“The fastest way to decrease our carbon footprint is to decrease our consumption of energy,” Schweitzer said in his keynote address before a panel discussion by state and local leaders on climate change policy.
This is the same Brian Schweitzer who thinks we should be making an all-out coal-to-liquids push. That's not exactly going to decrease the carbon footprint. In fact, I have become convinced that we are not going to address Global Warming at all, because we don't care to pay the price. And by address, I mean actually cause GHG emissions to decrease worldwide. We can pass all the Kyoto Protocols we want, but when gasoline consumption in the U.S., China, and India continue to increase - and China keeps building coal-fired power plants - then there is not much hope, IMO.
"Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit"
by Immanuel Wallerstein
"There are two different kinds of operations in preserving the environment. The first is the cleaning up of the negative effects of a production exercise (for example, combating chemical toxins that are a by-product of production, or removing non-biodegradable waste). The second is investment in the renewal of the natural resources that have been used (for example, replanting trees). Once again, the ecology movements have put forward a long series of specific proposals that would address these issues. In general, these proposals meet with considerable resistance on the part of the enterprises that would be affected by such proposals, on the grounds that these measures are far too costly, and would therefore lead to the curtailment of production.
The truth is that the enterprises are essentially right. These measures are indeed too costly, by and large, if we define the issue in terms of maintaining the present average worldwide rate of profit. They are too costly by far. Given the deruralization of the world and its already serious effect upon the accumulation of capital, the implementation of significant ecological measures, seriously carried out, could well serve as the coup de grƒce to the viability of the capitalist world-economy. Therefore, whatever the public relations stance of individual enterprises on these questions, we can expect unremitting foot-dragging on the part of capitalists in general. We are in fact faced with three alternatives. One, governments can insist that all enterprises internalize all costs, and we would be faced with an immediate acute profits squeeze. Or, two, governments can pay the bill for ecological measures (clean-up and restoration plus prevention), and use taxes to pay for this. But if one increases taxes, one either increases the taxes on the enterprises, which would lead to the same profits squeeze, or one raises taxes on everyone else, which would probably lead to an acute tax revolt. Or, three, we can do virtually nothing, which will lead to the various ecological catastrophes of which the ecology movements warn. So far, the third alternative has been carrying the day. In any case, this is why I say that there is "no exit," meaning by that that there is no exit within the framework of the existing historical system...."
It's really hard to argue with this. Last night I went to a presentation by a young, intense group (Cascadia Rising Tide) about global warming and carbon credit trading. They put on a superb program, and a brave face, but in the end, they were merely left with "hope" that people would wake up to the massive theft and environmental degradation that the various carbon-credit and cap-and-trade schemes produce-- and somehow get their elected representatives to stop it. The situation is even more dire than I had realized, and I'm afraid that in recent years I have always expected the worst.
Now think it through, all the way through. And be sure to not forget this:
People who expect "business as usual" to solve these problems are completely delusional. Chaco Canyon refutes that. The Mayans refute that. Mesopotamia refutes that.
But like good programmed homo sapiens, they will go on believing what they believe until they physically cannot believe it any longer.
P is for Piranha. Virtually everything coming out of the piranha class will make the situation worse. I qualify with "virtually" only because there is bound to be some mildly positive tertiary consequence.
Cascadia Rising Tide?--cool name! Once this young group realizes that 'hope' is futile: expect a shift to Secession, sequential building and enlargement of biosolar habitats, and ruthless Earthmarine mindset for optimal species protection. Just my speculation, of course.
Consider the Seed Bank now being stocked in Norway-- I suggest that any attempt by starving mobs to eat this vital reserve will be ruthlessly repelled by any and all measures from weaponized smallpox/ebola, to nukes, to snipers picking off adults to little kids-- whatever is required to protect this biota thru the coming postPeak transition.
IMO, Peak Outreach is the greatest info charity to mankind and the protection of biota for future generations the greatest gift. The question to be answered: can we develop a focused conflict method [such as Asimov's Foundations, Earthmarine vs Mercs, biosolars vs detritovore, etc] for optimal Bottleneck Squeeze? Or is a full, diffuse anarchy, grinding Thermo/Gene catabolic collapse, and extinction our fate?
Cool group of young people who really care, and for the most part, walk the walk. Personally, I am becoming persuaded by Derik Jensen's idea that "hope is a narcotic" -- but that may be too harsh and cynical. These kids are actually making a difference in the world, and in them lies hope for the human race.
This looks cool - any sense of how many members it has? How long has it been around? The Relocalize folks have frowned on our efforts here and WiserEarth.org is huge, but I'm not having the time/sense to get any traction with it ... would be nice to expand horizons and this sounds like an intriguing group.
Consider the Seed Bank now being stocked in Norway-- I suggest that any attempt by starving mobs to eat this vital reserve will be ruthlessly repelled by any and all measures from weaponized smallpox/ebola, to nukes, to snipers picking off adults to little kids-- whatever is required to protect this biota thru the coming postPeak transition.
