol. Those things all slowed to a crawl and even reversed when the price of oil stabilized again. It is not going to stabilize in the future, and now we have global warming. The technological advances are going to continue this time, communes may come back in style for a while, like tattoos have (lots of grandfathers have them), but ultimately eco-villages are not new idea and they have pretty much been proven not to work, as has the industrial version, communism, also a warm fuzzy idea.
An eco-village is no more natural than a city like Seattle. They are an attempt to freeze technology at an earlier phase. Farming is not natural. We did not evolve to be farmers. A crop is a biological wasteland. Eco-villages (communes) are land intensive and the planet does not have room for very many of them. We will find a way through this with vast improvements in technology that use far less energy and far more renewable energy, and ways to produce food that are less oil intensive and ecologically destructive, or we will see a population crash. Eco-villages are not the answer.
How many times have I heard versions of these words in the last thirty years:
We need to conform to ecological reality and start enjoying what it is to be fully, beautifully human instead of cogs in the machine of consumerism for corporate profit.
While there are technical answers and a crying need for skills like permaculture and revived handcrafts of all kinds, the key to our survival post-peak oil will be culture
Eco-villages are a persistent pipe dream, and I am old enough and have seen enough to say that I am getting weary after thirty years of reading about how essentially freezing technology at the middle age agrarian level is going to save humanity.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:32 am
26 Sep 2006
One problem is that the subject is now taboo, so that projects and people don't draw attention to their heritage.
For example, if we look more closely at the communes and neo-medieval agriculture criticized by biodiversivist, we find that these movements are prospering very nicely, thank you. The New York Times reports that communes are thriving. Organic and local agriculture is now the most profitable sector of agriculture.
I think I would disagree with bd who says that eco-villages "have been proven not to work." Eco-villages (extended family + local communities) have been around for 10,000 years and are exceedingly resilient. In contrast, suburbs and the nuclear family are a recent invention with a dim prospect, as the price of energy rises.
I agree with bd that technology is not to be frozen, but technology does not necessarily mean big and expensive. One observer told me that he considered the most important advance of the 20th century to be the improved methods for organic farming.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:38 am
26 Sep 2006
The New York Times reports that communes are thriving. Organic and local agriculture is now the most profitable sector of agriculture.
I read that article and have been to the community website recently while debating LegumeSam on the merits of communism. 20% of the communes listed are "forming" many are of a religious nature and the total number of people in them is about 30,000 out of a population of about 300,000,000 (0.01%). I also have nothing against organic or local agriculture, which is not synonymous with communes. One commune mentioned makes radiation detectors. Here is more from the article your referenced which pretty much supports my opinion:
The on-again off-again passion for counterculture living is a thread that runs through American history, starting with the Puritans, who were chasing the dream of utopia.
Although most utopian settlements eventually failed, each generation seems to strive for a way out of the status quo. "These communities serve as a mirror for the mainstream to see what others view as society's problems," said Christian Goodwillie, a curator at the Hancock Shaker Village in Pittsfield, Mass. "They offer the best-case scenario of what society would look like if mankind did away with personal ambition and greed. The problem is, they never seem to last very long."
Not surprisingly, adherents of modern-day communitarianism believe a new era has arrived
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
JackS Posted 2:29 am
30 Sep 2006
Before you pigeonhole me as another media critic, let me say that I am a full believer in Peak Oil. Haven't owned a car for over 11 years, in fact. Public transportation, bicycle and my own two feet all the way.
But after reading a "mainstream" book recently, a couple of points jumped out at me that are often connected to the Peak Oil movement, and I have related questions.
First, I've always (blindly) accepted the notion that the planet is becoming overpopulated, but this book claimed that if you took the world's entire population and plopped it down in Texas, you'd have a state with the same population density as New York City. When you put it that way, it hardly seems the planet is overpopulated. Any comments on this?
