"Something has gone very wrong. That’s the message that’s rumbling like distant thunder through the crawlspaces of the American imagination just now. Something has gone very wrong, and those whose public claim to power is their supposed ability to manage things so that they don’t go wrong—the captains of finance and brokers of political power who move from photo op to press conference to high-level meeting and back again—don’t know how to fix it." - http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/rumbling-of-distant-thunder.html
There's lots to report on right now, with 15 acres in Basse Normandie now being tackled by three of the Palmer Clan and by a couple more in the not too distant future, this blog will be able to focus more on that project!
Until then though, It's important to stay focused on the mood of the blogosphere and coincidentally this week both Dmitry Orlov (http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/) and John Michael Greer (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk) have written articles about "The Age of Limits", a gathering of Peak Oil peeps, who wanted to fundamentally discuss what is happening post-peak instead of focusing on placing blame for the current predicament.
Keep alert, keep reading, question everything!
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Scared Shitless?
It must've been about 7 or 8 years ago that I read the Last Generation by Fred Pearce. The book was truly terrifying talking of the consequences of the changes occuring to the world, thanks to us, Man.
The section of the book that caused me the most concerns was the idea of the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis which in summary states that increased sea temperatures could lead to the release of methane from methane clathrate compounds in both the oceans and permafrost of the Boreal regions of the Earth. As methane is about 70 times more potent in terms of trapping heat then a CO2 molecule, this release could lead to a irreversible runaway effect in less then a human lifespan. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
This was postulated by Fred Pearce, like i said, perhaps 8 or more years ago.
Lets fast forward to December 2011 - "Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region. The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years." - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
Ok, well at least the News media has picked up on this story and the whole world is being made aware of the science, surely! Well some are reporting on this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-ocean-releasing-significant-amounts-of-methane
http://www.france24.com/en/20120422-arctic-ocean-could-be-source-greenhouse-gas-study
"The fragile and rapidly changing Arctic region is home to large reservoirs of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As Earth’s climate warms, the methane, frozen in reservoirs stored in Arctic tundra soils or marine sediments, is vulnerable to being released into the atmosphere, where it can add to global warming. Now a multi-institutional study by Eric Kort of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., has uncovered a surprising and potentially important new source of Arctic methane: the ocean itself." - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20120422.html
""We know the Arctic is warming very fast indeed," Nisbet says. And as the warming climate leads to more breaks in the sea ice, more ice-surrounded patches of open water will be able to release their methane, further accelerating global warming. The question now is: how significant will this new effect on warming be? "It might be small," Nisbet says, "or it could be another serious problem." -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21733-arctic-methane-leaks-threaten-climate.html
Maybe we'll discuss methane trapped in permafrost next time?
The section of the book that caused me the most concerns was the idea of the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis which in summary states that increased sea temperatures could lead to the release of methane from methane clathrate compounds in both the oceans and permafrost of the Boreal regions of the Earth. As methane is about 70 times more potent in terms of trapping heat then a CO2 molecule, this release could lead to a irreversible runaway effect in less then a human lifespan. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
This was postulated by Fred Pearce, like i said, perhaps 8 or more years ago.
Lets fast forward to December 2011 - "Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region. The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years." - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
Ok, well at least the News media has picked up on this story and the whole world is being made aware of the science, surely! Well some are reporting on this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-ocean-releasing-significant-amounts-of-methane
http://www.france24.com/en/20120422-arctic-ocean-could-be-source-greenhouse-gas-study
"The fragile and rapidly changing Arctic region is home to large reservoirs of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As Earth’s climate warms, the methane, frozen in reservoirs stored in Arctic tundra soils or marine sediments, is vulnerable to being released into the atmosphere, where it can add to global warming. Now a multi-institutional study by Eric Kort of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., has uncovered a surprising and potentially important new source of Arctic methane: the ocean itself." - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20120422.html
""We know the Arctic is warming very fast indeed," Nisbet says. And as the warming climate leads to more breaks in the sea ice, more ice-surrounded patches of open water will be able to release their methane, further accelerating global warming. The question now is: how significant will this new effect on warming be? "It might be small," Nisbet says, "or it could be another serious problem." -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21733-arctic-methane-leaks-threaten-climate.html
Processing this is tricky, one wouldn't want to come across as alarmist, but seriously, what the fuck? Did you notice any of the major News outlets running with this? Did you notice BBC, ABC, NBC, Fox (hilarious, Tim made a funny!) make any mention of this? Hey maybe I'm missing some critical point, yes I know that methane "breaks down" quicker in the atmosphere then CO2, so maybe that will be our saving grace. But be under no illusion, I'm keenly interested in this and have no clue what the fuck is going on or what will ultimately happen. Shouldn't someone, lets call them "policy-makers" or "world-leaders" have this type of thing on their radar?
I'll leave the final sage words on this to the Arch Druid - "All that’s certain at this point is that something potentially very troubling is happening in Arctic waters, and the possibility that it might have destructive consequences on a local, regional, or continental scale can’t be ruled out. Panic is the least useful response I can think of, so I’ll say this very quietly: if the news from Arctic waters in the months and years to come suggests that things are moving in the wrong direction, and those of my readers who live close to the shores of the northern Atlantic basin happen to have the opportunity to move inland or to higher ground, it might not be unreasonable to do so." - http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/seascape-with-methane-plumes.html
Maybe we'll discuss methane trapped in permafrost next time?
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
The Science is Clear
"Imagine a Giant Asteroid on a collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now, yet we dither." - Dr James Hansen, TED Talks February 2012
As a follow up to yesterdays post and once again to encourage you all to get your electronic selfs over to TED, Dr James Hansen, renowned Nasa Planetary Climate Scientist and now Earth Climate Change expert (in my humble opinion) delivered a very sobering talk in February, posted in March on TED's website.
Abstract - "In 1981, we published an article in Science magazine concluding that observed warming of 0.4 degrees Celsius in the prior century was consistent with the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2. That Earth would likely warm in the 1980's, and warming would exceed the noise level of random weather by the end of the century. We also said that the 21st century would see shifting climate zones, creation of drought-prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage. All of these impacts have since either happened or are now well under way.
That paper was reported on the front page of the New York Times and led to me testifying to Congress in the 1980's, testimony in which I emphasized that global warming increases both extremes of the Earth's water cycle. Heatwaves and droughts on one hand, directly from the warming, but also, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor with its latent energy, rainfall will become in more extreme events. There will be stronger storms and greater flooding. Global warming hoopla became time-consuming and distracted me from doing science -- partly because I had complained that the White House altered my testimony. So I decided to go back to strictly doing science and leave the communication to others.
By 15 years later, evidence of global warming was much stronger. Most of the things mentioned in our 1981 paper were facts. I had the privilege to speak twice to the president's climate task force. But energy policies continued to focus on finding more fossil fuels. By then we had two grandchildren, Sophie and Connor. I decided that I did not want them in the future to say, "Opa understood what was happening, but he didn't make it clear." So I decided to give a public talk criticizing the lack of an appropriate energy policy.
I gave the talk at the University of Iowa in 2004 and at the 2005 meeting of the American Geophysical Union. This led to calls from the White House to NASA headquarters and I was told that I could not give any talks or speak with the media without prior explicit approval by NASA headquarters. After I informed the New York Times about these restrictions, NASA was forced to end the censorship. But there were consequences. I had been using the first line of the NASA mission statement, "To understand and protect the home planet," to justify my talks. Soon the first line of the mission statement was deleted, never to appear again."
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html
Of all the things discussed by Dr Hansen, I think the one element, if i was only to chose one, that causes me the most sleepless nights, is the concept of feedback loops. I was first scared to my very core by this concept after reading Fred Pearce's, The Last Generation, where he discussed releasing of stored methane from permafrost and in deep ocean clathrates. I encourage you all to read further on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Arctic_methane_release
Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and do something to ameliorate the changing climate conditions and be wrong?
The alternative is unthinkable!
As a follow up to yesterdays post and once again to encourage you all to get your electronic selfs over to TED, Dr James Hansen, renowned Nasa Planetary Climate Scientist and now Earth Climate Change expert (in my humble opinion) delivered a very sobering talk in February, posted in March on TED's website.
Abstract - "In 1981, we published an article in Science magazine concluding that observed warming of 0.4 degrees Celsius in the prior century was consistent with the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2. That Earth would likely warm in the 1980's, and warming would exceed the noise level of random weather by the end of the century. We also said that the 21st century would see shifting climate zones, creation of drought-prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage. All of these impacts have since either happened or are now well under way.