There was recently an article in the New Yorker about seed banks. There was(is?) one in Russia (St. Petersburg if I remember correctly) and during WWII one or more of the caretakers actually starved to death guarding the seeds from other starving people.
No one person has ever done more to preserve biodiversity on Earth than Russian Nikolai Vavilov.
In the early 20th century he had the crucial insight that all the crops we depend on for food originated in only about a dozen regions of the earth comprising only one-fortieth of our world's land area - corn and tomatoes from Mexico, coffee from Ethiopia, wheat in Turkey, potatoes in Peru, soybeans from China, rice from Southeast Asia.
These precious areas are now called "Vavilov Centers" and are scoured for wild variants of these key plants to include in agricultural breeding efforts.
A brilliant scientist, Valivov traveled to over 65 countries in the 1920s and 1930s to gather over 50,000 seed samples. However, he fell afoul of Stalin and the loony communist science czar Trofim Lysenko; in 1940 he was arrested, and in a morbid scientific irony, died of malnutrition in Saratov prison camp in 1943.
In post-Soviet Russia and in the rest of the world where he was never scorned, Valivov is today a true scientific hero.
Valivov's original samples miraculously avoided being eaten by their starving curators during the Siege of Leningrad and became the start of theVavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry in modern-day St. Petersburg.
Their current seed collection of 380,000 gene types is by far the largest in the world and a priceless international treasure.
However, today this seed collection is under a greater threat today than during World War II. The collapse of Russian economy has left the facility short of qualified staff.
Even worse, the Institute has been ordered to evict its current building to make room for government offices and a possible presidential apartment for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It goes on... reporting on our own Al Gore visiting the site and using American funds to try to save the collection of ancient seeds Vavilov so painstakingly amassed.
Bob, I always enjoy your posts and find them upbeat, even if some others may not. I'd like to think that sort of 'planetary patriotism' will emerge but so far I haven't seen it except in a very few outliers.
Once this young group realizes that 'hope' is futile: expect a shift to Secession, sequential building and enlargement of biosolar habitats, and ruthless Earthmarine mindset for optimal species protection. Just my speculation, of course.
Hope so. I think the secession - or at least talk of it - is reasonably likely at some point, but Earthmarines don't exist now when it would be relatively painless and the information is all to be had for the taking, so I really don't see it happening. Talk is one thing, action another. Guess we'll see.
Consider the Seed Bank now being stocked in Norway-- I suggest that any attempt by starving mobs to eat this vital reserve will be ruthlessly repelled by any and all measures from weaponized smallpox/ebola, to nukes, to snipers picking off adults to little kids-- whatever is required to protect this biota thru the coming postPeak transition.
Frankly, I wish they'd hide the damn thing. Seems more pragmatic than squirting ebola on the mobs. Oh, and replicate it in about 3 dozen places including the antarctic.
I have to say that thinking of such 'seed banks' reminds me a lot of the movie "silent running" with Bruce Dern; anyone into doomer porn should see it. Be a good earthmarine recruiting film.
IMO, Peak Outreach is the greatest info charity to mankind and the protection of biota for future generations the greatest gift. The question to be answered: can we develop a focused conflict method [such as Asimov's Foundations, Earthmarine vs Mercs, biosolars vs detritovore, etc] for optimal Bottleneck Squeeze? Or is a full, diffuse anarchy, grinding Thermo/Gene catabolic collapse, and extinction our fate?
THAT should be a keypost... why don't you write it?
You might want to read this opinion about the seed bank before getting all misty eyed. If Engdahl is right - and he certain puts forth a strong case - then this seedbank is all about Monsanto and Dupont hedging their bets as they screw around with plant genetics. Sort of the ultimate DNA backup.
The misty eyes are for the preservation of species. The motivation of those doing it quite secondary, though as noted I'd like to see seed banks replicated in many places.
I don't doubt that Monsanto, Dupont, etc have their own calculations, but on brief reading Engdahl comes off as a bit nuts. I have a hard time buying this as part of a Nazi-esque eugenics program.
I agree that it is a good idea - but one thing you can be sure of: those investing companies are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts (despite what good intentions some individuals might have). They will be seeing the possibility for profit/power down the line somewhere.
Yeah, I agree, but use the term "inertia" because such exists on Nature's side too. I see two large wheels--Mill Stones--one representing BAU, the other Nature; only one is several orders of magnitude larger than the other, which makes it clear that when the wheels meet the smaller will be easily crushed by the larger. The larger wheel is Nature's Natural Systems. As noted, previous human BAU wheels--Mayan, Mesopotamian, Sarasvati (Vedic), Roman--have met the Natural Wheel and we can see the results.
good analogy. and the Way in which the larger wheel operates is called Dao. LaoZi had all this as well as the solution figured out way before the so called "Christian era."
I think any grown up over the age of 25 knows that we will choose option #3"...do virtually nothing..."
Any doomsdayer worth his oats has by now read Jared Diamonds' "Collapse". The grim conclusion that Diamond reached in his thoroughly entertaining treatise was that societies that are focused on their lifestyle and political competition will forego longterm goals for the sake of status and power.
Even his Anthropology students had to ask the inevitable question:
"What did the Easter Islander think who cut down the last tree on Easter Island?"
Currently, due to the monster of "globalization", we earthlings are accelerating our collapse and this time the collapse will not be regional but global in nature. Like the ancient Easter Islanders we are isolated on a small planet in a relatively obscure solar system , with no close neighbors. Nationalities are in fierce competition with one another for hegeomony, status and resources. Root causes: overpopulation and enviromental destruction.
One huge irony is that the consuming nations assume that there will be a winner at the end of this "competition". If we could grasp the lesson of the long extinct Norse civilization in Greenland 800 years ago:
"..the winners were the ones who had the priveledge of being the last ones to starve to death..."
Every so often, I'd like to interject the article below into the discussion, when we draw on the history of "Easter Island" as an example.
"Easter Island" or Rapa Nui can still teach us a lot - it's just that its important to take an fresh, objective look at the evidence, as well. There are new lessons to be learned.
Aniya - Thank-you for the aritcle in American Scientist. Although I think that the demise of the Easter Islanders may have been more complex than perhaps Diamond may have concluded, the questions that remain unanswered is if the easter Islanders were increasing at a prolific 3% annually and the maximum population that Easter Island reached was 3,000 and not 15,000 what were the factors that kept their numbers to the more sustainable level of 3,000 prior to the arrival of Europeans? War, genocide, starvation? If the Easter Islanders percieved that the rats were a danger to their survival it would have taken a relatively short time to bring the rat populations into control. After all we have to assume that the Islanders were intelligent enough to understand their delicate ecosystems better than late-coming archaeologists. Who destroyed the massive monolithic monuments? The natives or the European invaders? Why?
The thing that makes the Easter Islanders collapse even more appropriate as an example of our future collapse is the invasion of humans followed much later by the introduction of the European invaders. The impacts of Globalization and corporate slavery of less developed nations, World Bank Policies, deforestation, invasive species, mono-agriculture, Peak Oil, Global Warming...these are no doubt all complex factors that will all have to be considered when future scientists grapple with the reasons for the collapse of human society on planet Earth.
If the Easter Islanders percieved that the rats were a danger to their survival it would have taken a relatively short time to bring the rat populations into control.
How?
You have 3,000 people and millions of rats on 160sq km of substantially-forested island, and your most sophisticated technology is an outrigger canoe. How, exactly, do you plan to reduce the rat population and prevent them from breeding to re-fill the niche?
I think you're making assumptions here that are not at all warranted. Even now, with modern technology, Australia has largely failed to control its rabbit population; there's no indication that the inhabitants of Rapa Nui would have had the ability to control the rat population of their island.
Hey Pitt - thanks for the question. You state that there were millions of rats. What do you base that assertion on other than exponential growth rates. This a a relatively small island. What were the limitations to rat populations other than human predators? Food. When rat populations overwhelms the food supply rats have a very basic form of population control: Cannibalism.
Also I suggest you re-read James Clavells' "King Rat". The basics of the story is how a large group of Allied prisoners of war on a small pacific island learned to survive using rats and cockroaches as a vital source of protien. They caged, captured and harvested the rats using very simple technologies.
The rabbits of Australia had the ready expanse of a continent to spread and seek refuge. The rats of easter Island had nowhere to go. Rat eradication is energy intensive yet a low technology endeavor. It would have required an intensive local program (remember on Easter Island everthing was local)that would have have easily curtailed rat populations to tolerable levels.
Perhaps the rats, as in the Clavell's novel, were used by the Easter islanders as a vital source of protein?
Now about that "Outrigger canoe" comment...? Please!
...we have smuggled a word into the dictionary which ought not to be there at all--Self-Sacrifice. It describes a thing which does not exist... We ignore and never mention the Sole Impulse which dictates and compels a man's every act: the imperious necessity of securing his own approval, in every emergency and at all costs.
- Mark Twain, "What is Man?"
Change is the handmaiden Nature requires to do her miracles with.
- Mark Twain, "Roughing It"
There is little that can be done to stem the tide of consumption. And, consumption is the driving force of GHG emissions. Until the issue of consumption is addressed, there is no hope of altering emissions.
Consumption will not be addressed, for it is the corner-stone of all economies. There is no courage to destroy such a fearsome beast, for we all fear that we will destroy our chances at fame and fortune along with it. If only the human race developed the ability to see beyond our own prosperity.
