| ||
 Heinberg hits the nail againJump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| General Forums -> Discussions | Message format |
Agric |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 214  | I've been reading Richard Heinberg for a decade now and of all people he's the one who's made the most groundbreaking, perceptive, coherent sense to me. Initially there was a lot of optimism in it - peak oil is a bummer but if we wake up we can solve it and have better lives. About 3 years ago his optimism content faded, we hadn't woken up, time had run out to pull through intact. Lately his focus has been more towards making the best of the bad hand we've dealt ourselves. So to his latest: http://www.postcarbon.org/article/714558-the-fight-of-the-century It's about national / public policy in response to what happens next, I think it's an outstanding analysis. He even gives a takeaway set of bullet points in the unlikely event that some public policy eminence deigns to read, I'll leave you with them... "For the sake of any national policy maker who may be reading this essay, here are a few take-home bullet points that summarize most of the advice that can be gleaned from our scenario exercise: Guarantee the basics of existence to the general public for as long as possible. At the same time, promote local production of essential goods, strengthen local social interconnectivity, and shore up local economies. Promote environmental protection and resource conservation, reducing reliance of fossil fuels in every way possible. Stabilize population levels. Foster sound governance (especially in terms of participation and transparency). Provide universal education in practical skills (gardening, cooking, bicycle repair, sewing, etc.) as well as in basic academic subjects (reading, math, science, critical thinking, and history). And finally, Don’t be evil—that is, don’t succumb to the temptation to deploy military tactics against your own people as you feel your grip on power slipping; the process of decentralization is inexorable, so plan to facilitate it." Afterthought: if they (those who should, having access to our taxes) don't, then maybe these should be our (TBI) objectives? | ||
| |||
| John Wood |
| ||
Regular Posts: 79  Location: Cromarty | Thanks Agric for posting on this subject. An interesting blog and worth discovering. It seems to me that the general drift of his argument is very much in the direction of communities doing it for themselves - i.e. the Transition model or something very like it. I like Agric's afterthought:" if they (those who should, having access to our taxes) don't, then maybe these should be our (TBI) objectives? " That is not necessarily to say I would simply take Heinberg's points and adopt them unquestioningly, but I do think we should have a debate at least about what our objectives are and how we should achieve them. To me the two things are the same: the ends cannot be separated from the means. That is why I set up the 'heart and soul' group and I was sorry it didn't take off. But we move on. As an archaeologist it is pretty clear to me that no political, economic or indeed other structure ever lasts for ever. I think we have to accept that our so-called 'civilisation' may not last much longer, and that we should expect serious political upheaval, humanitarian and environmental disasters in the future. Instead of worrying ourselves to death about it we need to think calmly and practically about what we can actually do to reduce or at least not add to the suffering of ourselves and others. Here are a few thoughts on some of the Heinberg points - - Guarantee the basics of existence to the general public for as long as possible. What are the 'basics of existence'? I understand a UK magazine article recently questioned how anyone could survive on an income of less than £40,000 a year. Seriously. I wonder what planet some people are living on. - Promote environmental protection and resource conservation, reducing reliance of fossil fuels in every way possible. Who could argue with that? So long as he isn't proposing nuclear power to reduce reliance on fossil fuels! - Stabilize population levels. This old chestnut. How does anyone seriously think this can be done? The Chinese have had their one-child policy for decades. It has caused a lot of suffering and now they have an ageing population with too few people to pay and care for them. Most population growth is in poor countries. The need to cut consumption is in rich ones. Really there just needs to be a transfer of resources from rich to poor, and a more effective use of land for producing healthy local food rather than alcohol, drugs, biofuels, sugar etc. - Foster sound governance (especially in terms of participation and transparency). Join the Green Party! - Provide universal education in practical skills (gardening, cooking, bicycle repair, sewing, etc.) as well as in basic academic subjects (reading, math, science, critical thinking, and history). I can't see the academic establishment ever really buying into this. It has to be led by communities themselves. - Don’t be evil—that is, don’t succumb to the temptation to deploy military tactics against your own people as you feel your grip on power slipping; the process of decentralization is inexorable, so plan to facilitate it. I suspect that more and more governments are going to do just that. The War on Terror (so called) shows this can happen in the west just as much as anywhere else. But 'Don't be evil' (which I think is actually Google's slogan) applies to much more than use of military tactics. As Heinberg adds, "One wonders how many big-government centralists of the left, right, or center—who often see the stability of the state, the status of their own careers, and the ultimate good of the people as being virtually identical—are likely to embrace such a prescription." Indeed. Especially as governments seem to be increasingly controlled by powerful corporate interests whose only concern is 'shareholder value'. I suggest we don't give in to despair. We have to have a clear vision of our own that it doesn't have to be like this, change is inevitable and we can make a difference. We can take the initiative - but to do that we have to be the change we want to see. That means adopting a view and a personal and collective ethic to reduce suffering of people and living creatures and destruction of whole ecosystems. | ||
