One pill

 makes  you small

     -Jefferson Airplane

We've been so busy, keeping up with the Jones's

Four car garage and were still building on

  -Waylon Jennings (Luckenbach Texas)

Greetings

       

       I always enjoy reading Eric Lindberg.  He is what i would call a thoughtful, hopefull, realist.  He's been doing a series of pieces about the Transition Movement, trying to come up with a model that has real staying power,  rather than some effort to deal with this or that crisis .   His latest is to use a sort of Earth Religion model, noting that churches, like political parties (and corporations) have long lives. And if the associated humans are inspired by the philosophies, they will be willing to work for long term goals , which may never be achieved during their lifetimes .  See. Here

       One part of that struck me was his description of the the appropriate  long term goal.  Is it "green growth", or "sustainable growth"?   It is not.  In fact, Lindberg says,  only radical simplicity can deal with the damage that has been done and continues to be done.  Green growth provides only "improved means towards an unimproved end"

"To put it a bit too glibly, Transition says that since the only way to keep your Netflix up-and-running is, in fact, to blow the tops of mountains, create underground earthquakes and poison our groundwater, or cover every acre of the Earth’s surface with wind turbines and solar panels, then we’d better re-evaluate our values and choose a way of life that allows us to live safely within the Earth’s biological and ecological limits, even if that means we end up living a lot more like Ecuadorian peasants or the Amish than middle-class Americans who manage global complexity from our glimmering offices.  If we have to relinquish our Netflix and smart phones, our European vacations and air-conditioned homes, so be it.  Humanity has managed just fine without any of these throughout most of its history, a history we are taught to view with dismay and pity according to an educational perspective that is aimed at maintaining the beliefs and practices necessary for industrial progress and expansion.

He goes to explain in more detail.

"The goal of environmentalism is of course to “save the Earth” or “save Humanity.”  These are not bad goals, per se, but in the hands of liberal environmentalists they are misguided in a number of ways.  The most critical error is the almost-never-questioned belief that saving humanity or the Earth actually means preserving our high-energy way of life, hopefully without destroying our common home’s current ecological balance in the process.  This will be done, we are told, by trading in our coal-powered electrical generation for wind and solar, while swapping-out our internal combustion engines for the electric ones we might plug into our new carbon-free energy system.  Add in some Silicon Valley wizardry, and (so the story goes) we can make this all operate at a level of efficiency that will presumably also help us manage forests, stop soil erosion, preserve biodiversity and habitat, while we continue to grow the economy so that free-market democracy (one without any rationing or reinstitution of virtues such as temperance or moderation) can continue on its merry way, offering us a future that looks like the present, only in real-time higher resolution.

'I can’t help but wonder whether I should laugh or cry when I hear or read about the so-called people’s climate march or about most[ii] environmental protesters in general — the sort who might follow the increasingly misguided (and misleading) false prophecy of the likes of Bill McKibben, Al Gore, or Leonardo Di Caprio.  For at root, they are in effect protesting one form of energy collection and delivery in favor of a different one.  It is presented as a great struggle over values and vision, though it is not.  If there is faith at stake in the prevailing struggle (and I believe there is) it is a fully shared faith in progress struggling only over esoteric theological details, practical differences between fossil fuels and renewable energy notwithstanding.  True each side draws upon differing versions of capitalism and Liberal democracy and some (not entirely unimportant) symbolic and aesthetic differences. And it is also true that many environmentalists love and cherish nature in some way or another and would like to see it preserved.  But unquestioned in mainstream environmental movements are the more fundamental values surrounding the quest for mastery and domination over the Earth’s natural systems; the pursuit of comfort, entertainment, and novelty; the securing of safety and convenience in the face of all the ravages of time and, ultimately, death.  All we see are slightly differing versions of salvation through conquest and mastery.