It does rather look as if - in a republic where all are free and equal - prosperity and position constitute rank.
I'm confused about the relative pronoun. Are you saying Mark Twain started the Fed Res, etc., or the Gilded Age did? If the latter, it certainly didn't start there -- that was just the first flare of the resurgent sun of global empire in the USA after its early experiments with "freedom for some." I'm pretty sure that most of the founding fathers and the occasional founding mother were firmly in the camp of Empire-- they just wanted to make sure that they, not the English or the French or the Spanish or the Russians were in control. "Democracy" was exploited as a tool to get control of the continent, and having achieved that, Democracy is to be shrunk back down where it belongs and flushed down the bathtub. The program is progressing swimmingly.
There is little that can be done to stem the tide of consumption.
I know you were focused on GW, but the same thing is true of the Peak Oil debate. Consider the discussion between Simmons, Hirsch and Rubin (we are very close to or past Peak Oil) versus the positions taken by ExxonMobil, OPEC and CERA (we don't have to worry about Peak Oil for decades).
Even many of the people who believe that Simmons, et al are correct don't want to rock the boat, i.e., the "Enron Effect," they have a vested financial interest in continued consumption and they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards.
I guess that all we can do is to warn those who will listen and then continue to bail out of highly energy dependent assets like large suburban homes--via sales to the true believers in the Yerginite Community.
...they have a vested financial interest in continued consumption and they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards.
I would further say that it is not just that "they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards". But also that they have considered the options of reducing consumption and increasing consumption, and have decided that what is best for them - personally - is their perception that greater prosperity via increasing consumption allows a better defense against any changes in the future. Money is power. Power over everything, including Nature.
It is this core belief - that money and prosperity is the greatest defense - that is the essence of the human race. Nothing will (or can) abate this belief in the greater power of prosperity over all things.
And, you are correct to point out that consumption is not just about GW, but also about energy (and PO, specifically). Any discussion of reducing consumption will cause most of the human race undue discomfort. We don't want to think that tomorrow will not be easier than today.
"It is this core belief - that money and prosperity is the greatest defense - that is the essence of the human race. Nothing will (or can) abate this belief in the greater power of prosperity over all things."
Spot on! and this truth spells the end of humanity.
It seems to be the conclusion of most peakniks too. That a big part of their "plan" is to get more money as if that will insure a softer landing.
Focus more on HUMANITY and less on the dehumanizing activity of getting more money.
But money can insure a softer landing. Do you want all the capital in the hands of peak oil and global warming deniers, or do you want it in the hands of people who have come to terms with reality and are looking to put it to work in ways that improve the situation?
Westexas has it right--people who understand the situation should be unloading their SUVs and McMansions onto the Yerginites. They should be investing in oil futures contracts and solar panels on their homes. They should definitely seek to prosper at the expense of the deniers. It's nature's way of dealing with fools.
Careful. A variety of financial institutions existed and had intrinsic value when burning surface collected oil was little more than another way to defend the castle from attackers.
It's not evident that oil would have much value in the absence of financial institutions, and while I know you are thinking of the BofA sort of institutions, I would include money itself as the transcendant financial institution. It's not clear to me that civilisation would not be at more risk in the absence of financial institutions than it will be during the decline and eventual virtual disappearance of oil.
None of this to say that I don't believe that the share of the pie being grabbed by the rentier class needs serious cutting.
The main problem I see with solar panels is that its difficult to hide them.
I get the idea that if TSHTF, the authorities will simply take them by eminent domain. They have helicopters, and can readily fly over neighborhoods looking for them if they want to. The need the run the Police Department's air conditioners may well supercede your need of running your refrigerator. All it takes to take your system is a signature.
Otherwise, you may leave your house for a couple of hours, and when you come back, gone!
Its hard to have something if everyone else wants it and knows you have it.
It's almost as if one has created a 'religon' or 'cult' based on the worship of money and prosperity. One's even built temples and shrines and sites where pilgrims can gather to pay tribute and sacrifice to their God. The Muslims have Mecca, and we have Las Vegas.
Only money, prosperity and marterialim, are probably a poor substitute for spiritual well-being. Maybe Jesus was right, and Love is what really matters, all the rest is just an illusion.
I kinda doubt it. A lot of peak oilers have fond fantasies of the filthy rich being given the Marie Antoinette treatment by hordes of angry FWOs. But the reality is likely to be different. The very rich did fine during the Great Depression, and I suspect they'll do fine in the "long emergency," too. Or at least, better than the rest of us, which is really all they need to do.
