EnviroLink Forum

Hi everyone! I'm just an average working guy with a family, and no advanced education, who has only developed an understanding of climate and environment issues during the last 10 years. Prior to that, I was pretty conservative in my thinking on most issues, and a lot of my resistance to manmade global warming was due to the fact that the carbon problem is not going to have an easy quick fix like the aerosol problem a couple of decades ago.

I think that's why a lot of people on the right, who are strongly attached to laissez-faire economic theory started becoming more resistant to global warming in the last 20 years. If it was just a matter of switching from oil to some already available (and cheap) energy source, there would be no Koch Brothers, related oil barons, and their assorted disinformation campaigns. BP already took a look at going green ten years ago and decided there was no money in it (or at least not as much as oil) and decided to double down and just drill deeper...like in the Gulf of Mexico for example.

But, I am not only skeptical about dirty energy industries; my skepticism also includes what is being called now "Big Green" or Green Capitalism. Can we keep running economies based on a capitalist model, or any other market-driven economic model and still reduce carbon emissions? Not to mention deal with the other related problems of capitalism's need for endless growth like resource depletion, topsoil erosion, declining availability of fresh water? I don't see it as a possibility, especially when our growth-dependent economies are combined with a global population that is much larger than can be supported without oil-based industrial agriculture.

So, what are the solutions? And is it possible to achieve any meaningful results in time, considering how many people will resist even slight changes to the way we do things now? I have spent too much time arguing with rightwingers that I used to be allied with, and want to spend a little more time reading what others have to say who are at least onside with environmental issues...and that's why I'm here.

welcome to the forum
I feel that leftist thinking is actually the source of much of the problem but also the creation of corporations by giving them the rights of a human (can own land and have bank accounts for example). Before these two developments, businesses remained local and remained subservient to the humans who fund and profit from the business. Taxes are only needed for the socialist idea that governments need to provide care for the people in trouble. I am all in favor of laws to prevent the unfair exploitation of people but feel the best way to help a person is let them start their own business. Government red tape and tax forms are what keep most people from starting small businesses... that should not be the case. The change from people growing their own food and making their own money at home to living in suburbs and driving miles to occupy skyscrapers and huge factories is a new thing and accounts for much of our society's energy use and pollution. There is a new movement that I am getting involved with: the "maker" movement. This is where groups of people share equipment access to make their own stuff (either personal use or to sell). With the advent of on-line sales and free information (look at open source and copyleft models of intellectual property), global businesses of 1 or a handful of people are possible and easy. These maker equipment cooperatives are showing up around the world very quickly. I am on the board of one being formed in my city. It was an idea only in one person's mind last December and we are planning to move into a physical space before mid-September... and already have donated equipment and a year's worth of membership from many people. This will help reduce global energy use greatly and quickly. Making your own food is the biggest way to cut energy use and the recent drought in the USA and increasing fuel costs could cause food prices to skyrocket. This is good news IF people start growing there own food. Community gardens, greenhouses, market gardens, farmers markets, and a push for local food will all have huge impact on global energy use.

ps I will add that my prediction for the future is not as dire for humans as predicted but real harsh on biodiversity... but that nature will heal it's self quickly too. The real disaster that I see is starvation and wars and general lawlessness from crop failure and high energy prices and the resulting devastation to the financial sector. Health issues from the weather may also come into play as water treatment plants fail to work as advertized, power outages cook seniors in there homes, and sewage spreads disease.

Welcome!!! The desire to have cheap energy (monetary) as any cost (environmental) is a hard thing to overcome. Short term concerns generally are greater than long term concerns, which is why we see people working at jobs they know will kill them in time. They deal with the short term only.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Thank you Ann. I had a feeling, once I got typing, that I was putting too much into an introductory post, and your response indicates that there are a lot of issues and outlooks mentioned that I will have to approach more fully in threads dealing with those issues. But, I can't help posting at least one follow-up, because I am not sure if I have a handle on where exactly you are coming from. For example:

How do you define "leftist thinking?" Because in my way of thinking, an increase in private power, such as was made possible when business owners were allowed to limit their liability through limited partnership and then the creation of artificial citizens - corporations, is anti-socialist. I can't imagine the creators of the first multinational corporation - the East India Company, would have considered themselves leftists! They were all about maximizing wealth and harvesting valuable resources of recently invaded British and Dutch territories. And, the few corporations that are a little more moderate in the way they deal with employees are still not leftists....they just feel it is a better business strategy than join the ranks of the modern day robber-barons.

