In 1944, 29 reindeer were introduced to St. Matthew Island, Alaska. With no predators and an abundant food supply, the population increased to 6,000 (over 200 times the initial population) in under 20 years. This is an example of resource drawdown. Borrowing from the future to increase survival now, and it leads to overshoot. The population grew, out of control, until all of the resources were depleted, at which point it crashed. Between the severe winter of 1963-64 and the resource depletion, by 1966 there were 42 reindeer left. In the 1980s, the island’s reindeer population disappeared completely.
(More from Catton.)
This shows the importance, and the relevance of the concept of carrying capacity. I’m just going to paste in here part of that article:
Temporary exceptions
It is possible for a species to exceed its carrying capacity temporarily. Population variance occurs as part of the natural selection process but may occur more dramatically in some instances. Due to a variety of factors a determinant of carrying capacity may lag behind another. A waste product of a species, for example, may build up to toxic levels more slowly than the food supply is exhausted. The result is a fluctuation in the population around the equilibrium point that is statistically significant. These fluctuations are increases or decreases in the population until either the population returns to the original equilibrium point or a new one is established. These fluctuations may be more devastating for an ecosystem compared to gradual population corrections since if it produces drastic decreases or increases the overall effect on the ecosystem may be such that other species within the ecosystem are in turn affected and begin to move with statistical significance around their equilibrium points. The fear is a domino like effect where the final consequences are unknown and may lead to collapses of certain species or whole ecosystems.
This is exactly what’s happening now. We have exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity for humans. If our waste products hadn’t been building up to toxic levels, we might be OK. If we weren’t exhausting our future food supply by farming with unsustainable methods, we might be OK. But both of these factors, as well as others like groundwater mining are decreasing the carrying capacity. Meanwhile the population continues to increase, exacerbating these effects, and further decreasing the resources available for whoever happens to be around in another decade.
As the end of the quoted text says, as one aspect swings out of control, it unbalances other aspects, and the dominoes start falling.
In addition, more and more of the world is trying to become like the US, to live our outsized, overblown, overconsumptive lifestyle, and the downward spiral continues. Otis Graham has said that individual Americans have 32 times the ecological footprint of someone in India. It’s not just gross population, it’s how we’re living, but they are intricately intertwined. We can’t live our current flamboyantly destructive lifestyle without people to support it, and our lifestyle allows us to support the excess people. For now.
So what can we do? For starters, quit reproducing. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement has a nice big table of reasons (excuses) people give for having kids, what they actually mean when they say those things, and what they should do instead. While they make some good points (and oversimplify others), it ultimately won’t be enough. Too little too late.
The third graph here (another Overshoot excerpt) shows what’s happening now. Our load continues to increase, but we’re decreasing the carrying capacity. At some point, we’re going to hit the same crash the reindeer did, and die off catastrophically. And it’s going to be sooner than any program like VHEMT or any other similar organization can achieve results. Before population peaks and starts to decline “naturally” (ie, on its own, by increasing HDI and people deciding to have fewer kids), people are going to start dying en masse because of what we've done to the planet.
05 December 2007
Tipping points
Everybody’s heard about greenhouse gases, and the rainforests being destroyed and the icecaps and glaciers melting, but how about the permafrost melting? How about plankton die-offs? Albedo?
The big problem with climate change isn’t any of these things in isolation. The problem is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. There are many feedback loops that have already been started in motion, and that’s what I’m going to be talking about here.
But first, a bit of vocabulary. A “negative feedback loop” has nothing to do with a subjective analysis of its quality, but rather is one that negates itself, that is self-correcting, returning to equilibrium. There are many of these in normal body functioning, for instance blood sugar regulation, body temperature regulation, and water and salt conservation. On the other hand, a “positive feedback loop” increases its own output, rather than cancelling; population growth is an example.
The industrial revolution started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in radical excess of previous levels. There were various buffering mechanisms in place which prevented the effects from being felt for much of the past 150 years. One such mechanism is the oceans.
As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, some of it gets absorbed into the oceans. The reaction looks like this:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3-
The middle section is carbonic acid, which is what gives soda its fizz, and why old soda tastes watered-down – the reaction moves from the center to the left, giving off CO2 and leaving water behind.
But that “acid” in the name should trigger an alarm bell. As more CO2 get pushed in from the left, more hydrogen atoms (H+’s) get pushed out the right side. Which means that the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more acidic the oceans get. That’s a bit of a problem.
First of all, it’s only a buffer. It won’t continue to absorb CO2 indefinitely.
Second, the acidification has other effects. If you drop acid on limestone, (formula CaCO3, notice how similar that is above), it bubbles off CO2 too. Limestone is made of the compressed and crushed shells of plankton, the little floating photosynthetic things that make up the base of the marine food chain. So if we follow this chain, it means that the acid in the water starts breaking down the shells of the living plankton, which understandably would have some detrimental effects on their survival.
So the plankton start dying off, which causes the higher levels of the marine food chain to starve. As if we’re not already having enough problems with collapsing fisheries. They are also a very large carbon sink, and their mass death releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect continues to spiral and escalate.
Furthermore, since they’re not photosynthesizing anymore, they’re not producing oxygen anymore. And phytoplankton produce fully half of the oxygen we breathe.
So next we turn to the arctic permafrost. Or what’s left of it, anyway. All of the organic matter buried in the frozen peat bogs in Siberia and Canada has been fermenting (because of a lack of oxygen), and the resulting methane has been building up. The bubbles haven’t been able to move and escape, because the ground has been frozen. Until recently. Now that the permafrost is thawing, the methane is being released, and the bitch of it is that each molecule of methane contributes to the greenhouse effect 20 times as much as CO2 does.
Another quick chemistry lesson: If a gas molecule in the atmosphere is composed of three or more atoms, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. Nitrogen and oxygen gases, which compose over 98% of the atmosphere, are composed of two atoms each (N2 and O2), and are not greenhouse gases. CO2 consists of two oxygen atoms and a carbon, and is a greenhouse gas. Methane is composed of five atoms, a carbon and four hydrogens (CH4).
And now trending into a meteorology lesson: Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas (H2O), and the amount of water the air can hold is only going to increase as temperature does. That’s why they always talk about relative humidity, because it’s a sliding scale based on the air temperature at the time. That’s also where “dewpoint” comes from – given so much (total) water in the air, how cold does it have to get before the air is saturated, and starts condensing on the ground as dew? So there’s another positive feedback loop.
Now let’s go to another methane source – the deep oceans. Just like in the frozen peat bogs, methane is accumulating, some dissolved in the water, some frozen in pockets buried deep below the ocean floor, and some frozen in the superficial sediments along the edge of the continental shelf. As the oceans warm, the ice gets slushy and starts shifting under the weight of the sediments on top of it. Along the edge of the continental shelf, especially, it can trigger mudslides which will then release that methane into the atmosphere.
This isn’t just what-if thinking, either. It’s happened before, which means it can happen again. This kind of methane release now appears to be the major (immediate) cause of the Permian extinctions around 251 million years ago.
And as that methane oxidized to CO2 (absorbing oxygen in the process), it may have dropped the ambient oxygen concentration from its previous high of 35% down to 12%. Add to that the absence of photosynthetic plankton, and we're in serious trouble. According to that linked Science Daily article above, 16% atmospheric oxygen is like being at 14,000 feet above sea level, and will seriously impede your athletic program. Humans will suffocate at 15%.
So now we come to albedo. Ice reflects up to 90% of incident sunlight, only absorbing 10%. Water, on the other hand, absorbs over 90%, and bare soil and rock aren’t much better. As the ice melts, leaving water and glacier-scoured land behind, less sunlight will be reflected back up into space and more will be absorbed, thus heating the surface more.
And it’s not like stopping global warming today will stop these problems, either. If you drop an ice cube in a room-temperature glass of water, it doesn’t disappear immediately. It takes a while for it to melt completely, even if the glass itself is insulated completely from its surroundings. The melting in Antarctica, Greenland, and the few remaining glaciers around the rest of the world won’t stop immediately; we've heated the glass too much.
But once again, the problem isn’t any one of these alone, it’s all of them in combination. The more ice melts, the more albedo increases, which causes more ice to melt. The more air temperature increases, the more methane is released, which makes more ice melt. The more CO2 we dump into the air, the weaker plankton get, and the more CO2 they release, further increasing the greenhouse effect.
