|
from dec 11 2005 blue vol IV, #29 |
|
|
or Chaotic Catastrophe? 
by Jan Lundberg
If the required change in consciousness is not quick enough, we are faced with chaos as well as catastrophe. If some planning gets going soon that can mitigate petrocollapse, for example, then we still have catastrophe but it will be lessened - perhaps directed toward a resolution for maximum conservation; examples include human and pedal power according to their best potential. What are our chances, you ask? Can we do something soon enough to turn around ominous trends? Well, it depends how long it takes to keep pondering this question instead of jumping right into the river of change. Get wet? Yep, sorry! When we face that the Gulf Stream has lost 30% of its power since 1992 (new study; read on), and our daily habits STILL don't change, we are in effect saying goodbye to the world, and we may as well toast the Earth's end. Nevertheless there is hope There's some doubt on the exact state of the ecosystem, and Mother Nature is too complex for us to really have complete knowledge, let alone control. So it is not useless or crazy that some people are actually taking action as if there is hope! Many have been at their disparate ways and experimentations for many years, although we don't see much about it in the profit-driven corporate media. Our educational system is not much more helpful than the mainstream news media. Here's what some people are doing to change their world and extricate themselves from a failing culture and unraveling society: One of our Petrocollapse Conference speakers went to Oregon recently and reported back, "A whole region is now planning for Peak Oil across multi-dimensional lines from sustainability to soil restoration; to needed skills and crafts; to organic, biointensive farming; to forming sister-city relationships with Willits California; even to regional ... government... Soon these aspects of Peak must be brought into public discussion. If our objective is to save lives then this is where it is happening and we must both acknowledge and encourage it. People are ultimately going to have to solve all these problems by locality; by themselves. Lessons learned by the pioneers must be shared for the benefit of all who are listening." Plan B Project is one approach to mitigation, involving city planning and quick adoption of sustainable living. (Listen to a speech on this at www.petrocollapse.org). The 17 year project that is Culture Change has certainly explored many of the needed strategies for sustainability, such as Pedal Power Produce and depaving to grow food in former driveways and parking lots. A past Culture Change Letter containing references to what people are doing to achieve sustainability, whether as activists or just living lightly on the planet, covered "DIY" (Do It Yourself). It is discussed in detail in last year's essay that covered strategies in Cuba and Argentina as well. (CCL #80). The Depletion Protocol, an initiative from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, seeks to forge a world agreement to wisely and fairly manage remaining oil reserves and oil consumption. While the original concept - the Uppsala Oil Depletion Protocol - is idealistic and can be laughed at by energy corporations and governments, the essential logic may well be adopted if the world continues on its present dangerous course: "No country shall produce oil at above its current Depletion Rate, such being defined as annual production as a percentage of the estimated amount left to produce; Each importing country shall reduce its imports to match the current World Depletion Rate." The big stumbling block might be time needed to create the accord and make it work. Richard Heinberg, peak oil author, equates the protocol's success as saving the world. Impediments to mitigation Either people are hip to the need to minimize car use now, as many are, or they are oblivious and may as well be cutting off pieces of our flesh. The die-hard drivers are harming us, themselves, and countless species. The whole problem certainly does not end with cars, although car dependence may be the critical place to start critically examining our disastrous way of life. Most energy use and CO2 emissions in the industrial world have to do with buildings and not cars, but the car is the way we use and abuse the land. With buildings, non-oil alternatives for heating and cooling are possible, especially with intelligent design. Yet, this does not mean vast cities are sustainable if they can't provide their own energy locally and feed themselves, without making a huge "ecological footprint." Some everyday newfangled things are never questioned, adding to our woes and our ability to turn things around. In addition to the toxic plastics plague, there is our radiation dosage from our technological lifestyle. It is harming us as surely as chemical exposures from petrochemicals such as pesticides and other poisons. According to international studies cited by the the Cellular Phone Task Force, a low-tech operation out of Mendocino, California, "Using a cell phone or digital cordless phone for two minutes disrupts the blood-brain barrier. Longer use permanently destroys brain cells." A host of physical illnesses can result from this kind of radiation, observed in the 3% of the nation's population that identifies the source of the ailments. Even 100 yards away from a radiating source the effects impact people and other living things. Cell towers are stealthily popping up almost everywhere in the developed world. Could there be a surprising price to pay for this energy-intensive, questionable technology? It may well far negate the convenience for business dependent on quick communication. The big boys profit off the destruction of our health, and almost all of us - including activists - have just been muddling through as if there is a positive future no matter what. However, the disinclination to have children is growing among educated people, and it speaks of despair and cold analysis of our common plight. What percentage of the population is seriously depressed about the environmental mess and rising population on a resource-limited world? Maybe some institute should study that because it detracts from productivity and corporate profits! Just kidding. The U.S.'s view is not the world's World consciousness on environmental values is not so backward as we in the U.S. presume. Moreover, the rest of the worlds's divergent view makes the U.S. what it appears to be: an anti-environment thug fouling our collective planetary nest: A Gallup poll in 1992 found that over two-thirds of the world's population (based on a sample of thirty major countries) places the environment in the top three concerns. In the U.S. it is only 10% of Americans who normally agree with the statement that the environment is among the top, most important problems facing us today. In the twenty years since the first international Conference on the Environment (Stockholm), "...environmental problems two decades ago (early 1970s) were viewed primarily as aesthetic issues, whereas these more recent results indicate clearly that they are now being viewed as real threats to health... 'generating increasing public concern around the globe'." (Jonathan Deason) Another myth busted by the Gallup poll was that poorer nations were interested in catching up as polluters and thereby placed the economy as their top concern: "Citizens in poorer nations were as likely as those in richer nations to be concerned about global environmental problems." But so much for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that got civic society hoping for change. We at the Paving Moratorium Update called it Earth Plummet, even though we sent observers. The corporate media spin, especially in the U.S., has lied to us all, allowing for a decade and a half of bogus "debate" on climate change and global warming. Now it's like we must throw the whole baby & bath water out the window to head 180 degrees away from perpetuating the system of global consumption. Consuming the globe is not sustainable, but so many people, including professional environmentalists, are appallingly open to proceeding as if The Market will provide. Every day this mindset continues takes away our options for mitigating petrocollapse and climate change. What won't work There's a big difference between
This latter vision (B) is the often well-meant notion of just switching fuels and heavier vehicles for less wasteful ones. While it is true that many fuel-economy reforms are way overdue, and there is much waste to stop in all sectors, it is totally misleading to promote a promise of continuing the status quo as kinder and gentler. So, that's why it's time for the implementation of new cultural values for real sustainability. "Climate Change, Economic Change" is a new editorial by Patrick Doherty of TomPaine.com. It's timing is the climate talks in Montreal. The world's future on the line, with the corporate energy giants dictating through George Bush what the deal is. At this time the wake-up call of the decade has sounded: The Gulf Stream has lost 30% of its power, promising a cold freeze for the British Isles region. Doherty starts out like he's a man of the people, painting a fair picture for all us common citizens. The climate-change rundown and political analysis are very good. But it turns out his whole thrust comes down to cheerleading for what we can call the Technofix Economy. Doherty is a Washington insider who's a bit on the fringes of the power structure, because he's either too progressive or it's because he's in renewable-energy dreamland. The danger is that readers think of him as providing the gospel of progressive thinking. TomPaine.com bills itself as Progressive. The reformist camp has too many funded organizations to list, but they all uphold the system when it comes to painting a false picture of a future of petrocollapse. The whole system is a delusion and will break, as there is no technofix possible to change the petroleum infrastracture overnight. George Monbiot in the The Guardian (UK) this week has massively refuted the claims of biodiesel and biofuels [see bluegreenearth yahoo!group, members only, but feel free to sign up], and he uncovered some nasty facts. He is sure to get bad reactions from those who believe cars can just keep going on some other fuel that's "green." Culture Change is familiar with disappointed readers who even cling to techno-worship (see Culture Change Letter #107 on Techno-worship). Also in the category of "won't help" as far as realistic mitigation for petrocollapse, there's the Hydrogen Highway that we dealt with in our prior essay, CCL #115 (see Santa Barbara section of article). Bad stuff - did we miss anything? What else is wrong besides the technofixer delusion? We conclude this week's exploration of sustainability with a catalogue of ills compiled by Janet Kobren, an activist and healer who is a Culture Change editor: "Here are what I've called the most important issues, disgusting things in the world, and disasters to come (not in any particular order):"
The most obvious problem was not in that list: population size. There's a huge overopulation of people (especially the consumer variety), cars, cattle, cats, and our not so welcome critters such as rats and cockroaches. Nature does not care, so at the rate our ecocide is building, the next phase of evolution could feature the dominance of rats, cockroaches and other adaptable species. We aren't there yet, but will responsible voices for humanity and nature's family prevail? 
|
|||||
| BLUE is looking for short fiction, extracts of novels, poetry, lyrics, polemics, opinions, eyewitness accounts, reportage, features, information and arts in any form relating to eco cultural- social- spiritual issues, events and activites (creative and political). Send to Newsdesk. |