OregonJim’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Social Assumption Behind the Discussion

  Common to all the arguments here is the assumption that our centralized, bureaucratic state and corporate form of organization will remain untouched by climate and peak oil developments. As in many crises, though, there is a tendency for the system under stress to re-organize itself in a simpler form that conserves energy - or investment.

  In a remarkably short span, a movement that began in England toward decentralization, toward in fact having an enjoyable life in local communities, has sprung up and spread around the world from Japan to Hungary.

  Called the Transition Towns movement, it began in Totnes, an English town of about 8,000 people, when one Permaculture advocate began spreading the word about Climate Change and Peak Oil. Within a year the citizens had organized a Great Unleashing, at which they formed groups to pursue various projects that would transform their community into a resilient one that is more or less independent of the greater culture. And more fun. An article describing the movement appeared today (Sept. 11, 2008) in the Christian Science Monitor. More information is also available on their web site <http://www.transitiontowns.org>

  The point is, it doesn't have to be this way. Angelsnecropolis no doubt tells an accurate story, but it isn't the only story available to us. If we can organize our neighbors into communities, we can support a significant number of them in learning the truth and making the changes, organizing from the grass up. And indeed the political leaders who can see over the horizon are helpless to make change absent that kind of movement. That's the new story we can make up - and make happen.

  OregonJim

  On Without coal, the most catastrophic climate scenarios may not happen posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Coal Replace Oil? Crazy Ideas

  The idea that coal could replace oil in time to ease this crisis is a little odd. Dave Kimble has it right about the timing issue.

  But more fundamental is the arithmetic issue. A great physicist at U. Colorado, Albert Bartlett, made a film that explains it clearly. The important thing is Exponential Growth. Our use of oil in the last 15 years has grown at about 3.5% per year. Using the Rule of 70, you can divide 70 by 3.5 and find that we will double our usage of oil in 15 years - using up in the next 15 years as much as we used since the discovery of oil in 1859. The same holds true for coal. Economists tell us that "at present rates of consumption" we have enough for hundreds of years. But we increase our use of coal by a certain percentage annually, and now we would add the requirements of replacing the oil we have been using, which has amounted to some 40% of our total energy use. So we add 40% to our present consumptions, even if we could build the infrastructure in time, and then increase that by a steady percentage of 3-4%, and we would run out of coal in a couple of decades. So that is not the answer I want. It seems to me that hoping for coal or gas or nucs or whatever is more of a way of avoiding the issue than a potential answer. I don't know the answer, I hasten to add, but at least I am not escaping into denial. Acknowledging the truth is the first step. Ask any drunk.

  Oregon JimOn Peak oil, coal, and bizarre optimism posted 3 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses