[JohnDenver]

I've discussed this a little with Bart and others, but I'd like to hear more opinions from other posters.
The theory seems to be this: Powerdown (whether intentional or unintentional) will have positive effects on the health of the environment, and thus is something environmentalists should welcome.

I would argue for the opposite effect: Powerdown will make everyone increasingly poor, and they will assault the environment to compensate. For example, fuel shortages (or expensive fuel) will lead people to poach trees for fuel, and food shortages (or increasing poverty) will lead people to clear new land, poach wildlife, overfish, fish over the limit etc.

Cuba is often cited as an example of successful powerdown, but the evidence shows that Cuba has the same environmental problems as other countries, i.e. deforestation, desertification etc. North Korea, another country which has experienced a form of powerdown, also has severe ongoing environmental problems.
Will powderdown ameliorate environmental problems? Or make them worse?

[Jack]

I think that Easter Island and the Maya point to environmental devastation. In more recent times, Haiti and Somalia come to mind.
Bottom line, we'll cut down the last tree to warm ourselves tonight - while sealing our ultimate fate. Just like the Easter Islanders.

[Ludi]

With current ignorance about sustainable ways of life and very few programs in place to provide knowledge and help for people as they make the transition, things look bleak.

[alpha480v]

I think that Easter Island and the Maya point to environmental devastation. In more recent times, Haiti and Somalia come to mind.
Bottom line, we'll cut down the last tree to warm ourselves tonight - while sealing our ultimate fate. Just like the Easter Islanders.

I agree,and thats why I think that the environment will go by the wayside so humanity can maintain the status-quo.

[Riddick]

I look at it this way: The Earth needs to purge itself of the virus that is destroying it, kind of like how the human body's own immune system will take care of the flu.
We'll do everything to survive - including looting the environment even more - but once that phase ends (plus a lot of human deaths), then the real healing can begin.
Most people look at a volcano as a destructive force but they are seeing it on a limited time frame; it's really a cleansing process that occurs over Nature's time, not a human's time frame.

It will get a whole lot worse before things get better, environmentally speaking.
We have got to learn to live with nature instead of trying to control it.

[JohnDenver]

I agree,and thats why I think that the environment will go by the wayside so humanity can maintain the status-quo.

But what if we don't (can't) maintain the status-quo and opt for (are forced into) powerdown? The evidence seems to indicate that the environment will go by the wayside in that case too -- perhaps even more so.

[Ludi]

I think it's evident from current trends that the ecosystem is in trouble no matter what happens - miraculous survival of the status quo, or collapse of the status quo.

[TrueKaiser]

I look at it this way: The Earth needs to purge itself of the virus that is destroying it, kind of like how the human body's own immune system will take care of the flu.
We'll do everything to survive - including looting the environment even more - but once that phase ends (plus a lot of human deaths), then the real healing can begin.
Most people look at a volcano as a destructive force but they are seeing it on a limited time frame; it's really a cleansing process that occurs over Nature's time, not a human's time frame.
It will get a whole lot worse before things get better, environmentally speaking.
We have got to learn to live with nature instead of trying to control it.

that reminds me of a certain japanese anime, just can't remember the name at the moment.

[bart]

The theory seems to be this: Powerdown (whether intentional or unintentional) will have positive effects on the health of the environment, and thus is something environmentalists should welcome.
I would argue for the opposite effect: Powerdown will make everyone increasingly poor, and they will assault the environment to compensate. For example, fuel shortages (or expensive fuel) will lead people to poach trees for fuel, and food shortages (or increasing poverty) will lead people to clear new land, poach wildlife, overfish, fish over the limit etc.

You make an important point, JD. There is nothing about a Powerdown scenario which is automatically good or bad for the environment. As people become desperate, they will deplete forests, game and other natural resources. See "War and cold have depleted Armenia's only natural resource: trees".
Already in the Third World, there's a growing scarcity of firewood, causing women (it's usually women) to spend more hours out of their their day walking long distances to collect wood for cooking and heating.

I don't think anybody who's spent much time reading in the field would disagree with you. It is a HUGE problem.
The disagreement is in what to do about it.
The traditional answer for the last 50 years has been Development -- building an industrial infrastructure in the Third World so those countries can catch up to the industrialized countries. Liberals, communists and globalizing capitalists agreed on this general strategy, though they disagreed violently on how it would come about. China and the Asian Tigers would seem to prove the success of the Development strategy.
The dissenting view has been called Appropriate Technology (AT), Low Input, Sustainable, Permaculture, etc. This school of thought points to the environmental degradation brought about by development, the social disruption and the economic chasm between rich and poor. This view believes that the Development strategy can never improve the lot of the poor majority of the world.

