Good point, Monte. But I would go further and say that we should aim to reuse as little as possible by making use of what we acquire for as long as possible. Ideally, reuse locally (preferably at household level). It takes energy to re-cycle and reuse.MonteQuest wrote:Take tires for instance. How are you going to recycle the bits of tire that are worn off as you go down the road? No matter what we do, there will always be a diminishing amount of available usable material as well as energy.
Google "Cradle to Cradle" and you find some unique ideas along these lines though. We need to design things to be reused not thrown away.
TonyPrep wrote: Good point, Monte. But I would go further and say that we should aim to reuse as little as possible by making use of what we acquire for as long as possible. Ideally, reuse locally (preferably at household level). It takes energy to re-cycle and reuse.
Ludi wrote:See, there's the problem, calling something "bollocks" when you know so very little about it.
And claiming permaculture and related technologies can't help people in cities and towns. If you'd read "Solviva" you'd see most of the technology is geared toward town and even city life.
I'm really sorry, Wildwell, that you're not more interested. So little interested that you're not even willing to look beyond your preconceptions to see that most of what I'm promoting is very much applicable to towns and small cities. As I recall you live in a village or small city. Yet you have apparently utterly convinced yourself that none of this can help you or apparently anyone you know. Have you looked at the Dervaes Institute website? (pathtofreedom) None of this is about living in the country or having much land at all. Growbiointensive is about growing your food on the smallest amount of land possible. All of this is about what people can do on their own to help themselves and their communities.
This is why I am so nearly completely hopeless about our situation. That people are so uninterested in solutions they would rather just leap to conclusions based on - what? Nothing. Based on nothing, an impression they got somewhere that something is "bollocks."
Gridlock, I have no problem with a combined top-down, bottom-up approach. I think that would be best. But I only promote what I can do myself, and as I mentioned I have no power in government. I don't have any issue with Wildwell's approach except the fact that he is grotesquely ignorant and apparently intends to remain that way.
I'm afraid I don't personally have the strength to carry on this fight. If people can't look at beautiful websites, or read books, or really, do anything but leap to vastly ignorant conclusions, there's nothing I can do to fix the situation. Trying to convince people of things is not what I'm good at.
TonyPrep wrote:Wildwell, you might see no other choice but do you think it likely? If you don't think it likely (and remember that PO may already be upon us), then what do you plan to do, to increase your chances or survival/comfort?Wildwell wrote:So I see no other choice that the government(s) must educate the population and put in certain checks and balances as well as plan adequately for PO and long term sustainability.
I don't think it likely, even in a small country like New Zealand. The leaders of almost all of the main parties agree that peak oil is here or very close and yet the two biggest parties (including the governing party) welcome huge planned extra spending on roads. What on earth are they thinking? Certainly not long term.
It's no good harking back to the 1950s, saying we did OK then, because we have a very different society now, much more global, much bigger and with aspirations that are almost expected, rather than hoped for. The 1950s wasn't fossil fuel free but that is what we have to aim for, for sustainability. Of course, sustainability may not be desireable for some people.
Tony
Ludi wrote:I agree, Tonyprep. If we have no other choice than to rely on the government then we are truly doomed.
We are doomed.
If most people wanted change, they would vote for change. Admittedly, most people don't really understand what is happening. But almost all the people I've talked to about this either violently disagree with PO and what it could mean or accept it and then forget it. My vote will have no effect. There was one party, a minor party, that stood primarily on the peak oil issue. It got about 0.001% of the vote. As both main parties want growth, I don't expect to see political pressure but there will be natural pressure from fuel shortages and a collapsing economy.Wildwell wrote:The answer is they will change thier mind through political pressure (IE use your votes)
I can't help thinking, though, that making anything is unsustainable, if it continues indefinitely. Ultimately, we need to only consume resources at their renewal rates, or lower.
Elephant grass sounds like a miracle grass and maybe it can help ease the transition to a lower power society. But miracles don't happen, so I'm not optimistic that the grass can do everything you claim. Even if it could, it could not hope to more than put a very thin plaster over the huge hole that the decline of fossil fuels will open.
No it's not. What you might mean is "for a while". As the non-renewables, like fossil fuels and uranium, wind down and hydro maxes out, we'll have less than plenty, even if we could bring all those renewables up to speed as quickly as you'd like. Only solar and wind, and possibly micro-hydro, have the potential to power a downsized society. Renewables account for a very low percentage of the world's energy supply; take out hydro and it's almost immeasurable (hence the high reported percentage increases in those forms of energy). Quite a few books have been written on alternatives and it doesn't look promising, in terms of meeting current energy needs, never mind projected future energy needs. And don't forget that we'll need more land to grow food, not fuel, as the energy inputs decrease.Cabrone wrote:I took Elephant grass as just one example of what is going on out there (why not grow it along main roads, around airfields, on derelict land etc?). Please don't forget that we also have solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro-electric and nuclear plus whatever hydrocarbon reserves are left. That is more than enough to power our society if we have the will to harness it.
Massive potential, however, doesn't translate to actual. As the energy supply decreases, the possibility of using some of that dwindling energy to fuel the building of alternatives and conservation diminishes.Cabrone wrote:Also, don't forget that we have massive potential to cut our energy usage
The problem with this is that it is unfair and impractical. It will hit the less well off more, since they won't be able to afford to buy these new highly efficient vehicles, especially if no-one can afford to buy their older less efficient cars. Building more cars is not the answer. Some calculations of mine suggest that stopping the building of cars and just driving more carefully, plus keeping your car in good condition, would be as efficient as trying to get more efficient cars built and encouraging people to buy them. But driving cars still uses fuel, just as building cars does. If there is any saved fuel, this plan would only be of use if the saved fuel goes to building alternatives; just putting money into alternatives is useless without the fuel to build the alternatives.Cabrone wrote:I would also like to see road tax applied to all cars that are less efficient than 50mpg.
This I agree with.Cabrone wrote:I would like to see a carbon tax on all goods and services.
Wildwell wrote:Ludi wrote:blah blah blah
I'll ask the other way about, what's wrong with my solution?
Wildwell wrote: I can't do anything to increase my chances of survival as I don't have $1 million for the property I need in Ludi's solution other than what I'm doing. Remember I don't have any land.
Ludi wrote:Wildwell wrote: I can't do anything to increase my chances of survival as I don't have $1 million for the property I need in Ludi's solution other than what I'm doing. Remember I don't have any land.
Ok enough with this BS, Wildwell. YOU don't need land! I'm sick and tired of this crap from you and I'm very angry you are misrepresenting my solutions. You clearly have not read the websites or the books, which talk about people, families, neighborhoods and communities WORKING TOGETHER to implement these solutions. YOU do not need $1 million. NO ONE needs that!
Read the %$#* websites and books and stop being such a moron. I'm sick of it.
Putting you on "ignore" now Wildwell, for my blood pressure's sake.
TonyPrep wrote:It's no good harking back to the 1950s, saying we did OK then, because we have a very different society now, much more global, much bigger and with aspirations that are almost expected, rather than hoped for. The 1950s wasn't fossil fuel free but that is what we have to aim for, for sustainability. Of course, sustainability may not be desireable for some people.
Tony
But with a lot more people, of course, and much grander lifestyles, with aspirations that we seem to expect as a right. We passed peak on individual energy consumption (per person) quite some time ago (I think it was at least 10 years ago, but I may be wrong). This indicates that we are already more efficient than we were, since the economy has grown, but it will get harder and harder to keep economies growing and affluence increasing, as energy decreases.Gridlock wrote:If world oil production does follow an approximate bell curve, then we’ll still be producing as much oil in 20 years as we were in the 70s/80s
The problem is that we'll be forced back into a more localised society. You seem to think that the end result of the change we'll go through implies that there will be no significant pain in getting there. Thre may be nothing wrong with localisation, but there is a problem in getting there from here. In the 1950s, we were closer to that.Wildwell wrote:[Well you certainly wouldn't have a global society with permaculture, so what's the problem?
Actually, it does, unless you qualify it by a time period. Sustainable over the next few years is useless if it can't be sustained thereafter. If we can sustain our society for another hundred years or so, there might be a case for not worrying about after that, but when our society looks like being unsustainable within our lifetimes, then unsustainable is a very big deal.I don't actually think some people know what 'sustainable' means, it doesn't mean 'forever'.
As you imply, many people will not be able to cope with the changes being forced on them.If community solutions work for some people, that’s just fine, but they won't work for the majority who do rely on modern conveniences, ability to service their debt, not having to grow their own food and the organisation and law enforcement in a modern, sophisticated society.
I haven't seen much of that here. Perhaps you have misundertood what those people are aiming for.I mean there’s defiantly this desire for some here to return to the middle ages, because it sounds like jolly good fun.
And you are assuming that there are solutions that give those people who would be unable to cope a continuation of business as usual. That's a big assumption, but you're entitled to believe in it.It won’t happen, people will seek solutions to the problems as they’ve always done.
Why does it have to be near to where you live now? I get the impression (from this and the rest of your post), that the only reason you rail aginst these possible approaches is that you desperately want your current lifestyle to continue and desperately want to believe that your can constantly increase your standard of living. Just because you and others can't envision a world that doesn't meet your specification doesn't mean that there must be a solution that will meet your criteria. You seem to believe passionately that there is.Wildwell wrote:Talks about 1/5th of an acre. Well, a home with that sort of land near me costs about $1 million
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests