On 3/25/2011 10:38 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote:
> I fear that, despite Keith's occasional promptings to the contrary, I still
> had
> no great love for George Monbiot anyway. The latest merely confirms my earlier
> misgivings.
>
> My own position, in which the Green is rather overshadowed by the Black,
> represents one of the few angles from which George's cloven hoof is really
> visible. To me he has always been far too much the eco-authoritarian, for whom
> ecological survival could never really, thoroughly, consummately co-exist with
> personal liberty. His localism seems thin and superficial, his centralism runs
> much deeper.
>
> An appreciation for obscure local apple cultivars gave George Monbiot a
> chance.
> He has blown it now.
Ok, it's one thing to dismiss the article offhand because it
doesn't harmonize with the overall theme of local energy and food
production, but I would like to ask the list what I believe is an
important question. Mr. Monibot mentioned that pre-industrial England
did not support a very comfortable lifestyle for most of its
inhabitants, and that full reliance on solar, wind and biomass would
move English society backward without nuclear power. Does it follow
that a reduction in energy use and reliance on renewables would
necessarily result in massive declines in both industrial output and
citizen comfort? (I'm also thinking of that article Keith posted a few
weeks ago, in which analysis of coal consumption in Industrial
Revolution England actually INCREASED with improvements in efficiency.)
Can we support large populations in the industrialized nations without
fossil and nuclear power?
I can envision a personal lifestyle in which my energy needs are
significantly reduced, and I think we--as a society--could make
substantial progress in better fitting solar energy to demand. (Using
solar thermal air conditioning is a good example.) But someone still
needs to make appliances and sundries. The equipment to convert diffuse
energy into electricity and heat must be manufactured, somehow. Where
is the energy going to come from for these activities? How can we work
with metals, and perform other energy-intensive tasks, without massive
power plants?
Or, is Mr. Monibot's "either / or" scenario completely off base
altogether?
When I hear talk of "energy independence," it's usually in the
context of substituting one form of energy for another, or blind
insistence that the environment matters less than our need for energy
and we should "drill and dig" with renewed vigor. I don't hear a lot of
willingness to re-organize our cities, invest in public transit and move
away from factory farms. Our current economic model enjoys an almost
mystical reverence, and none of its underlying assumptions can be
challenged without accusations of "socialism" (or worse) being flung
about. But even IF we could come up with a new form of economic policy,
where is the dense energy for manufacturing going to come from? It's
clear that we'll need to keep on building things, so HOW can that happen?
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
