Remember the discussion about whether terms like "global warming" or "climate change" conveyed the seriousness of the situation?  Well, the phrase "climatic instability" should get the attention of those in denial about the risks and costs awaiting us.

It's amazing (and depressing) how often Bill McKibben is right.  Depressing because the predictions are often glum, but what else can a smart, caring hero say than the (often depressing) truth.  His most recent article about the effects of and response to Hurricane Katrina as an harbringer of the future seem right again.  

You may want to check out a related editorial I have in this week's British Medical Journal -- it's on the anniversary of 9/11, and how the redirection of public health funds to terrorism preparedness have left us ill-equipped to deal with real, daily threats right now.  

And thank you, Bill.

One of my favorite pieces of writing is his 1995 essay on global warming in the NYT Sunday Magazine.  I pull it out and re-read it every so often.  He is certainly no Bill-come-lately to this topic.  

I find myself worrying as much about peak oil these days.  Bill's comment:  

Not to mention the costs of converting our energy system to something less suicidal than fossil fuel, a task that becomes more expensive with every year that passes.

assumes that something like this is even possible.  Kunstler makes a pretty compelling case in The Long Emergency that it simply can't be done.  Oil is simply huge volumes of cheap energy.  What could possibly be used to replace it?  Alternative ways to generate electricity can ease the pain, but our unsustainable suburban/automobile lifestyle is based on petroleum.

It seems that unless someone's Hail Mary pass (cold fusion, nanotechnology, who-the-hell-knows what) is completed--and damn soon--that these environmental disruptions that are going to occur are going to be accompanied by resource wars.  

The scary thing is that our gov't doesn't even seem to be concerned about looking for the alternatives.  Our energy policy is military-based.    

Unfortunately, this piece shows off a bit of his Harvard-educated roots, namely, the intelligent, persuasive bitching about a situation, but not suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it.  

Why are there no suggestions?  Because that would involve thinking of something NEW.  And RISK.  Harvard people tend to be risk avoidant, which is a nice way of saying they tend to be cowardly.  It far safer to just comment with flowery prose on the status quo.  A new idea?  That's risky, because what if you are wrong?  Then you might not keep your position of authority that you have worked so hard to attain.

You see the same comments from people like Russell Long (Blue Water Network), also a Harvard grad, who seems to justify his existence by bitching about Ford Motor Company.  Geez, he didn't even pick the right domestic automaker. GM is a more obvious choice to me...

To a somewhat lesser extent you see it in Amory Lovins, also a Harvard grad.  He's a little different in that he does propose solutions (hydrogen fuel, build lighter cars using extremely expensive carbon fiber compounds) but the solutions are completely impractical.  

Inadvertently, his proseletizing of hydrogen have allowed oil and auto companies to grab and use that as a smoke screen.  I hope you can understand how harmful these people can be.  

Thanks a lot, boys.

Bill does his own disservice by stating:

"Not to mention the costs of converting our energy system to something less suicidal than fossil fuel, a task that becomes more expensive with every year that passes."

This implies that an alternative is more expensive than fossil fuels.  I don't think that's the case.  The primary problem at this point is not cost, but the inertia of the existing system.  That's a political challenge, not a technical one.  A political challenge not aided, by the way, with Bill stating that it is a technical challenge.

Who am I to say this?  Well, I'm one of those Harvard people too.  I even wrote an op-ed piece supportive of Bill back when he was editor for the Harvard Crimson.

Harvard is pretty good about extinguishing the monetary incentive in people, but often it is replaced with an incentive for ego aggrandizing.

I'm tempted to add some additional defensive crap  on my own behalf, but I will hold back. (One is never completely cured of it, after all....)

These problems are too big to solve if we are going to worry about MAKING MONEY or MAKING EGO on it.

The view from Europe/Greece is that there may be a new AWARENESS for the average US voter, (after the Katrina disaster and the costly aftermath), enough to energise them to do something about it!  Like writing to their political leaders (Congressmen, Senators, Governors, President Bush et.al.) and demanding that the US signs the Kyoto agreement (not signed by GW Bush few months ago during the G-9 summit meeting in Scotland).

It is a paradox that the largest contributor to pollutants (the USA) continues this unfair to the planet policy!

Byron E. Riginos,
Athens, Greece  

While it is true that most complain while few look for answers; the answer to our fuel problems, and the even larger problems of society as a whole, have become tied to our structures.  Our support system of refineries and gasoline distrubution systems demanded years and billions of dollars of investment; the investors are loath to depart the systems while even pennies of profit are returned. That is why there will not be any turning away from the existing structure until there is sufficient profit in the new system to replace the system now in place.  How this will happen I profess complete ignorance.  

Bear in mind that cities here in the US are abandoned financially due to the enormous costs of cleaning up contaminated lands, razing existing sturctures, and rebuilding.  Why do that when you can build new cheaper outside of the city?  Hence the money poured out of city, county, state coffers to lure redevelopment on inner city sites.  This problem is indivisible from society's progress.  How to move ahead when the past is in the way?  

No one wants to incorporate the true costs, including identifying and landfilling the waste stream, correctly identifying long term costs  related to uses of products, setting aside monies to maintain the infrasturcture, and many others that the capitalist system ignores. It is not too great a mistatement to say as we move ahead, we trash the path behind us.  At some point there will be no new path; at least not on this planet.  

I see the challenge as both technical and political.  Yes, the inertia of the present system is huge.  

But the technical questions remain. I'm skeptical of the quick fixex.  All the technical quick fixes thus far have not panned out.  

Part of the reason is simply the fact that petroleum represents a huge source of essentially free energy.  We can't simply replace all gas guzzling SUVs with gas sipping hybrids. How can we replace 20 million barrels of oil a day with renewable methane?  

We need to drastically make lifestyle changes.