Secondly, the book claimed that although global warming is undeniable over the past century, half of the warming occurred during the first half of that century, when we were burning far less fossil fuel. In other words, global warming may not be the "man made" crisis some make it out to be, but rather a typical planetary cycle that we can do nothing to stop. Any comments?
Thanks for your time.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:05 am
30 Sep 2006
It only lends credence to corporatist talking point nonsense. The time to debate overpopulation and human caused fossil fuel greenhouse gas climate disaster is over, it's now time to act.
("This book"? What book? You claim to be a journalist but leave that key fact out? Smells like a setup.)
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
JackS Posted 4:48 am
30 Sep 2006
If you can debunk the points, I'm here to listen and learn. But I have no interest in bias on either side of an issue.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:37 am
30 Sep 2006
The basic difficulty with suggestions that some natural global warming occurred between 1900 and 1950, even if this is true, is that this would not refute the idea that the strong warming in the last two decades, which was predicted in advance as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, is not. Searching back stories at http://www.realclimate.org would likely be a conscientious journalist's way of refuting his own theory that this has not been well addressed.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, boron combustion fan
How motoring gains nuclear cachet
Permalink
JackS Posted 7:22 am
30 Sep 2006
I think you're missing the point a bit re: Texas. It's not a suggestion that putting the entire world's population there would make for a pleasant or even livable place. Rather, it's an illustration that you could do it and have a density no greater than NYC. That surprised me. I figured you'd need a lot more land than just Texas to achieve that. It makes me wonder if the overpopulation "crisis" isn't a bit exaggerated.
As for global warming, I couldn't get your link to work. Do you know where to find any kind of graphs or statistics that show the acceleration of global warming in the last two decades?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:42 pm
30 Sep 2006
For a summation of the modern history of overpopulation take a look at these chapters from Poison Darts: Busting myth busting and Overpopulation--the modern denial.
"... in fact, we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City."
This Limbaugh factoid works as designed. It gives most people the feeling that 6.35 billion people isn't so many after all. I am laughing as I write this. It is hard for me to believe that Limbaugh and Stossel both think that overpopulation is the amount of space available to each human being. If you have ever driven the length of Texas, you understand the meaning of empty. What this example really should drive home is how very little of our planet can support human life. Most of Texas is empty because it would be difficult or impossible to live there. There is no water and no way to grow crops. You cannot easily live in the middle of the Texas deserts any more than you can easily live on the moon. There is a lot of uninhabitable space on this planet and in this solar system. Similarly, a drive across the Midwest would show you corn and soy fields a far as the eye can see with nary a human in sight. To understand overpopulation, you have to see before and after satellite photos to visualize what kind of damage 6.35 billion humans can do to a planet.
Here are some other ways to look at it. How big is a billion? Working non-stop, twenty-four hours a day, it would take me over thirty years to count to one billion. Christ was born a billion minutes ago. The universe is 13 billion years old. Here is another one I just cranked out on my calculator. Picture 6.35 billion people standing shoulder to shoulder along a road. You start driving 60 MPH down that road. After driving non-stop for two full days you can't see the end of the line. After a month, you still can't see it. A year goes by, then two years, still you have not come to the end of the line and you won't for another 2.5 years. It would take you 4.5 years driving 24 hours a day at 60 miles per hour to get to the end of that line. One more, it would take me 190 years just to count those people.
Oh, the answer is 198 times.
I will let someone else address the global warming questions.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:09 pm
30 Sep 2006
http://www.realclimate.org/ usually works.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, boron combustion fan
How motoring gains nuclear cachet
Permalink
JackS Posted 1:03 am
02 Oct 2006
Not that I'm in favor of a "burn baby burn" mentality. Just trying to get the facts.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:25 am
02 Oct 2006
Do you honestly think that this curve has not been seen by them, and if this fact were pointed out to them they would all just say, "Wow. We overlooked that. Thanks. I guess global warming isn't caused by pumping into the air trillions of pounds of carbon stored underground for hundreds of millions of years."
In any case, it is fairly irrelevant. The only question of importance is, can we do anything about global warming, and if so, what? The consensus is yes, exactly how to do it is and always will be controversioal and halting.
A few years ago the religionists and conservatives were saying that there was no global warming. They gave that argument up and are now saying that we didn't cause it. What argument will replace that one is anybody's guess. Are you affiliated with the Discovery Institute?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
JackS Posted 3:47 am
02 Oct 2006
As for your question re: scientists, I think they come to incorrect conclusions all the time for a variety of reasons.
That's not to say they are wrong in this instance. Cutting back on the fossil fuel burning certainly won't hurt in the "war on warming," and I'm in favor of it regardless. I'm just not so sure it will help.
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 4:30 am
02 Oct 2006
Try Googling 'early century global warming'; you'll find a lot of information that will help you out. Just to get you started, here's what appears to be an explanation from NOAA: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/early_20th_cent_warming.html
Wow, that's a fun read.
I think it's great that you're looking into alternate explanations of climate change, but keep in mind that for every 'rogue scientist' that's right (with the establishment being totally wrong), there are a thousand more who are simply idiots. The scientific method is a fine way to root out the cranks, and in the case of global warming the evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of anthropogenic causes. This is NOT to say that only humans can influence the global climate, but rather all indications of our current situation point that way.
If you read back a bit, there were similar debates over the toxicity of DDT, the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, heavy metal poisoning and on and on and on. Environmentalists get pretty tired of hearing the same crappy arguments trotted out every time an industry feels threatened, which is probably why you're seeing such hostility. Simply put, if you're not a troll, your behavior is trollish. Don't take it hard, just do the research and take the long view.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:48 am
02 Oct 2006
Actually, I do not know of many "religionists" who pointedly denied global warming. The ones that I think you have in mind, Evangelical Protestant Christians, have tended to ignore it or suppress it for two reasons, from what I can tell. First, their first order of business is preparing for the End Times and the Rapture -- and that is connected to their support of the state of Israel and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank -- , so any concern for the environment is deemed a frivolous distraction from what really matters (Bill Moyers wrote an excellent, chilling piece on this, last Winter, in the New York Review of Books). Secondly, being under the spell of Karl Rove, they are reluctant to do anything to support environmentalists, for fear that the vote for George W. Bush and/or the GOP will be weakened.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:54 pm
02 Oct 2006
Jack,
I agree with you. History has many examples of group thinking scientists, eugenics, and the Oedipus complex being two examples. I believe global warming falls more in the category of the other controversial scientific discovery that is still not accepted by the majority of Americans, evolution. That is why I asked about the Discovery Institute.
I'm also not sure we are going to get out of this one, but as I have said before, we don't really have a choice but to try. We do need to make sure our cures are not worse than the disease (economically and biologically--turning biologically diverse carbon sinks into biofuel farms).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Bytesmiths Posted 1:51 pm
02 Oct 2006
There is a great film called "Visions of Utopia", by Geoph Kozeny. It is full of stories of successful intentional communities and ecovillages, both religious and non-religious. There are ecovillages that have been functioning for decades, such as Findhorn in Scotland, and The Farm in Tennessee.
You can find many more examples in the Federation of Intentional Communities website. And yes, many, many of those claim to be "forming", but that is more a matter of humility than reality: Permaculture teaches us to pursue "transition strategies", rather than complete, immutable solutions that will last forever and ever. If I ever settle myself in a community that is not "forming," then it's time to put on that wooden suit!
But for every world-famous, long-term ecovillage, there are a hundred that operate informally, below-the-radar, "off grid", if you will. (Ecovillage aficionados use "off grid" to mean "done without permit or government scrutiny", rather than the more common meaning of "not connected to commercial electricity.")
