>Did everyone else catch that the title to Monbiot's article >references Dr. Strangelove, and I'm just finally getting it? Was >the article a satire, or what?
Monbiot didn't write the headline, it was written by a sub-editor. I think that's probably something worth knowing: reporters, columnists and so on do not write the headlines on top of their stories, editors do that. No, it wasn't a satire. Best Keith >Maybe I'm a little slow... > >George Page >www.seabreezefarm.net >Vashon Island, WA USA > >On Mar 31, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote: > >> At last. >> >> When terms like "projected energy demand" are bandied about the implication, >> conveniently for those doing the bandying, is that it is a phenomenon that >> arises spontaneously from historical necessity, i.e. something that just >> happens. The more people see it this way, the better for those >>wishing to push >> for this or that means of generating lots and lots of electricity. >>To argue for >> producing a little bit of electricity here and a little bit of electricity >> there, not to mention a bit of direct heat here and a bit of >>direct mechanical >> rotation there, requires understanding that "projected energy demand" is >> something subject to analysis and comprehension: that it has causes and >> mechanisms, and that it happens as it does only under certain >>circumstances. The >> first thing that becomes clear is that the projection is contingent on the >> current system of production being maintained; but there are a few >>things about >> that system that are not widely understood. >> >> Firstly, it embodies a very high degree of what the >>Austrian-school economists >> call "roundaboutness"; that is, the production of final-consumer goods >> represents a relatively small percentage of total production, the rest being >> production of goods necessary for producing (... goods necessary >>for producing >> ...) final-consumer goods. The more stages can be inserted, say >>the Austrians, >> the stronger the economy. I should however like to suggest that one of the >> greatest needs at the moment is eliminating as much roundaboutness >>as possible. >> >> Secondly, the current system of production requires that critical threshold >> levels of production be maintained, and those levels are quite high indeed. >> Techniques are chosen precisely for their high critical threshold production >> levels, as those not only increase profitability but also the scale of >> profitability, i.e. the entire deal gets bigger, billions rather >>than millions; >> and simultaneously tend to oligarchize industry by eliminating >>competitors not >> capable of such dizzying heights - and an oligarchy can collude >>imperceptibly, >> by nods and winks, as it were, without any conspiracy to expose. >>It should be >> obvious that the greatest danger to this is precisely the threat >>of a multitude >> of small operations working at far lower critical thresholds, and >>therefore very >> sophisticated action is taken to eliminate that possibility. My >>position here is >> that one should take care not unwittingly to become part of that >>sophisticated >> action, but that everything possible be done to see the lowest >>possible critical >> threshold level of production in use. >> >> Of course these two are interrelated, as demand for product A depends on the > > production volume of products B and C; so there is roundaboutness >in consumption >> as well as in production. >> >> What stands out in all this is that the "greed" of individual consumers, and >> their receptiveness to bright trinkets, is neither here nor there, except >> insofar as these are manipulated to keep the production levels up. There is >> something I would bet a lot of us are feeling and none of us is saying, so I >> shall say it. It is not so much the possibility of discomfort we fear in a >> different economic scenario as that it might be unbearably dull >>and boring; that >> solving the problem means giving up all the neat-o stuff that gets >>our pulses > > racing. I do not believe that this is necessarily so. >> >> The problem with the current system is that there is too much production per >> person-unit of creativity - as if there could ever be such a thing >>as a unit of >> creativity. There is too much stuff made for each bright idea of >>each designer. >> Stated conversely, there aren't enough bright ideas from enough >>designers for >> the amount of stuff that is made. In other words, it really is >>unbearably dull >> and boring at the moment. Almost all the neat-o-ness there currently is is >> outside the mainstream. >> >> For every (mainstream) product one consumes, there is a whole knot of other >> production that goes with it due to the structure of >>conditionality set up by >> the system described above. It is that extra production which needs to be >> eliminated. You are only concerned with the product you actually >>use; you should >> not be made to be responsible for all the extra production. >> >> So, one can go as far as to say that the continued and expanded >>use of nuclear >> energy will make it possible to establish even higher critical threshold >> production levels of even more absolutely interdependent complexes of goods, >> resulting in even more repetition and boredom; and an even >>stricter clamp-down >> on the out-of-mainstream activities that generate the excitement, >>lest the whole >> thing collapse and industry be left with its collective finger in >>a place best >> not described. >> >> Productivity is a near synonym for "the wheels