This is an amazing conversation which began in early Dec and is focused on powering down our civilization. While I'm convinced we need to move in that direction as communities & nations, how do we include this in our an upcoming events on hydrofracking the Marcellus Shale without freaking everyone out or making us look like doomsayers? The numbers thrown out by authors referred to in recent emails is mind blowing. End of the world scenarios have been around for centuries. Sure seems like there's enough data & reason to suggest that the end of the modern/techno/industrial world of conveniences as we know it, is well on its way. I mean, if Joel's suggestion that we have to get used to 50% less than what we're already using or making is an "optimistic" figure, damn, we are in way more trouble than we think. Under the circumstances, it becomes even harder to tell people not to pump gas from under our feet. And that if the above is true, and we're sitting on this motherload of natural gas, is drastic climate change enough to say leave it in the ground? Taking some deep breaths in a warm & cozy Uris Library at Cornell U. Tony Del Plato
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Joel and Sarah Gagnon < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 that’s 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, you’re sstuck chasing the mirage of a replacement for oil >> that didn’t 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.htmlThanks, >> 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 > -- The nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up resources of strength and courage they did not know they had. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. _______________________________________________ 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