As Sharon Astyk said in a recent post in her new blog:
If you think you are likely to remain one of the rich and fortunate, there's a good chance that you don't need or want my advice. That is, even in the most collapsed of circumstances, there are always people who stay rich and priveleged. That class may be increasingly small, and who is in it may shift, but there have been rich people forever, and there will be some even if the US or the world completely collapses economically. The question, to my mind is this - what are the odds that any one of us is going to be part of the fortunate few? My own observation (backed up by plenty of studies about the consolidation of wealth) is that the fortunate tend not to be terribly uncomfortable impoverishing other people - they may later give some of their money away in the form of philanthropy, but they are pretty much ok seeing money consolidate in their hands.
If one views history from Olympian heights and the analytical category du jour is an amorphous "the rich" then of course the rich are always with us and history is bunk and the more things change the more they remain the same.
If one is Marie Antoinette the French Revolution is a pretty big deal. The current Count of Paris cuts a rather smaller figure than did the antebellum Sun King.
For the American upper classes the Depression hardly mattered. They'd made buckets of money in the immediately preceding War and made more buckets of money in the imminent second chapter of the War. Conveniently fought elsewhere. The New Deal was a bother but the rich bided their time and started undoing it from 1968.
For the European aristocracy 1914 was the end of the world and the Depression confirmed it.
It is always easy to say nothing matters and nothing ever happens. Wealth and inertia can make those sentiments seem true. In the present circumstance I would rather be informed by Agincourt. The flower of France were convinced of their invincibility. The first alarums of battle did not disturb their equanimity. They knew their wealth and position would prevail. They stood their ground. And were slaughtered. Many great houses were extinguished. The French aristocracy was a shadow for generations and in some sense was evermore something different.
“The fastest way to decrease our carbon footprint is to decrease our consumption of energy,” Schweitzer said in his keynote address before a panel discussion by state and local leaders on climate change policy.
This is the same Brian Schweitzer who thinks we should be making an all-out coal-to-liquids push. That's not exactly going to decrease the carbon footprint. In fact, I have become convinced that we are not going to address Global Warming at all, because we don't care to pay the price. And by address, I mean actually cause GHG emissions to decrease worldwide. We can pass all the Kyoto Protocols we want, but when gasoline consumption in the U.S., China, and India continue to increase - and China keeps building coal-fired power plants - then there is not much hope, IMO.
"Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit"
by Immanuel Wallerstein
"There are two different kinds of operations in preserving the environment. The first is the cleaning up of the negative effects of a production exercise (for example, combating chemical toxins that are a by-product of production, or removing non-biodegradable waste). The second is investment in the renewal of the natural resources that have been used (for example, replanting trees). Once again, the ecology movements have put forward a long series of specific proposals that would address these issues. In general, these proposals meet with considerable resistance on the part of the enterprises that would be affected by such proposals, on the grounds that these measures are far too costly, and would therefore lead to the curtailment of production.
The truth is that the enterprises are essentially right. These measures are indeed too costly, by and large, if we define the issue in terms of maintaining the present average worldwide rate of profit. They are too costly by far. Given the deruralization of the world and its already serious effect upon the accumulation of capital, the implementation of significant ecological measures, seriously carried out, could well serve as the coup de grƒce to the viability of the capitalist world-economy. Therefore, whatever the public relations stance of individual enterprises on these questions, we can expect unremitting foot-dragging on the part of capitalists in general. We are in fact faced with three alternatives. One, governments can insist that all enterprises internalize all costs, and we would be faced with an immediate acute profits squeeze. Or, two, governments can pay the bill for ecological measures (clean-up and restoration plus prevention), and use taxes to pay for this. But if one increases taxes, one either increases the taxes on the enterprises, which would lead to the same profits squeeze, or one raises taxes on everyone else, which would probably lead to an acute tax revolt. Or, three, we can do virtually nothing, which will lead to the various ecological catastrophes of which the ecology movements warn. So far, the third alternative has been carrying the day. In any case, this is why I say that there is "no exit," meaning by that that there is no exit within the framework of the existing historical system...."
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iwecol.htm
It's really hard to argue with this. Last night I went to a presentation by a young, intense group (Cascadia Rising Tide) about global warming and carbon credit trading. They put on a superb program, and a brave face, but in the end, they were merely left with "hope" that people would wake up to the massive theft and environmental degradation that the various carbon-credit and cap-and-trade schemes produce-- and somehow get their elected representatives to stop it. The situation is even more dire than I had realized, and I'm afraid that in recent years I have always expected the worst.
Aha! The light bulb goes on!
Now think it through, all the way through. And be sure to not forget this:
People who expect "business as usual" to solve these problems are completely delusional. Chaco Canyon refutes that. The Mayans refute that. Mesopotamia refutes that.
But like good programmed homo sapiens, they will go on believing what they believe until they physically cannot believe it any longer.
P is for Piranha. Virtually everything coming out of the piranha class will make the situation worse. I qualify with "virtually" only because there is bound to be some mildly positive tertiary consequence.
cfm in Gray, ME
Hello NeverLNG,
Cascadia Rising Tide?--cool name! Once this young group realizes that 'hope' is futile: expect a shift to Secession, sequential building and enlargement of biosolar habitats, and ruthless Earthmarine mindset for optimal species protection. Just my speculation, of course.