of the economy" and to most >> perceptions the sine-qua-non for economic health. E F Schumacher >>was one of the >> very few economists to be so bold as to propose a LESS productive >>economy, and I >> believe he was right. And a less productive economy is one that not only >> requires less energy, but one that is better equipped to make use >>of a diversity >> of sources of energy. >> >> On a more particular note, Robert, you mentioned steel and aluminium in a >> subsequent post. Each has its place. There are jobs for which >>aluminium is not >> the right material, usually because of its fatigue stress properties; but >> aluminium alloys are supremely recyclable on a small scale, being >>smeltable at >> temperatures attainable by normal people, with very little loss of >>material or >> deterioration of the alloy. Home casting of aluminium is an activity that is >> growing in popularity - try a search - and quite commendable, I >>say. Few home >> founders have the stomach for the temperatures required to smelt steels, but >> some brave it. >> >> That said, production of aluminium from ore is extremely energy-intensive, >> moreso than steel even. However, both cases are of the very few >>situations where >> it makes sense to use electricity for generating heat. But if one >>considers only >> the aluminium things one actually uses oneself, and then only the >>things that >> really want to be made of aluminium, there is probably enough >>scrap aluminium >> lying around for everyone. >> >> What I object to is the use of aluminium for purposes where its greatest >> advantage is that you can load more of it on the truck that brings it from a >> central point than you could another material, rather than any >>property it has >> in its final use. In most such cases the other material is wood, >>and the purpose >> is building. I really don't like aluminium is buildings. Aluminium >>is something >> you use for its lightness, and buildings ought to be heavy ... > > >> Regards >> >> Dawie Coetzee >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: robert and benita rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >> Sent: Fri, 25 March, 2011 21:01:00 >> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear >> power (George Monbiot) >> >> On 3/25/2011 10:38 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote: >>> I fear that, despite Keith's occasional promptings to the contrary, I still >> had >>> no great love for George Monbiot anyway. The latest merely >>>confirms my earlier >>> misgivings. >>> >>> My own position, in which the Green is rather overshadowed by the Black, >>> represents one of the few angles from which George's cloven hoof is really > >> visible. To me he has always been far too much the >eco-authoritarian, for whom >>> ecological survival could never really, thoroughly, consummately >>>co-exist with >>> personal liberty. His localism seems thin and superficial, his >>>centralism runs >>> much deeper. >>> >>> An appreciation for obscure local apple cultivars gave George Monbiot a >> chance. >>> He has blown it now. >> >> Ok, it's one thing to dismiss the article offhand because it >> doesn't harmonize with the overall theme of local energy and food >> production, but I would like to ask the list what I believe is an >> important question. Mr. Monibot mentioned that pre-industrial England >> did not support a very comfortable lifestyle for most of its >> inhabitants, and that full reliance on solar, wind and biomass would >> move English society backward without nuclear power. Does it follow >> that a reduction in energy use and reliance on renewables would >> necessarily result in massive declines in both industrial output and >> citizen comfort? (I'm also thinking of that article Keith posted a few >> weeks ago, in which analysis of coal consumption in Industrial >> Revolution England actually INCREASED with improvements in efficiency.) >> Can we support large populations in the industrialized nations without >> fossil and nuclear power? >> >> I can envision a personal lifestyle in which my energy needs are >> significantly reduced, and I think we--as a society--could make >> substantial progress in better fitting solar energy to demand. (Using >> solar thermal air conditioning is a good example.) But someone still >> needs to make appliances and sundries. The equipment to convert diffuse >> energy into electricity and heat must be manufactured, somehow. Where >> is the energy going to come from for these activities? How can we work >> with metals, and perform other energy-intensive tasks, without massive >> power plants? >> >> Or, is Mr. Monibot's "either / or" scenario completely off base >> altogether? >> >> When I hear talk of "energy independence," it's usually in the >> context of substituting one form of energy for another, or blind >> insistence that the environment matters less than our need for energy >> and we should "drill and dig" with renewed vigor. I don't hear a lot of >> willingness to re-organize our cities, invest in public transit and move >> away from factory farms. Our current economic model enjoys an almost >> mystical reverence, and none of its underlying assumptions can be >> challenged without accusations of "socialism" (or worse) being flung >> about. But even IF we could come up with a new form of economic policy, >> where is the dense energy for manufacturing going to come from? It's >> clear that we'll need to keep on building things, so HOW can that happen? >> > > robert luis rabello _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