This makes them nearly invisible, in many cases. Some are operating, certified organic farms, but have a dozen families working a large acerage. Some masquerade as retreats and conference centers. Others are simply a bunch of people living on a largish tract. They use various forms of governance, from "fiefdom style" landlord/tenent, to cooperating clusters of families, to full-fledged egalitarian communes, with income and even asset sharing. Most successful ones fall between the extremes, with formal consensus as the dominant decision making method.
Author Diana Leafe Christian (Creating a Life Together) does note that 90% of forming intentional communities fail. But do they really fail, or do their founders go on to do a better job next time? This is "the bible" for ecovillage founders, and the lessons are being documented for increasing the success rate.
The Art of Community Conference Northwest drew over 200 people, primarily from the US Pacific Northwest, who together probably represent at least 20, 000 others who are forming earth- or social-based intentional communities.
I believe these organization -- or "dis-organizations", since the movement is generally anarchic -- is what Richard Heinberg calls "cultural lifeboats". These organizations will exist, because they will have to, in the coming chaos. They may be civilization's best hope for keeping humanity alive as we return to an energy budget that we have not endured since there were under a billion humans on this planet.
You might not have a good handle for what an ecovillage is. The exact meaning of "ecovillage" is unimportant. The work being done by ecovillagers is!
In the interest of transparency, I will say that I am a columnist for Communities Magazine, the journal of cooperative living, and am a co-founder of a "forming" ecovillage, EcoReality. Take that either as bias, or as credential, as you will.
You might also enjoy the article that Diana and I did together, about the prospects for ecovillages in the coming energy decline. It's not all roses. There are serious challenges on the horizon for everyone; I remain convinced that the growing ecovillage/Permaculture movement is one of the best ways of meeting those challenges.
"Permaculture [and by implication, most ecovillages] is revolution disguised as organic gardening." -- Bill Mollison
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality: http://www.EcoReality.org ::::
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:10 am
03 Oct 2006
With members living in low impact minimist tent-like dwellings that use simple technology greenhouses, solar, wind, waste composting, to conserve water, energy, and building materials. Organic gardening collectively and individually as members cooperate amongst themselves and with the local community would provide food and income.
The wind power investments would produce income to maintain the infrastructure and expand the land under conservation. As well as tourism in the form of camping, biking, skiing and other recreation.
The members of the religion would work in publishing on the net and books to spread the word and membership. Signifigant scholarship and publishing would be done by members in the fields of traditional nature based religion, organic farming, herbal and organic food as medicine, massage and yoga therapy, meditation, exersize and self healing, and related subjects.
There would also be research and teaching arms of the religion devoted to the application of renewable technology to organic farming, home and shelter building, and renewable energy powered transportation. All focused on simple do-it-yourself conversion of recycled equipment.
No rigid authoritarian theocracy will be needed since the religion itself and it's procedures will be in the background of the culture, with the reality of community activities taking center stage. Members of other religions would be able to join without rejecting their faith or converting to the community nature based faith. The religious community would pay it's research and publishing members.
Individual family small businesses, manufacturing, building and renewable energy contracting, and organic farming would operate along with the community. Capitalism would be encouraged.
Have you encountered anything like this? I think the community income from energy production would create exponential expansion of land under conservation and renewable energy for sale into the power grid. The community values align with the spiritual value of revering the natural world.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
JeffS Posted 2:27 am
24 Dec 2006
How do you expect to prepare for something that noone believes in? Corporate america, and their lobbyists, will happily let us ride blindly into the crisis.
All around the country we continue to build suburban homes further and further away from city centers, demand extensive highway projects that will likely never see completion and spend tax dollars that we do not actually have on rediculous global policies.
Petrocollapse will leave us [in the US] living in one of the worst places on the planet to try to survive. People need to know this NOW, because it could take them all of the time they have left to mentally prepare for what needs to be done.
The "solution" is too drastic for anyone to accept right now. Giving up the car will only be the tip of the iceburg, and that in itself is unthinkable for just about everyone.
Permalink