These positive feedback loops, once they get going, are very difficult to stop, because they continually feed themselves until they eventually hit some critical mass or run out of resources and are forcibly shut down. The environmental geeks who know more about this than I do have been talking about “tipping points”, that invisible transition where we’ve pushed things too far and they take off on their own, without any further input from us, and all we can do is watch. Apparently, we’ve already passed it, sooner than most predictions had placed it. And note that these articles are now nearly two years old. Here’s another article, only a little over a year old, that talks about all of the various identified tipping points.
I’ve been believing that it was still possible to stop that kind of runaway-train climate change. Not necessarily feasible, but possible. I thought we had more time before we passed the tipping point. It really wasn’t until finding all the links for this post that I discovered that we passed it two years ago. I really can’t describe how that makes me feel, aside from being a further kick in the ass to get my act together and get the hell out while I still can.
The big problem with climate change isn’t any of these things in isolation. The problem is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. There are many feedback loops that have already been started in motion, and that’s what I’m going to be talking about here.
But first, a bit of vocabulary. A “negative feedback loop” has nothing to do with a subjective analysis of its quality, but rather is one that negates itself, that is self-correcting, returning to equilibrium. There are many of these in normal body functioning, for instance blood sugar regulation, body temperature regulation, and water and salt conservation. On the other hand, a “positive feedback loop” increases its own output, rather than cancelling; population growth is an example.
The industrial revolution started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in radical excess of previous levels. There were various buffering mechanisms in place which prevented the effects from being felt for much of the past 150 years. One such mechanism is the oceans.
As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, some of it gets absorbed into the oceans. The reaction looks like this:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3-
The middle section is carbonic acid, which is what gives soda its fizz, and why old soda tastes watered-down – the reaction moves from the center to the left, giving off CO2 and leaving water behind.
But that “acid” in the name should trigger an alarm bell. As more CO2 get pushed in from the left, more hydrogen atoms (H+’s) get pushed out the right side. Which means that the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more acidic the oceans get. That’s a bit of a problem.
First of all, it’s only a buffer. It won’t continue to absorb CO2 indefinitely.
Second, the acidification has other effects. If you drop acid on limestone, (formula CaCO3, notice how similar that is above), it bubbles off CO2 too. Limestone is made of the compressed and crushed shells of plankton, the little floating photosynthetic things that make up the base of the marine food chain. So if we follow this chain, it means that the acid in the water starts breaking down the shells of the living plankton, which understandably would have some detrimental effects on their survival.
So the plankton start dying off, which causes the higher levels of the marine food chain to starve. As if we’re not already having enough problems with collapsing fisheries. They are also a very large carbon sink, and their mass death releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect continues to spiral and escalate.
Furthermore, since they’re not photosynthesizing anymore, they’re not producing oxygen anymore. And phytoplankton produce fully half of the oxygen we breathe.
So next we turn to the arctic permafrost. Or what’s left of it, anyway. All of the organic matter buried in the frozen peat bogs in Siberia and Canada has been fermenting (because of a lack of oxygen), and the resulting methane has been building up. The bubbles haven’t been able to move and escape, because the ground has been frozen. Until recently. Now that the permafrost is thawing, the methane is being released, and the bitch of it is that each molecule of methane contributes to the greenhouse effect 20 times as much as CO2 does.
Another quick chemistry lesson: If a gas molecule in the atmosphere is composed of three or more atoms, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. Nitrogen and oxygen gases, which compose over 98% of the atmosphere, are composed of two atoms each (N2 and O2), and are not greenhouse gases. CO2 consists of two oxygen atoms and a carbon, and is a greenhouse gas. Methane is composed of five atoms, a carbon and four hydrogens (CH4).
And now trending into a meteorology lesson: Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas (H2O), and the amount of water the air can hold is only going to increase as temperature does. That’s why they always talk about relative humidity, because it’s a sliding scale based on the air temperature at the time. That’s also where “dewpoint” comes from – given so much (total) water in the air, how cold does it have to get before the air is saturated, and starts condensing on the ground as dew? So there’s another positive feedback loop.
Now let’s go to another methane source – the deep oceans. Just like in the frozen peat bogs, methane is accumulating, some dissolved in the water, some frozen in pockets buried deep below the ocean floor, and some frozen in the superficial sediments along the edge of the continental shelf. As the oceans warm, the ice gets slushy and starts shifting under the weight of the sediments on top of it. Along the edge of the continental shelf, especially, it can trigger mudslides which will then release that methane into the atmosphere.
This isn’t just what-if thinking, either. It’s happened before, which means it can happen again. This kind of methane release now appears to be the major (immediate) cause of the Permian extinctions around 251 million years ago.
And as that methane oxidized to CO2 (absorbing oxygen in the process), it may have dropped the ambient oxygen concentration from its previous high of 35% down to 12%. Add to that the absence of photosynthetic plankton, and we're in serious trouble. According to that linked Science Daily article above, 16% atmospheric oxygen is like being at 14,000 feet above sea level, and will seriously impede your athletic program. Humans will suffocate at 15%.
So now we come to albedo. Ice reflects up to 90% of incident sunlight, only absorbing 10%. Water, on the other hand, absorbs over 90%, and bare soil and rock aren’t much better. As the ice melts, leaving water and glacier-scoured land behind, less sunlight will be reflected back up into space and more will be absorbed, thus heating the surface more.
And it’s not like stopping global warming today will stop these problems, either. If you drop an ice cube in a room-temperature glass of water, it doesn’t disappear immediately. It takes a while for it to melt completely, even if the glass itself is insulated completely from its surroundings. The melting in Antarctica, Greenland, and the few remaining glaciers around the rest of the world won’t stop immediately; we've heated the glass too much.
But once again, the problem isn’t any one of these alone, it’s all of them in combination. The more ice melts, the more albedo increases, which causes more ice to melt. The more air temperature increases, the more methane is released, which makes more ice melt. The more CO2 we dump into the air, the weaker plankton get, and the more CO2 they release, further increasing the greenhouse effect.
These positive feedback loops, once they get going, are very difficult to stop, because they continually feed themselves until they eventually hit some critical mass or run out of resources and are forcibly shut down. The environmental geeks who know more about this than I do have been talking about “tipping points”, that invisible transition where we’ve pushed things too far and they take off on their own, without any further input from us, and all we can do is watch. Apparently, we’ve already passed it, sooner than most predictions had placed it. And note that these articles are now nearly two years old. Here’s another article, only a little over a year old, that talks about all of the various identified tipping points.
I’ve been believing that it was still possible to stop that kind of runaway-train climate change. Not necessarily feasible, but possible. I thought we had more time before we passed the tipping point. It really wasn’t until finding all the links for this post that I discovered that we passed it two years ago. I really can’t describe how that makes me feel, aside from being a further kick in the ass to get my act together and get the hell out while I still can.
04 December 2007
IM conversation
Him: interesting take on the economic collapse
i've been thinking along a lot of these lines recently
Me: and what have you come up with?
Him: for starters, the housing market is going to continue its eventual implosion
the numbers so far are some of the biggest ever seen in terms of foreclosures
which creates a glut of homes the banks own and can't get off the books because no one can afford them
due, mainly in part, to people just being plain stupid and borrowing and spending beyond their means
Me: which is exactly what the culture in general has been telling them to do
Him: yes, and something i generally tend to insulate myself from these days
Me: helps to be largely oblivious to cultural influences too
Him: television being one those big "influences"
this will also lead to further isolation of communities such as the one i live in now, where travel to and from becomes more and more prohibitively expensive
digital goods might see an upsurge, such as e-books, if there is a need for them and adequate access/infrastructure in place already
Me: right, but with shipping costs spiking, that infrastructure will begin to deteriorate
Him: i was thinking more along the lines of ordering a book online and having it delivered by e-mail or stored on a server somewhere else
not that everyone reads books on computer or PDA or tablet, etc.