Consider the Seed Bank now being stocked in Norway-- I suggest that any attempt by starving mobs to eat this vital reserve will be ruthlessly repelled by any and all measures from weaponized smallpox/ebola, to nukes, to snipers picking off adults to little kids-- whatever is required to protect this biota thru the coming postPeak transition.
IMO, Peak Outreach is the greatest info charity to mankind and the protection of biota for future generations the greatest gift. The question to be answered: can we develop a focused conflict method [such as Asimov's Foundations, Earthmarine vs Mercs, biosolars vs detritovore, etc] for optimal Bottleneck Squeeze? Or is a full, diffuse anarchy, grinding Thermo/Gene catabolic collapse, and extinction our fate?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/category/rising-tide-cas...
Cool group of young people who really care, and for the most part, walk the walk. Personally, I am becoming persuaded by Derik Jensen's idea that "hope is a narcotic" -- but that may be too harsh and cynical. These kids are actually making a difference in the world, and in them lies hope for the human race.
This looks cool - any sense of how many members it has? How long has it been around? The Relocalize folks have frowned on our efforts here and WiserEarth.org is huge, but I'm not having the time/sense to get any traction with it ... would be nice to expand horizons and this sounds like an intriguing group.
There was recently an article in the New Yorker about seed banks. There was(is?) one in Russia (St. Petersburg if I remember correctly) and during WWII one or more of the caretakers actually starved to death guarding the seeds from other starving people.
You must be referring to Nicolai Vavilov.
An amazing Russian scientist, his story written up
in this Russian site .
It goes on... reporting on our own Al Gore visiting the site and using American funds to try to save the collection of ancient seeds Vavilov so painstakingly amassed.
Great Reference, Hardhat, thanks!
As James Thurber said as the moral of one of his tales..
"There's no safety in numbers, or in anything else!"
Bob
Bob, I always enjoy your posts and find them upbeat, even if some others may not. I'd like to think that sort of 'planetary patriotism' will emerge but so far I haven't seen it except in a very few outliers.
Hope so. I think the secession - or at least talk of it - is reasonably likely at some point, but Earthmarines don't exist now when it would be relatively painless and the information is all to be had for the taking, so I really don't see it happening. Talk is one thing, action another. Guess we'll see.
Frankly, I wish they'd hide the damn thing. Seems more pragmatic than squirting ebola on the mobs. Oh, and replicate it in about 3 dozen places including the antarctic.
I have to say that thinking of such 'seed banks' reminds me a lot of the movie "silent running" with Bruce Dern; anyone into doomer porn should see it. Be a good earthmarine recruiting film.
THAT should be a keypost... why don't you write it?
Cheers.
You might want to read this opinion about the seed bank before getting all misty eyed. If Engdahl is right - and he certain puts forth a strong case - then this seedbank is all about Monsanto and Dupont hedging their bets as they screw around with plant genetics. Sort of the ultimate DNA backup.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529
The misty eyes are for the preservation of species. The motivation of those doing it quite secondary, though as noted I'd like to see seed banks replicated in many places.
I don't doubt that Monsanto, Dupont, etc have their own calculations, but on brief reading Engdahl comes off as a bit nuts. I have a hard time buying this as part of a Nazi-esque eugenics program.
Saving seeds and species is a good idea.
I agree that it is a good idea - but one thing you can be sure of: those investing companies are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts (despite what good intentions some individuals might have). They will be seeing the possibility for profit/power down the line somewhere.
Yeah, I agree, but use the term "inertia" because such exists on Nature's side too. I see two large wheels--Mill Stones--one representing BAU, the other Nature; only one is several orders of magnitude larger than the other, which makes it clear that when the wheels meet the smaller will be easily crushed by the larger. The larger wheel is Nature's Natural Systems. As noted, previous human BAU wheels--Mayan, Mesopotamian, Sarasvati (Vedic), Roman--have met the Natural Wheel and we can see the results.
good analogy. and the Way in which the larger wheel operates is called Dao. LaoZi had all this as well as the solution figured out way before the so called "Christian era."
I think any grown up over the age of 25 knows that we will choose option #3"...do virtually nothing..."
Any doomsdayer worth his oats has by now read Jared Diamonds' "Collapse". The grim conclusion that Diamond reached in his thoroughly entertaining treatise was that societies that are focused on their lifestyle and political competition will forego longterm goals for the sake of status and power.
Even his Anthropology students had to ask the inevitable question:
"What did the Easter Islander think who cut down the last tree on Easter Island?"
Currently, due to the monster of "globalization", we earthlings are accelerating our collapse and this time the collapse will not be regional but global in nature. Like the ancient Easter Islanders we are isolated on a small planet in a relatively obscure solar system , with no close neighbors. Nationalities are in fierce competition with one another for hegeomony, status and resources. Root causes: overpopulation and enviromental destruction.