        This view is supported by this piece by Jason Hickel, which I think lays out the problem with the green growth argument  in the context of climate change   Those who support green growth argue that the trick is to reduce "carbon intensity ", that is the a mount of carbon per unit of GDP.  And carbon intensity has and will go down as we use more efficient devices, such as EVS , and more low carbon energy sources.  Carbon intensity is falling, at a rate 1.9%.    When you compare this rate with the over all growth rate of 3%, you can see that it is swimming against the tide (although estimated carbon emission numbers are flat ).   More importantly though, even if even if carbon intensity were equal to GDP growth, there is no actual reduction in carbon.  Compare it to the reductions needed of 8-10%, it barely moves the needle .  Se also Carbon intensity needs to fall at 6% each yr (Vox).  Although Hickel doesn't speak in terms of returning to a peasant lifestyle, he admits that the no growth option is a "hard pill to swallow"  He argues that maybe we won't have to actually get rid of stuff, just stop buying more.

    

        Of course it is important to remember that  climate change isn't the only concern .  It is merely one symptom.   Here's an interesting column from Geoge Monbiot, who argues that climate change is not the worlds most most pressing environmental problem.  Its only number 3. He ranks first , the "systematic ecological collapse" caused by industrial fishing.  Second , he puts the erasure of non-human life on land due to industrial farming.   For instance the drop in insect populations..     see Here   (H/t Sara D).

"The abundance of flying insects has plunged by three-quarters over the past 25 years, according to a new study that has shocked scientists.

"Insects make up about two-thirds of all life on Earth [but] there has been some kind of horrific decline,” said Prof Dave Goulson of Sussex University, UK, and part of the team behind the new study. “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

           see also this recent UN report on pollinators.

         For the bigger picture, its useful to turn to Elizabeth Kolbert who wrote the book, The sixth Extinction which won the 2015 Pulizer Prize.   Here is her presentation at the Johnathon Schell memorial lecture.  (described by Dave Roberts as  "bracing and free of false-hope homilies".     Here is an interesting interview she did with Dave Roberts.   Its a free ranging discussion going from science to ethics.

  Will humans also, go extinct?  She's not sure.

 "But while we’ve increased our numbers, it has been at the expense of other things. We are simply consuming other species. We are consuming a tremendous amount of the primary productivity of the oceans, for example, just emptying them out.

And so there’s two questions really, it seems to me. One is will humanity make it through this basically unrestrained growth, both in terms of numbers and in how much we as individuals consume? And meanwhile, what happens to everything else?

The answer is not necessarily the same. I mean, humanity has found that it can reproduce and consume at a very rapid rate and, depending on how you look at it, the world continues apace — though obviously many people are not doing well, many people are.

But most other species are not doing too well.

She concludes the interview in this way.

David Roberts

One thing I always appreciated about your writing is your tragic imagination. I feel like lots of folks in the climate discussion lack that. [When author David Wallace-Wells wrote a story on the tragic potential of climate change, he was roundly scolded by the climate positivity police.]

Elizabeth Kolbert

I really appreciate that. Thank you.

David Roberts

American culture, in particular, lacks a tragic imagination — an ability to imagine that things can go horribly wrong.

Elizabeth Kolbert

I completely agree with you. That’s the only way we can explain what’s going on right now.

A couple years ago, we lived in Rome for a year. In Rome, you are surrounded by the ruins of a civilization. You don’t have the same our-best-days-are-ahead-of-us nonsense.

                So, we can only hope that some sort of Earth religion, or new philosophy will become dominant, before things get too bad.   Others argue that such a philosophy may occur, but only after  some sort of economic crash.  For an interesting "post crash" approach,, em-phasizing a sort of "gift economy", I would recommend a look at Lean Logic -A Dictionary of the Future and How to survive it.  Or the shorter and more readable Surviving the Future.

