[onlooker]

Yes good points. That is why many of us here are so pessimistic. Nothing can be done now hardly to slow much less stop this juggernaught world economy and onslaught on Earth. I created a post recently and the view of some of you confirmed this to me. No brilliant ideas exist, no framework etc. Even more so, the political will from up high does not exist nor does it exist from below as people are either ignorant, too fearful to confront the Reality of it all or simply wanting to live and party and let the future bring what it will. So, I must say your post P, captures the essence of the futility of it all. Not to mention that even though you may not completely agree, it seems climate change is set to be the final nail in the coffin if you will. Peak oil certainly will reign havoc also.

[Hawkcreek]

Sounds like my generation (Hippies) may have had the right idea to begin with?
Drop out, grow a garden, make love, enjoy life, and refuse to participate in the overlords economy and wars- as much as possible, anyway.
You still can't always control how much your garden produces, but at least you would have a clear idea of what is killing you.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Nothing you do on a personal level is of any value to the environment or to your fellow being. You have already been rendered isolated, a mere cog in the machine. An ant drone has no more individual effect on the hive than you do on the political machine or the upon the environmental disasters waiting to happen to us all.

pstarr, if you're right, this means the bulk of the far right wing crowd which tends to proclaim we can consume all we want of anything we want and it makes absolutely no difference. This crowd uses what you're saying as an excuse to not only do nothing, but actively consume literally everything possible. (Given spending vs. saving habits, I would argue that this is the pattern for the vast majority of the US consumer culture overall -- even those who proclaim they believe in AGW and resource limits).

Thus, I respectfully disagree with you.

If average consumption, reproduction, pollution, waste, etc. goes down even marginally, it may well help buy humanity time. Time is humanity's only hope to be able to resolve or at least mitigate things like AGW, via Star Trek like technology. (It's too late to wait for a gradual course change as the impacts of our consumption gradually become more obvious (and frightening) to the average person).

And no, I'm NOT saying that buying a little time will definitely change the final result. We have minds and the capability to use them. I think those who have the awareness of what hyper-consumption and too much reproduction does to the planet over time have a moral duty to do their (small) part to help mitigate that -- just as people have a moral duty to, say, not murder each other, or pay their income taxes.

[Ibon]

It has to be a system's approach and ultimately a top-down//bottom-up agreement between people to create a strong federal government initiative.

I wonder what has to happen for both the top and the bottom to both want this. It probably isn't going to happen by listening to 50 years of warnings about existential threats that have for most not come to pass, Maybe it has something to do that the suspicion of possible existential threats makes them cling all the harder to what is known. But the most likely reason that both the top and bottom have not agreed is because existential threats have no yet punched them in the face and knocked them down hard.

Isn't it a little simplistic to just blame the "bad guys" ??

[Plantagenet]

Good thread, Peter.

You are exactly right-----the personal is not political. Its nice when individuals cut back on their CO2 emissions, meat consumption, water use etc. ,but it doesn't make a farthing's worth of difference to global warming.

The only way to stop global warming is to think about it from the other direction---i.e. the political is ultimately personal.

If the UN would go back to the idea of getting a binding UN treaty to reduce CO2 emissions, with CO2 reduction targets for every country and severe penalties if they produced too much CO2, then we'd really see some CO2 reductions. The political decision at the UN level to go back to the binding treaty concept and then to mandate CO2 reductions would lead to carbon taxes and other measures on a national scale that would then require everyone everyone to reduce their CO2 emissions.

[Hawkcreek]

But that is the mistake I am pointing out. I live in what is left of the 60's (behind the Redwood Curtain, where the '60's Meet the Sea' lol). The back-to-landers end up using more fossil fuels, not less.

I have heard that before, but I don't really believe that. I KNOW that since I retired, I use less fossil fuels than when I drove to work every day. Maybe if a back-to-the-lander still commutes to the city for a regular job, I could see that being true.
I don't understand how playing in a garden every day can use more FF than slaving in a cubicle or air conditioned office would. Every thing you touch, from a hoe to a cast iron frying pan, lasts longer and has fewer total life cycle costs than commuting to the average job.
Maybe if you consider commercial fertilizer production, that would be a factor. But a good compost pile makes that unnecessary for a personal garden. I also use a composting toilet, which uses no water, and contributes to the garden after a few years.
So what am I missing on the FF thing for the back-to-the-landers?

[Ibon]

Here at Totumas we generate our own power with a micro hydro but we use our diesel truck for transportation. We try to minimize trips to town. We consume far less fossil fuels than when I was in business.

I am a 3 million mile member with American Airlines and a lifetime Platinum member as a result.

Imagine that!

[Hawkcreek]

Here at Totumas we generate our own power with a micro hydro but we use our diesel truck for transportation. We try to minimize trips to town. We consume far less fossil fuels than when I was in business.

I am a 3 million mile member with American Airlines and a lifetime Platinum member as a result.

Imagine that!

Hard for me to imagine that.
Sounds like you are just a long distance commuter, not a real back-to-the-lander. Maybe a back-and-forth-to-the-lander?

[onlooker]

whatever impact Ibon had by frequent jet use is more than made up by his MOUNT TOTUMAS haven and its example of sustainable living and caring and veneration of nature. Also, by his observant and keen ideas here on this site.

[Hawkcreek]

whatever impact Ibon had by frequent jet use is more than made up by his MOUNT TOTUMAS haven and its example of sustainable living and caring and veneration of nature. Also, by his observant and keen ideas here on this site.

Ok, I'll buy that. Sorry if I offended.

[ennui2]

I have never had the much patience to convert my opponents.

Your post-count here says otherwise.

Folks don't want to be educated. They need to be led. By a leash if necessary. Around the neck and tight if that is what is needed lol

Oh, I pegged you as someone who wants a green dictatorship a long time ago.

I sense capitulation in this post, though, which is a step forward.

[onlooker]

Yes, P on a practical basis it is an oasis in a desert. But the principle and example is what counts to me. None of us as you eloquently said can make much of a difference at this point. So it is a matter of simply choosing to live in a way that makes your life have some worthwhile expression to it. We all choose a different path, but at least the path of someone like Ibon may set an example that will long outlive him.

[Ibon]

Yes, Ibon's cloud forest is a valuable sanctuary for endangered species and even for entire ecosystem as a forest-bridge among clearcuts. It is also a nice personal solution to the inhumanity of the Matrix (if you can afford it) but hardly counts as a blueprint for sustainable living. Most of us don't have access to grazing land or food forests. We live in the suburbs.

I agree Pstarr. Believe me I recognize my privilege. Now if we were 500 million on the planet perhaps what Onlooker says could be true. But with almost 8 billion on the planet what we are doing here does not represent even in the remotest sense a solution. What we are doing here however does represent a choice humans could be making but again, at a population density far lower than what we have today.

Someone sitting at home who is content eating Cheetos watching TV who never travels and doesn't have a car is far more sustainable actually !

By the way we hardly travel any more. One or two trips a year. The 3 million miles air travel happened the 15 years I was selling medical devices in Latin America from 1988 until I retired from that life in 2004

[Hawkcreek]

Maybe just teaching that there is a way to live in a sustainable manner is the most important thing. Most of the inner city folks will never have the money, time, or skills to live as Ibon does, but just knowing that it can be done may convince a percentage of them to try.
I always wondered about all those who gripe about Al Gore because of his world traveling while preaching a low impact lifestyle. I think sometimes it is more important to spread the word than fight the battle.
Anyway, Ibon, my word choices were pitiful. I really never meant to imply that you were not part of the good fight.