[americandream]

R E will not work to deal with the underlying problems of the environment....

RE is exactly what will work to deal with the underlying problems of the environment.

Shifting as much as possible from coal and oil to solar and wind isn't perfect but overall it will be very good for the environment.

Wont work as the current model of accumulation requires the vast energy units available in easy to access oil. Capitalists will not put up capital if said accumulation contracts, whether as a consequence of regulation or peaking and regulation or any of the other issues cropping up.

As they say in capitalism, there are no free rides.

[Plantagenet]

Wont work as the current model of accumulation requires the vast energy units available in easy to access oil.

The ability of Karl Heinrich Marx and all subsequent followers of Mr. Marx like yourself to predict future economic trend has already been shown to be limited and imperfect. Lets wait and see how much RE can be developed before proclaiming that it "wont [sic] work".

By the way---there are no such things as "vast energy units." There are indeed vast amounts of energy, but they are measured in the exact same units as smaller amounts of energy ---- .

[americandream]

Wont work as the current model of accumulation requires the vast energy units available in easy to access oil.

The ability of Karl Heinrich Marx and all subsequent followers of Mr. Marx like yourself to predict future economic trend has already been shown to be limited and imperfect. Lets wait and see how much RE can be developed before proclaiming that it "wont [sic] work".

By the way---there are no such things as "vast energy units." There are indeed vast amounts of energy, but they are measured in the exact same units as smaller amounts of energy ---- .

In fact, I will not only predict that these measures (elastoplasts) will NOT work, I will PREDICT that come the next 3 decades, we will see the full onset of ireversible climate change as denialism will hold sway and consumerism will expand manifold, fouling the planet beyond our worst fears. All thanks to Marx's analysis of the tendencies inherent in accumulation and the rationale behind commodification.

[careinke]

Such is the problem with a 2 party system - you're either with us or you're against us.

I don't see a reason why a true conservative wouldn't be a total tree hugger, look at the root of the word for cripes sake.

But there is a strong thread of Randian Egoism in conservative America. Ayn Rand called it Rational Self-Interest and said man's highest purpose is his own happiness and many folks who consider themselves Libertarians hold her up as some kind of demigod. The interesting thing is how opposite that ideal is with the other current underpinning of the American right (in rhetoric anyway) which is the teachings of the guy who said "love your neighbor as yourself."

What is telling (as always in propaganda) is the right's accusation of the left as the godless, hedonistic branch of the family when in fact one of it's idols was an atheist and preached selfishness as religion, LOL.................

...........How's that for a Monday morning sermon! LOL

OK, here is my counter sermon from a tree hugging, Conservative, Libertarian (leaning towards Anarchist), Constitutionalists, former Republican, Permaculturist, point of view:

First, I agree there is a problem with the current two parties, neither one represents what most people believe. Most people are fiscal conservatives and also believe in maximum personal freedom. Neither party comes close to either of these beliefs.

On the Republican side, which I am familiar with from the inside, most mainstream republicans want; reductions in government social projects and increased military, law enforcement, and education spending. Interestingly, almost every active Republican I have met, is also deeply involved in at least one charity project, most are involved in at least two. Mainstream Republicans are also usually religious, hence the pro-life stand and pro traditional marriage. Finally, they seem to be very suspicious of climate change and I swear I think it is just because Al-Gore brought it to the foreground! I will discuss the Libertarian influence after I diss the Dems.

I personally don't view the Democrats as a godless hedonistic branch of the family. They have a god, it's called government. Government is all powerful and all seeing. Everyone needs to feed government so it can take care of us. The more we feed it the better off we all are. Individuals are stupid, and need to be protected from themselves by government. Without government, how will we know what to eat, how to put out a fire, build a road or bridge, educate our kids, or take care of the poor. Who will decide who can marry who, what you can put in your body, what you can do with your property, and who gets whats left of your estate, (after government gets it's share of course). Basically, I believe if you are a Dem, you are happy with being a slave to the state in return for the state ensuring your basic needs. Not my cup of TEA.