One huge irony is that the consuming nations assume that there will be a winner at the end of this "competition". If we could grasp the lesson of the long extinct Norse civilization in Greenland 800 years ago:
"..the winners were the ones who had the priveledge of being the last ones to starve to death..."
Hi joemichaels and Leanan,
Every so often, I'd like to interject the article below into the discussion, when we draw on the history of "Easter Island" as an example.
"Easter Island" or Rapa Nui can still teach us a lot - it's just that its important to take an fresh, objective look at the evidence, as well. There are new lessons to be learned.
Really worth a read (IMVHO).
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?full...
Rethinking the Fall of Easter Island by Terry Hunt. In the American Scientist.
Aniya - Thank-you for the aritcle in American Scientist. Although I think that the demise of the Easter Islanders may have been more complex than perhaps Diamond may have concluded, the questions that remain unanswered is if the easter Islanders were increasing at a prolific 3% annually and the maximum population that Easter Island reached was 3,000 and not 15,000 what were the factors that kept their numbers to the more sustainable level of 3,000 prior to the arrival of Europeans? War, genocide, starvation? If the Easter Islanders percieved that the rats were a danger to their survival it would have taken a relatively short time to bring the rat populations into control. After all we have to assume that the Islanders were intelligent enough to understand their delicate ecosystems better than late-coming archaeologists. Who destroyed the massive monolithic monuments? The natives or the European invaders? Why?
The thing that makes the Easter Islanders collapse even more appropriate as an example of our future collapse is the invasion of humans followed much later by the introduction of the European invaders. The impacts of Globalization and corporate slavery of less developed nations, World Bank Policies, deforestation, invasive species, mono-agriculture, Peak Oil, Global Warming...these are no doubt all complex factors that will all have to be considered when future scientists grapple with the reasons for the collapse of human society on planet Earth.
How?
You have 3,000 people and millions of rats on 160sq km of substantially-forested island, and your most sophisticated technology is an outrigger canoe. How, exactly, do you plan to reduce the rat population and prevent them from breeding to re-fill the niche?
I think you're making assumptions here that are not at all warranted. Even now, with modern technology, Australia has largely failed to control its rabbit population; there's no indication that the inhabitants of Rapa Nui would have had the ability to control the rat population of their island.
Hey Pitt - thanks for the question. You state that there were millions of rats. What do you base that assertion on other than exponential growth rates. This a a relatively small island. What were the limitations to rat populations other than human predators? Food. When rat populations overwhelms the food supply rats have a very basic form of population control: Cannibalism.
Also I suggest you re-read James Clavells' "King Rat". The basics of the story is how a large group of Allied prisoners of war on a small pacific island learned to survive using rats and cockroaches as a vital source of protien. They caged, captured and harvested the rats using very simple technologies.
The rabbits of Australia had the ready expanse of a continent to spread and seek refuge. The rats of easter Island had nowhere to go. Rat eradication is energy intensive yet a low technology endeavor. It would have required an intensive local program (remember on Easter Island everthing was local)that would have have easily curtailed rat populations to tolerable levels.
Perhaps the rats, as in the Clavell's novel, were used by the Easter islanders as a vital source of protein?
Now about that "Outrigger canoe" comment...? Please!
There is little that can be done to stem the tide of consumption. And, consumption is the driving force of GHG emissions. Until the issue of consumption is addressed, there is no hope of altering emissions.
Consumption will not be addressed, for it is the corner-stone of all economies. There is no courage to destroy such a fearsome beast, for we all fear that we will destroy our chances at fame and fortune along with it. If only the human race developed the ability to see beyond our own prosperity.
Thank you.
Mark Twain, the anti dote to the Gilded Age.
Which begat the Fed Res, Income tax, and the ability to fight
WWI.
I'm confused about the relative pronoun. Are you saying Mark Twain started the Fed Res, etc., or the Gilded Age did? If the latter, it certainly didn't start there -- that was just the first flare of the resurgent sun of global empire in the USA after its early experiments with "freedom for some." I'm pretty sure that most of the founding fathers and the occasional founding mother were firmly in the camp of Empire-- they just wanted to make sure that they, not the English or the French or the Spanish or the Russians were in control. "Democracy" was exploited as a tool to get control of the continent, and having achieved that, Democracy is to be shrunk back down where it belongs and flushed down the bathtub. The program is progressing swimmingly.
I know you were focused on GW, but the same thing is true of the Peak Oil debate. Consider the discussion between Simmons, Hirsch and Rubin (we are very close to or past Peak Oil) versus the positions taken by ExxonMobil, OPEC and CERA (we don't have to worry about Peak Oil for decades).