That paper was reported on the front page of the New York Times and led to me testifying to Congress in the 1980's, testimony in which I emphasized that global warming increases both extremes of the Earth's water cycle. Heatwaves and droughts on one hand, directly from the warming, but also, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor with its latent energy, rainfall will become in more extreme events. There will be stronger storms and greater flooding. Global warming hoopla became time-consuming and distracted me from doing science -- partly because I had complained that the White House altered my testimony. So I decided to go back to strictly doing science and leave the communication to others.
By 15 years later, evidence of global warming was much stronger. Most of the things mentioned in our 1981 paper were facts. I had the privilege to speak twice to the president's climate task force. But energy policies continued to focus on finding more fossil fuels. By then we had two grandchildren, Sophie and Connor. I decided that I did not want them in the future to say, "Opa understood what was happening, but he didn't make it clear." So I decided to give a public talk criticizing the lack of an appropriate energy policy.
I gave the talk at the University of Iowa in 2004 and at the 2005 meeting of the American Geophysical Union. This led to calls from the White House to NASA headquarters and I was told that I could not give any talks or speak with the media without prior explicit approval by NASA headquarters. After I informed the New York Times about these restrictions, NASA was forced to end the censorship. But there were consequences. I had been using the first line of the NASA mission statement, "To understand and protect the home planet," to justify my talks. Soon the first line of the mission statement was deleted, never to appear again."
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html
Of all the things discussed by Dr Hansen, I think the one element, if i was only to chose one, that causes me the most sleepless nights, is the concept of feedback loops. I was first scared to my very core by this concept after reading Fred Pearce's, The Last Generation, where he discussed releasing of stored methane from permafrost and in deep ocean clathrates. I encourage you all to read further on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Arctic_methane_release
Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and do something to ameliorate the changing climate conditions and be wrong?
The alternative is unthinkable!
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
AGW - And still the deniers deny!!!
We went skiing last week. It's beautiful in the French Alps, really really stunning, yet something quite unusual about skiing on "natural" snow (versus fake stuff created to pad out the pistes) when the air temperature was somewhere near 20c. In isolation this is nothing to be alarmed about, individual and localised weather phenomena does not indicate climate change. But you have to ask if this is localised or is this a pattern of climatic shifts that we will begin to see more and more in the future?
"Today may mark the seventh straight day of 80 degree temperatures at O'Hare, something that's never happened before in March. Or in April, for that matter. "It is extraordinarily rare for climate locations with 100+ year-long periods of records to break records day after day after day," the local office of the National Weather Service said in a statement on Sunday morning, following a Saint Patrick's Day that shattered 141 years of records." - Bill McKibben published in the Guardian on Tuesday 20th March 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/20/us-heatwave-climate-change-republicans?CMP=twt_gu
Hey, I love the good temperatures in the months that historically are cold, but haven't any of you stopped to think... wait a minute, if that's the temperature NOW, WTF will the temperature be at the height of summer?
Food for thought!
"Today may mark the seventh straight day of 80 degree temperatures at O'Hare, something that's never happened before in March. Or in April, for that matter. "It is extraordinarily rare for climate locations with 100+ year-long periods of records to break records day after day after day," the local office of the National Weather Service said in a statement on Sunday morning, following a Saint Patrick's Day that shattered 141 years of records." - Bill McKibben published in the Guardian on Tuesday 20th March 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/20/us-heatwave-climate-change-republicans?CMP=twt_gu
Hey, I love the good temperatures in the months that historically are cold, but haven't any of you stopped to think... wait a minute, if that's the temperature NOW, WTF will the temperature be at the height of summer?
Food for thought!
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Friday, 17 February 2012
All I want is to be left alone?
One of the major concerns of attempting to reduce your dependence on current structures of "support" provided by contemporary government, is whether you will actually be allowed to drop off the grid. The structures set up to support western culture have been succesful in providing basic services and provide a minimal safety-net in case the unthinkable befalls you and you are destitute, but aren't these simply control mechanisms?
If we try and remove ourselves from these state apparatus and form more localised, more useful, more humane groupings can we? This isn't really a thought experiment, it's a genuine question as energy descent will require much more localisation, much more community cooperation, much more self-reliance.
"The decentralized provision of basic necessities is not likely to flow from a utopian vision of a perfect or even improved society (as have some social movements of the past). It will emerge instead from iterative human responses to a daunting and worsening set of environmental and economic problems, and it will in many instances be impeded and opposed by politicians, bankers, and industrialists. It is this contest between traditional power elites on one hand, and growing masses of disenfranchised poor and formerly middle-class people attempting to provide the necessities of life for themselves in the context of a shrinking economy, that is shaping up to be the fight of the century."