Although there has always been a Libertarian contingent in the Republican party, it got a huge boost with Ron Paul during the 2008 election. Ron Paul's message of fiscal conservatism, adherence to the Constitution, drastic reductions in overseas military interventions, and getting the federal government out of marriage and drug enforcement resonated with a lot of educated young, and of course long time libertarians.

The campaign was brilliant. Take over the Republican Party from within. In Washington it was pretty successful. We just started showing up to meetings and volunteering. In addition, a lot of us ran for office as Precinct Committee Officers, PCO's, usually unopposed. What we did not count on was the mainstream Republicans breaking and changing their own rules. Being new to the game, we were politically outmaneuvered.

The TEA party initially had only one platform LOWER TAXES. TEA meant Taxed Enough Already. A lot of Ron Paul supporters also supported the TEA party. Somehow the TEA party become corrupted into some weird anti-climate, anti gay, religious thing and the libertarians backed away. However, a lot of the "TEA Party" congressmen are actually libertarians, not today's TEA Party.

In my case I always voted for the person and not the party. When I came back from Saudi, I decided I should get involved with politics, since I never had an opportunity before. Having already left home, I could not relate with the Dems who felt the government should be our mother. Although the Reps also held beliefs not mine, I felt I could actually influence the Rep Party. Silly me.

Other than voting, I no longer actively participate in today's politics. I do however, always watch what they are doing in case I need to take some sort of mitigating action.

Back to the thread, I don't see how an educated conservative could be anything else but a tree hugger. I also don't see the conflict between Rand's Rational Self Interest and care of the planet. My happiness is absolutely dependent on a healthy ecology. Companies, Governments, and Individuals, that negatively impact the environment are also directly impacting my health, well being, and therefore happiness. Also, whats wrong with making a profit on your work? In Permaculture we call that "Obtaining a Yield." If you are not obtaining a yield for your efforts, whats the point? If your system does not produce enough energy to a least completely reproduce itself within it's lifespan, it's not sustainable, much less productive.

If everyone just asked themselves three simple questions, before doing things, we would be better off.

1. Does it harm the earth?
2. Does it harm people?
3. Can the surpluses be used to enhance the Earth and/or People? (no waste)

If what you want to do harms the earth, harms people, or has a surplus that can't be used (waste), then you need a new plan. Pretty simple.

Personally, I've given up on expecting our present Government to survive as it is today. Economically the numbers don't add up. The bill of rights is no longer enforced, the state spies on you without proper warrants, and our president can, and has had US citizens killed without an open trial or even the ability to confront their accuser. The military and police are no longer separate functions, and are jeopardizing, and sometimes taking innocent lives to arrest someone for growing a plant. Our elected officials spend most of their time raising money and working for their big contributors, rather than supporting their constituents.

I agree with Holmgren. Probably the best option for mankind and earth is for the present system to fail. The sooner the better.

That said, I am not advocating direct violence to speed it up. That would violate question two.

Instead, I am working at withdrawing as much support as possible for BAU. I do this in several different ways. Eliminating debt is an obvious first start. I'm also growing as much food as I can, and trading with others who are like minded, (my sauerkraut, pickled beets, hard cider, and fresh kale have transformed into venison, salmon, rabbit, and elk that way ).

I don't plan on voluntarily giving up my military pension, or Social Security in two years. I consider them a fulfillment of my contract with the government, a contract actually written by the government, not me. Besides, it may just hasten the collapse by a second or two. That said, I never have and never will accept WIC or other forms of social well fare.

On the positive side, I see a lot of people starting to wake up and figure out things are not so good right now. Some are even taking positive steps towards their own well being. I try and set an example of simple living and consider myself responsible for at least twenty people taking up gardening to grow at least some of their food. Those people in turn have gone on to inspire others.

Yea I know, growing a tomato is not going to save the world or completely meet all your dietary needs. But look at what growing one sustainably does do:

1. It keeps you from buying that tomato in a store which means:
A. You don't use energy to transport it from 1,000 miles away.
B. You don't use pesticides which helps the pollinators.
C. No petroleum based fertilizers.
D. You can grow tomatoes for taste and not shipability.
E. Add to bio diversity.
F. You are not encouraging commercial growers to grow tomatoes in a friggin desert.