Me: I'm talking about the decline of computers in general
Him: yeah, physical goods that have to be shipped will be out of the reach of the majority of the populace
this place [Tennessee] right now is a good microcosm of early indicators since it was already economically tipped into the negative
houses have been on the market here for literally years
but i do see this as a good thing in that it does push for more of the mom 'n pop places to produce goods locally since they will be cheaper by comparison
smaller businesses are the backbone of a healthy/healthier economyand here, that is all too apparent now, more smaller businesses have opened up
and more people are turning to them because of the cost differential
not like it's a bad thing, it's all in how you look at it
Me: no, it's definitely a step in the right direction
Him: we had an economy shift a few years ago, most people didn't notice (service-based economy), but now we're shifting back into something that was here further back, and i don't think it's so bad because it makes us more self-reliant
Me: and will help reduce the impact felt as more things collpase
Him: yep
there will be pockets and areas around the country that won't feel it as much if at all
because they adapted to weather it out
the service-based economy was not a well thought-out one in my opinion
basically we stop manufacturing things and just go to servicing things/people
and most employees of a service industry are paid lower wages
it only benefits those on the top of the large corporations
i kept thinking to myself, while that term was being floated around, "So....if all we're doing is servicing, then who makes the shit?"
Me: there will always be a need for "services rendered", but yeah, production is much more necessary
Him: i thought it was insane to think that we could shift our entire economy over to just being service-oriented
instead of trying to compete with other nations that were reaching at least a moderate level of manufacturing capability next to ours
instead we tucked tail and said, "We give up."
at any rate, we collectively have only ourselves to blame for this
if there is any blame to be had
does it really matter who's fault it is at this point when the problem is here, and it can conceivably be fixed
as long as we know where the true root of the problem lies
people would have to shift their way of thinking to something more long term, instead of the instant gratification mode
i've been thinking along a lot of these lines recently
Me: and what have you come up with?
Him: for starters, the housing market is going to continue its eventual implosion
the numbers so far are some of the biggest ever seen in terms of foreclosures
which creates a glut of homes the banks own and can't get off the books because no one can afford them
due, mainly in part, to people just being plain stupid and borrowing and spending beyond their means
Me: which is exactly what the culture in general has been telling them to do
Him: yes, and something i generally tend to insulate myself from these days
Me: helps to be largely oblivious to cultural influences too
Him: television being one those big "influences"
this will also lead to further isolation of communities such as the one i live in now, where travel to and from becomes more and more prohibitively expensive
digital goods might see an upsurge, such as e-books, if there is a need for them and adequate access/infrastructure in place already
Me: right, but with shipping costs spiking, that infrastructure will begin to deteriorate
Him: i was thinking more along the lines of ordering a book online and having it delivered by e-mail or stored on a server somewhere else
not that everyone reads books on computer or PDA or tablet, etc.
Me: I'm talking about the decline of computers in general
Him: yeah, physical goods that have to be shipped will be out of the reach of the majority of the populace
this place [Tennessee] right now is a good microcosm of early indicators since it was already economically tipped into the negative
houses have been on the market here for literally years
but i do see this as a good thing in that it does push for more of the mom 'n pop places to produce goods locally since they will be cheaper by comparison
smaller businesses are the backbone of a healthy/healthier economyand here, that is all too apparent now, more smaller businesses have opened up
and more people are turning to them because of the cost differential
not like it's a bad thing, it's all in how you look at it
Me: no, it's definitely a step in the right direction
Him: we had an economy shift a few years ago, most people didn't notice (service-based economy), but now we're shifting back into something that was here further back, and i don't think it's so bad because it makes us more self-reliant
Me: and will help reduce the impact felt as more things collpase
Him: yep
there will be pockets and areas around the country that won't feel it as much if at all
because they adapted to weather it out
the service-based economy was not a well thought-out one in my opinion
basically we stop manufacturing things and just go to servicing things/people
and most employees of a service industry are paid lower wages
it only benefits those on the top of the large corporations
i kept thinking to myself, while that term was being floated around, "So....if all we're doing is servicing, then who makes the shit?"
Me: there will always be a need for "services rendered", but yeah, production is much more necessary
Him: i thought it was insane to think that we could shift our entire economy over to just being service-oriented
instead of trying to compete with other nations that were reaching at least a moderate level of manufacturing capability next to ours
instead we tucked tail and said, "We give up."
at any rate, we collectively have only ourselves to blame for this
if there is any blame to be had
does it really matter who's fault it is at this point when the problem is here, and it can conceivably be fixed
as long as we know where the true root of the problem lies
people would have to shift their way of thinking to something more long term, instead of the instant gratification mode
Economic ramblings
The economy is collapsing because it needs continuous outward growth, perpetual further development to be “healthy”. In most business, they’ll tell you that a cessation of growth is the same as a loss. A failure to make money is the same as losing money, which means that apparently there’s no such thing as breaking even. (Businesses have apparently reverted to the Roman system of numbers, where the concept of zero does not exist – that was the major impetus for switching from the Roman numeral system to the Arabic numerals we use now.)
With the foreclosure rate skyrocketing, and more and more people having less and less money (due in no small part to the ever-increasing cost of oil), we’re obviously headed for a recession at best, likely worse. And there’s only so far that the Fed can trim interest rates.
Side note: For those even more clueless than me, every time the Federal Reserve Board, cuts the prime interest rate lower, what they’re actually doing is trying to encourage people to borrow money from banks. That’s what that interest rate refers to, what you pay the bank on a loan you take out from them. The idea goes that if you borrow money, you’ve got more to spend, which will then provide a boost to the economy, by putting more money into circulation, rather than just languishing in a bank’s vaults. Or computers, since money isn’t real anymore anyway, it’s all virtual, it’s all just bits of information in somebody’s computer system. Let’s see how many digressions I can nest together…
Anyway, back to interest rates. There’s only so far down they can go, before that buffer is tapped out. And it appears to be done at this point. This article was written a little over two months ago, and obviously things haven’t gotten that bad, that quickly, but the way things have been going, it’s only a matter of time. And he’s got a much better handle on the large-scale stuff that’s happening now than I do.
According to that, we’re going to see prices of imported goods go through the roof because our money is worthless abroad. Add to that that the cost of actually transporting the junk is climbing, and local goods are going to be more and more affordable.
Over the longer term, as costs of transportation become more and more exorbitant, the Wal-Marts and such will fold, because they won’t be able to ship their junk from China and distribute it to all of their stores cheaply anymore, forcing their prices up and allowing local businesses to be more competitive. And people will have to do something, as those major chains will be closing, meaning a spike in unemployment, and even less money available to spend..
Many fruits are likely to drop in available quantity and quality, because they can’t be produced in the immediate area. Books are likely to become disgustingly expensive, because they all have to be shipped in from their respective publishing houses. As if people really needed less reason to read. Use your imagination.
Another side note: Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS, and make government revenue based entirely on a 23% sales tax. The only down side I see to this is all the people who work at the IRS being unceremoniously dumped out of jobs. Also out of work will be everyone at H&R Block and similar companies that are entirely based on doing people’s taxes.
In its favor, the people who have the money to spend will be taxed more than those who don’t. Granted, that means that prices will spike, because of the high tax rate, but paychecks will dramatically increase as well, because you’ll get a hell of a lot more of what you actually earn. It will take a period of adjustment, but I do believe that this will be a good way to prevent the rich from wrangling tax breaks, while the poor get fucked, because they can’t afford people to do their taxes for them.
The other positive aspect I see from that is that it will indirectly contribute to the fall of the major corporations. As prices go up, rather than paying the exorbitant tax on commercial goods, local cottage industries will spring up, based on barter. If you can go to the local farmer’s market or swap meet and trade a bushel of fruit for a blanket, basic staples everyone needs, why would you go to the huge store and pay out the nose for it? Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Pepsi, Starbucks, are all so large and cumbersome that they have to work on cash, for standardization purposes. They won’t be able to stand up to a fleeing customer base who would rather trade with others who are willing to eschew money as well.
With the foreclosure rate skyrocketing, and more and more people having less and less money (due in no small part to the ever-increasing cost of oil), we’re obviously headed for a recession at best, likely worse. And there’s only so far that the Fed can trim interest rates.
