Thanks to Eric for the link to this excellent series of blogs by John
Michael Greer. He makes a very cogent and fairly compelling argument. The
key point, I think, is in this paragraph:
"Let's walk through the logic. The most reasonable estimates suggest that,
given a crash program and the best foreseeable technologies, renewable
sources can probably provide the United States with around 15% of the
energy it currently gets from fossil fuels. Since every good and service in
the economy is the product of energy, it's a very rough but functional
approximation to say that in a green economy, every American will have to
get by on the equivalent of 15% of his or her current income. Take a moment
to work through the consequences in your own life; if you made $50,000 in
2009, for example, imagine having to live on $7,500 in 2010. That's quite a
respectable income by Third World standards, but it won't support the kind
of lifestyle that the vast majority of Americans, across the political
spectrum, believe is theirs by right."
I'm not sure I buy the 15% figure. I think we can do better than that with
wind, but I agree that to do so we will almost certainly have to reallocate
resources. I have no great confidence that that will happen until it is
enabled by rising energy costs. That may be sooner than later, however.
We'll soon know. Even if the "correct" figure is 25% or even 50%, the
implications are pretty dramatic. We are not going to "grow the economy"
with green jobs. The green jobs will help us salvage what's left of the
economy and help us power down to a more sustainable level of resource use.
If the future in this heating climate is not to be one of a much reduced
population shivering and starving in the few buildings not yet decayed to
the point of becoming uninhabitable, it will be because we dramatically
reduce the energy required to build, maintain, and heat them, and because
we have developed enough of an alternative energy infrastructure to support
a reasonably comfortable existence. The comfortable existence could look
like one or two warm rooms in otherwise unheated buildings. It could
include electricity to power much more efficient appliances. It also could
mean far worse if things really fall apart. We'd best get on with the
repositioning.
Joel
At 09:00 AM 1/5/10 -0800, you wrote:
Reading this 3 part series by John Michael Greer made me think of the
snippet below and the idea that "current consumption levels can be
replaced by renewable fuels". JMG makes a good argument against this whole
mentality, as does Karl. "The question that has to be asked is whether a
modern industrial society can exist at all without vast and rising inputs
of essentially free energy, of the sort only available on this planet from
fossil fuels, and the answer is no. Once thatâs grasped, other useful
questions come to mind for example, how much of the useful legacy of
the last three centuries can be saved, and how but until you get past
the wrong question, youâre sstuck chasing the mirage of a replacement
for oil that didnât take a hundred million years or so to come into
being."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/human-ecology-of-collapse.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/political-ecology-of-collapse.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/political-ecology-of-collapse-part.html
Thanks, Eric ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> > To: [email protected] >
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 10:58:56 PM > Subject: Re:
[SustainableTompkins] The morality question > > Another typical response
is to talk about "switching to renewables", as > if replacing fossil
energy on any significant scale were a good thing, in > the sense of
getting to the heart of the problem. Ultimately our present > type of
civilization, the production it requires, the resources it > depletes, and
the resultant damage to the planet, all requires a high > level of energy
to keep going. Industrial civilization does not care what > kind of energy
we feed it. It will keep on chewing up the planet just as > effectively on
renewables as on fossil fuels. It is not the type of > energy that is the
biggest problem, it is how much we use. > > "What is the action that
George or Karl would support? If everyone waits > until they've converted
to renewables to protest the drilling, it will be > too late." > > As a
farmer I know the importance of water quality to the whole upstate > rural
economy. I gritted my teeth in self-disgust and supported the > petitions
to the governor and other actions of the anti-fracking > movement. But I
would have more self-respect, and would be a lot more > hopeful about the
long term results for our communities of this campaign > if the movement
were to mobilize equally strongly around local policies > to effectively
power down our communities. > > Karl North > Northland Sheep Dairy,
Freetown, New York USA > www.geocities.com/northsheep/ > "Pueblo que
canta no morira" - Cuban saying > "They only call it class warfare when we
fight back" - Anon. _______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area,
please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives,
subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins Questions
about the list? ask [email protected] free
hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