             In the shorter term,  it appears that simplicity is the only way out, as this piece by Ted trainer explains

Proof of Concept

Goin' up the country

Babe don't you want to go?
Going some place
I've never been before.
    - Canned Heat

Money, it's a crime

Share it fairly

but don't take a slice of my pie

     -Pink Floyd 

Greetings

     Seems like the time is right to look at some alternative ways of living.   Not merely reducing fossil fuel use, but living sustainability by other measures.  See e,g, "The Sustainability crisis didn't start and doesn't stop at climate change

        Why bother?   You can choose your own motivation.   Some might do it because its the right thing to do regardless of whether it will do any good.    Other may try to set an example and convince their neighbors.   Or perhaps you want to a model for folks for when people finally cone to their senses.  Others may want to "Collapse now, and avoid the rush"

     As noted before, the foot print analysis provides a reasonable measure for the sustainability or lack thereof, for any particular way of living.     Here is a short quiz to see where you stand.    If everyone lived like the average US citizen it would take 5 planets to sustain us.  

      Here's an interesting article about the foot print evaluation of the Scottish commune Findhorn Ecovillage  (Hat tip Christine)  Check out the full study here .     They use a variety of techniques to keep their footprint small.  They are mostly vegetarian, and have a substantial garden which provides about 70% of their food.  For energy they rely in part on a local wind power, and reduce energy needs by efficient buildings, district hearing, and shared facilities. 

        Its interesting to note, though, that despite theses measures, they are still unable to get their footprint within the sustainable limits.    As the article points it is mainly because of the private air travel that the residents engage in.

       Which may demonstrate the "old" adage "Its easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle, than for him  to become sustainable"   :-)

     Which brings us back to the "Al Gore problem".  If you are rich, what are you going to do?  Even if you ride the train, buy green power, stop buying stuff, and become a vegetarian, what do you do with your money?  Your friends are rich, everyone at the country club is rich.  What do you talk about?  Your last trip, your next trip.....

     Or As George Monbiot puts it in Addicted to comfort

"Had our ancestors been asked to predict what would happen in an age of widespread prosperity in which most religious and cultural proscriptions had lost their power, how many would have guessed that our favourite activities would not be fiery political meetings, masked orgies, philosophical debates, hunting wild boar or surfing monstrous waves but shopping and watching other people pretending to enjoy themselves? How many would have foreseen a national conversation – in public and in private – that revolves around the three Rs: renovation, recipes and resorts? How many would have guessed that people possessed of unimaginable wealth and leisure and liberty would spend their time shopping for onion goggles and wheatgrass juicers? Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chainstores.

   


-------

If everyone lived in an ‘ecovillage’, the Earth would still be in trouble

June 26, 2015 12.59pm AEST

We are used to hearing that if everyone lived in the same way as North Americans or Australians, we would need four or five planet Earths to sustain us.

This sort of analysis is known as the “ecological footprint” and shows that even the so-called “green” western European nations, with their more progressive approaches to renewable energy, energy efficiency and public transport, would require more than three planets.

How can we live within the means of our planet? When we delve seriously into this question it becomes clear that almost all environmental literature grossly underestimates what is needed for our civilisation to become sustainable.

Only the brave should read on.

The ‘ecological footprint’ analysis

In order to explore the question of what “one planet living” would look like, let us turn to what is arguably the world’s most prominent metric for environmental accounting – the ecological footprint analysis. This was developed by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, then at the University of British Columbia, and is now institutionalised by the scientific body, The Global Footprint Network, of which Wackernagel is president.

This method of environmental accounting attempts to measure the amount of productive land and water a given population has available to it, and then evaluates the demands that population makes upon those ecosystems. A sustainable society is one that operates within the carrying capacity of its dependent ecosystems.

While this form of accounting is not without its critics – it is certainly not an exact science – the worrying thing is that many of its criticsactually claim that it underestimates humanity’s environmental impact. Even Wackernagel, the concept’s co-originator, is convinced the numbers are underestimates.

According to the most recent data from the Global Footprint Network, humanity as a whole is currently in ecological overshoot, demanding one and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. As the global population continues its trend toward 11 billion people, and while the growth fetishcontinues to shape the global economy, the extent of overshoot is only going to increase.