Side note: For those even more clueless than me, every time the Federal Reserve Board, cuts the prime interest rate lower, what they’re actually doing is trying to encourage people to borrow money from banks. That’s what that interest rate refers to, what you pay the bank on a loan you take out from them. The idea goes that if you borrow money, you’ve got more to spend, which will then provide a boost to the economy, by putting more money into circulation, rather than just languishing in a bank’s vaults. Or computers, since money isn’t real anymore anyway, it’s all virtual, it’s all just bits of information in somebody’s computer system. Let’s see how many digressions I can nest together…
Anyway, back to interest rates. There’s only so far down they can go, before that buffer is tapped out. And it appears to be done at this point. This article was written a little over two months ago, and obviously things haven’t gotten that bad, that quickly, but the way things have been going, it’s only a matter of time. And he’s got a much better handle on the large-scale stuff that’s happening now than I do.
According to that, we’re going to see prices of imported goods go through the roof because our money is worthless abroad. Add to that that the cost of actually transporting the junk is climbing, and local goods are going to be more and more affordable.
Over the longer term, as costs of transportation become more and more exorbitant, the Wal-Marts and such will fold, because they won’t be able to ship their junk from China and distribute it to all of their stores cheaply anymore, forcing their prices up and allowing local businesses to be more competitive. And people will have to do something, as those major chains will be closing, meaning a spike in unemployment, and even less money available to spend..
Many fruits are likely to drop in available quantity and quality, because they can’t be produced in the immediate area. Books are likely to become disgustingly expensive, because they all have to be shipped in from their respective publishing houses. As if people really needed less reason to read. Use your imagination.
Another side note: Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS, and make government revenue based entirely on a 23% sales tax. The only down side I see to this is all the people who work at the IRS being unceremoniously dumped out of jobs. Also out of work will be everyone at H&R Block and similar companies that are entirely based on doing people’s taxes.
In its favor, the people who have the money to spend will be taxed more than those who don’t. Granted, that means that prices will spike, because of the high tax rate, but paychecks will dramatically increase as well, because you’ll get a hell of a lot more of what you actually earn. It will take a period of adjustment, but I do believe that this will be a good way to prevent the rich from wrangling tax breaks, while the poor get fucked, because they can’t afford people to do their taxes for them.
The other positive aspect I see from that is that it will indirectly contribute to the fall of the major corporations. As prices go up, rather than paying the exorbitant tax on commercial goods, local cottage industries will spring up, based on barter. If you can go to the local farmer’s market or swap meet and trade a bushel of fruit for a blanket, basic staples everyone needs, why would you go to the huge store and pay out the nose for it? Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Pepsi, Starbucks, are all so large and cumbersome that they have to work on cash, for standardization purposes. They won’t be able to stand up to a fleeing customer base who would rather trade with others who are willing to eschew money as well.
03 December 2007
Greens vs. Garrisons
Probably the best summary of this article is one line near the end, "solving real problems is hard, but turning a profit from those problems is easy."
29 November 2007
Newter Newt!
According to the About the Authors on the jacket, Newt Gingrich used to be an environmental studies professor. Whodathunkit?
Anyway, I recently happened upon a copy of this... "book"... and had to put it down. It seemed like every other sentence gave me something to rant about. What follows is a copy of the second chapter (which is basically a summary of the entire book, and bears the same title as the book itself), as well as my annotations.
Warning: Vitriol ahead!
Chapter 2, A Contract with the Earth
Newt Gingrich and Terry L Maple
The sea, the great unifier, is man’s only hope. Now as never before, the old phrase has a literal meaning: We are all in the same boat. - Jacques Yves Cousteau
Our nation’s moral obligation to provide effective environmental leadership will require the formation of new strategic partnerships among nations, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations (any organization whose primary function/goal is to make money [ie, a corporation] cannot be relied upon to go the extra mile and do what’s actually necessary, rather than cutting corners – viz the privatization of airport security) dedicated to protecting and renewing the earth’s [sic] precious resources. International partnerships can only be achieved with presidential leadership and significant bipartisan support in Congress. For too long, the adversarial political climate in America inhibited cooperation, consensus, and action in this domain. Civility, compromise, and unity of purpose are necessary precursors to meaningful global cooperation. In addition, the focused energy, creativity, enthusiasm, and endorsement of the American people will be necessary to achieve the gold standard of a sustainable, renewable world. To reach the new benchmarks in protecting and renewing the environment and guarantee a bright and enduring future for our children and grandchildren, we ask you to join with us to advance the ten commitments of this Contract with the Earth.
Mostly doubletalk, political bullshit and posturing
1 Take the Lead. Let us affirm that America is willing to resume its role as the environmental leader of the world. Further, the burden of leadership requires that Americans help shape an earth [sic] where waste is minimized by reducing, resuing, and recycling (programs that make people think they’re doing something, placate their conscience, so they don’t have to stop driving their SUVs); where water and air meet stringent standards of cleanliness; where fossil fuels have been largely modified for carbon recycling or replaced by carbon neutral alternatives (but where are those “modified” fossil fuels coming from, and at what cost?); where forests, wetlands, lakes, and the world’s oceans have been restored to health; where the pace of plant and animal extinction has been effectively abated and biological diversity regenerated (WTF regenerated? How? From where?); where humanity’s collective impact on the earth [sic] has been moderated by prudent management of our natural resources (our trying to “manage” the natural world is what’s gotten us in this deep) and innovative technologies (technofix) that act to replenish and restore the earth’s [sic] damaged ecosystems; and where the environmental quality of life is no longer in decline but continues to improve for all nations throughout the world.
More management doubletalk, no substance
2 Reward a New Generation of Environmental Entrepreneurs. Acknowledge that we must create the context in which entrepreneurial environmentalists will flourish. Reject the notion that free enterprise and environmentalism are opposing forces. (Free enterprise, alias capitalism, is inherently competitive. Environmentalism is inherently cooperative, or at least, it must be to make any progress. How are those not opposing forces?) Stoke the competitive fire of environmental science and green enterprise through significant investments (giving money to pet projects) that hasten the pace of change and innovation. Focus and nurture environmental business, large and small, throughout the nation, to create and advance a multitude of renewable, sustainable, and restorative technologies. Continue the momentum that has made America a world leader in energy efficiency (since when has the US been a leader in any kind of efficiency?) by providing powerful incentives to cultivate genius and innovation. Reach out to potential collaborators to form diverse and inclusive partnerships to disseminate prosperity and opportunity. Significantly expand the pool of environmental entrepreneurs by ensuring that higher education is available to every American who wants to learn.
Republican rhetoric dressed up green – spin business to be good for the environment, by assuming technology can fix our problems, and prodding people to find new green(er) technologies that will be profitable.
3 Retire or Rejuvenate Old Technologies. Diminish our dependence on environmentally unfriendly and harmful technologies by reforming government and industry, offering compelling alternatives and incentives to invest in (republican buzzwords) and to transfer to better technologies (technofix). Innovation, improved industrial operating standards, and the constant migration to emerging best practices will modify old technologies into acceptable forms (we need to do away with old technologies completely – to quote Quinn in Ishmael not old minds with new programs, but new minds with no programs). Let us commit to change – and lead the change – but not retreat when faced with formidable challenges. By overcoming difficult problems, we are challenged to pay attention, think, and create for a better future (meaningless drivel). We must commit to a future characterized by ubiquitous, clean technologies.
Just see my previous post about technofixes.
4 Transform the Role of Government. Government alone cannot solve complex environmental problems, but government in partnership with organizations and business ensures that thoughtful environmental action will strengthen both the economy and the environment. Government, at all levels, should be a facilitator for entrepreneurial, private-sector innovations and the formation of private-public environmental partnerships, supporting and not suppressing the creativity of entrepreneurial environmentalists. The resources of government should be consistently applied to reduce red tape and facilitate progress. Some regulation will always be necessary, but it should be limited, focused, and reasonable to liberate the full potential of market innovation.
More republican bullshit dressed up green – government giving money to businesses, and deregulating, so the businesses can do whatever they want.
5 Become an Aspirational and Inspirational Nation. Expect that our local, state, and federal governments and their business enterprise partners will be both aspirational and inspirational. Government, industry, and small businesses should advance lofty but achievable goals to improve the environment step by step. (How many contradictions can we cram into one sentence?) The arbitrary power of our federal bureaucracy should not impose or dictate environmental aspirations. Instead, they should emerge from shared values and a consensus established by strategic dialogue among a broad array of stakeholders. We have everything to gain by thinking big and aiming high. Our aspirations will drive us; an inspired political, intellectual, and social process will guide us. To inspire others to achieve, we must continue to express optimism.
Does anything in this paragraph signify anything?
6 Position America to Meet the Challenge. Require our leaders to formulate positive, pragmatic, and proactive policies (nice alliteration) so that looming environmental crises, whether near term or distant, can be identified and averted. We should strive to achieve an enduring consensus on the specific goals for a healthy environment and agree on the policies to achieve them. Leaders should reach out to every citizen and to more than one-half-million elected American officials at all levels of government to chart a course together (million points of light). We must be prepared to anticipate and quickly respond to present and future threats. The high priority of the environment must be affirmed.
More smoke and mirrors
7 Encourage Scientific and Technical Literacy. A dramatically larger workforce of environmental engineers, scientists, and techinically competent entrepreneurs is needed to generate new ideas and new solutions in a world of increasing complexity (technofix). Our community schools must return to an emphasis on math and science (like ID) to educate citizens with the ability to fill this need. New learning technologies (outsourcing the task of education to computers) and a commitment to widespread and consistent mentoring (leaving no child behind) will help us reach this goal. We must provide the financial incentives (because people only ever do things for money) to encourage the development of young environmental scientists and engineers. The National Science Foundation and other relevant federal agencies should be encouraged to “think big” about reforms in public learning. Our nation’s museums, gardens, zoos, and aquariums should be empowered to help stimulate and inspire young people to choose careers in science, math, and engineering and to keep them focused on the priority of the environment.
More faux-revolutionary fluff
8 Invoke the Spirit of Collaboration and Cooperation. A history of adversarial politics and litigation has deferred, delayed, and deterred an adequate response to our growing environmental challenges. Antienvironmental politicians are out of step with the American people as concern for the environment is widely acknowledged as an important component of a patriotic worldview (environmentalism is a much larger scale than patriotism). A mainstream, nonpartisan approach to environmental problem solving will engage America’s citizens in active, pragmatic change without political polarization. We should question how, not whether, the earth [sic] can be renewed. (It will be renewed eventually, but not until civilization has been dismantled, one way or another.) Politicians should compete on the basis of who has the best solutions (as opposed to who puts up the best bullshit?) and be judged by the outcomes of solutions they sponsor (nobody would ever get reelected). We should agree to elevate the environmental debate to a higher plane of civil dialogue. (How about a higher plane of technical dialogue? How about listening to the people who are telling you that you need to act, rather than continue blathering and posturing?) A cessation of shouting is long overdue; it is time to communicate.
More vacuous garbage declarations and potshots at the Democrats who have obstructed Republican projects
9 Support the Environment through Philanthropy and Investment. A coordinated, strategic philanthropy will support the increasing priority of environmental events and issues. We need to enlist America’s most affluent corporations, foundations, and individuals to help solve complex environmental problems (by funding their pet projects, rather than ideas that merit the time, attention and money). The historic generosity of Americans (?!) must be encouraged as it continues to be a major source of our strength and reputation throughout the world. Strategic philanthropy will be an essential tool of entrepreneurial environmentalism in the twenty-first century.
More green justification for republican greed and pork barrel shenanigans
10 Enlist the Nation. It is time to recruit (brainwash) an army of environmental foot soldiers (jack-booted thugs) to tenaciously pursue a new (republican) course for our nation. In addition, executives in government, business, science, and the arts (how many executives are there in science and the arts?) must rally to mobilize all citizens to pursue proactive, environmental policies and practices at home and in the workplace. If America dares to lead on the environment, our elected representatives (and the cronies they appoint) – at local, state, and federal levels – also must be fully committed to the task. This commitment of time and energy is nothing less than a quest to restore trust, teamwork, and cohesion to our nation (which we haven’t seen since the advent of political parties) as we engage a new and comprehensive environmental agenda (no programs). Every one of us, meek and mighty, is needed to reach our goal of a cleaner, healthier Earth.
Vapid, feel-good, motivational piffle
IMPLEMENTING A CONTRACT WITH THE EARTH
In the chapters to follow, we will amplify and explore the ten commitments of the contract. Because promoting a vital environment will always be a work in progress, Americans will need to stay engaged in the same way that we focus daily on the health and welfare of our families and the safety of our communities (actually, that’s a good place to start, we certainly haven’t been paying any attention to those things thus far). We hope the contract will facilitate daily conversations (in other words, it’s OK to just keep talking, we don’t need action yet) about the environment and stimulate new ideas and new information that will lead to new solutions. The examples we present are illustrative but not exhaustive because, literally, thousands of stories are worth telling.
In the months and years ahead, we intend to stay in touch with motivated, entrepreneurial environmentalists like you. After you have read and thought about the contents of this book, we ask you to contact us at www.contractwiththeearth.com so you can share your ideas, offer constructive criticism, and discuss the environmental news of the moment. You are the key to solving the earth’s [sic] environmental problems, and your community is the best place to affirm your commitment to a better world. We look forward to an ever-expanding dialogue with the American people and all others who share our approach to environmental problem solving.
Fuck no! There are already plenty of other successful groups, nations, etc. whose example WE should be following. Our “approach to environmental problem solving” has patently failed to date. Politicians have a hell of a time admitting when they’re wrong, and have a strong drive to stand up and do something different. So this is going to lead once again to big initiatives that gradually lose momentum and stagnate without showing results. Meanwhile, the problems will continue to worsen, both in quantity and quality, making them ever more difficult to resolve.
The challenge ahead is serious, more a marathon than a sprint, but it may be helpful to think beyond ourselves to commit to membership on a global team that is thoroughly green (but American politicians can’t be content with membership, they have to make the US a leader, despite the fact that they have no idea what they’re doing – I saw a button long ago to the effect of “those of you who claim to know what you’re doing are annoying those of us who do”, and that’s exactly where the US government has been going) – a team that transcends political party affiliations or ideological agendas. Cohesion, cooperation, and collaboration are critical features of the new century’s environmental playbook. If we succeed in mobilizing our nation, our experience may become a model for other nations. We may also succeed in uniting the world in a shared mission to shape a green, clean, and safe planet with liberty, justice, and prosperity for all.
The inclusion of “prosperity” there again gives away the republican bias. Capitalism, which the republicans endorse wholeheartedly, inherently creates a few wealthy and an abundance of poor. It’s impossible for everyone to be rich; “rich” implies having more than someone else, which automatically makes them relatively poor. Therefore everyone cannot be “prosperous” in a capitalistic setting. QED
Overall, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Some decent ideas, but nothing new. Some new ideas, but nothing decent. And even those bits have to be sifted from the enveloping chaff of political nonsense. But nowhere are there real plans, anything to act on. It’s all vague generalities and political grandstanding.
Anyway, I recently happened upon a copy of this... "book"... and had to put it down. It seemed like every other sentence gave me something to rant about. What follows is a copy of the second chapter (which is basically a summary of the entire book, and bears the same title as the book itself), as well as my annotations.
Warning: Vitriol ahead!
Chapter 2, A Contract with the Earth
Newt Gingrich and Terry L Maple
The sea, the great unifier, is man’s only hope. Now as never before, the old phrase has a literal meaning: We are all in the same boat. - Jacques Yves Cousteau
Our nation’s moral obligation to provide effective environmental leadership will require the formation of new strategic partnerships among nations, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations (any organization whose primary function/goal is to make money [ie, a corporation] cannot be relied upon to go the extra mile and do what’s actually necessary, rather than cutting corners – viz the privatization of airport security) dedicated to protecting and renewing the earth’s [sic] precious resources. International partnerships can only be achieved with presidential leadership and significant bipartisan support in Congress. For too long, the adversarial political climate in America inhibited cooperation, consensus, and action in this domain. Civility, compromise, and unity of purpose are necessary precursors to meaningful global cooperation. In addition, the focused energy, creativity, enthusiasm, and endorsement of the American people will be necessary to achieve the gold standard of a sustainable, renewable world. To reach the new benchmarks in protecting and renewing the environment and guarantee a bright and enduring future for our children and grandchildren, we ask you to join with us to advance the ten commitments of this Contract with the Earth.