| |||
| maggie dove |
| ||
Regular Posts: 85 | Just got my copy of The Transition Companion, Rob Hopkins new book pub last year. On page 17 there is a cheerful disclaimer If we wait for governments, it`ll be too little , too late. If we act as individuals , it`ll be too little. But if we act as communities , it might just be enough, just in time. I agree--its definately through groups like transition that we have to try to offer an alternative path to more and more consumption. So--growing locally, bike maintainance, ? local currency, inner transition ( people need to believe in what transition stands for) How to maintain momentum--I must read about that on page 172! community energy, and much, much more. I have spare copies of Robs book to sell at the greatly reduced price of £13.50--8 remaining What do you want to have as the subject for the next members meeting in March ? | ||
| |||
| Martin |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 275 | Just to pick up on the population point, we have finite resources on the planet, and at some point, either by choice or otherwise, we have to come to live within the constraints of that. At that point, there could be a very highly populated planet with everyone living in poverty, or a less densely populated planet with a higher standard of living. So population is an issue, although exactly how we deal with it is difficult. Also, as John points out, if/ when the population starts to reduce, then almost inevitably there will be trouble as fewer young people are supporting more old ones, and that is very uncomfortable. But the alternative is a population which continues to grow indefinitely, and that's simply impossible. So we might as well face up to the trouble sooner, rather than carry on until we're forced into it. As for how population can be reduced - education is generally cited as the best way, but governments have a part to play - for instance, maybe we should be spending less of the NHS budget on infertility treatment? And is it really in the national interest to pay child benefit? Small details in the big picture, I know. | ||
| |||
| John Wood |
| ||
Regular Posts: 79 Location: Cromarty | The population of the world is increasing dramatically and of course it can't carry on doing that indefinitely. But at the moment we have more than enough resources to feed the world - they just aren't shared out fairly. And, as I said, a lot of land is not used efficiently to produce food. In fact as people become wealthier, the birth rate declines dramatically. The answer is surely to give the poor more food security while also cutting down on our own rising levels of obesity. How about massive taxes on sugar, fat, alcohol, palm oil, industrialised fishing (including fish farms), industrialised meat and dairy products etc and using the money to encourage growing cheap, healthy, delicious organic vegetarian food for local consumption? | ||
| |||
| Martin |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 275 | I've got a lot of sympathy with the suggestion that inequality is a major problem, but I also think the world as a whole has too many people on it. As far as food goes, I'm all for a change from high input farming to organics, but that comes at a considerable price, both literally in £££s (at least at current gas prices) and also in terms of food produced per hectare, so that would potentially make things more difficult, rather than less. And while I agree the outcome would be desirable, it would be much easier to achieve if the population was a lot lower. And even if the world as a whole can support the population, every year there are stories of drought and famine, caused by too many people in the wrong place, so over-population is a local issue as well as a global one. At the other end of the scale we have our own local over-population issue on the UK - the country could never support our current population in the style in which we live, so we have to import resources from elsewhere. If we were successful in re-localising our economy, it would be obvious we had too many people, for instance the land required to feed the population of London stretches out as far as Totnes! Looking beyond food, the rest of the planet wants to live our kind of lifestyle, with cars, fridges, etc., and of course this is entirely reasonable. But the trouble is, there are too many people to all enjoy our lifestyle. To be honest, I don't understand why the population issue is so polarised. I don't think it's the only problem, but it seems self-evident that a lot of the world's problems would be easier to deal with if the population was lower. | ||
| |||
| maggie dove |
| ||
Regular Posts: 85 | My understanding regarding famines in the devloping world is that most of it is caused by conflict or debt. We spend vast sums of money on arms--£30billion every 8 days--if diverted this could do a huge amount in eradicating hunger. (these are old figures 2008) The carbon footprint of the military worldwide must be immense. Trident ploughshares spring to mind-- but I`m thinking more tanks becoming obselete and electric cars, bikes and fridges for everyone. I like to dream. Maybe transition groups can point the way to a happier, culturaly more more intergrated, localised way of living. We can`t feed ouselves completely locally but if we aim for 80% local 20% imported we will go a long way to changing things. | ||
| |||
| David Franklin |
| ||
Regular Posts: 80 | World Birthrate is decreasing. Although this still means that the over all population is growing , it also means that the rate of growth is slowing. http://fora.tv/2005/04/08/Cities_and_Time Stewart Brand believes that this means peak population by 2050 , then it's down hill from there like everything measured on a world scale, this means there are peaks and troughs. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-20/7-billion-understa... One of the peaks is perhaps the UK, which after decades of decline seen an increase in the birthrate over the past decade http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/25/birth-rate-stat... http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/24111237/6 Figures seem to suggest that this is largely due to an increase in the immigrant population. Remember that in a country with an ageing population and declining birthrate, the only way to grow your economy, and gather enough tax to pay your pension bill, is to import younger labour. However, all of this has happened while we had cheap energy. The question is what happens when you take cheap energy away. | ||
