This is excellent. And Jan knows what he's talking about.

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.

Right!  And I entirely agree with SMLowry in mistrusting Jason Scorse's technological optimism.

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!

Ignorance may lead us into the new Dark Ages, not lack of resources, just lack of information.

Why not 4 billion, or 3 billion, or 2 billion.  Isn't the cause of reproductive rights (not to mention the rest of their rights) for women worth the effort anyway?

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

   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

I, too, had problems with this epistle from Mr. Lundberg.  In fact, when I read it on Friday, it simply pissed me off, so I chose not to post right away (blogging in anger being similarly wise & effective as dialing-while-drunk).

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

    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?"
    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?"

Mr. Lundberg,

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

I'm a member of the MSM and saw Jan speak last fall in NYC (I'm also a subscriber to his newsletter).

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.

Not worth the effort.

 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

I only left the name of the book out because I felt there would be a built-in bias against the information if I named it.

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.

No trolling here.  As I indicated, I believe in Peak Oil, and I also believe that in virtually ignoring it, our society is headed for big trouble.  I've read Deffeyes, Kunstler, et al.  But I also read the other side and don't just automatically dismiss it.  Critical thinking requires gathering all the relevant points and determining what's wheat and what's chaff.

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?

As for the Goddard link, maybe I'm reading the graph wrong, but it looks to me like it kind of proves the second point in my original post.  There was a lot of global warming in the first half of last century, it plateaued for awhile, and then it resumed at approximately the same rate.  If anything, I think that graph is at least a weak indication that global warming is occurring independent of fossil fuel burning.

Not that I'm in favor of a "burn baby burn" mentality.  Just trying to get the facts.

No sense trying to figure my "angle" because I have none except as a critical observer.

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.

Some, Biodiv, but by no means all.  The Discovery Institute might deserve to be called a lair of reptiles, did we not hold reptiles in such high regard.

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!

I am envisioning a nature based religious institution that invests in wilderness land conservation and wind power from that land.

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

At a time when an overwhelming percentage of the population does not accept peak oil (or even heard of it), the first step is to make people understand that it is, in fact, a reality.

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.