Mostly doubletalk, political bullshit and posturing
1 Take the Lead. Let us affirm that America is willing to resume its role as the environmental leader of the world. Further, the burden of leadership requires that Americans help shape an earth [sic] where waste is minimized by reducing, resuing, and recycling (programs that make people think they’re doing something, placate their conscience, so they don’t have to stop driving their SUVs); where water and air meet stringent standards of cleanliness; where fossil fuels have been largely modified for carbon recycling or replaced by carbon neutral alternatives (but where are those “modified” fossil fuels coming from, and at what cost?); where forests, wetlands, lakes, and the world’s oceans have been restored to health; where the pace of plant and animal extinction has been effectively abated and biological diversity regenerated (WTF regenerated? How? From where?); where humanity’s collective impact on the earth [sic] has been moderated by prudent management of our natural resources (our trying to “manage” the natural world is what’s gotten us in this deep) and innovative technologies (technofix) that act to replenish and restore the earth’s [sic] damaged ecosystems; and where the environmental quality of life is no longer in decline but continues to improve for all nations throughout the world.
More management doubletalk, no substance
2 Reward a New Generation of Environmental Entrepreneurs. Acknowledge that we must create the context in which entrepreneurial environmentalists will flourish. Reject the notion that free enterprise and environmentalism are opposing forces. (Free enterprise, alias capitalism, is inherently competitive. Environmentalism is inherently cooperative, or at least, it must be to make any progress. How are those not opposing forces?) Stoke the competitive fire of environmental science and green enterprise through significant investments (giving money to pet projects) that hasten the pace of change and innovation. Focus and nurture environmental business, large and small, throughout the nation, to create and advance a multitude of renewable, sustainable, and restorative technologies. Continue the momentum that has made America a world leader in energy efficiency (since when has the US been a leader in any kind of efficiency?) by providing powerful incentives to cultivate genius and innovation. Reach out to potential collaborators to form diverse and inclusive partnerships to disseminate prosperity and opportunity. Significantly expand the pool of environmental entrepreneurs by ensuring that higher education is available to every American who wants to learn.
Republican rhetoric dressed up green – spin business to be good for the environment, by assuming technology can fix our problems, and prodding people to find new green(er) technologies that will be profitable.
3 Retire or Rejuvenate Old Technologies. Diminish our dependence on environmentally unfriendly and harmful technologies by reforming government and industry, offering compelling alternatives and incentives to invest in (republican buzzwords) and to transfer to better technologies (technofix). Innovation, improved industrial operating standards, and the constant migration to emerging best practices will modify old technologies into acceptable forms (we need to do away with old technologies completely – to quote Quinn in Ishmael not old minds with new programs, but new minds with no programs). Let us commit to change – and lead the change – but not retreat when faced with formidable challenges. By overcoming difficult problems, we are challenged to pay attention, think, and create for a better future (meaningless drivel). We must commit to a future characterized by ubiquitous, clean technologies.
Just see my previous post about technofixes.
4 Transform the Role of Government. Government alone cannot solve complex environmental problems, but government in partnership with organizations and business ensures that thoughtful environmental action will strengthen both the economy and the environment. Government, at all levels, should be a facilitator for entrepreneurial, private-sector innovations and the formation of private-public environmental partnerships, supporting and not suppressing the creativity of entrepreneurial environmentalists. The resources of government should be consistently applied to reduce red tape and facilitate progress. Some regulation will always be necessary, but it should be limited, focused, and reasonable to liberate the full potential of market innovation.
More republican bullshit dressed up green – government giving money to businesses, and deregulating, so the businesses can do whatever they want.
5 Become an Aspirational and Inspirational Nation. Expect that our local, state, and federal governments and their business enterprise partners will be both aspirational and inspirational. Government, industry, and small businesses should advance lofty but achievable goals to improve the environment step by step. (How many contradictions can we cram into one sentence?) The arbitrary power of our federal bureaucracy should not impose or dictate environmental aspirations. Instead, they should emerge from shared values and a consensus established by strategic dialogue among a broad array of stakeholders. We have everything to gain by thinking big and aiming high. Our aspirations will drive us; an inspired political, intellectual, and social process will guide us. To inspire others to achieve, we must continue to express optimism.
Does anything in this paragraph signify anything?
6 Position America to Meet the Challenge. Require our leaders to formulate positive, pragmatic, and proactive policies (nice alliteration) so that looming environmental crises, whether near term or distant, can be identified and averted. We should strive to achieve an enduring consensus on the specific goals for a healthy environment and agree on the policies to achieve them. Leaders should reach out to every citizen and to more than one-half-million elected American officials at all levels of government to chart a course together (million points of light). We must be prepared to anticipate and quickly respond to present and future threats. The high priority of the environment must be affirmed.
More smoke and mirrors
7 Encourage Scientific and Technical Literacy. A dramatically larger workforce of environmental engineers, scientists, and techinically competent entrepreneurs is needed to generate new ideas and new solutions in a world of increasing complexity (technofix). Our community schools must return to an emphasis on math and science (like ID) to educate citizens with the ability to fill this need. New learning technologies (outsourcing the task of education to computers) and a commitment to widespread and consistent mentoring (leaving no child behind) will help us reach this goal. We must provide the financial incentives (because people only ever do things for money) to encourage the development of young environmental scientists and engineers. The National Science Foundation and other relevant federal agencies should be encouraged to “think big” about reforms in public learning. Our nation’s museums, gardens, zoos, and aquariums should be empowered to help stimulate and inspire young people to choose careers in science, math, and engineering and to keep them focused on the priority of the environment.
More faux-revolutionary fluff
8 Invoke the Spirit of Collaboration and Cooperation. A history of adversarial politics and litigation has deferred, delayed, and deterred an adequate response to our growing environmental challenges. Antienvironmental politicians are out of step with the American people as concern for the environment is widely acknowledged as an important component of a patriotic worldview (environmentalism is a much larger scale than patriotism). A mainstream, nonpartisan approach to environmental problem solving will engage America’s citizens in active, pragmatic change without political polarization. We should question how, not whether, the earth [sic] can be renewed. (It will be renewed eventually, but not until civilization has been dismantled, one way or another.) Politicians should compete on the basis of who has the best solutions (as opposed to who puts up the best bullshit?) and be judged by the outcomes of solutions they sponsor (nobody would ever get reelected). We should agree to elevate the environmental debate to a higher plane of civil dialogue. (How about a higher plane of technical dialogue? How about listening to the people who are telling you that you need to act, rather than continue blathering and posturing?) A cessation of shouting is long overdue; it is time to communicate.
More vacuous garbage declarations and potshots at the Democrats who have obstructed Republican projects
9 Support the Environment through Philanthropy and Investment. A coordinated, strategic philanthropy will support the increasing priority of environmental events and issues. We need to enlist America’s most affluent corporations, foundations, and individuals to help solve complex environmental problems (by funding their pet projects, rather than ideas that merit the time, attention and money). The historic generosity of Americans (?!) must be encouraged as it continues to be a major source of our strength and reputation throughout the world. Strategic philanthropy will be an essential tool of entrepreneurial environmentalism in the twenty-first century.
More green justification for republican greed and pork barrel shenanigans
10 Enlist the Nation. It is time to recruit (brainwash) an army of environmental foot soldiers (jack-booted thugs) to tenaciously pursue a new (republican) course for our nation. In addition, executives in government, business, science, and the arts (how many executives are there in science and the arts?) must rally to mobilize all citizens to pursue proactive, environmental policies and practices at home and in the workplace. If America dares to lead on the environment, our elected representatives (and the cronies they appoint) – at local, state, and federal levels – also must be fully committed to the task. This commitment of time and energy is nothing less than a quest to restore trust, teamwork, and cohesion to our nation (which we haven’t seen since the advent of political parties) as we engage a new and comprehensive environmental agenda (no programs). Every one of us, meek and mighty, is needed to reach our goal of a cleaner, healthier Earth.
Vapid, feel-good, motivational piffle
IMPLEMENTING A CONTRACT WITH THE EARTH
In the chapters to follow, we will amplify and explore the ten commitments of the contract. Because promoting a vital environment will always be a work in progress, Americans will need to stay engaged in the same way that we focus daily on the health and welfare of our families and the safety of our communities (actually, that’s a good place to start, we certainly haven’t been paying any attention to those things thus far). We hope the contract will facilitate daily conversations (in other words, it’s OK to just keep talking, we don’t need action yet) about the environment and stimulate new ideas and new information that will lead to new solutions. The examples we present are illustrative but not exhaustive because, literally, thousands of stories are worth telling.