Granted not a big impact, but an impact never the less. Maybe after you figure out how to grow something, you may be encouraged to try other things. Blueberry's are expensive and easy to grow. Maybe plant some instead of ornamentals in your yard.

Bottom line, I don't feel government is going to save us. The only moral choice is to take responsibility for yourself and your children. Things are going to change for the worst. BAU will continue until it can't and then it will collapse. The prepared will fare better than the unprepared. Hopefully, the prepared can help teach the unprepared transition during the decent.

Sorry for the long post, but I just turned 60 on Saturday, and am in a reflective mood.

[americandream]

The heart of capitalism is BAU. How does capitalism withdraw from itself and grow tomatoes and strawberries one asks oneself.

[Plantagenet]

Bottom line, I don't feel government is going to save us. The only moral choice is to take responsibility for yourself and your children. Things are going to change for the worst. BAU will continue until it can't and then it will collapse. The prepared will fare better than the unprepared. Hopefully, the prepared can help teach the unprepared transition during the decent.

Sorry for the long post, but I just turned 60 on Saturday, and am in a reflective mood.

No need to apologize. It was a great post, and you explain nicely how you got to the independent point of view that you display in your posts.

And CONGRATS on turning 60 ---- .

[careinke]

The heart of capitalism is BAU. How does capitalism withdraw from itself and grow tomatoes and strawberries one asks oneself.

I would start with seeds.

[americandream]

The heart of capitalism is BAU. How does capitalism withdraw from itself and grow tomatoes and strawberries one asks oneself.

I would start with seeds.

You still haven't answered my question. How do you profess to want BAU yet abandon it for seeds?

[Plantagenet]

All thanks to Marx's analysis of the tendencies inherent in accumulation and the rationale behind commodification.

Did you ever visit Marx's grave? Given that you are a Marxist I think you would enjoy it. Its got a really big headstone with a giant bust of Marx on it, and the few remaining Marxists visit it to pay homage to Marx.


One of the few remaining Marxists visits Karl Marx's grave to pay homage.

[americandream]

Plant. The question still stands. How do you make a finite climate and resources go into infinite pollution and consumerism? Suggesting I visit Marx's statue is skirting the issue as usual.

[Keith_McClary]

On the Republican side, which I am familiar with from the inside, most mainstream republicans want; reductions in government social projects and increased military, law enforcement, and education spending.

I'm not sure about the latter. Post-secondary costs have been offloaded onto students (loans) and university instructors have been downgraded to casual workers. Did the Democrats dunnit?

[careinke]

On the Republican side, which I am familiar with from the inside, most mainstream republicans want; reductions in government social projects and increased military, law enforcement, and education spending.

I'm not sure about the latter. Post-secondary costs have been offloaded onto students (loans) and university instructors have been downgraded to casual workers. Did the Democrats dunnit?

Bush doubled education spending at the federal level. Action talks.

[Plantagenet]

Plant. The question still stands. How do you make a finite climate and resources go into infinite pollution and consumerism?

Thats easy. Don't have infinite pollution and consumerism. Thats where renewable energy comes in----no pollution.

Suggesting I visit Marx's statue ....

Just trying to be friendly. I think you would enjoy it. I just did the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage route across northern Spain which terminates at Santiago's (St. James) grave, and although I'm not religious I could see it was a tremendous experience for people who believe in that sort of thing. I thought as a Marxist you might enjoy a pilgrimage to Marx's grave---kind of a capstone experience for your life as a Marxist, maybe.

[Keith_McClary]

The ability of Karl Heinrich Marx and all subsequent followers of Mr. Marx like yourself to predict future economic trend has already been shown to be limited and imperfect.

Which parts do you disagree with:

Marx's theory
Marx employed a labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time invested in it. In this model, capitalists do not pay workers the full value of the commodities they produce; rather, they compensate the worker for the necessary labor only (the worker's wage, which cover only the necessary means of subsistence in order to maintain him working in the present and his family in the future as a group). This necessary labor is, Marx supposes, only a fraction of a full working day - the rest, the surplus-labor, would be pocketed by the capitalist.