Every year this worsening state of ecological overshoot persists, the biophysical foundations of our existence, and that of other species, are undermined.

The footprint of an ecovillage

As I have noted, the basic contours of environmental degradation are relatively well known. What is far less widely known, however, is that even the world’s most successful and long-lasting ecovillages have yet to attain a “fair share” ecological footprint.

Take the Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland, for example, probably the most famous ecovillage in the world. An ecovillage can be broadly understood as an “intentional community” that forms with the explicit aim of living more lightly on the planet. Among other things, the Findhorn community has adopted an almost exclusively vegetarian diet, produces renewable energy and makes many of their houses out of mud or reclaimed materials.

Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland. Irenicrhonda/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Click to enlarge

An ecological footprint analysis was undertaken of this community. It was discovered that even the committed efforts of this ecovillage still left the Findhorn community consuming resources and emitting waste far in excess of what could be sustained if everyone lived in this way. (Part of the problem is that the community tends to fly as often as the ordinary Westerner, increasing their otherwise small footprint.)

Put otherwise, based on my calculations, if the whole world came to look like one of our most successful ecovillages, we would still need one and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. Dwell on that for a moment.

I do not share this conclusion to provoke despair, although I admit that it conveys the magnitude of our ecological predicament with disarming clarity. Nor do I share this to criticise the noble and necessary efforts of the ecovillage movement, which clearly is doing far more than most to push the frontiers of environmental practice.

Rather, I share this in the hope of shaking the environmental movement, and the broader public, awake. With our eyes open, let us begin by acknowledging that tinkering around the edges of consumer capitalism is utterly inadequate.

In a full world of seven billion people and counting, a “fair share” ecological footprint means reducing our impacts to a small fraction of what they are today. Such fundamental change to our ways of living is incompatible with a growth-oriented civilisation.

Some people may find this this position too “radical” to digest, but I would argue that this position is merely shaped by an honest review of the evidence.

What would ‘one planet’ living look like?

Even after five or six decades of the modern environmental movement, it seems we still do not have an example of how to thrive within the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet.

Nevertheless, just as the basic problems can be sufficiently well understood, the nature of an appropriate response is also sufficiently clear, even if the truth is sometimes confronting.

We must swiftly transition to systems of renewable energy, recognising that the feasibility and affordability of this transition will demand that we consume significantly less energy than we have become accustomed to in the developed nations. Less energy means less producing and consuming.

We must grow our food organically and locally, and eat considerably less (or no) meat. We must ride our bikes more and fly less, mend our clothes, share resources, radically reduce our waste streams and creatively “retrofit the suburbs” to turn our homes and communities into places of sustainable production, not unsustainable consumption. In doing so, we must challenge ourselves to journey beyond the ecovillage movement and explore an even deeper green shade of sustainability.

Among other things, this means living lives of frugality, moderation and material sufficiency. Unpopular though it is to say, we must also have fewer children, or else our species will grow itself into a catastrophe.

But personal action is not enough. We must restructure our societies to support and promote these “simpler” ways of living. Appropriate technology must also assist us on the transition to one planet living. Someargue that technology will allow us to continue living in the same way while also greatly reducing our footprint.

However, the extent of “dematerialisation” required to make our ways of living sustainable is simply too great. As well as improving efficiency, we also need to live more simply in a material sense, and re-imagine the good life beyond consumer culture.

First and foremost, what is needed for one planet living is for the richest nations, including Australia, to initiate a “degrowth” process of planned economic contraction.

I do not claim that this is likely or that I have a detailed blueprint for how it should transpire. I only claim that, based on the ecological footprint analysis, degrowth is the most logical framework for understanding the radical implications of sustainability.

Can the descent from consumerism and growth be prosperous? Can we turn our overlapping crises into opportunities?

These are the defining questions of our time.