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/714558-the-fight-of-the-century
I cannot recommend Richard Heinberg more highly. He along with others at the Post Carbon Institute are trying to challenge the status quo, trying to challenge business as usual model, I implore you all to read and get involved in any way you can.
If we try and remove ourselves from these state apparatus and form more localised, more useful, more humane groupings can we? This isn't really a thought experiment, it's a genuine question as energy descent will require much more localisation, much more community cooperation, much more self-reliance.
"The decentralized provision of basic necessities is not likely to flow from a utopian vision of a perfect or even improved society (as have some social movements of the past). It will emerge instead from iterative human responses to a daunting and worsening set of environmental and economic problems, and it will in many instances be impeded and opposed by politicians, bankers, and industrialists. It is this contest between traditional power elites on one hand, and growing masses of disenfranchised poor and formerly middle-class people attempting to provide the necessities of life for themselves in the context of a shrinking economy, that is shaping up to be the fight of the century."
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/714558-the-fight-of-the-century
I cannot recommend Richard Heinberg more highly. He along with others at the Post Carbon Institute are trying to challenge the status quo, trying to challenge business as usual model, I implore you all to read and get involved in any way you can.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Sssh Climate Change!
"ExxonMobil last week reported its 2011 profits at $41 billion, the second highest of all time. Do you wonder who owns the record? That would be ExxonMobil in 2008 at $45 billion."
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/704040-the-great-carbon-bubble-why-the
We, and by "We" I mean everyone else, especially in the UK will NOT be discussing climate change this week. We have one the driest and warmest Decembers, followed by guess what, that's right one of the driest and warmest January's in history, but this last 10-days have seen pretty cold temperatures here in Blighty. If you can be bothered to check the weather maps it's not hard to see what's going on and let's face it, it's Winter people, so you'd expect some cold and icy weather. Or at least we used to see/expect "winter-like" temperatures and conditions.
So "We" can't even comprehend that we have quite a serious problem of climate change happening around us, ALL OF US, EVERYWHERE!
Of course the newspapers will confuse climate with weather and claim that a few cold days must dispell the rumour of climate change, this being demonstrably false and simply lazy journalism. But let's be fair to the journalists, they work for a money-making business which derives a majority of it's income from advertising revenue so can't really criticise too vociferously the hand that feeds them. (You can read the brilliant book Guardians of Power by David Edwards & David Cornwell for more insight into this!)
So who has the most to lose if climate change became an accepted norm and not a "fringe theory"? Look no further then those companies that EARN the most:
"And when they do break their silence, some of our elite organs are happy to indulge in outright denial. Last month, for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily debunked. It was nothing but a mash-up of long-since-disproved arguments by people who turned out mostly not to be climate scientists at all, quoting other scientists who immediately said their actual work showed just the opposite.
It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had ties to Exxon.) Writers from Ross Gelbspan to Naomi Oreskes have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced.
Why doesn’t it fold the way the tobacco industry eventually did? Why doesn’t it invest its riches in things like solar panels and so profit handsomely from the next generation of energy? As it happens, the answer is more interesting than you might think.
Part of it’s simple enough: the giant energy companies are making so much money right now that they can’t stop gorging themselves. ExxonMobil, year after year, pulls in more money than any company in history. Chevron’s not far behind. Everyone in the business is swimming in money."
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/704040-the-great-carbon-bubble-why-the
As refeerenced in the above article, there is something quite beautiful, but also quite startling about this image courtesy of NASA, do you see?
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/704040-the-great-carbon-bubble-why-the
We, and by "We" I mean everyone else, especially in the UK will NOT be discussing climate change this week. We have one the driest and warmest Decembers, followed by guess what, that's right one of the driest and warmest January's in history, but this last 10-days have seen pretty cold temperatures here in Blighty. If you can be bothered to check the weather maps it's not hard to see what's going on and let's face it, it's Winter people, so you'd expect some cold and icy weather. Or at least we used to see/expect "winter-like" temperatures and conditions.
So "We" can't even comprehend that we have quite a serious problem of climate change happening around us, ALL OF US, EVERYWHERE!
Of course the newspapers will confuse climate with weather and claim that a few cold days must dispell the rumour of climate change, this being demonstrably false and simply lazy journalism. But let's be fair to the journalists, they work for a money-making business which derives a majority of it's income from advertising revenue so can't really criticise too vociferously the hand that feeds them. (You can read the brilliant book Guardians of Power by David Edwards & David Cornwell for more insight into this!)