Private ownership is not necessarily capitalism, and socialism does not necessarily mean no private ownership. From my understanding, capitalism did not begin until the advent of modern banking and creating money through the issuing of loans. This is where I see the beginning of our environmental problems starting. Because loans are payed back with interest (if there is no default), and so over time, the money supply grows, and the corresponding levels of debt also grow. And if a capitalist economy isn't growing...as most are right now...then they are at risk of collapsing as increasing bankruptcies threaten the solvency of the currency itself. For a capitalist economy to grow, more stuff has to be made...more energy consumed, more natural resources etc., and this is the part that I don't see as compatible with a world that has a large population trying to provide the necessities of life with the resources that are left.

You lost me here. Not much of the tax dollar...especially in recent times, is devoted to caring for the poor and the unemployed. But all this came about as a result of capitalist economies feeling forced to moderate their approach because of the perceived threat that working class people would adopt communism....and now they are back to acting like the robber barons of the Guilded Age, as they kick out every aspect of the social safety net.

Not everyone is in a position to start their own business, and self-employment and sub-contracting of services has been used as a ruse in many cases for big business to get out of paying employee benefits, including accidental injury. The other direction to go is the cooperative movement.....

Relocalization is an example of going back to cooperative models of the past that used to be common - for example, most grain silos out on the Prairies were built by farmer coops, which also shared mechanized farm equipment as it became available. Farmers and the villages where they traded were not capitalist societies by any stretch of the word. Survival depended too much on being able to depend on neighbours.

I don't see a way that the future could be harsh for biodiversity, while not being so for humans. We are part of the biosphere after all, and we are extracting an ever-increasing amount of resources for ourselves. What are the limits to what we can extract until natural waste recycling systems start to fail and 7 billion people wake up to find there is almost no food available? If, based on assessments of human land and water use, we are using 40% of the Earth's photosynthesizing plants, then that is less available for all of the other animals that play essential, but largely unknown roles in maintaining the biosphere. I fear that we won't realize the limits until we are already past the point of no return. One way or another, the present human population is not going to be 7 billion or even close to it 100 years from now. It will be a question of whether the human race survives at all, or whether a cascade of disease, warfare and related environmental destruction causes our extinction as a species. Many other animal species linger on for awhile with tiny populations until they completely disappear -- that might be our fate as well if we are not able to plan and work together for common benefit...especially for those who aren't even born yet.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_human_appropriation_of_net_primary_production_%28HANPP%29

And I guess I am one of them Wayne, since I am living in an older city neighbourhood and feel stuck in a job for the next five years at least, because I want to collect at least some of that company pension I've been paying into for the last 25 years! It's great if people can find a spot in the country and grow their own food and live a low-carbon lifestyle, but for most of us, going green is not going to be an individual enterprise. Without a radical reshifting of government and cultural priorities, we will just keep this system going until the wheels finally fall off!

I doubt if your job fits the description of a killer. I was thinking of the coal miners who now have an increased exposure to black lung disease even though there is supposed to be protections from the Mine Safety and Health Adminsitration. The miners know things are being ignored, but they need the work and are willing to take the chance on dying from an explosion or later disease.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I will point out that I was referring to different issues on each side of the "political spectrum". By "leftist thinking" I am generally referring to the use of laws and taxes to mold society. On the other side of the spectrum we have international corporations who can go above the laws and taxes and their creation and power is a reaction to the "leftist thinking" I was referring to. I do not see either side as being bad per se but that they are not helpful when it comes to freedom of the individual and more specifically for this discussion, the ability of individuals to provide all their needs via local resources.I quite agree. I will also point out that all three aspects of society can co-exist and should co-exist. The problem is when any three of those are forced on or banned from the people. What I do with my money should not be monitored or controlled... even if it means criminals can launder their ill-gotten gains. I think what is at issue for me is freedom of information but I see the environmental impact in the form of the creation of international organizations and the creation of ever-increasing size of governments and their taxes and laws. It is essentially a cold war that banks, corporations, and governments have been fighting for a couple centuries. People as individuals are just caught in the cross-fire.You might be on to something there but I doubt the activity of making money consciously takes that into account. Governments seeking to boost their economies though would think along those lines and increase their controls on the monetary systems accordingly. It is a noble goal to increase the prosperity of your country but I think it is misguided to think your controls will not just be exploited at every possible loophole and such exploits will fund the giant lobby machine that plagues governments with money to hand out.That may be so. Taxes did start to pay for the military and the protection it brings but quickly moved to help the unfortunate. I am all in favor of helping the unfortunate but I would prefer to decide myself who to help with my money. As for the military and security services, they need to be restricted to invasions and local policing. Land taxes make sense for such services but they can also be funded privately as they were in the past before taxes were levied... but corruption is a danger when the customer of the security becomes the victim of extortion. Back to the point I was trying to say: socialistic activities like helping those in need needs to remain an active decision of the individuals who provide the funding for that help. Government taxes as a vehicle of social help divorces the donator and the recipient.That is indeed the case but it should not be the case. It should be easy and natural for someone to provide products or services without the overhead of mounds of paperwork and permits and tax formsyes, trying to get out of government-forced benefits. Again, I like the idea of replacing unions with government laws (unions only help those who are part of a union) but the result is corporations trying to get around the laws and small businesses being stuck at a disadvantage. The direction is sound (fair wages) but the method is flawed (using laws that restrict small business). Back to the issue of energy, if I cannot find the product or service in my neighborhood... I am looking wider and getting the result from further away and you can be fairly sure more energy is involved (not counting human body energy).I will point out that most "green party" political parties are not necessarily on the left side of the political spectrum but generally push for localization of power and of resource management. I have issues with some of their other stands but end up voting green party because I see such a high value on local political power over "centralized" power on both the energy use side of things but also on enabling individuals to make their own decisions (even if it means moving to a near-by area with a different political stance on an issue). Cooperatives work by sharing resources and usually those resources are physical and thus local.The difference is mobility. People can pack up and move or more slowly can choose to live or not live in areas and thus populations can come and go within a lifespan. A forest will take a century or so to change positions on a mountain... if it has a new position it is able to relocate to. Animals can move a bit faster but they still need a place to go and with so much of the earth already dedicated to agriculture and the unused land being rather unable to support much biomass (deserts for example), there are going to be lots of species going extinct (and have gone extinct) due to habitat loss (and not necessarily habitat destruction... weather changes will destroy habitat all over the world). Us humans can move our crops around and even move water around and we can all grow our own food at home if we bother to try. Animals do not have such options and plants are even more susceptible of dying out in a year or two and never coming back. I am not suggesting though that weather change and sea level rise will not be harsh for humans as well but just that we will find a way to survive (after mass starvation or disease or war etc) where as the lifeforms on the planet will be greatly reduced in species count... an extinction event of massive proportions.I just glanced at that article and figure it is overly optimistic. I have been involved with a few projects trying to return human-used land back to nature. The process takes decades of hard work and lots of specialized pesticides to control the weeds around hand-planted native plants for that biological niche. One part of the City of Calgary that was converted from an open-pit gravel mine and cattle grazing involved about 2 dozen identified bio-zones and the planting of about 300 species of native plants and trees. I was spraying thistles and weeds like Ox-eyed daises that were preventing the growth of native plants in disturbed areas. This effort (to spray weeds) was in it's 13th year so it takes a long time to get these native plants established. I was finding dead zones that had not been used by humans for close to 30 years... even the thistles did not grow there. Trails made by horse and buggy are still quite visible in pastures over 80 years later for example.

I live in an older city neighborhood myself and figure I have achieved a very low carbon lifestyle... and I have barely touched the things I can do. Careful use of lights, no refrigerator, limited cooking, hang-drying cloths, the use of electric blankets and normal blankets to allow very low night temperatures, house shading and night-time window use eliminates air conditioning... these have dropped my electricity use to 1 KWh/day. Turning my water off for the winter and not using my furnace (it was broken) cut all natural gas use (did that for the last 3 years). Of course that is a bit radical but it was effective and heating one room with electric heat dropped all my utilities from over $700/month to about $30/month (including purchased water) with only about $1 of that for actual electricity use (the rest was base charges my the electric company). Eating local or eating grains shipped in large bags can keep the transportation costs low and sprouting or soaking the grains (depending on type) can keep cooking to a minimum (heat with hot water to convert some starches or use a slow cooker). Non-winter foods are all locally grown greens and tubers eaten raw. Boxes of vegetables and fruit from the fall lasted well past Christmas. A lot more "green" transportation methods available in the city (walk, bicycle, bus, telecommute) but I also bought a high-efficiency used vehicle (technically not high efficiency but just small and light but resulting in 50 miles to the gallon) and used a scooter (110 miles to the gallon).

I see! I work with hazardous materials which raise cancer risks, but not on the level of black lung disease.

On that subject, a little while ago, I heard an NPR show discussing increasing rates of black lung disease in West Virginia coal miners. It seems that the problems are related to workplace deregulation and union-busting, but the most significant factor is the new machines that the miners use underground which increases the amount of coal they can cut through in a day, and overloads the capabilities of their masks and other safety gear.

At one time, most people agreed that laws and taxes were necessary for the common good. Since the 80's, there has been a constant drumbeat from the right about the need to lower taxes. In the U.S., many voters foolishly went along with the Bush Tax Cuts because they promised very modest tax cuts for middle income earners, while once again, the lion's share of the tax cuts enriched the class of people who already were rich. So the tax base shrunk, gaps in income increased, and there was less money to adequately fund schools, infrastructure needs, social welfare programs, and the agencies in charge of monitoring the excesses of big business. I see the present malaise largely as the failure of the public to appreciate the services they use, or might use at some time in their lives, while the wealthy have won everything on their wish list and still want more! Much of our present problems with climate change come straight from the energy industry's priority of placing greed above any and every risk factor.

So, in my assessment, I see their side as not only bad, but downright evil and suicidal. While I see the left as largely collapsing because of all of the rank and file middle class workers who bought in to the siren call of personal enrichment from the voices on the right.

Why should the poor be dependent on the charitable whims of the givers for their survival? This is where a society falls apart and collapses into competing interests. I can tell from the calls I get from agencies like UNHCR that in these hard times, charitable giving is in decline while those in need are increasing. Same thing with the local food bank! That is the biggest failing of trying to privatize social spending. There is more money available when it is not needed as much, and nothing when times really are hard.


I am not suggesting though that weather change and sea level rise will not be harsh for humans as well but just that we will find a way to survive (after mass starvation or disease or war etc) where as the lifeforms on the planet will be greatly reduced in species count... an extinction event of massive proportions.[/quote]
I think there is a some degree of humanistic hubris in the faith-based assumption that the human race is more resourceful and adaptable than the plants and animals that are facing extinction right now. I would contend that the human race as a whole is far less adaptable and resilient now than it has ever been in history. As one harsh critic of techno-optimism - Michael Husseman notes in a recent book, the great improvements in medicine over the last 200 years have eliminated the force of natural selection as a means to improve that resiliency. Instead, the weakening of our collective immune systems puts us in greater danger of pandemic than at any other time in history.

But, I am also reminded of some recent reading I did on articles linking genetic research with paleontology about population bottlenecks (where the human race collapsed almost to extinction) in the past. The most notable occurred approximately 70,000 years ago, at a time when a supervolcano erupted in Indonesia. The total human population may have fallen as low as 2000, and experts in this area of research believe that this number was dangerously close to a level where there would not have been enough genetic diversity among the population to allow long term survival. This happens to many other species of animals when populations fall too low. They linger for awhile and eventually die out completely. And the same fate may happen to the human species if the future brings us more of the same hell-bent fight for available resources.

Yes, these are all good steps to take. Some neighbours of ours started a community garden this year, and I'll try to get involved next year. I don't use my car for work - that was a big factor in our decision to move into the city so I could be closer to work, as my wife had to quit working for health and medical reasons. I ride my bike to work most days...at least two days I run...but I don't like to do that every day, since I have to wear a backpack to carry everything I need. The furthest I've rode my bike is 52 miles to visit my brother in Niagara Falls. That takes a little planning, as I can only do this when I'm going to make the trip by myself and I have to stay overnight and ride back the next day. So that pretty much limits these trips to weekends with a good forecast and no other commitments. It's a lot more fun than driving 50 miles (80 kms) on the highway. On the bike, out on rural roads that are reasonably safe for cycling, it's a chance to notice the scenery and get a feel for each community along the way.

But all of these things...no matter how good they are as individual efforts, seem like trying to swim against the current, since the political, media and commerce systems that dominate our world, do not encourage thrift, alternatives to automobiles and relocalization. That is where the big cop has to step in and make and enforce rules. This is a big part of my shift in political thinking that I was talking about, because unless government steps in and enforces rules and changes the tax structure, and cracks down severely on advertising and reverses the trend of consumerism, I don't see a way out of this mess. The way forward is not going to come out of a capitalist economic system that rewards consumption and novelty, and has no plan to deal with a world where further growth in energy demands and resource consumption have come to an end. Many, if not most people may not like the prescription, but the alternative will be the equivalent of a knife fight on an overcrowded lifeboat.

More like the enforcement is not there. There are ways to control dust at the source, but it costs time and money. The respirators are not effective, mainly due to some poor designs for the usage.


http://www.npr.org/2012/07/14/156772226 ... resurgence

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/09/155978300 ... ases-surge

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155981916 ... vulnerable

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/09/156375910 ... a-solution

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... regulation

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Welcome to the forum.

_________________
It is our deeds, the accumulated acts of goodness and kindness, that define us and ultimately are the true measure of our worth. Service is the coin of the spirit.

http://holy-lance.blogspot.com

According to one speaker, we are dealing with three predicaments (not problems, as those have solutions): a debt-ridden global economic crisis, the threat of peak oil and generally a resource crunch, and the effects of environmental damage, including global warming. Given these, the only thing that one can do is to decrease resource consumption and localize, e.g., learn skills such as permaculture, food growing, preparation, and storage, using renewable energy, etc., and working with nearby communities, family members, etc.

Thank you!