Marx theorized that the gap between the value a worker produces and his wage is a form of unpaid labour, known as surplus value. ...
Marx's analysis leads to the consideration of economic crisis. "A propensity to crisis—what we would call business cycles—was not recognised as an inherent feature of capitalism of by other economist of Marx's time," observed Robert Heilbroner in The Worldly Philosophers, "although future events have certainly indicated his prediction of successive boom and crash."

[careinke]

The heart of capitalism is BAU. How does capitalism withdraw from itself and grow tomatoes and strawberries one asks oneself.

I would start with seeds.

You still haven't answered my question. How do you profess to want BAU yet abandon it for seeds?

What makes you think I want BAU? To save some time, I don't. Government will continue to try and operate using BAU. It won't work and the system is going to collapse. But it will not be replaced by some huge homogeneous communist fantasy. Communism is just as dysfunctional, on a large scale, as capitalism.

We will downsize one way or another. A communist community of 30 -200 people is probably workable. But so is a feudal system, an anarchistic system, a tribal system etc. As a Libertarian, I believe you can live however you want to, just don't force me to live the same way. Unfortunately, as a communist, you are obligated to force your way of thinking on everyone else. The very idea of sovereign individuals is repugnant to you. Of course the same thing can be said of most political beliefs.

How does capitalism withdraw from itself and grow tomatoes and strawberries? You just do it, hence my answer I would start with seeds. Energy decent is coming, and no political system is going to change it. Governments by their very nature try and keep things running, but they will/have failed. No government is going to fix this.

[americandream]

Basically, you are very confused about what is being contemplated and suffer from a very indisciplined personality. Forget Marx, forget communism. Ask yourself, how long can the sort of laizzez faire society you admire be supported by this planet? Go and study the nature of business, how it grows and why it becomes global...from a little acorn.

Then ask yourself, what will it take to discipline ourselves to learn how to live in balance with this planet. Just eject all that garbage you hear on Hannity or Fox. Just be honest with yourself for once. These issues are very personal issues and involve all of us and our relationship with our planetary habitat as well as our obligations to the future generations. Each one of us.

edit: people will pass off a general laziness with being asked to work for the common good as high minded libertarianism. It takes more backbone to pull together for the common good than sit on your fat arse professing the freedom to do bugger all except consume like a glutton.

[KaiserJeep]

I weary of repeating the totally obvious, but what it takes for you to survive is the death of 9/10ths or more of the people around you.

As long as 7 billion humans exist, the Earth is dying.

Permaculture or any other theory of agrarian living, it makes no difference.

Capitalism, communism, feudalism, a theocracy or total anarchy, it makes no difference.

Seven Billions eating/drinking/excreting/breathing is killing the environment. Even if you got all of them to stop burning all hydrocarbons and use only renewables, it still does not matter.

In actual fact, the planet is in it's death throes. Species extinction is still accelerating. But those dratted humans are clever, and they and their food species will outlive all other plants and animals.

OK, now all of you can drop back into denial, and discussion of irrelevant topics. Pretend that solar power or compostable plastic or the recycling of glass containers or permaculture or worshipping Karl Marx will save the planet. Forget about the doom that approaches for us all.

[Pops]

I agree with a lot of what you say C, unfortunately my ideal is some kind of mixed up left-libertarian Geoism where the gov is funded by taxing the value of land, resources and "pollution", but not labor, the value of improvements - or anything else for that matter. So the value of improvements and profit remain private and reward the individual but the land itself is owned in common and "property tax" is basically the rent paid to use the land.

In the future, unless we gst fusion, the great pinstripe casinos that run on fossil fuels will be long gone and we'll back to running things on renewable energy, sunlight, and land will again be the most important resource. Someone will own the land, either it is owned in common via a government landlord that does mostly what the people want or private landlords who do mostly what they want. Of those 2 choices, I'd prefer government.

[ROCKMAN]

Loki – Took a while to catch up. As others have professed I also have a very close insider view of R’s. Especially very conservative Texan R’s. Especially very conservative Texan R’s that work in the oil patch.