So who has the most to lose if climate change became an accepted norm and not a "fringe theory"? Look no further then those companies that EARN the most:
"And when they do break their silence, some of our elite organs are happy to indulge in outright denial. Last month, for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily debunked. It was nothing but a mash-up of long-since-disproved arguments by people who turned out mostly not to be climate scientists at all, quoting other scientists who immediately said their actual work showed just the opposite.
It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had ties to Exxon.) Writers from Ross Gelbspan to Naomi Oreskes have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced.
Why doesn’t it fold the way the tobacco industry eventually did? Why doesn’t it invest its riches in things like solar panels and so profit handsomely from the next generation of energy? As it happens, the answer is more interesting than you might think.
Part of it’s simple enough: the giant energy companies are making so much money right now that they can’t stop gorging themselves. ExxonMobil, year after year, pulls in more money than any company in history. Chevron’s not far behind. Everyone in the business is swimming in money."
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/704040-the-great-carbon-bubble-why-the
As refeerenced in the above article, there is something quite beautiful, but also quite startling about this image courtesy of NASA, do you see?
Friday, 3 February 2012
Agrarian Anarchy
When one considers energy descent we have to at least consider alternatives to our current way of living. This can be traumatic, not least because we (well I) really haven't been exposed to anything other then neo-liberal capitalist economic dogma. We need to properly study our history and take examples from our pasts that can offer us alternatives. Now I don't want to get into a discussion on the merits of Marxism or Parecon or some other econmic theory, but what I would like a discussion on is the merits of Agrarian Anarchy.
Anarchy, that misquoted and misused word that we all fear right? Wrong!
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners”; (2) “Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others”; and (3) “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” - Edward Abbey
My learned brother is a keeper of an eye-watering array of literature on anarchist writings and would be best placed to take up this discussion, but for today and for the coming weekend, you only need consider that the current arrangement in our Western Culture is only a contemporary attempt to organise us into easily managed resources. It's not really for us... we are so much better served reverting to our former selves, selves that learned to focus on a reliable and clean food source, potable water and a means of keeping warm. Seems simple enough, but with our modern-selves surrounded by a bigger and bigger array of things to keep us indoors, how can we ever transition from our current living arrangements to a more sustainable, worthwhile, challenging and egalitarian situation?
"It should be clear that the industrial economy is making us sick, mentally and physically, and also greatly reducing habitat for our species on Earth. As a result, I’m a big fan of terminating this set of living arrangements — that is, I’m a fan of terminating industrialized civilization — and replacing it with a more sane and durable set of living arrangements."
http://guymcpherson.com/2012/02/toward-an-economy-of-earth/
What alternatives do you see?
Anarchy, that misquoted and misused word that we all fear right? Wrong!
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners”; (2) “Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others”; and (3) “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” - Edward Abbey
My learned brother is a keeper of an eye-watering array of literature on anarchist writings and would be best placed to take up this discussion, but for today and for the coming weekend, you only need consider that the current arrangement in our Western Culture is only a contemporary attempt to organise us into easily managed resources. It's not really for us... we are so much better served reverting to our former selves, selves that learned to focus on a reliable and clean food source, potable water and a means of keeping warm. Seems simple enough, but with our modern-selves surrounded by a bigger and bigger array of things to keep us indoors, how can we ever transition from our current living arrangements to a more sustainable, worthwhile, challenging and egalitarian situation?
"It should be clear that the industrial economy is making us sick, mentally and physically, and also greatly reducing habitat for our species on Earth. As a result, I’m a big fan of terminating this set of living arrangements — that is, I’m a fan of terminating industrialized civilization — and replacing it with a more sane and durable set of living arrangements."
http://guymcpherson.com/2012/02/toward-an-economy-of-earth/
What alternatives do you see?
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Me Versus Machines!
I'm always keen to get my Wednesday/Thursday posting by John Michael Greer (The Archdruid Report). I hope you all have dipped into his writings over the past couple of years as his clearly expressed thoughts have provided quite a considerable amount of solace during difficult times. There are many writers/commentators out there who fear a changing world and can only see disaster ahead (Kunstler, Orlov etc), contrary to this position is Greer.
With his background in Druidry he has facilitated some excellent discussions on his blog about what a energy descent will/could look like, but goes further and provides really pertinent resources for helping anyone deal with a changing future and how to retool.
http://www.culturalconservers.org/library.php
http://www.greenwizards.org/?q=forum
If you are new to him I advise going back a few months and reading some earlier posts as each week follows from the last. This weeks post was interesting, simply as it made me think about my previous comments on creativity and resourcefulness as a focus for educating my little pudding Freya.