Even many of the people who believe that Simmons, et al are correct don't want to rock the boat, i.e., the "Enron Effect," they have a vested financial interest in continued consumption and they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards.
I guess that all we can do is to warn those who will listen and then continue to bail out of highly energy dependent assets like large suburban homes--via sales to the true believers in the Yerginite Community.
I would further say that it is not just that "they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards". But also that they have considered the options of reducing consumption and increasing consumption, and have decided that what is best for them - personally - is their perception that greater prosperity via increasing consumption allows a better defense against any changes in the future. Money is power. Power over everything, including Nature.
It is this core belief - that money and prosperity is the greatest defense - that is the essence of the human race. Nothing will (or can) abate this belief in the greater power of prosperity over all things.
And, you are correct to point out that consumption is not just about GW, but also about energy (and PO, specifically). Any discussion of reducing consumption will cause most of the human race undue discomfort. We don't want to think that tomorrow will not be easier than today.
"It is this core belief - that money and prosperity is the greatest defense - that is the essence of the human race. Nothing will (or can) abate this belief in the greater power of prosperity over all things."
Spot on! and this truth spells the end of humanity.
It seems to be the conclusion of most peakniks too. That a big part of their "plan" is to get more money as if that will insure a softer landing.
Focus more on HUMANITY and less on the dehumanizing activity of getting more money.
But money can insure a softer landing. Do you want all the capital in the hands of peak oil and global warming deniers, or do you want it in the hands of people who have come to terms with reality and are looking to put it to work in ways that improve the situation?
Westexas has it right--people who understand the situation should be unloading their SUVs and McMansions onto the Yerginites. They should be investing in oil futures contracts and solar panels on their homes. They should definitely seek to prosper at the expense of the deniers. It's nature's way of dealing with fools.
I've phrased it this way:
What is the fundamental intrinsic value of the world's 100 largest oil fields without the world's 100 largest financial institutions?
What is the fundamental intrinsic value of the world's 100 largest financial institutions without the world's 100 largest oil fields?
Careful. A variety of financial institutions existed and had intrinsic value when burning surface collected oil was little more than another way to defend the castle from attackers.
It's not evident that oil would have much value in the absence of financial institutions, and while I know you are thinking of the BofA sort of institutions, I would include money itself as the transcendant financial institution. It's not clear to me that civilisation would not be at more risk in the absence of financial institutions than it will be during the decline and eventual virtual disappearance of oil.
None of this to say that I don't believe that the share of the pie being grabbed by the rentier class needs serious cutting.
The main problem I see with solar panels is that its difficult to hide them.
I get the idea that if TSHTF, the authorities will simply take them by eminent domain. They have helicopters, and can readily fly over neighborhoods looking for them if they want to. The need the run the Police Department's air conditioners may well supercede your need of running your refrigerator. All it takes to take your system is a signature.
Otherwise, you may leave your house for a couple of hours, and when you come back, gone!
Its hard to have something if everyone else wants it and knows you have it.
In some contexts, conspicuous displays of preparedness might be inadvisable.
It's almost as if one has created a 'religon' or 'cult' based on the worship of money and prosperity. One's even built temples and shrines and sites where pilgrims can gather to pay tribute and sacrifice to their God. The Muslims have Mecca, and we have Las Vegas.
Only money, prosperity and marterialim, are probably a poor substitute for spiritual well-being. Maybe Jesus was right, and Love is what really matters, all the rest is just an illusion.
I kinda doubt it. A lot of peak oilers have fond fantasies of the filthy rich being given the Marie Antoinette treatment by hordes of angry FWOs. But the reality is likely to be different. The very rich did fine during the Great Depression, and I suspect they'll do fine in the "long emergency," too. Or at least, better than the rest of us, which is really all they need to do.
As Sharon Astyk said in a recent post in her new blog:
FWO's?
Formerly Well Off
If one views history from Olympian heights and the analytical category du jour is an amorphous "the rich" then of course the rich are always with us and history is bunk and the more things change the more they remain the same.
If one is Marie Antoinette the French Revolution is a pretty big deal. The current Count of Paris cuts a rather smaller figure than did the antebellum Sun King.
For the American upper classes the Depression hardly mattered. They'd made buckets of money in the immediately preceding War and made more buckets of money in the imminent second chapter of the War. Conveniently fought elsewhere. The New Deal was a bother but the rich bided their time and started undoing it from 1968.
For the European aristocracy 1914 was the end of the world and the Depression confirmed it.
It is always easy to say nothing matters and nothing ever happens. Wealth and inertia can make those sentiments seem true. In the present circumstance I would rather be informed by Agincourt. The flower of France were convinced of their invincibility. The first alarums of battle did not disturb their equanimity. They knew their wealth and position would prevail. They stood their ground. And were slaughtered. Many great houses were extinguished. The French aristocracy was a shadow for generations and in some sense was evermore something different.
The question was whether w