The environment: it should be protected. I know more oil patch hands in Texas who helped bust environmental bandits then have damaged the environment. But there’s also the acceptance of a certain level of trade off. Neither extreme (no env. regs and no env. degradation) works very well in our HO’s. Probably everyone on this site is sitting in a spot right now that was once virgin wilderness. Perhaps long ago but still true. So how does opposition to expanding development of other areas fit with that: “I’ve got mine but no one should be allowed to get theirs”. Folks in NY don’t want frac’ng for fear of what it might do to their water supply. A reasonable concern IMHO even if overhyped a bit. But they apparently have no problem burning NG from frac’d wells in PA. So frac’ng isn’t as dangerous for the residents of PA as it would be for those folks living in NY? Wind turbines are fine offshore Texas but are a blight if constructed off the coast of Mass? That logic fails me. Unless one factors in the NYMBY factor. NYMBYism isn’t environmentalism…it’s selfishness pure and simple IMHO.

Social services: I don’t know one conservative Texan who doesn’t support helping those in need. The conflict arises when they feel some are gaming the system and not doing all they can to help themselves. While the numbers of those gamers may actually be very small and relatively insignificant monetarily, it doesn’t stop the R party from hyping those extremes in order to gather support. Just one of the reasons I’ve never given a penny to the party. In Texas I’m registered as an R for the same reason I register as a D when living in La.: for the most part elections are decided in the primaries in both states. In Texas primaries I vote for the R that I think will do the better job. And vote for a D in La. for the same reason. And trust me: in La. the D’s do just as good of job of hyping the extremes as the R party does in Texas.

But for many that’s way too much individual detail. Much easier to cast me as part of one monolithic subculture. Just as conservative “leaders” try to do with my liberal cousins. Especially those Yankee cousins. LOL.

[careinke]

I agree with a lot of what you say C, unfortunately my ideal is some kind of mixed up left-libertarian Geoism where the gov is funded by taxing the value of land, resources and "pollution", but not labor, the value of improvements - or anything else for that matter. So the value of improvements and profit remain private and reward the individual but the land itself is owned in common and "property tax" is basically the rent paid to use the land.

In the future, unless we gst fusion, the great pinstripe casinos that run on fossil fuels will be long gone and we'll back to running things on renewable energy, sunlight, and land will again be the most important resource. Someone will own the land, either it is owned in common via a government landlord that does mostly what the people want or private landlords who do mostly what they want. Of those 2 choices, I'd prefer government.

Pops- Seriously, have you looked at what happens to land owned by the govt vs land owned by individuals? Generally The most toxic and over used lands are owned by the government. The government is not a person, and therefore has no interest in preserving the land. Heck, governments have no feelings whatsoever.

I try and keep my land healthy and in good shape. The government on the other hand prefers to spray my ditches with herbicides and pesticides unless I go out of my way to stop them. The government designs their sewer systems so when a rainstorm comes and overwhelms the sewer system (due to bad design) dumps directly into the sound, river, ocean, or other convenient body of water, killing the ecosystem. The toll booth operators in Yellowstone have to wear gas masks. These are just a sampling of how government treats the land directly.

I realize there is a large portion of the population who don't want to be responsible for their own actions, and would rather pass the burden on to their mothe.. I mean the government, but so far government has not been a very shiny success. War on poverty = more poor, war on drugs = more drugs, more money to public schools = less literacy, Obama care = people lose their coverage or pay higher prices, I could go on....

I believe government has one job, protect it's citizens liberty. Everything else is just a power grab by the elite.

Jeep - Yes we are going to probably have a die off, and yes we will probably not be able to stop a climate phase shift to a warmer place, and yes there is no magic bullet that will significantly change thing on a global scale. So, do you plan to just give up and continue to encourage BAU?

If we have 90% die off in the world, I would kind of like to be the one of ten that survives. I don't think you get there by following the crowd, or trusting any type of government to ensure you are the 1 in 10. However, if Pops, AD, or any one else wants to bet on Mothe.... I mean government to fix everything, all I can say is good luck with that.

AD- Are your remarks directed to me? If they are, I'm not sure what you are trying to convey to me. I have no love for BAU, but that does not mean I can't recycle it's "waste."

After a collapse commercial agriculture will not work. The survivors are going to be the ones who understand nature and natural systems and use this knowledge to provide for their needs. Eventually everyone that is left is going to have to be a permaculturist, there is no other choice. Nature always bats last and she has a 1000 batting average.