In the months and years ahead, we intend to stay in touch with motivated, entrepreneurial environmentalists like you. After you have read and thought about the contents of this book, we ask you to contact us at www.contractwiththeearth.com so you can share your ideas, offer constructive criticism, and discuss the environmental news of the moment. You are the key to solving the earth’s [sic] environmental problems, and your community is the best place to affirm your commitment to a better world. We look forward to an ever-expanding dialogue with the American people and all others who share our approach to environmental problem solving.
Fuck no! There are already plenty of other successful groups, nations, etc. whose example WE should be following. Our “approach to environmental problem solving” has patently failed to date. Politicians have a hell of a time admitting when they’re wrong, and have a strong drive to stand up and do something different. So this is going to lead once again to big initiatives that gradually lose momentum and stagnate without showing results. Meanwhile, the problems will continue to worsen, both in quantity and quality, making them ever more difficult to resolve.
The challenge ahead is serious, more a marathon than a sprint, but it may be helpful to think beyond ourselves to commit to membership on a global team that is thoroughly green (but American politicians can’t be content with membership, they have to make the US a leader, despite the fact that they have no idea what they’re doing – I saw a button long ago to the effect of “those of you who claim to know what you’re doing are annoying those of us who do”, and that’s exactly where the US government has been going) – a team that transcends political party affiliations or ideological agendas. Cohesion, cooperation, and collaboration are critical features of the new century’s environmental playbook. If we succeed in mobilizing our nation, our experience may become a model for other nations. We may also succeed in uniting the world in a shared mission to shape a green, clean, and safe planet with liberty, justice, and prosperity for all.
The inclusion of “prosperity” there again gives away the republican bias. Capitalism, which the republicans endorse wholeheartedly, inherently creates a few wealthy and an abundance of poor. It’s impossible for everyone to be rich; “rich” implies having more than someone else, which automatically makes them relatively poor. Therefore everyone cannot be “prosperous” in a capitalistic setting. QED
Overall, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Some decent ideas, but nothing new. Some new ideas, but nothing decent. And even those bits have to be sifted from the enveloping chaff of political nonsense. But nowhere are there real plans, anything to act on. It’s all vague generalities and political grandstanding.
28 November 2007
The Technofix
This is an idea that came up in What a Way to Go. It boils down to, we don’t have to worry about the damage we’re doing, all the toxic, non-biodegradable waste we’re spewing, because new technologies are emerging quickly, and soon we’ll be able to clean everything up.
Bullshit. It’s a relocation of the problem.
People have argued that electric cars aren’t really a solution, because they’re just drawing their fuel from a centralized coal-fired power plant rather than burning their own fossil fuels internally. Which is a valid point, and let’s follow that back further. So we substitute the coal-fired plant for something else. Nuclear plants are a stopgap, nothing more. They’re cleaner than coal, but that’s not really saying much, is it? No matter how much they’re cleaned up, they still create waste heat and toxics. Solar and wind are clean, but what about manufacturing the equipment to generate wind or solar power? How much damage do those processes cause? (I honestly don’t know the answer to that, but it can’t possibly be zero.) If there’s any long-term hope to be gained, it’ll be from that kind of renewable/sustainable, fewer-moving-parts kind of techniques, but it still doesn’t eliminate the problem, it just relocates it.
Another similar example is papercrete. The only problem is that the adhesive used to hold it all together is portland cement, the production of which, according to the article (scroll down to The green question), accounts for 6-8% of all the anthropogenic greenhouses gases these days. It doesn’t solve the problem, it just changes the face of it.
The problem is that on one hand our existing technology is racing as fast as it can to run us into the ground. On the other hand, the technology that we’re developing now is trying to mitigate, eliminate, clean up, etc. all of our past mistakes, but without actually fixing things. This is only a viable solution if we’re gaining ground, if we’re able to postpone the crash until we can pull out of the dive. I don’t buy it.
The gripping hand is that there is no “technofix”, that further technology will not solve our problems. The answer is less technology, less waste - not more of it, just in a different way.
Which leads to the real problem. People are so addicted to their technology that they literally can’t imagine not having it. When I tell people that it’s been over half my life since I quit watching TV, they’re often amazed, and say that they couldn’t do that. I’ve caught similar thoughts floating through my own head regarding my cell phone and the internet, but at the same time, I recognize that that’s all just a function of the lifestyle I’m living these days. If I were to relocate myself, not just geographically, but my position in the world, to where I’d like to be, I could easily do away with it all and not miss it.
It was a similar transition that got me to quit watching TV (shortly after I turned 13) – it wasn’t a conscious decision, I just started spending all my time on the computer. I found something else to occupy my time and brainpower. Granted, that transition was to more technology, rather than less, but that’s beside the point. It’s not a question of giving something up, it’s a question of pursuing what you really want.
Which leads me into another topic completely, so I’ll end this post now, and pick that up sometime later.
Bullshit. It’s a relocation of the problem.
People have argued that electric cars aren’t really a solution, because they’re just drawing their fuel from a centralized coal-fired power plant rather than burning their own fossil fuels internally. Which is a valid point, and let’s follow that back further. So we substitute the coal-fired plant for something else. Nuclear plants are a stopgap, nothing more. They’re cleaner than coal, but that’s not really saying much, is it? No matter how much they’re cleaned up, they still create waste heat and toxics. Solar and wind are clean, but what about manufacturing the equipment to generate wind or solar power? How much damage do those processes cause? (I honestly don’t know the answer to that, but it can’t possibly be zero.) If there’s any long-term hope to be gained, it’ll be from that kind of renewable/sustainable, fewer-moving-parts kind of techniques, but it still doesn’t eliminate the problem, it just relocates it.
Another similar example is papercrete. The only problem is that the adhesive used to hold it all together is portland cement, the production of which, according to the article (scroll down to The green question), accounts for 6-8% of all the anthropogenic greenhouses gases these days. It doesn’t solve the problem, it just changes the face of it.
The problem is that on one hand our existing technology is racing as fast as it can to run us into the ground. On the other hand, the technology that we’re developing now is trying to mitigate, eliminate, clean up, etc. all of our past mistakes, but without actually fixing things. This is only a viable solution if we’re gaining ground, if we’re able to postpone the crash until we can pull out of the dive. I don’t buy it.
The gripping hand is that there is no “technofix”, that further technology will not solve our problems. The answer is less technology, less waste - not more of it, just in a different way.
Which leads to the real problem. People are so addicted to their technology that they literally can’t imagine not having it. When I tell people that it’s been over half my life since I quit watching TV, they’re often amazed, and say that they couldn’t do that. I’ve caught similar thoughts floating through my own head regarding my cell phone and the internet, but at the same time, I recognize that that’s all just a function of the lifestyle I’m living these days. If I were to relocate myself, not just geographically, but my position in the world, to where I’d like to be, I could easily do away with it all and not miss it.
It was a similar transition that got me to quit watching TV (shortly after I turned 13) – it wasn’t a conscious decision, I just started spending all my time on the computer. I found something else to occupy my time and brainpower. Granted, that transition was to more technology, rather than less, but that’s beside the point. It’s not a question of giving something up, it’s a question of pursuing what you really want.
Which leads me into another topic completely, so I’ll end this post now, and pick that up sometime later.
Permafrost, Icecaps, Erosion, oh my!
Everybody’s heard about the melting icecaps, and about soil erosion, but what about the link between them? How about tying them together with melting permafrost? Well, here’s an article doing that, with some excerpts below.
The storm Solomon witnessed in 2000 flooded the historic whaling settlement at Herschel Island, swept several important archeological sites into the sea, and forced the evacuation of dozens of people camped at Shingle Point, a traditional hunting spot west of Tuktoyaktuk. By the time that storm passed through, the shoreline of Tuktoyaktuk Island had lost seven metres to erosion.
...
The more the permafrost melts, the more porous and lubricated the shoreline becomes. The warmer the air and water gets, the less ice there is to stop the waves from ripping into it.