AT is not against technology, per se, but against expensive high-energy high-input technology. JohnDenver might be suprised to learn that AT is also against "low technology" -- the desperate, heartbreaking technology of the very poor, which leads to the problems that JD cites. Instead, they advocate an Intermediate Technology, which applies modern science and engineering to the creation of local, low-input technology.
And now along comes Peak Oil.
Will our industrial model work in the post-Peak future? Or should we turn to the Appropriate Technology model?
Does this describe the dilemma, JD, or is there something else?

[lostech]

that reminds me of a certain japanese anime, just can't remember the name at the moment.

Perhaps "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind"?
or the later "Princess Mononoke"?

[holmes]

You got one right, JD. Very intelligent of you. Its not going to be good, Bro. Those that believe back yard gardens are going to save everything are niave. Well defended villages with thermal mass infrastructure and local manufactiring and ag base and environmental protection is the only way. The economic crash wiill send everyone back to the cities (easier for welfare) by then it will be pure socialism after crash. This will be just a false quiet. when The resources deplete beyond demand. Now at this point is where TSHTF. So it will not get real shitty until maybe ten years after the peak. You see extinction is becoming more likely instead of speciation the longer we run it out.

[holmes]

Thermal mass. Utilize the consant 58 degrees below the frost line the earth has bestowed upon us. Its always beennthere unfortunately we havbe destroyed most of the planet already. Isnt that great., something we can all be so proud of.

[Pops]

This is the thing that makes me laugh when people dismiss PO as a tree-hugger conspiracy.
We are already seeing the effects: a greater push to open ANWR, reducing enviro regs, etc.
And things haven't even gotten bad. If/when people start getting cold and waiting in gas lines you can bet that Kumbyah feeling will go straight out the door.

[Malthus]

Great topic JD. I think that I will agree with you on this one. However I think that you dont make clear the distinction between intentional and unintentional powerdown. The intentional powerdown, where people decide to cut their consumption of everything and content with much less, will be very beneficial because it will dramatically lower our foot print. You must clearly agree on that and it could eventually happen for countries like Canada or Russia, or Scandinavia where population density is low.
In the unintenional powerdown scenario oil, gas & food shortages, blackouts the environnement will be the first to go. I see hungry and freezing people cutting trees in the winter slaghtering all the cattle like there is no tomorrow. The unintentional powerdown usually destroys the environnement look at the barren fields of Easter Island or the Australian desert. If 6.5 bilion people decide to become hunter gatherers tomorrow I assure there wont be much game 2 months later.

[Malthus]

One more thing to illustrate my point. The powerdown in Cuba and NK was not intentional it was forced upon them by the fall of the Soviet union.

[EnviroEngr]

What Pops said.

[Ludi]

the Australian desert.

Not a good example. The native australians were able to live there for some 40,000 years until white people came along, even though it's one of the driest places on earth.

[ECM]

I would argue for the opposite effect: Powerdown will make everyone increasingly poor, and they will assault the environment to compensate. For example, fuel shortages (or expensive fuel) will lead people to poach trees for fuel, and food shortages (or increasing poverty) will lead people to clear new land, poach wildlife, overfish, fish over the limit etc.

If we continue to consume resources beyond replenishment like we do now we are going to be poorer in the long run as well.
We already cut down far more trees than we replace to support our consumption. Once an area runs out of trees we just wipe out the next one until depletion becomes critical.
Poaching is a problem in many areas of the world regardless of technology level.

We have already overfished most waters of the world, many beyond limits.
The status quo means more deforestation, desertification, land pollution, water pollution, air pollution, extinctions, overfishing, and more.
A powered down society would not have the means to destroy the environment on the scale that we do now. Ultimately, the status quo or powerdown will cause further destruction unless we learn to live within nature's limits. I choose powerdown as the lessor of two evils.

[Ludi]

Yes, we need to keep in mind that most of the deforestation of the earth has either taken place over a long period of time (such as in the Mediterranean), in the service of creating huge navies (Europe and North America), or with the aid of international corporations with modern heavy machinery (the tropical rainforests).

[Malthus]

the Australian desert.
Not a good example. The native australians were able to live there for some 40,000 years until white people came along, even though it's one of the driest places on earth.

Well probably you dont know but it is a man made desert after all. If I recall correctly the bigest lake was situated in Australia but strarted diappearing some 20000 years ago and it was not "one of the driest places on earth" at that time. Besides do you know any volunteers that want to live in a desert? When aborigens came they came with fire slowly transforming the australian savanah into a waterless desert. Then they were forced to adapt their reckless behaviour by nature.
Same thing on easter island once a forest now there is no tree to be seen on the whole island.The easter islanders would have probably survived for milenia on the island after the crash of their society living in deepest misery and deprivation just like the native australians.
I thought that the myth of the noble savage was long dead. It is amazing how much damage can be done with such lower technology.