"There are any number of other examples of things that human beings can do, or can learn to do, that will fill essential needs in a deindustrializing or fully deindustrialized world, when permanent shortages of concentrated energy suitable for powering machines makes the vast majority of today’s technology useless except as scrap. A significant number of them are still being practiced, or—like the Art of Memory—can be revived with relative ease from written sources dating from the Renaissance or, in some cases, more recently still. A great many more will need to be invented, or reinvented, in the years ahead. The supposedly serious thinkers of our time are unlikely to contribute anything to that task; in contemporary industrial civilization, as in every other human culture, the basic qualification that makes thinkers respectable is an unthinking acceptance of the basic myths of their era. Nowadays, the myth of progress is one of those basic myths, and the myth of the machine stands right beside it."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/recovery-of-human.html
With his background in Druidry he has facilitated some excellent discussions on his blog about what a energy descent will/could look like, but goes further and provides really pertinent resources for helping anyone deal with a changing future and how to retool.
http://www.culturalconservers.org/library.php
http://www.greenwizards.org/?q=forum
If you are new to him I advise going back a few months and reading some earlier posts as each week follows from the last. This weeks post was interesting, simply as it made me think about my previous comments on creativity and resourcefulness as a focus for educating my little pudding Freya.
"There are any number of other examples of things that human beings can do, or can learn to do, that will fill essential needs in a deindustrializing or fully deindustrialized world, when permanent shortages of concentrated energy suitable for powering machines makes the vast majority of today’s technology useless except as scrap. A significant number of them are still being practiced, or—like the Art of Memory—can be revived with relative ease from written sources dating from the Renaissance or, in some cases, more recently still. A great many more will need to be invented, or reinvented, in the years ahead. The supposedly serious thinkers of our time are unlikely to contribute anything to that task; in contemporary industrial civilization, as in every other human culture, the basic qualification that makes thinkers respectable is an unthinking acceptance of the basic myths of their era. Nowadays, the myth of progress is one of those basic myths, and the myth of the machine stands right beside it."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/recovery-of-human.html
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Limits to Growth
Big birthday coming soon, FORTY! Sometimes I like to project what life MAY be like for Freya in 2050 on her 40th birthday... what will be the "norm", how far would energy descent have gone, how will 2050 compare with 2012? Well the clever minds of MIT through the Club of Rome published what they called the Limits to Growth in 1972, attempting something like my thought experiment the year I was born, Forty years ago. I bring this up for two reasons, 1) if any of you clever peeps can find me an original copy of this work, not the republished and updated versions of 1992 and 2002 you'd make my birthday a happy day; 2) it surely is an essential read for anyone who wants to question how we can continue to consider unlimited economic growth as the only measure of progress on a finite planet.
Todays online Guardian has a mention of this:
There are many problematic issues to do with growth that can't be covered here. Clinging to growth, however, suffocates the imagination needed to devise more convivial ways to share a finite planet. At the very least, and with so much evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof now lies heavily on those who reject the original message of the Limits report, for them to demonstrate how, and under what circumstances, we could possibly enjoy "growth forever" in a finite world. Kenneth Boulding, the founder of general systems theory, thought this to be a view held only by "madmen and economists".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/limits-to-economic-growth
Hopefully I'll be able to edumacate myself enough so that I can pass on the necessary skills... scratch that... I need to be able to teach my little pudding two things, creativity and resourcefulness.
We are all aware of the 500lb Gorilla in the room, right? It's not just me who sees it?
Todays online Guardian has a mention of this:
There are many problematic issues to do with growth that can't be covered here. Clinging to growth, however, suffocates the imagination needed to devise more convivial ways to share a finite planet. At the very least, and with so much evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof now lies heavily on those who reject the original message of the Limits report, for them to demonstrate how, and under what circumstances, we could possibly enjoy "growth forever" in a finite world. Kenneth Boulding, the founder of general systems theory, thought this to be a view held only by "madmen and economists".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/limits-to-economic-growth
Hopefully I'll be able to edumacate myself enough so that I can pass on the necessary skills... scratch that... I need to be able to teach my little pudding two things, creativity and resourcefulness.
We are all aware of the 500lb Gorilla in the room, right? It's not just me who sees it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)