...
Even though half of Canada sits on permafrost, the subject doesn't get nearly as much attention as receding glaciers, melting ice sheets and disappearing wildlife in the ongoing debate over climate change.
Permafrost specialist Peter Kershaw considers this a serious oversight. As permafrost melts, the University of Alberta scientist points out, hillsides slide, forests fall, houses and buildings slump, pipelines crack and sections of roads turn into sinkholes. In many places where permafrost occurs, says Kershaw, there is no simple engineering solution to counteract the meltdown.
...
Melville is the largest uninhabited island in the world and a place that is very likely to become a hub for future oil and gas developments in the Arctic. Until this year, summers on the island have been largely unaffected by the warming taking place across the north. July temperatures have remained steady at around 5C.
But this year, Lamoureux and his associates basked in temperatures that hit 21.8C. The heat was so intense it melted the permafrost a metre below the surface.
Throughout those warm weeks of July – the mean temperature was almost 11C, far above the normal July mean of 4C – the scientists watched in amazement as the meltwater below lubricated the topsoil, causing it to slide down slopes, clearing everything in its path and thrusting up ridges at the valley bottom.
"The landscape piled up like a rug," says Lamoureux, an expert in hydro-climatic variability and landscape processes. "It was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes. A major river was dammed by a slide along a 200-metre length of the channel. River flow will be changed for years, if not decades to come.
“Had this happened in a populated or industrial area," he says, "the impact would have been "catastrophic."
...
Permafrost is not only the cement that binds the sand, soil and rock in northern Canada, it is also prevents huge reservoirs of carbon dioxide and underground methane from entering the atmosphere and further warming the world.
...
Methane, on the other hand, is the dark force of greenhouse gases in the Arctic because it is 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide in trapping heat.
...
Bowen and Michelle Cote, on contract with the Geological Survey of Canada, have been monitoring methane seeps in lakes and ponds on the Mackenzie Delta for five years. Three of the biggest seeps they are monitoring produce as much combined greenhouse gases in a year as 9,000 cars.
That last could be seen as an excuse to say, “See! It’s not human interference! Global warming is happening naturally!” No, you bloody idiot, it’s human-caused climate change that’s triggered that offgassing, and now it’s caused a runaway feedback loop. And it’s only going to get worse as it continues to spiral out of control.
The measures listed at the end for “fixing” and monitoring are ridiculous. It’s too late. The damage has been done. How much more damage do we have to witness before we realize that? And it's only going to continue getting worse, and affecting you personally more and more, and most likely sooner than you expect. The sooner you wake up to that, the better off you're likely to be.
The storm Solomon witnessed in 2000 flooded the historic whaling settlement at Herschel Island, swept several important archeological sites into the sea, and forced the evacuation of dozens of people camped at Shingle Point, a traditional hunting spot west of Tuktoyaktuk. By the time that storm passed through, the shoreline of Tuktoyaktuk Island had lost seven metres to erosion.
...
The more the permafrost melts, the more porous and lubricated the shoreline becomes. The warmer the air and water gets, the less ice there is to stop the waves from ripping into it.
...
Even though half of Canada sits on permafrost, the subject doesn't get nearly as much attention as receding glaciers, melting ice sheets and disappearing wildlife in the ongoing debate over climate change.
Permafrost specialist Peter Kershaw considers this a serious oversight. As permafrost melts, the University of Alberta scientist points out, hillsides slide, forests fall, houses and buildings slump, pipelines crack and sections of roads turn into sinkholes. In many places where permafrost occurs, says Kershaw, there is no simple engineering solution to counteract the meltdown.
...
Melville is the largest uninhabited island in the world and a place that is very likely to become a hub for future oil and gas developments in the Arctic. Until this year, summers on the island have been largely unaffected by the warming taking place across the north. July temperatures have remained steady at around 5C.
But this year, Lamoureux and his associates basked in temperatures that hit 21.8C. The heat was so intense it melted the permafrost a metre below the surface.
Throughout those warm weeks of July – the mean temperature was almost 11C, far above the normal July mean of 4C – the scientists watched in amazement as the meltwater below lubricated the topsoil, causing it to slide down slopes, clearing everything in its path and thrusting up ridges at the valley bottom.
"The landscape piled up like a rug," says Lamoureux, an expert in hydro-climatic variability and landscape processes. "It was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes. A major river was dammed by a slide along a 200-metre length of the channel. River flow will be changed for years, if not decades to come.
“Had this happened in a populated or industrial area," he says, "the impact would have been "catastrophic."
...
Permafrost is not only the cement that binds the sand, soil and rock in northern Canada, it is also prevents huge reservoirs of carbon dioxide and underground methane from entering the atmosphere and further warming the world.
...
Methane, on the other hand, is the dark force of greenhouse gases in the Arctic because it is 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide in trapping heat.
...
Bowen and Michelle Cote, on contract with the Geological Survey of Canada, have been monitoring methane seeps in lakes and ponds on the Mackenzie Delta for five years. Three of the biggest seeps they are monitoring produce as much combined greenhouse gases in a year as 9,000 cars.
That last could be seen as an excuse to say, “See! It’s not human interference! Global warming is happening naturally!” No, you bloody idiot, it’s human-caused climate change that’s triggered that offgassing, and now it’s caused a runaway feedback loop. And it’s only going to get worse as it continues to spiral out of control.
The measures listed at the end for “fixing” and monitoring are ridiculous. It’s too late. The damage has been done. How much more damage do we have to witness before we realize that? And it's only going to continue getting worse, and affecting you personally more and more, and most likely sooner than you expect. The sooner you wake up to that, the better off you're likely to be.
27 November 2007
Introductory Post
This is a spin-off of another blog that I was kinda in the process of shutting down anyway, and will be chronicling my sentiments regarding these, the End Times. And yes, I know that when I get going I sound exactly like one of the religious whack-jobs I tend to rant about, but if you look around, listen to the laundry list of things that are going wrong ecologically (how much damage is occurring, how quickly, and how soon the fit will hit the shan), and recognize just how little is being done to fix it (too little too late and too slowly, a Band-Aidtm on a fatally hemorrhaging wound), you gotta recognize that civilization as we know it is going to end in the (relatively) near future.
I give it 10 years, 20 max, before things start seriously deteriorating. The problem is that a crisis is necessary to force change, to shock people out of their complacency. The people in power are now, finally, recognizing the necessity of and conceding to the measures that environmentalists have been kicking and screaming about for the past decade. But it's too late already, we're now at the point where many additional measures are necessary, because all of the changes that are being applied now weren't applied ten years ago. And by the time it's recognized that these additional radical changes have to be implemented, it'll be too late again.
I'd been having these kinds of thoughts for a good long time, but it was really brought home this summer. Daniel Quinn's Ishmael was a big part of it. A few weeks ago, I attended a screening of What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire. Think Inconvenient Truth, except that it was actually done well.
As an aside, I have to say that after having listened to the commentary track on Inconvenient Truth, the bad parts of it (Gore's backstory, the stupid mechanical lift, etc.) were not there because of Gore, they were pushed by the director, producer, and other administrative marketing bozos. Furthermore, Gore was pushing to get more and more material into the movie, while the corporates were cutting it down.
I give it 10 years, 20 max, before things start seriously deteriorating. The problem is that a crisis is necessary to force change, to shock people out of their complacency. The people in power are now, finally, recognizing the necessity of and conceding to the measures that environmentalists have been kicking and screaming about for the past decade. But it's too late already, we're now at the point where many additional measures are necessary, because all of the changes that are being applied now weren't applied ten years ago. And by the time it's recognized that these additional radical changes have to be implemented, it'll be too late again.
I'd been having these kinds of thoughts for a good long time, but it was really brought home this summer. Daniel Quinn's Ishmael was a big part of it. A few weeks ago, I attended a screening of What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire. Think Inconvenient Truth, except that it was actually done well.
As an aside, I have to say that after having listened to the commentary track on Inconvenient Truth, the bad parts of it (Gore's backstory, the stupid mechanical lift, etc.) were not there because of Gore, they were pushed by the director, producer, and other administrative marketing bozos. Furthermore, Gore was pushing to get more and more material into the movie, while the corporates were cutting it down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)