Energy descent (less readily accessible availability) is exactly the
reason that unconventional methods are being developed to extract
fossil fuels via mountaintop removal coal mining, by using natural gas
to get oil out of tar sands, and of course fracking gas out of tiny
shale pores. The easily extracted sources are leveling off, while
energy demand is increasing. We need rapid reductions in demand as
well as rapid increases in non-polluting sources of energy.
Arguments over whose backyard gets sacrificed for MTR, for fracking,
for industrial windmills will be increasing even if we start
substantial conservation. (I heard a windmill blew down at the Fenner
wind farm yesterday; I wonder how much siting backlash will come from
that?)
One indirectly relevant example of "false" progress: hybrid engines
have been used to increase power in SUVs as much as they have been
used to improve mileage in small cars. Likewise, increasing renewable
sources of energy have only increased our overall capacity; they are
not yet paired with conservation so that we can start shutting down
polluting facilities.
It's all pretty scary yet I get hope from:
Efforts like the Marcellus Challenge to connect how much energy we use
with where our energy comes from. This is a very important precedent.
We all have to become more mindful before we can start making the
increasingly significant changes which will be needed in the future.
Another important local effort is the Cornell power plant precedent,
the Danby Land Bank, and the (still very early days) groundwork being
laid for district heating/co-generation plants. These plants produce
electricity as well as steam (which can be used to transfer heat to
existing heating systems) and can be designed to use various fuels,
including local biomass. Cooperation (eg, intermunicipal; private/
public, etc) paired with flexibilty/adaptability over time will be
more and more important in the future.
Margaret
On Jan 7, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Tony Del Plato wrote:
This is an amazing conversation which began in early Dec and is
focused on
powering down our civilization. While I'm convinced we need to move
in that
direction as communities & nations, how do we include this in our an
upcoming events on hydrofracking the Marcellus Shale without freaking
everyone out or making us look like doomsayers? The numbers thrown
out by
authors referred to in recent emails is mind blowing. End of the world
scenarios have been around for centuries. Sure seems like there's
enough
data & reason to suggest that the end of the modern/techno/
industrial world
of conveniences as we know it, is well on its way. I mean, if Joel's
suggestion that we have to get used to 50% less than what we're
already
using or making is an "optimistic" figure, damn, we are in way more
trouble
than we think. Under the circumstances, it becomes even harder to tell
people not to pump gas from under our feet. And that if the above is
true,
and we're sitting on this motherload of natural gas, is drastic
climate
change enough to say leave it in the ground? Taking some deep
breaths in a
warm & cozy Uris Library at Cornell U.
Tony Del Plato
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Joel and Sarah Gagnon <
[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks to Eric for the link to this excellent series of blogs by John
Michael Greer. He makes a very cogent and fairly compelling
argument. The
key point, I think, is in this paragraph:
"Let's walk through the logic. The most reasonable estimates
suggest that,
given a crash program and the best foreseeable technologies,
renewable
sources can probably provide the United States with around 15% of
the energy
it currently gets from fossil fuels. Since every good and service
in the
economy is the product of energy, it's a very rough but functional
approximation to say that in a green economy, every American will
have to
get by on the equivalent of 15% of his or her current income. Take
a moment
to work through the consequences in your own life; if you made
$50,000 in
2009, for example, imagine having to live on $7,500 in 2010. That's
quite a
respectable income by Third World standards, but it won't support
the kind
of lifestyle that the vast majority of Americans, across the
political
spectrum, believe is theirs by right."
I'm not sure I buy the 15% figure. I think we can do better than
that with
wind, but I agree that to do so we will almost certainly have to
reallocate
resources. I have no great confidence that that will happen until
it is
enabled by rising energy costs. That may be sooner than later,
however.
We'll soon know. Even if the "correct" figure is 25% or even 50%, the
implications are pretty dramatic. We are not going to "grow the
economy"
with green jobs. The green jobs will help us salvage what's left of
the
economy and help us power down to a more sustainable level of
resource use.
If the future in this heating climate is not to be one of a much
reduced
population shivering and starving in the few buildings not yet
decayed to
the point of becoming uninhabitable, it will be because we
dramatically
reduce the energy required to build, maintain, and heat them, and
because we
have developed enough of an alternative energy infrastructure to
support a
reasonably comfortable existence. The comfortable existence could
look like
one or two warm rooms in otherwise unheated buildings. It could
include
electricity to power much more efficient appliances. It also could
mean far
worse if things really fall apart. We'd best get on with the
repositioning.
Joel
At 09:00 AM 1/5/10 -0800, you wrote:
Reading this 3 part series by John Michael Greer made me think of
the
snippet below and the idea that "current consumption levels can be
replaced
by renewable fuels". JMG makes a good argument against this whole
mentality,
as does Karl. "The question that has to be asked is whether a modern
industrial society can exist at all without vast and rising inputs
of
essentially free energy, of the sort only available on this planet
from
fossil fuels, and the answer is no. Once that’s grasped, other
useful
questions come to mind for example, how much of the useful
legacy of the
last three centuries can be saved, and how but until you get past
the
wrong question, you’re sstuck chasing the mirage of a
replacement for oil
that didn’t take a hundred million years or so to come into
being."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/human-ecology-of-collapse.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/political-ecology-of-collapse.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/political-ecology-of-collapse-part.htmlThanks
, Eric ----- Original Message ---- > From: "
[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To:
[email protected] > Sent: Tue, December 15,
2009
10:58:56 PM > Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] The morality
question > >
Another typical response is to talk about "switching to
renewables", as > if
replacing fossil energy on any significant scale were a good
thing, in > the
sense of getting to the heart of the problem. Ultimately our
present > type
of civilization, the production it requires, the resources it >
depletes,
and the resultant damage to the planet, all requires a high >
level of
energy to keep going. Industrial civilization does not care what >
kind of
energy we feed it. It will keep on chewing up the planet just as >
effectively on renewables as on fossil fuels. It is not the type
of > energy
that is the biggest problem, it is how much we use. > > "What is
the action
that George or Karl would support? If everyone waits > until they've
converted to renewables to protest the drilling, it will be > too
late." > >
As a farmer I know the importance of water quality to the whole
upstate >
rural economy. I gritted my teeth in self-disgust and supported
the >
petitions to the governor and other actions of the anti-fracking >
movement.
But I would have more self-respect, and would be a lot more >
hopeful about
the long term results for our communities of this campaign > if the
movement were to mobilize equally strongly around local policies
> to
effectively power down our communities. > > Karl North > Northland
Sheep
Dairy, Freetown, New York USA > www.geocities.com/northsheep/ >
"Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying > "They only call it
class
warfare when we fight back" - Anon.
_______________________________________________ For more
information about
sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit:
http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription &
listserv information for: [email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions
about the list? ask [email protected]
free
hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County
area,
please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask
[email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
--
The nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the
oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those
committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up
resources of
strength and courage they did not know they had.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County
area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
