The original Staniford article was much too long. Excuse me if I read it wrong by only skimming it.

My impression is that he is presenting a supply side scenario for energy production based on assumptions of economic gowth requiring growth in the use of energy.

I too am cynical about the intelligence of the majority of humans and the inability to reach them and their "elected" (I quote elected because the candidates are bought and therefore beholden to the interests of the economic elite) representatives.

The trouble with focusing on supply side economics and energy is that they both ignore demand. In relation to economics, the lack of effective demand for the plethora of consumer products will prove to be the downfall of this past generation's experiment with supply side economics. With respect to energy, we must recognize that demand side management is critical to any possibility of a sustainable future. I don't think that liberal economics (laissez faire, the so-called free market)can deal with the problem(s). We need a planned economy to effectively retrofit the infrastructure with regards to increasingly scarce energy supplies and to rebuild our communities to be walkable, therfore eliminating the terrible daily waste of oil/energy resources for transportation purposes.

I have to differ with Staniford's rosy scenario regarding the contributions tha photovoltaics will make. I'm not an electrical engineer or an electrician, but it is my understanding that PVs don't have the oomph (be it voltage, amperage and/or wattage) to contribute very significantly to the current and recommended increased usage of electricity. Sure PVs and wind might be able to contribute to lighting applications, but I doubt they can power our transportation, our industrial and home heating, hot water, agricultural inputs,refrigeration, drying, and cooking needs.

We could go full throttle to the building of nuclear power plants, but I am highly leary of their toxicity and safety issues. Even if we pursued the path of electrification with the maximization of nuclear power, it will require a tremendous overhaul of our transportation infrastructure and all the other applications currently met by oil products and natural gas.

First of all, nuclear is not a "free market" technology. Most of the resources for development of this technology were paid for by government programs. Then, there is the waste issue. Is it not the Federal Government who is going to or proposing to pay for the waste depository at Yucca Mountain (Nevada)? Then there is the issue of bringing back the so-called Price-Anderson legislation. This is legislation to insure the power plants and related operations. No private insurer will touch them, thus the government had to step in to provide such insurance.

I am cynical and believe that in the next generation or two we are heading toward a massive die-off. As a matter of understatement it will be ugly and messy. Those few who survive will need to be self-sufficient. Thus, under such a scenario, what Staniford calls historical reversalism, a relocalization of sorts will be realized.

A much better scenario could be realized (go ahead, call me Pollyanna)if we started very soon with a planned economy that focused first on demand side management and also the retrofitted infrastructures with respect to very scarce and relatively clean (I view carbon resources, if appropriately used to be cleaner than nuclear) energy applications.

Relocalization is part of the plan (and not just for food). Instead of reversalism, let me offer the following re words for your consideration, response, and suggested action.

Reformation

Little to no beneficial changes will occur without an almost religious change from the paradigm of economic growth and standard of living to one that emphasizes community redevelopment and quality of life. This is an educational component of an alternative ecological economic plan.

Reorganization

If we can be successful and realize the educational/reform component, we need concurrently to reorganize our economic systems to one of cooperative (i.e. economic democracy, or at least partially so - we will probably need to compromise with relation to the divide between the one dollar/one vote and one person/one vote structure of economic organization) communitarian local and regional economic entities.

Reallocation

We need coordinated regional planning agencies that agree on the fundamental mission of a global ecological economy that has the two basic pillars of sustainability and equity. These "planning" agencies would work together to determine and facilitate how resources are allocated to and within communities based on the relocalization paradigm and other governing principles.

Restructuring

Communities will need to be physically rebuilt to make them walkable (i.e. new urbanism, building community centers making necessities and reasonable wants available to all within walking distance of all homes).Included in such a plan would be neighborhood work stations where office workers could telecommute in their occupations that are involved with the transition from an entropic Capitalist system to an ecological Socialist one.

Reduction

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

You can get more info. about my plan by going to: www.culturechange.org/Morin.html .

Workin' for peace and cooperation,

Mike Morin