| |||
| Martin |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 275 | So if we stay on the treadmill of an ever-growing economy, we have to avoid an ageing population, in which case, given the demographics of the ageing post-war baby boom, we need an increasing population. That's the prevalent mindset at present, undoubtedly. The more sustainable alternative is to aim for a smaller economy, more even wealth distribution, and smaller population. That doesn't have much political support at present, maybe because it's difficult to see how we get from the current position to that outcome without a lot of grief. | ||
| |||
| David Franklin |
| ||
Regular Posts: 80 | In a BUA situation your population, like everything else needs to keep growing. But it appears that one of the paradoxes is that as a nation becomes more industrialised the fertility rate drops. One of Heinberg's visions of a post peak oil world is that people will need to move out of the cities and back to rural areas. At present the fertility rate in rural areas is higher than in urban areas. If Heinberg's vision is right and rural areas become more populated, does this mean that the fertility rate goes up or starts to fall? During a shrinking economy will we be able to maintain education for girls, freedom of choice and career opportunities for girls, health care for Mothers and their babies, and opportunity for distractions to baby making. If these things are possible we may have a chance of reducing the population. The Chinese experience shows that legislating causes it's own problems. You could try keeping heath care for children but removing it from Adults, and encourage adults to smoke more, drink more and eat unhealthy foods. Increasing the chance of a child living to adulthood will always mean a low fertility rate. However i can't really can't see Transition, or anyone for that matter, being able to sell decreasing life expectancy as a way of reducing the population. | ||
| |||
| Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319 | Very thought provoking talk by James Hanson here http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_cl... | ||
| |||
| Penny |
| ||
Regular Posts: 63 | Maybe we should adopt these principals at our next Admin meeting (or members meeting) and put out a press release about it including the context of Heinberg's arguments and message to policy-makers. It might draw attention to the urgency of the situation. | ||
| |||
| maggie dove |
| ||
Regular Posts: 85 | Thanks Anne for this post of James Hansons talk. The whole talk is well worth watching--for me more than once. He ends with an interesting view of a revolutionary tax system , a carbon fee, --if I understand it correctly--to tax fossil fuel companies and transfer that money , 100%, to all citizens. Hanson argues that this would cover increased prices, enable green energy to grow and in the process create millions of jobs | ||
| |||
| John Wood |
| ||
Regular Posts: 79 Location: Cromarty | I think we just have to accept that (1) global warming is unavoidably going to get much stronger, and the powerful vested interests are not going to give up making it worse, because they don't really care, and they effectively control Western governments (2) the world population is going to carry on growing until the poor and dispossessed get more life security -when their birth rates and population levels overall will eventually decline. So the future will be difficult, to say the least. Things are going to get pretty seriously bad. But I think we worry too much about this - and indeed about apocalyptic visions in general. It is like running around like headless chickens while the crisis develops. We aren't in any position to make sweeping political changes that affect millions of people. In fact, if the consequences were such as to make huge numbers of people suffer I wouldn’t want to be part of that. The ends never justify the means. But we can deal with the here and now. What can we do on a practical, achievable way to make a difference? We can start to change the culture that promotes the pursuit of obscene amounts of private wealth for the few at the expense of the rest of the planet as a whole. As if an income of millions of pounds a year actually made people happy. We do that by thinking and acting differently, and leading by example. It goes back to how people in the West tend to view the world. I think this comes first from our Judaeo-Christian-Islamic idea that humans have ‘dominion’ over the world and all that’s in it. Personally I do not think that everything was just put there for the benefit of us. Second, since the late 19th c. another idea has grown up that life is an absurd, meaningless struggle where the weakest go to the wall and the (so-called) 'survival of the fittest' applies. By extension, economists have come up with the idea that self-interest (whatever that is) is the only real motivator of people. This view happens to suit corporate capitalism very well, but nature doesn't actually work like this. We are not all engaged in some endless fight to the death with each other. An ecosystem requires variety, balance and co-operation. Humans are just one small part of the earth’s ecosystem on which we all depend for our survival - but the rest unfortunately depends on us too. Causing other sentient beings to suffer for our gratification increases the amount of overall suffering in the world, and for what? Of course, people will always want to have food, shelter, health, long life, etc. But what do we actually need to be happy? Surely one thing we can do is demonstrate how rampant, unquestioning consumerism is not the answer to a happy healthy life and doesn’t necessarily create satisfying jobs for others either. The growth of ethical consumerism over the last 10-20 years shows that the culture is beginning to change. We can’t engineer global solutions to global warming but we can take practical action now by consuming less overall ourselves, sharing resources, and thinking carefully about the consequences of our actions. We have to be the change we want to see. Which is surely where the Transition movement comes in. | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |